8/23/2005 - Regular
August 23, 2005
943
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
August 23, 2005
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August, 2005.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A.
Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Richard C.
Flora, Joseph McNamara
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board;
Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend Barbara Gill, St. John’s AME
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
August 23, 2005
944
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Hodge advised that a request had been received from the petitioner to
continue Item S-4, request for rezoning of property upon the petition of R. Fralin
Development Corporation, until the September 27, 2005 meeting. Mr. Hodge asked
that this item be moved to Item S-2 so that any citizens present at that time could
speak.
Mr. Mahoney added Item O, closed session pursuant to Code of Virginia,
Section 2.2-3711 A (3) to discuss or consider the acquisition of real property for a
variety of public purposes.
There was a consensus of the Board to approve the above changes.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1Proclamation declaring Friday, August 26, 2005, as the sixth
.
annual Hokie Pride Day in Roanoke County
Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Pat Green and Brian
Wilson, Board members of the Roanoke Valley Hokie Club.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to appropriate $156,000 to add two (2) additional Animal
Control Officers with vehicles and equipment. (Ray Lavinder,
Chief of Police)
A-082305-1
August 23, 2005
945
Chief Lavinder advised that the Police Department has been studying the
animal control function and he is presenting the results of the study with their
recommendations. The animal control function has been under the Police Department’s
supervision for over ten years and for more than 25 years, there have been three
officers assigned to that unit. There are still three officers assigned to that unit and
there has been a substantial increase in the number of calls during the past five years
from approximately 2,000 to 3,000. One officer works from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.;
another officer works from 10:00 a.m. until about 6:30 p.m.; and an officer works the
weekend from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. The average response time for when an officer
is on duty is 43 minutes. Approximately 35% of the calls are handled first by the
uniformed patrol officers who can handle barking dogs but if it requires capturing the
animal and transporting it to another location, they will have to call in an animal control
officer who is trained in the special techniques of capturing and handling the animal.
There are citizen groups that watch very carefully to see that the officers obey all the
rules and regulations regarding animals which is very important. Many times when they
send a uniformed patrol officer to a dog at-large call, they subsequently have to
dispatch an animal control officers. They respond to calls for wild animals which are
normally handled by the Virginia Game Commission; however if a citizen calls about a
raccoon or snake in their home, the Police Department will respond immediately since
this is an important service for citizens.
August 23, 2005
946
Chief Lavinder explained that another issue deals with transporting
animals to the shelter. If you pick up a dog in Catawba or the western end of the
County and have to transport the animal downtown to the shelter, it requires a
substantial amount of time. The other jurisdictions do not have that problem because
they are centrally located. Transporting animals can consume a great deal of time
because the officers can only put one animal at a time in the truck. They cannot
transport multiple animals, and the significant amount of time spent transporting animals
is reflected on the statistics gathered from the computer programs. Chief Lavinder
advised that the City of Salem, which has a population of approximately 25,000, has
four animal controls officers; the City of Roanoke has eight. Staff feels that a need has
existed for a long time and to meet the current staffing needs, they are requesting that
the Board approve two additional animal control officers and related equipment.
Supervisor Church advised that the need for additional animal control
officers seems logical if you consider that the City of Salem has 25 to 30 square miles
with four animal control officers and the County has roughly 248 to 250 square miles to
cover. It does not take a lot of calculation to see that the need has existed for some
time. He advised that if you answer calls at the far end of the Catawba district or any of
the boundaries of the County, significant time is involved because you may have to
send out multiple officers. Chief Lavinder explained that when a citizen calls about an
animal control problem, they want an immediate response even if an animal control
officer is not available. Supervisor Church advised that the Board has always been
August 23, 2005
947
responsive and several years ago, he made a request to look at the ordinance and
changes were made at that time. Since the Board has made a commitment to
recognize the needs from the citizens, he feels that the Board should also recognize the
needs of the Police Department’ which is long overdue. He inquired about the response
time of the Virginia Game Commission and Chief Lavinder advised that the response
time could amount to days at this time of year particularly when they are involved with
hunting or boating seasons. Supervisor Church advised that he supports the request
and it is timely because of the training schedule and need for vehicles.
Supervisor Wray reiterated the fact that he has received calls when the
animal control officers were not available and an officer was dispatched and they had to
follow up with the animal control officer which increases the work load. He advised that
the 43 minute response time is not satisfactory and the Board needs to do what it can to
reduce that time. Also, it is unacceptable that 35% of the calls being handled are taking
time away from the other duties of the uniform officers. The Board has already made a
commitment to the citizens to allow additional pets and with the recent changes to the
multiple dog permit, they should step up to the plate for the Police Department.
Supervisor McNamara inquired why the calls increased from 2,000 to
3,000. Chief Lavinder advised that he did not have an explanation but stated that
perhaps more animals were brought into the County and they are capturing data better
since the new computer system was started in 1998 and they now have five years of
data. Supervisor McNamara advised that no one on the Board would be willing to
August 23, 2005
948
debate where the needs are in the County but when you see a 50% increase, it raises a
question. Supervisor McNamara advised that he was concerned about how this is
being funded and he does not think we should change the budget a month into the new
fiscal year because major changes in the budget should be necessitated by major
changes in policy. This problem has gone on for 25 years and it is not a major change.
He also advised that the County usually splits revenues with the schools and if we are
changing the budget, he questioned if the County will start with the old budget when we
are looking at the schools next year. He also stated that by increasing the real estate
revenues by $156,000 and funding the vehicles and one-time costs, we are using
recurring money for one-time expenses which does not seem to be the right way.
Mr. Hodge advised that if the Board preferred, the costs could be funded
out of the year-end savings on the County side and in that way, the issue of sharing with
the schools during the regular budget process does not come up. There would be
enough in the year-end savings to make this accommodation until we get to the budget
for the recurring part of it. Mr. Hodge advised that normally staff brings things to the
Board during the regular budget process but one of the justifications for moving forward
now is the tremendous training lead-time that is necessary. There is a pool of qualified
people ready to move into the system for police, fire and rescue, and sheriff’s office, but
if we make those offers now and get those people on board, the academy presents a
critical time frame. The academy begins the first week of October and does not end
until 27 weeks later which would be April 2006. The animal control officers also require
August 23, 2005
949
additional training in order to handle animals. Mr. Hodge stated that even though the
Police Department has been able to absorb the work, it is critical to get these people
through the academy and on duty by summer 2006. If we wait until the budget process,
we have missed the academy and training opportunity and that is why we are bringing
this to the Board at this time.
Supervisor McNamara advised that he would feel better about paying for
the costs out of year-end money and does not want to set a new precedent by spending
next year’s recurring funds even though it has been done before.
Supervisor Church advised that there is some urgency in this matter and
the Board initiated the change to the current ordinance. Unfortunately, changes cannot
always be timed to coincide with the budget process. He sees no problem with the way
it is presented. He feels that the increase in calls backs up what he, Chairman Altizer,
and Supervisor Wray have been saying all along that the animals have always been
there. He thinks from past experience viewing citizens coming to the Board, a lot of it
occurs because of complaints against neighbors which turns into complaints about the
number of dogs that the neighbor owns. He would not like to see a situation where an
animal control officer and regular officer are in one place and a dire emergency occurs
in another place. He would encourage the Board to act now and be responsive to the
situation that this Board has approved.
Supervisor Flora advised that he supports the proposal to add the animal
control officers and he was one of the leading proponents at the Board meeting where it
August 23, 2005
950
came up. He stated that the Police Department is understaffed and he would prefer to
see the $85,540, which is a capital expenditure, come out of the capital account which
was created for this purpose. This would mean that the budget is amended by $70,460
which would free up $85,000 in next year’s new money. He would support that option
and indicated that he supports adding the additional animal control officers because
they are critical.
Supervisor McNamara moved to appropriate $85,540 from capital and
$70,460 from year-end savings to fund the two new animal control officers, their
vehicles and equipment.
Supervisor Altizer added that he would support the approval of this item
and he does not know many businesses that have operated with the same amount of
people for 25 years. He advised that it is quite an accomplishment that the Police
Department has continued to provide animal control. He stated that he feels that the
animals have been here all the time and this is not a reaction to the Board allowing
citizens to have more animals. He indicated that since 1999, the County has become a
closer community and as you have more people moving together, you will have more
pets. He advised that he does see a problem with amending the budget and feels that
using the capital account is appropriate. He advised that the emergency response
times for the police officers have been increasing for the last four years and he has
been a proponent that the Board has to do something to change that and perhaps this is
a first step towards that change.
