3/24/2009 - RegularMarch 24, 2009 ~ gg
County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
March 24, 2009
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March 2009.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Joseph P.
McNamara, Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Richard
C. Flora, Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; John M.
Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant
County Administrator; Becky R. Meador, Deputy Clerk to the
Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Director
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend Dr. Stephen C. Hundley, Roanoke
District Superintendent, United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited
by all present.
[1
190
March 24, 2009
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Supervisor Church requested that a closed meeting be added pursuant to
the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A. 3 regarding the acquisition of real estate.
Mr. Mahoney requested that a closed meeting be added pursuant to the
Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A.1 discussion and consideration of the employment
and appointment of a specific public officer, namely the Clerk to the Board.
There were no objections to adding the items to the closed meeting.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation to Charles W. King, Fire and Rescue
Department, upon his retirement after twenty-eight years of
service
R-032409-1
Chairman Altizer presented the resolution to Mr. King. Also attending the
meeting was Division Chief Joey Stump.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
1
1
1
C
March 24, 2009 191
RESOLUTION 032409-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO CHARLES W.
KING, FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT, UPON HIS RETIREMENT
AFTER TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE
[~
WHEREAS, Charles W. King was employed on October 16, 1980, by the
Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department, and held the positions of Firefighter,
Fire Lieutenant, Fire Captain, and Training Battalion Chief; and
WHEREAS, Mr. King retired from the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue
Department on February 1, 2009, as Operations Battalion Chief, after twenty-eight
years and four months of service; and
WHEREAS, Mr. King performed a crucial role in protecting the life and property
of citizens in one of the most hazardous professions, and Roanoke County is very
fortunate to have benefited from his dedication and many years of experience; and
WHEREAS, Mr. King, through his commitment in the field of Heavy and Tactical
Rescue, allowed Roanoke County to be recognized throughout the state as a leader in
this field; and
WHEREAS, Mr. King dedicated himself to ensuring that all responders operated
in a safe manner by emphasizing best practice models through constant instruction of
all members of the Department; and
WHEREAS, Mr. King, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens by his responses to fires and
training of other firefighters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to CHARLES W. KING for more than twenty-eight years of capable,
loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore,
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
1. Request to adopt a resolution setting the allocation percentage
n
for personal roe tax relief in Roanoke County for the 2009
tax year Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance
192 March 24, 2009
R-032409-2
Ms. Owens noted that Kevin Hutchins, County Treasurer, and Nancy
Horn, Commissioner of Revenue, were present to answer questions if necessary.
Ms. Owens advised that staff is requesting the Board adopt a resolution
setting the percentage for personal property tax relief for the 2009 tax year as required
by the State on an annual basis. The County received a block grant of approximately
$12.2 million from the State and is required to compute the amount of tax relief to
allocate to each citizen. The County uses the allocation model developed by the State,
which uses historical trends and a five year rolling average to calculate the effective
reimbursement rate. Ms. Owens advised that the percentage calculated for the County
for 2009 is 60.8 percent and, based on historical trends, the percentage has decreased
slightly each year. The amount of the State grant remains the same. The percentage for
Roanoke County is similar to the percentages that neighboring localities will adopt by
resolution. Ms. Owens explained that there will be some timing delays in the receipt of
the State funds; however, staff will be able to accrue these funds back for County
purposes to balance the budget. She recommended that the Board adopt the resolution
setting the allocation percentage for personal property tax relief in Roanoke County for
the 2009 tax year.
There was no discussion.
I7
March 24, 2009 193
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 032409-2 SETTING THE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE
FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF IN ROANOKE COUNTY
FOR THE 2009 TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1-3524
(C) (2) and Section 58.1-3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of
the Acts of Assembly and as set forth in item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief
Program or "PPTRA") of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly and qualifying
vehicle with a taxable situs within the County commencing January 1, 2009, shall
receive personal property tax relief; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted pursuant to Ordinance 122005-10
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That tax relief shall be allocated so as to eliminate personal property taxation
for qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less.
2. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,001-$20,000 will be eligible
for 60.84% tax relief.
3. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only
receive 60.84% tax relief on the first $20,000 of value; and
4. That all other vehicles which do not meet the definition of "qualifying" (for
example, including but not limited to, business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor
homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program.
5. That the percentages applied to the categories of qualifying personal use
vehicles are estimated fully to use all available PPTRA funds allocated to Roanoke
County by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6. Supplemental assessments for tax years 2005 and prior shall be deemed
`non-qualifying' for purposes of state tax relief and the local share due from the taxpayer
shall represent 100% of the assessed personal property tax.
