The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/25/2006 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda July 25, 2006 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for July 25, 2006. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Reverend Bruce Tuttle Cave Spring United Methodist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of appreciation to John P. Krista, Circuit Court Clerk's Office, upon his retirement after twenty-two years of service D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to accept and appropriate additional state revenues in the amount of $475,000 to the Sheriff's Office for fiscal year 2005-2006 budget. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) 1 F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. 1. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the construction of an accessory apartment on .63 acres located at 6162 Steeplechase Drive, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Victor and Elmarie Myburgh. 2. First reading of an ordinance to remove the special use permit and conditions from 1.9 acres located at 6044 Peters Creek Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jesse Jones. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance accepting the conveyance of a one-half interest in the Vinton Business Park, approving an amendment to the Gain Sharing Agreement, and reallocating funds for this purpose. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) 2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed by District) J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes - July 11, 2006 2. Acceptance of a portion of Broyles Lane, Route 1054, Hollins Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation secondary system 2 K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Debt Payment Reserve 5. Accounts Paid - June 2006 6. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report 7. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report 8. Report of claims activity for the self-insurance program for the period ended June 30,2006 9. Statement of the Treasurer's accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of June 30, 2006 O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes. P. WORK SESSIONS (Training Room - 4th floor) 1. Joint work sessions with the Roanoke County Planning Commission: a. Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, Chapter 8.1, Erosion and Sediment Control. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) b. Work session to discuss conditional zoning. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 3 EVENING SESSION Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve the optional Flexible Leave Plan and disability insurance for Roanoke County employees effective November 4, 2006. (Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources; Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) S. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES 1. Withdrawn at the reQuest of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit with amended conditions for the operation of a used automobile dealership on .467 acres located at 6717 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Daniel W. Doss. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) 2. Continued until AUQust 22.2006. at the reQuest of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the construction of an accessory apartment on .387 acres located at 2923 Embassy Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Amina AI-Hindi, a/k/a Amina AI-Habashy. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) 3. Continued until AUQust 22.2006. at the reQuest of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .69 acres and .48 acres from R1, Low Density Residential, to C2, General Commercial District, in order to construct a retail sales facility located at 4065 Challenger Avenue and 4053 Challenger Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Gateway, LLC. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) 4. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the operation of a religious assembly located at 6200 block of Meacham Road (revised driveway location), Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Bethel Assembly of God. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) 5. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 17.24 acres from 11-C, Industrial District with conditions, to C2, General Commercial District, in order to construct a retail sales facility located at the 3900 block Challenger Avenue near the intersection of Valley Gateway Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Kahn Development Company, Inc. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) 4 T. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS U. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Michael W. Altizer 2. Richard C. Flora 3. Joseph P. McNamara 4. Joseph B. "Butch" Church 5. Michael A. Wray V. ADJOURNMENT 5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C -I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation to John P. Krista, Circuit Court Clerk's Office, upon his retirement following twenty~two years of service SUBMITTED BY: Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk to the Board a :!~/'? Elmer C. Hodge rr-...v'. <\ (' County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mr. Krista retired from Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office on June 1,2006, after more than twenty-two years of service. He plans to attend the Board meeting to receive his resolution of appreciation. Steve McGraw, Clerk of Circuit Court, has indicated that he will attend the meeting. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 25,2006 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO JOHN P. KRIST A, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY. TWO YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, John P. Krista was employed by Roanoke County on October 8, 1983, as a microfilm technician in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista retired from the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office as Deputy Clerk III, on June 1, 2006, after twenty~two years and eight months of service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista received the designation of Certified Deputy Clerk from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service through the University of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista was dedicated to the preservation and management of the public's records and worked closely with the Library of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista remains an active member of the Virginia Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators (VAGARA), having served as its Treasurer twice and as a member of various committees, and was named the Outstanding Member of the Year for 1996; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to JOHN P. KRISTA for more than twenty-two years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E- 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate additional state revenues in the amount of $475,000 to the Sheriff's Office for fiscal year 2005-2006 budget SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget Elmer C. Hodge ~ f)~r County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: P'-V<~ ~r~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During fiscal year 2005-2006, as in previous years, the inmate population at the Roanoke County jail has remained above capacity. In addition, the average daily inmate population increased from 268 to 285 through FY 2006, an increase of 6.3% over the prior fiscal year. The average population for the final quarter for FY 2006 was approximately 286. As a result, operational costs such as food, utilities, medical costs, etc. continue to consume a substantial portion of the jail's budget. Due to the increased inmate population, the Sheriff is projecting expenditures related to inmate care to exceed original budget allocations by $475,000 for FY 2005-2006. For comparative purposes, the year-end adjustment approved by the Board for FY 2004-2005 was $75,000. Roanoke County is reimbursed by the state for salaries, mileage, office expenses, and for housing state prisoners. The reimbursement for state responsible inmates varies between a rate of $6 and $8 per day. In addition, the City of Salem reimburses the County for housing its prisoners on a per diem basis. State reimbursement for commonwealth responsible prisoners is subject to state prisoner population, general assembly appropriations, and political factors, variables difficult to consider in revenue projections. During previous fiscal years, state revenue receipts have exceeded the conservative state budget projections by an amount that would cover increased jail expenditures caused by higher than normal inmate populations. Based on the revenue estimates versus the projected revenues anticipated to be collected from the state for the Sheriff's Department for FY 2005-2006, revenues in excess of budget for these categories should total approximately $340,000. In addition, reimbursement revenue by the City of Salem for city- responsible prisoners in the jail exceeded budget projections by $210,000. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact - 100% state funds and contractual reimbursements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation adjustment to recognize an additional $475,000 of revenue for FY 2005-2006 for personnel and operations reimbursement and increasing the FY 2005-2006 Sheriff's Department budget within the Sheriffs department by $475,000 to cover increased operational costs of the jail caused by increased inmate population, staffing requirements, and capital reimbursements. 2 .t ACTION NO. ~\-~ ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for public hearing and first reading for rezoning ordinances - consent agenda SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Deputy Director of Planning Elmer C. Hodge ~ /J eeff::= County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for AUQust 22.2006. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. The petition of Victor and Elmarie Myburgh to obtain a special use permit for the construction of an accessory apartment on .63 acres located at 6162 Steeplechase Drive, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 2. The petition of Jesse Jones to remove the special use permit and conditions from 1.9 acres located at 6044 Peters Creek Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Maps are attached. More detailed information is available in the Clerk's Office. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for AUQust 22,2006. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1-2, and that the Clerk is 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 action. 2 Pz- C) li)llQ\J\ ~ - I County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onl Date received ~ /'2 I I () to Received by .r-EA..0 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Application fee~ C) ,00 Placards issued' BQS date ALLAPRLICANTS ". Check type of application filed (check all that apply) o Rezoning )(t Special Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address whip V,do,- ~ :Elm'\....,~_}\,.h\l.~"h ld ~ 5\~1>-<- i:>.-r-'e..- Kc,?o,~h~ \J A ~ tfo 1'5 Ovmer's name/address whip VIJror ~):1~"I~ tfl.~~~~ lD I tt.). 5\-~\ecl.~b",~ ~"""'.. :!lk._~ 'f {\ ~!fo l '"6; Property Location lal &~ ..:st~l..u:.k~ Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 77(,-03&3 5"".:n -.:2: (g4"b Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Magisterial District: i la.~",,;) Wl N D SO R. i4 (I- L..S Tax Map No.: I ' 0'51&>.0 I -0;)-3':).-=>0 Size of parcel(s): Acres: 0 "3 Community Planning area: Existing Zoning;'K..1. Existing Land Use~~~\ . \ . ... . ... . .., ."... REzofftiv(i,sPECL4.L USE PERM.rr, WAIVERAJ\'D COMP P1ANOi2-1232)-f(EVrEWAPPLICANTS{RlStWICP) Proposed Zoning:''"R'.i - ..s....p Proposed Land Use: . _-S50'-- Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST Ifreroning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No c_,:.__ ,oo ____ . ..". '_',' ,',',., . .. -. .' ... " -.. - - - . - '" .., . _, c._--,_-_.---,_,_,_-:.--. _ _. .. _ ....._,_.._--. _... .., . .. '. _ _ _ .. .. _ _ _.. _ __,____ , ,_, _ T .... VARIANCE, WAIVERAJ\'D ADMrNiSTRATIV$APPW.iPPLICANTS VarianceiWaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICA nON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R!SJW/CP V/AA R/SIW/CP V/AA R/SIWICP V/AA E8 Consultation !3i 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~/ Application fee ,/' Application - Metes and bounds description v Proffers, if applicable V Justification - Water and sewer application ./ Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or ~ owner'~or contract purchaser and am acting with the Imowledge and consent oftheoWDer. /~. ' 5'37.... f~ '""'\ c;"'J' ~ ,_ Owner's Signature " L .JlJSTIFiCATION FOR REZONING, SP~ClALlJSE PERMI1;'WArvER .DR (OMPfLAN . ~. . REQUESTS.. . . ... .. ... .. Applicant ::1'\ tl-nr ~ ~~~,-\l"..-- W\ ~ '~lh.N.)k . c..., The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (l5.2-2232) review requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. ~ p\~So.~'Y ~"A'~ w'~\ be-<5~'~IL\-\ t ~ ~'oJr l'A-r-e...-*5 ~ D..s:.~e.r:5 W \..0 -\ ~~ ..s;:r~ ,"""' ov--\ Q( +k.. eo..... ~~ ry C>-~ S\,o\" 1 S;-o.,-- e..-X\-~--o~ ~\ob3 v'. -\-\~ eAdr.. 'taJ:\(', J"h'6 'u..~~ ~~\ k c..orn~~ \~ f'oLU>'~f'.~~~ .~~\-... ~\ ),u.:~'6\~ 3 o...~ "Z.o.~\t-\~ ~'^\~~ "~I'; f\~o.-y ~A,h~ "-0:'\\ ~~ Cp.,.....~ Co~~C-?\IO"" Q;-.~'~1. \M~f\,* ~ eo,"'l")I'f\,^~~') b~\: ~,\\ \=,<n,{\.'1l- ~o~\;,~ 5\~.-\ +IL~ ::x..Lv~f'\'~ c...~ y~.- ~ O""~'""5 ~1"'er\\S. oo:efZ\ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. rT"".s l'~y \s ~::;I~-.I.~\~ ~e.\~o..h")O')' C,N~~'O;-1 b'1~ ,qq <0 Cor~OT\u.V'>o.\"I ?I.o,I'L ~\*~X:,,\A)' W\"" ~ ~\~\,~~ ~e.\~~r- '\---.en) \ 'S ","0\ ~ \~ -+ () k ~,...\, \~5uL.. ih '5 ""p:-o~4y ~:S' '-...J k\" \ N .t~ ~\I'~~"~~ '::'~ \k ~~~o_~o~~ c.o~~~.\O:-..I '~!'o,IO ~ 0-.7 :S"v.-~: \I'('("',\\.~ 'o.u--.S'\'1 ~"'loe..-N\;p'\ S""'\\.\\h!.\Ol-0 ~---e...- 'oe.>tt:.\o~). \rJ~\...\r" e...S\-"""\'\\5\...~ o'K:.1. ~N\~'J -t\~ ~"\~ \'S 5.;u--J~ 6, t\ \0'-'"' \ dt-.~ --51-S\~"") D..~b h'f \.)..~f-..i .:5R...r-itf.L-6. , Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. Y vh \ \ L.- ~\. \\ i.\ l4-~) \0 F\b.5 J .5~0CI\.:s ~"'Q ~t-" r\-.....s .s~l'6 Not k ~::?~\...,~ 'i 'i'l"";~fd~ 3 I,CONCE~!:rLAN C~CKLJST: A concept plan ofthe proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County pennitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance ofa building pemit. Site plan and building pennit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of th e request. The County Plann tng Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS a Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights J. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development J. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USEPERMlT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule 6Atrfr, ( Date 6 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET W AlVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide V\.Titten comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the plaooing staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective Date: April ]9,2005 \- -----~- \ \ \ \ \ , IISIOf'W. LOCATION NOT VERIFlEO. LOCAL JURtSDICTlONS H,rl,V1NC AUTHORITY (JHO). IlERro. OR IF REQUIRED BY J.H.D. ERUNE TO BE RELOCATED IF REQUIRED BY NEW WORK. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ t\ \ Q\ ~\ '01 \ -\ \ \ \ \ .\ II ~ I\org. ltl~ N('I "%, \ \ \ ..... ..... I to . ., 0 I bI ..... . ~ 01 ..... .... tJ ::i. ~ TH ~- _ _ ~~o~'.w~ __ 130.031' ~, I.P. \ 25' (REAR) MBL \ \ LOT 10, BLOCK 2, w.P OF SECTION 1. HOMEWOOD. ROANOKE CO., VA ---I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,) !\ 'WI ~\ =\ .~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 35'-6" I -,' ~\. ~~ 1-,0 to4\~ U1\ \ 26' -0. EXIST. WOl \ DECK- \ - -------, : \ \ ! \ I: EXIST. HOUSE ROOF EDGE \ !>BCNE, lY? _1---------- f __J\ EXIST.FENCE\ ~~!:----~- _ '-r~ a-e 'J- - \ \ In U) Co( d l>-D... o ~~ ~.... ~. o...~ CI ~.. 0::: a; w~ ~w ~Ei ~~ ~~ 00 za:: ..J ~ E ORNE. ~C!