August 23, 2005
951
Supervisor McNamara’s motion to appropriate $85,540 from capital and
$70,460 from year-end savings to fund the two new animal control officers, their
vehicles and equipment carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
2Request to approve change order for sewer line replacement for
.
Public Safety Building. (Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator)
A-082305-2
Mr. O’Donnell introduced Brad Spain, an engineer with Construction
Dynamics Group, who is the on-site construction manager.
Mr. O’Donnell advised that as discussed with the Board at the June 24,
2005, Board meeting, an analysis of the existing sewer line which serves the school
administration building and served the old school warehouses shows that it is in very
poor condition, does not meet Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) standards,
and must be replaced. The old line is a 6” terra cotta line and has many cracks and
leaks. The replacement line will be 8” PVC and will be constructed in accordance with
WVWA standards. Upon completion of the project, it will be turned over to the WVWA
to become a public sewer line. This line will serve the existing school administration
building as well as the new public safety building.
August 23, 2005
952
Mr. O’Donnell advised that under the fiscal impact section of the Board
report, there is a $112 reduction to the numbers and he will be reporting on the actual
figures instead of those stated in the Board report. Mr. O’ Donnell advised that the cost
for the change order is $124,407, and the original change order proposal from Northrop-
Grumman was $146,000. Construction Dynamics Group, the County’s construction
management firm, was successful in working to improve the alignment in order to
shorten the length of the line which resulted in a $21,593 savings. Funds for the sewer
line will come from the public safety building contingency account. The current balance
of the contingency account is $492,211 and upon execution of this change order, the
balance of the contingency will be $367,804.
Mr. O’Donnell advised that staff worked with the WVWA to investigate the
possibility of running the line behind the school administration building through two
private properties to connect with the public line along Green Ridge Road. This
alternative would have provided a better route for private property owners along
Ponderosa Drive to connect to the public sewer. However, the largest property owner
does not plan to develop her property in the future and does not want the line to pass
through her property and this alternative was dropped from consideration. He advised
that staff recommends the approval of the change order to provide for approximately
1,605 linear feet of 8” sewer line and five manholes at the cost of $124,407 to be paid
from the public safety building contingency account.
August 23, 2005
953
Supervisor Flora advised that the schools worked with the County to find a
suitable location because the 8 inch sewer line was going through the middle of the
Glen Cove Elementary School campus. The School Board has not yet had the
opportunity to vote on the easement but he believes that they will support it. He advised
that the alternative of going behind the School Board property would have allowed
properties on Ponderosa Drive to connect to the sewer and this would have been an
advantage to them; however, when a landowners refuses, unless the Board is willing to
condemn the property, there is no other option. He inquired if the 8 inch sewer line
could be extended to serve other properties on Cove Road. Mr. O’Donnell advised that
he believes it could if you run the sewer line further up Ponderosa Drive. Mr. Spain
advised that it could serve some residents with some minor modifications. Mr.
O’Donnell advised that they have been working with WVWA and noted that one of the
citizen concerns expressed at the community meeting was about getting public water
and sewer throughout the area. The WVWA sent out preliminary mailings and received
some responses, and they are reviewing the costs of providing public water and sewer
and how that could be arranged with the community. Mr. O’Donnell advised that the
WVWA should be planning informational meetings in the future to explore the
possibilities. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the sewer line needs to be completed in order to
stay on schedule and provide water and sewer for the community could be discussed
with the WVWA at a later date.
August 23, 2005
954
Supervisor Church advised that condemnation is never an option. He
asked how the property owners were contacted. Mr. O’Donnell reported that the
WVWA process is to send out a mailing to determine how many people are interested
and if it comes back with a 50% or greater response, they will work toward figuring the
costs and organizing public meetings. The WVWA mailings came back at roughly 50%
of the people being interested and it is now the responsibility of the WVWA to follow
through. Supervisor Church asked about the property owners who did not want an
easement coming across their property. Mr. O’Donnell advised that he worked with
Roger Blankenship, WVWA engineer, and made phone calls to the two property owners
concerning obtaining the easement. He met personally with them, walked the site,
explained the process, and talked about the pros and cons. Supervisor Church asked
what was the major drawback that caused the refusal to grant the easement. Mr.
O’Donnell advised that the 18 acres is owned by an elderly woman who wants to leave
it to her daughter, who has no plans to develop it, and she is talking about donating the
development rights to a land trust to prevent it from being developed.
Supervisor Wray asked about the areas to be disrupted on the Glen Cove
School campus and for length of time involved. Mr. O’Donnell advised that they met
with Mr. Flora in his capacity as Operations Director for the Schools last week and they
will phase it to minimize the disruption because it goes through the playground area.
Supervisor Flora advised that they are requiring the area to be backfilled every evening
for safety reasons so that no open trenches are left. The area that is going to be
August 23, 2005
955
disrupted will be probably required one week from start to finish. There is one manhole
in that area which may require more time, but the construction schedule is planned to
be the least disruptive.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the School Board was receptive to this action.
Mr. O’Donnell replied that they are since this line is replacing the old school sewer line
which needed to be replaced because it was not up to standard.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation (approval
of the change order to provide for approximately 1,605 linear feet of 8” sewer line and
five manholes at the cost of $124,407 to be paid from the public safety building
contingency account). The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 375+ acres from ARCS,
Agricultural Residential with conditions and a special use permit,
and ARS, Agricultural Residential with a special use permit, to
Planned Residential District, for the purpose of developing a golf
course resort and residential community with other uses per
Section 30-47-2 B such as a clubhouse, restaurant, and overnight
cottage accommodations, and to develop a maximum of 89 single
August 23, 2005
956
family residences on 375+ acres for a density of .24 residential
units per acre, on property located at 3687 Pitzer Road, Vinton
Magisterial District, upon the petition of Lester George.
Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for September 27, 2005. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. First reading of an ordinance to approve the second amendment
to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Joint Public Safety
Radio System to provide authority to hire a consultant for “re-
banding” of the 800 MHz system. (Paul Mahoney, County
Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney advised that at the work session last month Mr. Chambliss
and other County staff described rebanding which is a critical process for the County
and required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The process
requires that the various frequencies on all the public safety radios be changed,
adjusted and reprogrammed. Mr. Mahoney advised that 1997, the County entered into
an intergovernmental agreement with Roanoke City regarding the joint public safety
radio system. There has been one prior amendment and this will be the second
August 23, 2005
957
amendment to the agreement. This second amendment is aimed at specifically
authorizing the hiring of a consultant to assist the City and County in examining the
various technical and legal issues with respect to the rebanding process. It is the
County’s understanding, through the FCC and the transition administrator, that Nextel
will be paying for the consultant costs. Staff is asking that the County go through a
formal procurement process to hire the consultant and work through that process with
the transition administrator, the FCC and Nextel. Staff is asking that the Board
authorize an amendment to the existing agreement with the City to authorize hiring this
consultant. Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the first reading of the ordinance and
Roanoke City Council will be acting on this item at its meeting on September 6.
Supervisor Wray inquired when the agreement with Nextel will be more
definite. Mr. Mahoney advised that staff has already commenced the internal process
to follow the provisions of the Virginia Procurement Act with respect to hiring the
consultant. The Board’s approval is needed and the Board may be even ratifying
actions that the staff has taken. He expects to know the answer to Supervisor Wray’s
question in early September.
Supervisor Altizer inquired about the purpose of amending a current
contract to hire a consultant for the study. Mr. Mahoney advised that in discussions with
Roanoke City, questions were raised as to whether the initial intergovernmental
agreement contemplated this kind of action and as a precautionary measure, staff is
August 23, 2005
958
asking to amend the agreement to specifically say that the agreement addresses this
activity.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for September 13, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
2.First reading of an ordinance amending a lease with Ohio State
Cellular Phone Company, Inc. for a communications antenna
tower at Catawba Fire Station, Catawba Magisterial District.
(Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services)
Ms. Green advised that in 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved a
lease allowing Ohio State Cellular, d/b/a/ United States Cellular, to locate a tower at the
Catawba Fire Station. Ohio State Cellular agreed to pay rent in the amount of $500 per
month, with annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The lease
expires on March 31, 2013, and the current rent is $573.98. The County has requested
space on the tower for an antenna for the new fire and rescue paging system along with
space for the associated equipment on the ground. Ohio State Cellular has agreed to
this request in return for a reduction of rent in the amount of $100 per month.
Calculation of the rent increases based on the CPI will also change from March, 25,
August 23, 2005
959
1998, to March 25, 2005. Ms. Green advised that there are no other towers available in
the area which are suitable for providing the necessary coverage for the paging system.