7. That this Resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
I
194
March 24, 2009
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA
1. The etp ition of Wolf Creek, Inc., Circle C Consultants, Inc., Wolf
Creek Homeowners Association, Inc., Front Street Construction,
Inc., and Old Towne Development, LLC to amend the Planned
Residential Development Master Plan for Wolf Creek, which
measures 38.384 acres and includes the communities of Wolf
Run, Wolf Crest, Beech Cove, Richard's Wood, Village at Stone
Creek and Rockbridge, Vinton Magisterial District
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for 6:00 p.m. on April 28, 2009. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-032409-3
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
1
1
1
March 24, 2409 195
RESOLUTION 032409-3 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:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for March 24,
2009 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 Item 1, as
follows:
1. Approval of minutes -December 16, 2008
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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Attizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Eleanor Brogan, 2744 Gum Springs Road, Salem, advised that she
wanted to allot her time to speak to Mary Wilson.
Chairman Altizer advised that while yielding of time by citizens had been
allowed in the past, that has been changed and extra time to speak is allowed at the
chairman's discretion. He stated that he would approve Ms. Brogan's request this time.
Mary Wilson, 5001 Glenvar Heights, Salem, explained that she has three
children in the Glenvar schools and is concerned about the results of a report in USA
Today concerning toxic air in America's schools. She stated that William Byrd High
School ranked in the 57t" percentile in the study, Glenvar Elementary School ranked in
the 24t" percentile and Glenvar Middle School ranked in the 25t" percentile, which
means that over 75 percent of the nation's schools have better air quality than the
196
March 24, 2009
Glenvar Schools. She remarked that these lower rankings may be due to interstate
traffic and the concentration of heavy industry in the Glenvar area. She is concerned
that if heavy industry moves to the north side of West Main Street, closer to the Glenvar
schools, the air quality will suffer greatly. She requested that heavy industry be kept on
the south side of West Main Street and existing businesses be monitored and
redeveloped. She remarked that she and other parents in the Glenvar community
expect to have the same air quality as the other side of the County. She believes the
Board is responsible for approving the zoning for new businesses and protecting County
citizens. She asked, on behalf of the children at the Glenvar schools, that the Board
1
strive to improve and protect the quality of the air and life in the Glenvar area.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Ca ital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Accounts Paid -February 2009
1
March 24, 2009 197
5. Analysis of Comparative Schedule of Budgeted and Actual
Expenditures and Encumbrances for the month ended February
28, 2009
6. Analysis of Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual
Revenues and Encumbrances for the month ended February 28,
2009
7. Proclamations si ned ~ the Chairman and Board
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:22 p.m., Supervisor Flora moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A.1 discussion and
consideration of the employment and appointment of a specific public officer, namely
the Clerk to the Board; and Section 2.2-3711.A.3 regarding the acquisition of real
estate. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora,. McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 3:42 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session for the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 C( lay
Goodman, County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Bud et
~ gg March 24, 2009
The work session was held from 4:26 p.m. until 4:31 p.m.
Mr. Robertson advised that each supervisor had submitted their
recommendations for the amounts to be funded for fiscal year 2009-2010 for health and
human services, cultural, tourism and other agencies. Staff used the supervisors'
recommendations and prepared a schedule detailing the final funding recommendations
for the agencies, which was distributed to the Board members. He asked if there were
any recommended changes to the schedule. The Board members agreed with staff's
funding recommendations.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-032409-4
At 5:30 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 Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 032409-4 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:
March 24, 2009 ~ gg
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 Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. (POSTPONED FROM DECEMBER 16, 2008 Second reading of an
ordinance upon the petition of Edward Rose Properties, Inc. to
rezone app roximately 16.3 acres from R-2, Medium Densi
Residential District, to R-3C, Medium Densi Multi-Family
Residential District with Conditions and C-2C, General
Commercial District with Conditions and to rezone approximately
11.2 acres from C-2, General Commercial District, to R-3C,
Medium Densi Multi-Family Residential District with Conditions,
for the purpose of constructing a mixed-use development
consisting of an apartment complex and commercial uses located
at the 6200 and 6300 blocks of Cove Road and Green Ridge Road,
Catawba Magisterial District Phili Thompson, De u Director of
Plannin
Mr. Thompson advised that Edward Rose Properties is petitioning to
rezone 31.4 acres, which consists of six parcels. He advised that currently 16.3 acres
200 March 24, 2009
are zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District, and 15.1 acres are zoned C-2,
General Commercial District. The petitioner is requesting that 23.6 acres be rezoned to
R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions and 7.8 acres to
C-2C, General Commercial District with conditions. The purpose of the proposed
rezoning is to construct amixed-use development with residential and commercial uses.
The residential portion will be an apartment complex with 12 buildings, comprised of
252 units, three-stories high with the maximum height of 40 feet. He advised that
approximately 35 percent of the 242 units would be one-bedroom units, 50 percent
would be two-bedroom units and the remaining 15 percent would be three-bedroom
units. In addition to the apartment buildings, there are plans for a management office
and club house, which will be part of the 10 percent requirement for recreation open
space as part of a mufti-family development. There are two entrances proposed off
Cove Road and throughout the development there will be 24 foot wide, two-way traffic
aisles, with 500 parking spaces for the entire development.