\~-~ __- - ~. fl.o:fl. ~- ----== =---===- - -- ---- ------ 32' -5:1- tr~\:':-' '-. . .. 6.-4- 5.-7~- 4'-~" 4'-~. 7 L~. I*fL ....~ V""~f~ 1'0) I __:'~ 1= '" _ -242""'-~' .. ~ I 1.1 -- -;/\ 3'-1~. ~ 3'-1~- u!, r - - - ~- .::::--==-=:rt- I 0 0 ! u. I _ l-- CPR r-l4-48 .g... f- ",.- ....1J ~.- L sr;r- ..-;-.., II o ____I ,II.......... _:.J.. u 0 i /- · ~ /' ""I:...JWoIllll: "'~l_i",-- !I:! \ r L~~H , I W , !r~~ ---- , I 01 r- U 0> \lLM"~.J I .____J i ~ .g 0> I~ -. llU. I ~ '1'0) 'If" ~ 1 ~ :: ~ ~ l.~_~ rn~ ON 18 R · I...... ; 1'0) -~.. :n , :- ~ - m I CD: 7-5/16 1- _ ~!(, b :..: ~,~~ ~ ; -~ I L+-_~_ c- ~ . - . -~ ~ ~~~+-_":! ~ .:~\ 11'-3. :J!1"~: ~ ~-3'-7~-~"4'-7~_i -;;-,---...-,- I I 'i' r 1\ b 11 llANTRl'1 STORj - - - ., -H;" 1 ~ ...... N (:. ~ II II (3) 2688 -~. 5 I ~ u ~ i ~ ~ I I ~ ClO. 8.&1_ II r -- ( ,.., I · ~ ;: \ ~ * SIt. -.. R ~ \ ~ STACK I ~ 0 ~ 1'-" _. 1.U' I ~ W &0 0 I ~ I ",\1 0 ~ I \"\ FA.: "^_d'.... - ~ l--\' \ ~ ~: I '( 1 '-' '\ ; Will anow ~ A-,: · ~.: I ~ ~ I ~ I q N. 2868 j I --l fi! 1~92. 1. \~ !>-!~ I T\11U\J JO ~ ~FS. · ;}.., i 6'-0.~" 16'-~-: ~ " _2434 r I - ~I-'~ I ! Lo~~~-'"'-~_~~~___i ~_'!"LJ 11'-~. I. 7'-al- I. 5'-0. 3'-8. '1 1 11'-~~ 5'-9-1- ~- ~ jr..~ 12'-0- 6'-11" loA I:;:l Pr -, "\ >> & , , _ l." , - ~ ~ I .Ii. . ~e SH. II: ROD r--... =~ ~!1l :E. ~ 1'1 I~ ........ 4'-~" B'-~. 4> I ,Il \ \ \ 24'-0. i~ . ,!" -< ;-a '\ 1.-~. ~ !a , "-~. 8" --- - ~ . . 01 I" tS.. . ~ . 3j" 3'-2" .., " "'. I,) t; .... - , "; ~ .;5 9'-7" lol. O. 9.-7. 1.-~" s'-s.J.- It. O. "-5- 1 J ~. 24' -0. DRIVEWAY 32'-~" '2'-0. 8' -1' . 8" ::I: ~ ~ j ~~ i!' ~f'1 ill 0> ~ ~~~ ~ i ~~~ '" 'oll:- ~ I ~;Z"'" -3_ _ ~ t'!, I - ... . CI .... ~ Ul ~ ~ I III I ~ " t.I . C . I c , .... J" ~IS. . . (}o ( OJ o. I" o . ----l I I I I I 8-0 X 7-6 D.H. DOOR I \ DRM.WAY 11' -0. S'-S": :. '. a ~" r-L II~ E (L ~ ~ z o ~ () o ~ 0... <( ~ >- J- - z rO't O~ OJ: ~ o z i '" ~ N i o f-Z ()Q ~~ 00 cr:o n..- -!. (f) --.J o OJ ~ >- (f) C.9 z $ ~ o w 5 '" ~ lE ~ Cf) z o l- e:::( > w ct:: CO rn Q ~ 0:: W [D :;E =:l Z a: o o o @ f 9 .frl~l ~a:a:a:[ 3 ~ W ( ~, ~WI CY 5tzl (I) ILW, ::I 0:: IIJ ffi i 9~frl~l ii'! 0:: a:: a: I C..L..J~O ClClClCl a: ~ o ~ % ~- 8 g~ -It:) ~<n:ui ~~~~ ~f.:)f.:)t:) '" z -I l.L 1-0- ~~~~ a:: ~~ o ~ 9 o. ..... Z<l -I:J- rW[jjC ~~u_ ~a.u~ I ., tiJJ:l~~ 12;~nr- v"" ---"~ Zoning _AG3 ~.EP _AG1 NIl .~..,..... :E:PLE:C H.4S~ "'DR ---, ----..---.. "---~ '"~'............-. - Applicants Name: Victor and Elmarie Myburgh Existing Zoning: R1 Proposed Zoning: R1- Sup Tax Map Number: 086.01-02-32.00-0000 Magisterial District: Homewood Area: 0.63 Acres July 12, 2006 Scale: 1" = 100' Roanoke County Department of Community Development p< O(iJ\tz\\ J:-~ County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only Date recciv<:d: (,1'2.'2- 10 10 Received by: D I-{ /1..1)) 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ALL ?WP L1CAftrs .,' . Check type of application filed (check all that apply) o Rezoning}{:kSpeciaI Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Camp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip Jesse Jones 570 Mirey Brand~Rd Boones Mill VA 24065 Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 540.ii4 )047 Owner's name/address wlzip SAME Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Property Location 6044 Peters Creek Rd Magisterial District; Ho Community Planning area: Tax Map No.: PO 26.16-2.-14 Existing Zoning: Sizeofparcel(s):Acres: +/- 1.9 acre.s Existing Land Use: Va can t . ... '.. . BE. Z.ONIN.G... ,SPECIAL iJSE.pfRifi1:~WAJYER4NDC()MJ>PLA~{IS.2-2231)ieViEW APPiiCANTS (RfSiWjcp.) .. '. . ,,'. _:' _: '" - :,.,' - _.,: _, _. . '; ': " '. :_.: . ' ," . - : __: _:"., ,.' _:.:.':' ':"', _...;", - ;: ' ' " ".;; ;.- , ' ,~' :' - , ,,: '.' ,:; ,..". "'_,:,' :; ", - ',' - _, - ,~: .:; "', ~ . _, -- n" " , ,,- -, __ ..":, .. Proposed Zoning: remove special Use permi t of ordinance 082305-6 Proposed Land Use: vaca nt 1 and Does~e parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No 0 IF NO, A V ARlAN CE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does e parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes )( No 0 IF NO. A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, ate conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No :J ..., I:' VarianceAVaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal ofInterpretation ofSection(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretati on of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICA nON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE !\fiSSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/Srw/CP V/AA RlSIW/CP V/AA RJSfWlCP V/AA EffiH Consultation ~ 8 l/2" x ] 1" concept plan E8 Application fee . v Application - Metes and bounds description ~ Proffers, if applicable - ~ v Justification - Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the OWller of the p~perty or the owner'8~r contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the O~TIer. i) I ,,., . i} i. , '.2' .....L r ,. ,'. {, r., ~ -' ~ 0 ' S' .... ~ I,' .'717. / / I : ,I. (,. -, '-' ./ .. _.' wner S 19na'ure ! ,', - . ~ /.77' f .. ~..,- '-'" ,,--/-1 2 . ,-.. ., . , ' . JUS,'f1FICATl()N fQRREZ(lNfNG, SPEPA!-- USE .~E~MITWAIV.ER 6k C:O~P pLAN (IS.d232) REVIEW ... . .. . .REQUi.<:.8TS . Applicant :T~:>',:'3p. :Tnnpc:; The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use pennit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to detennine the need and justjfication for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable wning district classification in the Zoning Ordinancc. Previous potential purchaser encumbered property with a special use permit by ordinance 082305-6 on August 23, 2005. Then they did not purchase the property. Desire to have the property unencumbered with this special use permit. Please explain how the project confonns to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. Property did not previously have this special use permit Please descrihe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the sUlTounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. No impact 3 ., I ~VSTIFICATIO~ F?R V ~R!ANf~ llEQUEST Applicant The of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 ofthe Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, llse additional sheets of paper. 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The strict application 0 the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished from a specia rivilege or convenience) and would prohibit or umeasonably restrict the use of the property. 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in t same zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Zonin Ordinance. 4. The variance will nor be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the' 4 .,-. ., ,- --- .. .., ,... . . . ""-" .', ". ." '. .','..,...., -", - "'" '" .. ''', .: . , . ", ,., . -.." ... , . J IJ STlFICAT rON F():RADMINlsiRATlV ItAPPEAL J{EQUEST. . ,J-e~se J CW-tO Applicant Please respond to the following as thoroughly as possible. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. l. Reasons for appeal: 2. Evidence supporting claim: 5 I CONC'EPTPtANCHECKLlST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit tht: future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require chan gt:S to the initial concept plan. Unless] imiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent pemitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division stafl' may exempt some ofthe items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS *Su O-lliJ2-Vu a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north alTow c. Lot size in acreS or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining propertie!> e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights I. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development J. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS 1 i ) 1/'\ _ I :+ &t f\ U a.C~ tt {1 k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, stonn drains) and connections at the site L Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers rn. Topography map In a suitable scale and contour intervals n" Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certifY that all items required in the checklist above are complete. .