5/25/2004 - Regular
May 25, 2004
389
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
May 25, 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 May, 2004.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:02 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:
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss,
Assistant County Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant
County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board;
Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by the Reverend Tom Cribb, Bethel Baptist
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
May 25, 2004
390
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for June 22, 2004. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
1. First 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.
2. First 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.
3. First 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
petition of James River Equipment Virginia, LLC.
May 25, 2004
391
4. First 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.
5. First 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.
6. Kahn Development (Keagy Village) rezoning request will be
brought forward as one of the two following options:
(a) First reading of an ordinance to rezone 9.85 acres from C1
Office District to C2C General Commercial District with
conditions, and rezone 5.1 acres from C1C Office District with
conditions to C2C General Commercial District with
conditions, and rezone 1.1 acres from R2 Medium Density
Residential District to C2C General Commercial District with
May 25, 2004
392
conditions in order to construct a general office and retail
sales facility located at Route 419 near its intersection with
Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the
amended petition of Kahn Development Company.
(b) First reading of an ordinance to rezone 9.9 acres from C1
Office District to C2 General Commercial District and 5.8 acres
from R1 Low Density Residential District to C2 General
Commercial District in order to construct a general office and
retail sales facility located at Route 419 near its intersection
with Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Kahn Development Company.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
1. First reading of an ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal
year 2004-2005 budget. (Brent Robertson, Budget Director)
Mr. Robertson advised that on April 27, 2004, the fiscal year 2004-05
budget was presented to the Board of Supervisors and a budget public hearing was
held to receive written and oral comment from the public concerning the proposed
budget and FY2005-2009 Capital Improvements Program. He stated that the total
County budget is $309,786,992, including all inter-fund and intra-fund transfers. The
budget net of transfers is $228,416,444. At the time the budget was presented on April
May 25, 2004
393
27, a state budget had not been finalized and both County and School administrative
staff included conservative estimates of state revenues for inclusion in the proposed
budget. Mr. Robertson advised that a state budget has since been adopted, and he
provided the following information concerning the projected fiscal impact to Roanoke
County and Roanoke County Schools:
Roanoke County Schools:
The final state budget included $7,832,955 in
additional funds for Roanoke County Schools, an increase of $2,050,955 from the
original estimate of $5,782,000. Mr. Robertson reported that the School Board will
incorporate these changes into their budget and will approve an adjusted budget at their
meeting on May 26, 2004. The adjusted school budget will be brought to the Board of
Supervisors at the June 8, 2004 meeting for approval. Based on discussions with
school staff, it is anticipated that the adjusted school’s budget will include employee
raises at 3.5%.
Roanoke County Government:
With respect to Compensation Board
raises, Mr. Robertson advised that additional state revenues of $98,000 are included for
raises for constitutional officers and employees. The Sheriff’s Department will receive a
4.8% increase and all other constitutional employees will receive 3%. Funding for these
raises is effective December 1, 2004 and due to the County’s supplement of Comp
Board salaries, these employees will receive the same raises as general County
employees. Additional funds in the amount of $145,000 have been included for the
May 25, 2004
394
reimbursement of housing state prisoners in the jail. This increase restores much of the
state reductions over the last two years. In addition, funding in the amount of $95,940
has been allocated for four additional emergency funding positions in the jail due to the
increasing inmate population. Of these funds, $804,627 has been allocated for future
debt service of County capital projects and $190,000 has been allocated to increase
employee raises from 3% to 3.5%, consistent with the proposed school salary
increases.
Supervisor Flora clarified the formula for dividing funds between County
and schools. He noted that in the upcoming fiscal year, the schools received more new
money from the state than the County and as a result, the schools ended up returning
some of the additional funds to the County. With respect to the 3.5% salary increase,
he questioned whether it would be an across-the-board increase or if it would be divided
among merit and cost of living increases. Mr. O’Donnell advised that the 3.5% is an
average percentage increase and there is some adjustment based on the employee’s
performance evaluation.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for June 8, 2004. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
May 25, 2004
395
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appointed by District)
Supervisor Wray nominated Kevin T. Barnes, Cave Spring Magisterial
District, to serve an additional five-year term which will expire on June 30, 2009.
2. Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT)
Supervisor Flora nominated Rita J. Gliniecki to serve an additional three-
year term which will expire on June 30, 2007.
3. Court Community Corrections Alcohol Safety Action Program
(ASAP) Policy Board
Supervisor Flora nominated Ray Lavinder to serve an additional two-year
term which will expire on June 30, 2006.
4. Roanoke County Cable Television Committee
Supervisor Flora nominated David R. Jones to serve an additional three-
year term which will expire on June 30, 2007. Individuals appointed to this committee
are automatically appointed to serve on the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television
Committee.
5. Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission
Supervisor Flora nominated Michael A. Wray and F. Kevin Hutchins to
serve additional three-year terms which will expire on June 30, 2007.
May 25, 2004
396
6. Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau
Supervisor Flora nominated Thomas A. “Pete” Haislip to serve an
additional two-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006.
7. Roanoke Valley Detention Commission
Supervisor Flora nominated John M. Chambliss, Jr. to serve an additional
four-year term, retroactive to June 30, 2002, which will expire on June 30, 2006.
8. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee
Supervisor Flora nominated David R. Jones, member-at-large, to serve an
additional three-year term on the Roanoke County Cable Television Committee. As a
result, Mr. Jones will automatically be re-appointed to serve an additional term on the
Regional Cable Television Committee. This term will expire on June 30, 2007.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-052504-1
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052504-1 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN
ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
May 25, 2004
397
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 25,
2004, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 10, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – May 11, 2004
2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Total Action Against Poverty
(TAP) Board of Directors
3. Request to approve the naming of the Court Services Building (formerly
Salem Office Supply Building)
4. Request to approve the naming of the Laurel Mountain Police Driving Center
5. Request from schools to accept and appropriate dual enrollment net revenues
in the amount of $2,238.19
6. Request from schools to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of
$1,000 from the Oracle International Database Competition
7. Request from schools to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of
$2,500 from the United Way’s Success by 6 Enhancement Grant for the
purchase of playground mats
8. Request to approve 1999 Utility Billing bad debt write off
9. Request to appropriate $410,000 to various public assistance programs in the
Department of Social Services
10. Request from the Sheriff’s Office to accept and appropriate grant funds in the
amount of $5,140 for the purchase of bulletproof vests
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 Wray to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
1. Request to schedule a joint work session with the Planning
Commission on June 8, 2004, to discuss revisions to the
Community Plan. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
May 25, 2004
398
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the work session on June
8, 2004.
