8/31/2004 - Special
August 31, 2004
677
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
August 31, 2004
st
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this 31 day of
August, 2004, attheRoanoke County Administration Center, this being a special
meeting for the purpose of discussing proposed changes to the Roanoke County
Community Plan.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. The roll
call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Richard C. Flora (arrived at 5:30 p.m.), Vice-
Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch”
Church, Joseph McNamara, Michael A. Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
The following members of the Planning Commission were present at the meeting:Al
Thomason, Martha Hooker, and Rodney McNeil. Community Development staff
present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid,
Chief Planner; and David Holladay, Zoning Administrator.
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Work session with Dr. Mike Chandler, Virginia Tech, to discuss
proposed changes to the Community Plan.
August 31, 2004
678
Mr. Mahoney outlined the following objectives of the work session: (1)
Develop a projection to 2025 of land use designations in Roanoke County, keeping in
mind development on slopes, extension of public water and sewer; maintaining a
balance of commercial and industrial development vs. residential; (2) Emphasize the
link that exists between the community plan and the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).
Mr. Hodge stated that it is important for the Board, Planning Commission,
and staff to move forward with a joint vision of land use in Roanoke County based on
input received at community meetings and through planning sessions.
Ms. Scheid advised that the process for updating the community plan
began over a year ago when a public open house was held in September to allow
citizens to view displays and provide input. At that time, the intent was to revise the
community plan. She also advised that growth management, utilities, economic
development, storm water management and transportation were areas targeted for
revision. Based on input and information received from the Board following the
November 2003 retreat, specific objectives were established dealing with growth
management, ridgelines and steep slopes, and storm water runoff. Ms. Scheid stated
that staff began drafting sections and a series of community meetings were held in
summer 2004, followed by joint work sessions between the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors. In mid-July, a work session was held with Dr. Chandler and
members of the Planning Commission. Staff then met with Dr. Chandler in late July and
August 31, 2004
679
presented additional analytical information at a subsequent meeting with the Planning
Commission and Dr. Chandler.
Dr. Chandler stated that the community plan is a general guide to be used
with regard to land use by a community; once adopted, it serves as a substantive guide
for public policy. He advised that he has asked the Board to share their individual vision
for how they would like to see Roanoke County developed in the future through the year
2025. He stated that he will ask each member to share their map and to articulate their
vision for the County with respect to land use.
Supervisor Wray indicated that in general, he examined what currently
exists with respect to land use and made adjustments. The factors he considered in his
evaluation included the following: (1) What aspects of County operations will be
impacted (i.e., Route 11/460, I-81 widening, I-73, Route 419 corridor potential to be
widened, location of regional jail); (2) Regional services that need to be shared; (3)
Potential impact on schools (location of new residential developments); (4) Need for
commercial and industrial growth to generate tax revenue and balance; (5) Growth in
Roanoke City and Salem which may also generate an impact on Roanoke County; (6)
Recognition of the fact that some land is not developable.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he is most familiar with his district and this
exercise made him realize he did not know where expansions should occur in other
districts. He stated that if you examine the neighborhood conservation areas and the
subdivisions already in place, the County has targeted development to the areas where
August 31, 2004
680
it went as a result of the community plan. He stated that his vision is similar to what is
on the existing land use map, while keeping in mind the goal of accomplishing a ratio of
25% business and commercial to 75% residential development. Supervisor Altizer
stated that he views Route 220 as a corridor linking Roanoke County to North Carolina
and Martinsville. He advised that he did not factor in I-73 because he views this as
being 20-30 years away. He noted that Route 220 will be a transitional area with
respect to business and office development.
Supervisor Altizer also stated that if the County does not begin to set the
stage for what will be allowed and how it will be developed in rural preserves and rural
villages, then residential growth will continue to occur. He indicated that he sees the
need for some expansion of rural village areas into other areas; otherwise,
neighborhood conservation will continue to be densely populated. He advised that
there are some problems in the Windsor Hills/Southwest County area which is
beginning to be overbuilt.
With respect to the extension of water and sewer lines, Supervisor Altizer
advised that the Board needs to establish how much development will be allowed with
any extension of water and sewer. He indicated that it is not feasible to say that
development will be controlled by how quickly schools and roads are going to be built.
There may be some situations where development comes before the roads; but in other
cases, it may be necessary to limit growth until the road improvements are made.
