Loading...
10/27/2009 - RegularOctober 27, 2009 73g County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 October 27, 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 October 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; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Becky R. Meador, Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Director IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastor Darren Potter, Community of Faith Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. 740 October 27, 2009 IN RE: BRIEFING 1. Status update on the Roanoke County di ital ublic safety radio system upgrade rp oject ~ Greeves, Director of Information Technology) Bill Hunter, Assistant Director of Communications, presented the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Hunter advised that in 2007, the County negotiated with Motorola, Incorporated to purchase a new digital radio system, Motorola-Astro Version 7.6, to replace the County's more than twenty-year old analog system. This equipment was purchased using a 2003 pricing schedule and included a year of maintenance after the warranty period had expired, providing substantial savings to the County. The progress was slowed down by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate concerning the 800 megahertz rebinding, which requires changing some of the frequencies of the County`s existing system. When the equipment was staged and tested in April 2009, he and Rodney Thompson, Communications Shop Supervisor, acted as quality assurance for the County and everything passed the testing perfectly. The system has since been installed and grid testing was completed earlier this month. The Fire and Police Departments have given rave reviews on the quality of the sound. The benefits of the new system include improved audio and enhanced encryption capability for the law enforcement community. The grid testing involved 1,400 grids around the County and the fact that there were no failures is good with the topography October 27, 2009 741 in the County. The system acceptance testing was completed last week with zero discrepancies. The County will transfer over to the new system on November 4, 2009, in coordination with the other County public safety agencies, Roanoke City and the Town of Vinton and on-time completion is scheduled for December 31, 2009. In response to Supervisor Altizer's inquiry, Mr. Hunter advised that between the 2003 and the current day pricing, staff was able to save more than 23 percent on some pieces of the system. Supervisor Altizer advised that he felt this new system was necessary for the public safety departments to provide assistance. Mr. Hunter stated that the County Communications staff provided essential assistance on this project. In response to Supervisor Church's inquiry, Mr. Hunter explained the differences between the analog and digital system and advised that the digital system will help with the frequent lost communications caused by the terrain in the Roanoke Valley. Mr. Hunter commented that the advantage of this system is that the consoles will pass between the analog and the digital radio systems seamlessly and will enhance the overall valley communications system. Chairman Altizer thanked Mr. Hunter for the update. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution adopting a legislative program for the 2010 session of the Vir inia General Assembly Paul Mahoney, County Attorne R-102709-1 742 October 27, 2009 Mr. Mahoney advised that each year the Board adopts a legislative program for the upcoming session of the Virginia General Assembly (GA). The Board held a work session in June 2009 with Eldon James, Legislative Liaison, to discuss a variety of ideas and initiatives. Mr. Mahoney reported that on September 1, 2009, he, Mr. Goodman and Mr. James attended a meeting with all members of the local legislative delegation to explain the County's initiatives. Some of those initiatives received support and some did not. Staff is pursuing these initiatives with the members of the GA and he requested that the Board adopt a resolution to be distributed to surrounding localities and members of the local legislative delegation. The proposed resolution includes four major initiatives. Mr. Mahoney continued that the first initiative deals with the future of Explore Park. For the past several years Delegate Fralin has introduced legislation to extend the life term of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) for one year. Under the current agreement between Virginia Living Histories, Inc. and the VRFA, Larry Vander Maten has until June 2010 to make a determination whether or not to exercise the lease. The County is requesting that the GA extend the reversion date until July 2011 in order to provide Roanoke and Bedford Counties the opportunity to develop an alternative plan for Explore Park if Virginia Living Histories, Inc. does not exercise its lease. October 27, 2009 743 Mr. Mahoney advised that the second item would be seeking GA authorization to allow the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) to manage and invest funds for localities for post-employment benefits. The third item was requested by Police Chief Ray Lavinder and involves amending Section 9.1-106 of the State Code to add a surcharge on traffic summonses, which would be used to support the County's Criminal Justice Academy. The fourth initiative involves amending the legislation that deals with establishing a Community Development Authority (CDA) to allow other forms of local taxation to be included because the CDA legislation now only authorizes an add-on for real estate taxes. This initiative would expand CDAs to cover the various other taxes that localities can impose, such as meals tax, transient occupancy tax and the local version of the sales tax. From the County's perspective, the benefit of CDAs comes from commercial development and placing the entire burden solely on the real estate tax does not seem positive. A variety of other commercial activities could help support and pay for the principal interest of any revenue bonds that would be utilized through the CDAs. He requested the Board's favorable consideration of the resolution and the four initiatives. There was no discussion. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None 744 October 27, 2009 RESOLUTION 102709-1 ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE 2010 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO FAVORABLY CONSIDER THE TOPICS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED HEREIN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified major legislative issues of state-wide concern to be considered by the 2010 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution as its Legislative Program for the 2010 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board held a work session on June 23, 2009, to consider legislative issues confronting Roanoke County, and at this work session developed this legislative program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the following legislative initiatives are submitted for its legislative program for the 2010 session of the Virginia General Assembly for its favorable consideration and adoption. 1) Explore Park's future may be a major concern if Virginia Living History does not exercise the lease option. Funding of the park, reversion of the land to the State and other options for the use of the park will need to be determined. House Bi111831/Chapter 739 extended the term of the reversion of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) to the Commonwealth in the event it ceases to operate its projects until July 2010. Virginia Living Histories, Inc. notified VRFA on June 13, 2009, that it was exercising its rights under the lease to extend the inspection period expiration date to June 13, 2010. Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to extend the reversion date until July 2011 in order to provide it and Bedford County an opportunity to develop an alternative plan for Explore Park if Virginia Living Histories, Inc. does not exercise its lease. 2) Roanoke County requests the General assembly to authorize Virginia Retirement System (VRS) to manage and invest funds for localities for post employment benefits (OPEB). 3) Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to amend Section 9.1- 106 of the State Code to add a surcharge on all traffic summons to support the Roanoke County Criminal Justice Academy. 4) Roanoke County is considering proposals for the creation of Community Development Authorities (CDA). Additional sources of special, local tax revenues (in addition to the $.25 per $100 of assessed real estate value) could be instrumental in the success of such authorities. It is proposed that the General Assembly amend Sec.15.2- 5158.A.3 to increase special taxing power within established CDAs that could be used to pay the principal and interest of CDA issued revenue bonds for public infrastructure improvements. This enhanced local taxing power could be applied to the transient October 27, 2009 745 occupancy tax, meals tax, or sales tax generated by activities within the CDA. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send an attested copy of this resolution to Governor Timothy Kaine, Senator John S. Edwards, Senator Ralph Smith, Delegate H. Morgan Griffith, Delegate Onzlee Ware; Clerk for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors; Stephanie Moon, Roanoke City Clerk; Members of the Roanoke City Council; Kevin S. Boggess, Clerk for Salem City Council; Members of the Salem City Council; Clerk for the Town of Vinton; Members of the Vinton Town Council; the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, and the Virginia Association of Counties. 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: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Petition of Foxhall Properties, LLC, to obtain a Special Use Permit in an I-2' High Intensity Industrial, District for the purpose of operating an asphalt Ip ant on 16.7 acres, located at 6090 Peaceful Drive, Salem, Catawba Magisterial District Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for November 17, 2009. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing quitclaim and release to the Commonwealth of Vir inia of a 20' ublic utility easement 746 October 27, 2009 conveyed to Roanoke County and shown in Plat Book 9 Page 62 and now Iying within the boundaries of Isabel Lane created subdivision ~ of Riverland Vineyards in ~ book 31, page 01, Catawba Magisterial District Paul Mahoney, County Attorne Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the first reading of an ordinance to quick claim and release a public utility easement (PUE). The PUE was created in 1976 when the subdivision plat to Riverland Vineyards was recorded. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) needs a free and clear conveyance before it will take a road into the State secondary system. Since VDOT wants no encumbrances on the property, the County needs to release or quick claim the PUE. He commented that there are several conditions in the ordinance in Section 3 that are attached to this proposed action. This action will not remove the water and sewer lines and other public utilities that exist now in the PUE and VDOT will issue a permit that will allow those utilities to exist since VDOT does not want to have an easement encumber the property. If the Board acts favorably on this ordinance, this action would allow VDOT to take Isabel Lane into the State secondary system. Supervisor Church clarified that there is no fiscal impact to the County for approving this request. Mr. Mahoney advised that was correct. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for November 17, 2009. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: October 27, 2009 747 AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to accept the conveyance of a 0.1609 acre ap rcel of unimproved real estate for the extension of Ivyland Road, Route 775, Vinton Magisterial District Paul Mahoney, County Attorne 0-102709-2 Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading of the ordinance and there have been no changes from the first reading. He pointed out on a map the location of the property being conveyed at this time. He requested that the Board hold the public hearing concerning the Ivyland Road rural addition project. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Altizer advised that this is the first of many conveyances of properties necessary to complete the Ivyland Road project under VDOT's rural addition program. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 102709-2 TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PARCEL OF UNIMPROVED REAL ESTATE FOR THE EXTENSION OF IVYLAND ROAD, ROUTE 775, TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 748 October 27, 2009 WHEREAS, as part of the extension of Ivyland Road, State Route 775, as part of a Roanoke County Rural Addition project funded in partnership with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the adjacent land owner desired to donate a portion of their property in fee simple to the County of Roanoke for right-of-way purposes to permit the construction of a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Ivyland Road; and WHEREAS, Darrick A. & Linda M. Jones have freely and voluntarily entered into deeds to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia to thus allow the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property for purposes of road construction upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of a deed; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests to the County of Roanoke be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 13, 2009, and the second reading and public hearing was held on October 27, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition from Darrick A. & Linda M. Jones of approximately 0.1609 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of extensions and improvements of Ivyland Road, Route 775, as shown on Exhibit "A" entitled "Plat showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by DARRICK A. & LINDA M. JONES Roanoke County Tax Map Parcel #80.00-02-16.00 situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia" dated May 5, 2009, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-102709-3 Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None October 27, 2009 749 RESOLUTION 102709-3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I- 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 October 27, 2009 designated as Item I -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2 inclusive, as follows: 1. Request to accept and appropriate $175,000 from the Hollins Volunteer Fire Department 2. Request to accept and appropriate four Division of Motor Vehicles grants in the total amount of $162,730.50 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, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None 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. Roanoke County, Town of Vinton Dispatch Merger Update 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Capital Reserves 4. Reserve for Board Contingency 5. Accounts Paid -September 2009 7rJ0 October 27, 2009 6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances for the month ended September 30, 2009 7. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues for the month ended September 30, 2009 8. Report of claims activity for the Self-Insurance Program for ug arter ended September 30, 2009 9. Proclamation signed ~ the Chairman IN RE: CLOSED MEETING: At 3:24 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2.3711.A.1, personnel, namely discussion concerning appointments to the Economic Development Authority and the Grievance Panel. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None At 3:25 p.m. Chairman Altizer advised that the Board would move to the fourth floor for the closed meeting and work session. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 3:35 p.m. until 3:42 p.m. October 27, 2009 751 IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session on the Plantation Road Transportation Enhancement Program application Me an Cronise, Principal Planner The work session was held from 3:52 p.m. until 4:40 p.m. Ms. Cronise requested that Anthony Ford, Enhancement Coordinator, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), provide a review of the Federal SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) Transportation Enhancement Program. Mr. Ford advised that the SAFETEA-LU program, which is administered by VDOT, is a reimbursable grant program with an 80 percent federal funding fora 20 percent local match. The program is intended to improve non-motorized transportation, enhance the public's traveling experience, revitalize communities and improve quality of life. The program could be used to fund pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and consider mass transit opportunities and streetscapes. Each district is allocated approximately $1 million funds per year; however, requests for the funds can be as much as $250 million. Approximately 100 projects are considered each year for this competitive grant with an average of $175,000 awarded per project. VDOT encourages localities to use the approach of constructing projects in phases because the grant funds usually do not cover the cost of an entire project. The application deadline is December 1, 2009, and the grants should be awarded in May 2010, with funds to be 7rJ2 October 27, 2009 disbursed in October 2010. Mr. Ford commented that the use of this program is a win/win situation for localities and especially for the County because they have staff to manage the project and conduct some of the in-house design. Ms. Cronise gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's Office, concerning the Plantation Road Transportation Enhancement Program. Ms. Cronise advised that the Plantation Project covers Plantation Road (Route 115) from Interstate 81 to Williamson Road (US Route 11). She stated that the Plantation Road area is very important for several reasons: (1) It has the largest employment base in the County with 4,000 plus employees. (2) 400 hotel rooms with two new hotels are planned. (3) There are numerous commercial development opportunities including new and redevelopment. (4) It has Interstate access. (5) It is close to Hollins University, which is the only four-year university in the County. Ms. Cronise outlined the project goals and implementation strategies. Mr. Ford commented that localities need to be creative and try to find alternative funding sources for transportation projects. Supervisor Altizer and