10/16/2007 - Special
October 16, 2007
945
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia
October 16, 2007
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, for the
purpose of a joint work session with the Roanoke County Planning Commission.
INRE:
CALL TO ORDER (COUNTY OF ROANOKE)
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C.
Flora, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch"
Church, and Michael A. Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development; Wanda G. Riley, Clerk to the Board
OTHERS PRESENT: Gary L. Robertson, P.E., Executive Director of Water
Operations, Western Virginia Water Authority
INRE:
CALL TO ORDER (ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION)
Chairman Gary Jarrell called the Planning Commission to order. No roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Jarrell, Vice Chairman Rodney McNeil,
Commission Members Steve Azar, Martha Hooker, and AI
Thomason
STAFF PRESENT: Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning; Tarek Moneir,
Deputy Director of Development; David Holladay, Planner III;
Janet Scheid, County Planner; Megan Cronise, Planner II;
946
October 16, 2007
Rebecca Mahoney, Planner I-Code Enforcement; John
Murphy, Zoning Administrator; Tim Beard, Planner II; Teresa
Becher, Transportation Engineer; Nicole Gilkeson, Planner
II; Chris Patriarca, Planner I; Susan Carter, Recording
Secretary for the Planning Commission
INRE:
ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR STUDY
Mr. Holladay explained that following this work session, the Planning
Commission is scheduled to consider a resolution that would forward the Route 220
Corridor Study to the Board of Supervisors for their review. He stated that in April
2007, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Franklin County Board of
Supervisors approved resolutions to proceed with a water line study on Route 220 south
from Roanoke County into Franklin County. He noted that monthly work sessions have
been held with the Planning Commission to discuss the Route 220 Corridor Study. He
stated that a community meeting was held at Clearbrook Elementary on September 17,
2007, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 2,2007.
Mr. Holladay referred to the maps that had been distributed to the Board
of Supervisors and Planning Commission and reviewed the development opportunities
along Route 220. He stated that a 12-inch water line is proposed through the Roanoke
County portion of Route 220 and that the Western Virginia Water Authority 0fVVWA} is
proposing to build a sewer force main on WVWA property where Back Creek crosses
Route 220.
October 16, 2007
947
Mr. Holladay referred to the Future Land Use map from the 2005
Community Plan and compared that to the three scenarios proposed for Future Land
Use as a result of the proposed extension of the water line down Route 220. He stated
that the three alternatives take into consideration the proposed water line, proposed
sewer pump station, potential impacts of the future 1-73 interchange, and the desire to
encourage business and commercial development along the road frontage rather than
residential development.
The three scenarios showed transition and core areas along Route 220,
and Supervisor Flora asked Mr. Holladay to define transition and core areas. Mr.
Holladay read the definitions from the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Transition is a
future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage
parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and
nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented
commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office,
institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses." He defined core area as follows:
"Core is a future land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged.
Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke,
Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-
oriented retail uses and regionally-based shopping facilities."
948
October 16, 2007
Supervisor Flora asked if the transition designation would be more
appropriate for some of the areas rather than the core designation due to the
topography and access to Route 220. Mr. Holladay explained that based on the
availability of water and sewer services, the C-2 uses would be more attracted to that
area.
Supervisor Flora expressed concern about the steep slopes in some of the
areas along Route 220. Mr. Flora also expressed concerns about requiring developers
to spend large sums of money in engineering fees before making application for
rezoning and before the rezoning is approved by the Board. He noted there is some
good, developable land off Route 220.
There was general discussion of the three scenarios proposed for the
Route 220 Corridor Future Land Use and the process used to develop the scenarios.