-'1 ./ ';1.~(:;0?~ -) ,'- } /"' ~. " l. ., + I 'f. } -.( ~;'~~~y j'';' r / 0' t,/".::? 2. [,"7[" Date Signature of applicant 6 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO ApPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or ail outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Transportation Engineering Manager or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate fUrther study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective Date: April 19,2005 __ c--. \,j O/J it--S . 'J eJJe . J - Name of Petition ,.---,. /1 f . ). c; .-/' ;,) / . ~:<.r- / 'i..../.-I;~-;-n.--<.R.-/J Petitioner~Signature /f~"1 ..- .7' r~/"" ~~)~Ajr: Date ZOlling 1001"1 \ /\ /~ ~ :r 7; (L ( 1 i nOll, Elq/lal1l4ZlU 1 () 120 llllel - Applicants Name: Jesse Jones Existing Zoning: C2S Proposed Zoning: C2 Tax Map Number: 26.16-2-14 (portion of) Magisterial District: Hollins Area: 1. 9 Acres Roanoke County Department of Community Development July 12, 2006 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. /-I-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance accepting the conveyance of a one-half interest in the Vinton Business Park, approving an amendment to the Gain Sharing Agreement, and reallocating funds for this purpose SUBMITTED BY: Doug Chittum Economic Development Director Elmer C. Hodge ~ IJf County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~',u~~rf~vJ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On March 2,1999, Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton entered into a Gain Sharing Agreement providing for the sharing of tax revenues and the costs of public services. Section 4.03 of the agreement authorized the County and the Town to further negotiate an agreement to jointly fund the costs and share the revenues from the development of an economic development project, then called the McDonald Farm. In 2001, the Town and County agreed to a valuation of the property; the County appropriated $500,000 towards future development costs; and the parties agreed to work as partners to develop the property for economic development purposes. The project is now called the Vinton Business Center. Cardinal Glass is located in the Center and employs approximately 200 people in a 200,000 square foot manufacturing facility. In order to begin sharing revenues on a 50/50 basis, Roanoke County needs to invest the sum of $789,200 to bring the County's investment in the park to an amount equal to that of the Town. When this occurs, the County will have an undivided one-half interest in the property as conveyed by the Town by general warranty deed. There are additional improvements that need to be constructed to complete the infrastructure in the park. These items include a storm water detention pond, berms, trails, and the grading of additional sites. The Town and County propose to complete these improvements in a logical sequence and to share equally the costs as well as the new tax revenue generated by the project. The parties' contributions towards these improvements shall be subject to future appropriations by each governing body. On July11, 2006 the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved the first reading of an ordinance accepting the conveyance of a one-half interest in the Vinton Business Park, approving an amendment to the Gain Sharing Agreement, and reallocating funds for this purpose. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding in the amount of $789,200 from the Center for Research and Technology (CRT) Minor Capital Account will be allocated to implement the new Gain Sharing Agreement. All future tax revenue will be shared equally by the County and the Town. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the second reading of the attached ordinance authorizing the following actions: . Authorize the conveyance and acceptance of an undivided one-half interest in the 66.74 acre Vinton Business Center. (Attachment 1) . Approve the amendment to the Vinton Gain Sharing Agreement calling for the development costs and future tax revenues to the equally shared between the County and the Town. (Attachment 2) . Allocate funding from the Community Development CRT Minor Capital Account to bring the County's investment in the park to an amount equal to the Town's. (Attachment 3) 2 ....lI. ::::J n ::r (D ~~ ~ o o ""'" (D (D - County of Roanoke Department of Economic Development Vinton Business Center Attachment 1 Attachment 2 This Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 2006, between THE TOWN OF VINTON, a municipal corporation of the Conunonwealth of Virginia, (the "TOWN") and THE COUNTI OF ROANOKE, political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, (the "COUNTY"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, by the "Gain Sharing Agreement between the Town of Vinton and the County of Roanoke" dated March 2, 1999, the Town and the County reached an agreement to provide for the sharing of certain local tax revenues and the sharing of the costs of certain public services; and WHEREAS, Section 4.03 of the Gain Sharing Agreement provides that the Town and County may negotiate an agreement to fund jointly the costs of development of a publicly-subsidized economic development project, which was called the "McDonald Farm Economic Development Project" ("Project"); and WHEREAS, Section 4.03 b. defines the "costs of development"; and WHEREAS, by an Agreement dated November 6, 2001, the Town and the County agreed to the valuation of the McDonald Farm, the County appropriated funds for some of the costs of development, and that the parties agreed to confer before any additional improvements are constructed or incentives to prospects are provided; and WHEREAS, this Project is now called the Vinton Business Center; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of this Agreement that the new local tax revenues generated by this Project shall be shared equally by the County with the Town based upon each localities equal contributions toward the costs of development NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Agreement, the parties agree with each other as follows: 1. The County shall appropriate the sum of Seven Hundred Eighty-nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($789,200) and pay this amount to the Town, as outlined in Attachment A. 2. That this amount plus previous appropriations and in-kind donations shall equal the Town's investment in this Project. 3. Upon the payment of the amount identified in paragraph 1 to the Town, the Town shall convey by general warranty deed to the County a one-half undivided 1 Attachment 2 interest in the remaining real estate in this Project consisting of approximately 66.74 acres. 4. Upon the payment of the amount identified in paragraph 1 to the Town, all tax revenues generated by the Project shall be shared equally by the County and the Town, unless modified as described in paragraphs 5 or 6. 5. The Town and the County plan on making additional improvements to this Project which shall constitute additional costs of development to Phase I of the Project. These improvements shall include but not be limited to construction of berms, trails, and a storm water detention pond. It is estimated that the costs of development of these additional Phase I improvements will be Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000). The Town and the County agree that these costs of development will be shared equally, subject to future appropriations by each governing body. 6. The Town and the County plan on making additional improvements to this Project which shall constitute additional costs of development to Phase II of the Project which includes the grading of a new site. It is estimated that the costs of development of these additional Phase II improvements will be Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650,000). The Town and the County agree that these costs of development will be shared equally, subject to future appropriations by each governing body. 7. Upon the payment of the amounts identified in paragraphs 5 and 6, the Town and the County shall share equally all new tax revenues generated by the Project. 