August 31, 2004
681
Supervisor McNamara stated that the 75/25 ratio is more valid from a
valley wide perspective as opposed to within Roanoke County.He noted that Roanoke
County residents place a high value on view sheds. He advised that he evaluated the
transition or core uses in the major thoroughfares in the County, which pushes the
community plan in those areas (i.e., Route 220). He stated that if it is a major
intersection, it is considered core; if not, it is considered transition. He indicated that
Route 220 is core at the intersection of Route 419 until you reach the City of Salem line.
Route 221 from Route 419 to the Roanoke City line and Colonial Avenue from Route
419 to the Roanoke City line is transition. Supervisor McNamara also stated that village
centers are another significant factor. He indicated that he was not sure that an
appropriate location for these is along Route 221 so he placed one adjacent to the
existing police and fire and rescue station locations. He advised that you do not
necessarily need public water and sewer to these areas, depending on the size of the
centers. With respect to neighborhood conservation, he stated that these are areas that
have access to public water and sewer. Anything that is touching or near neighborhood
conservation, the County should try to push to the rural village designation and allow
developers to determine which land is best suited for development. He stated that if the
County wants to stimulate commercial development, then water and sewer should be
extended along Route 220 and also potentially in the Mt. Pleasant area.
Supervisor Church stated that Roanoke County has development where it
has been directed to locate.He noted that the current ratio of 86% residential to 14%
August 31, 2004
682
commercial/industrial land use is paying the bills; however in the future, it will not. He
stated that this ratio cannot accommodate future growth and expansion and must be
changed. He noted that growth is occurring in Southwest County and Vinton because
this is where development is being viewed as the most profitable. He advised that the
widening of Route 220 and I-81 is not likely to occur in the next 20 years, and the Board
would be remiss if they vary greatly from the established community plan. With respect
to Route 311, he stated that it would be very expensive to extend water and sewer to
this area. He voiced support for managed growth, as expressed by the Board at their
November retreat.
Supervisor Flora advised that his primary interest was not in the already
developed areas of the County. He noted that in the Hollins district, it is essentially built
out, with some exceptions in the Bonsack area, where there may be opportunity for
residential development. He stated that his focus was on areas which are not already
developed, and he focused on identifying where the potential for rural village existed.
He advised that he had examined Bent Mountain and the area on Route 221 near
Poage Valley Road which might present an opportunity for development. He also
stated that Mt. Pleasant has some development potential, and the Mason’s Cove area
has a lot of opportunity. He noted that beyond the Catawba district, there is not a lot of
opportunity due to the fact that there are no interchanges or intersections. Most of the
land is either national forest or rural conservation development along the major
corridors. Supervisor Flora stated that the problem with rural village is the difficulty in
August 31, 2004
683
developing without water and sewer, especially when the County does not want to
encourage community wells. He advised that he does not foresee the extension of
public water and sewer in the Catawba area anytime soon. He indicated that most of
the balance of the land will be rural conservation and developed in less dense
concentrations. With respect to transitional areas, he views these as neighborhood
areas in transition as opposed to entire land areas. He advised that he does not see
the extension of water and sewer into the far regions of the County. He stated that the
Catawba area has significant developable areas which would experience rapid growth if
public water and sewer were ever extended. He advised that there is potential for
industrial development in some areas along I-81. Supervisor Flora indicated that he
does not see significant change occurring because he does not envision water, sewer,
and roads changing dramatically in the next 20 years, and these are the factors that
drive growth.
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Flora recessed the meeting from 6:59 p.m. until 7:24 p.m.
IN RE: CONTINUATION OF WORK SESSION
Dr. Chandler opened the floor for comments. Supervisor Church
requested that an aerial, topographic map be provided for the Board and Planning
Commission to review. It was noted that a relief map showing water and sewer lines in
an overlay fashion would be helpful in collectively designating new land uses.
August 31, 2004
684
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Ms. Scheid advised that
planning staff met one on one with residents of the Bent Mountain community.
Mr. Hodge expressed concern about focusing too much attention in the
revisions to the community plan on growth management at the expense of the other
components.
Mr. Mahoney advised that he will provide the Board with a memorandum
regarding vested rights as they pertain to the community plan revisions.
Mr. Thomason stated that he appreciated the time that the Board
members had expended in preparing the maps, and noted that he was pleased that
almost everyone had arrived at the same conclusion. He commended the Board on a
job well done.
Ms. Hooker voiced support for Supervisor Church’s request for a large
aerial map, and also requested that the maps have layering available so that areas
which are not feasible for development can be designated as such. Ms. Scheid noted
that this information is currently available on different maps, but staff has experienced
difficulties in their attempts to print it all on one large map using mylar transparencies
which will allow for the layering of information. Mr. Holladay stated that the layering can
be printed on the maps, but the coloring is not opaque and you can see through the
layers.