Ms. Green advised that the rent received from Ohio State Cellular will be
reduced by $1,200 per year for the first year, and a new base rent of $473.98 will be
used for future adjustments calculated using the CPI.
Ms. Green advised that Rick Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue, would give
an update on the status of the paging system.
Chief Burch thanked the Board for funding of $80,000 through the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) last year for replacement of the paging system. He
advised that the current paging system was installed in the early 1980’s and has old
technology that is starting to be very unreliable. He stated that the Fire and Rescue
staff worked with the communications shop and Information Technology (IT)
Department to develop the Request for Performance (RFP) which was awarded to
Radio Communications. He thanked Bill Hunter, IT, and Rodney Thompson,
communications shop, for being instrumental in the RFP process and installing some of
the equipment to save money. The infrastructure equipment has been ordered and they
have acquired all of the tower sites necessary, this site being the last one needed. In
September, they will start ordering the pagers and are working with the volunteers on
the type of pagers and options. In October and November, some of the infrastructure
equipment will be placed on the towers and in December and early January, they hope
to start testing the system and have it ready to interface with the new Computer Aided
August 23, 2005
960
Dispatch (CAD) system. They are pleased with the progress being made and the
project is on schedule and on budget.
Supervisor Church advised that Catawba is not the average location since
it is on a mountain and there is no cell phone system after you leave Thompson
Memorial Boulevard. He stated that this is an important part to the connection, and
asked Ms. Green if this lease is in line. Ms. Green advised that the lease is very fair
with the reduction in rent and considering the need. Supervisor Church advised that he
had no idea that Ohio State Cellular was U. S. Cellular.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the County has a right to locate our
equipment on cell towers that have been approved in the past. He questioned if this is
any different than the ones we have done recently where it was a condition of the cell
tower that the County had the right to locate there or did we start doing that after 1997.
Ms. Green advised that this particular lease and the technology allowed us to put our
equipment on the cell tower but at a lower height; however for the paging system, the
equipment needs to be at the top of their tower. The newer leases have changed so the
County can place equipment at different places on the tower.
Chief Burch advised that this system has the capability of several
thousand pagers and the Fire and Rescue Department does not need that many;
therefore when it is operational, it can be offered to other County employees who are
using several different contracts for pagers. They can be part of this system and
everything can be done in house with better coverage and cheaper service.
August 23, 2005
961
Supervisor Wray asked for clarification that the term of the lease will still
expire in 2013. Ms. Green replied in the affirmative.
Supervisor Flora advised if the County constructed another tower of a
similar height, it would probably not last long enough to amortize it at $1,200 per year.
He commented that this lease is a great deal for the County but the original lease rental
of $500 may have been too low but with the reduction of $100, the County may be
making up what it gave up initially. Ms. Green advised that the County does not enter
into leases that well anymore. Supervisor Flora advised that no one does leases for cell
towers anywhere close to that anymore.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for September 13, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee
.
Supervisor Flora nominated Jason Perdue, Hollins District, to serve an
additional one-year term which will expire on August 31, 2006. He requested that
confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda.
Supervisor Church nominated King Harvey, Catawba District, to serve a
one-year term which will expire August 31, 2006. He requested that confirmation of this
appointment be placed on the consent agenda.
August 23, 2005
962
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-082305-3
Supervisor Wray advised that Ms. Berberich is unable to serve another
term on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee, and he is
requesting that Item 2 on the consent agenda, confirmation of her appointment, be
withdrawn. He advised that he will make another nomination for this vacancy at the
next Board meeting.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution with Item J-2
removed. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
Supervisor Flora moved to approve new Item J-2, confirmation of the
appointments of King Harvey, Catawba District, and Jason Perdue, Hollins District, to
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
August 23, 2005
963
RESOLUTION 082305-3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN
ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August
23, 2005, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 9, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – August 9, 2005
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Review Committee
3. Request from the schools to appropriate funds in the amount of $75,000 from
the Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation
4. Request from the schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the
amount of $1,847.88
5. Request from the schools to appropriate funds in the amount of $43,698.44
from the Universal Services (E-Rate) Program
6. Request from the schools to appropriate funds in the amount of $885 from
Moss in the Valley for the P. Buckley Moss Conference
7. Request from the schools to appropriate fees in the amount of $800 collected
from the Dance and Theatre Techniques Summer Camp
8. Request to contribute donated funds in the amount of $17,000 to the Knights
Booster Foundation
9. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a Division of
Motor Vehicle mini-grant in the amount of $2,000 to conduct DUI check points
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required
by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution with Item J-2 removed,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt new tem J-2, confirmation of the
appointments of King Harvey, Catawba District, and Jason Perdue, Hollins District, to
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
August 23, 2005
964
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Accounts Paid – July 2005
6. Statement of Treasurer’s accountability per investment and
portfolio policy as of July 31, 2005
7. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report
8. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report
9. Jail Study Costs Report
10. Preliminary unaudited results of operations for the year ended
June 30, 2005
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:05 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) to discuss or
August 23, 2005
965
consider the acquisition of real property for a variety of public purposes. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Joint work session with the Planning Commission to provide an
update on development of the master plan for public facilities.
(Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development; and Joel Shelton, Administration
Intern)
The work session was held from 4:20 p.m. until 4:55 p.m. Staff present
included the following: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development; and Joel Shelton, Administration Intern.
Chairman Altizer welcomed the Planning Commission members to the
meting. Martha Hooker, Chair, called the Planning Commission meeting to order with
the following members present: Steve Azar, Gary Jarrell, Rodney McNeil and Al
Thomason.
Mr. Covey advised that the objective of this work session was to obtain
permission and direction from the Board to move forward with the master plan for public
facilities and assign the process to the Planning Commission as part of their work
program. He stated that this process will take six to eight months and the resulting
August 23, 2005
966
priorities could be used in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Mr. Shelton reviewed the Roanoke County Facilities Inventory which is the
first step in the master plan process and a compilation of all available information for
buildings owned by the County. He advised that since the Parks, Recreation and
Tourism Department is currently working on a master plan, that information will be
added to the inventory as it becomes available. In response to Supervisor Wray’s
inquiry about the public safety center and regional jail, Mr. Shelton advised that this
inventory covers existing buildings and Mr. Covey advised that information on these
facilities will be included later.
It was the consensus of the Board that the Roanoke County Facilities
Inventory is an excellent document and contains valuable information for planning
purposes. Supervisor Flora suggested that documentation about the proposed needs
and alternative solutions be added to the inventory so that all information will be in one
resource.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members that they
would welcome involvement in the process of developing the facilities master plan.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he felt that maintenance issues should also
be considered during the process. Mr. Hodge advised that the CIP reviews the status of
individual buildings and maintenance while the Planning Commission would go beyond
those issues to look at the future needs and growth issues in developing the facilities
master plan. He advised that there would be a blending of the process between the CIP
August 23, 2005
967
and the Planning Commission.
It was the consensus of the Board for staff to move forward with
development of the facilities master plan. Mr. Covey advised that he will meet with the
Planning Commission at their next work session in September.
2. Work session to discuss proposed new County vehicle
maintenance facility. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator, and
Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services)
The work session was held from 5:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Staff present
included the following: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director
of General Services; Jim Vodnik, Assistant Director of General Services; and David
Anderson, Fleet and Garage Supervisor.
Ms. Green made a power-point presentation which explained the need for
a new vehicle maintenance facility and presented information concerning potential sites.
She reported that the current garage was built in 1985 and was designed to service 200
vehicles but the County fleet has grown to 500+ vehicles. The WVWA currently has 150
vehicles being serviced at the County Garage. She advised that industry standards
recommend a ratio of one bay for every 50 vehicles but the current facility services 175
vehicles for every bay. The parking lot contains nine spaces and gridlock occurs on a
daily basis and efficiency is lost because of the constant rearranging of vehicles. She
stated that there is no drive through capability and the height of the ceiling prohibits
August 23, 2005
968
work on large trucks. There are five mechanics and some work 10 hour days to allow
the garage to remain open longer.
Ms. Green advised that with the current size of the fleet, additional bays
are needed to maintain efficiency, and consideration should be given for future growth
when designing the bays. She advised that because of the type of work that is
performed on the solid waste and WVWA trucks, it would be more efficient to have the
wash bay and welding shop located in the same location as the garage to reduce trips.