8. Any other improvements to the Park will be presented to the Town and the County for approval. The cost of the agreed-upon capital improvements will be shared equally, subject to future appropriation. 9. The County and the Town shall jointly act as the park Association, as defined by the Vinton Business Center Covenants and Restrictions. They County will reimburse the Tuwn annually for half of the cost of park maintenance expenses, as specified in paragraph 15 of the Covenants and Restrictions. 2 Attest: Attachment 2 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: TOWN OF VINTON By Mayor Clerk Attest: COUNTY OF ROANOKE By Chairman Clerk 3 Attachment 3 Vinton Business Park Gainsharing Investments Vinton Roanoke County Total I nvestments to Date Construction and Engineering $ 831,400.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 1,331,400.00 Land value 1,500,000"00 1,500,000.00 Less receipt from Cardinal Land sale (253,000.00) (253,000.00) 2,078,400.00 500,000.00 2,578,400.00 Additional Investment needed to get to 50/50 allocation with Vinton (789,200.00) 789,200.00 $ 1,289,200.00 $ 1,289,200.00 $ 2,578,400.00 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 25,2006 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF A ONE-HALF INTEREST IN THE VINTON BUSINESS PARK, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAIN SHARING AGREEMENT AND REALLOCATING FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE WHEREAS, by the "Gain Sharing Agreement between the Town of Vinton and the County of Roanoke" dated March 2, 1999, the Town and the County reached an agreement to provide for the sharing of certain local tax revenues and the sharing of the costs of certain public services; and WHEREAS, Section 4.03 of the Gain Sharing Agreement provides that the Town and County may negotiate an agreement to fund jointly the costs of development of a publicly-subsidized economic development project, which was called the "McDonald Farm Economic Development Project" ("Project"); and WHEREAS, by an Agreement dated November 6, 2001, the Town and the County agreed to the valuation of the McDonald Farm, the County appropriated funds for some of the costs of development, and that the parties agreed to confer before any additional improvements are constructed or incentives to prospects are provided; and WHEREAS, this ordinance approves an Agreement so that the new local tax revenues generated by this Project shall be shared equally by the County with the Town based upon each localities equal contributions toward the costs of development; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance is scheduled for July 11, 2006, and the second reading is scheduled for July 25, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1 1. That the conveyance of a one-half undivided interest in 66.74 acres of real estate known as the Vinton Business Center to the County from the Town of Vinton is hereby accepted. 2. That the Amendment to the Vinton Gain Sharing Agreement is hereby approved and that the County Administrator is authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of the County upon form approved by the County Attorney. 3. That the allocation of $789,200 dollars from the Community Development Center for Research and Technology Minor Capital Account to implement this agreement is hereby approved. 4. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~I~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge o~)I~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) Mr. Terry Harrington, Hollins Magisterial District, resigned from the Commission on May 18, 2006. This three-year term will expire on August 30, 2007. 2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed by District) The following one-year terms will expire on August 31. 2006: a) King Harvey, Catawba District b) James T. Anderson, Cave Spring District c) Jason B. Perdue, Hollins District d) Erica Kuelz, Vinton District e) Brian Garber, Windsor Hills District "J\-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 25,2006 RESOLUTION 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: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 25, 2006, 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 2, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - July 11, 2006 2. Acceptance of a portion of Broyles Lane, Route 1054, Hollins Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation secondary system 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. 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a portion of Broyles Lane, Route 1054, Hollins Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge tlf County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Broyles Lane was included on the County's rural addition priority list in 1998. County staff has worked with affected residents and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff on the construction plans to extend the state maintained portion of Broyles Lane, Route 1054, to a proposed cul-de-sac. The extension will be from the existing end of state maintenance to the end of the proposed cul-de-sac, approximately 0.12 miles in length. In June 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved Action Number A-062706-6.c accepting the donated right-of way for this project. FISCAL IMPACT: No additional County funding is required. The project will be funded by existing rural addition funds administered by VDOT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept a portion of Broyles Lane, Route 1054, into the secondary road system. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 25th DAY OF JULY, 2006, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF BROYLES LANE, ROUTE 1054, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street extension described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: Absent: A Copy Teste: Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: Virginia Department of Transportation Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development File rI.l == <:l.l ..- = ..- 00 '- o S <:l.l ..- rI.l 00 - = "0 = o U <:l.l 00 <:l.l .:: ..- o ..- rI.l = o .- ..- :a "0 -< "0 <:l.l rI.l o lTl I -< ~ ~ o ~ 00 z o ..... E-o ..... ~ ~ -< <r: NI ..... o ~I C OJ E ~ u oj :t::: <t: I:: ;::l o U CIJ ~ o I:: o:l o ~ \0 o o CC' 00 ::::: r- -i::i OJ t; Cl ..... c OJ E i: ..9 .c OJ .... ;:l (/J o 0:: .2 '5 "0 on OJ 0:: on .... o on .~ OJ g. (/J ..... o "E oj o CO . ;;:.; "'2 o OJ 0:: o ~ u OJ ..0:: ~ ,9 c OJ E ~ u oj :t:: <t: t ~ .... - U"J C o 'Vi .;;: ;;a ,D ;::l U"J '- o (l) E ell Z ~ on bO~ i3;S .....l OJ c C 0:"::: .- .... ~~ "1j C <t:U on OJ o Z ~ o OJ C ..::= -;:; ~ ~ ~-5 6:-2 ~~ '<T lI"1 o '2 .~ OJ f- 0:: o ..0 ;a "1j <t: '1i & '1i C oj .....l ..... OJ ~ (/J on ..2 o .... CO ..... OJ OJ .... iZi ..... o OJ E '" :z: <H . OJ 0 o::Z g '" <..> <= '" <= ~ <= -", E ~ 13 '" '- o "0 <= " ~ ;:l u E [2 "- c .9: 'i, t: OJ ~ [2 ~ c o ~ " "'" ~ (::, .... <..> '" ~ " "9 ;; u ~ 13 8 on 8. 13 o --e c: 8 " 0:: o ~ I- ~ .... OF) o ~ 0:: OJ C j '" OJ ;;, o OS 0-. o N '.0 o o N o z ..: to -= '.0 o o N ..: ;>, ;; -. '" <..> <= '" <= " ;:: '", s " B '" '- o "0 <= " il t: ::> U E [2 "- c .9: 'i '" ~ '" "9 "8 i.i 13 8 8. 1i o --e c:: 8 " 0:: ~ N 00 o N '.0 o o N ci Z .;:; en -= '.0 o o N ;>, ;; -. 'i <= '" <= " <= -", s " B '" '- o -0 <= II.l ;:: " t: ;:l U E o u: <= .9: 'i, t: '" ~ S ~ :;:; i::' '" A ., OJ --'" ~ ~ t:: ~ '" o (::, .... <..> '" ~ II.l "9 ;; " i.i 'i " '.0 '" o 5 ~ 'E :: .g >. ~ '" ~ " ;; to '- o "'" " OJ E OJ l:: ;:j u E o u: " .::: "<0 <= o "0 ;>, a; ~ o Ii Co ~ '" <= '" (::, .... u '" '" o "9 "3 u 13 '" o 0- S ... o I- .... '.0 o N '.0 o o N o z .b en -= OJ <..> <= '" <= OJ "E --: .;; s " B on ... o "0 <= OJ '.0 o o N ;>, "3 -. <.; 'i CQ '" '" -0: '" > <..> '" en o "9 "3 <..> 13 '" o ~ [2 .,., ~ OF) OF) o N -c o o N ci z ;:; en -= -c o o N OJ U C '" c OJ E '" 8 OJ B '" '- o "0 <= OJ E ~ ;:j u E o u: ..: >. "3 -. ~ C "0 II.l -0 5 '-' " 0:: 'i, W t: II.l ~ [2 0- S '" ~ ~ (::, .... <..> '" on o "9 "3 <..