6/22/2004 - Regular
June 22, 2004
487
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
June 22, 2004
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 2004.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Michael W.
Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph
McNamara, Michael A. Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board;
Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by the Attender Tom Nasta, Roanoke Society of
Friends. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Adoption of a resolution to approve an assumption agreement to
transfer water and sewer revenue debt to the Western Virginia
June 22, 2004
488
Water Authority. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer)
R-062204-1
ith the formation of the Western Virginia Water
Ms. Hyatt advised that w
Authority (WVWA), the assets and liabilities of the water and sewer systems of
Roanoke County and Roanoke City will be transferred to the Authority. As part of
this transfer of liabilities, the revenue bond debt of these systems will also be
transferred to the Authority. The City and the County have worked with Virginia
Resources Authority (VRA), who is the holder of the majority of the revenue bonds
debt, to transfer this debt. This transfer will be accomplished with an assumption
agreement, which will be signed by the County, the City and the Authority.
Ms. Hyatt advised that the VRA Board approved this agreement at their
meeting on June 8, 2004; the City of Roanoke approved it at their meeting on June
21, 2004; and the Authority will be considering approval at their meeting on June 25.
She requested that the Board adopt a resolution which authorizes the assumption
agreement to transfer the water and sewer revenue debt of the County to the
WVWA. She advised that a listing of the debts which are being transferred from the
City and County to the Authority was provided with the Board report.
Supervisor Wray asked if the assumption agreement relieves all
present, transferred and future debt of the Authority. Ms. Hyatt advised that the
June 22, 2004
489
present revenue debt is being transferred to the Authority and any future debt will be
issued by the Authority itself.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062204-1 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA APPROVING THE
ASSUMPTION OF CERTAIN REVENUE BONDS BY THE
WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") and the City of
Roanoke, Virginia (the "City") propose to transfer their respective water and sewer
systems to the Western Virginia Water Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to an
Operating Agreement among the County, the City and the Authority.
WHEREAS, the Authority proposes to assume certain revenue bonds of the
County and the City, respectively, pursuant to an Assumption Agreement (the
"Assumption Agreement") among the County, the City, the Authority and the Virginia
Resources Authority.
WHEREAS, the County issued its Water System Revenue Bonds, Series 1991 of
which $3,304,660 remain outstanding (the "1991 Bonds") pursuant to a Master
Indenture of Trust, dated as of October 1, 1991 (the "Master Indenture") between the
County and SunTrust Bank (as successor to Crestar Bank) as trustee, as such Master
Indenture is supplemented.
WHEREAS, the County issued its $49,515.000 Water System Refunding
Revenue Bonds, Series 2003 (the "2003 Bonds") to the Virginia Resources Authority
pursuant to the Master Indenture, as supplemented.
WHEREAS, the County proposes to enter into the Fifth Supplemental Indenture
of Trust (the "Fifth Supplemental Indenture") to amend the Master Indenture to evidence
the assumption of the 1991 Bonds and the 2003 Bonds by the Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Assumption Agreement and Fifth Supplemental Indenture.
The execution and delivery of the Assumption Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental
Indenture by the County are authorized. The Assumption Agreement and the Fifth
June 22, 2004
490
Supplemental Indenture shall be in substantially the form on file with the County
Administrator and may contain such changes, insertions, deletions or corrections as the
County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, shall approve,
such approval to be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the
Assumption Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental Indenture.
2. Execution of Documents. The Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator, or either of them, are authorized to execute on behalf of the County the
Assumption Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental Indenture, and, if required, to affix
or to cause to be affixed the seal of the County to such documents and to attest such
seal. Such officers or their designees are authorized to execute and deliver on behalf of
the County such instruments, documents or certificates, and to do and perform such
things and acts, as they shall deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the
transactions authorized by this Resolution or contemplated by the Assumption
Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental Indenture; and all of the foregoing, previously
done or performed by such officers or agents of the County, are in all respects
approved, ratified and confirmed.
3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of the
Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke, Virginia, held on June 22, 2004
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Request for approval of the Roanoke Valley Regional Program
Fund budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 in the amount of
$4,865,611. (Dr. Patricia Radcliffe, Director of Special Education
and Pupil Personnel Service)
A-062204-2
Chairman Flora recognized Dr. Radcliffe; Mike Stovall, School Board
member; Dr. Weber, School Superintendent; and Penny Hodge, Schools Director of
Budget and Finance, who were present.
June 22, 2004
491
Dr. Radcliffe requested that the Board approve the budget for the
Roanoke Valley Regional Program Fund in the amount of $4,865,611. The Roanoke
Valley Regional Program serves children with autism, multiple disabilities, severe
disabilities and hearing impairments from six school districts. The tuition rates have
been set and they will be submitted to the State for final approval.
Supervisor Wray commended Dr. Radcliffe for her work with the program
and inquired why there was a 23% increase in the budget data during the summer. Dr.
Radcliffe advised that this increase was due to additional children attending summer
school.
Supervisor Wray moved to approve the staff recommendation (approval of
the Roanoke Valley Regional Program’s budget for fiscal year 2004-2005 in the amount
of $4,865,611). The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFING
1. Briefing on participation of Roanoke County Schools in state
efficiency audit
Mr. Hodge requested that Dr. Weber brief the Board on the participation of
the Roanoke County school system in the State efficiency audit. He advised that the
results were excellent and he commended the schools for their efforts.
Dr. Weber advised that the schools were asked to participate in a State
June 22, 2004
492
pilot program to review the best financial practices of school divisions. Roanoke
County, Kent County and Richmond City school systems volunteered for the program
which was essentially an audit, with Roanoke County being the second school division
to have their financial practices examined and studied. The auditors had difficulty
finding ways that the County could be more efficient and advised that the County’s
money is being well-spent. Dr. Weber advised that one of the more meaningful things
that came from the study is that the County schools were compared and matched with
eleven other school divisions by a series of factors and benchmarks. She advised that
these superintendents and County staff are interested in finding areas of mutual
benefits in the future.
Dr. Weber advised that the major suggestion to improve efficiency was to
increase energy savings by making changes to the lighting and windows. However, the
auditors admitted that they took a portion of energy savings the County had already
accomplished and made it a part of their study. She advised that even if the schools
implemented all of the suggestions for energy savings, they would not realize the
$194,000 savings which was the major part of the overall savings of $300,000. Dr.
Weber advised that $300,000 is a very small part of the schools’ budget. She advised
that when the report was presented by the auditors to the School Board, School Board
Member Drew Barrineau advised that the schools could only save approximately
$32,000 at this time and the auditors agreed. She expressed appreciation to the staff
and especially Ms. Hodge who was heavily involved with the specifics of the audit.
June 22, 2004
493
Each of the Supervisors expressed their appreciation and congratulations
to Dr. Weber and the schools’ staff for their efficiency and commitment which resulted in
the outstanding results of the audit.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. Request to schedule a public hearing and first reading of an
ordinance to receive public comments on a proposal to revise
and update the Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke
County, Virginia. The proposed Community Plan is comprised of
both text and maps. Once recommended by the Planning
Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the plan
will serve as a general guide for long-range use and development
of all land within Roanoke County. The proposed plan has been
prepared in accordance with guidelines contained in Section 15.2-
2223 and 2224 of the Code of Virginia, and Section 30-8-1 of the
Roanoke County zoning ordinance.
Chairman Flora advised that the consensus of the Board is to approve the
request to schedule a public hearing on the Community Plan so that the Planning
Commission can move forward with a public hearing at its July meeting. He reported
that the Board does not want to set a specific date for their public hearing, and he
requested Mr. Mahoney’s guidance to accomplish this. Mr. Mahoney suggested that
June 22, 2004
494
the Board adopt the consent agenda item but direct staff not to publish notice of an
advertisement for its July 27 meeting. With this action, the Planning Commission can
move forward with its public hearing on Tuesday, July 6. Mr. Mahoney advised that it is
his understanding that the Board wants to schedule additional work sessions and
arrange for further consultations with Dr. Mike Chandler, Virginia Tech, on this issue.
Supervisor Church advised that he was getting feedback from citizens that
they want the Board to be methodical and thorough in their review of the Community
Plan. He agreed that more input needs to be received before it should be considered
by the Board.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading so that the Planning
Commission could hold a public hearing and advised that the dates for the second
reading and public hearing will be established by the Board at a later time. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
1. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of an
easement to Appalachian Power Company through property
owned by the Board of Supervisors, Tax Map #028.13-01-27.04
and #028.13-01-27.00, to provide electric service to HollinsPark,
Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
June 22, 2004
495
O-062204-3
Mr. Mahoney advised that there have been no changes in this ordinance
since the first reading. The conveyance of this easement to Appalachian Power
Company will allow the North Roanoke Recreation Club and County Parks and
Recreation to extend electric service to Hollins Park and allow the lighting of a soccer
field. He advised that Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, was
present to answer questions. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062204-3 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN
EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
THROUGH PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP #028.13-01-27.04 AND #028.13-01-
27.00) TO PROVIDE ELECTRIC SERVICE TO HOLLINS PARK
IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff is developing soccer fields at Hollins Park and
requires electrical service to provide for lighting; and,
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) requires a 10' right of way
and easement for underground transmission lines extending from Hollins Road (Va.
Sec. Rte. 601) along the entry road through the Roanoke County property, designated
on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map #028.13-01-27.04 and Tax Map
#028.13-01-27.00; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed right of way will serve the interests of the public and is
necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of
Roanoke.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
June 22, 2004
496
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on June 8, 2004, and a second
reading was held on June 22, 2004.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be
surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to
Appalachian Power Company for the provision of electrical service in connection with
Roanoke County's development of Hollins Park.
3. That donation to Appalachian Power Company of an easement and right-
of-way for underground transmission lines and related improvements, within the
“10'”on the County’s property (Tax Map #028.13-01-27.04
PROPOSED EASEMENT AREA
and #028.13-01-27.00) extending along the park entry road from Hollins Road as shown
on APCO Drawing No. V-1464, dated May 17, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved.
4. That the County Administrator, or any assistant county administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-062204-4, R-062204-4.b
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062204-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN
ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
June 22, 2004
497
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June
2004, 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 12, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – June 7 and June 8, 2004
2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Court Community Corrections
Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board and Virginia’s First
Regional Industrial Facility Authority
3. Resolution establishing salaries for the County Administrator and County
Attorney
4. Request from schools for approval of diesel emissions reduction grant funds
in the amount of $226,644 from the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ)
5. Request to accept and approve the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime
Control Act (VJCCCA) grant for fiscal year 2004-2005 in the amount of
$276,170
6. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Sherman
D. Argenbright, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-26), Vinton Magisterial District
7. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of David Mott
and Vickie L. Mott, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-29), Vinton Magisterial District
8. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Bernard B.
Deacon and Nancy L. Deacon, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-30), Vinton Magisterial
District
9. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of George C.
Cobler, Jr. and Judy D. Cobler, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-28), Vinton
Magisterial District
10. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Dana L.
Underwood, Donna S. Underwood and Elizabeth C. Underwood, (Tax Map
No. 61.19-10-25), Vinton Magisterial District
11. Request to accept donation of a conservation easement, 15’ in width along
Wolf Creek in Greenway Landing, Plat Book 2, page 97, Vinton Magisterial
District
12. Request to accept donation of a 20’ water and sanitary sewer easement
across property of Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., (Tax Map No. 40.14-01-
02.11), Hollins Magisterial District
13. Request to accept Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of
$600.00.
14. Request to accept Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of
$300.00.
June 22, 2004
498
15. Request to accept water facilities serving Hanging Rock Estates (Catawba
Magisterial District)
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required
by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062204-4.b ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby
establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for Fiscal
Year 2004-2005.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the annual salary for the County Administrator shall be increased
from $129,529.92 to $134,063.47.
2. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from
$110,291.25 to $114,151.45, plus the County longevity supplement.
3. That the effective date for the establishment of these salaries shall be July
1, 2004.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
June 22, 2004
499
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Accounts Paid – May 31, 2004
6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended May 31, 2004
7. Statement of Treasurer’s accountability per investment and
portfolio policy as of May 31, 2004
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Flora declared a recess at 3:30 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss Slate Hill. (Elmer C. Hodge, County
Administrator)
The work session was held from 3:45 p.m. until 4:20 p.m. County staff
present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid,
Chief Planner; Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; David Holladay, Zoning Administrator;
and Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Hunter Smith, petitioner, was also present.