Most of the County vehicles have to come to the communications shop but the
communications and welding shops are not large enough for solid waste and Fire and
Rescue Department vehicles. She stated that work is often performed outside,
regardless of the weather conditions to get the vehicles back in service; therefore the
bays need to be drive through and the heavy trucks should be separated from autos.
She advised that the customers need a waiting area, police officers need to be able to
see their vehicles for security reasons, and the mechanics need a place to shower and
change clothes, as well as a separate eating area.
Ms. Green advised that in order to incorporate all of the current needs, the
following property requirements were developed: (1) 6 acres of land; (2) an easily
accessible location; (3) zoned industrial or commercial with a special use permit; and
(4) central to the majority of County-owned vehicles, which is the North County area.
Ms. Green advised that it is estimated that approximately $110,000 would
be available annually for the facility between revenues from the WVWA and in-house
August 23, 2005
969
savings. There has been some interest in using the Public-Private Education Facilities
and Infrastructure (PPEA) mechanism for the funding but the project may be too small
to be financially feasible.
Ms. Green advised that the following sites have been reviewed and
evaluated by a group of departments that currently use the garage: (1) Kessler Mill
Road; (2) West Main Street/Garman Road; (3) Huffman Property – Electric Road/Cove
Road; (4) Williamson Road/Old Howard Johnson Motel; (5) Plantation Road/Friendship
Lane; (6) Milk-A-Way Drive; (7) Williamson Road/Peters Creek Road; and (8) Plantation
Road/I-81.
Ms. Green advised that that staff is seeking permission from the Board to:
(1) pursue a contract with the WVWA to maintain its vehicles; (2) further evaluate the
Kessler Mill Road site; (3) conduct in-depth reviews of other potential sites; and (4)
integrate the search for the garage site into the facilities master plan process with the
Planning Commission.
Supervisor Flora suggested that an independent, third-party needs
assessment should be completed as part of the process.
It was the consensus of the Board that staff should move forward with this
project.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 5:30 p.m. until 5:50 p.m.
August 23, 2005
970
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-082305-4
At 7:05 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 082305-4 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
August 23, 2005
971
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1Recognition of Roanoke County preschool programs for earning
.
accreditation from the National Association for the Education of
Young Children
Chairman Altizer presented certificates of recognition to Ms. Sharon
Sheppard, Preschool Program Coordinator and Special Education Regional Coordinator
for East County, and to the following preschool teachers: Robin Vest, Back Creek;
Jamie Harvey, Burlington; Leigh-Anne Williams, Green Valley; and Lynne Thrasher, W.
E. Cundiff. Ms. Sheppard advised that Ashley Jones, Bonsack preschool teacher, was
unable to attend the meeting. Also attending the meeting were: Drew Barrineau,
Chairman, Roanoke County School Board; Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent;
Billy Martin, Principal, Burlington Elementary School; and Betty Kelly and Judy
Brammer, teachers for the preschool itinerant program.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
Chairman Altizer advised that at the afternoon session, Item S-4 (Fralin
rezoning) was moved to Item S-2 because the petitioner is requesting a continuance of
the public hearing. He advised that any citizen present who wanted to speak on this
item would be heard at the appropriate time.
1. Continued until November 15 at the request of the petitioner.
Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1,
Office District, to C2, General Commercial District, and to obtain a
August 23, 2005
972
special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food
restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of
Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue, and Merriman Road, Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights,
LLC (Bojangles). (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until
November 15 at the request of the petitioner. He asked Ms. Mary Ellen Goodlatte, who
represents the petitioner, if she wished to speak.
Ms. Goodlatte advised that pursuant to the County’s procedures, a
request for a continuation was filed and notifications sent to the citizens who appeared
at the Planning Commission’s public hearing and to the adjoining property owners. She
advised that the petitioner will be prepared to make a presentation at the November 15
meeting.
Ms. Margaret H. Jones
, 5202 Merriman Road, asked the Board not to
change the zoning or approve the special use permit for the operation of a fast food
restaurant. She advised that the current C-1 office district zoning is compatible to the
area and a rezoning of Merriman Road would contribute to existing road hazards when
entering Colonial Avenue from Merriman Road. She stated that she does not recall
seeing a fast food restaurant in a neighborhood setting although she has seen
construction around existing fast food restaurants.
August 23, 2005
973
Supervisor Wray advised that by granting this continuance, the project will
probably be delayed approximately 18 months, but he feels that the continuance is
warranted to review solutions to decrease the traffic on Springlawn Avenue and
Merriman Road. He asked Ms. Goodlatte if other accesses were being considered, and
Ms. Goodlatte responded that the Planning Commission was very clear on their
concerns, and the petitioner is requesting more time to review the total project. She
advised that they followed the County’s procedures and received a continuance of this
public hearing from the Clerk to explore all options and present an improved project for
the Board’s consideration in November.
Supervisor Wray advised that he is concerned about the affect of a right-in
and right-out proposal and advised that if a citizen needed to go south, logically they
would make a right turn on Colonial and a right turn again onto Merriman Road. He
further advised that Supervisor McNamara’s name and his name with their County
telephone numbers were listed on a receipt from Bojangles which was given to him by a
citizen.
2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .156 acres from R-3,
Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to C-1, Office
District, for the construction of a parking area in conjunction with
an office located at 5604 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial
District, upon the petition of Caveness Properties, LLC. (Janet
Scheid, Chief Planner)
August 23, 2005
974
O-082305-5
Ms. Scheid advised this is a request by Christopher Caveness to rezone
.156 acres on Starkey Road from R-3 multi family to C-1 office district. The applicant
recently bought this property from the Woods Crossing Homeowners Association. The
property would accommodate additional parking for the office building that is being
constructed. The office property was rezoned from R-3 to C-1 during the 1992 zoning
ordinance update. Until the petitioner bought the property in December 2004, the site
had been used as a single family residence, and they are in the process of converting
the residence to an office. Since the zoning ordinance requires that the parking for C-1
office uses must also be zoned C-1, this small strip of property needs to be rezoned.
The site and building plan must go through the Roanoke County planning and review
process prior to construction and a commercial entrance is required from the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) for the site. The subject property would only
contain a portion of the required parking for the office building with ten parking spaces
including one handicap space. Access to this part of the property would be through the
parking lot and there is already adequate screening and buffering between the parking
lot and the Woods Crossing property which would meet the screening and buffering
requirements of the zoning ordinance as long as that screening remains in good
condition. Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard this petition on
August 16 and made a favorable recommendation for approval of the rezoning request
with a unanimous vote.
August 23, 2005
975
Supervisor Wray asked if there was adequate screening and buffering.
Ms. Scheid replied in the affirmative and advised that if the mature trees remain and are
not damaged during the construction process, this would meet the requirement of the
zoning ordinance. However, if these trees are damaged, additional plantings would
have to be made to replace them. In response to Supervisors Wray’s inquiry, Ms.
Scheid replied that there will not be an entrance from Woods Crossing; the entrance will
be from Starkey Road, and there will be a drive going around the building to the back
parking lot. The back parking lot will be used primarily for employees and the parking in
the front of the site will be used by customers and clients. Supervisor Wray advised that
many of his concerns were addressed at the Planning Commission.
Ed Natt, counsel for the petitioner, advised that only one citizen, a
representative of the Woods Crossing Homeowners Association, spoke at the Planning
Commission meeting. The representative spoke in support of the petition and advised
that Woods Crossing sold the property to Mr. Caveness.
Supervisor Wray inquired how much traffic would be generated by this
business. Mr. Natt advised that the traffic would be from employees and since it is
mostly telephone and communications, very few clients would ever come to the
building. He advised that access will be off of Starkey Road and not through Woods
Crossing Drive. Mr. Natt confirmed to Supervisor Wray that there is one handicap
parking space as required by Code.
August 23, 2005
976
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 082305-5 TO REZONE .156 ACRES FROM R-3, MEDIUM
DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO C-1, OFFICE
DISTRICT, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING AREA IN
CONJUNCTION WITH AN OFFICE LOCATED AT 5604 STARKEY
ROAD (PORTION OF TAX MAP NO. 87.19-3-32), CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE APPLICATION OF CAVENESS
PROPERTIES, LLC
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 26, 2005, and the
second reading and public hearing were held August 23, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 16, 2005; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
.156 acres, as described herein, and located at 5604 Starkey Road (Part of Tax Map
Number 87.19-3-32) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the
zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to the
zoning classification of C-1, Office District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Caveness Properties,
LLC.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the easterly side of Starkey Road and the southerly side
of Woods Crossing Drive (private road), said point being designated as Point 1
on the Plat of Survey for Caveness Properties, LLC, 5604 Starkey Road,
Showing the Conveyance and Combination of a 0.156 Acre Portion of Existing
Tax Parcel 87.19-3-33, Being a Portion of the Property of the Woods Crossing
Homeowners Association, Creating a New 0.590 Acre Parcel, prepared by ACS
Design under date of April 29, 2005; thence with the southerly line of Woods
Crossing Drive S. 65° 55’ 00” E. 142.68 feet to the actual place of beginning,
being designated as Point 2 on said plat; thence S. 65° 55’ 00” E. 36.28 feet to
August 23, 2005
977
Point 3 on said plat, said point being on the southerly line of Woods Crossing
Drive; thence leaving Woods Crossing Drive through the property of Woods
Crossing Homeowners Association (DB 1299, PG 1657) the following courses
and distances: S. 04° 25’ 00” W. 27.78 feet to Point 4; thence S. 13° 56’ 36” W.