Mr. Thompson continued that two commercial sites of approximately 3.9
acres are being proposed and divided by one of the entrance roads. The developer
plans to sell and not develop these commercial parcels and has proffered uses for the
commercial sites. There are three existing homes on the property that will be
demolished and an existing Appalachian Power line along the site with 50 foot
easements. He described the surrounding zoning and land uses and noted that the
March 24, 2009 20 ~
proposal with proffered conditions conforms to the future land use plan, which is Core
and Transition.
Mr. Thompson stated that community meetings were held on November
19, 2008, and February 12, 2009, at the County School Board office with approximately
50 citizens attending each meeting. The issues raised by the citizens at these meetings
concerned screening, buffering and development impacts. The majority of the
comments dealt with transportation and traffic safety.
Mr. Thompson recounted that at the Planning Commission public hearing
on March 3, 2009, eight citizens spoke in opposition to the request because of the
following issues: stormwater runoff, exterior lighting installation heights and intensity,
volume of crashes in the vicinity of Cove Road and Green Ridge Road, traffic generated
by the new Public Safety Center, pressure on the local road network when problems
occur on Interstate 81, vehicular stacking in the Cove Road left turn lane onto Route
419 southbound, traffic impacts on the local road network after the multi-generational
recreation center opens, advancing commercial zoning northeast along Cove Road and
screening and buffering adjacent to nearby residences.
The Planning Commissioners had several questions and concerns
regarding the recreational amenities, existing traffic conditions at Cove Road and
Electric Road, the site's proximity to available emergency services, potential use of
corporate or short-term apartment leases by the developer, background checks for
sublease situations, extensive wording of the petitioner's proposed proffered condition
2~2 March 24, 2009
for road improvements, impact to downstream wells and septic system fields, signage
and lighting for commercial sites, trash dumpsters, green building concepts and uses,
uses for the proposed C-2 zoned property and whether the road improvements appear
on the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Six-Year Improvement Plan.
Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial
of the request by a vote of three to two. At the time the Planning Commission voted,
there were seven proffered conditions associated with the application. He advised that
there are presently eleven proffered conditions. Four conditions were added by the
petitioner since the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Thompson described the intent of the eleven proffered conditions. The
eleven conditions are listed herein as submitted by the petitioner: (1) The property will
be developed substantially in accord with the Edward Rose Properties, Inc. concept
plan dated October 3, 2008, subject to any changes required by Roanoke County during
development plan review. (2) As to the 23.6 acres to be rezoned to R-3 Multi-Family
Residential District, the property will be used only for Residential Uses, Multi-Family
Dwelling. (3) As to the 7.8 acres to be rezoned C-2, General Commercial District, the
property will be used only for one or more of the following purposes: Residential Uses:
Accessory Apartment, Home Occupation-Type I, Multi-Family Dwelling. Civic Uses:
Administrative Services, Clubs, Cultural Services, Day Care Center, Educational
Facilities -College/University, Educational Facilities -Primary/Secondary, Guidance
Services, Post Office, Public Assembly, Public Parks and Recreational Areas, Safety
March 24, 2009 z~3
Services, Adult Care Residences, Life Care Facility, Nursing Home, Religious
Assembly. Office Uses: Financial Institutions, General Office, Medical Office,
Laboratories. Commercial Uses: Antique Shops, Bed and Breakfast, Business Support
Services, Business or Trade Schools, Commercial Indoor Entertainment, Commercial
Indoor Sports and Recreation, Communications Services, Construction Sales and
Services, Consumer Repair Services, Hospital, Hotel/Motel/Motor Lodge, Personal
Improvement Services, Personal Services, Restaurant -General, Retail Sales, Studio
Fine Arts, Veterinary Hospital/Clinic, Mini-warehouses. (4) The exterior design of the
commercial buildings to be located on the 7.8 acres to be zoned C-2 will be consistent
with the exterior design of the multi-family dwellings to be located on the 23.6 acres to
be zoned R-3. (5) The required buffer yard along the eastern boundary of the property,
between the area to be zoned R-3 and the single-family residences in the areas zoned
R-I and R-2 to the east, will be landscaped at the Type B, Option 1 or 2 level, as Type B
is prescribed in Section 30-92-6(A} of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance as in
effect on the date of this Proffer of Conditions. (6) The exterior appearance of the multi-
family dwellings to be constructed on the property will be substantially in accord with the
drawings dated February 25, 2009, and attached to this Proffer of Conditions. (7)
Apartment complex identification signage shall be limited to one maximum 30-square
foot monument sign located at/near each of the two proposed vehicular access points
on Cove Road, and those signs shall be no taller than six (6) feet. (8) Any free-standing
(pylon or monument) commercial site identification sign shall be no taller than eight (8)
204 March 24, 2009
feet and no larger than seventy-five (75) square feet, and shall be placed within
seventy-five (75) feet of the southernmost vehicular access point onto Cove Road. (9)
The poles carrying lighting for the commercial area shall be a maximum of fifteen (15)
feet in height, and the light fixtures shall be directed downward. (10) The poles carrying
lighting for the multi-family development shall be a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in height
and the light fixtures shall be shielded and/or directed downward. (11) The applicant will
construct aright-turn lane on Cove Road, at the intersection of Route 419 and Cove
Road, as permitted by VDOT, that is approximately 200 feet in length with a hundred-
foot taper, in accordance with VDOT standards and specifications for an urban collector
road.
