1/22/2013 - RegularJanuary 22, 2013 23
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
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 January 2013. Audio and video recordings
of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
taken.
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer; Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch"
Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Richard C. Flora and Charlotte
A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public
Information and Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order Pastor David Anderson of Brookhill
Baptist Church gave the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all
present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition Award to the Mid -Week Crew (MWC) of the
Pathfinders for Greenways by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage (Doug
Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Mr. Blount outlined the award and introduced Wesley Paulos, Operations
Seward for the Natural Heritage Division of the Virginia Department of Conservation.
Mr. Paulos in turn introduced Tom Smith, Director of the Natural Heritage Division, and
24 January 22, 2013
Ryan Klopf, Mountain Region Steward. Mr. Paulos explained their mission and Mr.
Smith described the division. Chairman Altizer invited all the members of the Mid -Week
Crew of the Pathfinders for Greenway to come forward to be recognized. Mr. Bill
Gordge accepted the award on behalf of the Crew. All Supervisors offered their thanks
and congratulations.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Annual report from the Roanoke Regional Partnership (Beth
Doughty, Executive Director)
Ms. Doughty gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Roanoke Regional
Partnership, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors and was included in the agenda package.
Supervisor Moore thanked Ms. Doughty for another great year.
Supervisor Elswick inquired of Ms. Doughty if you were in another location
and wanted to start a company in some mountainous area and were looking at
Roanoke, how would you decide to contact the regional partnership, the local counties
or cities or the Chambers of Commerce; how would you determine which one of those
agencies to contact. Ms. Doughty explained there is a lot of diffusion in that area.
Traditionally, people think the Chamber of Commerce is a source for that; it is one of the
most recognized brand names in the world. She advised they worked with the Chamber
of Commerce as they refer those kinds of inquiries to them. Today, a lot of it depends
on Google and how high you are on the search engines. She advised they work hard to
ensure they manage the search engine process to get as much activity and direct it
through. The benefit they provide to Roanoke County is they are kind of a "front door"
and when they get the inquiries they spread them out to everybody else.
Supervisor Flora commented it may not have been what they wanted to
see but the economic condition is what it is and at least we are getting a fair number of
inquiries, which is substantially more than four years ago and is getting better. Ms.
Doughty commented she cannot emphasize enough that there are a lot of important
factors that go into business decisions and the bedrock is the real estate product.
Supervisor Church thanked Ms. Doughty for coming in each year and
providing the Board with this information. He further added that local governments have
been working together; it is working.
Chairman Altizer also thanked Ms. Doughty and comments jobs and
investments are critical and Roanoke County has to do what it can to be in a position to
grow.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to amend the scope of services for the A/E contract with
January 22, 2013 25
Holzheimer, Bolek and Meehan for additional Construction
Management and Project Administration Services for the Glenvar
Library, Catawba Magisterial District (Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator)
A- 012213 -1
Mr. O'Donnell explained the request and advised the tentative date for the
opening of the new Glenvar Library is May 6, 2013.
Supervisor Elswick inquired what was the price of original scope for this
project with Mr. O'Donnell advising $96,000. Supervisor Elswick then asked how many
people does this administrative services cover with Mr. O'Donnell advising one person
on site and a construction meeting is held every two weeks. There are no written
reports.
Supervisor Church advised the project has been spot on and everything
was progressing great. There was no additional discussion. Supervisor Church moved
to approve the staff recommendation to amend the contract to additional administrative
services. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Request for authorization to execute a performance agreement
between the County of Roanoke, Roanoke County Economic
Development Authority, HyperGen, Inc. and 4D Investments, LLC,
Hollins Magisterial District (Jill Loope, Acting Director of
Economic Development)
A- 012213 -2
Ms. Loope outlined the request to execute the agreement. There was no
discussion. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation to execute the
performance agreement. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 012213 -3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
26 January 22, 2013
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM G- 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 January
22, 2013, designated as Item G - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 8 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — January 8, 2013
2. Resolution accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount of
$342,000 from the Virginia Department of Transportation for fiscal year 2012-
2013 and authorizing the execution of project administration agreements for
fiscal year 2012 -2013 "The Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement Project"
3. Resolution of appreciation of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to
Jerry L. Spradling, Fire Captain, upon his retirement after more than eleven
(11) years of service
4. Resolution accepting Waterstone Drive into the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System
5. Confirmation of appointment to the Community Policy and Management
Team (CPMT)
6. Request to amend the lease with Valley Electric Supply, Inc. for the
temporary Glenvar Library at 2630 Main Street, Salem, Virginia
7. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to
designate Lancaster Road, Route 708 as a Rural Rustic Road in the VDOT
Secondary System, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 012213 -3.a ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $342,000 FROM THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2012 -2013, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2012 -2013 "THE PLANTATION ROAD BICYCLE,
PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT"
January 22, 2013 27
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the Board of Supervisors submitted a request
to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for Transportation Enhancement Funds for
the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2012, the Commonwealth Transportation Board
awarded $341,000 of federal Transportation Enhancement Funds to Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, the grant award requires twenty percent (20 %) matching funds in the
amount of $85,260, from Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, for locally administered projects, the Virginia Department of
Transportation requires certain project administration agreements between the local
government and the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation requires that the Board of
Supervisors grant signatory authority to a specific staff person or persons to execute the
project administration agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board hereby accepts and appropriates grant funds in the
amount of $341,000 from the Virginia Department of Transportation for
fiscal year 2012 -2013, and matches the grant award with $85,260; and
2. That the County Administrator or the County Engineer is hereby granted
signatory authority to execute project administration agreements for the
approved Transportation Enhancement Project, entitled "The Plantation
Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project ".