Mr. Hodge advised that this work session was scheduled to clarify the
proffers submitted by the petitioner for the Slate Hill rezoning before the public hearing
on the rezoning petition is held during the evening session. He advised that as a result
of recent discussions and negotiations, the following items were agreed upon: (1) A
slope protection maintenance trust account in the amount of $100,000 for a ten-year
June 22, 2004
500
term will be established by the petitioner to resolve maintenance issues within common
areas. (2) A geo-technical report will be submitted before grading is done which will
verify slope stability, stabilization methods, and design values for retaining structures.
This report is being requested to protect the integrity of the water tank which is already
located on the site. (3) Easements will be donated if there is a need for the County to
extend water and sewer lines in the area.
Mr. Covey updated the Board on the actions that have transpired since the
May 25, 2004, work session. He presented information about the outstanding issues
which were discussed at meetings held June 7th and 16th and reviewed the outstanding
issues still remaining on June 17th when the petitioner submitted revised proffers.
Mr. Hodge distributed copies of the revised proffers dated June 22, 2004,
which were submitted by the petitioner before 4:00 p.m. today as requested by staff.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to remove “not to exceed” from
Proffer #2 (b) and Mr. Smith advised that he agreed with this revision.
Mr. Mahoney described each of the revisions to the proffers. He advised
that in compliance with Board policy, proffers were received on Thursday, June 17,
before the Board meeting and that the June 22 revised proffers resulted when staff
requested an opportunity to further clarify certain items.
IN RE: EVENING SESSION
Chairman Flora called the evening session to order at 6:05 p.m. with all
present.
June 22, 2004
501
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Public hearing and adoption of resolution approving the revised
Roanoke County Solid Waste Management Plan. (Anne Marie
Green, Director of General Service)
R-062204-5
Ms. Green advised that the State requires local governments to maintain a
Solid Waste Management Plan and to update it periodically. The County previously
updated the plan in 1997 and the revised plan is due to the State by July 1, 2004. The
State is primarily interested in the method of disposal once the waste has been
collected, and requires information concerning landfilling, recycling, composting, and
incineration activities. Essentially the only change in the plan since 1997 involves how
the County handles recycling. At that time, the County was still providing curbside
recycling but this is no longer being provided due to budgetary issues.
Ms. Green advised that paper and yard waste are the largest components
of the County’s waste stream. Most of the goals in the plan are aimed at finding ways to
reduce and recycle that waste. The plan has been shared with the Roanoke County
Resource Authority and the Clean Valley Council, and their suggestions have been
incorporated into the document. The State also requested that the County hold a public
hearing to receive comments and that the governing body adopt a resolution. There is
no fiscal impact involved with the plan but some of the suggestions concerning recycling
such as using trailers or dumpsters will be addressed in future budgets. She asked that
June 22, 2004
502
the Board hold the public hearing and adopt the resolution.
Supervisor Wray advised that the life of Smith Gap Landfill is now 90 to
100 years and he inquired as to the reason that commercial waste has decreased to
33% from 42% in 1997. Ms. Green advised that the reduction in commercial waste is
caused by the Resource Authority raising their rates for non-governmental entities and
that one of the major waste haulers in the Roanoke Valley is now taking their waste
elsewhere. This reduction has increased the life of the landfill which was originally 60
years.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the County is attempting to establish a
recycling program. Ms. Green responded that the County is reviewing its options and
one of the simpler methods is to park a trailer at several County facilities for recycling
and then take those items to a recycling organization such as Cycle Systems. Staff has
discussed using the County libraries, schools, and fire stations as sites for recycling and
this program was included in next year’s budget. Supervisor Wray advised that he
thought a recycling program will be beneficial and he would like for the County to restart
the program. Ms. Green advised that they have a pilot program for recycling paper at
the County Administration Center, and a significant amount of paper is being diverted
from the waste stream.
There were no citizens present to speak on this issue.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
June 22, 2004
503
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062204-5 ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING A
COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ROANOKE
COUNTY
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the adoption of a Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan for Roanoke County was held on June 22, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is a member of the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority, and through that authority, maintains and operates a transfer
station, a rail line, and a landfill for the disposal of solid waste; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is one of only two counties in the State
providing curbside garbage pickup service to its residents at no charge.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Roanoke County hereby adopts the attached Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan; and
2. That the effective date of this resolution is July 1, 2004.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.3 acres from AG3
Agricultural Preserve District to PRD Planned Residential District
and rezone 97 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to
PRD Planned Residential District, located south of Whistler Drive
and Creek Circle and east of Apple Grove Lane, Windsor Hills
Magisterial District, upon the petition of Sam L. and Mercedes P.
Hardy. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Postponed to July 27, 2004
at the request of the Planning Commission
June 22, 2004
504
Chairman Flora announced that this item has been postponed to July 27,
2004 at the request of the Planning Commission.
2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.83 acres from I1C
Industrial District with conditions to R1 Low Density Residential
District for a development of single family housing located at
Tract B1-A-2 of Mason Subdivision, Hollins Magisterial District,
upon the petition of Balzer & Associates, Inc. (Janet Scheid,
Chief Planner) Postponed to July 27, 2004 at the request of the
petitioner
Chairman Flora announced that this item has been postponed to July 27,
2004 at the request of the petitioner.
3. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.24 acres from R1 Low
Density Residential District to I2 Industrial District in order to
operate a construction yard located at 7314 Wood Haven Road,
Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ernest E.
Sweetenberg. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-062204-6
Ms. Scheid advised that Mr. Sweetenberg has parked trucks and heavy
equipment on this property for more than thirty years. Last spring, he was cited by
zoning enforcement staff for having machinery parked in a residential zoned area. This
action is being requested to bring the zoning of the land into conformity with the existing
June 22, 2004
505
use for the past thirty years. This property was designated principal industrial in the
1988 Community Plan. The Planning Commission heard the petition on June 1 and
voted to recommend approval with the following proffer: (1) Use of the property will be
restricted to the parking of a maximum of twelve (12) vehicles including dump trucks,
trailers, farm equipment and related heavy equipment.
Supervisor Wray inquired as to why this citation was issued in spring 2003
when the property has been in violation for thirty years. Ms. Scheid advised that there
are areas where there may be violations but unless complaints are received, staff does
not know to investigate. Supervisor Wray asked how frequently the property will be
checked to ensure that only 12 vehicles are on the site as stated in the proffer or will
staff wait for complaints before reviewing. Ms. Scheid advised that there are two zoning
enforcement officers for the County, and re-inspections are done whenever a staff
member is in the area of the property.
In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry, Mr. Sweetenberg advised that
he accepts and agrees with the proffer as stated.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062204-6 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A 1.24-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 7314
June 22, 2004
506
WOOD HAVEN ROAD (TAX MAP NO.26.19-1-56) IN THE CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-2 WITH CONDITIONS
UPON THE APPLICATION OF ERNEST R. SWEETENBERG
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 25, 2004, and the
second reading and public hearing were held June 22, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on June 1, 2004; 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
1.24 acres, as described herein, and located at 7314 Wood Haven Road (Tax Map
Number 26.19-1-56) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the
zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification
of I-2, Industrial District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Ernest E. Sweetenberg.
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) Use of the property will be restricted to the parking of a maximum of
twelve (12) vehicles including dump trucks, trailers, farm equipment
and related heavy equipment.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
1.24 acres further described as Tax Map No. 26.19-1-56
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 Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
4. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit to
conduct equipment sales and rental on 7.7 acres located near
3902 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the
June 22, 2004
507
petition of James River Equipment Virginia, LLC. (Janet Scheid,
Chief Planner)
O-062204-7
Ms. Scheid advised that this is a request for a special use permit for the
expansion of an equipment sales and rental business. The petitioner wants to build a
new 16,493 square foot building on several parcels in a principal industrial area. The
property is located within the Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan which the Board
adopted in June 2003 as a supplement to the Roanoke County Community Plan. The
goal of those guidelines is to enhance the views of the adjoining parcels visible from
West Main Street, minimize access points onto the highway and enhance the corridor
appearance through innovative building, signage, lighting and landscaping design. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning on June 1, 2004, with the
following proffers: (1) The site shall be developed in conformance with Route 11/460
West Master Plan. (2) Access for the facilities shall share one entrance from West Main
Street. (3) Outside storage equipment on display for sale/rental or equipment stored on
site for repair shall be behind the front building line of the proposed building
Supervisor Wray inquired if the surrounding area is zoned C-2. Ms.
Scheid replied that property to the east is zoned I-2 all the way to Garman Road; to the
west near Koppers is zoned C-2; and the Fort Lewis Public Safety Building across Main
Street from the site is zoned C-1. Supervisor Wray asked if the petitioner feels that
there is sufficient space behind the building to store the outside equipment. Ms. Scheid
June 22, 2004
508
advised that the petitioner has agreed to this condition.
In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry, Mr. Gale Simmons, Vice
President of James River Equipment, petitioner, responded that they accept and agree
to the conditions as stated.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062204-7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
JAMES RIVER EQUIPMENT OF VIRGINIA, LLC TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE AN EQUIPMENT SALES AND RENTAL USE ADJACENT TO
3902 WEST MAIN STREET (TAX MAP NO. 55.03-3-20, 21, 21.1)
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, James River Equipment of Virginia, LLC has filed a petition for a
special use permit to construct and operate an equipment sales and rental use adjacent
to 3902 West Main Street (Tax Map No. 55.03-3-20, 21, 21.2) in the Catawba
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
June 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on May 25, 2004; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on June 22, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to James
River Equipment Virginia, LLC to construct and operate an equipment sales and rental
use adjacent to 3902 West Main Street in the Catawba Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said
special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
June 22, 2004
509
(1) The site shall be developed in conformance with Route 11/460 West
Master Plan.
(2) Access for the facilities shall share one entrance from West Main Street.
(3) Outside storage equipment on display for sale/rental or equipment stored
on site for repair shall be behind the front building line of the proposed building.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
5. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.35 acres from R-1
Low Density Residential District to C-1 Office District in order to
construct a financial institution office located at 4975 Bower
Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of
Member One Federal Credit Union. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-062204-8
Ms. Scheid advised that this is a request from Member One Federal Credit Union
to apply for rezoning to construct a financial institution. This request consists of one
1.35 acre parcel and conforms to the policies and guidelines of future land use. The
existing vacant 1960’s residential home will be demolished for the construction of the
new building. The property is adjoined by R-1 zoned property to the east; the property
across Etheridge Road, which is not maintained by the State, to the north is zoned C-2;
the property across Bower Road to the south is zoned C-1; and Electric Road runs the
length of the property to the west. Member One proposes to construct a one-story
June 22, 2004
510
branch and a twenty-foot buffer will be installed with at least an eight-foot fence
between Member One and the adjoining residential property. Access to the site will be
from Bower Road and Route 419. Member One at Southwest Plaza held a community
meeting in May to review and discuss the proposed rezoning. Eleven citizens attended
and the issues discussed were drainage, height of the building, number of locations,
height of exterior lights, traffic, screening and buffering. The Planning Commission
recommended approval on June 1, 2004, with the following conditions: (1) The
development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated
April 30, 2004, subject to those changes that may be required by the County during
comprehensive site plan review. (2) The architectural design of the building to be
constructed on the site will be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April
30, 2004, and the submitted conceptual rendering. (3) The property shall be used only
for the office uses permitted by right in C-1 office zoning. (4) The screen fence for the
property shall be 8-feet in height in the buffer yard adjacent to the R-1 zoned property.
(5) Freestanding signage for the property shall be monument style only. Total signage
for the property shall be no greater than 150 square feet. She advised that the
petitioner and his counsel were present to answer questions.
Supervisor Flora advised that proffered conditions for rezoning are offered
by the petitioner and they are not conditions imposed by the Board.
Ms. Goodlatte, attorney for the petitioner, advised that the proffers were
freely offered by the petitioner and they agreed with them. She advised that Karen
June 22, 2004
511
Lynch, Senior Vice-President of Member One; Dan Toti, Branch Manager of Member
One; and Brian Bower, Thor Construction, were present.
In response to Supervisor Wray’s inquiry about the type of material to be
used for the fence, Ms. Goodlatte advised that the fence between the building and the
adjoining property will be made of wood and will be eight feet high.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062204-8 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A 1.35-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 4975
BOWER ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 76.07-3-22) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 WITH CONDITIONS
UPON THE APPLICATION OF MEMBER ONE FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 25, 2004, and the
second reading and public hearing were held June 22, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on June 1, 2004; 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
1.35 acres, as described herein, and located at 4975 Bower Road (Tax Map Number
76.07-3-22) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning
classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of C-
1, Office District.