> ~ '" c 13 "0 on OJ o "E e 8 ... ~ o I- '.0 .... o N '.0 o o N ci Z ;:; on -= II.l <..> <= '" " " "E -:- ';; 8 '.0 o o N ;>, "3 -. 'i, t: " ~ 2 ~ ~ " --'" '" on II.l -0: '" > <..> '" on o "9 "3 <..> i!:i '" 13 c en 1l o "E ~ 8 .,., " 0:: ;; (:) c::: I- t- M o N '.0 o o N o z .b '" -= '.0 o o N -" ;>, "3 -. N .c u ell :t:: ~ (l) (l) U"J " OIl '" ..'!! .~ ] o I- .; 00 '" 0:: .~ "1j "1j ~ ,!!J." l2 on' '5 u .... c.S on ..... 0:: OJ E OJ on '" OJ ~ '" '" OJ U OJ 0:: ;;., 0:: '" ..... o OJ ;;. .;;; ;:l u '" OJ ;;., oj ~ ..... o .E .~ .... ..... o ~ .~ "1j OJ ~ 0:: '" .... g c.:l i.i ;> 0 {; "'" .I:l '" <..> '0 l- .:: z il .... w ~ ~ 8 '" ::r:: ;:l 0:: U <..> '" 0 ;S ~ "0 '" 00 I- oS 0:: -< '- .;:: "- 0 OJ 0 t: OJ '" 0:: Z ~ .~ 0 '" 0:: f:;:: en ~ '" <( -0 0:: U '" 0 <.::: ".g G: .€ f:;:: t:: '" 0 0:: <..> '" 0. W '" U <= 0:: " e: E f- --'" <..> ~ g ;; p, '" -d ~ .... ~ 0 >I. ;;., E= C "0 0 " ..0:: '" E " <t: S '" e -,.; OJ o Z '" Q3 ~ - (<:l - rJJ '- Q 5 ~ - '" 00 a.. (<:l "0 = Q u ~ rJJ ~ .c: - Q - '" = .~ - :a "0 -< "0 ~ '" Q Irl I -< ....:l ~ o \;W rJJ Z o .. E-- .. = = <( -< I- o c ~ '-<<.. In I <:t: ...-l E o ~ C'll '- o NI c: <> E ..c:: '-' i'! ;;:: -.CJ o o ~ 00 '=::: r-- -0 <> .. Q E ll> E E E .c <> .... ;:l r/l o l': o '5 '0 '" ll> 0:: '" .... o '" 'E ll> Q. ;:l r/l '- o "'" I- oj o a::i . ;;; c o <> g -'" u <> ..c:: .:;:. S E <> E ..<: '-' "" 1:: -< ..c:: v; ~ ll> OJ) ::: E::: .....l '" c l': 0:'= .- .... ;:aB "'" E - '0 z '" ;:l o ll> ] 0> u '" i ;s:..c:: o:Sl~ ~;s:~ ..;- V) o 'E .~ <> <- c .g ;; "'" -< oj ~ oj c oj .....l ~ <> <> .... iZi 00 ~ o .... a::i v II) .... - rrJ -- c:: .2 '" .;;: ;a .0 ;::l rrJ '- o II) E <a Z ..... ll> ll> I- iZi '- o ll> E <Ii Z <H . ll> 0 o::Z ... u " '" " ... " 'OJ E ... ;0 7ij '- o ~ ;:; c ~ ;::l u E o ~ " o .~ " o "'" € ... c. e c. '" ... '" o ~ o .,. u '" '" 0:, "9 "3 u w ;;; "0 Cl ~ 1) 8" ~ 0.. 8 .., a:: ;;; ~ ~ .,. V1 '" o ~ .., " j '" .., >. e co 00 <'l o ,,' -0 o o ". o z b '" -= -0 o o N >. ~ .., u " '" " .., c ; E .., ~ '- o "0 C ... ;:; ~ ;::l u E o ~ " o .~ c o "'" >. t:: .., c. e c. -" u ';:; > o .,. " to 'f ... "9 "3 " <; ;;; 13 Cl '" "0 o .., 8" ~ 0.. 8 .., a:: ~ a. o ,., '0 o o N o z ::: v; -= -0 o o N >. "3 .-, '" c:: .., u C to C ... C '; E ... S '" '- o "0 C ... c ~ ;::l u E o ~ c o .~ c o "0 >. t:: ... c. e c. !::: ;::l ::c: o .,. U to 'f ... "9 "3 " <; to 11 Cl '" "0 o " c. 12 e 0 0.. " " a:: '" c:: ~ o N 6 <: " E " '" to " " .:: t:: C. .g 'I: '" " c '" 0 ~ "0 C. € o " M C. ~ 0 to 0. 7ij CI1 '" "' >. o cIs o .,. ..0 <3' '0 o o N o z ~ .E " " c '" c " E .. 0;; E -0 o o N " to '" " "9 ::; u >. " ~ ~ '- o "0 C ... "0 " '" o Q. B Q.. c ~ ;::l u E o ~ o r- o N - - '0 o '" N o z .; 7ij .E '0 o o N >. ::; ..... <; ;;; Cl 1l "0 is a:l a:: '" c:: E o ~ o r- o z b '" -= w -;; Cl "0 "' 12 o u " a:: ;0 c:: E o ~ o r- o Z b '" -= <; 0; Cl "0 "' 12 o " ... a:: 0; c:: E e C<- o r- o z .; 7ij -= ~ to Cl "0 " 12 o " 'l) a:: 0; c: ~I "' "" '" ~ ~ "5 o r- oj OJ) "" c 'a -0 "'" c oj 00 i;: ,; ;:; u .... <8 '" E "' E ll> '" oj <> (;> oj '" '" ll> U ll> C ;>. 8 '- o ll> > ";;:; ;:l <:i >< <> ;>. "" ~ <0- o ~ "/: <0- o ..<: :Si ~ '0 '" il) E ~ "" ::l o 00 u o z r- z w ::2 ::c u <( r- r- <( C<- o z o i=: <( u 1;: i=: a:: w U <; ;;- o .0 '" "'" " ~ " 'i3 ,=: " " E ;j u o "'" 'l) -5 '0 t: '" Q. '" '" '" "0 " I- <> eo oj l': oj ::: tlJ) l': ";:: <> <> c 'hi) c l.t.I c .9 .. t o Q. '" C "" ,:; E " " .:!l c u E .c u is ';;' '" ~ A, '0 I- o \.<. ;>. l': o ..<: ~ ~ f= "0 '" " " E '" e, ~ Roanoke County Department of Community Development Proposed Addition to Secondary System of Slale Highways - Road Name: Broyles Lane, Rle 1054 Road Length: 0.12 miles Description: From the current end of state maintanace to proposed Cul-De-Sac Magisterial District: Hollins July 17, 2006 Scale: 1 inch equals 223.320791 feet N-\ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2006 Amou nt $13,261,742 % of General Fund Revenues 8.07% Balance at July 25,2006 13,261,742 8.07% Note: On December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance for 2006-07 at a range of 8%-9% of General Fund Revenues 2006 - 2007 General Fund Revenue $164,315,790 8% of General Fund Revenues $13,145,263 9% of General Fund Revenues $14,788,421 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge {(J County Administrator N-~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL RESERVES Minor County Capital Reserve (Projects not in the CIP, architectural/engineering services, and other one-time expenditures.) Unaudited Balance at June 30,2006 Amount $5,834,217.50 Balance at July 25, 2006 $5,834,217.50 $5,000,000 of this reserve is being used to upgrade Public Safety Radio System Major County Capital Reserve (Projects in the CIP, debt payments to expedite projects identified in CIP, and land purchase opportunities.) Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2006 $679,628.00 2006-07 Capital Improvements Program-New County Garage (500,000.00) Balance at July 25, 2006 $179,628.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge t tI County Administrator Approved By N-~ RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2006 $ 23,297.00 From 2006-2007 Original Budget 100,000.00 July 11, 2006 Appropriation to hire County Gypsy Moth Program, Inc. ($10,000.00) to serve as the Gypsy Moth Coordinator July ii, 2006 Appropriation for Legislative Liaison ($18,000.00) Balance at July 25,2006 $ 95,297.00 Approved By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge (If County Administrator Submitted By N-Y FUTURE DEBT PAYMENT RESERVE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2006 FY 2006-2007 Original budget appropriation Less increase in debt service Add Economic Development Dropoff FY 2006-2007 Annual Capital Contribution County Schools Balance at July 25, 2006 2,000,000 (3,079,903) 811,000 600,000 600,000 $ 5,941,772 (268,903) 1 ,200,000 $ 6,872,869 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge C j.J County Administrator ACTION NO. ITEM NO. N~5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid-June 2006 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge c!,/-I County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors Payroll 06/02/06 Payroll 06/16/06 Payroll 06/30/06 Manual Checks Voids Grand Total $ $ 933,723.67 906,083.85 867,155.00 128,611.71 137,150.39 150,381.84 3,420.53 $ 7,665,105.41 1,062,335.38 1,043,234.24 1,017,536.84 3,420.53 $ 10,791,632.40 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. N-lo PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER BUILDING PROJECT BUDGET REPORT COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Northrop-Grumman Date Description Contract Amount Contingency ] 2/03/04 Opening Balance $ 26,030,769 $ 780,8] 7 01/27/05 Change Order (001) 21,065 (21,065) 01127/05 Change Order (002) * 53,835 01/28/05 Progress Payment # 1 (1,456,]57) 02/24/05 Progress Payment #2 (403,222) 03/24/05 Progress Payment #3 (375,678) 05/13/05 Progress Payment #4 (855,272) 06/10/05 Progress Payment #5 (401,210) 06/20/05 Change Order (003) - Establish Guaranteed Maximum Price (51,387) 51,387 06/28/05 Change Order (004) - Foundation change 319,034 (319,034) 07/14/05 Progress Payment #6 (378,417) 07/27/05 Progress Payment #7 (445,669) 08/1 0/05 Progress Payment #8 (759,513) 08/23/05 Change Order (005) - Sewer Line Replacement 124,407 ( 124,407) 10/05/05 Progress Payment #9 (774,442) 10/13/05 Change Order (006) - Convert Citations and Warrants Databases no cost 10/20/05 Progress Payment # 1 0 (664,909) 12/08/05 Progress Payment # 11 (l,196,297) 12/08/05 Change Order (007) - Minor Changes to Radio Equipment no cost 12/08/05 Change Order (008) - Additional conduits for redundant 911 feed no cost 12/08/05 Change Order (009) - Regrading slope from road cut south side of Cove Road 3,737 (3,737) 12/08/05 Change Order (010) - Coordination of sewer line with Glen Cove School water line no cost 12/28/05 Progress Payment # 12 (l, 130,054) 01/03/06 Change Order (011) - Refrigerated storage for evidence storage 24,621 (24,621 ) 01/20/06 Change Order (012) - Modifications to voice radio transition plan 84,060 02/02/06 Progress Payment # 13 (1,099,134 ) 03/09/06 Progress Payment # 14 (l,164,468) 04/05/06 Progress Payment # 15 (1,464,883) 04/18/06 Change Order (013) - Extension of 8" Fire Service Line to rear property line no cost 04/20/06 Progress Payment # 16 (1,671,792) 06/01/06 Progress Payment # 17 (1)07,330) 06/15/06 Progress Payment # 18 (1,902,683) 06/21/06 Change Order (014) - Modifications to IT Carpet Squares, DAC ES Cards & Console Upgrades 4,823 ( 4,823) 06/21/06 Change Order (015) - UtilitylPennit Allowance for WVW A new Fire Hydrang Fee no cost Balance at July 18,2006 $ 9,163,834 $ 334,517 · The funds to be used for change order #002 were taken from departmental E911 funds. Submitted By, Dan O'Donnell Asst. County Administrator Approved By, Elmer Hodge County Administrator tv -7 PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER BUILDING PROJECT CHANGE ORDER REPORT COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA .IhanQe Order Number Date Approved Description of Change Order Amount 001 January 27, 2005 6 GHz Microwave and Vinton Related Costs $ 21,065 002 January 27, 2005 Delete several CAD servers, add CAD and related CAD software (paid from departmental E911 funds) 53,835 003 June 20, 2005 Establish Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) (51,387) 004 June 28, 2005 Revised foundation due to soft soils 319,034 005 August 23, 2005 Replace the sanitary sewer line 124,407 006 October 13, 2005 Convert Citations and Warrants Databases for new CAD System no cost 007 December 8,2005 Minor changes to Radio Equipment specifications no cost 008 December 8, 2005 Additional conduits for redundant 911 feed no cost 009 December 8, 2005 Regrading slope from road cut south side of Cove Road 3,737 010 December 8, 2005 Coordination of sewer line with Glen Cove School water line no cost 011 January 3, 2006 Changes to the Evidence Storage Room 24,621 012 January 20,2006 Modifications to voice radio transition plan 84,060 013 April 18, 2006 Extension of 8" Fire Service Line across site no cost 014 June 21,2006 Modifications to IT carpet squares, DAC ES Cards, & Console Upgrades 4,823 015 June 21,2006 Allocation offunds from Utility/Permit Allowance for WVWA new Fire Hydrant Use Fee no cost Total as of July 18, 2006 $ 584,195 Submitted By, Dan O'Donnell Asst. County Administrator Approved By, If Elmer Hodge C (' County Administrator .. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Report of claims activity for the self-insurance program for the period ended June 30, 2006 SUBMITTED BY: Robert C. Jernigan Risk Manager Elmer C. Hodge ~ J(~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In accordance with the Self-Insurance Program, Ordinance 0-061494-6, Section 2-86.C, attached is the fiscal year-to-date claims activity report including the fourth quarter that ended June 30, 2006. Attachment A - Auto; Attachment B - General Liability. <( "E OJ E .r:: l.) ~ C") 0 -q- Lll CO 01 co 0 CO N 0 Ol -q- 0 ~ C") (0 C") Ol Ol 0, CO 0 C") Lll 0 <<:! N 0 ~ ..t Lt'i ..t ;;0, (Ci ci M ci ..; a:i Lt'i a; N ci N Ol Ol N Lll co I'- N I'- Ol co Lll. T'" co (0 (0 (0 C") co 0 <<:!. uS uS ~~! ~ ~ N T'" ~ I +- 0 I I 0 0 , 0 ci ci 0 0 0 N 0 I Lll I I "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 ' "0. "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 I: OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJI OJ OJ OJ Q) Q) Q) I: Q) Q) Q) III III III III III ~i III III III III III :g OJ :g III 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 u u u u u ui u u u u u u 0 u U i : CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U UI Ui U U U U U U U 0 <( <( <( <( <( <( <(I <(I <(j <( ~ ~ ~ ~ <( ~ 0 > > > > > >1 >1 >! >: > > C"Il 0 CO') OJ , t---l-- w u [ ~, I- Z :c 1 I .!2 ~ 0:: :::::J !l! i [ ~t I: 0 .., 81 : -0 ~ :c .a 11. >. o! I ~i g l.) ~ - W lEi gj l.) .<:: ..... lE Q) lE ~ .2 .>it. 0:: gl Ill' 0. ::J g ~ I,t) g I: E ! en 0 '1: ~I .E Cl "0 U "0 ..... ~! 'ii'j Q) <( Q) 0 "0 .~ ..... 0. .2 .E w .2 0. C"Il E "0 .~ "0 0. :21 W .- Q) Q) 0 "0 "0 Q)' I- 0 llll Cl "0 Cl III Cl 0; Q) OJ >! .... J:: I: Q) ~ Q) ~ 0. 0. en 0 "0 0.1 :c ;c: E "0 E III 0. 0. -0] t:: .s! 0 'ii'j ~ 0 B Q) , :::::J >- 0 l\l III Iii l\l l\l 0; :1 ~ '0 0:: e ~I ::J ~ .>it. "0 III ...J I- 0. 15 l.) ~ 16 16 I: 16 "'5 I- :::::J Cl OJ OJ ~I S l\l l.) :::::J I: U U Q) fi l.) l.) fi fi '1: fi OJ ~I u S 2 "'0 W .., -< .1: :c :c 0; Q) Cl Q) :c OJ Cl 1ii Q) Q) OJ ~ 0 "E ~ ~ u !l! u III I: U U Q) u ~I Cl a.. Z :c :c .>it. .~ .>it. :c :c "0 :c l\l Q) Q; Q; l.) l.) Q) E ~ W OJ ~ -0 OJ S E S ~ ~ c. !l! ....: ~ U .r:: .r:: III > .>it. 01 -0 < :c '5 '5 Q; 0. Q:; III I: III Q:; Q:; l.) Q:; ~i ;c: :::::J !l! .>it. .>it. .r:: 0 )( .r:: Q) 0 Q) .r:: .r:: 2 .r:: I: ~ en c l.) l.) '5 mj 0 '0 Cl E ~I '0 '0 0; '0 :g u z Q:; 2 2 :9 ~ 0; 1ii -0 "'O! -0 ro l\l ro "0 "0 c: "0 l\l .>it. "'i 0 .r:: Q) ~I 'm Q) Q) Q) ::J OJ 0. l.) LL l- e oi oi -0 E -0 1: -0 1: "0 "0 "0 S I: 1:, I: Q) I: I: Cl I: Cl ...J 0:: .>it. I: I: Q) Q) I .>it. Q) l\l "0 ltl Q) Q) I: OJ I: W u :s2 :s2 u E I: E t6 :s2 (ij 'C E -< 2 u u m ~ ::J Iii 'm III 'm Iii u Q) 0 en ~ ltl ..... Q) X III III ltl OJ 1: 0 W en lD lD 0:: 0:: en 0:: u w U 0:: 0:: lD 0:: w lD >- ... -- I: ...J Q) -< ~ E 0 0. I: I: 0 en ~ ~ .Q i:i: I: 1il Q) 1: Q) ~ Q) 0 I t5 $ '15 ~ $ $ Q) lE Q) $ III ::!: III III 1ii 0 I 0:: III ~ .<:: ~ l\l l\l III I ~ $: Cl ::J $: $: $: 0(1 $: Q) I: E Q) .~ .~ .~ 5::: .~ .~I III .!2 :2 :2 E .~ :2 :2 :2 .~ i: :2 0 0, '5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .r:: 0 0 ~ 0 a.. en ' lD U a.. a.. a.. en en en a.. en a.. a.. a.. en Lll Lll Lll Lll Lll Lll (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ~ N N ~ N N N N N N ~ N N N N 25 N ~ 25 T'" ;:0 M U5 25 ~ U5 T'" ~ M U5 g T'" N ~ T'" T'" 0 0 N ~ 0 N T'" N N U5 ~ ~ -- -- N N N ~ ~ '0. '0 ;:0 '0 co, T'" T'" C") 0 0 0 01 T'" T'" 0 0 0 0 0 0 OJ 0 0 0 , N [ C") I'- T'" '<l" co <0 co T'" N' N 0 0 I'- I'- Ol Ol 0 gjl T'" ,;, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T'" JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ ~ '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 ;:0 '0 '0 , i I ~ 0:: o ~I ~ (1)1 I:) Wi I:) W C'\l ~ (I) I:) ~, ~ ~I ::> w .., U Z ~ ::> (I) z "'i LL ...J W (I) co I:) I:) C'\l o M W Z ::> .., w ~ C o ~ 0:: c( w >- ...J c( U (I) i:i: ~ :J iii c( :J ...J ~ W Z W C) "'0 ill III o U "'0 "'0 ill ill III III o 0 U U o () :; o 0 () () :; :; t:: C\l u .s::: III ~ -" u 2 ti ill U 1: ill > III -C QJ N :;:::; U i I I -" I ~ I~ c ill I E I ~ 1 a. 111= , 0 i-g Co! f:? ::0' 0 tl! - III ;i ~ "S ill III U >- 1: ~ ~ ill III tl E ..92 'it; o u u C en QJ E N ~ G !1 .!l Q.) Q.) (f.I, (f.I en en l'lll C\l C\l l'll ~. ~ ~ ~ :Q i :s! :s! :Q 01 0 0 0 en en en en It) o o ~ o co It) I 01 0' N! N o a; It) It) o 0 o ~ ~ ~ N! N 01" ~ III C ill 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 .s::: ci ci ci U l'll 0> ~ "'0 ill III o U o () :; -" u S "'0 ill III o U o () :; ill .'=1 o a.. <0 o o N <.5 :c ,.... 0>: ..,.. 0, !:f!1 It) I "'0 ill III o U I , I I I .s::: ~ -" l'll U ~ S Ol C 'C ::0 >- "'0 .D "'0 "'0 ill ill ~ ~ ~ l'll E >- E l'll .D l'll "'0 C "'0 III ill "'0 C\l -" C\l ~ e e .D ill ~ ~ iii 0 > iii "E '5. oS .~ E ~ .~ ~ 'iij ..92 iii ..92 u "'ffi t) 15 C:C:.s:::C: l1.> l1.> O'l l1.> ~ "I. ~ "0) I ~ U' u ~I u -1-1-r I ' "'0 ill III o u --1-1--- -- -- Qi Ol l'll c: l'll :2 -" III ir o () :; c o .D ~ ill U 1: ill > "'0 ill t: l'll 0- - o ill "'0 '00 o .~ "'0 ..92 Qi "- e "- III ~ t:: ~ .s::: III ~ ----r , III t: l'll a.. ill ti l'll ~ :Q o en -.-1 <0 o o N <.5 ~ ,.... <0 o o N co N M 1 J It)' It). o. , , <0, i?il I ,i--- ill Ol l'll a.. - o ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of June 30, 2006. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: GOVERNMENT: SUNTRUST/ALEXANDER KEY SUNTRUST/ALEXANDER KEY CONTRA SUNTRUST SECURITIES SUNTRUST SECURITIES CONTRA 67,280,133.55 (289,718.38) 11,040,000.00 (74,412.40) 77,956,002.77 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION (G.O.) 4,277,590.06 4,277,590.06 MONEY MARKET: BRANCH BANKING & TRUST SALEM BANK & TRUST SUNTRUST/ALEXANDER KEY SUNTRUST SECURITIES SUNTRUST SWEEP WACHOVIA 2,071,277.72 1,136,128.34 21,147,694.28 1,820,382.70 7,764,136.50 2,439,029.25 36,378,648.79 TOTAL 118,612,241.62 07107106 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. P-I.C\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25,2006 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, Chapter 8.1, Erosion and Sediment Control SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge (~ fie?