Dan Raymond, attorney for the petitioner, advised that Laurie Corley,
Project Manager, would address the Board first. He stated that since traffic has been a
great concern, he was asking that Paul Anderson, Traffic Engineer, Hays, Seay,
Mattern &Mattern (HSMM), discuss the traffic study that was conducted.
Ms. Corley advised that there has been almost two years of due diligence
and background work done on this project. She briefly described the background of
Edward Rose Companies, which was started in 1921, and is still family and privately
held today, and advised that the company has built over 80,000 housing units including
single and multi-family homes. During the previous sixty years, the company has
focused on luxury rental units. The company currently owns and manages over 54,000
apartment units and is one of the largest national apartment owners and managers in
March 24, 2009 2~5
the country and in the top ten privately held companies. She advised that it was
important to know that Edward Rose Companies is a long-term holder in all of its
communities and that the Indianapolis office has not sold an apartment community in
over twenty years. She stated that this speaks to the quality of the buildings and also to
the long-term commitment to their communities.
Ms. Corley made a PowerPoint presentation. She stated that Edward
Rose Companies owns another community in Roanoke, Sunscape, which was built in
1996 off Colonial Avenue, and has 264 apartment units. Sunscape is consistently voted
one of the best apartment communities in the area by the Roanoker Magazine. She
advised that since questions about signage were brought up during the Planning
Commission meeting, she displayed an example of the signage at Sunscape and stated
that they propose to have similar monument signage on Cove Road or something of a
higher quality. She advised that the site location is east of Electric Road (Route 419)
and continues eastbound on Cove Road. The site plan was designed to fit within the
uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. -She presented a visual
representation of the existing and proposed rezoning.
Ms. Corley discussed how the residential portion of the site plan consists
of 252 luxury one, two and three-bedroom apartment units, a clubhouse facility for
residents only, mini-recreational court and 7.8 acres of commercial space to be
developed at a later time. She reported that the County's ordinance requires the
developer to have 2.36 acres of open space and that the proposed project has more
2~6 March 24, 2009
than 7 acres of open space and recreational amenities, which will generate apark-like
setting different from any other apartment community in the Roanoke area. She advised
that the building design, which has been proffered, is a craftsman's style, three stories
in height, with each unit having its own balcony or patio space. She presented photos of
the clubhouse design for the company's other apartments to demonstrate the quality
and detail. The petitioner proposes to upgrade their landscaping buffer to type B along
the entire eastern boundary of the property line and change the lighting style, agreeing
to have atl lights face downward for the residential and commercial portion of the site.
Mr. Anderson advised that he is with Architecture Engineering
Construction Management, formerly HSMM. The traffic study completed was the first in
Roanoke County under the new regulations passed by the State Legislature, called
Chapter 527, which essentially requires any major Comprehensive Plan, rezoning or
site plan to be subject to a traffic study if it meets certain criteria for traffic volumes
anticipated. The report is very large due to the thorough process required. One of the
first steps was to decide on the scope of the study. He met with County and VDOT staff
to determine the study area for the project and agree on the fundamental assumptions.
He advised that eight intersections were studied in detail, using three different scenarios
as prescribed by the Chapter 527 regulations. Traffic counts at all of the sites were
obtained to determine the current operating conditions based on the delay that a typical
motorist experiences at those locations. He reported that Intersections #1, #2, and #3
are in the vicinity of Interstate 81; Intersection #4 is at Cove Road and Green Ridge
March 24, 2009 207
Road; Intersection #5 is at Green Ridge Road and Woodhaven Road; Intersections #6
and #7 are Green Ridge Road and Cove Road; and Intersection #8 is at Green Ridge
Road and Route 419.
Three scenarios were used, which included existing conditions, no-build
and future-build. Mr. Anderson explained that the level of service for intersections is
graded on a scale of A (best) to F (worst) and that the analysis found that most of the
intersections currently operate at level C or above, including the left-turn lane at Cove
Road, which operated at level D in the PM peak times and is the busiest intersection.