Mr. Goodman commented that they understand that the State Revenue Sharing Program will terminate next year. October 27, 2009 753 Doug Chittum, Economic Development Director, advised that he has spoken with several business people in the area because the County does not want to proceed without their support. A letter of support has been offered by ITT Night Vision and Imaging. Supervisor Moore questioned if a CDA might be appropriate. Mr. Chittum advised that the Economic Development Authority (EDA) is considering projects to fund. Although he has advised the EDA of this project, he wanted to receive input from the Board before moving forward because this project could be used as a benchmark. County staff is looking at every possible way to fund the project. Supervisor Church commented that he felt the County is going about this project in the correct way. Mr. Ford explained that the Town of Rocky Mount received funds from this grant for a streetscape project; however, they completed the project with alternative funding. He also advised that Henry County is pursuing a very similar project and that County staff may want to talk with them. There was discussion of reducing the speed limit on Plantation Road; however, it was decided that the road was designed for higher speeds and a better time to address the speed limit issue would be after the enhancements. Supervisor Moore stated that staff has done a great job on the project. Mr. Goodman advised that a public hearing must be held before the December 1, 2009, application deadline and will be scheduled as a new business item at the November 17, 2009, meeting. He stated that at the public hearing, the Board will be requested to adopt a resolution approving submittal of the grant application. He also 754 October 27, 2009 stated that Mr. Chittum will determine if the EDA can assist with funding before the November 17 meeting. Mr. Goodman clarified that this request is for Phase 1 only and that staff is not trying to rush the Board's decision; however, there is a timeline to consider for this project. Supervisor Flora inquired about the status of the Route 11/460 project. Mr. Goodman advised that this project has been postponed until January 2010. Chairman Altizer advised that the work session was complete at 4:41 p.m. and that the Board would return to open session at 7:00 p.m. in the Board meeting room. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-102709-4 At 7:00 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 102709-4 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 member's knowledge: October 27, 2009 755 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: SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Petition of Fralin SP, LLC, to rezone 12.691 acres from C-2, General Commercial, District, and R-3, Medium Density Multi- Family Residential, District to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential, District with conditions for the purpose of constructing multi-family and townhouse residential units (maximum of 115 units located at 6044 Peters Creek Road, Hollins Magisterial District Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin 0-102709-5 Mr. Thompson advised that this is a rezoning request for amulti-family development. They are proposing three, three-story apartment buildings each containing 24 units for a total of 72 units. The buildings will be a little over 42 feet in height and constructed of brick and vinyl exterior. Included are 36 two-story townhouse units constructed of brick and vinyl. There will be connections at the existing light on Peters Creek Road and Airport Road and there will also be a connection to Nover 756 October 27, 2009 Avenue. The project includes 219 parking spaces and the petitioner will donate five and one-half acres to the County for a regional stormwater management pond. Afive-foot walking trail and multi-use community court will be part of the project. Mr. Thompson continued that the surrounding zoning districts are R-1, Low Density Residential, to the north; R-3, Medium Density Multi-family Residential, to the west; PRD, Planned Residential Development, to the south; and to the east, C-1, Office, and C-2, General Commercial, across Peters Creek Road. The property is surrounded by several residential developments including Dwight Hills and Carriage Park subdivisions to the north, Waterford subdivision to the west, Villas of the Valley PRD to the south and offices across Peters Creek Road. The future land use designation is Transition and Neighborhood Conservation with the majority of the property being Transition. The County's Comprehensive Plan states that multi-family residential communities and townhouse communities are appropriate use types for Transition areas. The part of the property designated as Neighborhood Conservation will be dedicated to the County for the stormwater management pond. Mr. Thompson continued that a community meeting was held in September at Northside Middle School with approximately 20 citizens in attendance. The two main concerns discussed included the connection to Nover Avenue and the different types of proposed units. At that time there was some confusion about whether the units would be market rate apartments or subsidized housing and it has been determined that the project is all market rate housing. October 27, 2009 7rJ7 Mr. Thompson advised that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6, 2009, and several citizens again raised their concerns about the connection to Nover Avenue. The Planning Commissioners had questions regarding the Nover Avenue connection, the appearance of the buildings from Dwight Hills Neighborhood, the timing of the dedication of the five and one-half acres for the Regional Stormwater Management facility, signage and the development phasing. Mr. Thompson continued that the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of five to zero of the rezoning petition with nine proffers. He reviewed the proffers briefly as follows: (1) substantial conformance with the Sun Crest Master Plan, (2) limits the number of units to 115 for the project, (3) no vehicular access to Vivian Avenue, (4) limits signage for the development to 8-feet in height and 15-feet in width. He stated that the zoning ordinance only allows 30 square feet of signage. (5) parking lot lighting shall be divided utilizing the residential post-top mounted fixtures, (6) a 15-foot buffer yard on the eastern property line, (7) walking trail will be a minimum of 5-feet in width and constructed of asphalt, concrete or crushed stone material and to be completed with each residential phase of the development, (8) requires conformance with the residential elevation plans, and (9) requires the dedication of five and one-half acres upon the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan with the first residential phase of the project. Supervisor Flora inquired how many more units could be built with the R-4 zoning without dedicating the acreage for the stormwater management. Mr. Thompson 7rJ$ October 27, 2009 responded that the petitioner first proposed R-3 zoning with the five and one-half acres included as part of the project and proffered approximately 144 units. With the R-4 rezoning request, the units were reduced to a maximum of 115 with the five and one- half acres dedicated to the County for stormwater management. Robert Fralin advised that he was speaking on behalf of Fralin Companies and that Sean Horne and Ben Crew from Balzer and Associates were present. Mr. Fralin stated that Fralin Companies specializes in residential construction, multi-family, light commercial and also has a small paving utility, an excavation company based in the New River Valley. This project is very interesting because they are requesting to down zone the project from C-2, a more intense use, to multi-family. The front or whole project could have been commercial uses such as Wal-Mart or Car Max; however, he does not see the demand for those uses at this time. He thought that it would be beneficial to the County to have amulti-family use, which was not subsidized housing, at the location near the airport and Route 581. In good faith, he believes this project is the best use of the property for the County and the developer. He advised that he appreciated the Board's time and consideration of the request. Supervisor Flora stated that he feels the biggest concern is the access onto Nover Avenue. He understood that VDOT had a representative at the Planning Commission meeting and inquired if anyone from VDOT was present at this meeting. There was no VDOT representative at the Board meeting. October 27, 2009 759 Supervisor Flora advised that approximately four years ago, VDOT required a second access for another project; however when the developer agreed to open up and widen their primary entrance, VDOT did not require the second entrance. He questioned why this could not happen in this project. Mr. Horne responded that State regulations concerning subdivision street acceptance requirements have changed. The State adopted a new document on how to develop property and to accept public roads into their system and part of that new document is a connectivity index. With any new development, whether it is commercial, residential or multi-family, the public road has to meet a connectivity index and at a minimum, that index requires that it connect to more than one location. The instance that Supervisor Flora was remembering was a situation of putting in a wider road with more turn lanes or more stacking area due to traffic volume requirements and having adequate storage for the development to get traffic in and out adequately. Mr. Horne continued that the connection to Nover Avenue is a State requirement. There were two options, which included Vivian Avenue and Nover Avenue. This subject has been discussed several times with VDOT, which ultimately has the final approval and it became obvious that the Nover Avenue connection was the best option. As long as the connectivity index is met, VDOT will accept the roads as public roads. He explained that State regulations require multiple connection points to provide public roads. 