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 012213 -3.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO JERRY L. SPRADLING UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER
ELEVEN (11) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Jerry L. Spradling was hired on August 27, 2001, and has worked as
a Firefighter /EMT and Paramedic /Firefighter during his tenure with Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Spradling retired on January 1, 2013, after eleven (11) years
and four (4) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Mr. Spradling provided
outstanding emergency care to the sick and injured to those he transported to the
hospital; and
28 January 22, 2013
WHEREAS, Mr. Spradling throughout his tenure with Roanoke County Fire and
Rescue Department was a mentor to new employees always with a calm and
reassuring approach to garner the best out of new personnel; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Spradling was assigned duties as a Public Education Specialist
providing fire safety training to all ages in a professional manner; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Spradling was instrumental in developing the specifications and
design for the Department's current Fire Safety Trailer, which was funded one hundred
percent (100 %) through a Department of Homeland Security grant; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to Jerry L. Spradling, for eleven (11) 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 Church to adopt the resolution and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 012213 -3.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
WATERSTONE DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
January 22, 2013 29
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
A- 012213 -3.d
A- 012213 -3.e
RESOLUTION 012213 -3.f REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) TO DESIGNATE
LANCASTER ROAD, ROUTE 708, AS A RURAL RUSTIC ROAD
IN THE VDOT SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Section 33.1 -70.1 of the Code of Virginia, permits the improvements
and hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for designation as a
Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, any such road must be located in a low- density development area
and have a minimum of fifty (50) vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than one
thousand (1 000) vpd; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia ( "Board ")
desires to consider whether Lancaster Road, Route 708 from: from the intersection with
Fortune Ridge Road, Route 690 to: dead end of Lancaster Road, Route 608 should be
designated a Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, the Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly
affect the existing traffic on this road; and
WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been made aware that this
road may be paved with minimal improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that this road should be so designated due to its
qualifying characteristics and will endeavor to retain these characteristics through its
comprehensive planning process; and
WHEREAS, this road is in the Board's Revenue Sharing Program for
improvements to the secondary system of state highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board herby designates this
portion of Lancaster Road as a Rural Rustic Road, and requests that the Residency
Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation concur in this designation;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests that this road be hard
surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of way
30 January 22, 2013
and ditch -lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side
slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current state; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Janet Scheid advised she was representing RCCLEAR; she is the Chair of
RCCLEAR again this year and wants to take a few minutes to update the Board on
RCCLEAR and one project in particular. This year RCCLEAR will again be working in
partnership with the County schools and the Student Advisory Council to plan activities
for Green Ribbon Week. They have met with this group of students and school staff
and together are developing a theme and working on project ideas that will involve
grade levels from elementary through high school. The students' enthusiasm for this
project is infectious. Green Ribbon Week will be the week of Earth Day so right around
the third week of April. Events that students may participate in include completing
carbon footprint worksheets, art projects, English and Science projects. Another idea
that has been expressed is a student -led, volunteer litter pickup project. We can begin
teaching these students about the value of volunteerism and maybe in about sixty years
or so will see some of them becoming part of the Mid -Week Crew. This collaboration
with the schools is one of the ways that RCCLEAR is being an effective organization.
As you know, the members of RCCLEAR are appointed by the Board; are a diverse
group of individuals with varying backgrounds and experiences. Some have served for
several years, providing hundreds of hours of volunteer service to the County. Others
are new appointees and have been welcomed into the group. Each of us has an
interest in reducing energy consumption in Roanoke County and thereby helping our
citizens save money. Ms. Scheid thanked the Board for its time and advised she will be
glad to keep the Board up -to -date on this exciting partnership with our schools as we
get closer to April.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 22, 2013 31
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
a. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of December 31, 2012
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
December 31, 2012
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of December 31, 2012
7. Accounts Paid — November 30, 2012
8. Report of Claims Activity for the Self- Insurance Program
9. Community Development Quarterly Report
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:53 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2.3711.A.1, personnel,
namely discussion concerning an appointment to the Roanoke County Planning
Commission (appointed by District). The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
At 3:54 p.m., Chairman Altizer recessed to the fourth floor for work
session and closed session.
The closed session was held from 5:18 p.m. until 5:22 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2013 -2014 budget
32 January 22, 2013
development (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; W.
Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
The work session was held from 4:07 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Mr. Robertson
provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors that provided a detailed look at the County's current budget
and projected revenues and expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year. Staff outlined
that the various departments have done a great job of keeping their operating budgets
in balance. Additionally, Mr. Robertson advised that while tax revenues are down
compared to where they were projected, there does not appear to be a cause for alarm
based on the previously outlined conservative spending.
Chairman Altizer asked staff to take a look at prior year fundings to see if
the intended benefits or goals are not being achieved and the Board and staff need to
look at things that are not working.
Supervisor Flora stated when times are tough; there is an opportunity to
correct the things that were done when times were good.
Mr. Robertson outlined that the Chairman had agreed to hold the
contribution meetings at 6:00 p.m. on March 19 and after the afternoon session on
March 12 He indicated the first meeting in February will be a joint work session with
the School Board to review the new group health insurance option.
2. Work session to discuss the Catawba Sustainability Center
Report (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
The work session was held from 4:38 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. In attendance
from the Sustainability Center was Kay Dunkley, Director of the Virginia Tech Roanoke
Center and Josh Nease, Manager of the Catawba Sustainability Center. Mr. Nease
went through a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and was included in the agenda package.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to return to open session with all
members present and adopted the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 012213 -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
January 22, 2013 33
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:
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 roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT
Chairman Altizer advised during closed session the Board recommended
the appointment of Jim Woltz as the Windsor Hills representative for the Planning
Commission for a term to expire June 20, 2014. Chairman Altizer moved to adopt the
recommendation and the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Chairman Altizer advised there was a group of scouts in the audience and
had the troop come forward for introductions. Mike Rose from Windsor Hills United
Methodist explained they are from the 236 Windsor Hills United Methodist Church and
are working on merit badges for eagle scout working on citizenship in the community
and communications. Josh Wood, James Rederidge, Carson Caludo, Michael
Caludo, and Mike Wood were in attendance.
N RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
1. Public Hearing and adoption of a Resolution on the Plantation
Road Transportation Alternatives Program grant application,
Hollins Magisterial District (Megan G. Cronise, Principal Planner)
34 January 22, 2013
Ms. Cronise explained the request for resolution of support. Chairman
Altizer opened and closed the public hearing. The following citizens spoke:
Wendy Jones, Executive Director of the Williamson Road Area Business
Association located at 4804 Williamson Road stated she was in attendance to support
this project. As a matter of fact, they support this project so much that when they had
the opportunity with private funding to partner with Roanoke County to accomplish part
of this project and to partner with Friendship Retirement Community, they did so and did
a portion of this project with the landscaping at Williamson and Plantation. She advised
they do think this is going to be a great improvement and quite an asset to the County
and are here in support.
There was no discussion; just the following comments.
Supervisor Flora commented Plantation Road is the first access into the
County from Interstate 81 from the North; vehicle friendly but not pedestrian friendly.
This area contains the largest concentration of employees for Roanoke County. This
project would enhance the attractiveness of Roanoke County and provide these
employees a way to walk to lunch.
Supervisor Church commented he concurs with Mr. Flora and fully
supports this resolution. He added that Rt. 11 and 460 have been in the works for thirty
(30) years and is nearing completion and will have a community just like the Plantation
area and will be a hub for the western part of the section.
Supervisor Elswick thanked Ms. Jones for the hard work she puts into
these projects.
Supervisor Altizer thanked staff for their hard work with these projects.