June 22, 2004
512
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Member One Federal
Credit Union.
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 development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the
Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004, subject to those changes that may be
required by the County during comprehensive site plan review.
(2) The architectural design of the building to be constructed on the
site will be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004,
and the submitted conceptual rendering.
(3) The property shall be used only for the office uses permitted by
right in C-1 office zoning.
(4) The screen fence for the property shall be 8-feet in height in the
buffer yard adjacent to the R-1 zoned property.
(5) Freestanding signage for the property shall be monument style
only. Total signage for the property shall be no greater than 150 square feet.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point along the southerly side of Etheridge Road, being the
common northerly point between Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, Section 1, City View
Heights; thence running in a southerly direction between said Lot 3 and Lot 4,
278.4 feet to a point along the northerly side of Bower Road; thence along the
northerly side of Bower Road in a westerly direction, 160 feet, more or less, to a
point; thence with a curve to the right. 33.9 feet to a point along the easterly side
of Route 419; thence in a northerly direction along the easterly side of Route 419,
240 feet, more or less, to a point; thence with a curve to the right, 22.46 feet to a
point on the southerly side of Etheridge Road; thence along the southerly side of
Etheridge Road in an easterly direction, 220 feet, more or less, to the Place of
Beginning, and being part of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Section 1, City View
Heights, being Tax Map No. 76.07-3-22, and containing 1.354 acres, more or
less.
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 McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
6. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of
June 22, 2004
513
certain real estate from Norman D. Mason consisting of
approximately 4.83 acres and being identified as Tax Map No.
28.13-1-27.5 for public park purposes, Hollins Magisterial District.
(Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
O-062204-9
Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading of an ordinance to
authorize acquisition of this property, and there have been no changes since the first
reading. He advised that staff has negotiated a real estate contract with Mr. Mason for
a purchase price of $250,000 and the County would like to add this property to the
adjacent County park. Mr. Mahoney requested that the Board appropriate $255,000
from the year-end surplus for the purchase price and any other costs associated with
closing the transaction. He advised that if the Board authorizes the acquisition of this
property, staff would come back to the Board and petition for a rezoning to the R-1
classification. Staff would also have to approach some of the property owners in the
Mountain View Farms Technological Park in order to amend the protective covenants to
allow the County to put a parks and recreational facility on this property.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
June 22, 2004
514
ORDINANCE 062204-9 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FROM NORMAN D. MASON CONSISTING
OF APPROXIMATELY 4.83 ACRES AND BEING IDENTIFIED AS TAX
MAP NO. 28.13-1-27.5 FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES
WHEREAS, a deficit in park acreage and field facilities has been identified in the
North County area; and
WHEREAS, real estate consisting of approximately 4.83 acres owned by Norman
D. Mason and adjacent to an 8.874 acre parcel currently owned by the County and used
as a County park is available for sale at the price of $250,000; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of this real estate will enhance the current park
property and protect the public interest in same; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on June 8, 2004, and the second reading and
public hearing was held on June 22, 2004.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the purchase of 4.83 acres of real estate (Tax Map No. 28.13-1-27.5)
located on Hollins Road owned by Norman D. Mason for the sum of Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($250,000) is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the Board does hereby ratify, confirm, and approve the County
Administrator’s execution of a contract to acquire this property on behalf of the County.
3. That there is hereby appropriated the sum of Two Hundred Fifty-five
Thousand Dollars ($255,000) from the Year End Surplus to pay all the costs of this
acquisition.
4. That the County Administrator or 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.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
7. Second reading of an ordinance to change the zoning
classification of a 15.3 acre tract of real estate located at Route
419 nears its intersection with Keagy Road (Tap Map Nos. 67.18-2-
June 22, 2004
515
1 and 67.18-2-2 and part of Tax Map Nos. 67.18-2-3, 67.18-2-4) in
the Windsor Hills Magisterial District from the zoning
classification of C-1 and R-1 to the zoning classification of C-2
with conditions, upon the petition of Kahn Development
Company. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Postponed from March
23, 2004 and continued from April 27, 2004
O-062204-10
Chairman Flora advised that the procedure for this item will be as follows:
(1) staff will make a presentation, (2) the petitioner will make a presentation, and (3) the
public hearing will be held. The speakers will be called in the order that they signed up
except that a number of citizens yielded their time for a group to make a presentation.
(4) After the public hearing has been closed, no further public comment will be allowed
and the Board will discuss the item.
Mr. Hodge advised that a plan should be a road map for well thought out
changes and meaningful decisions and this project meets that test. Since change will
take place, it is the County’s responsibility to make that change the best that it can be.
The plan being discussed is a product of great refinement and he recognized the
citizens, both pro and con, for their efforts and advised that their input has contributed to
the project. The Planning Commission, staff and the Board, especially Supervisor
McNamara, has expended a great deal of time and effort into making this a better
project. Supervisor McNamara has insisted that the County do everything possible to
June 22, 2004
516
minimize the impacts of this project on the citizens.
Mr. Hodge acknowledged that several Allstate Insurance Company
representatives were present and would speak on this item. Allstate officials have been
very cooperative throughout the process and have been striving to make the project
even better. Mr. Mahoney will distribute to the Board members an updated ordinance
which will clarify the descriptions of the property involved. Some of the concerns about
the project are traffic issues and compliance with the Community Plan. Yesterday, the
petitioner, Ms. Goodlatte, and County staff worked with Allstate officials to determine if
the main entrance could be improved. An additional lane was added to make a new
alignment from Route 419 to Sugarloaf Road which will help with the traffic flow from
Allstate.
Mr. Hodge advised that the project is excellent and well thought out and
the developer has demonstrated a willingness to work with the County and citizens. It is
a neighborhood village program such as Grandin Court, Innsbrook, and Brandon Mill in
Richmond, and when these projects are implemented successfully, they can be very
beneficial to the community. The petitioner has offered substantial proffers and the
project is in conformity with the Community Plan. He advised that staff will share with
the Board their analysis of the project and the petitioner will also provide information.
He advised that he and staff recommend the project for approval and pledge that they
will work with the neighborhood to make the implementation move smoothly.
Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioner, Kahn Development Company,
June 22, 2004
517
wants to construct a mixed-use office and retail development on 15.6 acres at the
intersection of Keagy Road and Route 419. Approximately 9 acres of this property is
currently zoned C-1 which allows office development and approximately 6 acres is
currently zoned R-1, single family residential.
Ms. Scheid reported that the County is in the midst of reviewing and
revising its Community Plan and examining future land use designations. For this
reason, she would like to talk about the land use designation of the 15 acres. Twenty or
thirty years ago, most of the land in the County was designated for agricultural uses.
Over time, a significant portion of that land was changed to allow residential uses; and a
portion of that residential land has been changed to accommodate commercial growth
based upon the location of public services and roads. This process represents the
evolution of land use changes in Roanoke County. Land use designations and zoning
classifications are not guaranteed forever. As Mr. Chandler discussed with staff two
weeks ago, change occurs and the County must meet the challenge of keeping up with
that change.
Ms. Scheid advised that the portion of this property that is zoned C-1 is
designated transition in the Community Plan. This designation encourages clustered
retail uses so the proposed development is in conformance with that transition
designation. The R-1 properties are designated neighborhood conservation and consist
of two homes on three parcels of land, totaling 6 acres. Since this does not represent a
typical suburban development, the question is should these properties be ultimately
June 22, 2004
518
redeveloped for single or multi-family use or for commercial use. Given the location
across from a large office building, the proximity to a four-lane divided highway, and a
signalized intersection, it seems fairly debatable that, with a high quality development
plan, the property is better used for commercial development. Ms. Scheid stated that
from the initial meeting with the petitioner, staff expressed concern about the adjoining
residential land uses and cautioned the developer to produce a plan that mitigated
impacts to the neighborhood.
Ms. Scheid advised that in order to mitigate the impacts to the
neighborhood, the petitioner has submitted 12 proffers with the rezoning request. She
reported that the proffers control what the buildings will look like, how the space will be
designed and developed, and how to control the noise, signage and lighting. The
petitioner has agreed to set aside three acres of the R-1 zoned property to provide a
landscaped buffer between the proposed development and the residential properties to
the west along Keagy Road. This is being done to address the concerns that staff has
expressed and after meeting with neighborhood residents. This proffered condition
mandates that the three acres remain undeveloped except for the secondary access
road and a portion of the storm water detention pond. It will provide a landscaped,
green space between the proposed development and the adjoining homes. The
concept plan that is being presented at this meeting is less intense than the plan that
was presented to the Planning Commission on March 2. Although the acreage has only
changed slightly, the total building square footage has been reduced by almost 20%.
June 22, 2004
519
This is due primarily to the removal of the three acres that will remain undeveloped on
the west side.
Ms. Scheid stated that since the March Planning Commission meeting,
access to the site has also been revised. In response to comments from the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT), the driveway from Route 419 is shown as an
entrance only and the main entrance was relocated to a point further from the
intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Rd. The entrance which aligns with Sugarloaf
Mountain Road is in the same location as was shown previously but now curves through
the three acre landscape buffer at the southwestern portion of the proposed
development. On March 2, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
forward this request to the Board with a favorable recommendation.
In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry, Ms. Scheid advised that the
buffer will remain undeveloped indefinitely.
Mr. Mahoney asked the Clerk to distribute to the Board members the
amended ordinance which reduces the total area subject to the rezoning from
approximately 15.7 acres to approximately 15.3 acres and an exhibit which describes
the metes and bounds descriptions for the specific acreage.
Ms. Goodlatte advised that Kahn Development would like to develop a
mixed use retail office center at the corner of Route 419 and Keagy Road. The project
is directly across Keagy Road from Allstate and would go no further back on Keagy
Road than Allstate. Some months ago, the Planning Commission recommended by a
June 22, 2004
520
unanimous vote that the development be approved. At that meeting, most of the
speakers voiced opposition and rather than proceeding directly to the Board, Kahn
agreed to a delay to meet with the neighbors who wanted to pursue a compromise.
Initially those discussions lead to an entirely new layout which would have involved
swapping property with another land owner. When that plan failed to move forward,
Kahn continued meeting with the neighbors and County staff to develop a compromise
which scaled back the development and that is the project before the Board at this time.
Ms. Goodlatte advised that the maximum footage of the project has
decreased and three acres of the site will be a natural landscaped area serving as a
significant buffer between the development and its residential neighbors. She displayed
the concept plan and pointed out the buffer. The plan approved by the Planning
Commission provided for a thirty foot buffer and this parcel of land will be conveyed and
donated by Kahn to the neighbors. The buffer will not be rezoned and it will remain R-1,
it has been removed from the rezoning request, and it will remain undeveloped. It was
important to the neighbors to have control and ownership of this parcel which ensures
that the commercial development will not encroach on them because they own the
access to their neighborhood. The only artificial intrusion into that area will be the
entrance drive and possibly the storm water detention facility which engineers advised
may need to be located here. Kahn will be donating in excess of three acres if the 300
foot parcel is included and to accomplish this, they had to remove a building and
squeeze some of the other building on the site. However, the character of this village
June 22, 2004
521
style development has not changed and the proffers related to architectural and building
design standards, lighting and signage limitations have not changed. Ms. Goodlatte
advised that Eric Deneve, architect, was present to answer questions about the details
of the center.
Ms. Goodlatte advised that the development has three access points
which include one on Route 419 and two on Keagy Road. VDOT required an access on
Route 419 because of the proximity to the traffic signal and also required that the first
entrance on Keagy Road be moved to approximately midway between the two Allstate
entrances. Based on the traffic impact study, improvements to Keagy Road will be
made to accommodate the traffic generated by this development. The intersection at
Route 419 and Keagy Road will be expanded from its current three lanes to five lanes.