Dr. Chandler requested that staff develop a large map with the requested
layering and to also reduce the areas to be evaluated to the points of commonality.
August 31, 2004
685
Mr. McNeil thanked Dr. Chandler for his assistance. He also stated that it
would be helpful to the Planning Commission if each supervisor could specify where
they would like to see growth occur in their district. He also stated that a viable CIP is
needed which projects accurately what will occur in five years (i.e., where will water and
sewer be extended). He also discussed the need for a map to be developed in
conjunction with the CIP and for the County to begin funding the CIP.
Supervisor McNamara noted that the Western Virginia Water Authority
(WVWA) has $2 million allocated for capital infrastructure in Roanoke County. He
questioned how the WVWA will decide where this money will be spent. Supervisor
Altizer stated that the County gave up the right to make these decisions when the water
authority was created. As Chairman of the WVWA, he stated that it is the WVWA
Board’s policy to reduce inflow and infiltration, as well as to maintain the water and
sewer pipes already in the system; therefore, this is where the majority of the capital will
be used. Mr. Hodge noted that any water and sewer extensions made by the WVWA
must be consistent with the localities community plan.
Dr. Chandler noted that the discussions have identified two players who
will need to interface with the community plan: Explore Park and the WVWA.
Mr. McNeil requested clarification from the Board regarding private water
systems and whether there is a ban on allowing these.
Dr. Chandler asked if there was a record of the goals established at the
retreat and whether this been shared with staff and the Planning Commission. It was
August 31, 2004
686
noted that the minutes of the meeting should reflect what was discussed at the retreat.
Dr. Chandler then inquired if this philosophy is still where the Board wants to go. He
inquired if smart growth is still on the agenda.
During a discussion of private water systems, Mr. Hodge advised that in
order for these to be permitted, they must have a Section 15.2-2232 review by the
Planning Commission on a case by case basis.
Mr. McNeil requested direction from the Board regarding the protection of
ridgelines. He also advised that it is the consensus of the Planning Commission that
the community plan must be tied to the CIP and all infrastructure improvements should
be funded through the CIP.
Supervisor Flora reported that a joint CIP is being developed for both the
schools and the County at this time, and money will be designated off the top as well as
year-end money. He stated that a meeting is scheduled for the chairs and staff at the
end of this week and the goal is to finalize the CIP by the end of October. The joint CIP
will identify all County and school projects, not including utilities, for the next five years.
Mr. McNeil voiced support for including infrastructure improvements in the CIP.
Mr. Thomason stressed the need for definitive responsibilities and
guidelines with respect to enforcement of ridge top protection. He also voiced the need
for a reserve fund to support increased demands on schools due to residential growth.
He advised that the revisions to the community plan will be completed by the end of
2004.
August 31, 2004
687
Dr. Chandler noted that the schools and the Board of Supervisors will be
coming together with respect to CIP development. He also advised that adjoining
localities may be additional players to be considered (i.e., impact of individuals moving
from the city to the county). Dr. Chandler stated that the Board needs to identify points
of commonality for future meetings, as well as points that need further discussion.
Supervisor Flora stated that he did not sense any significant philosophical
differences and suggested identifying focus areas that can be examined more fully in
terms of schools, transportation, utilities. He recommended looking at the Route 460
West Corridor from the city limits to the Montgomery County line. He noted that the
area south of that is not necessarily industrial commercial but potentially residential. He
also indicated that the area from the foot of Bent Mountain back to Poage Valley Road
should be examined, as well as the 220 South Corridor, Mount Pleasant, Route 460
East, and the I-81 corridor.
Dr. Chandler presented a future land use map of proposed changes
recommended by County staff and the Planning Commission. He noted that the
changes are modest and focus primarily on rural village, rural preserve, and village
center designations.
Supervisor Flora recommended reviewing roads that need to be improved
based on areas where growth is being encouraged. He indicated that this could
potentially lead to changes in the six-year road plan.
August 31, 2004
688
There was a consensus to develop a common map with overlays to more
clearly define the land use designations.
Mr. Hodge suggested that more clarification of the expanded areas is
needed, and he recommended that a series of meetings be scheduled with the current
participants. It was determined that Chris Lowe, Associate Planner, will consolidate the
four maps prepared by the supervisors.
Supervisor Flora requested that clarification be provided to the Board
regarding the extent of their authority to regulate ridge tops.
The Clerk was directed to schedule the next meeting in approximately two
weeks.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m. to Tuesday,
September 14, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. for a tour of Ivyland Road and the Green Valley
community.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________________________________
Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora
Clerk to the Board Chairman