105.48 feet to Point 5; thence N. 65° 55’ 00” W. 64.20 feet to Point 6; thence with
the easterly line of the former tract of Caveness Properties, LLC, N. 24° 05’ 00”
E. 130 feet to the point and place of beginning, and containing 0.156 acre.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
3. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
operate a convenience store on approximately 1.9 acres located
at 6044 Peters Creek Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Vision Builders, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-082305-6
Ms. Scheid advised that this is a petition to develop a convenience store.
The property is currently zoned C-2 General Commercial and the convenience store
land use will require a special use permit. The 1.9 acre site is a portion of a larger 16
acre site known as the Jones farm but it has not been utilized as a farm for many years.
The site adjoins property zoned C-2 to the north that is developed as a dentist office. It
adjoins Peters Creek Road on the east, and the other portion of the C-2 zoned Jones
farm on the south and west. To the west, it adjoins R-1 residential property that fronts
on Nover Avenue. The general area to the north off the Peters Creek Road frontage
August 23, 2005
978
consists of long established single family residential properties. The general area is
commercial on Peters Creek Road and either single family or multi family residential
further off of Peters Creek Road.
Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioners are seeking a special use permit
for a convenience store and have stated that they are in discussions with several types
of stores, including Sheetz and PMI. They are proposing to subdivide the 1.9 acre
parcel from the Jones farm to develop a convenience store at the corner of Peters
Creek Road and a new Airport Road Extension. It is proposed that the new convenience
store would front on Airport Road Extension and the right side of the store would front
on Peters Creek Road. The convenience store would include gas pumps with a gas
pump island canopy structure. An architectural style has not been proposed by the
petitioner because a specific user has not been identified. An architectural design has
been submitted and discussed at the community meetings showing a Sheetz store with
a brick facade, tall glass windows, subdued colors, outdoor seating, awnings and an
articulated roof line. The submitted concept plan shows the gas island and canopy to
the front of the proposed store with parking spaces along the Peters Creek frontage and
around the side of the store site. The concept plan also shows access directly from
Peters Creek Road on the northeast side of the site. Airport Road Extension would
necessitate changing the current three-way traffic signal to a four-way signal and
additional site access is shown from Airport Road Extension.
August 23, 2005
979
Ms. Scheid advised that VDOT provided staff with their comments on the
proposed special use permit as follows: (1) a strong recommendation that a traffic
impact analysis be submitted to determine the need for turns lanes, tapers, and
modifications to the existing traffic signal, right of way and easement issues; (2) that no
access be allowed from either Vivian Avenue or Nover Avenue; (3) that all lots within
the proposed development should have internal access from Airport Road Extension
only with no direct access from Peters Creek Road; and (4) that the proposed extension
of Airport Road should align with Peters Creek Road rather than be offset as shown on
the concept plan submitted by the petitioner. Mrs. Scheid advised that the traffic
volume on this section of Peters Creek Road is almost 22,000 vehicles per day with a
level of service on this section classified as “B” which is very good.
Ms. Scheid advised that approximately 30 citizens attended the
community meeting on July 19, 2005, and expressed the following concerns about the
petitioner’s application: lighting, noise, trash, the need for another convenience store,
screening and buffering, storm water runoff, traffic impacts including costs for traffic
improvement and responsibility for costs, incentives, elevation of the site relative to
Nover Avenue, Peters Creek Road and Vivian Avenue, property values, rodents in the
old farmhouse, and proximity of this proposed convenience store to the residential
neighborhood.
Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard this petition on
August 16 and made a favorable recommendation with the following conditions which
August 23, 2005
980
she read into the record: (1) All building, including gas island canopy, exterior walls
shall be brick, horizontal slate or vertical board and batten siding (materials shall be
either wood, fiber cement or vinyl material) from grade to eave. (2) The store roof will
have articulation in the form of dormers, cupola or similar designs. (3) Colors used in all
exterior building materials including the canopy will be subdued and will not be bright.
(4) Canopy over gas pump island – shall have a maximum clear, unobstructed height to
its underside not to exceed fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches and a maximum overall
height not to exceed sixteen (16) feet six (6) inches. (5) Canopy over gas pump island –
there shall be no illumination of any portion of the fascia of the canopy. (6) Canopy over
gas pump island – any lighting fixtures or sources of light that are a part of the
underside of the canopy shall be recessed into the underside of the canopy so as not to
protrude below the canopy ceiling. All such lighting associated with the canopy shall be
directed downward toward the pump islands and shall not be directed outward or away
from the site. (7) Canopy over gas pump island – the vertical dimension of the fascia of
such canopy shall be no more than two (2) feet. (8) Canopy over gas pump island –
signs attached to or on such canopy shall not be illuminated and shall not extend
beyond the ends or extremities of the fascia of the canopy to which or on which they are
attached. (9) Site Signage – freestanding signage shall be limited to monument style
not exceeding eight (8) feet in height and ten (10) feet in width, and shall be constructed
of material to match the buildings and canopy. Freestanding signs shall be ground lit or
top lit with shielded lamps. Signage placed on the building(s) shall occupy less than 5%
August 23, 2005
981
of the building façade area. (10) Lighting – the top of any light fixture shall not exceed
15 feet. (11) Dumpster – the sides and rear of the dumpster enclosure shall be
constructed of material to match the buildings and canopy. (12) Dumpster – shall not
be emptied between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (13) Screening and
Buffering – buffer yard shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet wide along the entire length
of the northeast property boundary. (14) No outside speaker system shall be utilized on
site. (15) Building(s) height shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet. (16) Hours of
operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.(17) No access shall be allowed
from Nover Avenue or Vivian Avenue.
Supervisor Flora inquired about Condition #3 and if there is any standard
that can be applied that says when a color is bright or subdued. Ms. Scheid advised
that there might be but she cannot answer the question; however, the County Attorney
has raised the question about whether or not that condition can be enforced and it can
be removed if the Board desires. She advised that by conducting research, standards
might be found to define bright versus subdued colors but she believes that people
know these colors when they see them.
Supervisor Flora advised that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and he
suspects that brightness is much the same thing. Ms. Scheid advised that if this
conditions remains, the enforcement would be the responsibility of the Zoning
Administrator. Supervisor Flora advised that he would rather take a chance on a
challenge of the condition rather than removing the condition, and he suggested that
August 23, 2005
982
staff conduct research if the condition is approved. He explained that it may not even
become an issue but if it is not an issue between the developer and the staff, it may be
an issue between the citizens and the staff. Ms. Scheid advised that many of the
conditions were developed as a result of the concerns that were raised at the
community meeting dealing with lighting, colors, and the appearance of the Sheetz
prototype. She advised that although at this time the developer does not have a
contract with Sheetz, many of the conditions were written in an attempt to respond to
those concerns. Supervisor Flora advised that seventeen conditions are very
substantial for a special use permit and staff may have to assign a person for this
project. Ms. Scheid advised that all bases must be covered in the conditions when a
special use permit is requested without a concept plan showing what the building will
resemble including materials, colors, and signage. Supervisor Flora advised that he
understood and agreed with the reasons for the conditions.
Steve Mullins, a partner in Vision LLC, the developer and contract owners
of the property, distributed an aerial map of the property and a list of highlighted
conditions which he asked to be removed. He advised that staff has explained the
project in detail. He advised that there was an understanding at the initial meeting that
this might be a Sheetz store but at that time, they did not have a deal with Sheetz.
Currently, they definitely do not have a deal with Sheetz based on the seventeen
conditions. They were informed by Sheetz after the Planning Commission meeting that
they would not come to this site with these conditions. Mr. Mullins advised that the
August 23, 2005
983
developers would like for the Board to waive the conditions he highlighted dealing with
the canopy and the design since they relate directly to a Sheetz store. He advised that
if Sheetz had not pulled out of the project, they would agree to the conditions but they
are asking to eliminate certain conditions to help with the future project.