As you travel from Allstate and the neighborhood toward Route 419, there are currently
two lanes which include a right-turn lane which empties onto Route 419 and a lane
which provides for both through traffic and left turns onto Route 419. That will be
expanded to three lanes to include a dedicated left-turn lane. In the other direction,
turning from Route 419 onto Keagy Road, there is currently one lane but two lanes are
planned. The additional lane that runs the length of the development was not required
by the traffic impact study. The engineers had recommended that right-turn lanes be
added where needed to guide traffic into the development. Allstate expressed their
desire to have two lanes heading from Route 419 all the way back to the second
entrances. Both lanes would be through lanes but the lane on the left would allow cars
June 22, 2004
522
to turn left into Allstate without backing up cars and the one on the right would allow
cars to enter Keagy Village. Kahn felt it was important to accommodate Allstate and is
willing to do this. Kahn’s road improvements will also include removing the hump on
Keagy Road which now faces drivers as they head towards Allstate and the
neighborhood. With these road improvements, the traffic generated by Keagy Village
can be accommodated.
Ms. Goodlatte advised that among the items analyzed by the traffic
engineers in the traffic study was the level of service (LOS) at the signalized and
unsignalized intersections. The LOS is measured on a scale by the number of seconds
that a vehicle must wait at a controlled stop before it can proceed through the
intersection and is measured at the busier times of the day called the AM and PM peak
hours. For this site, the AM peak occurs between 7:15 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. and PM peak
occurs between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. At this time, the intersection at Route 419 and
Keagy Road operates at a “C” LOS during the PM peak which means that cars have to
wait between twenty and thirty-five seconds before proceeding through the intersection.
During the AM peak, the intersection operates at a “B” LOS without any development on
this site. Using historical growth rates, the year 2008 was examined in the traffic study
as a control to understand what the traffic levels will be without the development or with
the development and the infrastructure improvements associated with the development.
The study shows that the intersection will continue to function at the same levels as it
does now.
June 22, 2004
523
Ms. Goodlatte advised that while the Route 419 and Keagy Road
intersection is the most significant in terms of traffic, other intersections were studied as
well. The Sugarloaf Mountain Road intersection now operating at a “B” LOS will
continue to operate the same in 2008 with or without the development. Where citizens
on Keagy Road turn left onto Sugarloaf Mountain Road, the LOS is “A” LOS and in
2008, it will remain the same with or without the development. The study confirms that
with these improvements, any additional traffic generated on Keagy Road can be
accommodated. Before the road improvements can be finalized, County staff and
VDOT must approve the final configurations. Kahn has proffered that it will comply with
all VDOT requirements with respect to improvements to Route 419 and Keagy Road.
Some of those who oppose the rezoning maintain that citizens who use Keagy Village
will not exit onto Route 419 but instead will drive through the neighborhood to avoid the
Route 419 intersection. That concern is based on the behavior of some Allstate
employees who leave work and travel on Sugarloaf Mountain Road or back into the
Keagy neighborhood rather than towards the signal light at Route 419 and Keagy Road.
Ms. Goodlatte stated that not approving this rezoning and allowing the ten acres already
zoned to be developed as office space poses more traffic concerns than Keagy Village.
A large office development would place pressure on the exits at the same time, while a
retail center has steady traffic exiting the development. Keagy Village customers,
unless they live in the neighborhood behind the center, are going to take the clear and
easy way out and head to Route 419 and the signalized intersection. The changes that
June 22, 2004
524
Kahn made to the concept plan which limit the development on the back three acres of
the site and reduce the maximum office space from 60,000 to 25,000 square feet have
made the second exit and entrance directly across from Sugarloaf Mountain Road
clearly a secondary entrance. The large office development at the upper back end of
the site is no longer planned. Except for a few spaces, the vast majority of the parking
spaces are closer to the main exit than the secondary exit. The secondary exit will now
run through a landscaped buffer area and not a developed area. All of these
development techniques, plus the fact that a large office complex is not on ten acres of
this site, suggest that the concerns that traffic generated by Keagy Village will travel
through the neighborhood is unfounded. The traffic study reinforces that theory. Traffic
engineers analyzed the traffic on Keagy Road heading into the neighborhood. Currently
during the AM peak, 68 cars per hours travel in that direction. During the PM peak, that
number is 109. Without this development, traffic coming into the neighborhood in 2008
is projected to increase to 72 cars per hour during the AM peak and 117 cars per hour
during the PM peak. With Keagy Village, traffic coming into the neighborhood in 2008 is
projected to increase to 99 cars per hour during the AM peak and 165 cars per hour
during the PM peak. That means that this development will generate 27 cars more per
hour during the AM peak and 48 cars per hour during the PM peak. The traffic peaks
for this development will not coincide with Allstate since traffic at the center will pick up
after the employees go home and a grocery store is statistically shown to have its best
shopping day on Saturday.
June 22, 2004
525
Ms. Goodlatte asked that the Board consider the support of the neighbors
closest to the development who will be speaking tonight. She stated that from her
experience in other controversial rezonings, neighbors value certainty and knowing how
a piece of property will be developed and the ability to have input into that development.
Kahn has offered that opportunity. She advised that Todd Walter, Kahn Development
Co; Eric Deneve, architect; Frank Caldwell, civil engineer leading the engineering team;
and Ann Booker, traffic engineer with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern who provided the
traffic analysis, were present. Ms. Goodlatte complimented Mr. Hodge and the County
staff for their hard work on this project and their insistence that the project be one
everyone could be proud of. She also applauded Kahn for agreeing to the standards
and conditions to make this a quality project.
Mr. Walter advised that he was Vice President of Development for Kahn
Development Company in Columbia, South Carolina. He stated that their philosophy
has been to do the best job they can in any development and they think this will be an
excellent project. The retail concepts in this country are changing as communities are
growing and there is more demand for retail in less space and there are more village
projects where uses are confined in one development. They have developed over 3
million square feet of retail space in several states and they would like to develop this
project in Roanoke. He thanked Mr. Hodge and his staff for protecting the interests of
the citizens and dealing with them in a constructive way to make the project better. He
June 22, 2004
526
commended the neighbors for being involved in the process, and requested that the
Board approve the project.
Supervisor Wray inquired as to what type of specialty shops are planned.
Ms. Goodlatte advised that the focal point will be a 26,000 square foot grocery store,
such as Earth Bear, which would focus on meats and organic products. There will be a
mix of restaurants and retail including specialty women’s apparel. Although the
developer has been seeking the grocery store tenant and has talked with Earth Bear,
tenants have not been signed up for the center because the zoning is still undecided.
They will focus on the smaller businesses that would prefer to group together as
specialty retailers. Mr. Walter advised that they have not been actively seeking tenants
and have no commitment from a grocery store. They have been contacted by
businesses interested in the development such as restaurants, women’s and men’s
apparel and jewelry stores. Ms. Goodlatte advised Supervisor Wray that they have
specifically proffered out fast food restaurants which require a special use permit in the
County.
In response to Supervisor Wray’s inquiry, Ms. Goodlatte advised that the
developer has proffered that they will meet all VDOT’s standards. In response to
Supervisor Wray’s inquiry about the storm water drainage, Ms. Goodlatte advised that
the engineers have preliminarily calculated where to place the storm water detention but
it will have to be engineered to the satisfaction of County staff. It is a State and County
requirement that they not send any of their storm water runoff onto adjoining properties.
June 22, 2004
527
However, they may want to move it into the buffer yard if that is deemed more
appropriate. There is a very elaborate engineering process for storm water
management that has to be verified by the County before any permits are issued.
In response to Supervisor McNamara’s inquiry about whether the
developer plans to have any residential buildings, Ms. Goodlatte advised that in the C-2
zoning, 50% of a building can be residential; however, residential use has been
proffered out because of the objections by the neighbors. In addition, it would not be
economical since the current projected buildings are smaller which would make the
residential condos even smaller. Supervisor McNamara inquired about the possibility
of a walking trail. Ms. Goodlatte advised that they have proffered that there will be a
walking trail which will provide walking opportunities for users of Keagy Village and
neighbors by connecting to on-site sidewalks and street crosswalks. Once the final site
is engineered, the walking trails will be incorporated. Supervisor McNamara asked Ms.
Goodlatte to verify that the green space has been proffered to remain undeveloped.
Ms. Goodlatte concurred that this is correct and it is included in the site plan and the
specific proffer 1.c which she read.
Supervisor McNamara referred to the traffic study which stated that if you
have 80% vehicles exiting the main entrance and 20% exiting the back entrance, most
of the cars from the main entrance (120 out of total of 140) will be headed towards
Route 419. He inquired how do you know these are accurate figures. Ms. Booker,
traffic engineer, advised that the projections are based on the existing traffic patterns
June 22, 2004
528
and that 75% of the traffic would be generated from Route 419, an additional 15% from
Keagy Road, and 10% from Sugarloaf Mountain Road. This would mean that if citizens
enter from Route 419, they would return to Route 419. Supervisor McNamara advised
that you can look at the current conditions but there is no way to project the future
conditions. Ms. Booker advised that they feel the traffic projections are reasonable
based on the current traffic flows and the fact that Route 419 has more traffic than
Keagy Road and therefore provides easier access to the site.
In response to Supervisor Altizer’s request, Ms. Goodlatte pointed out the
improvements to the lanes of Keagy Road on the concept plan.
Supervisor Wray advised that Keagy Road needs improvements with or
without any development and asked Mr. Covey to respond. Mr. Covey advised that
Keagy Road is currently not on the six-year road plan but with this development, Kahn
is willing to make improvements to Keagy Road. He reported that even if the road is
placed on the six-year plan, it would be many years before construction is completed.
In response to Supervisor Wray’s inquiry, Mr. Covey advised that he felt these
improvements would handle the commercial traffic generated from the project.
Chairman Flora advised that he had 34 requests to speak on this item and
that a number of citizens had asked to yield their time to a team of speakers to make a
presentation to the Board.
Mr. Bill Hopkins, Allstate Insurance Company, advised that Bill Marston
from the Chicago real estate office, and Linda Moore, from the Roanoke office, were
June 22, 2004
529
present. Mr. Hopkins advised that Allstate’s primary concern was traffic and they hired
Tom Flynn, engineer from Draper Aden, to review the proposed plan. Allstate made a
number of suggestions for changes and since the developer has agreed to make these
changes, they have no objection to approval of the rezoning.
The following citizens requested approval of the rezoning: (1) Ms. Sara
Aldridge, 4913 Keagy Road (2) Mr. J. R. Van Vechten, 4801 Hickory Hill Drive (3) Ms.
Ethel Sheets, 4842 Keagy Road, submitted a map with the names of the adjacent
neighbors who approved of the rezoning.
Chairman Flora advised that many citizens had requested to yield their
time to Mr. Fred Bolyard to make a presentation. Mr. Bolyard confirmed that he and five
other citizens would be presenting comments.
Mr. Fred Bolyard, 6235 Hidden Valley Drive, President of the Greater
Hidden Valley Civic League (GHVCC) stated that the purpose of GHVCC is to protect
the integrity of the neighborhood and to preserve the quality of life. The group is
speaking on behalf of 800 petitioners who are opposed to the rezoning. He advised that
the State Code and the County zoning ordinance set forth certain requirements for
signage and that the proper posting of the property has never taken place. The
frontage on Keagy Road consists of more than 1,200, feet thereby requiring a minimum
of five signs and there were only two. The zoning ordinance states that failure to
comply with proper posting shall result in the cancellation or continuation of the
scheduled public hearing and according to a court case, could render a decision of the
June 22, 2004
530
governing body null and void. He requested that the petition be cancelled or continued
to another date based on improper procedures. He advised that the County Code and
State Code allow the owner of the property for which an amendment is requested to
voluntarily proffer in writing reasonable conditions and all proffered conditions must be
signed by the owner of the property. The proffers still do not tell the community what is
going to be built and housed in the shopping center. The owner of the property is not
Kahn Development and the owner has not made any proffers. The developer has made
contingent proffers and can still change their minds.
Mr. Bolyard introduced the following members of the GHVCC who spoke
in opposition to the rezoning: (1) Mr. Lowell Inhorn, 4576 Keagy Road (2) Ms. Helen
Sublette, 5577 Valley Drive (3) Mr. Frank D. Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive.
Chairman Flora declared a recess from 8:25 p.m. until 8:36 p.m.
Mr. Bolyard introduced the remaining speakers from the GHVCC who
expressed their opposition to the rezoning: (4) Ms. Cynthia Pezold, 4576 Keagy Road,
school issues, (5) Ms. Mary Ann Gwyn, 4843 Keagy Road. This concluded the
presentations from the GHVCC.
The following citizens spoke and requested approval of the rezoning: (1)
Mr. Tom Wilson, Vice President for Radford Companies, 5065 Balsam Drive (2) Mr.