They took the trips and land uses proposed and generated the associated traffic with a
mix of hotels, apartments, assisted living centers, general medical offices, restaurant
and daycare and aimed at the high end of what they realistically planned to develop and
not the worst case from a traffic standpoint. He advised that for a no-build case, they
took the volumes of traffic in the area and applied a growth factor to increase the
volumes based on general traffic growth from other projects and added the traffic
expected from the Holiday Inn Express under construction.
Mr. Anderson suggested that the best comparison for the Board's decision
would be between the no-build and future-build scenarios. Using the assumptions
agreed upon for the scope of the study, they found that in most of the intersections, the
no-build and future-build scenarios were much the same for traffic and, while some of
the intersections decrease in service levels, none drop to level F. He remarked that the
intersection at Cove Road and Route 419 is an exception because of left-turns and
208 March 24, 2009
vehicles waiting for left-turning vehicles, and the additional traffic will essentially cause
that intersection to go to level F for AM and PM peaks. The first improvement proposed
would be to separate the left-turning vehicles from the right-turning vehicles by adding a
right-turn lane, which would improve the service level from F to B in the AM and level C
in the PM. He noted that left-turning vehicles that choose to go to the intersection and
turn left without a signal will face a long delay; however, they have the option of going
down Cove Road to the other signal at Green Ridge Road, which it is anticipated that
most vehicles will do. He advised that if they were to alleviate the left-turn movement,
the only solution would be to signalize the intersection, which would benefit that traffic
movement at the expense of other through-traffic movement 24 hours per day on Route
419, causing additional stops. They analyzed the warrants to see if a signal would even
be allowed, given the traffic projections, and found it to be a grey area.
Mr. Anderson stated that their recommendation to Edward Rose
Companies is that they should proffer building aright-turn lane, which would relieve the
traffic problems there today and alleviate the burden on the intersection where the bulk
of the impact is felt on the road network. This recommendation was offered as a proffer
and part of the proposal.
In response to Supervisor Church's inquiry, Mr. Anderson answered that
the 200 foot length for the right-turn lane would place approximately eight vehicles
waiting to turn left before the tapering of the full right-turn access would be blocked.
March 24, 2009 209
Responding to Supervisor Flora's inquiry, Mr. Anderson clarified that, if
nothing is done, the service level at the Cove Road and Route 419 intersection would
eventually drop to level F in the PM peak even with a future no-build. It was noted that
this intersection needs help in any event and this project would trigger this beneficial
action sooner rather than later. Supervisor Flora inquired as to the increase in the
number of vehicles that are anticipated at that intersection at both the AM and PM
peaks. Mr. Anderson replied that at future build-out, there will be 257 vehicles turning to
the right in the AM compared to the current 151 vehicles and 295 future vehicles in the
PM compared to the current 194 vehicles. He advised that the counts for the left turns
are currently 31 in the AM peak and 20 in the PM peak and that would increase to 52 in
the AM and 39 in the PM peaks.
Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Thompson if the project were to be built-out
with R-2 zoning, would the right-turn lane be mandated for a developer. Mr. Thompson
answered that as part of the rezoning process, the developer has an option to make that
proffer. He further stated that if it were to be developed by-right, there would still be a
traffic study and there could be an off-site proffer for improvement, which VDOT could
tie to the entrance permit. Mr. Thompson advised that through the rezoning process, an
off-site improvement could be obtained if the developer would make it a proffer.
Supervisor Altizer also addressed the concern about sight distance as
referred to in the letter from VDOT and asked if it would be corrected. Mr. Thompson
2 ~ ~ March 24, 2009
responded that in order to get the entrance permit from VDOT, the developer would
have to make changes to correct the sight distance.
Supervisor Flora commented that from the site plan, it appears that the
developer will not own the property out to Route 419 where the Pinkerton Chevrolet
entrance is located and that will remain in the Ronk family ownership. Mr. Thompson
confirmed that the developer was not purchasing that property.
The following citizens spoke at the public hearing: (1) P. E. Bain, 5626
Plain View Avenue; (2) R. Gary Ronk, 6247 Cove Road, (3) Cindee Garst Hensley,
6043 Cove Road. They expressed their concerns about the project and questioned the
following issues: safety, increased traffic that will add to current traffic problems, traffic
generated by the Public Safety Center, pressure on Cove Road and Route 419 when
problems occur on Interstate 81, vehicular stacking in the Cove Road left turn lane onto
Route 419 southbound, two proposed entrances located on a blind curve that would
require VDOT to post a sign about the school bus, increased traffic impacts on the local
road network after the multi-generational recreation facility opens, advancing
commercial zoning northeast along Cove Road, potential use of corporate or short-term
apartment leases by the developer and screening and buffering at the extreme southern
tip of the proposed project.