RESOLUTION 012213 -6 REQUESTING THE COMMONWEALTH
TRANSPORTATION BOARD FUND A TRANSPORTATION
ALTERNATIVES PROJECT FOR PLANTATION ROAD IN
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be
received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia
Department of Transportation accept a Transportation Alternatives Project in Roanoke
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors requests the
Commonwealth Transportation Board continue to fund a project for the improvement of
Plantation Road in the form of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations as well as
streetscape improvements.
January 22, 2013 35
2. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to provide
a minimum twenty percent (20 %) of the total cost for planning and design, right of way
and construction of this project.
3. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to enter
into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation to provide oversight
that ensures the project is developed in accordance with all state and federal
requirements for design, right of way acquisition, and construction of a federally funded
transportation project.
4. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will be responsible for
maintenance, upkeep and operating costs of any facility constructed with Alternatives
Program funds.
5. That if the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors subsequently elects to
cancel this project the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to
reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of costs
expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such
cancellation. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors also agrees to repay any
funds previously reimbursed that are later deemed ineligible by the Federal Highway
Administration.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution and carried by the following
roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Public Hearing and Request for Resolution of Support to apply for
fiscal year 2013 -2014 Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) Transportation Alternatives Program funding for the
Eastern Section of the Roanoke River Greenway- Roanoke City to
Blue Ridge Parkway, Vinton Magisterial District (Doug Blount,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Lindsay Blankenship,
Greenway Planner)
Ms. Blankenship explained the request for resolution of support. Mr.
Blount was present to answer any questions. Chairman Altizer opened and closed the
public hearing and there were no citizens to speak on this public hearing. There was no
discussion.
Chairman Altizer thanked the staff for the work that went into this project
and the other similar projects being worked on.
RESOLUTION 012213 -7 APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION
TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
THE FY 2013 -2014 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
36 January 22, 2013
PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EASTERN
SECTION OF THE ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ROANOKE AND THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY IN
THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 Century Act (MAP -
21) provides for a statewide Transportation Alternatives Program, using federal
transportation funds and state or local matching funds; and
WHEREAS, from funds appropriated to the Transportation Alternatives Program
the Commonwealth Transportation Board shall approve the selection of projects on an
annual basis and in accordance with §33.1 -12(5) of the Code of Virginia and MAP -21;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be
received from the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in order that the Virginia
Department of Transportation establish a Transportation Alternatives project in Roanoke
County; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan,
adopted by Roanoke County, recommends that the Roanoke River Greenway be
completed in the next five years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. That the Commonwealth Transportation Board approve a project for the
development and construction of approximately two point seven (2.7) miles of the
Eastern Section of the Roanoke River Greenway between the City of Roanoke and the
Blue Ridge Parkway.
2. That the total project costs associated with Phases I and IIA of the project
(which will address project design, engineering and permitting, private land acquisition,
and construction along the proposed greenway corridor) are estimated to be
$1,085,647. Roanoke County requests grant funding in the amount of $868,518, which
is eighty percent (80 %) of the total unfunded cost of Phases I and IIA of this project.
Roanoke County agrees to pay matching funds of $217,129, which is twenty percent
(20 %) of the total unfunded cost of Phases I and IIA of this project.
3. That if Roanoke County subsequently elects to cancel this project the County
agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of
costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such
cancellation.
4. That Roanoke County will be responsible for maintenance, upkeep and
operating costs of any facility constructed with Transportation Alternatives Program
funds.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
January 22, 2013 37
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Philip M. Argabright to rezone approximately 12.9 acres from R -1,
Low Density Residential, District to AG -3, Agricultural /Rural
Preserve, District, located at 5032 Stanley Farm Road in the
Glenvar area, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for rezoning for four parcels.
Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing; there were no citizens to speak
at this public hearing. Mr. Thompson advised the petitioner was present to answer any
questions. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 012213 -8 REZONING 12.9 ACRES LOCATED AT
5032 STANLEY FARM ROAD FROM R -1, LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO AG -3, AGRICULTURAL /RURAL
PRESERVE DISTRICT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING
AGRICULTURAL USES ON THE PROPERTY, CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 54.02 -4 -74.1, 54.02 -4-
73, 54.02 -4 -74.2, 54.02 -4- 74.3), UPON THE APPLICATION OF
PHILIP ARGABRIGHT
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 11, 2012,
and the second reading and public hearing were held January 22, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on January 7, 2013; 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 12.9 acres, as described herein, and located at 5032 Stanley Farm Road
(Tax Map Number 54.02 -4 -74.1, 54.02 -4 -73 54.02 -4 -74.2 54.02 -4 -74.3) in the
Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R -1,
Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of AG -3, Agricultural /Rural
Preserve District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Philip Argabright.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
38 January 22, 2013
Being 12.9 acres of real estate located at 5032 Stanley Farm Road and further
described as Tax Map Nos. 54.02 -4 -74.1, 54.02 -4 -73, 54.02 -4 -74.2, 54.02 -4-
74.3.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Friendship Health and Rehab Center South, Inc.
and Friendship Health and Rehab Center, Inc. to rezone
approximately 10.27 acres from R -1, Low Density Residential,
District to C -2, General Commercial, District and to obtain a
special use permit for a nursing home and life care facility on
property located at 5647 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial
District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for rezoning with a special use permit
for a nursing facility. Richard Sayers spoke on behalf of the applicant. He advised it
would be a one hundred and twenty (120) bed licensed skilled nursing facility. The one
hundred and twenty (120) beds will be moved from the existing North facility that
Friendship has on Hershberger Road. He showed several maps of the provided site
and indicated the cottage homes are not a part of this particular petition. He advised
they would do forty (40) foot buffers and evergreens. He indicated there were a couple
of questions asked by Board members. The average length of stay of these types of
residents is thirty (30) days or less. The approximate site coverage for this facility, not
including the cottage homes, would be approximately forty percent (40 %) coverage.
This facility will provide a nice buffer from the neighborhood and the adjoining
commercial property. Some issues that came up, in order to get the facility to work,
they are required to file a certificate of public need. The application has been filed and
the process is moving forward; however, two concerns came up that he would like to
address. First, there seems to be some confusion about staffing and the number of
employees. The application cited one hundred and twenty (120) full time employees.