760 October 27, 2009 Mr. Fralin advised that he does not think that rezoning this property will create more traffic on Nover Avenue than could be done by right if the property were developed with the C-2 zoning. He felt the traffic count should be less with residential zoning. Supervisor Flora inquired if there was no alternative to connecting to Nover Avenue was there any way to minimize the impact and make it more difficult for someone to use Nover Avenue as opposed to using the primary access. Mr. Horne responded that they would be willing to discuss the possibility of shifting some units 24 to 30 feet so that the only entrance in and out of the development would be directly in front of the stop light on Peters Creek Road. They would be willing to discuss a proffer for this if necessary. In response to Supervisor Flora's inquiry about connecting directly on Barrens Road and not going through a neighborhood, Mr. Horne advised that this is not possible because they do not own any property adjacent to Barrens Road. Two citizens spoke at the public hearing. Thomas Bandy, 1312 Nover Avenue, advised that his concerns included the connection to Nover Avenue because there are few streetlights, no sidewalks, the road is 20-feet wide, children play in the street, danger to citizens backing out of driveways and the road surface is already cracked and broken. Adding an additional 666 more vehicle trips will quickly increase the road surface damage. Nover Avenue will become a shortcut that will encourage drivers to try to beat the vehicles already waiting October 27, 2009 761 at the traffic light at Peters Creek Road. The vehicles traveling Nover Avenue will create additional problems and if the rezoning is approved, there will be construction nuisances and flooding may increase in the area. This development and Villas of the Valley will disrupt the stormwater runoff. Carvin's Creek could overfill quicker, leading to more flooding and increasing the width of the flood zone. He also stated that the sanitary sewer will not be upgraded, which may cause backups if stormwater penetrates the sanitary sewer system. The residents on Nover Avenue are concerned that the renters will use their street and neighborhood as a playground since the apartments will have no amenities. The quality of life of the Dwight Hills residents may suffer from the influence of low-income residents. Schools will be burdened more. Police will have increased workload because of increased crime and property values will be reduced. He was concerned that the historical post civil war house has not been investigated fully and questioned if there could be burial sites on the property. He also questioned whether the donation by the developer to the County of five and one-half acres of land, which is $172,000 portion of a $400,000 cost to the government, would appear to be a payoff even if in fact it was not. Doug Phillips, 1200 Nover Avenue, advised that he discussed this issue with some of his neighbors and they do not think this development is a good idea. He does believe this is a growth oriented, free market country and he admires Mr. Fralin for wanting to expand his business. He stated that Peters Creek Road is borderline sprawl and no longer serves as a buffer. He approves of setting aside the five and one-half 762 October 27, 2009 acres; however, more acreage should be set aside. He agrees with the previous statement about the jeopardy of Carvin's Creek and flooding. He advised that the last time this project was explained there was a commercial provision, which is still unknown. Also unknown is what kind of traffic or business could be built. He commented that after reviewing the map he thought it could be lower density and still accomplish another development in the vicinity. If the project is constructed, they would like for VDOT to control the traffic on Nover Avenue using methods such as speed bumps and/or signage. He requested that the Nover Avenue entrance not be available during the construction phrases. He would also like to see consideration given to the option of using Vivian Avenue if VDOT would consider that under the old regulations. Mr. Bandy commented that the secondary street acceptance requirement is not required to build this development and the only situation where it applies is if the County wants VDOT to take the road into the state system. As long as the road is private, traffic could come out on Peters Creek Road with a widened driveway. If the County wanted to convey the road to VDOT, the secondary street acceptance requirement would apply and there would be two entrances in different directions. Supervisor Flora requested a response from the developer to the questions asked during the public hearing. Mr. Horne advised that he would respond. The most recent question concerning the private road was discussed early in the project. The two keys, which spearheaded how the property would be developed, included access and providing the October 27, 2009 763 stormwater management area and/or an easement to the County for the future stormwater management. The issue concerning the private road was not that it would provide access to the residential portion of the site, but rather that a back piece of the property would have to be rezoned and therefore the private road would have a different zoning and would be unable to access the commercial property. He stated that a private road in one zoning designation cannot serve another zoning designation Mr. Horne stated that the second issue is that VDOT, based on their new entrance requirements along arterial roads, will allow only one access for the commercial portion on Peters Creek Road and as stated by Mr. Woodrum from VDOT at the Planning Commission meeting, they would not be allowed to connect to Peters Creek Road with an additional entrance on that frontage. The State development standards during the past six-month period have changed from access development standards to access management standards and a connectivity index is required for public roads. Mr. Horne continued that they cannot access a private road or use a private access that has a different zoning designation. If the area is residential, it cannot be accessed with commercial. He stated the example of the Bojangles' site where they wanted to bring access across the back and had to rezone that piece of property in order to have the access. There is a precedent for this and when they brought up having a private road or access for this project, the answer was that they could; however, it would have to be rezoned but then they could not access it from the 764 October 27, 2009 commercial portion. The answer from VDOT was that they would not be allowed to do this based on the access management guidelines stating that another access would not be allowed within 1,200 feet of the stop light. Supervisor Flora inquired why they could not dedicate the right-of-way through the commercial area and leave all the rest of it private. Mr. Horne commented that this was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting also and he pointed out on the map that since it would be serving this piece of property, it would still have to have another connection. According to VDOT, the access of choice would be Nover Avenue instead of Vivian Avenue. Supervisor Flora inquired if both accesses off of Nover Avenue and Peters Creek would be dedicated public rights-of-way. Mr. Horne advised that this was correct. He commented that in the future, due to State requirements, there will be developments with the next piece of property connecting to the roads, which creates a grid system of roads. He clarified that the access issue on Peters Creek Road concerning no commercial access is because of State access management guidelines and not VDOT. Mr. Fralin commented concerning the responses about the neighbors being upset and advised that at the community meeting many citizens told him how much they liked the project and how much they appreciated this development over what could possibly be developed there. It is worth noting that in a situation like this everyone will not be pleased. October 27, 2009 765 Mr. Horne advised that they discussed speed bumps at the Planning Commission meeting and according to Mr. Woodrum, a speed study would have to be done at a future time. Mr. Horne stated that in the traffic study they used the highest traffic that could be generated on the commercial properties and believe it was accurate, although in reality the count may not be as high. The study was based on the highest commercial uses