Supervisor Flora voiced concern about the encroachment of commercial
zoning along Cove Road since that is not characteristic for that neighborhood. His
second concern was how to take a huge amount of traffic off of Cove Road and put it
March 24, 2009 211
directly on Route 419 at a different location, such as Pinkerton Chevrolet; however,
since the developer does not own that property, this might not be possible. He advised
that the site is topographically challenging and that having right and left lanes on Cove
Road would help the traffic. He stated that this is the type of development that North
and West County needs.
Mr. Raymond responded that topography has dictated much of the project
details and that the southern end of the property is approximately 80 feet below the
grade of Route 419. There is a steep hill down to a wet stream and knoll and another
drop to a creek and this property, which is over 500 feet from Route 419 and makes
access to Route 419 very difficult. The topography also makes it very challenging to
develop the C-2 zoned property in connection with the C-2 frontage on Route 419. He
mentioned that they are asking to move the commercial zoned area to the north so that
it is on the grade of Cove Road, then screen it from the adjacent neighborhood with the
apartment development. Much of the proposed grading would occur along Cove Road
to get the commercial pads down to grade and the existing hill would essentially remain
with the apartment buildings on top of it to screen the commercial development from the
surrounding neighborhood to comply with the transition designation.
Mr. Anderson expressed that currently the backups on Cove Road with
the single lane are significant and any time you are trying to turn right, which is about 90
percent of the traffic, you are at the mercy of the person ahead of you trying to turn left.
He explained that this is why the proffer states 200 feet of right-turn lane, which is far
2 ~ 2 March 24, 2009
enough back to allow at least eight vehicles to make that left turn. He advised that most
people who drive that area are familiar with the neighborhood and he does not feel that
many of them will choose to take that left-turn and wait if they have the option to turn left
at the other intersection and make their way down and over to Green Ridge Road. He
suggested that a solution would be to signalize the intersection; however, that would be
done at the expense of the flow of the main volume of traffic on Route 419 to and from
Interstate 81. He advised that signalization would help a small movement significantly at
the cost of hurting a large movement to a small degree all day.
Supervisor Altizer asked for a response to the citizen's concern about the
potential use of corporate or short-term apartment leases by the developer. Ms. Corley
replied that Edward Rose Companies has a corporate housing program designed to
help economic development, which is managed by a Corporate Outreach Specialist.
They work with local businesses and companies seeking communities in which to
relocate their businesses. She advised that the housing program leases are from three
months to one year and those tenants are subject to the same lease restrictions as all
other tenants. Criminal background checks are required for all tenants. She noted that
they also provide furnished housing, which decreases the amount of moving traffic. Ms.
Corley related that Sunscape provides corporate leases and they do not set aside a
specific amount of apartments for this purpose.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if something would be done to correct the blind
curve mentioned by one of the citizens. Mr. Thompson responded that the developer
March 24, 2009 213
will have to do some grading along the blind curve to get their sight distance and
referred the question to John Houchin, Construction Representative for Edward Rose
Companies. Mr. Houchin advised that in regard to the construction practices that will be
required to obtain the VDOT permitting, there are horizontal and vertical sight line
distances that must be created for all intersections and public road connections at both
of the proposed entrances. He stated that sight distance requirements are based on the
elevation of a person sitting in a vehicle so they can see the on-coming traffic in both
directions. He concluded that their proposed development at the curve would improve
the conditions by nature for the balance of local traffic.
Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Thompson to describe a Type B buffer. Mr.
Thompson related there are two options in the zoning ordinance for Type B buffering:
30 feet wide if there is no screening, fence or other material or 20 feet if there is a fence.
Mr. Thompson affirmed that if the project is approved, staff will ask the developer to look
at both options to determine which would be most appropriate along the property line
and would do the best job of screening.
Supervisor Moore inquired how high the buffer would be to the adjacent
properties around the apartments and what material will be used. Ms. Corley responded
with an exhibit showing the buffer and asked Keith Horman for his comments. Mr.
Horman, Director of Planning for Edward Rose Companies, advised that they are
proposing an Option 1 buffer in this location, which includes a series of large trees and
two rows of shrubs. There will be a minimum of 24 inches in height when planted and
214 March 24, 2009
eventually would reach at least six foot in height. The plants will be chosen to conform
to those standards.
Supervisor Church asked the Clerk if she had received a petition from the
citizens and when informed that she had, he asked her to give it to the Board members.
He asserted that many long-time citizens who live in this area have related valid
concerns to him and asked those present who have lived in the area at least twenty
years to raise their hands. He stated that these citizens developed this area many years
ago and, in his opinion, Roanoke County and others have already placed a traffic
burden upon these them, which includes the new Public Safety Center, multi-
generational recreation center and Interstate 81. He remarked that citizens habitually
will find the shortest route to where they want to go. He understands the traffic problems
on Cove Road and the burdens on this already over-loaded road. He believes the right-
turn lane is just aBand-Aid solution. He stated that, in his opinion, this is not the right
development and is in the wrong location. He indicated that he is convinced that the
traffic generated by the new multi-generational center will make this bad traffic situation
worse. He has spoken with many of the citizens and they feel safety and traffic continue
to be problems. He is not ready to absolve himself of a situation that can only make the
citizens' lives more dangerous. He told Chairman Altizer that at the appropriate time, he
would respectfully concur with the Planning Commission and make a motion to deny the
rezoning.