Again, he would like to emphasize at no one time would there be one hundred and
twenty (120) employees. Secondly, is the issue dealing with the nursing home
designation; that terminology is used with various governmental agencies so it was
needed to be used with this facility, but it is not a true nursing home facility, long -term
January 22, 2013 39
care type of facility; the primary focus is on short term care. With regard to staffing,
there will be three (3) shifts and he would like to emphasize the first shift, the 7:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m. the staff would arrive between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. and would usually depart
by 3:15 p.m. The second shift, which is from 3:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. (approximately
thirty employees) will arrive between 2:30 and 2:45 p.m. and leave no later than 11:15
p.m. The third shift from 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. (approximately twenty employees)
would arrive between 10:30 and 10:45 p.m. and leave approximately 7:15 a.m. On the
week -ends, the shift will change as follows: the first shift on the weekends will be
approximately forty employees versus the sixty (60); the second shift would be
approximately twenty -five (25) and third shift would be approximately twenty (20). He
advised they have good data on this information because they have been in existence
for a long time at the North facility; they have the same shifts, etc. Traffic was one
major issue that came up. He indicated they had eliminated one major issue that came
up with regard to Crescent Rd. about providing another access from the property onto
Crescent Road. As far as Starkey Road, VDOT initially advised that this type of facility
does not generate sufficient traffic to warrant an impact analysis for purposes of
rezoning, however, they did tell us that during the planning stages they will be doing an
analysis to determine whether or not a turn lane may be required at this facility. Mr.
Sayers indicated the data indicates an increase of approximately 220 trips per day
versus if a single family development went onto this location, 350 trips per day. Staff
has taken pictures of the intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road for the
morning and afternoon shifts to see what kind of traffic congestion would arise at that
facility. The visuals show the shift changes there was no traffic at that intersection. He
also reiterated they have agreed to conditions that they would not have any deliveries to
this property between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. With regard to a stormwater retention
pond, initially they were looking at the possibility of putting an above - ground pond on
the front left corner of the property. Questions were raised about the aesthetics, etc.
and he is pleased to advise all the stormwater retention will be underground. Another
question that came up with regard to taxation, although this entity will be a tax - exempt
entity, a 501 c3, it will be paying its real estate and personal property taxes. With regard
to lighting, in this type of facility, lighting is of paramount importance because they have
residents living there as well. The last thing they want is to have lighting coming
through their windows any more than they want coming into the neighbor's windows.
They have offered a condition they would only use the shielded cutoff type light poles
and the poles would not exceed eighteen (18) feet. Buffering was an issue that was
discussed in detail at the Planning Commission. He indicated they are willing to put a
forty foot (40') buffer on the property in question and will put evergreens in versus
deciduous trees.
Supervisor Moore stated Mr. Sayer had answered most of her questions,
but still has a couple of questions. First, on the buffering, the forty foot (40') on the
south side, please provide a length of how much buffering and were they going to put
one row of the evergreens or how did you plan on buffering. Mr. Sayer responded they
40 January 22, 2013
have gone with the Type C buffering after the Planning Commission meeting basically
to give the option to go back in and see what they could do. Primarily, to address the
concerns the one individual had on the south side of the property and the most
impacted on the property. They have agreed to put evergreen trees and what they
would be willing to do besides giving him the forty (40) foot buffer, if he so desires, they
would be willing to stagger rows of Leland Cypress or Japanese Cedar. He advised his
understanding is that the Leland Cypress grows quite extensively, not only up, but they
also spread out and after a short period of time makes a substantial barrier. He also
pointed out on that particular property, if you have been to the site and are on Starkey
Road looking back toward the property, elevation is different. His property is lower
anyway than and this property. Once the buffers go in he thinks it will be an advantage
to the homeowner.
Supervisor Moore then asked what type of green initiatives are they
planning for this project with Mr. Sayer advising they do not know at this time; they have
not gotten that far in the process. They have to operate as cost effective as they can,
but if it makes sense they will.
Supervisor Moore then asked how many new jobs. Mr. Sayer advised as
he stated earlier, they cannot give a definitive answer until the North facility is
downgraded and downsized. They will need to see what the impact is on current or
existing staffing patterns.
Supervisor Elswick stated during the meeting with the Planning
Commission and our discussion yesterday, there was talk about a berm instead of the
thirty (30) or forty (40) foot buffer. Would they be willing to put in a berm if there is an
indication this would be better an alternative for reducing the noise or the sight of
vehicles on the road. Mr. Sayers advised they are not interested in putting in a berm
and one of the main reasons is they have been told in order to put a six foot (6') berm
along that property line, it would take at least double the base on either side to do so.
Therefore, you are talking about a minimum of twenty -four to twenty -six foot (24' to 26')
base to build a six foot (6') berm. Secondly, on that side of the property there is a
retaining wall and they have no idea how much weight it would hold. It does not seem
reasonable for this type of project, especially not around the entire project. He stated
they believe in giving him the additional forty foot (40') buffer for him on that property
and going with the evergreens; Leland Cypress or something similar to that would make
a substantial hedge. If you are familiar with that type of bush within a relatively short
period of time it is basically impassable.
Supervisor Elswick stated he agrees there are three alternatives, thirty
foot (30') buffer with two rows of bushes and one row of trees and a fence, a forty foot
(40') buffer the same but no fence and a berm. Supervisor Elswick then asked Mr.
Thompson if Roanoke County has an ordinance that recommends that berms should be
utilized for screening between adjacent parcels in different zoning districts and if it was
addressed during the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Sayer stated if you look at the
code section, it talks about six -foot (6') screening and if you look at the definition in the
January 22, 2013 41
Code, a berm is only one of several different options that you have. A berm did come
up at the Planning Commission as an option along with the other options. Supervisor
Elswick then asked under the conditions you mentioned, where do they come from, one
of our ordinances? Mr. Sayer advised they are in the Code section; it talks and
describes the different screenings and requirements on these buffers. Supervisor
Elswick advised if you went with a forty foot (40') buffer you could still at your own
option add a fence if you wanted to. Mr. Sayer stated he thinks so; the six foot (6')
screen is only required with the option for the thirty foot (30') buffer. It is not required for
the forty foot (40') buffer with the reason being the forty foot (40') buffer requires you to
put in a second row of trees; the forty foot (40') buffer requires two rows of bushes and
two rows of trees. Supervisor Elswick then asked so in the Planning Commission
meeting, our ordinance was discussed that we recommend a berm and the Planning
Commission decided not to pursue with Mr. Sayers responding they did not pursue; no
one recommended from the Planning Commission; it was just a comment and there was
no further discussion.
Supervisor Elswick asked if there were studies that indicate whether the
thirty foot (30') buffer with evergreens and a fence or the forty foot (40') buffer without
the fence or a berm that has an analysis that shows which one reduces noise the most.