that would fit on the commercial properties, which included a large convenience store and bank. Mr. Horne commented that this property has been on the County plan for a regional stormwater management facility for some time and he pointed out the property on the map, which would be provided to the County for stormwater management. He commented that if the entire site were zoned R-3, they would be allowed to have 152 units and they are proffering a maximum of 115 units. The original plan called for 144 units and Mr. Fralin reduced the units and was able to provide property that will be used as a conservation area in the foreseeable future because there are no plans for the County to use it in the immediate future. Supervisor Flora commented that he can understand the frustration of the residents when they think they have a solution and, because of VDOT requirements, it proves not to be a solution. He stated that the commercial property is not subject to this rezoning; however, the project will rezone some commercial and he approves of the reduction from 152 to 115 units. He was going to suggest speed bumps but 766 October 27, 2009 understands that these will probably not happen; however, the idea of funneling all of the residential traffic around and out through the commercial area could help. Mr. Horne commented that they plan to screen the back of the town houses from the adjacent residential units with a retaining wall, six-foot fence and landscaping to provide a transition between them. In response to Supervisor Flora's inquiries, Mr. Fralin advised that his intent is to sell all of the town homes. However, some may be rented at times before they can be sold. He responded that the anticipated rent for the apartments would be $800. He responded that this project is the North County version of Sunscape; however, the Sunscape tract of land is larger with more units and amenities. This project will have the multi-use court and trails but it is not nearly as large as many of the multi-family complexes in the County. Supervisor Flora commented that there is a huge deficiency in North County for apartments and the last apartments built in North County were in the 1970's. Supervisor Church requested that Nover Avenue and Vivian Avenue be pointed out on the map. He inquired if the traffic count of 600-something for Nover Avenue that was mentioned by Mr. Bandy was correct. Mr. Horne stated that he would have to review the traffic count for Nover Avenue to determine what was actually predicted. Mr. Horne commented that most of the traffic counts were predicted based on conversations with VDOT and the study was based on traffic internal to the subdivision predicted to use the stop light. October 27, 2009 767 Mr. Fralin commented that there are different opinions concerning the traffic; however, going through the commercial property would probably be most likely as it would be easier to get out at the light, especially turning right. He stated that he was not stating that Nover Avenue would never be used because it probably will be used. In response to Supervisor Moore's inquiry, Mr. Horne stated that he does not know of any burial sites on the property at this point. There are requirements and studies that must be completed before the property is developed and anything found would have to be handled properly. In response to Supervisor Moore's inquiry, Mr. Fralin responded that most likely both Nover Avenue and Peters Creek Road would be used for construction traffic. They would try to place a wash station at the edge of the property and use Peters Creek Road as much as possible. However, the equipment has to get to the property and they would use Nover Avenue initially. The goal would be to get the entrance to Peters Creek Road built as quickly as possible so it could be used and the construction entrance moved. They would be willing to discuss this if it is an issue. He also stated that some of the area is vertical and trucks could not access the property through those areas. Supervisor Flora inquired if they could use the existing Olson driveway and stated that there is an entrance off Peters Creek Road that goes right into that house. If the petitioner could limit the construction entrance to the Olson access through the first phase, this would relieve the anxiety of people and Nover Avenue would not be 768 October 27, 2009 opened up until the project is finished and VDOT's requirements are met. Mr. Horne advised that he thought this was a good idea. Supervisor Flora inquired if he heard a proffer and Mr. Horne responded in the affirmative. Mr. Horne commented that they could use the existing entrance on Peters Creek Road to access the property for commercial construction traffic. Supervisor Altizer asked if Mr. Fralin would provide the timeline for this development. Mr. Fralin responded that the project is market driven but they intend to build one apartment building or one section of the town houses. If the market becomes stronger, the building would be more aggressive. They intend to go slowly and be sure that the market is there for the project. He advised that they sell approximately 10 to 15 units per year of villas on average and the absorption rate for the apartments is slower. He really does not know how long the entire build out would take but he would estimate four years. Supervisor Altizer pointed out that proffer #7 deals with walking trails. There was a project approximately ten years ago where the walking trails and sidewalks were never completed. He inquired as to the time line and when the trails would be completed. October 27, 2009 76g Mr. Fralin responded that if the trails are contiguous to the section of development being engineered, the trails would be constructed with that piece of the development. From a development standpoint, he could not construct all of the trails at once and that would not be a logical way to develop the site. Supervisor Altizer commented that he was asking for a definite time line for construction of the trails. Mr. Horne responded that the trails will be completed in proportion to the buildings constructed. He commented that completion of the trails was addressed in proffer #7, which stated "The community walking trail shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width and be constructed of asphalt, concrete, or a crushed stone material to be completed with each residential phase of construction." Supervisor Altizer commented that from the discussion, he thought the difference with the amenities for this development and the Village at Stone Creek and Wolf Creek was that if one building is completed, that phase of trails will be completed before the next building is constructed. In other words, whatever amenities go with a building will be completed as the building is constructed. Mr. Mahoney confirmed this was correct. Supervisor Flora commented that when the last building is completed, the certificate of occupancy would not be issued until the trails are finished. Mr. Horne confirmed this was correct and was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Supervisor Flora requested that the developer restate proffer #10, which deals with the construction entrance. 770 October 27, 2009 Mr. Horne stated that the construction entrance will be accessed from Peters Creek Road at the location of the existing entrance onto Peters Creek Road from the site. Supervisor Flora advised that they need to revise the site plan to reflect the eastern most access to the townhouses would be closed and all the traffic would be funneled down through the primary entrance that comes in off of Peters Creek. Mr. Horne commented that this would be acceptable and they would close the eastern most entrance off of the proposed road extension. Chairman Altizer permitted Mr. Phillips to speak again even though the public hearing had been closed. Mr. Phillips advised that public access regulations change, and as an environmental engineer, he would like to hear from a VDOT official concerning the issues discussed, as they did at the Planning Commission meeting. A conversation with a VDOT official could help resolve some of these matters, such as speed bumps. Chairman Altizer advised that for the viewing audience, there was a sidebar conversation between Mr. Horne and Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Horne advised that there is an easement on the adjacent property and suggested that the proffer for the Peters Creek Road access for the construction entrance be amended. He was concerned that there should be a current legal location for an access for this property and asked that the proffer be clarified. October 27, 2009 77 ~ Supervisor Flora advised that the easement is at least 20 feet on the Olson property. He commented that the easement runs almost the entire length of the lot. Mr. Horne inquired if the proffer should be rewritten to reflect this information. Supervisor Flora advised that he did not think it was an issue. Supervisor Flora commented that he trusted that Mr. Mahoney would have alerted the Board if they were not clear on VDOT's requirements. Mr. Mahoney confirmed that he was correct. Supervisor Flora moved approval of the item with the addition of proffer #10 and the amendment of the site plan to move the building, close off the eastern most entrance from the townhouses bringing all the traffic through the