Supervisor Church advised that he felt that Conditions #3, #5, #6, #8 and
#14 and perhaps others, would indicate that Sheetz would not be interested because of
the basic design of their prototype store. He questioned that if the Board took out any
number of these conditions, would that preclude Sheetz from coming back to the
project. Mr. Mullins advised that Sheetz is out of the project at this time and he feels
that these conditions made them realize that they were not up to the challenge when
they had other locations. Mr. Mullins advised that they would be glad to revisit the
possibility of a Sheetz store since they are the highest payers now and would have
helped this project immensely. Mr. Mullin stated that they do not object to leaving these
conditions in place stating that if Sheetz enters the project again, they would work
through these conditions. However, Mr. Mullins advised that based on current
information, Sheetz is no longer under consideration at this time but he would be glad to
reopen the negotiations. The developers will be glad to work with PMI which is a local
concern and a different operation which would be more agreeable at this site.
Supervisor McNamara questioned whether the conditions highlighted were
suggested because of a Sheetz type company and with Sheetz no longer an option, are
they asking for the conditions to be removed. Mr. Mullins advised that this was the relief
August 23, 2005
984
that they are asking for because the conditions were directed at a Sheetz store and he
does not think Sheetz is coming. He advised that whoever brings the next plan will still
go through the County planning process but they will have to deal with the multiple
conditions.
Supervisor McNamara stated that he felt the conditions were put into
place to try and persuade Sheetz and since Sheetz is not interested, the petitioner is
asking to remove the conditions. Mr. Mullins advised that one or more of the conditions
could affect another user and it was just mentioned that the seventeen conditions were
a catch-all and would deter other people from coming into the project.
Supervisor McNamara advised that since the Board and staff are in the
dark about this project, this is the reason for the many conditions. If a site plan is
proffered detailing what the building will look like, who the building is for, and the Board
has an understanding of the company, the Board can make more intelligent decisions.
He asked Mr. Mahoney if the Board has the right to put together conditions to eliminate
one company over another company in a special use permit. Mr. Mahoney advised that
the obligation of the local governing body is to look at the use of land and with respect
to the use of land, you do not personalize it and say company X is good and company Z
is bad. A gas station is a gas station and whether it is Texaco, Shell or Exxon, is
irrelevant. Mr. Mahoney advised that his understanding of these conditions is that they
are not necessarily directed towards a specific company but rather an attempt to
address potentially adverse impacts whether it deals with lighting, appearance or
August 23, 2005
985
consistency with the sign ordinance. The conditions are not specifically naming any one
company or organization and they would be uniform in applying to any convenience
store that would locate there.
Supervisor Flora advised that Ms. Scheid reported that the conditions
were to meet the concerns of the neighbors and mitigate the impact that this type of
operation would have on those neighbors. He advised that Mr. Mullins reported at the
Planning Commission meeting that there was a 90% probability that Sheetz would not
be considered. Supervisor Flora advised that the neighbors have a concern about the
operation of any type of convenience store whether it is Sheetz or PMI and to reduce
the impact on the neighbors, staff developed these conditions to meet the concerns but
still allow for development.
Mr. Mullins advised that he was withdrawing the request for the relief from
the conditions and asked to move forward. He stated they feel comfortable that the
conditions were developed to protect the neighbors in the area but he had asked for the
withdrawal because the conditions were based on a Sheetz store and they are not part
of the project.
Supervisor Wray advised that in looking at the conditions, it seems like a
village type office concept combined with a convenience store which would work on
multiple lane highways. He voiced concerns regarding the drainage and storm water
that will be maintained on-site. Mr. Mullins advised that they have not gotten to the
point of considering storm water. Ms. Scheid advised that storm water maintenance
August 23, 2005
986
would be required by the County. Supervisor Wray asked if storm water management
would have to accommodate any future growth with the other office buildings. Ms.
Scheid advised that each of the lots would be individually subdivided and unless
otherwise designed, each lot would have to have its own individual storm water
detention. Ms. Scheid advised that on the larger 16 acre tract, there is a proposed
location of a future regional storm water pond to help deal with flooding down steam and
this involves not just this site, but the rezoning for the Fralin property which is on the
other side of the ravine. It is a possibility that at some point in the future, the storm
water from each of these individual sites that Mr. Mullins is developing could use the
regional storm water pond but until that happens, each site would have to have its own
storm water detention as established by Roanoke County regulations. Supervisor Wray
advised that there is a possibility of a regional storm water pond which would benefit all
of the properties.
Supervisor Church advised that he would like to clarify his statement
about Sheetz and advised that he was not speaking against or in favor of Sheetz. He
was making a generalized statement that by glancing at the conditions, he could see
eight or ten that would preclude Sheetz and he does not think this Board was looking at
a process to put certain things in place because of Sheetz. That was what he intended
to state.
Supervisor Altizer advised that storm water management and the regional
storm water pond do not improve or hurt the project and that this project neither lends
August 23, 2005
987
itself to improving it or hurting it for later development. Ms. Scheid advised that the
special use permit is for the 1.9 acres of the larger piece of property which is already
zoned C-2 but in order to have a convenience store, it needs a special use permit. This
1.9 acres does not involve the regional storm water pond. She advised that George
Simpson, Assistant Director of Community Development, was present and could
address the issue of the regional storm water pond.
Supervisor Altizer questioned Mr. Simpson as to how this is going to
impact the regional storm water pond because it is no secret that there is a problem
down stream from this area because of the water flow and not because of this project.
He inquired if this project would hamper the possibility of trying to do something
regionally regarding storm water. Mr. Simpson advised that this project may benefit the
regional storm water pond if all the pieces come together with the developer and the
adjacent developers. He advised that damages along Carvins Creek and Sun Valley
average $200,000 plus per year annualized, which is one of the worse in the County in
terms of flooding damage. There are probably 100 homes there that do flood in a 100
year flood situation. Dent Road, Williamson Road, Verndale Road, and Palm Valley
Road all flood under the right conditions so it would benefit those areas. Mr. Simpson
advised that the average subdivision detention pond may be 50,000 cubic feet in
storage but if they were able to get the regional pond developed, it would be 2.5 to 3
million cubic feet and you can see the benefit for down stream flooding, water quality
and potential greenways. Supervisor Altizer advised that he wanted to assure the
August 23, 2005
988
people down stream of this project that the Board is not moving forward with a project
that is going to be more of a burden on them from destructive water.
Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Mullins about negotiations with PMI and
whether PMI has any problems with the conditions. Mr. Mullins advised that they faxed
the conditions to PMI and from their conversation today, he understands that they are
working on a site plan.
Mr. Charles Vandergrift,
1344 Nover Avenue, advised that he lives
directly behind where the store will be built and he will be looking into the back of the
proposed store. His home is rather high and he will look over the roof of this building.
He stated that he has no objection to the land being used as a convenience store but he
does object to the property that is located there now, and he noted that the property is in
terrible shape and he kills an average of five snakes per year in his yard. He advised
that when it rains, all the water from Nover Road comes down his backyard and ponds
there. He stated that there is a small concrete pipe that runs under the old Jones Road
driveway and runs down the bottom into the creek that goes under Peters Creek Road
and it is not adequate to handle the water flow. He requested that before they start
construction, something be done about the current water situation, the old building
located on the property and the vermin and rodents on the property.
Ms. Deborah Reedy
, 1343 Nover Avenue, advised that she did not have
a problem with development of the convenience store but she is concerned about
damage control. She notes that building that has been done in their area in the last few
August 23, 2005
989
years has necessitated a lot of blasting very close to the homes, and she questioned
who is responsible if there is damage to their foundations and pools from this blasting.
She voiced concerns about the rodents from the old building and suggested that the
County not come in with a bulldozer and clear the building because the snakes and
rodents will move to another location. She was told at the community meeting that
when they excavate this land to make it level with Peters Creek Road, the deepest
portion will be cut down 28 feet and there will be an interlocking brick wall similar to
what is at Routes 220 and 419. She is concerned that safety measures be in place at
the top of the wall, and advised that the original restrictions address screening and
buffering but did not specify whether it will be large trees or exactly what this means.
She advised that she is satisfied that all of her other concerns have been met by the
builders.
Ms. Jennie Canada,
7336 Scarlet Oak Drive, advised that her house is at
the dead end and if Sheets is built there, she will see it from her back yard, deck, and
one of the upstairs bedrooms. She requested that the Board not issue the special use
permit but indicated that she realizes that it may be granted to someone. She asked
that the County keep the restrictions in place and enforce them. She stated that she
does not want to see a Sheetz or PMI store but knows that the property will be used for
something. She echoed the other speakers’ concerns about noise, rodents, tearing the
house down, and asking for everything to be removed from the site.
August 23, 2005
990
Ms. Beth Fobare
, 1340 Nover Avenue, advised that she approves of the
project and agrees that they are going to have to go along with whatever goes on the
property. She disagreed that the conditions were put into place specifically for Sheetz
and advised that all of the conditions would pertain to any convenience store that would
be placed on the property. The excavation issue along with others was raised at the
community meeting and they were told that this would be addressed if it occurred. She
did not agree with this answer when you are talking about her home which is two blocks
away from the convenience store. She wanted to know who would be responsible for
damages and the extermination of the rodents. She also voiced concerns about the
thoroughfare with Nover Avenue and Vivian Avenue. They would like some guarantee
that this is not going to be an issue now or in the future.
Mr. Mullins advised that Condition #16 regarding the hours of operation
was added at the Planning Commission and that other convenience stores are open
until midnight. He asked for consideration of changing the conditions from 6:00 a.m.
until 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. until 12:00 midnight to be consistent with any other
convenience stores.
Supervisor Flora asked about the condition that states that there will be no
access from Nover Avenue and Vivian Avenue and advised that it would be impossible
to access this site from Nover Avenue and Vivian Avenue with a 20 foot different in
elevation. Mr. Mullins advised that they would be losing a building site or two and
access from these streets could not be worked out with the elevation.
August 23, 2005
991
Supervisor Flora inquired about the 50 foot buffer along the property line
and if that was going to be left natural or part of the slope. Mr. Mullins advised that they
do not know at this time because they have not gotten to the final stage, but the idea
was if they have to go in and remove the house, they would like to leave it as natural as
possible. They will work with staff to keep it natural and plant whatever is necessary.
Ms. Scheid advised that a 50 foot buffer was one of the conditions added as a result of
the community meeting where the citizens felt 20 or 30 feet was not enough buffer. The
buffer would have to be landscaped according to the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance and the developer would have several options.
Supervisor Flora advised that the width of the buffer is good and the
difference between a 50 foot buffer that is lying on their existing natural ground is more
of a buffer than if you begin at the property line and slope it down and put a 50 foot
buffer. This is a disadvantage of not having a site plan and he would feel better if they
had at least some of the existing ground as a buffer before the slope is started which
gives you an opportunity to plant something up on higher ground and the people are not
looking over the top. He stated that he would recommend that 10 feet of the natural
buffer remain and the balance of the 40 feet be planted with something to screen it that
would be meaningful. He advised that the hours of operation are not consistent with
other stores although Sheetz is open 24-hours but they are not a consideration now.
He advised that he typically most convenience stores are open until midnight and he
has some consideration to change that condition. Mr. Mullins asked that they be on
August 23, 2005
992
equal footing with other convenience stores and being open until midnight would be
acceptable.
Supervisor Flora advised that the old building on the property is an issue
with the citizens and there are several options to remove it. There is much a better
chance of removing it in winter without scattering the rodents; otherwise, you may have
a 50 foot clear zone and exterminate everything that comes from the old buildings. He
would like for Mr. Mullins to commit to removing the buildings.
Mr. Mullins advised that the buildings would be removed which would be
one of the first things done. They would seek professional help in dealing with the
problems of the old buildings but they are committed to making a serious inquiry and
handling it as advised by the professionals.
Supervisor Flora advised that he would like to see a condition added that
would require the removal of those structures before any permits could be issued. Mr.
Mullins advised that this would not be a problem. Supervisor Flora advised that this
would help the people who live in the area. Mr. Mullins advised that their goal is to
address the issue and get the proper help to determine the appropriate method. It
appears to be an extremely serious situation and they would have to advise anyone
going in there that this exists. They would like to remedy the problem prior to getting
something on the property. Supervisor Flora advised that if you are going to take the
elevation down 28 feet, eventually all the vermin and rodents would be exterminated.
Mr. Mullins advised that the vermin and rodents may migrate to the surrounding
August 23, 2005
993
residents’ homes. He is not sure how to address this concern, but they will make every
effort to resolve the problem.
Supervisor Flora advised that the tenor of the neighborhood has changed
since the beginning of this process and it is a result of give and take on everyone’s part.
He commended Mr. Mullins and the neighbors for having spent two long meetings
working through all of the details. The conditions are numerous but they are dealing
with an unknown and if a site plan was presented with a known tenant, they would be
dealing with maybe four or five conditions. Mr. Mullins advised that this just happened
to be the nature of this project and he expressed appreciation for Supervisor Flora’s
concern. Supervisor Flora advised that although Sheetz is not a part of the project, he
has seen a Sheetz store design that was entirely different from their current design and
more attractive and neighborhood friendly. Mr. Mullins advised that he related to the
Sheetz company that these conditions came from an existing Sheetz store and the
indication from Sheetz was that they would never adhere to anything like this but this is
irrelevant at this point.
Supervisor McNamara commended the neighbors for their reasonable
requests and concerns. He stated that he wanted to address tearing down the house,
and questioned if you could place a condition on something that is not in the special use
permit area.
Ms. Scheid clarified with Mr. Mullins that neither the house nor the barn
are in the 1.9 acres for the special use permit. Supervisor McNamara advised that they
August 23, 2005
994
would have to trust the petitioner. Supervisor Flora asked if the Board could get a moral
commitment from Mr. Mullins and was advised by Mr. Mahoney that the Board could
ask for a moral obligation but it would not be legally binding. Mr. Mullins advised that he
did not think about the old buildings not being in the special permit area but his moral
and commitment of record is to properly take care of the rodent issue. He qualified that
they do not know anything about removing the buildings and they will seek professional
opinions to do it and not affect the neighbors. Supervisor Flora advised Mr. Mullins that
his ethics were on the line.
Supervisor McNamara advised that the other conditions should be placed
on the special use permit and the extension to 12 midnight does not bother him. He
stated that if you do not want multiple conditions, the petitioner needs to give the Board
more details. Mr. Mullins advised that they are working on it. Supervisor McNamara
advised that this is why you have a special use permit process to decide if something is
acceptable as opposed to granting the special use permit without knowing details about
the project. His concern is that if you have 10 feet across the top with buffering and then
slope it down the other 40 foot, the neighbors have a reasonable concern with fencing.
In response to Supervisor McNamara’s inquiry, Ms. Scheid advised that according to
Mr. Simpson the County would require a fence at the top to keep anyone from driving or
falling off the interlocking brick wall.
Supervisor Wray advised that he was concerned about the retaining wall
and what would be on top of it. Ms. Scheid advised that there would be a safety fence
August 23, 2005
995
at the top of the wall which is a County requirement. Mr. Mullins advised that they
understood that there would be other things required by the County and they are
prepared to meet these requirements. Supervisor Wray asked if blasting will be used
when grading the property. Mr. Mullins advised that he could not answer this question,
but he does not think that there will be blasting. Supervisor Wray advised that he
admired the citizens for the way they came together on the project.
Mr. Hodge advised that staff would like to clear up the discussion about
the storm water management. As Mr. Simpson told the Board, there is an opportunity
here to do something that may be good for the petitioner and the people down stream.
The County does not have the funds now to build the regional pond but if they work
together to find some grant funds, staff would be interested in exploring this further if the
Board and petitioner agree. Mr. Mullins advised that they would be willing and would
talk to their engineers about it.
Supervisor Church advised that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Mullins realize that
they have a reasonable group of people and he asked that they include some of these
people in the demolition process. Mr. Mullins advised that they would keep the citizens
informed.
Supervisor Altizer also thanked the citizens and petitioner for being
involved and trying to make this a good project. He advised that he knows Mr. Mullins
to be a person who will adhere to his commitments, and stated that development and
neighborhoods can come together when citizens trust what developers say to the
August 23, 2005
996
citizens. Mr. Mullins advised that it has been easy working with the citizens regarding
their concerns and he thanked them for being involved. He stated that their plans are to
make this project work and a big part was getting the special use permit. They hope
that the back part and extension becomes a nice project for everyone. Supervisor
Altizer advised that the citizens’ involvement certainly made the Board’s and the
developer’s jobs easier. He understands that there is no legal way that the Board can
bind the petitioner to tear down the buildings, but he advised Mr. Mullins that he would
not forget about the moral obligation that he made.