March 24, 2009 215
Supervisor Flora inquired, if given sufficient time, could the petitioner
resolve some of the issues that have been brought up at this meeting. Ms. Corley asked
if the issue was the traffic. Supervisor Flora responded that the issues were traffic and
the rezoning of the commercial property. Ms. Corley asked if they did not go forward
with the current site plan, what would be preferred for the commercial piece. Supervisor
Flora replied that he would not have a problem with R-3 zoning, which he thought would
be better than commercial. He advised that he was more concerned about the traffic
issues since it is the more critical matter. Ms. Corley responded that they were not
before the Board to resolve the existing traffic problems and while VDOT agrees that
there is a problem, there is no funding for drastic changes and she does not think more
time from that standpoint would help. Supervisor Flora commented that this is an
excellent project and would improve the housing market in that area. He does not want
the project killed without the opportunity to resolve some of the issues.
Mike Gorman, Edward Rose Properties, advised that he would like to
stress and echo Supervisor Flora's sentiments that this is a key economic issue and
housing is an extremely important component of any employer moving into the area. He
pointed out that Sunscape has been a good corporate partner in the Roanoke area and
has had a good effect on economic development. They will work closely with County
staff to deal with the sight distance issues. He is extremely confident that the project will
not go forward without meeting minimum requirements. He advised that he feels that
commercial is an important component of a mixed-use development, is at the
2 ~ 6 March 24, 2009
intersection of Interstate 81 and Electric Road and complements the development. They
have surrounded the commercial with the community to make a good transition buffer
so the impact on the surrounding area is minimized. He does not think R-3 is a good
use for the commercial parcels when looking at the development as a whole.
Mr. Gorman inquired if the Board had specific questions with regard to
Sunscape apartments. He voiced his understanding that the Board would like to see a
similar development in North County; however, this seems to be the site that has
minimal impact on overall services given its proximity to Interstate 81. He appreciated
that there are traffic difficulties in the area, but feels that this situation will improve with
the improvements to the intersection. He advised that they had the first comprehensive
traffic study done in the County that meets the new standards. He does not think there
is anything in the report that suggests this development will negatively impact the traffic
situation in the area and will only improve it.
Mr. Raymond advised Chairman Altizer that the petitioner would like to
request aten-minute recess to confer.
In response to Supervisor McNamara's inquiries, Mr. Anderson replied
that there will be 252 apartment units, the traffic count for Cove Road is approximately
6,000 vehicles per day and 10 trips per day would be the average for an apartment or
house. Supervisor McNamara commented that Sunscape is an excellent construction
project and there is not a better constructed and finished product than the project being
suggested. He would like to see the project delayed for a month to review the
March.24, 2009 217
commercial development and receive proffers as to its height and how it will blend with
the apartment buildings. He alleged that traffic increasing 16 percent on the main road
could be the case for every single apartment complex located on a main road such as
Colonial Avenue. He would like to see this project work because it would be a great
asset for the community. He noted that there are a lot of apartment complexes that can
be built on this property today, which will have traffic and other concerns. Since this is a
quality project, it would be in the County's best interest to make it work. He would
recommend to Supervisor Church and the Board that the project be delayed for one
month.
Supervisor Church acknowledged that his colleagues want to see this
project approved; however, he cannot let it be approved at the expense of citizens'
safety. He believes traffic on Colonial Avenue and Cove Road cannot be compared and
these are very different situations. He inquired if someone from Edward Rose Properties
could assure him that changes could be made in the safety and traffic issues. He
advised that the project would be better for another area of the County and not where
there is one-way out and in and makes citizens scared to function on a daily basis.
Supervisor Church advised that he is not convinced that a month's delay will create a
safer project. He requested that the delay be after the April 28, 2009, meeting.
Supervisor Altizer commented that he heard citizens relate that it is not the
project but traffic and safety issues. He asked if the commercial area could be relocated
and if some of the traffic concerns could be mitigated. He inquired if the developer could
218
March 24, 2009
mitigate these concerns with athirty-five or forty-day delay. He noted that the property
will be developed in the future and the Board should give the project a reasonable
chance to succeed if the concerns of the citizens can be met. He related that the Board
would take aten-minute recess for the developer and his representatives to confer.
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Altizer declared a recess from 6:55 p.m. to 7:10 p.m.
IN RE: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS
OF ORDINANCES (EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES REZONING)
Mr. Raymond advised that they appreciated the recess and the frankness
of the supervisors about the project. He voiced their understanding of the stated
problems; however, the ability to sell the commercial sites is part of the economics of
the project. They will need time to consider these issues and to determine if they can
change some aspects of the project. He stated that if given asixty-day continuance,
they will continue to make a good faith effort to work through the issues of traffic and the
commercial sites.