Mr. Holladay reviewed the Draft Study Themes/Rezoning Guidelines for
the Route 220 Corridor Study. Under the Study Area theme, Mr. Holladay reviewed the
following items: (1) Boundaries of study area follow existing breaks in the
Comprehensive Plan future land use maps, or 1,000 feet from the highway center line,
whichever is greater; (2) Petitions for commercial development/redevelopment are
encouraged at the sites identified in the study. Residential development is discouraged,
unless accessory to a commercial use within a mixed-use development. Mr. Holladay
stated that they are stressing business development along this corridor. (3) The limits
October 16, 2007
949
of the future land use map commercial designations are intended to function as an
Urban Development Area boundary with the understanding that urban/suburban
development is strongly discouraged beyond that area limit, until such time that further
planning and land use studies are completed for those rural areas.
Under the Public Water and Sanitary Sewer Service theme, Mr. Holladay
reviewed the following items: (1) New projects must connect to public water service; (2)
New projects must connect/extend sanitary sewer service if within "X" feet of existing
sewer. Mr. Holladay stated that the County standard is 300 feet. (3) New projects
beyond existing sanitary sewer - petitioner must consider extension of sewer services
and/or justify not constructing the services. (4) New projects using private septic
systems are discouraged, but if proposed, must have septic permit approval from the
Virginia Department of Health submitted with rezoning application.
Mr. Church stated that he would like to be sure we do not develop just the
frontage area along Route 220, but include the property off the road that is within
reason. Mr. Holladay noted that a number of properties are back off the highway and
he stated that they are not ruling out those areas.
Supervisor Flora asked Mr. Robertson if the sewer line from Back Creek to
the County line was going to be predominantly a force main. Mr. Robertson stated that
the WWJA is not installing sewer in the entire Roanoke County corridor at this time;
however, they will install a force main from Clearbrook to Back Creek. He stated that
950
October 16, 2007
when there is future development, a pump station will be installed, and if the County
wants sanitary sewer further down Route 220, there will be a small section of gravity
sewer and part of it will be pumped. Mr. Robertson also verified that water will be
available beyond Back Creek, but sewer will not be available.
Under the Slope Development theme, Mr. Holladay reviewed the following
items: (1) New projects must provide preliminary grading plan with rezoning application,
delineating building pad area, driveway access grading, limits of disturbance and extent
of proposed cut and fill; (2) New projects exceeding 25 vertical feet of cut or fill slope
must provide geotechnical report with rezoning application. Supervisor Flora stated that
the smaller operations don't have the resources for this type of engineering work like the
larger retailers. Mr. Holladay stated that they may be able to make a distinction
between core and transition designation and as to whether this is required.
Supervisor McNamara stated that there are a couple of items to consider.
He stated that he would like to see the word "must" changed to "may" in the first item
under Slope Development so that it reads, "New projects may provide preliminary
grading plan..." He stated this gives the Board and Planning Commission more options
and flexibility.
Supervisor McNamara stated that under the Study Area theme, it reads,
"Residential development is discouraged, unless accessory to a commercial use within
a mixed-use development." He stated that he thought there are lots of areas in the
October 16, 2007
951
corridor where mixed-use development should be encouraged. Mr. Mahoney stated
that he encouraged the staff to include language whereby residential development
would be discouraged in order to help payoff the revenue bonds with commercial and
industrial development.
Supervisor Flora stated that he thought the County should be looking at
the highest and best use of the land and how it can be developed without destroying the
landscape on Route 220.
Mr. Holladay stated that the second item under Study Area could be
reworded to encourage business development, but not discourage mixed-use
development.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he did not think many people would want to
develop subdivisions along Route 220 and that the County needed to encourage
commercial development along the frontage of Route 220.
Mr. Mahoney stated that if the Board were to deny a residential rezoning
along Route 220 and then get sued by the petitioner, he could then show the court
where in our Comprehensive Plan that residential development is discouraged along
Route 220.
Supervisor Flora asked if this statement could be reversed so that it would
say that commercial is encouraged rather than residential is discouraged. He stated
that he would not want to see residential discouraged in the entire study area.
952
October 16, 2007
Supervisor Wray stated that he would like language that states that
existing houses or additions to existing houses would not be required to connect to
public water and/or sewer. Mr. Covey advised that this is already addressed in other
ordinances and would not be addressed in the corridor study.