2. Request to schedule a work session on June 22, 2004, to discuss
Kahn Development (Keagy Village). (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the work session on June
22, 2004.
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
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Accounts Paid – April 2004
6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended April 30, 2004
7. Statement of Treasurer’s accountability per investment and
portfolio policy as of April 30, 2004
May 25, 2004
399
8. Proclamations signed by the Chairman
9. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in
April 2004
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:33 p.m., Supervisor Flora moved to go into closed meeting followed
by a work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or
consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
The closed meeting was held from 3:41 p.m. until 3:50 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss financing for the public safety building.
(Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt,
Chief Financial Officer)
The work session was held from 4:12 p.m. until 4:44 p.m. Mr. O’Donnell
advised that proposals for the new public safety building are to be received by June 1,
and they will then be reviewed by staff. A recommendation will be presented to the
Board at the July 27 meeting, and a comprehensive agreement will subsequently be
prepared.
May 25, 2004
400
Ms. Hyatt reported that staff initially anticipated issuing bonds in
September or October 2004; however, the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) has
requested the County’s participation in their spring bond pool sale. The VRA Board is
approving the list of localities to be included in the sale on June 8, pricing the bonds on
June 15, and submitting the issuance on June 30. She advised that the project is
anticipated to remain in the $30 million range with a maximum life of 30 years. Staff is
recommending participation in the VRA bond sale to protect against anticipated
increases in interest rates. An increase of 75 basis points would result in an additional
$175,000 in annual interest costs. If the Board wishes to participate in the VRA
issuance, it will need to authorize the borrowing at the June 8 meeting.
Jim Johnson, Roanoke County Financial Advisor with Morgan Keegan,
advised that participation in the VRA sale allows the County to sell at least 70% of the
bonds at AAA rates and 30% at AA rates. If the County was to pursue issuing the
bonds on its own, the rate would be a low AA. He advised that rates are anticipated to
increase in the next nine months and if the County is planning to proceed with the
project, it would be advisable to participate in the VRA bond sale.
Jamie Shields, representative from the VRA, advised that the VRA
welcomes the County’s participation in their spring bond pool sale. He stated that the
VRA wishes to remain as flexible as possible in order to encourage the County’s
participation.
May 25, 2004
401
Ms. Hyatt clarified that $25 million is the maximum amount that the County
would be allowed to borrow and it is possible to proceed with borrowing a lesser
amount. She advised that if the Board wishes to proceed, two actions will be necessary
on June 8: (1) authorize the borrowing and grant approval to sell up to $20 or $25
million; (2) adoption of a resolution to lease the existing Roanoke County public safety
building.
Mr. Mahoney noted that the lease of a County facility requires adoption of
an ordinance following a first and second reading. Due to time constraints, the Board
would have to agree to an emergency waiver of the second reading. This will require a
four-fifths (4/5) vote.
It was the consensus of the Board that additional information was needed
prior to the actions requested on June 8. A work session was scheduled for June 7,
2004 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss funding issues and review the proposals.
2. Work session to review proffers for the Slate Hill Project, 4486
Summit Street, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Janet Scheid,
Chief Planner)
The work session was held from 4:45 p.m. until 5:36 p.m. and from 6:36
p.m. until 6:50 p.m. Mr. Covey and Ms. Scheid reviewed a PowerPoint presentation
which outlined the revised Slate Hill proffers and highlighted the following areas where
general agreement has been reached: slopes (geotechnical report), buildings (facades
May 25, 2004
402
and materials), roads (curb and gutter, material, geometrics), access (improvements as
per the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), utilities, retaining walls,
landscaping, site lighting, and storm water management (detention requirements).
Areas which are still points of contention are as follows: (1) County staff is requesting
that the map titled “Slate Hill Site” prepared by Roanoke County and dated May 25,
2004, which identifies the location of Zones 3 and 4, be proffered. (2) The proposed
uses upon which the traffic impact study was based differ from the proposed uses being
presented in the rezoning petition. County staff indicated that there needs to be a
correlation between what was studied and what is being proposed. (3) County staff is
recommending that a slope maintenance bond in the amount of $50,000 - $100,000 be
required for a 10-year period to insure the continued safety and maintenance of the
slopes, retaining walls, and private roads. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor
Church, Mr. Covey advised that this amount of bond would not take into account the risk
of injuries. (4) The petitioner is proposing that building height shall not exceed 50 feet
unless underground parking is provided, in which case building height shall not exceed
65 feet, with the exception of Zone 3 where the height shall not exceed 75 feet. The
petitioner anticipates the possible construction of a hotel in Zone 3, which would
necessitate a taller building. County staff recommends the building height not exceed
50 feet unless a minimum of 50% of the required parking for that building is
May 25, 2004
403
underground, in which case building height shall not exceed 65 feet. Ms. Scheid also
advised that the proposed hotel use was not included in the traffic impact study.
Mr. Covey reported that the petitioner is proposing that no retail building
base floor area shall exceed 90,000 square feet and no office base floor area shall
exceed 18,000 square feet. He advised that the traffic impact study was based on a
total retail square footage of 46,800 square feet. County staff proposes that no building
base floor footprint shall exceed 16,000 square feet, and the total building square
footage shall not exceed 198,000 square feet in Zones 3 and 4.
With respect to roads, Mr. Covey stated that the petitioner has proposed
that minimum 5-foot width sidewalks shall be installed on at least one side of all internal
streets to provide access between buildings in Zone 2. It was noted that proffers cannot
be accepted for Zone 2 because this portion of the property is not a part of the rezoning
request. Mr. Covey also reported that County staff has requested that access points,
building uses, and square footage be proffered as submitted in the traffic impact study
conducted by Mattern and Craig dated April 2004. At this time, the petitioner has had
no comment with respect to this request. County staff has also requested that any
additional connections to the private internal road system shall require a new traffic
impact study to be submitted to and approved by the County.
Mr. Covey advised that there is still disagreement with respect to building
height as it relates to the ridgeline. The petitioner proposed that no building height shall
May 25, 2004
404
extend beyond the 1394 elevation mark; County staff recommends that no building
height shall extend beyond the 1384 elevation mark, which is 25 feet below the top of
the ridge.
With respect to landscaping, Mr. Covey advised that County staff has
requested that a tree survey shall be required to delineate all remaining trees on the
site, and no tree shall be removed until the tree survey and a site plan are approved.
For each tree removed henceforth, there shall be a one-for-one replacement of trees
and the minimum size of replacement trees is 2½- inch caliper.
Mr. Covey advised that the petitioner proposes that no more than three
signs shall be permitted for each business, and the following signs are prohibited: off-
premise signs, portable signs, and temporary signs. In addition, the petitioner is
requesting that one marquee sign be allowed on the Route 220 side of the development
with the sign height limited to 40 feet. Mr. Covey advised that portable signs and roof
signs are prohibited under the County’s sign ordinance, and that the 40 foot marquee
sign would also be in violation of the County’s zoning ordinance which limits sign height
to 25 feet.
Mr. Covey reported that storm water management issues are addressed
under the County’s erosion and sediment control (E&S) regulations. Staff is
recommending that all drainage ways be piped or grass swales, and that no rip-rap or
concrete drainage ways shall be permitted.
May 25, 2004
405
Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioner had submitted a new set of proffers
at 4:00 p.m. today and there had not been sufficient time to review these changes.
The Board requested that the work session be adjourned at 5:36 p.m. to
allow time for staff to review the newly revised proffers and report back to the Board at
6:30 p.m.
When the work session resumed at 6:36 p.m., Mr. Covey and Ms. Scheid
reported that the petitioner has agreed to a slope maintenance bond in the amount of
$50,000. It was noted that the proposed uses and heights of buildings are still issues to
be addressed. With respect to access, the petitioner has proffered that he will, within
four months, file and pursue a zoning amendment reducing the permitted density on the
20+ acre tract of R-3 property behind Lowe’s to 9 units per acre. The proposed sign
height has been reduced to 25 feet to comply with the County’s zoning ordinance, and
the petitioner has proffered that there shall be one monument type marquee sign. The
petitioner has also proffered that that all drainage ways shall be piped or grass swales,
and that no rip-rap or concrete drainage ways shall be permitted. In addition,
references to Zones 1 and 2, which are not part of the rezoning request, were removed
from the proffers.
It was the consensus of the Board that the total square footage of the
buildings, as well as the proposed uses, are still key areas of concern which need to be
addressed. In addition, some concerns were expressed regarding the sufficiency of the
May 25, 2004
406
$50,000 slope maintenance bond. The Board expressed the desire to allow additional
time for staff and the petitioner to resolve these issues.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-052504-2
At 7:02 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to return to open session and adopt
the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052504-2 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
May 25, 2004
407
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of congratulations to students at Burton Technology
Center for winning the Virginia SkillsUSA Vocational Industrial
Clubs of America, Inc. (VICA) awards
R-052504-3
Chairman Flora presented the resolution to Ben Helmandollar, Associate
Career and Technical Education Administrator, and Joan Farley, Sponsor of the
SkillsUSA-VICA Club, who accepted it on behalf of Arnold R. Burton Technology Center
and the winning students. Certificates of appreciation were presented to those students
who were present.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052504-3 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO VOCATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL CLUBS OF AMERICAN, INC. (VICA) STUDENTS AT A. R.
BURTON TECHNOLOGY CENTER FOR WINNING THE VIRGINIA
SkillsUSA VICA AWARDS
WHEREAS, SkillsUSA–VICA is the second largest student organization in the
nation, serving more than 260,000 high school and college students and professional
members who are enrolled in training programs in technical, skilled and service
occupations; and
WHEREAS, there are approximately 13,000 VICA members from 203 schools in
the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
May 25, 2004
408
WHEREAS, several students from A. R. Burton Technology Center, having
achieved first place in local and district level competitions, won gold medals at the
Virginia SkillsUSA-VICA state competition held in April, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the following awards were received:
?
Community Service: Jamie Moran and Jessi Myers, William Byrd High School.
Awarded to the school which completes the most thorough and successful
community service activity.
?
Cosmetology: Elaine Baldacci, graduate of Cave Spring High School.
Awarded to the student who demonstrates outstanding ability in all aspects of hair
styling and hair cutting.
?
Customer Service:Rose Parker, William Byrd High School.
Awarded to the
student who best addresses simulated customer service scenarios.
?
Extemporaneous Speaking: Jacklyn Howell, Northside High School.
Awarded
to the student who best develops and delivers a speech on a topic they are given
five minutes prior to the time at which they must deliver the speech.
?
Extemporaneous Writing: Stephen Berry, Hidden Valley High School.
Awarded to the student who best develops a 250-500 word essay on a topic given
when they enter the contest room.
?
Outstanding Chapter: Kristy Allen, Hidden Valley High School, Judy Buzzo,
William Byrd High School, and Summer Gladden, Glenvar High School.
Awarded to the school in Virginia which has the most successful and thorough
SkillsUSA program.
?
Promotional Bulletin Board:Joseph Martin, Glenvar High School and Jeremy
Mitchell, Northside High School.
Awarded to the student designed and
constructed bulletin board that does the best job of promoting Career and Technical
Education and SkillsUSA-VICA.
?
Residential Wiring: Steven Tribbett, graduate of William Byrd High School.
Awarded to the student who best demonstrates the ability to complete a
comprehensive residential wiring project.
?
State Web Page Design: Hillary Vandergrift, Blue Ridge Technical Academy.
Awarded to the student who develops the best web page for the state SkillsUSA
organization.
?
Technical Computer Applications: Tucker Stapleton, graduate of Cave Spring
High School.
Awarded to the student who best demonstrates the ability to install,
troubleshoot, and repair computer operating systems and applications software.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
students at A. R. Burton Technology Center for winning the Virginia SkillsUSA-VICA
awards; and
May 25, 2004
409
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to each of the students in all of their future endeavors.
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
2. Resolution of congratulations to the William Byrd High School
Girls Swim Team for winning the Group AA State Championship
in the 400-meter freestyle relay
R-052504-4
Chairman Flora presented the resolution to Coach Doug Fonder, who
accepted on behalf of the William Byrd High School Girls Swim Team. Certificates of
appreciation were presented to the following members of the team who were present:
Erin Tudor and Kyndal Spradlin.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052504-4 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO
THE WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SWIM TEAM
FOR WINNING THE GROUP AA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
IN THE 400-METER FREESTYLE RELAY
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship, and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Girls Swim Team won the Group AA
State 400-Meter Freestyle Relay on February 14, 2004, at Radford University’s Dedmon
Center; and
May 25, 2004
410
WHEREAS, the team won the event in 3:41.22 which broke the meet record of
3:41.29 set by William Byrd High School in 2003; and
WHEREAS, the team is comprised of Clare Wooddall-Gainey, Kyndal Spradlin,
Erin Tudor and Kristen Escobar and is coached by Doug Fonder and Melanie Fisher.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SWIM TEAM
members of the for their athletic
ability, their commitment, and their team spirit; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to the members of the team, the coaches, and the school in their future
endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
3. Certificate of recognition to Kelly Clark, Glenvar High School, for
winning the Group A State Championship in cross country
Chairman Flora presented a certificate of recognition to Kelly Clark. Also
present were Ms. Clark’s mother and Jamie Soltis, Track Coach at Glenvar High
School.
4. Certificates of recognition to the following All-State Band and
Chorus Winners:
(a) Joe Pirro, Hidden Valley High School
(b) Sarah Armstrong, Glenvar High School
(c) Sharma, Glenvar High School
(d) Amy Minnix, William Byrd High School
There was no one present to accept the certificates of recognition.
Chairman Flora advised that the certificates will be mailed to the students.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
May 25, 2004
411
1. 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 until June 22, 2004 at the request of
the petitioner
Chairman Flora advised that this matter has been postponed until June
22, 2004, at the request of the petitioner.
2. Second reading of an ordinance granting tax exemption of
property owned by the Salvation Army pursuant to Article X,
Section 6 (a) (6) of the Constitution of Virginia. (Paul Mahoney,
County Attorney)
O-052504-5
Mr. Mahoney advised that the process for evaluating this petition is
different than what has been followed in the past. He stated that this is the first request
for a determination of tax exempt status of real estate since the constitutional
amendment and state code provisions were adopted by the Virginia General Assembly.
The Salvation Army is currently utilizing the property as a thrift store, which consists of
approximately .66 acres of real estate located at 5511 Williamson Road. He advised
May 25, 2004
412
that the assessed value of the property is approximately $374,000. He noted that
representatives of the Salvation Army have provided answers to the statutory questions
which the General Assembly recommends that localities review prior to making tax
exempt determinations. The action today will authorize entering into a service
agreement with the Salvation Army where it would pay 20% of the real estate taxes in
the form of a service fee to Roanoke County in lieu of taxes.
There were no citizens present to speak on this matter.
Jonathan Lee, Salvation Army, advised that the Salvation Army is pleased
that Roanoke County is considering the request. He recommended that one adjustment
to the proposed ordinance be made which is to have the 20% service fee become
effective July 1, 2003. He indicated that this request is based on the fact that the
property was acquired on November 22, 2002, and renovations were begun at that time.
On March 15, 2003, the property became active as a thrift store. The Salvation Army
first contacted Roanoke County on May 28, 2003, to attempt to have the property
declared tax exempt. Mr. Lee advised that since the process for tax exempt status
began in early 2003, the Salvation Army would like the service fee to begin effective
July 1, 2003. Mr. Lee further advised that the real estate taxes for 2003 have been on
hold, and the Salvation Army currently owes $4,735.56. If the effective date becomes
July 1, 2003, this amount will be reduced to $3,057.76. He stated that the difference in
May 25, 2004
413
these two amounts will be used by the Salvation Army to serve the needy in the
Roanoke Valley.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church, Mr. Lee reported that
$4,192 could be used by the Salvation Army to serve approximately 1,000-1,500 meals
in the shelter for homeless men, or to provide rent/mortgage assistance for
approximately 16-20 families who may be experiencing a temporary crisis and are
facing possible eviction.
Supervisor Wray questioned how the County will address each entity
requesting tax exempt status and whether any criteria will be established. Mr. Mahoney
advised that the effect of the constitutional amendment can mean that each request
comes to the Board for approval. Mr. Mahoney indicated that prior to the amendment,
two categories of entities eligible for tax exempt status had been established: (1)
automatic (land owned by government, churches); and (2) organizations that fall within
the "by designation" category. These were designated by action of a local governing
body. Mr. Mahoney stated that this is, in effect, a substitution for what was the law
before the constitutional amendment. Prior to the amendment, local government bodies
adopted resolutions to either support or oppose a request for tax exemption. The
request would then go to the General Assembly for approval. The amendment takes
the General Assembly out of the process and now each request will come to the Board
for approval. Mr. Mahoney advised that he assumes the County will still follow the
May 25, 2004
414
procedure of automatically exempting government and church organizations. He
reported that approximately 18-19% of the total assessed value of real estate in
Roanoke City and the City of Salem is tax exempt; in Roanoke County, it is
approximately 10-11%. He indicated that he would anticipate an expansion of these
requests in Roanoke County.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Mahoney advised that
the state code sets out limitations and guidelines for service fees. There are two major
restrictions: (1) the service fee cannot exceed 20%; and (2) certain entities cannot be
levied a service fee (i.e., churches, government).
Supervisor Flora inquired if there were any problems with changing the
effective date to July 1, 2003. Mr. Mahoney stated that he has consulted with both the
Treasurer and Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance, and they have indicated that this is
not a problem and it is at the discretion of the Board.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance with an effective
date of July 1, 2003. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052504-5 GRANTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY
OWNED BY THE SALVATION ARMY AND USED FOR ITS
CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ON
A NON-PROFIT BASIS
May 25, 2004
415
WHEREAS, The Salvation Army (“Petitioner”) has petitioned this Board for tax
exemption for certain of its property from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6)
of the Constitution of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, that the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 11, 2004;
and the second reading and public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be
heard with respect to Petitioner’s request was held by the Board on May 25, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 58.1-3651 of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and considered by the Board; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner agrees that the property to be exempt from taxation is the
property of The Salvation Army.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That, in accordance with Section 58.1-3651 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended, the Board grants an exemption from taxation under Article X, Section 6
(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia of property owned and used by The Salvation Army
for its charitable, educational, and benevolent purposes. This ordinance is adopted by
the Board after holding a public hearing with respect hereto as to which public notice
was given and at which citizens had an opportunity to be heard. In adopting this
ordinance, the Board has examined and considered the provisions of subsection B of
Section 58.1-3651 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The assessed value of
the property owned and used by The Salvation Army is $374,300 and the property tax is
$4,192. The Tax Parcel No. of the property owned by The Salvation Army is 38.10-7-28
and said parcel is located at 5511 Williamson Road, Roanoke County, Virginia.
2. That pursuant to Section 58.1-3605, The Salvation Army shall file
triennially an application with the County’s assessing officer as a requirement for
retention of the exempt status of the property. Such application shall show the
ownership and usage of such property and shall be filed within the next sixty days
preceding the tax year for which such exemption, or the retention thereof, is sought.
3. That The Salvation Army has agreed to enter into a Service Agreement
with Roanoke County providing for the payment of an annual service fee in the amount
of 20% of the County’s real estate tax levies,were The Salvation Army not exempt from
local taxation, for so long as Petitioner is exempted from State and local taxation. This
service fee shall commence July 1, 2003, and shall continue for succeeding years so
long as Petitioner is exempted from State and local taxation.
4. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator is hereby
authorized to execute the necessary documents to accomplish the purposes of this
ordinance.
5. That the Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to
the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer for Roanoke County, and to The
Salvation Army.
May 25, 2004
416
6. That the effective date of this ordinance is ___July 1, 2003___.
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
3. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .800 acres from R1 SUP
Low Density Residential District with Special Use Permit to C1
Office District in order to construct a public safety building,
parking and access road located at 5929 Cove Road, Catawba
Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-052504-6
Ms. Scheid advised that this is a request to rezone .8 acres from R-1,
single family residential with a special use permit to operate a group home for girls, to
C-1, office. If rezoned, this property will provide access and/or parking for the proposed
Roanoke County public safety building. Per the Roanoke County zoning ordinance, all
access and parking required for a commercial or industrial site must also be zoned
appropriately, i.e., either commercial or industrial. Since the property is currently zoned
R-1, it needs to be rezoned to C-1 in order to provide either access or parking for the
public safety building. Ms. Scheid stated that the new building will be approximately
80,000 square feet and will be constructed on approximately 8 acres that currently
surround this tract on the north, south, and east. The .800 acre parcel is the site of the
former Youth Haven II and is now being utilized as a counseling center.
May 25, 2004
417
Ms. Scheid reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on this matter on May 4 and no citizens spoke at that time. The Planning Commission
made a favorable recommendation to approve the petition.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Chambliss advised
that the counseling center currently located on the site is a life skills program which
works closely with the court services unit. It is anticipated that they will move to the
newly renovated Court Services Building.
There were no citizens present to speak on this matter.
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 052504-6 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A .800-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 5929 COVE
ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 36.16-1-11.1) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 SUP LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, OFFICE DISTRICT UPON THE
APPLICATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 27, 2004, and
the second reading and public hearing were held May 25, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on May 4, 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:
May 25, 2004
418
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
.800 acres, as described herein, and located at 5929 Cove Road (Tax Map Number
36.16-1-11.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning
classification of R-1 SUP, Low Density Residential District with a Special Use Permit, to
the zoning classification of C-1, Office District.
2. That the “use-not-provided-for” permit granted by the Board of Supervisors
in 1985 to allow the operation of Pathways, a girl group home on this property, is hereby
repealed.
3. That this action is taken upon the application of the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point on State Route 780 (Cove Road) at its intersection
with a twenty foot asphalt drive; thence in a northerly direction N. 14° 56’
15” W. 221.71 feet to a point; thence N. 51° 19’ 00” E. 116.90 feet to a
point; thence S. 42° 58’ 20” E. 210.05 feet to a point which intersects with
a twenty foot asphalt driveway; thence in a southerly direction S. 531 00’
00” W. 221.98 feet to the Place of Beginning and containing 0.805 acres,
further identified as Tax Map No. 36.16-1-11.1.
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 change the zoning
classification of a total of 29.98 acres located at 4486 Summit
Street from the zoning classifications of C-2 conditional, R-3, and
C-1 to the zoning classification of C-2 with conditions, Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Slate Hill I, LLC,
Slate Hill II, LLC, and Woodcliff Investments, LLC. (Janet Scheid,
May 25, 2004
419
Chief Planner) Postponed from April 27, 2004 at the request of
the Board of Supervisors
A-052504-7
Ms. Scheid advised that since this matter was continued at the April 27
meeting, staff has worked with the petitioner to resolve the concerns with slopes,
building sizes and materials, general appearance of the buildings, traffic concerns,
storm water detention and runoff concerns. At their public hearing on April 6, the
Planning Commission heard from several citizens who expressed many of the same
concerns as the Board of Supervisors including tree removal and grading on the
property, water runoff, appearance of the buildings, traffic congestion on Route 419 and
Route 220, and access to the building.
Ms. Scheid stated that two work sessions were held on May 11 and prior
to this afternoon’s meeting to review proffers submitted by the petitioner. The Planning
Commission, at their April 6 meeting, made a negative recommendation to the Board
regarding this rezoning request. Ms. Scheid advised that as of this afternoon’s work
session, great progress has been made to address the concerns expressed by citizens
and the Board; however, there are several areas where significant gaps still exist.
Chairman Flora advised that based on the information received late this
afternoon, there are still significant differences between what staff and the Board are
looking for and what has been submitted. He advised that it has been recommended
May 25, 2004
420
that this matter be continued for an additional 30 days to afford every opportunity to
work out the details with the petitioner.
Ed Natt, attorney for the petitioner, advised that his client would like for the
Board to render a decision at the meeting tonight. He stated that the petitioner feels
that the proposed rezoning to C-2 with proffered conditions provides for the highest and
best use of the property. He noted that the Board requested a continuance at the April
27 meeting and the petitioner agreed to this request. At the May 11 work session, the
County presented the petitioner with a list of approximately 36 suggested proffers. He
advised that 28 or 29 of the recommended proffers have been incorporated. Since that
time, there have been back and forth dialogues and Mr. Natt reported that
approximately four or five significant differences remain at this point. Mr. Natt stated
that Ms. Scheid had reported that there were originally differences with respect to
slopes, materials, size, traffic, size of buildings, storm water runoff, etc. He stated that
the petitioner has resolved the issues dealing with slopes, materials, traffic, and storm
water runoff. This leaves size and the configuration of the buildings as the remaining
areas of concern.
Mr. Natt reported that revised proffers were delivered to the work session
today and they included a site plan, as well as the zone layout. Following discussion, it
was determined that the Board had only received the two pages containing the proffers.
With respect to proposed uses, Mr. Natt advised that the petitioner has
stated from the beginning that they wanted the property rezoned for C-2 use and they
May 25, 2004
421
were willing to proffer out any of the County's objectionable uses on the entire site. He
indicated that this was not an area of concern until today.
With respect to slopes, Mr. Natt stated that the County had requested a
slope maintenance bond and it has been agreed to in an amount of $50,000. He noted
that if this money is invested, over a period of 10 years there will be interest earned on
the funds which will grow significantly. He stated that the petitioner feels that a bond in
this amount is sufficient, and he stated that the developer will have to repair any
problems that exist anyway.
With respect to the buildings, Mr. Natt advised that if the property is zoned
C-1 or C-2, there are limitations. The petitioner has proffered that buildings will not
exceed 50 feet unless underground parking is provided; in that event, the building
height will not exceed 65 feet except in Zone 3, where the height will not exceed 75 feet.
He stated that the petitioner has been involved in negotiations with a particular user for
a site in Zone 3 which includes plans for a 70-75 foot building on that site.
With respect to the size of buildings, Mr. Natt advised that the petitioner
has proposed that the total square footage in Zone 3 shall not exceed 100,000 square
feet, and the total square footage for retail in Zone 4 will not exceed 98,000 square feet.
The office use in Zone 4 has been left open due to the fact that the petitioner is not
certain what will be built on this portion of the property. The petitioner is willing to state
that if it is retail, they will limit the total square footage to 98,000 square feet. Mr. Natt
advised that the traffic study was predicated in Zones 3 and 4 upon having a total of
May 25, 2004
422
198,000 square feet. He stated that if traffic is a concern, the key factor to be
considered is how much square footage can go on those properties. The footprint of
the building should not be relevant. He noted that the topography will limit the size of
buildings that can be put on the site.
Mr. Natt reported that the zoning ordinance provides for 90% coverage in
C-2 zoning areas (the building can cover 50%). He stated that Zone 3 is over 8 acres
and if 100,000 square feet is constructed on one level that would amount to only 25% of
the ground covered with building. In Zone 4 if 150,000 total square feet of retail and
office space is situated on 20 acres, this totals less than 20% of the area covered by
buildings. Mr. Natt advised that in either zone, topography and other constraints will
ensure that the property will not be overburdened with buildings.
Mr. Natt stated that at the last meeting, Supervisor McNamara requested
proffers that would alleviate traffic congestion. After examining the site, the petitioner
felt it was appropriate to reduce the density on the adjoining site to meet this request. In
addition, the petitioner has since proffered a marquee sign with a height not to exceed
25 feet which will be a monument sign.
In closing, Mr. Natt stated that the petitioner feels that the proffers which
have been submitted meet the County Code requirements and provide for vitally
needed economic development for a good project in Roanoke County. He noted that
the petitioner feels that they have satisfactorily addressed all questions and that this is
the highest and best use of the property as opposed to R-3 residential.
May 25, 2004
423
Jim Smith, the petitioner, stated that he is not a capricious individual and
that he has worked hard on this project. He noted that he has invested 3 years and $3
million to assemble this project and advised that he will develop the property. The
question before the Board is whether the existing zoning or the proposed rezoning
request is the highest and best use for the property. He stated that the discussion has
been focused on an ideal vs. what is proposed, and not a comparison of what is
proposed vs. what the property is already zoned for. He outlined the following attributes
of the proposed project: (1) it will provide jobs for Roanoke County; (2) it will build a
stronger tax base, as opposed to generating a need for more schools and increased
traffic which would be the result if the property is developed for housing; (3) it will
alleviate some of the possible traffic concerns if developed as proposed; however if the
rezoning request is not approved, there will be a greater impact on traffic flow; (4) it is
consistent with the community plan which encourages re-use and infield development;
(5) it will provide protection for existing jobs in Roanoke County since there is an
ongoing demand for available properties that businesses can lease/develop; (6) he
noted that there has not been an overwhelming amount of public opposition to the
project and the objectionable uses have been proffered out.
In closing, Mr. Smith stated that the County should be attempting to link
the community to Blacksburg and Smith Mountain Lake. He stated that this project
supports that objective, as well as supporting Tanglewood Mall and the other retail
buildings in this corridor.
May 25, 2004
424
Mr. Mahoney conferred with Mr. Natt regarding a procedural matter
pertaining to the proffers. It was noted that the information Mr. Natt provided to the
Board at the meeting was slightly different from what Mr. Hunter Smith provided the
Board in the work session earlier today. Mr. Mahoney advised that Mr. Hunter Smith
had made three changes to the proffers. Following discussion, it was agreed that the
correct set of proffers is the one that was submitted by Mr. Smith at the earlier work
session. Mr. Mahoney also noted that in Item 1B, there is a reference to Exhibit 1;
however, this exhibit was not included in the information received. Following
discussion, it was determined that Exhibit 1 is the same as the color map reviewed by
Janet Scheid and Arnold Covey at the work session which showed tax map boundaries.
Mr. Mahoney clarified for the record that the Board had the correct exhibits and
documents.
Mr. Ralph Davis, 6633 Sylvan Brooke Road, stated that there was nothing
encouraging after witnessing two years of this process. He questioned how the County
could tolerate the lack of specificity coming forward with projects. He noted that the
same thing appears to be happening at the Planning Commission level, and he
suggested that the County establish a standard that would preclude this type of
“stumbling around to find answers”. He stated that information should be made
available for review prior to the public hearings, and noted that this type of process is
not tolerated in other regions. He advised that it is incumbent on the government to
establish fairness, and citizens should be informed of pending actions prior to approval
May 25, 2004
425
of rezoning requests. He asked that the Board not make a decision on the information
submitted today, but allow the public an opportunity to review this new information.
Elizabeth Abe, 6909 Mary B Place, expressed concerns with storm water
runoff and erosion and sediment control issues. She advised that following a recent
inspection of the site, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) reported that
improvements have been made; however, the sediment basin is not in satisfactory
condition. The job is currently on temporary shutdown pending redesign of the
sediment basin. She questioned whether new plans have been submitted to the County
for approval of this change. She also noted that in accordance with Virginia Sediment
and Erosion Control Standards, the sediment basin and other erosion and sediment
control (E&S) measures were supposed to have been installed prior to initiating any
land disturbing activities. Ms. Abe also advised that temporary soil stabilization must
be applied within 7 days on all areas without trees or shrubbery. She stated that
Roanoke County has adopted these E&S measures and are responsible for enforcing
them. She asked that the Board please consider the time everyone has spent attending
four different public meetings and to consider the information still not being provided by
the developer.
Frances E. Boatman, 5260 Crossbow Circle - #5C, commended staff for
the hard work that has been put into this project. She stated that Mr. Smith may have
good intentions, but the problem is he is presenting apples and selling oranges. She
advised that she is concerned about the traffic study information presented in the work
May 25, 2004
426
session earlier today. She noted that what was presented in the traffic study is not
consistent with what the petitioner wants to build. She advised that with respect to
building heights, the traffic study was based on a 4 story building of 50 feet, but the
petitioner now wants to build a 75 foot building. She reported that the proposed hotel
also does not fall under office designation, which is what was included in the traffic
impact study. With respect to square footage, office use was included in the traffic
impact study; however the proposal being submitted is for retail use. She stated that
the information submitted in the traffic impact study should match what is being
submitted.
Ms. Boatman also advised that the petitioner has suggested a possible
rezoning on the 20-acre parcel behind Lowe's which is currently zoned R-3. She stated
that there is nothing to prevent him from requesting that the R-3 tract be rezoned for
office or retail use. She reported that no more is known now than when this project was
first heard by the Planning Commission. With respect to the signage proffer, Ms.
Boatman stated that this is not a concession. It is mandatory under Roanoke County's
sign ordinance and is enforceable under the law. Regarding storm water runoff, Ms.
Boatman stated that she had spoken with representatives from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). They advised her that a chief concern with a project
containing slopes of this degree is storm water runoff. Based on the last presentation,
Ms. Boatman stated that it is not clear that this issue has been adequately addressed.
May 25, 2004
427
Ms. Boatman stated that the property is a gateway to Roanoke County.
The petitioner can do whatever he wants with the property as long as it falls within the
laws and guidelines of the County. She reported that at the first Planning Commission
meeting, the petitioner was allowed 60 days to provide more information. The petitioner
insisted on 30 days and following that time, returned to the Planning Commission
without additional information. She stated that at the last Board of Supervisors meeting,
the petitioner was offered 60 days to resolve these issues. Again, they stated that only
30 days were needed. Ms. Boatman advised that the petitioner then returns at 4:00
p.m. on the day of the meeting with additional information. She noted that the petitioner
was offered another 30 days again tonight and it was refused. Ms. Boatman stated that
traffic is a major concern and the petitioner states that if it remains residential, there will
be a greater impact; however, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has
indicated that this statement has not been adequately demonstrated. In closing, she
requested that the road going through the development not be connected to Lowe's
because these properties adjoin residential areas.
Mr. Natt stated that the discussion has focused on C1 vs. C2 uses and
office vs. retail. He advised that from the outset, this proposal has been for C2 -
commercial retail and that retail is a prime prospect for this property. The traffic study
was conducted on the basis of office use and retail may, in some instances, have higher
traffic; however, it is non-peak hour traffic, which will be of most concern in the Route
419 and Route 220 corridor. Mr. Natt stated that the petitioner has and will comply with
May 25, 2004
428
the requirements pertaining to building height. He concurred that the Board has the
final decision as to how the property will be used, and he voiced the opinion that R-3
zoning is not the highest and best use of the property. He advised that the proffers
submitted protect the County, and the petitioner is requesting approval of the rezoning.
Supervisor Flora asked Mr. Covey if a redesign of the storm water
detention basin has been submitted. Mr. Covey responded that the petitioner must get
a permit from VDOT to get a discharge pipe and VDOT is still reviewing the plans. The
permit that must be obtained is approved through Richmond.
Supervisor Church requested that Ms. Scheid and Mr. Covey describe the
typical process a rezoning request follows. Ms. Scheid stated that in a normal rezoning
request, staff receives a call or visit from an applicant inquiring about rezoning. Staff
meets with the applicant and brings in any necessary staff or experts. Information is
provided about how to proceed with the request, and the applicant is given an
application and information about fees. Ms. Scheid advised that staff works closely with
applicants to achieve a level of understanding about the process. They communicate
often with the applicant, and staff conducts a review of the request. Ms. Scheid stated
that frequently, a community meeting is held and staff communicates any areas of
concern to the petitioner. She stated that with respect to the proposed rezoning being
considered tonight, concerns were conveyed to the petitioner early in the process. Ms.
Scheid stated that in a normal request, other concerns may arise through community
meetings. The request then goes to the Planning Commission and the goal is to have
May 25, 2004
429
many, if not all, of the issues resolved prior to the matter being heard by the Board. The
Planning Commission hears the petition, receives citizen input, and then makes a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The matter is then heard by the Board
and typically there are not many changes that occur during this time.
Mr. Covey advised that a petitioner coming to the County has the right to
take a request to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Staff does
not have the authority to deny a request for rezoning. He stated that staff tries to work
with each petitioner, but it is the petitioner's right to proceed with the request.
Supervisor Church questioned if this particular project had followed a
normal course with regard to the back and forth changes of proffers. Ms. Scheid stated
that the topography of this property makes the project unique. She advised that staff
communicated concerns early in the process to the petitioner; however, the Planning
Commission did not view the petitioner's proffers as being adequate.
Supervisor Church questioned whether the large number of proffers is
related to the topography of the site, and Ms. Scheid advised that the amount of proffers
relates directly to the slopes and traffic concerns at a busy intersection.
Supervisor Church noted that a 10-year time frame had been discussed
with respect to the slope maintenance bond. He expressed concerns about whether a
$50,000 bond would be adequate if something happens to the retaining walls and an
injury results. He questioned whether in recent history, there has been a project with so
May 25, 2004
430
many proffers that have gone back and forth in discussion. Ms. Scheid replied that
there had not been.
Supervisor Church advised that he is not satisfied with the storm water
management plans, and expressed concerns about the discrepancies between what
was studied in the traffic impact study and the proposed uses.
Mr. Covey reported that the types of uses that were evaluated in the traffic
report vary from what is being requested in the rezoning. He noted that more square
footage is also being requested than what was included in the traffic study.
Supervisor Church questioned how tall the Roanoke County
Administration Center (RCAC) building was in order to establish a comparison of
building heights. Mr. Covey responded that the RCAC building is approximately 40-45
feet. Supervisor Church requested input from the staff regarding required heights and
ridgelines. Ms. Scheid stated that staff has concerns about ridgeline and this is why the
1,384 elevation mark was established so that there would be a 25 foot open area
between the tops of any buildings and the ridgeline.
Supervisor Church advised that in the past, he has voted against sending
projects back to the Planning Commission because guidelines are in place for how to
handle requests. He stated that this is a project where the process has been changed.
He advised that he is not in favor of delivering proffers at 4:00 on a meeting date which
does not allow time for proper review, and he indicated that the process cannot be
changed for each individual petitioner. He indicated that the Board needs to send a
May 25, 2004
431
message to developers that these issues should be addressed and a complete plan
established before a project comes to the Board for review.
Supervisor Altizer advised Mr. Smith that the Board does not question his
integrity; however, he noted that Mr. Smith spoke about economic development
advantages and the number of jobs this development would create. Supervisor Altizer
stated that two of the largest recent economic development projects have been in the
Vinton District and will create approximately 700 jobs; however, the guiding principles
about how those projects were to be developed were in place and working to achieve
that goal. He noted that this has been a long process and staff has been diligent in
attempting to do their jobs. He advised that he had spoken with Mr. Smith on the site
and they had discussed the slope maintenance bond. Supervisor Altizer stated that this
project came together at a time when the Board was taking a definitive look at how
slopes in Roanoke County were going to be addressed. He reported that issues of
concern exist with the hotel, square footage, and the bond, and stated that he would like
to have the opportunity to work these out; but if forced to vote today, he must adhere to
the guiding principles that he has used in judging the merits of other projects. He stated
that he believes an agreement can be reached but if forced to make a decision tonight,
that may not be possible. Supervisor Altizer advised that he would like to see this
continued for a period of 30 days.
Supervisor McNamara stated that this is by far not a normal rezoning
request. He advised that there is no question that the Board wants the property
May 25, 2004
432
developed for the highest and best use; however, the Board must protect the property
for the future. He noted that with other projects, the County has worked together with
petitioners to make the projects fit the environment. In this scenario, the Board and staff
have bent over backwards to try to work through the project. He stated that never has
the Board received proffers at 4:00 on a rezoning request to be discussed that evening.
In addition, he advised that he does not recall another project where the planning staff,
Planning Commission, and VDOT all feel that the information that has been provided is
insufficient. He stated that he does not understand the desire to have the Board cast a
vote today. He stated that he does not feel there is a major problem with a hotel, but
noted that the desire to maintain the building height at 1,384 vs. 1,394 is because by
right, with a building height of 1,384 the owner can place antennas on the roof of the
building. If this is done, it will place the height above the ridge line. He also stated that
this is not a question of jobs. The County wants jobs and they want good development.
He reported that on April 27, the Board provided input about what changes to the
project were desired and this information was supplied to the petitioner. With respect to
the Keagy Village rezoning petition which is currently pending, he noted that site plans
and traffic flow plans showing acceleration and deceleration lanes are available and the
County is aware of what VDOT is requesting. With the Slate Hill project, VDOT cannot
provide information for review because what was studied and what is being proffered
are two different things. He advised that the Board is not being excessively demanding
May 25, 2004
433
or paranoid in requesting this information relative to a rezoning request. He stated that
this could be a great project, but it is not there right now.
Supervisor Flora expressed concerns about the discrepancies between
what was included in the traffic study data and what is being proposed now. He advised
that if you examine AM peak hour traffic for retail use and office use (multi-tenant) and
break this down by the number of trips per 1,000 square feet for each usage type, then
convert it to 100,000 square feet of office space vs. 100,000 square feet of retail space,
you will find that retail generates 4,400 trips compared with 220 trips for office. He
stated that this is a huge difference along Route 419 and Route 220, which are some of
the most congested areas of Roanoke County. He advised that this is a significant
concern, and he is not sure VDOT would approve it based on the information being
presented today.
Supervisor Wray stated that the negatives of the project have been
accentuated, but we should look at the issues staff has resolved thus far such as
building materials, the geotechnical survey, curb and guttering, utilities underground,
retaining walls, landscaping, site lighting, and signage. He stated that there are a lot of
issues that we are close to agreement on, including storm water management. He
stated that he wished there had been an additional 45 days to work on the project. He
indicated that Roanoke County wants more jobs, revenues, and a stronger tax base and
stated that if it were possible to go forward with this process with the intention of
resolving the remaining issues, he thinks this could be accomplished.
May 25, 2004
434
Mr. Smith stated that one of the primary misunderstandings that exist is
the nature of the project. He stated that this property has been assembled from parcels
that have been purchased over the last 3 years, and it encompasses 20 individual
tracts. Typically the property is optioned from the landowner and the developer comes
in and requests rezoning for a specific use. Because of the slope conditions on the
property, there are no tenants signed for the property at this time. The site must first be
developed and flattened out so that a business prospect can view the site and see the
potential. He stated that staff wants specifics about what is going to go on the site, but
this information is not known. He indicated his willingness to continue working with the
Board on the project for an additional 30 days.
Supervisor Altizer stated that staff should be provided with direction
regarding the specifics to be addressed by the developer. Supervisor Flora stated that
Ms. Scheid has accurately expressed the Board’s concerns in her earlier presentation.
Ms. Scheid advised that the two most critical issues are the uses (C1 vs. C2) and the
buildings (height and size of the buildings). She stated that other slight differences such
as landscaping also still remain. Supervisor Flora advised that the $50,000 slope
maintenance bond is also a concern, and the 75 foot building height would be allowed
only if a hotel is to be built; otherwise, the height will drop back down.
Supervisor McNamara stated that he has no problem with the whole
project being retail as long as the traffic study is based on this information. He also
May 25, 2004
435
noted that VDOT has committed to turn traffic study information on this project around
within 7 days due to the significance of the project.
Supervisor Wray moved to continue the matter for 30 days until the June
22, 2004 meeting. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: Supervisor Church
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church: He asked Mr. Chambliss if there were any plans for a
Towing Operator’s Advisory Board, and requested that he be kept advised of any
progress in this regard. Mr. Chambliss advised that he would look into the matter.
Supervisor Wray: He advised there was a school bus accident in the
Cave Spring District area last Friday, but fortunately there were no serious injuries. He
expressed pride in the children for their handling of the situation, as well as appreciation
to the children who were following behind the bus in cars and assisted in the evacuation
of the students from the bus. He commended the schools, fire and rescue personnel,
and the police for their prompt responses.
Supervisor Flora: He noted that he had failed to mention earlier in the
meeting that Mr. Hodge is out of town and Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator, is substituting for him at today’s meeting. He stated that our thoughts
and prayers are with Mr. Hodge and his wife, who is having some testing done.
May 25, 2004
436
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. until Monday,
June 7, 2004, at 5:30 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard
Drive, SW, 4th Floor Conference Room, for the purpose of a work session to discuss
funding for the new public safety building.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ________________________
Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora
Clerk to the Board Chairman