Perry Crosier, 2215 Carter Road (3) Ms. Millie Moore, 7412 Tinkerview Road (4) Mr.
Lewis C. Hypes, 4931 Keagy Road (5) Ms. Nancy Hartley, 4912 Sugarloaf Mountain
Road (6) Mr. Earle Atkins, 4926 Keagy Road.
June 22, 2004
531
Ms. Virginia F. Burns, 5614 Valley Drive, spoke in opposition to the
rezoning.
Mr. Bud Conklin, 4569 Keagy Road, requested that if the Supervisors feel
they have to approve this project, they agree to add an amendment to ensure that the
rest of the residential areas on Keagy Road will remain zoned R-1.
Mr. Roy Gwynn advised that he would yield his time to someone who
needs it.
Chairman Flora advised that Rev. Ed Woodard, 5523 Cynthia Drive, had
left the meeting.
Mr. Herb McBride, 5105 Greenfield Street, advised that his family has
owned the largest parcel of land in this rezoning since 1949; they signed a land contract
with Kahn Development; and they requested the rezoning to C-1 and agree with the
proffers as offered. He spoke for approval of the rezoning and presented a petition of
157 County residents who support the rezoning.
Chairman Flora advised that Mr. Cyrus Carmack, 5004 Sugarloaf
Mountain Road, had left the meeting.
Ms. Mary Cooke Moore, 4548 Bonsack Road, spoke in approval of the
rezoning.
Ms. Lavonne Moore, 5838 Winnbrook Drive, spoke in opposition to the
rezoning.
June 22, 2004
532
Chairman Flora advised that Mr. Karl Miller, 6544 Tallwood Drive, had left
the meeting.
Mr. Frank Simms, 5880 Lakemont Drive, advised that he had yielded his
time to Mr. Atkins.
Ms. Goodlatte advised that she would like to respond to concerns as
expressed by several citizens at the public hearing. She advised that there have been
four professional traffic engineers who have reviewed and analyzed the traffic impact
study that Kahn presented. These included Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern
(HSM&M) who produced the report based on VDOT standards; Allstate which hired
Draper Aden to review the study; Roanoke County’s traffic engineer; and VDOT. Ms.
Goodlatte advised that VDOT reserves final judgment, as is customary, until the site
plan is filed and specific permits are requested; however, VDOT has no issues that
were not addressed in the traffic impact statement. She responded to citizens’
concerns about high turnover restaurants and drive-through restaurants. The term high
turnover restaurant is used in the traffic impact study and is a methodology from
HSM&M and VDOT which is conservative in over-estimating the impact of a
development on traffic. When you characterize a sit-down restaurant as a high turnover
restaurant, it means that you have more visitors and you should err on the side of over-
estimating or being conservative about the traffic impact. Before a drive-through
restaurant of any sort can be approved in the County, a special use permit must be
approved by the Board. Ms. Goodlatte advised that they were trying to make a
June 22, 2004
533
distinction between a classic fast food restaurant, which they have expressly proffered
not to build, and a specialty drive-through, similar to Starbucks, which would be an
example of a small drive-through and appropriate. However, the Board would make any
decision on a drive-through restaurant. Concerns were also raised about the height of
the building and she advised that the concept plan proffers that the building will be one
or two stories.
Supervisor Wray inquired of Mr. Covey who would be responsible for
interpreting the proffers and conditions established from a legal standpoint and making
sure that they are adhered to in the future. Mr. Covey advised that when a site plan is
submitted, there is a review process and a County planner is responsible for looking at
the site plan and comparing it to the proffered conditions. If there is an issue of
interpretation or whether it meets the ordinance, it would be appealed to the Zoning
Administrator and he, in consultation with the County Attorney, would make a
determination. He advised that David Holladay is the Zoning Administrator.
In response to Supervisor Flora’s inquiry, Mr. Covey advised that a
decision by the Zoning Administrator can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals
and then appealed to the Circuit Court. Mr. Mahoney clarified that any appeal of an
interpretation of the Zoning Administrator would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals but if
it is an issue involving application of a proffered condition, after the Zoning Administrator
makes a decision, the appeal would come back to the Board and then to Circuit Court.
June 22, 2004
534
Supervisor Wray asked Anthony Ford, County Traffic Engineer, about the
reason for having the intersections of Sugarloaf Road and Keagy Road line up. Mr.
Ford stated that it is advisable from a safety aspect because the intersections would be
at 90 degree angles and have better sight distances. Supervisor Wray inquired about
whether the traffic could be made one-way. Mr. Ford clarified that forcing the traffic to
not go through the neighborhood but back to Route 419 would eliminate anyone in the
neighborhood from shopping at the center and returning to the neighborhood. He
further stated that if you make a geometric improvement to force vehicles back to Route
419, vehicles approaching Keagy Road would be at less than 90 degree angles and
sight distances would decrease.
Supervisor McNamara advised that citizens had alluded to this rezoning
being a done deal and that there is no guarantee on a rezoning. He asked Doug
Chittum, Economic Development Director, for clarification on these issues. Mr. Chittum
advised that he would not be in his position with the County if he had been involved in
any done deals, and that his staff and the planning staff take their positions very
seriously. When Mr. McBride, the owner of one of the parcels involved, came to
discuss the rezoning, he encouraged Mr. McBride to advise the developer that this
would not be an easy decision, that the neighbors would have a lot of questions, and
that the Board and administration took very seriously any changes in the land use,
especially along Route 419. When discussing this rezoning with Mr. Walter from Kahn
Development, Mr. Walter indicated that he thought this was a natural rezoning and a life
June 22, 2004
535
style center would be a natural fit. Mr. Chittum told Mr. Walter that although there were
many questions to be answered, staff was willing to work towards the best interests of
the developer and the neighborhood. Mr. Chittum advised that some of the neighbors
discussed their opinions that this is a done deal with him, and he attempted to dispel
their fears.
Supervisor McNamara advised that in his opinion, this was not a done
deal, and he thanked Mr. Chittum for his responses. He asked Ms. Scheid if this
rezoning is approved, would the County take action to prevent future rezonings of
property on Keagy Road. Ms. Scheid advised that any petitions that are presented to
staff to rezone property on Keagy Road or Sugarloaf Mountain Road would require the
same public process as this rezoning. Supervisor McNamara asked Ms. Scheid if she
recalled any rezoning from R-1 to C-2 in the past except for the Comprehensive Six-
Year Update. Ms. Scheid advised that she did not recall any rezoning of this type at this
time, but Mr. Covey advised that the Lowe’s complex off Route 221 was rezoned from
R-1 to C-2.
Supervisor McNamara asked Mr. Ford how valid are the assumptions in
the traffic studies. Mr. Ford advised that the trip generation numbers are from the
federally accepted Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual and are
generated from historical studies in different parts of the country. The trip generation
numbers are based on actual counts but the trip distribution numbers, which report that
a certain percentage will come out of a certain access point, are hypothetical. He
June 22, 2004
536
advised that from the site plan, it seems that the majority of vehicles leaving the site will
be at the main access point which will be midway between the two Allstate entrances
because the other access point will be 11% grade, not as aesthetically pleasing, and
with no storage capacity, landscaping, or median cuts. Mr. Ford advised that he did
agree with the study on the trip distribution numbers and how vehicles will get access to
and from the site.
Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Ford about the possibility of securing a “No U-
turn” sign similar to the one located at the traffic signal at Hidden Valley School. Mr.
Ford said that this would have to be based on whether the turning radius is sufficient to
allow certain size vehicles to make that movement and VDOT had likely studied this
since no there is no sign there already. Supervisor Wray advised that if this rezoning is
approved, traffic might miss the turnoff and need to turn around so this should be
reviewed. Mr. Ford advised that he could review this or he would request that VDOT
analyze it.
In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry, Mr. Marston from Allstate
advised that they do not have any plans to hire additional staff. Supervisor Church
advised that the level of cooperation offered by the petitioner and the manner in which
objections by the surrounding citizens have been handled have been excellent. He
commended all of the citizens who were involved and voiced their opinions. He
mentioned that when he was running for election to the Board, the Home Depot project
generated great concern and he watched citizens be more callous than the citizens
June 22, 2004
537
tonight and watched the Board, in his opinion, not listen all the time to concerns from
both sides. This takes away from the responsibilities that the Board is sworn to do. He
advised that we are fortunate to have good elected officials such as Congressman
Goodlatte, and this is an elected official’s nightmare. He would rather have 98 citizens
for and 2 citizens against and vice versa because a clear cut majority or minority would
make it easier. He cannot tell the number of citizens who are for or against this
rezoning but the difference is not significant. He advised that he was contacted by
numerous citizens but he had to curtail his telephone calls because of the high volume.
He does not think that the County needs revenue at this point since there has been a
surplus every year from the budget and he does not think that money will decide the
vote. This is a tough situation and he has concerns about safety, traffic, and the impact
on the neighborhood. He has previously objected to the Board sending items back to
the Planning Commission for further review but he would like to make this project work
so everyone will be satisfied. Even though this rezoning is not in his district, he feels
obligated to look at the best interest of the entire County. He advised citizens that there
are no done deals and he has expended much time deliberating on this matter.
Supervisor Altizer advised that are no easy decisions and he believes that
most of the zoning decisions in the future will be similar. With the areas of the County
that can be rezoned, most will involve high slopes and ridge tops. The developer has
worked with the citizens and staffs through this seven-month process, and he believes
that most of the citizens want the matter resolved tonight. He advised that he intends to
June 22, 2004
538
support approval of the rezoning. One of his first efforts was to determine whether the
rezoning fit the property and he advised that if ten people inspected the site, five of
them would agree that this project does fit. Traffic is going to be an issue even if the R-
1 property is developed as patio homes or an office complex is built on the corner, but it
is his responsibility to get the best project for that area through proffers and conditions.
He heard tonight that there will be upgrades to Keagy Road using additional lanes
which will provide for a free flow of traffic to relieve the bottleneck that has been created
at Allstate. Revenue is not a great consideration because if the property is developed
R-1, there would be real estate taxes and if it is developed with C-1, there would be
business and real estate taxes. It impressed him that the citizens who live closest to the
project are asking for approval. He commented that he has heard Mr. Atkins who lives
closest to the project and does not want the property zoned residential. He commented
on the citizens fearing R-1 zoning encroachment and advised that he does not think the
Board would go into the heart of any neighborhood to rezone property. This is a unique
piece of property and the property line goes back to the existing line of Allstate. It is
incumbent upon the Board to offer the citizens the best project that can be secured.
Supervisor Flora advised that he was on the Board thirty years ago and
rezoning on Route 419 is no easier today than it was thirty years ago. He advised that
this is a tough decision and each member must decide what is the highest and best use
of the property and what is best for the neighborhood and the County.
June 22, 2004
539
Supervisor McNamara thanked the citizens and Kahn Development for
their assistance on this project. He agreed with Supervisor Altizer that they should not
send this back for further review and that a decision needs to be made tonight. He
thanked the Board members for the time they spent on this project. He advised that any
decision made will upset some of the citizens because everyone has a strong opinion
on this subject. If he were a magician, he would not want this project developed
commercially or any other project developed commercially but the County needs
revenue for schools, fire protection, police and other services. He advised that Kahn
Development has gone above and beyond the usual actions in a rezoning request to
work with the neighbors in the surrounding area as well as the County staff and other
interested citizens. He believes that the land swap was the best solution and was sorry
it could not be done. The land swap addressed the two critical problems with the
project which are the Route 419 frontage and the direction of traffic flow into the
community. The Route 419 corridor is commercial but Keagy Road is not commercial
and should be developed transitionally. The concept plan is very stylistic but a true-to-
scale conceptual plan demonstrates the length that the project goes back into the
neighborhood and Keagy Road, which is close to five times the frontage on Route 419.
No one knows exactly what the traffic count will be but according to the traffic study, it
will be 400 in the morning and 700 in the evening. He advised that traffic has not been
addressed to his satisfaction. He believes that there has to be a compelling reason for
a rezoning, that commercial office building and commercial retail are not the same and
June 22, 2004
540
generate different traffic patterns. If egress and ingress to the site were on Route 419,
this would be a different project.
Supervisor McNamara moved to deny the rezoning.
Supervisor Altizer made a substitute motion to approve the rezoning.