Supervisor McNamara suggested that the wording read that commercial is
strongly encouraged adjacent to Route 220, but mixed use development is not
discouraged.
Supervisor Flora stated that he would not like to see the appearance down
Route 220 destroyed just to get commercial development and that he would not
discourage mixed-use development.
Mr. Holladay stated that they would change the word "must" to "may"
under Slope Development. Mr. Jarrell asked if new projects must connect or extend
sanitary sewer service if within 300 feet of an existing sewer and it was the consensus
that this figure would be used.
Mr. Mahoney stated that he is holding up the three-party agreement
between Roanoke County, Franklin County, and the WVWA because until the corridor
study is completed, the water line is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He
stated he was hoping one of the alternatives would be chosen and the comprehensive
plan amended to include the corridor study so he could then conclude discussions and
bring the agreement to the Board in December for approval.
October 16, 2007
953
Supervisor Flora suggested that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution at their meeting tonight, and the Board of Supervisors hold a work session
between the afternoon and evening session on November 13, and followed by a public
hearing on the evening of November 13.
Mr. Holladay thanked the Planning Staff for their time and effort in
preparing the corridor study.
IN RE: DISCUSSION OF PROFFERS, PRO, AND PRIVATE ROADS
Mr. Thompson stated that the Board recently took a tour of Wolf Creek
,and he wanted to briefly discuss Planned Residential Districts (PRO). He stated that
he has heard from Board members that proffers in general are good. He advised that
property to be developed as a Planned Residential District has to be rezoned and
allows more flexibility and more options. He explained that the process requires the
submittal of an application to rezone, and the written and graphic materials that are
submitted become a master plan. He stated that this information becomes the proffers.
He stated that for Wolf Creek the master plan is a large notebook, and under our current
ordinance it becomes a proffer.
Mr. Thompson explained that PROs allow private roads to be part of the
development. He stated that the issue with private roads is that the County needs to
develop a countywide set of standards for private roads in PROs and cluster
developments and tighten up the language of the PRO.
954
October 16, 2007
Mr. Thompson stated that PROs have served in some capacity as our
cluster ordinance. He stated that cluster is the arrangement of a development on a
piece of property. He explained that cluster protects open space. He stated that the
current cluster ordinance has only been used three or four times. He stated that cluster
is a by-right development, and he stated that the staff would suggest that we keep the
cluster ordinance, but slightly amend it. He stated that both PRO and cluster have
private road standards, and they would like to finalize those road standards and bring
them to the Board for approval. He stated that in regards to Wolf Creek, some of the
proffers did not have enough detail in the package. He advised that one of the details
that came out of Wolf Creek was that the proffers need to state when they will be
implemented. He also stated that a regular inspection program will be implemented to
be sure proffers, such as sidewalks, are being installed. He stated that currently private
roads are not inspected; however, there may need to be some type of certification from
an engineer to be sure the roads are built to a certain standard. He advised that there
may be State Code that will allow the County to bond private roads.
Mr. Thompson suggested that the Zoning Ordinance be revised for PROs
and brought back to the Board for approval. He stated they have learned from the Wolf
Creek situation what has and has not worked, and he suggested making changes to the
ordinance and developing the proper guidelines.
October 16, 2007
955
Mr. Thompson stated that in some cases trails that are proffered with
PRDs not fully constructed. He stated that a condition that will be required in the future
is that if trails are going to be built, they must be built upfront and on homeowners'
association property.
Mr. Covey stated that trails need to be constructed before the homes are
built because residents are sometimes not aware that trails will be constructed around
their property even though the trails are designated on the master plan.
Supervisor Altizer stated that Wolf Creek is over ten years old and the
residents have landscaped their properties. He explained that sidewalks have not been
installed and if the developer now installs the sidewalks, the landscaping will have to be
torn out. He stated that proffers need to have a time period designated as to when it will
be accomplished before the proffers are accepted.
Mr. Thompson stated that this should be made a part of the master plan.
Supervisor Flora stated that we need to write into the regulations that
building permits or occupany permits will not be issued until certain proffers are
complete.