Mr. Sayer stated with this type of facility by itself does not generate a lot of noise. This
particular property sits a little lower, which should certainly help. Supervisor Elswick
stated he agreed but is there any reference material the Board could look at to make a
determination as to the thirty, forty or berm is better for reducing noise. Mr. Sayer
advised he did not have any details. Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to hear
from someone on the Planning Commission as to what the rationale was for not
discussing this ordinance that recommends a berm. Mr. Sayers stated that all it
recommends is six foot (6') screening and if you look at the definition of screening that
is where you go in and pick up the different things that you can use for six foot (6')
screening. Supervisor Elswick asked if Mr. Sayer was saying our ordinance does not
recommend berms? Mr. Sayer responded he is saying by definition it is included as an
example of one of the six foot (6') screening that you can use. Supervisor Elswick
stated he could read the paragraph and it says, "Berms are recommended for screening
between adjacent parcels in different zoning districts." He stated he is not disputing that
all he is saying is in a type C buffer, it provides for a six foot (6') screening. The
screening does provide for a berm, it is one of the options, but it is not mandatory.
Supervisor Elswick stated he thought our Planning Commission should have at least
addressed that and said in spite of the fact the ordinance recommends a berm; we
really do not think it is required in this situation. If there are minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting where they addressed this ordinance, the Board writes ordinances
for a reason, and to totally ignore an ordinance in this kind of planning session, he does
not think we should do that, either that or take the ordinance off the books. He
reiterated he would like to see the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting that
addressed the fact that staff is going to ignore this recommendation from Ordinance 30-
42 January 22, 2013
92 -5. He stated he thinks it is a great project, but this is the only issue and it is going to
be resolved and Friendship is great. He has met with them and Mr. Coburn, the
neighbor in question. It is a wonderful project for the area, but just wants to understand
how we got to the point of ignoring an ordinance. Mr. Sayers stated he cannot speak
for the Planning Commission and all he can say it that it did come up and they decided
it was not warranted or needed for this project. The other concern that had was if
someone was going to require a consistent buffering all the way around; there is no way
they could put a six foot (6') berm around the perimeter of this property. Supervisor
Elswick stated but you could on a forty foot (40') section. Mr. Sayer stated they could
but comes back to the concern that there is not a whole lot of room as it is to
accommodate the facility, the road and the buffer. If you put a six foot (6') buffer in it is
his understanding that it requires at least a minimum of a twenty -four foot (24') base.
Supervisor Elswick stated he would rather hear that from an engineer. Mr. Sayer stated
if you are going to build a berm, you have to have a base and if you have that kind of a
base then you have to worry about the additional room and space you are going to need
to put in the two rows of bushes and the trees. He stated he just does not think this
property has sufficient room to accommodate that. Supervisor Elswick asked if Mr.
Sayer could ask his engineer his advice on this in documented form? Mr. Sayer
responded he would assume so. His concern is you have the code section that deals
with these types of properties; it does allow for different uses and different screenings
and the Planning Commission did not require it. He stated he finds it hard to believe
that every single situation like he has would require a berm. Supervisor Elswick stated
it sounds like there is an ordinance that needs to be revised; they are a great asset to
the area and this is a great project.
Supervisor Church reiterated there would be approximately 120 full -time
employees but not onsite at the same time; 120 beds, licensed, skilled facility, $18 to
$20 million in costs with Mr. Sayers confirming. Supervisor Church then stated Mr.
Sayer had mentioned this is a short -term care facility only and were there any plans for
long -term care. Mr. Sayer stated the primary focus of this facility will be short -term care,
but they cannot state that someone would not need to stay longer. Mr. Russell R.
Barksdale, Jr., CEO and President of Friendship Health and Rehab Center stated there
is a tremendous difference between short -term and long -term care. They have
designed the building with such a large rehab center that they are not looking to house
seniors. They are looking for seniors to have some rehab potential. They have some
individuals who come to Friendship now from seven (7) different states for rehab care.
We have some that only come for four (4) days and are able to be discharged home
and live active productive lives. They have some who come in and stay a month, two to
three weeks and then maybe develop a secondary diagnosis, COPD, etc. that may
even requite rehospitalization before they come back. But in order to meet the
submission criteria they have established is to have someone that has a rehab
potential; that is why they are building it and designing it as large as they are and that is
why the rehab facilities and support services have been designed the way they have.
January 22, 2013 43
He stated there are several, for - profit, privately -owned long -term care facilities within
this geography, but they do not accept Medicaid as an example so they are
disproportionately taking a significant population that requires Medicaid at the northern
campus now. There are some individuals that will have extinguished their Medicare
coverage and will also be required to have Medicaid care. He stated he wanted to be
very specific. This facility is not designed to house the elderly; to rehabilitate seniors
and others who have orthopedic and short -term needs. Supervisor Church was just
making sure that this would not revert to a long -term care in 2022, for example. Mr.
Barksdale also stated there is an economic question to it as well. There is a reason that
the for - profits do not have that much Medicaid. They are not building an $18 million
facility on this campus as expansive with so many private rooms in any mindset with a
Medicaid per diem rate or a long -term care rate. It would not be financially viable to do
so. When they went through the COPN hearing, they were specific to look at what the
patient origin area was from as in this area and this zip code and what their needs were.
They made sure that when they designed the facility they are meeting that demand.
The Department of Health saw and supported that need.
Supervisor Church then asked Mr. Thompson for clarification only. If
things changed twenty years from now, would there be a zoning requirement issue if
this is proposed to be a long -term care facility. Mr. Thompson responded in the
affirmative stating there is a different definition for that.
Chairman Altizer then opened and closed the public hearing. The
following citizens spoke.
Warren Coburn of 5669 Starkey Road and hopes that the Board will
provide him with ample time to present his concerns. He advised his family has lived on
this property for almost fifty (50) years now. He stated he and his wife are approaching
seventy (70) years on this earth and are both retired. He advised his wife has been
paying taxes since she started work at 15 at the bank. He started paying taxes when he
was 17, when he joined the Army during the Vietnam War and he stated he thinks he
has earned the right to express all of his concerns here tonight. He stated they have
invested considerable time and considerable money on their property in their house and
if this project goes in, the value of his property is going to bottom out. If this project is
approved as presented, when the first bulldozer starts up you might as well have them
come on down, bulldoze his house down over the hill. When this house was first built
no one dreamed that there might possibility be three hundred (300) vehicles passing
within sixty (60) feet of his back porch. When speaking of sixty feet (60) you are talking
approximately from one wall to the other in the Board Room; that is sixty (60) feet.
According to VDOT statistics, this is about twice as many vehicles that would be
passing behind his house as what passes on Crescent Blvd; which is in the back of this
property between Starkey Road and Arthur Street. What is going to happen every day
between 6:15 a.m. and 6:30 a.m.? Vehicles are going to come in and around this road
and their headlights are going to flash over into his house, go on up to the parking lot
and a 3:15 p.m., things are going to change and they are going to go out and there will
44 January 22, 2013
be considerable traffic noise. He is almost seventy (70) years old and will be dead
before the trees are big enough to block any noise. There will be another change at the
11:00 p.m. shift. Again, vehicles coming out of the parking lot and flash in the back of
his house. At one of the meetings, the people at Friendship Manor expressed they
were concerned about their residents there getting rest, when do you think he is going
to get any rest.