Chairman Flora stated that his understanding of the rules of order is that
the Board votes on the substitute motion first and if it is approved, the first motion is
moot. Mr. Mahoney agreed that this was also his understanding.
In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry about the difference between a
“yes” and a “no” vote, Mr. Mahoney advised that a “yes” vote to the substitute motion,
would to be approve the rezoning of the property.
Supervisor Altizer’s substitute motion to approve the rezoning carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: Supervisor Church
Supervisor McNamara passed on the first roll call for the vote but upon the
second roll call, he voted aye.
ORDINANCE 062204-10 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF A 15.3-ACRE TRACT OF REAL
ESTATE LOCATED AT ROUTE 419 NEAR ITS
INTERSECTION WITH KEAGY ROAD (TAX MAP NOS.
67.18-2-1 AND 67.18-2-2, AND PART OF TAX MAP NOS.
67.18-2-3 AND 67.18-2-4) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 AND R-1 TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE
APPLICATION OF KAHN DEVELOPMENT
June 22, 2004
541
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 24, 2004,
and the second reading and public hearing were continued from March 23, 2004 and
held April 27, 2004, at which point the amended petition was returned to the Planning
Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the amended petition was withdrawn and the original petition was
again brought to the Board of Supervisors for first reading on May 25, 2004, and the
second reading and public hearing were held on June 22, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held public hearings on
this matter on March 2, 2004; 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
15.3 acres, as described herein, and located at Route 419 near its intersection with
Keagy Road (Tax Map Numbers 67.18-2-1 and 67.18-2-2 and Part of Tax Map Nos.
67.18-2-3 and 67.18-2-4) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed
from the zoning classification of C-1, Office District and R-1, Low Density Residential
District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District with conditions.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Kahn Development.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing
conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A, which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby accepts.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Parcel No. 67.18-2-1 containing 9.8471 acres – C-1 to C-2 (see Exhibit B)
Tax Parcel No. 67.18-2-2 containing 2.634 acres – R-1 to C-2 (see Exhibit B)
Part of Tax Parcel No. 67.18-2-3 containing .964 acre – R-1 to C-2 (see Exhibit
B)
Part of Tax Parcel No. 67.18-2-4 containing 1.848 acres – R-1 to C-2 (see Exhibit
B
)
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 the substitute motion of Supervisor Altizer to approve the rezoning and adopt
the revised ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: Supervisor Church
June 22, 2004
542
June 22, 2004
543
June 22, 2004
544
June 22, 2004
545
June 22, 2004
546
June 22, 2004
547
June 22, 2004
548
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Flora declared a recess from 10:30 p.m. until 10:50 p.m.
8. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.92 acres from C2C
General Commercial District with Conditions to C2 General
Commercial District, 8.03 acres from C1 Office District to C2
General Commercial District, and 17.01 acres from R3 Medium
Density Residential District to C2 General Commercial District in
order to construct a general office and retail sales facility located
at 4486 Summit Street, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Slate Hill I, LLC, Slate Hill II, LLC, and Woodcliff
Investments, LLC. (County Staff) Postponed from March 23, 2004
and continued from April 27, 2004 and May 25, 2004
O-062204-11
Mr. Hodge advised that he would summarize some of the changes that
had occurred since the material was sent to the Board members last Friday. Significant
progress has been made on this project since its inception. Initially it had to be
recognized that some of this property could be developed for commercial use by right.
The County wanted to preserve and protect the ridge tops and slopes because of on-
going maintenance problems and other considerations but they had to determine how
this could be accomplished.
Mr. Hodge advised that staff would like to clarify the proffers that were
June 22, 2004
549
made last Thursday, June 17, 2004. He and staff met with the petitioners to work
through a number of issues and asked them to submit them in writing. They were able
to reach agreement on several issues. There will be a Slope Protection Maintenance
Account which will be used for the first time in the County. In recognition of the fact that
there may be maintenance costs necessary in the future, this account will be
established as a trust in the name of the developer and the County. This is different
from the usual bond which is used for roads or storm water management. It is in the
amount of $100,000 and will accrue interest for ten years. During that ten years, if there
are no problems with the maintenance of any of the common areas such as roads,
storm water maintenance, and retaining walls, that account is not used. If there are
problems and the developer or the homeowners association does not take care of them,
the County has the ability to access that fund directly to fix the problem. Staff thinks this
approach can be used for other difficult and challenging developmental areas. Mr.
Smith has agreed to set up this trust.
Mr. Hodge advised that Zone 3 and Zone 4 are the two parcels that the
Board is being requested to rezone. Zone 4 is very close to the top of the mountain and
has a County water tank located there which serves the Tanglewood Mall area and
Route 419. The County is concerned about the integrity and stability of that land and
wants the tank to be maintained. Since there are no in-depth studies of the area that
the County feels are necessary, staff has asked that before any future grading is done
on that site, an engineering study will be submitted, reviewed and agreed to by the
June 22, 2004
550
County. The petitioner has agreed to this condition.
Mr. Hodge advised that during the construction and planning stages, it is
important that the County engineers work with the developer to determine if there is a
need to provide water or sewer to other properties in the County. If this is necessary,
the developer has agreed to donate the easements and rights-of-way. The County will
work with the developers’ schedules so that construction will not be delayed.
Mr. Hodge advised that there are still some questions concerning traffic
and the developer has requested an elevation of 1394 which is higher than the originally
requested elevation of 1384. He advised that the elevation of construction will be
dictated by the protection necessary for the water tank and also will be determined by
the engineering work that remains to be done. It is almost impossible to say that you
can build at a certain elevation because there are other elements that must be
considered as part of the engineering study. This project is much better than the
original because of the protections in place and it could be used as a model for the
future.
Mr. Hodge advised that another concern that has not been addressed
sufficiently is securing protection for the Quail Valley citizens who want to avoid having
traffic through their neighborhood. He believes that there are documents in place that
grant this protection but asked Mr. Covey to comment on this matter. Mr. Covey
advised that he would defer to Mr. Natt, attorney for the petitioner, who will speak later
in the meeting about the documentation.
June 22, 2004
551
Mr. Covey advised that since the May 27 work session, staff and the
petitioner had worked to clarify the following six items:
1. Whether the zoning category of the property should be C-1 or C-2. Staff was
concerned that the March 2004 traffic study prepared by Mattern & Craig, Inc.,
did not reflect C-2 uses in Zones 3 and 4. The study showed all C-1 uses in
Zones 3 and 4.
2. Peak elevation/ridge line elevation. Staff is recommending an elevation of 1384
and petitioner is requesting 1394.
3. Slope Maintenance Bond amount. The petitioner is offering $50,000/10 year
bond and at the May 27th work session staff understood that the Board of
Supervisors requested a higher bond amount.
4. The height, size and footprint of the buildings together with peak elevation for
construction of buildings. Insofar as the 75 foot request for Zone 3, petitioner has
indicated a willingness to limit that to a motel, if one is developed within Zone 3.
The Board agreed to the maximum height of the motel in Zone 3 not to exceed
75 feet but petitioner had not addressed the maximum footprint of any building in
Zones 3 and 4.
5. Additional traffic studies reflecting total traffic counts, both at peak hours and
overall, for a variety of uses based upon office and/or retail. Same staff concerns
as discussed in item number 1.
6. Eliminate the proffer which is identified as Proffer 5, Access (b), which deals with
density on the 20 acre tract behind Lowe’s. Staff is concerned even though the
20 acres is not a part of the rezoning; the petitioner needs to reassure the
citizens that live in the Quail Valley and Quail Ridge developments that when the
20 acres is developed there will not be attempts to provide access through these
developments.
Mr. Covey advised that on June 16, 2004 County staff met with the
petitioners (Jim Smith and Hunter Smith), their architect, and their attorney to resolve
the outstanding issues which resulted in the following understandings:
1. Whether the zoning category of the property should be C-1 or C-2. Petitioner is
requesting C-2 for zones 3 and 4 and the revised traffic study will reflect the
proposed uses.
2. Peak elevation/ridge line elevation. Based on concessions made by the
petitioners, staff agreed to elevation 1394 rather than 1384 for the following
reasons.
a) In order to minimize the impact to the slope, the petitioner agreed the
June 22, 2004
552
office building(s) closest to the elevation 1394 will have underground
parking. This should help minimize the amount of area that has to be
disturbed for development of this office building(s).
b) Petitioner agreed to increase the amount and lengthen the period of time
on the slope maintenance bond.
3. Slope Maintenance Bond. Staff agreed with petitioner to increase the amount of
the bond to $100,000 for 10 years. During discussions on June 16, 2004
between County staff and the petitioners and their attorney, it was agreed that
the petitioner would establish a $100,000 trust account, rather than a bond, for
repairing unresolved maintenance issues within common areas.
4. The height, size and footprint of the buildings together with peak elevation for
construction of buildings. Insofar as the 75 foot height request for Zone 3,
petitioner has indicated a willingness to limit that to a motel, if one is developed,
within Zone 3. At the May 27 work session, the Board and staff agreed to the 75
foot height for a motel in Zone 3. Staff understood that maximum square footage
per building in Zones 3 and 4 would not exceed 75,000 square feet and the total
square footages of all building in Zones 3 and 4 would match their revised trip
generation data.
5. Revised traffic study has not been presented to County staff as of June 16, 2004.
The petitioners indicated the study would be ready on Friday, June 18, 2004.
The revised traffic study was received on Monday, June 21.
6. Eliminate proffer 5, Access (b), which deals with density on the 20 acre tract
behind Lowe’s. The petitioner has agreed as a part of their presentation on June
22, 2004 to inform the Board and the citizens that the owner of the property will
not pursue any access through Quail Valley and Quail Ridge developments. The
petitioners indicated that deed restrictions for Quail Ridge and/or Quail Valley
would not allow access to the adjacent property behind Lowe’s. Hunter Smith
agreed to research these deeds and forward copies to the County staff.
Mr. Covey advised that on the morning of June 17, 2004, County staff
reviewed the petitioner’s revisions to the proffers based on the June 16 discussions. A
signed version of the proffers was received before noon on Thursday, June 17, 2004.
He advised that there are still outstanding issues which are listed below:
1. Peak elevation/ridge line elevation – requirement for underground parking near
the ridgeline. As currently written proffer 3 a. does not require a building located
closest to the maximum elevation to have underground parking. Only buildings
greater than 50 feet tall would require underground parking. The language
linking underground parking to building elevations is ambiguous.
June 22, 2004
553
2. The height, size and footprint of the buildings together with peak elevation for
construction of buildings. Proffer 3 b. lists total square footage for Zones 3 and
4, based on a table of trip generation data. The total numbers match the trip
generation table, but four issues remain with proffer 3 b. (1) County staff
requires clarification that the 375,000 square foot total is the total for both Zones
3 and 4 combined. (2) The 100,000 square foot maximum is gross area of any
single building. (3) The petitioner has proffered a maximum 90,000 square foot
building footprint, and County staff had requested a maximum 75,000 square foot
building footprint. (4) This proffer has a typographical duplication that needs to
be omitted.
3. Slope Maintenance Bond. Proffer 2 b. still refers to a slope maintenance bond,
and not a trust account. During discussions on June 16, 2004 between County
staff, the petitioners and their attorney, it was agreed that the petitioner would
establish a $100,000 trust account, rather than a bond, for repairing unresolved
maintenance issues within common areas.
4. The revised traffic study was presented to County staff on Monday, June 21.
County staff has not had time to review it thoroughly but the same traffic flows
exist regardless of any development.
5. The petitioners will provide documentation of deed restrictions for Quail Ridge
and/or Quail Valley that would not allow access to the adjacent property behind
Lowe’s.
Mr. Ed Natt, Attorney for the petitioner, advised that although he had a
presentation prepared, due to the comments made by Mr. Hodge and Mr. Covey, he
would summarize and make brief comments. This has been a difficult process as was
the Keagy rezoning which was heard before this item. However, these are different
issues because with the Keagy rezoning, the concerns were from the neighborhood and
with Slate Hill, the concerns are from the County staff and a few citizens who live in the
area. The petitioner has offered 39 proffers which are more than anyone ever expected
to have on a project in the County. The proffers are well thought out and the petitioner
is in agreement with the proffers. Several members of the Board said at both of the
meetings where this rezoning has been considered that this is a good project and they
June 22, 2004
554
need to find a way to make it happen. This has been accomplished by reaching
agreements on many things including the Slope Maintenance Account. He expressed
appreciation to Mr. Hodge and the County staff for the tremendous amount of time and
effort they put into this project. Mr. Natt advised that he would not describe all of the 39
proffers but he would be glad to answer any questions about them.