commercial entrance that comes out to Peters Creek Road and that the construction access, as in proffer #10, would be contingent upon that entrance being actually on the Olson property or within that easement that allows you to get onto the Olson property. Chairman Altizer inquired if the Clerk and Mr. Mahoney had the motion as stated. Clerk Meador responded in the affirmative. Mr. Mahoney commented that the language of the motion is a problem. Although the intent of the motion is clear to him, he would like to clarify the language with the representatives from Balzer and Associates. Supervisor Church commented for the citizens at the meeting and those viewing that change in any form can be painful. The Board members try to review every aspect of rezoning requests and do what is best for all concerned. He thanked Mr. 772 October 27, 2009 Bandy and Mr. Phillips for their services to the County as Marines and stated that he hoped the project could be made as good as it can be. Supervisor Flora agreed with Supervisor Church that some rezonings are painful; however, in this case, he considered what could have been done by right with the property against what will be done with the proffers. He knows the developer and believes this will be a quality project. This type of housing in North County is desperately needed. His preference would be to not have Nover Avenue opened; however, if the only option would be to deny the rezoning, he would prefer to grant the rezoning with the proffers. The language of Supervisor Flora's previous motion was clarified by Mr. Mahoney, County Attorney. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance with the addition of proffer #10 and changing the site plan to indicate closure of the other entrance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 102709-5 APPROVING THE PETITION OF FRALIN SP, LLC, TO REZONE 12.691 ACRES FROM C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, DISTRICT, AND R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, DISTRICT TO R-4C, HIGH DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING MULTI-FAMILY AND TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS (MAXIMUM OF 115 UNITS), LOCATED AT 6044 PETERS CREEK ROAD, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT October 27, 2009 773 WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 22, 2009, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 27, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 6, 2009; 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 approximately 12.691 acres, as described herein, and located at 6044 Peters Creek Road (Tax Map Number 26.16-2-14) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, and R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District to the zoning classification of R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Fralin SP, L.L.C. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: 1. The developer hereby proffers substantial conformance with the "Suncrest Masterplan", prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated 4-3-09, revised 8-7-09, and last revised 8-31-09. The "Suncrest Masterplan" is further revised by closing the easternmost entrance for the townhomes so that traffic will be encouraged to exit through the commercial entrance and away from Nover Ave. 2. The developer proffers a maximum of 115 residential units for the R- 4 portion of the subject property. 3. There will be no vehicular access from Vivian Avenue to the subject parcel. 4. Signage for the Suncrest community will be provided by a monument style sign not to exceed 8' in height and 15' in width and be in compliance with Section 30-93 Signs of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 5. Site and parking lot lighting shall be provided utilizing residential post top mounted fixtures and be in compliance with Section 30-94 Exterior Lighting of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 6. A 15' buffer yard shall be provided along the eastern property line and a portion of the northern property line as indicated in Section 30- 92-6 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 7. The community walking trail shall be a minimum of 5' in width and be constructed of asphalt, concrete, or a crushed stone material to be completed with each residential phase of construction. 8. The developer hereby proffers substantial conformance with the 774 October 27, 2009 "Suncrest Multi-family Residential Development Front Elevation", prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated 9-16-09. 9. The developer shall dedicate fee simple to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approximately 5.5 acres as shown on the "Suncrest Masterplan" prepared by Balzer & Associates Inc. dated 4- 3-09, revised 8-7-09, and last revised 8-31-09. This dedication shall take place upon the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan for the first residential phase of the project. 10. The only construction entrance for this development shall be from Peters Creek Road. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Remaining portion of Tax Map No. 26.16-2-14 containing 12.691 acres described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road (Route 117), being S68°59'00"E, 15.00 feet from the northeasterly corner of N/F Bishop Town Homes, Inc., (Tax Map #26.20-10-61); thence along the westerly right-of-way of Peters Creek Road N68°59'00"W for 15.00 feet and thence along said Bishop Town Homes, Inc. property for a total of 751.12 feet to a point at the southeasterly corner of Parcel A (Tax Map #26.16-13-32), Waterford Section 7 (Plat Book 22, page 153); thence along the easterly line of said Parcel A and Lot 13 (Tax Map #26.16-13-13) of said Waterford N21°07'18"E, 186.88 feet to a point; thence along the northeasterly line of said Lot 13 and Lots 14 through 17 (Tax Map #'s 26.16-13-14 through 26.16-13-14), and Parcel B (Tax Map #26.16-13-33) N17°15'59"W, 541.86 feet to a point; thence along said Parcel B and the southeasterly line of N/F The Village at Hollins, LLC (Tax Map #26.16-14-20) N50°12'25"E, 263.64 feet to a point; thence along said Village property and the southerly lines of N/F Reese Construction, LLC (Tax Map #26.16-14-10) and N/F Bailey Real Estate, LLC (Tax Map #26.16-14-11), S56°22'21 "E, 326.27 feet to a point on the southwesterly corner of N/F David R. Newhouse (Tax Map #27.13-6-14); thence along the southerly line of said Newhouse property, the right-of-way line of Jones Street, N/F Lewis G. Rutrough (Tax Map #27.13-6-15), N/F William & Deborah Reedy (Tax Map #27.13-6-41), and Nover Avenue (50' right-of-way) S56°29'30"E, 491.15 feet to the southeasterly corner of the right-of-way line of Nover Avenue; thence S33°42'16"W, 508.53 feet to a point; thence S56°17'44"E, 302.12 feet (more or less) to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road; thence along the westerly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road S33°42'16"W, 105.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 12.691 acres and being the remaining portion of Roanoke County Tax Map 26.16-2-14, also being a portion of the remaining land as originally conveyed to Mary H. Jones and Jesse N. Jones in Deed Book 317, page 465. 5. 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 October 27, 2009 77rJ 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, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Petition of StellarOne Bank and Bonsack Baptist Church Trustees to rezone 4.64 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, District and R-1 S, Low Density Residential, District with a special use ep rmit' to C-1C, Office District with Conditions, for the purpose of constructing a bank with adrive-thru, located at 4903 and 5007 Cloverdale Road, Hollins Magisterial District Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin 0-102709-6 Mr. Thompson advised that this is a request to rezone four parcels from R- 1, Residential, and R-1 S, Residential with special use permit, to C-1 C, Office with conditions, and create two tracts. Tract A would contain 1.66 acres and will be the location of the bank. Tract B contains 2.97 acres and would be retained by the church. The house on the future tract A will be removed or demolished and the house and barn on tract B will remain. The bank will have 3,000 square feet with three drive-through lanes and conditions for another lane for an ATM machine and 57 parking spaces. As part of this location, there is a 24-foot private access road that will tie in at Crumpacker Drive and Route 220, creating afour-legged intersection. There is a new right-turn lane off of Route 220 and there will be a new through movement from Crumpacker Drive 776 October 27, 2009 straight across into this site. The property is served by public water and sewer. The surrounding zoning is R-1, Residential, to the north, south and east and C-1, Office, to the west across Route 220. The property is surrounded by single-family homes to the north and east, Bonsack Baptist Church to the south and vacant property across Route 220. The future land use designation is Transition and the proposal with the proffered conditions conforms to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson continued that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6, 2009, and no citizens spoke on the application. The Planning Commissioners had questions about the signage for both tracts, which the developer then offered to proffer. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning by a vote of five to zero with three proffered conditions. Those proffered conditions deal with substantial conformance with the conceptual master plan, substantial conformance with the architectural rendering and limiting signage to monument style signage of a maximum of 10-foot tall with 40 square feet of sign area for both tracts and allowing electronic readerboards for both signs. Sean Horn, Balzer and Associates, speaking on behalf of StellarOne Bank, advised that also present were Ben Crew, Balzer and Associates; Robin Pearson, representing Bonsack Baptist Church; and Mr. Sayers, counsel for the bank. He commented that staff did a good job of presenting the request. They need to come out at the light in order to have access and both parcels need to be rezoned because one parcel cannot cross another with different zoning. The bank and church have been October 27, 2009 777 working together for some time to make this deal happen and it involves trading an easement for property. There is a picture rendering of the bank and the signage that was an issue with the Planning Commission was proffered to match the bank architecturally. They ended up with a very nice product at a controlled intersection serving two pieces of property with one access point with the ultimate extension of the drive to tie into the church parking lot in the future. It has all been designed as far as turn lane analysis to accommodate the future extension, which would give safer access to the church at a controlled intersection. There were no citizens who spoke on this item. Supervisor Flora commended the petitioner for developing a good site plan and beautiful facility, which will be a significant improvement along Cloverdale Road. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance with the proffered conditions. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 102709-6 APPROVING THE PETITION OF STELLARONE BANK AND BONSACK BAPTIST CHURCH BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO REZONE 4.64 ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1) AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (R-1 S), TO OFFICE DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS (C- 1C), HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 22, 2009, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 27, 2009; and, 778 October 27, 2009 WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 6, 2009; 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 approximately 4.64 acres, as described herein, and located at 4903 and 5007 Cloverdale Road (Tax Map Number 40.01-1-11, -12, -13 and -21) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, and R-1 S, Low Density Residential District with a Special Use Permit, to the zoning classification of C-1 C, Office District with Conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of StellarOne Bank and Bonsack Baptist Church Board of Trustees. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: A. The petitioner hereby proffers substantial conformance with the "StellarOne Bank", Exhibit `A' Conceptual Masterplan, prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., dated 08/07/09 and amended 09/16/09, for Future Tract `A' and substantial conformance for access provided on Future Tract `B' B. The architecture of the building to be constructed on Tract `A' will be in substantial conformance with Exhibit `B', dated 08/06/09. C. Signage shall be a monument style with a maximum height of 10' to the top of the sign structure. The sign face shall not exceed 40 square feet of sign area. This condition shall apply to both tracts "A" and "B". This proffer, however, will not prohibit the incorporation of an electronic readerboard into either monument sign. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Being 4.64 acres of real estate located at 4903 and 5007 Cloverdale Road and further described as Tax Map Nos. 40.01-01-11, 12, 13, and 21. 5. 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 resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None October 27, 2009 779 3. Petition of Fountain Head Land Company, LLC, to amend the Planned Residential Development Master Plan related to at-grade golf cart crossing on Pitzer Road for Fountain Head Golf Resort (Ballyhack), which measures approximately 375 acres, Vinton Magisterial District Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin 0-102709-7 -MOTION DENIED Mr. Thompson advised this is a request to amend a Planned Residential Development (PRD), which was approved in 2005 for development of Fountain Head Golf Resort. This is a 375-acre development located on both sides of Pitzer Road, with an 18-hole golf course, 89 residential lots surrounding the golf course and up to 60 overnight guest accommodations offered through a series of cottages. Mr. Thompson stated that the purpose of this rezoning request is to amend one specific condition within the PRD Master Plan dealing with the golf-cart crossing at Pitzer Road. On page 8 of the PRD document dated August 17, 2005, the current language states (1) That a golf cart crossing will be required on Pitzer Road to access the entire golf course. (2) A tunnel under Pitzer Road is the preferred option at this time. (3) This option is subject to VDOT approval. The petitioner's request at this time is to strike the second and third sentences and state that a golf cart crossing will be required on Pitzer Road to access the entire golf course. He referred to a plan sheet 780 October 27, 2009 that provided details as to the locations, markings and signage for the golf cart/pedestrian crossing, which will be subject to VDOT approval. The County will have to authorize the golf cart crossing prior to it being permitted by VDOT and this probably will be an action at a future meeting. Mr. Thompson continued that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6, 2009, and one citizen spoke about safety concerns on this stretch of Pitzer Road. There was a statement made that the neighbors supporting the original request thought the crossing was going to be a tunnel versus an at-grade crossing. The Planning Commissioners had safety concerns regarding the at-grade crossing on a 55- mile-per-hour (mph) rural road; however, they recommended approval by a vote of four to one of the PRD amendment with proffered conditions. Those conditions include conformance with the PRD Master Plan, conformance with the at-grade crossing sketch and the time limit on the at-grade crossing will not extend beyond January 1, 2013, at which time they would have to construct the tunnel. Supervisor Moore requested that Mr. Thompson review the precautions that could be taken for the safety issues if the crossing goes over Pitzer Road instead of through a tunnel. Mr. Thompson advised that they are proposing that the actual crossing will have white stripes, 12 inches wide, and there will be a stop sign for the golf cart crossing on both sides. There will be golf cart crossing warning signs placed at the crossing and 500 feet in each direction. He believes that these signs will meet VDOT's October 27, 2009 78 ~ standards and are proposed as part of the application for this request. Supervisor Moore asked Mr. Mahoney if an accident happened involving a motorist and a pedestrian, would VDOT, the golf course or Roanoke County be held liable. Mr. Mahoney stated that he could not answer the question directly because it depends upon many factual circumstances. He would on behalf of the County attempt to shift that liability to the golf course. As long as both the County and the applicant adhere to the design standards approved by VDOT, his argument would be that this satisfies the government's obligation and thereby the County's obligation to make sure that this is a safe situation; however, all liability can never be eliminated. He thought that as long as the applicant in this instance fulfills the design criteria shown in the application on page 174 of the agenda with VDOT approval, all parties including the State, Roanoke County and the property owner would have an excellent defense to any liability or accused negligent action. Supervisor Church asked Mr. Mahoney to review his conversation earlier concerning the change of previous requirements for golf cart crossing areas. He advised that he would have afollow-up statement as to what is currently in use around the Roanoke Valley after hearing from Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney advised that there are two sections in the State Code that address this situation and are found in Section 46.2-916.2 and 916.3. These code sections set out some general standards that have to be followed and also provide that 782 October 27, 2009 the responsibility for the maintenance of the signage will not be the State's and that responsibility falls to the locality that approves the request. He plans to bring to the Board at a subsequent meeting an agreement between Roanoke County and the applicant in this action to place the financial obligation for the installation of the signs and the future maintenance of the signs on the developer/applicant. There have been amendments to the mentioned code sections in 2006, 2008 and 2009 and this is a change in the State's approach to handling these situations. Many pre-existing golf courses already in Roanoke County with at-grade crossings were created prior to the State code provisions and amendments. Staff is working with Mr. Horne to craft an approach to solve the problem in this situation. Supervisor Church commented that being a golfer, he knows that there must be ways to access the course on public roads and he has done some research around the State. His major concern is the 55 mph speed limit on the road regardless of the warning signage within 500 feet. The golf crossings that he is accustomed to in this area are either 25 or 35 mph. He understands the proffer in 2005 was for a tunnel and he recognizes that this is a tough economic situation. He advised that he has spoken to some people who have actually played Ballyhack and they related their concerns about crossing the road. He is reluctant to put anyone in jeopardy crossing a 55 mph road. October 27, 2009 783 Mr. Horne advised that the speed limit and sight distance are concerns and they have tried multiple times to have the speed limit reduced. Coming out to the site almost to the Parkway, the speed limit is 25 mph through essentially the golf course property with perhaps three residences, and 25 mph on Saul Lane at the other side of the golf course. The only unposted stretch on this road is 55 mph because an unposted road in this State has the maximum speed of 55 mph. This is approximately a mile stretch of road that is un-posted between two 25 mph zones. They will continue to request that VDOT reduce the speed limit and have been told that the speed limit cannot be reduced until the traffic volume is increased. VDOT takes a speed reading at some point along the unposted road to determine the speed limit and VDOT determines that the 85 percentile is 55 mph and there is no reason to reduce the speed because the traffic is going 55 mph. However, this does not make sense when you consider the safety factors and that there are dangerous curves on this road. Mr. Horne advised that the sight distance is located where the traditional farm crossing was for this property and that location has more than the required sight distance by VDOT for a crossing or for an intersection. This is not the site selection of the future tunnel because the future tunnel location did not give the best sight distance. This sight distance gives plenty of room for the carts to stop on each side of the road with the posted stop signs and sight distance in either direction to see oncoming traffic. Some of the other golf crossing locations approved around the County and on 25 and 35 mph roads but the sight distances are short even relative to a 25 mph road. The 784 October 27, 2009 sight distance here is above and beyond what would be required fora 55 mph road. Supervisor Church advised that he understood the explanation from Mr. Horne. He commented that they have been successful in the past getting a speed limit lowered in a residential area. He suggested that every effort from all sources should be made to get the speed limit reduced. He does not feel the 55 mph speed limit is even reasonable with the speed of a golf cart. He is fearful that a golfer will not stop at the crossing even though there are stop signs there. He would rather have some type of VDOT compromise on this concern. Supervisor Altizer advised that for three years in a row he has petitioned VDOT for traffic studies to reduce the 55 mph speed limit. He is open to making a fourth request of VDOT; however, he feels that the VDOT response will be to come back in six to nine months and they will conduct another traffic study. He asked Mr. Horne if he had the exact distances on the signage. Mr. Horne referred to Exhibit A, Golf Cart Crossing, and pointed out the 610 feet of sight distance. He also pointed out on the exhibit the type of warning signs that will be placed on Pitzer Road in both directions as follows: (1) signs in the right-of- way 500 feet from the crossing in both directions and (2) warning signs in the right-of- way within 50 feet of crossing in both directions. He also advised that stop signs will be placed just outside the right-of-way on either side of Pitzer Road to regular golf cart traffic. October 27, 2009 78rJ Supervisor Church commented that he tried to do some research on the Internet and could not find one single golf course with a 55 mph speed limit. This is a dangerous situation. Mr. Horne stated that he recalled the proffer a little differently than what the Planning Commission recalled the proffer to be; however, he did not want to revisit the interpretation. The golf course will continue to operate and if they do not have a legalized crossing, they will have to find a way to transport the golfers from one side of the road to the other. They are trying to make the best of a bad situation since the funds are not there to complete the underground crossing at this time. The Planning Commission included in the proffer a time frame for completion of the at-grade crossing and if it cannot be completed, the tunnel entrance should be constructed. He advised that this was a fair thing to do with the current state of the economy. Supervisor McNamara advised that he does not play a lot of golf now but he has played golf at many courses and he would not duplicate remarks already made. He inquired if it was legal for a car to pass another car on that road. Mr. Horne advised that if there was a double striped line, passing was not permitted but he was not sure if there were lines. Mr. Mahoney advised that he did not think there were any lines on the road and if there were no lines, passing would be legal. Supervisor McNamara commented that his point was that someone might try to pass another car on that road, miss seeing the golf cart crossing 500 yard sign, or the car on the right would block his view of the sign. He thinks it is absolutely absurd to 786 October 27, 2009 have a golf cart crossing on a 55 mph road and he has never seen it before at any golf course. He understands that financial situations are difficult now but whether it is an at- grade crossing rather than an underground crossing is irrelevant to him. He advised that if he could prevent a golf cart crossing being put across a 55 mph road, he intends to do so and it would not be a difficult decision. No citizens spoke on this item. Supervisor Altizer advised that in the agreements that have to be completed for signage, there are three other golf courses that have crossings. He commented that if staff waits to secure those agreements, and a sign is knocked down in any golf course that is already grandfathered, that course is automatically closed under the new regulations. Those courses cannot be used and there is County liability if the County has not taken action beforehand to transfer liability. He asked Mr. Mahoney if this was correct. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Altizer requested that staff move forward with securing agreements on those other courses so that liability is transferred. He has received calls from supporters of the golf course, who believe that the underground tunnel is necessary because the 55 mph road is very dangerous. He stated that the County has tried three different times to get the speed limit reduced and has been unsuccessful. He advised that he would move denial of the permission to move forward and the developer would have to find another way to get the golfers across the road. October 27, 2009 787 Supervisor Altizer moved to deny the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 102709-7 DENYING THE PETITION OF FOUNTAIN HEAD LAND COMPANY, LLC, TO AMEND THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) MASTER PLAN RELATED TO AT-GRADE GOLF CART CROSSING ON PITZER ROAD FOR FOUNTAIN HEAD GOLF RESORT (BALLYHACK) WHICH MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 375 ACRES, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 22, 2009, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 27, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 6, 2009; 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: On motion of Supervisor Altizer to deny the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Moore: She expressed sympathy to the family of Christopher Wayne Brown, who passed away last Thursday. Supervisor Church: He advised that the Board had received a memo about the upgrade work at the Exit 140 Park and Ride. He stated that this is exactly what was needed. He thanked Scott Woodrum, Dan Collins and VDOT for the project. 788 October 27, 2009 Supervisor Flora: He commended the County firefighters who filled in without compensation so the Roanoke City firefighters could attend Captain Brown's funeral. The Roanoke City firefighters were overwhelmed by the gesture. This speaks volumes about the type of employees that Roanoke County has and their relationship with other jurisdictions. His thoughts are with the family. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. to Thursday, November 5, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. at the Vinton War Memorial, 814 East Washington Avenue, Vinton, Virginia, for the purpose of a special joint meeting with the Western Virginia Water Authority, City of Roanoke and County of Franklin. Submitted by: Approved by: 1~ ~~ Becky R. eador Michael W. Altizer Clerk to the Board Chairman J