Chairman Altizer reminded Mr. Coburn to address the Board.
Mr. Coburn stated when he first read about this in the newspaper he
expressed concerns to the Planning Commission, but they really did not seem to want
to hear our concerns. He talked to the people at the information meeting at the County
library, they did not really did not want to listen to his concerns. He suggested to the
local Cave Spring representative on the Planning Commission that this little stem, forty
foot (40') section that runs up to Arthur Street. Well, they do not want any traffic on
Arthur St. As Mr. Sayers said originally, they planned to have this back road exit out
onto Crescent Avenue, but the people there do not want that traffic going out on their
street. Nobody really seems to be concerned about the fact that he is going to have all
the traffic, 200, 300, 400 cars a day coming in and out. It looks like if there is anything
detrimental, it comes right down to the Southside of the property. At the last meeting of
the Planning Commission, Mr. McNeal likes the little strip of property there and
someway there is going to be easement over that property. He recommended that they
put the road to the right, go up around the other side of the building; the north side of
the building. Well, Ms. Moore says those headlights are going to flash down on
somebody else's property. The closest property is probably two hundred to three
hundred (200 -300) feet away. Everybody talks about how bad big government is, big
government can be on the local level also and it concerns him that big government and
big business just wants to run over some of the citizens. This project will have a greater
negative impact on his house than any other in the neighborhood. The entrance road
goes by our house, the parking is in the back of our house, and the stormwater retention
pond is on our side of the property. I would like to see someone explain why not put the
road on the other side of the property. He is glad to see they are considering a forty
foot (40') buffer, but if that had a six -foot (6') high berm it sure would help block the
noise out; that is one of the things he is concerned about. It is also a safety issue, if a
truck or car gets knocked out of gear and comes rolling right down out of the parking lot
by those buildings it is going to come right into the back of his house. These things do
happen. He stated he looks at this if it is approved the way that these gentlemen want it
to be done, he is looking at this as being a death sentence to his family. The property
will not be worth anything; will not be able to rent it. All he asks for is to be treated fairly
and equitably. Put yourself in his shoes, would you want two to three hundred (200-
300) vehicles a day running by your back door? It is kind of like the old Jerry Reed
song, these people are getting the gold mine and he is getting the shaft. He hopes
Friendship would consider going to the north of the property. Once this thing is decided
it is done, it is final. He really hopes you take a closer look at this and if you cannot
January 22, 2013 45
make your mind up he hopes you postpone to another meeting.
Wendy Jones, the Executive Director of the Williamson Road Area Business
Association, stated she is here on behalf of Friendship Retirement Community. She
stated she has had the opportunity to work with them over the past three years and
they have always been very community conscious, very easy to work with when they
needed to make modifications, always, always been conscientious of the community's
needs and she would like to say that she is in support of their project.
Steve Strauss of 3649 Peakwood Drive in Roanoke stated his firm,
Strauss Construction, has been one of the largest builders of single family homes in SW
County. Over the last fifty (50) years, SW county has been the Mecca of housing in the
Roanoke Valley. As such, all roads have led to SW County for such a long time, but the
population in this part of the Roanoke Valley is and continues to show an ever
increasing aging trend. There is a very limited housing choice for our aging SW
population, but those in need of rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities. When the
need arises, there are very limited choices for the individual to be able to remain among
their network of family and friends. In terms of this rezoning, he is generally one of the
guys up front requesting a rezoning opposed to being in the public making comments
about it, but he is here advocating for this change. Change is always viewed with great
skepticism. The fear of the unknown causes all sorts of concerns that get blown way
out of proportion. He hopes this will not happen here tonight because this is a
wonderful development concept in his humble opinion and one that will greatly enhance
the lifestyle of residents in SW County and will help to protect and enhance the property
values along the Starkey Road corridor and the surrounding neighborhoods. Housing
choice is a great concept for any community. He has heard the concern about traffic,
but wants to pass on that he has looked at the property for the last seven years or so to
be able to purchase the property and his goal was to develop it with about forty -five (45)
single, family homes. If he were to develop it, that is a R1 by right, no rezoning, no
public review, no anything other than meeting the ordinances. If he were to develop it
with forty -five (45) homes, they would generate about four hundred and fifty (450)
vehicles per day. As Mr. Sayer mentioned earlier, about thirty (30) homes and that was
conservative in the development proposal. His realistic is forty -five (45) lots. He has
also heard about stormwater management and stormwater management has always
been a concern, but what he wanted to mention that over the last fifteen (15) years that
he has known the developer, stormwater has always been a concern and in the last five
(5) years, the County, the State and the Federal Government has ratcheted up the
regulations regarding stormwater management. Today, stormwater is a real
burdensome concept to deal with from a development standpoint. It is a real pain to
deal with, but it does work. With these comments, he sincerely hopes the Board will
vote unanimously to support this very worthwhile and meaningful project and it is very
appropriate to be put into this area.
Supervisor Elswick stated he does not think there is any doubt that this is
a good project, Friendship is a good neighbor and that the project is going to happen.
46 January 22, 2013
He stated he thinks if the Board approves it, he thinks they ought to do it under a couple
of conditions or they could postpone it until a couple of answers have been obtained.
One thing he would like to see an engineering review, study, substantiation or non -
substantiation of whether or not a six -foot (6') berm could be placed on top of either the
thirty -foot (30') or the forty -foot (40') area. The other thing he would like to see, opinions
and words to him are not as important or credible as actual studies. He would like to
know which one would reduce the noise the most and not just noise it would be glare
from headlights coming through the bedroom window. Of the three options, the thirty -
foot (30') buffer, the forty -foot (40') buffer or the berm, which one would be the most
effective, and how much would each one approximately cost to get a feel for whether or
not we would be inconveniencing the developer or is it something that really is not a lot
of money.
Chairman Altizer stated with regard to the stormwater (and he is glad it will
be underground) he thinks there are many of us in the Roanoke Valley who wish we
had out stormwater ponds underground. Where will it discharge off of with Mr. Sayer
stating it is his understanding out into Starkey Road (and indicated as such on the map.)
Chairman Altizer stated so it will discharge out into Starkey Road. Supervisor Elswick
asked would it discharge into the creek? Mr. Sayer advised they have not gotten that
far with the engineering study, but that will also be part of the planning process as well.
There will actually be two runs, four to five foot (4 -5') pipe that is roughly 2,500 linear
feet of pipe. Chairman Altizer asked what size pipe with Mr. Sayer advising whatever
the volume requires. Supervisor Elswick asked what the diameter would be with Mr.
Sayer advising four to five feet (4 -5).
Chairman Altizer then stated the second question he has was regard to
signage; was there any issues about signage. Is there going to be signage; have not
seen any proffers on signage or if that has even been discussed. Mr. Sayers advised
they have not even talked about it. He does not know what kind of signage they would
want, but obviously it would be in accordance with whatever the requirements are.
Chairman Altizer advised with this being a special use permit you may want to discuss
signage. Mr. Thompson advised for C -2, you can go up to twenty -five feet (25') in
height and it based on the road frontage, a foot and one half a square foot per whatever
road frontage they have with a maximum of five hundred square feet of sign area. If the
Board wants this to be a condition that the signage has to be a monument style sign of
a certain size. Chairman Altizer stated so if anything is moved forward tonight then
something definitive should be there about signage.
Chairman Altizer then questioned the height of the lighting; stating it is up
to eighteen feet (18'), non - reflective downturn with Mr. Thompson responding the
zoning ordinance does not have a height limit for streetlights. The only one that we
have street height limitations is on the Clearbrook Village Overlay District and that is
eighteen feet (18'). Similarly, when a church was done recently in the Catawba District
is was eighteen feet (18') as well. Mr. Sayer stated they are looking at nothing more
than twelve feet (12') tall.
January 22, 2013 47
Supervisor Moore asked how tall the monument sign on Friendship on
Hershberger is with Mr. Sayer responding Friendship North is on a brick wall and stands
about three and one half feet (3 '/') tall. Again it is very important to tag onto that
question; they want it to be residential in nature and character. They are not looking for
a large banner sign or anything of that nature; they want it fitting in with the residential
character. Supervisor Moore than asked Mr. Sayer what size would he recommend. Mr.
Sayer stated the signage at Friendship North is ample size.
Supervisor Flora stated he wanted to pursue the sign because it seems
the Board is talking all around it, but thinks it is appropriate to put that into any
conditions. He stated he would recommend something that is not more than four feet
tall and no more than forty square feet (40'). Supervisor Flora then asked Mr.
Thompson where would that be added into the conditions on this special use permit.
Mr. Mahoney responded he would assume that would be under paragraph
four of the draft ordinance. There are already four (4) special use conditions and he is
presuming in accordance with Supervisor Flora's suggestion would be condition number
five (5).
Supervisor Altizer stated he would also like to add this is a brick
monument style, not poles and plastic.
Supervisor Moore thanked everyone who came out to talk at the
Community Meeting; she thinks it really helped to narrow down some concerns that
Friendship has attended to and addressed. With reference to the buffer, she knows that
we do not have an engineer here with information, but the twenty -four square feet of dirt
putting in a berm seems to be a lot of dirt and she does not know if that has been
determined that would be more significant as a sound reducer or a barrier than a forty -
foot (40') buffer of staggered evergreen trees, which seems to have worked nicely in
other areas. Also, at the Community Meetings she did not hear anyone speak against
this project. She felt like that most of the people there felt like it was a good project and
also she heard concerns about what may be there if Friendship did not come and there
were concerns with that. Having said that, she requested that Friendship work with all
of the neighbors and address their concerns and to do the best they can on buffering
the property and making it sound proof and take care of the lighting and any other
concerns the neighbors may have that are surrounding the property. She stated she
would also like to add condition number five to add a brick monument no higher than
four foot high and ten foot wide with a maximum of forty (40) square feet.
Supervisor Elswick stated he cannot get away from Roanoke County
recommending a berm and it not being addressed, so do we need a condition six asking
that we do a study of the three alternatives for the buffering zone and make a
determination as to which one would best suit this particular application as far as noise
and lighting.
Chairman Altizer remarked there are two options; first there is a motion on
the floor and you can ask for that motion to be revised and add that. Chairman Altizer
than asked Mr. Thompson to address the ordinance. Mr. Thompson stated there was
48 January 22, 2013
some discussion about a berm as an alternative for the screening. We have five
different types of screening (A,B,C,D and E) and what is required is a Type C buffer. A
Type C buffer is required between a C2 property and R1 property. In looking at their
map, all the area in the red is R1 and everything is required to be a Type C buffer. Also,
as part of the special use permit requires this property that is zoned C1 that abuts the
southern line to also have Type C, which is not required. The Planning Commission did
talk about buffered, screening and different options and kind of left it open depending on
the site conditions about whether if they could put a berm or not put a berm, using
existing vegetation or not using existing vegetation, what the site would be graded as so
we know where they are going to level the site and balance the site; bring in dirt or not
bring in dirt. So, that was part of the discussion and at the end what the Planning
Commission did was they recommended that a Type C buffer be installed along all the
property lines except for Starkey Road. They wanted the applicant to have the
flexibility, if they could put a forty -foot (40') buffer in to do so. The Planning Commission
felt that in this case a fence would probably have more screening potential than a berm,
so they recommended if you are going to use a fence it would have to be stockade type
fence and if you could not do the forty feet (40') If you do the thirty feet (30') it would
have a vinyl or wood fence with evergreens instead of deciduous trees. The options
under a Type C buffer are a forty -foot (40') wide buffer with evergreens dedicuous trees
and two rows of shrubs or two rows of shrubs, deciduous trees and a fence within thirty
feet (30'). They discussed that and what they wanted if they put the fence up be either
vinyl or wood stockade type fence with evergreens and two rows of shrubs along the
entire border except for that along Starkey Road.
Chairman Altizer advised so they are now talking about a forty -foot (40')
buffer in that location. Mr. Blaylock stated he is very sensitive to Mr. Coburn and all of
their potential new neighbors and that they have of something that looks aesthetically
pleasing and is fitting in character that is well landscaped; but at what extreme. He
stated he does not think all the neighbors would want a berm around the property. He
stated he did not see any other developments that were built residentially with that type
of requirement. We were asked and they did take very seriously requests from our
neighbors to see if we could not expand what is already statute and they agreed to go
back at their own expense and get their architect to see if they could make it forty feet
(40'), beyond what was put in the Planning Commission recommendations and they
have agreed to do that on that particular property line to go to forty foot (40').
Supervisor Church then asked Mr. Blaylock between what the Board is
discussing; the forty feet (40') and something else can we come up with something else.
Can we come up with something that would help and smooth this area? Can we work
together? Mr. Blaylock stated they went from having a thirty foot (30') proffer to forty
feet (40') based on his concerns. They committed to that and to having the architect
redraw it so that forty feet (40') would fit within. They committed to going to whatever
type of trees that needs to be planted there to shield, protect and deflect whatever that
needs to be in having two layers of trees, staggered if you will.
January 22, 2013 49
Chairman Altizer interjected there could be more sound with a berm based
on projects he has worked on in the past. He asked if they could put a fence in with Mr.
Blaylock stating if that is a requirement for the width of his property with a vinyl blockade
fence instead of trees would be acceptable. There was some discussion concerning
removing the fence if another property owner no longer required the fence. Mr.
Coburn declined to have the fence put in. Additionally, there was some discussion as to
the wording of the ordinance between Mr. Mahoney, Supervisor Moore and Chairman
Altizer.
ORDINANCE 012213 -9 REZONING 10.27 ACRES FROM R -1,
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO C -2, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WITH CONDITIONS AND TO OBTAIN
A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A NURSING HOME AND LIFE
CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 5647 STARKEY ROAD, CAVE
SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 87.18- 01 -37),
UPON THE APPLICATION OF FRIENDSHIP HEALTH AND
REHAB CENTER SOUTH, INC. AND FRIENDSHIP HEALTH AND
REHAB CENTER, INC.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 11, 2012,
and the second reading and public hearing were held January 22, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on January 7, 2013; 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 10.27 acres, as described herein, and located at 5647 Starkey Road
Road (Tax Map Number 87.18- 01 -37) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R -1, Low Density Residential District, to the
zoning classification of C -2, General Commercial District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Friendship Health and
Rehab Center South, Inc. and Friendship Health and Rehab Center, Inc.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following amended conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, hereby accepts:
(1) The site will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan
dated December 4, 2012 titled "Friendship Health & Rehabilitation Center
South ", prepared by Freeman White, Inc. subject to those changes which
may be required by Roanoke County during comprehensive site plan
review.
50 January 22, 2013
4. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Friendship
Health and Rehab Center South, Inc. and Friendship Health and Rehab Center, Inc. for
the operation of a nursing home and life care facility on 10.27 acres located at 5647
Starkey Road (Tax Map Number 87.18- 01 -37) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
that it shall have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or
community, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following
conditions:
1) The site shall be developed in general conformance to the architectural
renderings titled "Friendship Health & Rehabilitation Center South" prepared by
Freeman White, Inc. dated September 2012.
2) Freestanding light poles on site shall be shielded "cut -off' types no more than
eighteen (18) feet high and arranged so glare is not cast onto adjoining
properties.
3) A Type C buffer shall be installed along all property lines except for the frontage
along Starkey Road. If option 2 is utilized, a wood or vinyl stockade fence and
large evergreen trees (instead of large deciduous trees) shall be installed. A
Type C Buffer, option 1 shall be installed along the southern property line
adjacent to Warren Coburn's properties (087.18 -01- 54.00 -0000 and 087.18 -01-
39.00 -0000) to include 2 staggered rows of large evergreen trees.
4) No trash service or deliveries to the site shall take place between 11:00 pm
and 7:00 am.
5) A business sign for the site shall be limited to a brick monument style sign not
to exceed four (4) feet in height and ten (10) feet in width or a total of forty
(40) square feet.
5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Being 10.27 acres of real estate located at 5647 Starkey Road and further
described as Tax Map Number 87.18- 01 -37.
6. 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 Moore to adopt the ordinance and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
The following comments were made at the time of the vote.
January 22, 2013 51
Supervisor Church thanked everyone for taking the time to be considerate
enough to understand, even though it was only one person. It is easy to change when
you have four hundred (400) people here asking for change; feels we came out with the
best under the circumstances.
Supervisor Elswick advised he did not get an answer on the ordinance,
but wanted to thank everyone for coming out for the area and all that need your help.
He also thanked Mr. Coburn.
Chairman Altizer thanked Mr. Coburn for coming tonight and being heard.
Sometimes these things are hard for everyone including the Board members.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he is just back
from the VA Legislature yesterday. This is the legislation he mentioned in one of his last
few presentations. H.J654 and if this passes you will be able to say, "Dillon Rule ", it's a
done deal. Further you will not have me speaking of keeping socialism out of our local
governance because ICLEI, the "International Association" of Local Environmental
Initiatives is just that of /by /for UN Agenda 21. Mr. Tickle then read some of the
resolution. "WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21, referring to the 21st century, is an
action agenda of the United Nations, other multilateral organizations, and individual
governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels;
United Nations Agenda 21 has been affirmed and modified at subsequent United
Nations conferences and various countries have become signatories, including the
United States; and WHEREAS, because United Nations Agenda 21 is not a treaty, the
United States Senate has been unable to hold a formal debate or vote to ratify it, and
the executive branch has not acted on it in any way; nevertheless, there is support in
Congress for United Nations Agenda 21 and over 528 United States cities have become
members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, an international
sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21
concepts across the world; and WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21
policy, national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice and opposition to the policy has
increased over the last ten (10) years in the United States at the local, state and federal
levels, and several state and local governments have passed legislation rejecting United
Nations Agenda 21 as "erosive of American sovereignty "; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, that the General
Assembly recognize the need to oppose United Nations Agenda 21 due to its radical
plan of purported "sustainable development," and that the General Assembly recognize
52 January 22, 2013
the policy's infringement on the American way of life and. individual freedoms and ability
to erode American sovereignty." Additionally, co- founder, Initiator Alexander King of the
Club of Rome "in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the
bill ... All of these dangers are caused by human intervention ... the real enemy then, is
humanity." Norwegian Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP World Socialist Party had the
hijacked English word "sustainability" stolen and ready to go as the Trojan Horse.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore stated on behalf of RCCLEAR she would like to
reference some money saving tips this evening. Aggressive driving can lower your gas
mileage by thirty -three percent (33 %) at highway speeds and about five percent (5 %)
around town and it is safer to drive sensibly. Gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at
speeds above fifty (50) miles per hour for each five (5) miles per hour over fifty (50) that
you go; you may pay about twenty -three cents (0.23) more per gallon per gas. Avoid
excessive ideally, you can use about a quarter to a half gallon of fuel per hour by just
simply idling. Avoid keeping anything heavy in your car; an extra one hundred pounds
(100 lbs.) can reduce your miles per gallon by two percent (2 %). Go to SaveATon.org
to get more money savings tips.
Supervisor Church stated he just wanted to mention a couple of weeks
ago he attended the Drug Court Graduation; it was a big day in Roanoke City. Every
second drug court graduation is between County and City Court. There was a packed
house; standing room only for the graduation but mainly for the retirement of Michael
Fosbre. He was the probation and drug court liaison for the State of Virginia, lives in
Vinton, a great guy. He is the longest serving in the Commonwealth of Virginia; did a
tremendous job. Mike if you are watching tonight, I hope you are having a good time
and taking care of yourself during retirement; a special thank you from the Board of
Supervisors for your long service to the County of Roanoke.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
itted by: Approved by:
1
Deborah C. Ja Michael W. Altizer
Clerk to the B rd Chairman