Supervisor Altizer asked if a development is sold to another developer, do
the proffers pass with the land and does the County have any obligation to the new
developer. Mr. Mahoney verified that the proffers pass with the land.
956
October 16, 2007
Mr. Covey explained that if a developer sells to another developer, they
will want their bonds and obligations released. He stated that before the County
releases the bonds, the new developer must post bonds for the improvements. He
explained that the new developer will know what his obligations are at the time surety is
posted.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he wants to be sure everyone understands
what constitutes a substantial change, who has the authority to make those changes,
and which changes must come back to the Board for consideration.
Mr. Mahoney stated that the provisions of the current ordinances set out
what constitutes major decisions. He asked the Board how much authority the Board
wanted to vest in the Zoning Administrator, or do they want every change brought back
to the Board.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he wanted accountability and he thought
changes in sidewalks was a major change.
Supervisor Flora stated that the Zoning Administrator has the statutory
authority to make interpretations regarding the master plan. He stated that when the
Board approves proffers they need to be clear and easily definable; and if they are
bonded, there should not be any problems.
Mr. Mahoney advised that in some areas of Wolf Creek they were to have
brick sidewalks and he believes that is a condition under the current PRD. He stated
October 16, 2007
957
that in the future, if that is going to be a condition, it will be specifically stated upfront
with a time frame as to when that condition will be installed and some type of financial
guarantee will be required to force that condition if it is not installed. He asked if the
master plan is not a proffered condition, then how much flexibility is allowed to alter that
plan?
Mr. Mahoney stated that one of the problems is that the master plan is a
proffered condition, and the current ordinance gives a certain degree of flexibility to alter
the master plan to someone that is not a part of the governing body that approved the
proffered condition.
Supervisor Flora stated that all the proffers need to be lifted from the
master plan and that the entire plan not be adopted.
Supervisor Wray asked about the process for following up on proffered
conditions. Mr. Thompson stated that proffers are put on plans and the inspectors in
the field are checking those plans. He stated that the staff does periodic checks every
two to three years. Mr. Murphy stated that during the grading process, inspectors are
sent out on a regular basis.
Mr. Hodge stated that inspectors need to be cross-trained so they can
monitor PRDs. He stated that proffers can be noted on the inspection sheet.
Mr. Hodge stated that he understood the Board would like to keep the
PRD process and amend the code section.
958
October 16, 2007
Mr. Thompson stated that the staff will develop private road standards.
Supervisor Wray stated that he wanted to be sure school buses and fire
trucks can use those private roads. Mr. Hodge also said that we need to look at this
from the standpoint of the garbage trucks being able to use the roads also.
Supervisor Altizer asked if the County is allowed to set a time as to how
long the developer has to warrant a private road to the homeowners. Mr. Mahoney
stated that the Board could adopt an ordinance; however, the ordinance needs to be
consistent with the State standards. Mr. Mahoney stated that currently the County does
not have a warranty period if a developer installs a private road.
Supervisor Altizer says he is not looking at number of years of warranty as
much as having a certain percentage of the project built out. He stated he did not want
to see the road turned over prematurely.
Mr. Mahoney suggested that we could do something similar to VDOT
acceptance of roads. Mr. Covey explained that VDOT will accept a segment of road as
long as there are three occupied homes on a street. He stated that the developer must
provide a performance bond for one year to VDOT and a maintenance fee.
Supervisor Altizer asked if the County could do something similar to this.
Mr. Mahoney stated that Roanoke County is not in the road building business. Mr.
Covey stated that occasionally homeowners associations will contact his office to say
that a developer is getting ready to turn the road over to them and wanting to know if
October 16, 2007
959
there are any outstanding issues before they accept the road. More discussion followed
regarding private roads in developments with homeowners associations and that there
are some associations who have done a nice job of constructing their roads.
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
~~
~W~
Wanda G. Riley
Clerk to the Board
o eph P. McNamara
hairman
960
October 16, 2007
(This page left intentionally blank)