Supervisor Church commented that he also wants to try to reach a
positive conclusion to make the project workable for everyone. He advised that he
would move to postpone action for sixty days.
Supervisor Flora inquired for clarification if the date of the delay should be
1
1
included in the motion as May 26, 2009.
March 24, 2009 z ~ g
Supervisor Church moved to delay action until May 26, 2009. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to the developer's
representatives and the citizens for their willingness to assist the community and
continue working together to come to a positive conclusion.
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Altizer declared a recess from 7:15 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.
1
IN RE: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS
OF ORDINANCES
2. (CONTINUED UNTIL APRIL 28, 2009, AT THE REQUEST OF THE
PETITIONER) Second reading of the etp ition of Foxhall
Properties, LLC to rezone 12.237 acres from I.1, Low Intensity
Industrial District, to I-2CS. High Intensi Industrial District with
Conditions and Special Use Permit, for the purpose of operating
an asphalt Ip ant and construction yard located at 4127 West Main
Street, Salem, Catawba Magisterial District. Paul Mahoney,
Coun Attorney; Philip Thompson, De u Director of Plannin
1
At 7:30 p.m., Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued
until April 28, 2009.
22~ March 24, 2009
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of congratulations to Glenvar High School Wrestling
Team for winnin the State GrOUp A Championship
R-032409-5
Chairman Altizer presented the resolution to Coach Kevin Clifford and
members of the team who were present. Also attending were Sonya Cline, Assistant
Principal, Glenvar High School and families of the team members. Supervisor Church
assisted with handing out certificates of recognition to the team members present.
Chairman Altizer advised that Dr. Lorraine Lange, School Superintendent,
had asked him to express her apology for being unable to attend the meeting due to a
previous commitment. Chairman Altizer recognized that David Wymer, School Board
Member, Catawba District, and Allen Journell, Assistant Superintendent, were present
at the meeting to represent the County schools.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 032409-5 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO GLENVAR HIGH
SCHOOL WRESTLING TEAM FOR WINNING THE STATE GROUP A
CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and
March 24, 2009 221
WHEREAS, the Glenvar High School Wrestling Team won its second Virginia
High School League State Group A Championship in three years at the Salem Civic
Center on February 21, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the team championship was established before the final round
began, with a concluding score of 123, a remarkable 23 points over the second place
team from Strasburg; and
WHEREAS, the team had seven state qualifiers, six of which placed in the top
seven at the state tournament, where Jason Ayers won the 135-pound division
individual state championship by a 6-0 decision; and
WHEREAS, the Highlanders were also Three Rivers District and Region C
Champions and took first place in the Rural Retreat Invitational; and
WHEREAS, the Highlanders are under the dedicated leadership of Head Coach
Kevin Clifford, Assistant Coaches Brian Burke, Cecil Coleman, and Malachi Underwood
and managed by Ariele Rosmarino, Lauren Fulp, and Emily Fulp.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
members of the GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLING TEAM: Derek Abdelnour,
Trey Allen, Alex Asimakopoulos, Jason Ayers, Alex Burke, Kahlil Carazo, Andrew
Cundiff, Jeremy Dolan, Andrew Fridley, Corey Hancock, James Harvey, Tyler
Haynie, Cole Herndon, Zach Hill, Brandon Mayo, Jacob Noble, Tyler Tate, and
Camren Wynn for an outstanding performance, their athletic ability, their team spirit,
and their commitment to each other; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to the members of the team, the coaches, and the school in their future
endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
~ Certificate of recognition to Jason Avers for winning the 135-
pound division state championship
Chairman Altizer and Supervisor Church presented a certificate of
recognition to Mr. Ayers.
N RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Suzanne Nicewonder, 5459 Whispering Wind Drive, Salem, advised that
222 March 24, 2009
she is a professional engineer in Roanoke County. Due to work and personal issues,
she has been learning more about the Roanoke County codes and regulations and the
Comprehensive Plan. She advised that she found that the Comprehensive Plan did not
address the Glenvar or West County area; however, in 1998, it was listed as one of the
goals to develop and define that area. In 2003, there was a Route 11/460 master plan
amended to the document and in 2005, it was reduced to a more generic version. In
2008, a Glenvar Community Plan was discussed and tabled due to a lack of manpower.
She commented on things contained in the Comprehensive Plan that she thought were
lacking or needed more documentation. She advised that she wanted to get the West
County Plan back on the Board's agenda, for the County to plan better for heavy
industry and she would like to be involved with the community to get the codes and
regulations in better shape.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 8:OO.m.
Submitted by:
~~ ~-n
Becky R. eador
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
r
~,
Michael W. Altizer
Chairman
1
1
1