Supervisor Flora noted for the benefit of those who are concerned about
blasting that the state regulates this issue. Anyone who handles explosives has to be
qualified and certified and there are insurance requirements. As far as who is
responsible, the citizens may want to get some advice as to what to do in terms of
identifying any problems that exist now as opposed to problems after the construction.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the special use permit with the 17
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and with the following
modifications: (1) Condition #13: Screening and Buffering - buffer yard shall be a
minimum of fifty (50) feet wide along the entire length of the northeast property
boundary. The first ten (10) feet of buffer yard, closest to adjacent residential
properties, will be left in a natural, ungraded condition. No retaining walls shall be
allowed in this ten (10) foot area. (2) Condition #16: The hours of operation will be 6:00
a.m. until 12:00 midnight. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
August 23, 2005
997
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 082305-6 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A CONVENIENCE STORE ON APPROXIMATELY 1.9
ACRES LOCATED AT 6044 PETERS CREEK ROAD (PART OF TAX
MAP NO. 26.16-2-14) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE
PETITION OF VISION BUILDERS, LLC
WHEREAS, Vision Builders, LLC has filed a petition for a special use permit to
operate a convenience store on approximately 1.9 acres located at 6044 Peters Creek
Road (Part of Tax Map No. 26.16-2-14) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
August 16, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on July 26, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on August 23, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Vision
Builders, LLC to operate a convenience store on approximately 1.9 acres located at
6044 Peters Creek Road in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially in accord with
the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is
hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. All building, including gas island canopy, exterior walls shall be brick,
horizontal slate or vertical board and batten siding (materials shall be
either wood, fiber cement or vinyl material) from grade to eave.
2. The store roof will have articulation in the form of dormers, cupola or
similar designs.
3. Colors used in all exterior building materials including the canopy will be
subdued and will not be bright.
4. Canopy over gas pump island – Shall have a maximum clear,
unobstructed height to its underside not to exceed fourteen (14) feet six
(6) inches and a maximum overall height not to exceed sixteen (16) feet
six (6) inches.
5. Canopy over gas pump island – There shall be no illumination of any
portion of the fascia of the canopy.
6. Canopy over gas pump island – Any lighting fixtures or sources of light
that are a part of the underside of the canopy shall be recessed into the
August 23, 2005
998
underside of the canopy so as not to protrude below the canopy ceiling.
All such lighting associated with the canopy shall be directed downward
toward the pump islands and shall not be directed outward or away from
the site.
7. Canopy over gas pump island – The vertical dimension of the fascia of
such canopy shall be no more than two (2) feet.
8. Canopy over gas pump island – Signs attached to or on such canopy shall
not be illuminated and shall not extend beyond the ends or extremities of
the fascia of the canopy to which or on which they are attached.
9. Site Signage – Freestanding signage shall be limited to monument style
not exceeding eight (8) feet in height and ten (10) feet in width, and shall
be constructed of material to match the buildings and canopy.
Freestanding signs shall be ground lit or top lit with shielded lamps.
Signage placed on the building(s) shall occupy less than 5% of the
building façade area.
10. Lighting – The top of any light fixture shall not exceed 15 feet.
11. Dumpster – The sides and rear of the dumpster enclosure shall be
constructed of material to match the buildings and canopy.
12. Dumpster – Shall not be emptied between the hours of 10:00pm and
7:00am.
13. Screening and Buffering – Buffer yard shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet
The first
wide along the entire length of the northeast property boundary.
ten (10) feet of buffer yard, closest to adjacent residential properties,
will be left in a natural, ungraded condition. No retaining walls shall
be allowed in this ten (10) foot area.
14. No outside speaker system shall be utilized on site.
15. Building(s) height shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet.
12:00
16. Hours of operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
Midnight.
17. No access shall be allowed from Nover Avenue or Vivian Avenue.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance with the 17 conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission and with the following modifications: (1)
Condition #13: Screening and Buffering - Buffer yard shall be a minimum of fifty (50)
feet wide along the entire length of the northeast property boundary. The first ten (10)
feet of buffer yard, closest to adjacent residential properties, will be left in a natural,
ungraded condition. No retaining walls shall be allowed in this ten (10) foot area. (2)
August 23, 2005
999
Condition #16: The hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. until 12:00 midnight; and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
4. Continued until September 27 at the request of the petitioner.
Second reading of an ordinance to rezone approximately 9.95
acres from R-1, Single Family Residential District, to PRD,
Planned Residential District with conditions, to construct 60
townhomes at a density not to exceed 6.1 units per acre located
at the corner of Newland Road and Peters Creek Road, Hollins
Magisterial District, upon the petition of R. Fralin Development
Corporation. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
A-082305-7
Chairman Altizer advised that earlier in the meeting, this item was moved
to Item S-2 which was the second public hearing.
Mr. Robert Fralin, petitioner, advised that the development is proposed for
the corner of Newland Drive and Peters Creek Road, and he envisions single-level
living in a planned community with sidewalks. He advised that they are aware of the
citizens’ opposition to using Crosstimbers Trail as an entrance, and they are requesting
a continuance until September 27, 2005, to revisit the project and try to remove the
entrance from Crosstimbers Trail if possible.
Chairman Altizer advised that contrary to the item previously heard which
did not need a vote to continue the public hearing, this item needs a recommendation
August 23, 2005
1000
by a Board member because the continuance was not applied for by the deadline of
12:00 Noon on Thursday before the Board meeting.
Supervisor Flora advised that he attended the community and Planning
Commission meetings and heard almost every speaker voice their concern for using
Crosstimbers Trail as an entrance while still expressing approval of the project. He
recommended giving the petitioner enough time to explore two-way access on Newland
Road. He advised that if there are citizens present who wish to speak, he would like to
give them that opportunity. He asked Mr. Mahoney if the motion would be to continue
the public hearing until September 27, 2005. Mr. Mahoney affirmed that this would be
the correct motion.
Supervisor Flora moved to continue the public hearing until the September
27 Board meeting. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
Patricia P. Hammond,
7214 Crosstimbers Trail, advised that her only
objection to the project is using Crosstimbers Trail for through traffic and access. Most
of the neighbors have no problem with the planned community and think it would be an
asset; however, they want to be kept advised of what is happening with the project.
She presented a copy of the petition that was given to the Planning Commission which
shows the signatures of people who are adamantly opposed to the opening of
August 23, 2005
1001
Crosstimbers Trail to access the development. She thanked Mr. Fralin for considering
another way to access the project.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Flora:
He asked Mr. Hodge to thank the staff for taking care
of the weed problem on Hollins Road. He advised that sometimes when a complaint is
made, there is no actual violation, and the complainant was notified of this.
Supervisor Church
: He advised that he talked with the Chief of Police
about the following two complaints: (1) A citizen is concerned that cyclists are causing
motorists to cross the double line on Route 311 to avoid hitting them and this is a no
passing area with a 55 MPH speed limit. He advised that the County is aware of the
situation and will try to address this with the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT). (2) A complaint regarding speeding motorists on Keffer Road near the Home
Place Restaurant. The Chief of Police is aware of this issue and measures will be taken
to alleviate the existing problems.
Supervisor Wray:
(1) He asked that George Simpson, Assistant Director
of Community Development, obtain updates for him on the following items: (a) the
blocked drainage ditch on Colony Lane in Green Valley which was to have been
corrected; (b) the request at Red Hill Baptist Church about the debris under the bridge
and the environmental review to be completed in April; (c) the complaints about the
roughness and breakage along the shoulders of Ogden Road and paving by VDOT to
be completed in July or August; and (d) the efforts concerning the speed limit on Buck
1 002 August 23, 2005
Mountain Road. (2) He advised that screening is being placed around Sims
Automotive. Mr. Hodge advised that the framing is in place and while the work is about
a week late, progress is being made. Supervisor Wray advised that Supervisor Flora
was correct about there being a delay for steel. (3) He asked Mr. Simpson to provide
an update concerning the drainage project on Spring Lawn Avenue which was to be
completed in mid-August. (4) He advised that a VDOT design public hearing will be
held on September 22 from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. in the Board Meeting Room. It will
focus on the Colonial Avenue corridor which includes .05 miles west of Route 687 to
Route 419. (5) He advised that there will be a meeting with citizens in Eaton Hills to
discuss drainage issues on August 25 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Meeting Room.
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
~~
BrendaJ. ~on, Mé~
Deputy Clerk to the Board
f)Lukk£ l~· fkr
Michael W. Altizer
Chairman