Mr. Natt advised that the issue of Quail Valley access can be determined
by reviewing the public records. In 1976 Old Heritage Corporation conveyed to Mr.
Kosnoski a parcel of land containing 11.008 acres and the deed reserved an easement
across what is now the Quail Valley Condominiums for access to that property. The
deed for that property is 10.350 acres now as the result of boundary line adjustments.
The current property that adjoins Quail Ridge Condominiums and is being developed as
Quail Ridge by R&B Developers is Tract B on a plat which was prepared in 1997 and
the private right-of-way through Quail Valley Condominiums to get to the property was
granted by deed but no additional access was granted to the remaining property. When
the current owners purchased Tract B from Mr. Kosnoski, and decided to develop that
property, they needed an agreement with Quail Ridge Condominiums for services such
as dumpsters and easements for utility lines. In January 1997, the Quail Valley
Homeowners Association entered into an agreement and deed of easement which
limited the right to use that access through Quail Valley Condominiums for the
development of 55 homes on Tract B. There is no easement from Quail Valley
Condominiums which would grant Mr. Smith or the owner of any of the other parcels the
June 22, 2004
555
right of access through Quail Valley Condominiums. In addition, the owner of Tract B
which is the developer of Quail Ridge would have to grant an easement across its
property in order for Mr. Smith or any other party to have the right to access through its
property. Two easements would have to be granted, one from Quail Valley
Condominiums and one from the owner of the Quail Ridge property, before Mr. Smith
could access Crossbow Circle. In addition, Tract B has been subdivided for the
development of Quail Ridge and the frontage which could have been used for any
access has been subdivided into residential lots. There is an easement of record and a
subdivision plat of record which means that there is no way to get access through Quail
Valley Condominiums and Quail Ridge development to the property. He has made this
information available to the County staff. He asked that the Board approve the
rezoning.
Mr. Jim Smith advised that there are differences between the project they
have proposed and the Keagy project. He felt it was important to remember that Mr.
Kahn, although he is fine person, does not live in this area and was not present tonight.
Mr. Smith advised that he does live in the area and plans to remain in the area and
make this an excellent project. The agreements reached with the staff were not made
under duress but were made willingly to make this a better project. There were
differences such as the height of the building and the ridge line. The ridge line is
measured at its highest point and it slopes so that if you get to the end of the slope, you
either have to cut the mountain down or make the building small and a two-story office
June 22, 2004
556
building is not economical. County staff agreed that the mountain should not be cut
down. The many discussions which lead to the agreements were done in a genuine
effort on the part of himself and County staff to create the best possible project. He
stated that he would be available to answer questions.
Chairman Flora advised that Mr. Bob Seymour and Ms. Kristin Peckman
have yielded their time to Ms. Abe.
The following citizens spoke in opposition to the rezoning: (1) Ms.
Elizabeth C. Abe, 6909 Mary B Place (2) Ms. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive.
Ms. Frances E. Boatman, 5260 Crossbow Circle, commended staff for
their work on this rezoning. She advised that she still has concerns about traffic and
questioned whether enough information has been presented for the Board to approve
the rezoning tonight.
Mr. Sherman Bamford, P. O. Box 3102, Conservation Chair for the Sierra
Club, stated that he believes that ridge top development on steep slopes is a mistake
and that legislation is necessary to restrict this type of development.
Chairman Flora offered Mr. Natt the opportunity to address the citizens’
concerns but Mr. Natt declined and advised that he would be glad to answer questions.
Supervisor Wray advised that he received many calls from citizens about
Slate Hill and the appearance of the site. He questioned Mr. Covey as to why activity
was allowed on the site while the rezoning petition was being considered. Mr. Covey
advised that when the staff first met with the developers, there was no intention at that
June 22, 2004
557
point to rezone the property but to proceed with development as the property was
already zoned. The developers submitted the necessary grading plans and after proper
review and submittals through VDOT, they were granted a temporary construction
entrance to access the property and staff moved forward with issuing the erosion and
sediment (E&S) control permit. It was several weeks later when the developers
requested the rezoning of the property.
Supervisor Wray recommended that an ordinance be developed to state
that when a rezoning or special use permit is applied for, all activity on the site ceases
until the outcome of the petition is known. Mr. Covey advised that this is not the case at
this time.
Mr. Covey advised that he would like to make a further explanation about
the E&S plan. When the plan was approved, it was thought that VDOT had approved
the discharge of the sediment basin across their property. This was not the case and it
took several months for the developer and VDOT to come to a resolution about this
issue. Approximately two months ago, the new district manager for VDOT advised that
if the developer’s engineers would submit the appropriate documents, he would forward
them to Richmond for approval. Mr. Covey advised that there has been no erosion of
any type on the site. When they found out there was a problem with the discharge pipe
and they could not bring it into conformity, they had the developer redesign the
sediment basin to minimize the water runoff. Staff is following through with the proper
implementation of the plan on the site.
June 22, 2004
558
Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Covey about the requirement for planting trees
around the building. Mr. Covey advised that as each site is developed, a site plan has
to be submitted which includes landscaping. He advised that landscaping has been
addressed in proffer 9 (a).
In response to Supervisor Wray’s inquiries, Mr. Covey advised that the
developers have proffered that a geotechnical engineer will review and approve the
retaining walls and provide a report before any improvements are made to the property
where the water tank is located. Mr. Covey advised that staff felt that ten years was a
reasonable time for the Slope Maintenance Trust because by that time, the road will
have already been graded and the project established. The escrow account is to cover
the costs for any maintenance that may be provided by the County for the common
areas but the developer is also required to post bonds for each segment of the
development.
Supervisor Wray inquired about the traffic study and if it would provide
adequate turning lanes that will not back up traffic on Route 419 and if it would apply to
all of the roads in the development. Mr. Covey advised that the roads within the
development will be private but the connections to either Route 419 or Route 220 will
have to be reviewed and approved by VDOT. The action plan contained in the traffic
study has to be reviewed and approved by VDOT before any entrance permit will be
issued. Supervisor Wray re-stated that it is his understanding that the petitioner would
make all necessary improvements to connect to Route 419 or Route 220 as required by
June 22, 2004
559
the traffic impact study and VDOT. Mr. Covey advised that the developers would also
have to comply with any additional requirements if they are issued by VDOT.
Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Mahoney if he understood the deed
restrictions as described earlier by Mr. Natt and asked him to offer his opinion. Mr.
Mahoney advised that he did not want to provide a legal opinion since it is a private
legal matter between two private property owners. He does not believe it is appropriate
for the County Attorney to render opinions with respect to legal obligations,
responsibilities or liabilities between two private property owners. Mr. Mahoney advised
that he has reviewed the deeds, agreements, and plat that Mr. Natt provided but he did
not conduct a title examination. He would be very reluctant, with this limited data, to
give a legal opinion to Quail Valley Condominium that they will not be affected by this
development. However, based on the documents that he has reviewed, he believes
that they are protected. In the event there is a violation, Quail Valley Condominiums
would have to protect their own rights and enforce the limitations and restrictions
included in the deed of easement.
Supervisor Wray advised that the delays on this project were done to
make it better since Mr. Smith had indicated that he was going to develop the property
without this rezoning. He advised that the staff, the petitioner and his counsel have
worked together to secure all of the proffers that make this project more acceptable and
any further delay would only cause more difficulty for everyone. He moved to approve
June 22, 2004
560
the rezoning for this site and asked that staff and the petitioner continue to work
together to assure that everything that has been agreed to will be done.
Chairman Flora asked Mr. Mahoney for clarification if the Board would be
approving the rezoning including the proffers revised June 22, 2004. Mr. Mahoney
answered in the affirmative, and Supervisor Wray asked that the date of the revised
proffers be included in his motion.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance with the revised proffers
dated June 22, 2004. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062204-11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A TOTAL OF 29.98-ACRES LOCATED AT 4486 SUMMIT STREET
(TAX MAP NOS.77.20-1-3, 77.20-1-4, 77.20-1-52, 77.20-1-54, 77.20-1-
55, PART OF TAX MAP NO. 87.08-3-11) IN THE CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS OF
C-2 CONDITIONAL, R-3, AND C-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF SLATE HILL
I, LLC, SLATE HILL II, LLC, AND WOODCLIFF INVESTMENTS, LLC
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 24, 2004,
and the second reading and public hearing were continued from March 23, 2004, April
27, 2004, May 25, 2004, and June 22, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter which was continued from March 2, 2004, and held on April 6, 2004; 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 a
total of 29.98 acres, as described herein, and located at 4486 Summit Street (Tax Map
Numbers 77.20-1-3, 77.20-1-4, 77.20-1-52, 77.20-1-54, 77.20-1-55, Part of Tax Map
June 22, 2004
561
No. 87.08-3-11) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the
zoning classification of C-2C, General Commercial District with conditions, R-3, Medium
Density Multi-Family Residential, and C-1, Office District to the zoning classification of
C-2, General Commercial District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Slate Hill I, LLC, Slate Hill
II, LLC, and Woodcliff Investments, LLC.
3. That a portion of this property was rezoned to C2C by Ordinance 102897-
19 at which time the Petitioner proffered the following conditions which are hereby
REPEALED:
(1) Petitioner proffers to build the Lowe’s store in substantial conformity
with the preliminary site plan, dated October 7, 1997. Except that Lowe’s will flip the
location of the garden center and the truck loading docks to the northern property area
of the proposed project.
(2) Petitioner proffers that if any out parcel that requires C-2 zoning is
proposed on this site or the adjoining site of White House Antiques, it will be subject to a
special use permit regardless of the C-2 use proposed. This will allow the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors the opportunity to review traffic impacts,
circulation and access issues.
(3) Petitioner proffers to retain the existing vegetation between the
Petitioner’s site and the property of Quail Valley condominiums. The only exception to
this will be the removal of vegetation that is necessary for improvements to the access
road for the existing residential properties.
(4) If any of the residential homes on Washington Road remain,
Petitioner proffers to upgrade, pave and maintain Washington Road to provide
continuous, adequate and safe access to these houses. This upgrade will be to a
standard acceptable to the County and reviewed during the site plan review process.
4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing
conditions attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby accepts.
5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Map No. 77.20-1-3 – C1 to C2C
Tax Map No. 77.20-1-4 – C1 to C2C
Tax Map No. 77.20-1-52 – R3 to C2C
Tax Map No. 77.20-1-54 – C1 to C2C
Tax Map No. 77.20-1-55 – C1 to C2C
Portion of Tax Map No. 87.08-3-11 - R3 to C2C
The metes and bounds of the above-mentioned parcels are further set out on the
attached Exhibit 2.
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
June 22, 2004
562
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance with revised proffers dated
June 22, 2004, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
June 22, 2004
563
June 22, 2004
564
June 22, 2004
565
June 22, 2004
566
June 22, 2004
567
June 22, 2004
568
June 22, 2004
569
June 22, 2004
570
9. Second reading of an ordinance to amend the zoning on
Virginia’s Explore Park from EP, Explore Park with conditions, to
EP, Explore Park with amended conditions, in order to remove a
natural area designation, located at 3900 Rutrough Road, Vinton
Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Virginia Recreational
Facilities Authority. (County Staff)
O-062204-12
Ms. Scheid advised that in March, 2004, the Virginia Recreational
Facilities Authority (VRFA) repealed the resolution approved in 1991 which established
the six natural areas within Virginia’s Explore Park, and they are requesting that the
Board remove the natural areas from Explore Park’s zoning district. Many of the
developable sites outside the designated natural areas have already been used for
existing park structures and programs, and potential development areas adjacent to the
existing developments are constrained by these natural area designations. While
conforming to the overall plan for the park, some planned activities such as boat launch
rental, RV camp ground, amphitheater and associated parking areas would not be
allowed within the six designated natural areas.
Ms. Scheid advised that this request is supported by the VRFA, the
National Park Service and Blue Ridge Parkway staff. The National Park Service, at a
meeting several months ago, expressed their support for the continued success of the
June 22, 2004
571
park and offered their assistance in future long-range planning for the facility and
programs. With the removal of the natural areas, staff recognizes the need for buffer
yards to be provided in order to continue to mitigate potential impacts from park
development with adjoining residential areas. Staff suggests that the VRFA proffer a 75
foot buffer yard between any park development that adjoins residential or civic land
uses.
Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard this petition on
June 1 and made a unanimous favorable recommendation to approve the request with
the following conditions: (1) That attachment III of the 1993 application to rezone 767.33
acres to the Explore Park (EP) District, which describes the natural areas, is hereby
removed from the EP District proffers. All of the remaining written and graphic
information prepared and submitted as part of the 1993 application constitute proffers
pursuant to Section 30-15 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. (2) Where park
development adjoins a residential or civic land use, a Type E, Option 1 buffer yard, with
Type E, Option 1 landscaping, or equivalent natural vegetation, shall be provided per
Section 30-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tom Brock, speaking on behalf of the petitioner, advised that private
parties, the State, County and Federal government have a substantial investment in
Explore Park totaling over $40 million. He has been supportive of the park for many
years. They would like for the Roanoke Valley to become a destination for tourists
which would provide revenue to offset the costs of the park. They are requesting these
June 22, 2004
572
changes so that the park will be used to its best economic advantage. They are mindful
of the needs of the surrounding community and several years ago, the County built a
park for neighbors on some of their land. They have tried to meet with individuals
considering various problems and they want to be good neighbors.
Chairman Flora opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jerry E. Dean, 3647 Rutrough Road, Pastor of Mayflower Hills Baptist
Church, advised that he did not want to hinder the growth of Explore Park because it
impacts the Mayflower Hills community. However, he is opposed to lifting all of the
restrictions at one time. He thought the better approach would be to ask the Board to lift
the restrictions only as plans and projects are developed and brought before the Board.
He asked that the Board deny the request and that the park come back with better
prepared plans.
Chairman Flora advised that the following citizens signed up to speak but
had left the meeting; (1) Mr. Julius N. Shepheard, 3807 Rutrough Road (Mayflower Hills
Civic Club); (2) Mr. Bob Seymour, 7552 Boxwood, Citizens for Smart Growth.
Ms. Kristin Peckman, 8131 Webster Drive, advised that she was originally
opposed to Explore Park but was persuaded to support it when they found the land was
to be preserved in its natural state. They were impressed with the quality of the
historical presentations given by the employees and volunteers and the period feel
provided by the setting. She asked that the Board keep their pledge made to the
citizens when the park was built to keep the areas natural.
June 22, 2004
573
Mr. Tom Forbes, 4327 Rutrough Road, advised that the bike path which is
thirty feet from his boundary line is in need of repair due to erosion damage. Another
problem is that there are no signs indicating bikes may be crossing the road. He
believes that the park needs rezoning to help with buffer zones on a case-by-case and
particularly in special cases such as wetlands and water sheds. He hopes that the park
succeeds in the future.
Ms. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, asked that the Board deny the
request or continue the hearing in order to modify the boundary changes, define the
terms, and specify the intended changes to the use of the park.
Berkley and Kathryn Roberson, 4040 Rutrough Road, advised that
Explore Park has been an excellent neighbor and they each requested approval of the
rezoning.
Mr. Sherman Bamford, P. O. Box 3102, advised that he has always been
supportive of Explore Park and would like to see it thrive especially in the manner it has
already been developed and in keeping with its theme. He would like for the park to
grow but keep the natural areas preserved.
Mr. Don Leffell, 4161 Rutrough Road, advised that he has been involved
with the park since it was started. He agreed with Mr. Dean that any restrictions should
be lifted only as they are needed. He advised that the park is not being patrolled, trash
is not picked up, and there are no trash cans provided. He would like to see these
problems resolved before considering changes in the zoning.
June 22, 2004
574
Ms. Wanda Reed, 3606 Rutrough Road, advised that she believes there is
great potential for the park in her neighborhood and the neighbors want to be a part of
the decision. She requested that Mr. Hodge allow them the opportunity to participate in
the planning process for the park and offered her services.
Supervisor Altizer requested that a committee of citizens from the area be
formed to work with Explore Park and staff on its future direction. He will make a motion
to approve the staff recommendation. He reported that the park’s budget is roughly
$900,000 which includes: $300,000 from the River Foundation, $40,000 from the City of
Roanoke, $20,000 from the City of Salem and $500,000 from Roanoke County, not
counting in-kind services. The issue is that everyone wants Explore to be self-
supporting, to thrive and grow but it does not come without citizens input. This rezoning
is a starting point and it may be that within a year, the Board may need to determine if
the County’s investment is justified. Many citizens in each district are wondering how
much longer the County can fund Explore Park. It is incumbent upon the Board to
protect the County’s investment and do what can be done to make it self-supporting and
compatible with its neighbors. It may be that the County needs to look at having
different buffers for certain things but a citizen advisory group is the right place to start.
He asked Mr. Hodge to see about establishing this group.
Supervisor Church advised Mr. Brock, Mr. Lambert and the Taubman
family that he has been supportive of their efforts in the past to make Explore Park more
successful. He is still supportive of their efforts.
June 22, 2004
575
Supervisor Wray requested that this committee be comprised of citizens
from all areas because everyone has an interest in the future of Explore Park.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062204-12 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A 767.33-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED 3900
RUTROUGH ROAD IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EP WITH CONDITIONS TO THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EP WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS
UPON THE APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 25, 2004, and the
second reading and public hearing were held June 22, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on June 1, 2004; 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
767.33 acres, as described herein, and located at 3900 Rutrough Road in the Vinton
Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of EP, Explore
District with conditions, to the zoning classification of EP, Explore District with amended
conditions.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Virginia Recreational
Facilities Authority.
3. That the owner of the property voluntarily proffered in writing and by
Ordinance 62293-14, the Board accepted the following conditions:
That pursuant to Section 30-71 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance
(Explore Park District) all of the written and graphic information prepared and
submitted as part of this application shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section
30-15 of the Zoning Ordinance.
June 22, 2004
576
4. 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) Attachment III of the 1993 application to rezone 767.33 acres to the
Explore Park (EP) District, which describes the Natural Areas, is hereby removed
from the EP District Proffers. All of the remaining written and graphic information
prepared and submitted as part of the 1993 application constitute proffers
pursuant to Section 30-15 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
(2) Where park development adjoins a residential or civic land use, a Type E,
Option 1 buffer yard, with Type E, Option 1 landscaping, or equivalent natural
vegetation, shall be provided per Section 30-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Parcel Tax Map Number Acreage
1 71.00-1-3 47.70
2 71.00-1-6 5.93
3 71.00-1-8 2.00
4 71.00-1-12 9.00
5 71.00-1-13 33.05
6 71.03-1-10 24.16
7 71.03-1-11 3.75
8 71.03-1-15 18.78
9 80.00-1-34.2 3.83
10 80.00-1-34.3 0.07
11 80.00-1-35 21.96
12 80.00-2-32 8.67
13 80.00-2-33 23.00
14 80.00-2-34 13.86
15 80.00-2-35 5.00
16 80.00-2-36 0.30
17 80.00-5-24 488.28
18 80.00-5-26 10.00
19 80.00-5-27 18.12
20 80.00-5-29 22.66
21 80.00-5-30 1.00
22 80.00-5-31 2.23
23 80.00-5-32 2.23
24 80.00-5-34 1.75
June 22, 2004
577
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 Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
10. Second reading of an ordinance to adopt the operating agreement
with the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority
and authorizing the conveyance of real estate to said authority.
(Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, Paul Mahoney, County
Attorney, Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, Gary Robertson,
Utility Director)
O-062204-13
Mr. Mahoney advised that there have been no changes to the ordinance
since the first reading but the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) requested some minor
revisions to the operating agreement. He also added information to complete the
blanks in the agreement and made revisions to the signature page. When the Board
adopted the assumption agreement earlier in this meeting, all of the County’s exhibits
were not included. He included them with this item but did not include all of the City’s
exhibits. He asked that the Board adopt the ordinance to authorize signing of the
operating agreement by the County Administrator and Chairman. After the agreement
has been signed, it will be presented for approval by the Western Virginia Water
June 22, 2004
578
Authority (WVWA) at its meeting on June 25, 2004. He reminded the Board of the
inaugural celebration for the Authority which will be held on June 30, 2004.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062204-13 APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF AN
OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ROANOKE AND THE
WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE
CONVEYANCE OF REAL ESTATE TO SAID AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke (the “City”) and the County of Roanoke (the
“County”) have concluded that a “full service” water and wastewater authority would be
the best vehicle for ensuring the citizens of their localities the most reliable means of
providing water and wastewater treatment at the lowest cost and best rate for
customers, as well as providing the best service; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 51,
§§15.2-5100, et seq., Code of Virginia (the “Act”), provides full authority for the City and
the County to create an independent authority that would be responsible for the supply,
treatment, distribution and transmission of water and the collection and treatment of
wastewater; and
WHEREAS, the City and the County have created the Western Virginia Water
Authority (the “Authority”), guided by the following principles:
1. That the assets and liabilities of the City and of the County water and
wastewater utilities would be merged into one full service authority created pursuant to
the Act, to be responsible for the supply, treatment, distribution, and transmission of
water and the collection and treatment of wastewater.
2. In establishing and operating the Authority:
a. Both localities would have equal representation on the
Authority’s governing body.
b. The assets and liabilities of the City and the County utility
systems would be pooled.
June 22, 2004
579
c. Over a mutually agreeable period of time, the water and
wastewater treatment rates of the City and the County will be
equalized;
WHEREAS, in incorporating the Authority, the City and the County agreed that
the purposes for which the Authority was created are to exercise all the powers granted
the Authority to acquire, finance, construct, operate, manage and maintain a water,
wastewater, sewage disposal, and related facilities pursuant to the Act; and
,
WHEREASthe real and personal property being conveyed to the Authority is
being made available for other public uses in accordance with Section 16.01 of County
Charter; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 8, 2004, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on June 22, 2004.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, or the County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the
County the Operating Agreement among the Authority, the City and the County. This
Operating Agreement conveys to the Authority the City’s and County’s water and sewer
systems, and the Authority agrees to provide water and sewer utility services to the City
and County using the system at just and equitable rates to all customers.
2. That the Authority will assume the liabilities and obligations of the County
relating to the water and sewer system which were incurred in the ordinary course of
business, and it shall pay to the County the principal and interest amounts due on the
outstanding bonds.
3. That the conveyance of the real property identified in Exhibit B of the
Operating Agreement from the County to the Authority is hereby authorized and
approved.
4. That the transfer and assumption of the obligations and liabilities identified
in Exhibit D, the transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicles identified in Exhibit I of
the Operating Agreement, and the transfer of the ownership of the equipment and
furnishings identified in Exhibit K of the Operating Agreement from the County to the
Authority is hereby authorized and approved.
5. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the
purposes of this ordinance or to effectuate the provisions of the Operating Agreement.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
June 22, 2004
580
11. Second reading of an ordinance to increase the salaries of the
members of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 3.07 of
the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code
of Virginia. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
O-062204-14
Mr. Mahoney advised that there have been no changes since the first
reading of this ordinance.
There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062204-14 TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CHARTER AND SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for
the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for
increasing their salaries; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain
population brackets; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has
heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members at $13,764.39 by
Ordinance 061003-4 and further has established the additional annual compensation for
the chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be
$1,200; and
June 22, 2004
581
WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein
provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five (5%)
percent; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on June 8, 2004; the
second reading and public hearing was held on June 22, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of
3.5% pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and
Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new annual
salaries shall be $14,246.15 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the
Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice-chairman of the
Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200.
This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2004.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: Supervisor Church
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor McNamara
expressed congratulations on a well orchestrated
meeting.
Supervisor Church
advised that he hoped everyone has learned a lesson
not to put ten or twelve public hearings on one agenda in the future. This has been a
very big learning experience for everyone.
Supervisor Wray
expressed appreciation to Sarah Franklin for attending
the entire Board meeting.
Supervisor Flora
echoed Supervisor Church’s comments that staff should
not put ten public hearings on another agenda.
June 22, 2004
582
IN RE: CITIZENS COMMENTS
Chairman Flora advised that the following citizens who signed up to speak
had left the meeting: (1) Ms. Elizabeth Abe, 6909 Mary B. Place and (2) Ms. Kristin
Peckman, 8131 Webster Drive, who had indicated that she would yield her time to Ms.
Abe.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 12:50 a.m. on June 23, 2004.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ________________________
Brenda J. Holton Richard C. Flora
Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman