Roanoke council adds conservation option, removes interstate connector in amended Evans Spring plan

Roanoke City Council on May 18 unanimously amended the Evans Spring master plan to add conservation as an explicit outcome option and to remove language proposing an interstate connector, then adopted the plan as amended.

The amendment — moved by Councilman Nash and seconded by Vice Mayor Maguire — replaces references to “larger‑footprint commercial destination retail” in Land Bay A with a mix of education, mixed‑use commercial, parks and open space; extends residential and natural buffers where indicated; and adds a residential density gradient for compatibility with adjoining neighborhoods. The roll‑call vote on the amendment and the final ordinance adoption were both recorded as unanimous.

Why it mattered: hundreds of acres in the Evans Spring planning area lie in privately owned parcels near I‑581. Supporters of the conservation option — including the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy and the Friends of Evans Spring — urged council to preserve tree canopy and sensitive wetlands, extend the Lick Run Greenway, and reduce urban heat‑island and stormwater risks. David Perry, executive director of the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy, told the council he was asking only to “allow conservation to be one of the options” so landowners and conservation partners could pursue purchase and stewardship if they choose.

City staff had presented three paths: reaffirm the 2024 plan as written; adopt minor amendments; or pursue major amendment and additional study. Catherine Gray, interim planning manager, said staff and the planning commission favored targeted, minor edits (option 2) but acknowledged the wide public interest in conservation. Council members pressed staff on transportation and access questions before moving the amendment.

Concerns and clarifications: several council members said they supported adding an option for conservation but wanted to understand how people would access the property if it were conserved for public use. Staff advised that the comprehensive plan provides guidance, but a future rezoning or site application would be required for any specific development or infrastructure; removing the connector from the plan does not legally prevent a future council from reconsidering access or infrastructure if circumstances change.

What comes next: the amended plan gives landowners the formal option to work with conservation organizations and pursue non‑development outcomes; it does not transfer ownership or require conservation. Council members asked staff to prepare a transportation/access study and recommended outreach so the public and property owners can see practical implications of the amended language.