- County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Planning Commission and Community Development staff have prepared amendments to the sections of the County Code that regulate erosion and sediment control. These amendments establish slope angle and height thresholds for constructed slopes. Any proposed slopes steeper or higher than the thresholds would require additional geotechnical engineering investigation, design criteria and reporting. Community Development staff researched slope development ordinances throughout the United States and interviewed experts in the fields of geology, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering and urban planning. To develop the proposed amendments, staff conducted six work sessions with the Planning Commission and worked with a committee of experts in the fields of construction, grading contracting, civil engineering and design, geotechnical engineering, as well as County engineering and planning staff. The Planning Commission passed a resolution in support of these amendments at their regular meeting on Monday, July 10, 2006. A copy of the resolution is attached for review. A draft copy of the proposed amendments is also attached for review. Text to be added is highlighted in yellow. Amendments to the erosion and sediment control ordinance include: 1 . Limiting the angle of constructed slopes to 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) unless a geotechnical engineering report is provided for the proposed slopes. (page 10) . Limiting the height of constructed slopes to 25 vertical feet unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. Constructed slopes with an angle of less than or equal to 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) would be allowed to exceed 25 vertical feet without a geotechnical report being required. (page 10) . Requiring "as-built" plans for any constructed slopes that required geotechnical evaluation. (page 10 ) . Requiring soil compaction information on site development plans and compaction test results submitted in developmentfiles. (page 10) . Requiring individual lot grading plans for all new subdivisions. (page 10) . Defining "Geotechnical Report" and "Steep Slope". (pages 3 and 6) In addition to the slope development standards highlighted in yellow, some additional amendments to Chapter 8.1 are included for the Board of Supervisors to review. These additional amendments are required by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) as part of the County's recent Erosion and Sediment Control program review. These amendments are shown with "strikethrough" for deletions, and red text for additions. FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: 1. Proceed with County Code amendments. 2. Do not proceed with County Code amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1 2 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON MONDAY, JUL Y 10, 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.1 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL WHEREAS, in 2005 the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors adopted revisions to the Roanoke County Community Plan which suggest developing guidelines and regulations for steep slope development, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Plarming Commission included in their 2005 work program of Community Plan implementation projects a steep slope ordinance, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County Community Development staff researched slope development ordinances from across the United States and interviewed experts in the fields of geology, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering and urban planning, and WHEREAS, Staff worked with a committee of experts in the fields of construction, grading contracting, civil engineering and design, geotechnical engineering, as well as planners and engineers from County staff to review the issues and concepts of slope development, and generate discussion and ideas about possible Roanoke County code amendments, and WHEREAS, Staff presented these issues and concepts of slope development, and presented draft ordinance amendments to the Roanoke County Plarming Commission in work sessions in September 2005, and February, March, April, May and June of2006, and WHEREAS, The Roanoke County Plarming Commission has reviewed the research, project methodology and proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, and BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends the attached amendments to Chapter 8. I of the Roanoke County Code, Erosion and Sediment Control to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for their review and approval. A COpy TESTE: ~A~_ G. Steve Azar, C 'rman Roanoke County Plarming Commission ;J-*~ Ja t Scheld, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission DRAFT #3 7/11/06 This draft #3 includes the slope amendments evaluated and recommended by the Roanoke County Planning Commission under the heading of Draft #2, 6/1/06, and shown as yellow highlighted text. It also includes some amendments required by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) as part of the County's recent Erosion and Sediment Control program review. Slope Amendments: Yellow Highlight DCR Required Amendments: Strikethrough and Chapter 8.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND STEEP SLOPE DEVELOPMENT* * Cross References: Building regulations, Ch. 7; sewers and sewage disposal, Ch. 18; water, Ch. 22; zoning, App. A; subdivisions, App. B. State Law References: Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Code of Virginia, 9 10.1-50 et seq. Sec. 8.1-1. Title, purpose and authority. Sec. 8.1-2. Applicability of chapter in Town of Vinton. Sec. 8.1-3. Definitions. Sec. 8.1-4. Administration of chapter in conjunction with subdivision and zoning ordinances. Sec. 8.1-5. Local erosion and sediment control program. Sec. 8.1-6. Regulated land-disturbing activities; submission and approval of plans; contents of plans. Sec. 8.1-7. Permits; fees; bonding; etc. Sec. 8.1-8. Monitoring, reports and inspections. Sec. 8.1-9. Penalties, injunctions, and other legal actions. Sec. 8.1-10. Appeals and judicial review. Sec. 8.1-11. Civil violations, summons, generally. Sec. 8.1-1. Title, purpose and authority. This chapter shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control and Steep Slope Development Ordinance of the County of Roanoke, Virginia." The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water, air and other natural resources of the county by establishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation, and by establishing requirements for development of steep slopes, and by establishing procedures whereby these requirements shall be administered and enforced. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8.1-2. Applicability of chapter in Town of Vinton. The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable within the corporate limits of the Town of Vinton. Administrative procedures and review fees may be established to accommodate the review of plans for development located within the town. I (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8.1-3. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning: Agreement in lieu of a plan means a contract between the plan-approving authority and the owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in all construction disturbing between two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet and five thousand (5,000) square feet and/or two hundred fifty (250) to five hundred (500) cubic yards; this contract may be executed by the plan-approving authority in lieu of a formal site plan. Applicant means any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land-disturbing activities to commence. Board means the state soil and water conservation board. Certified inspector means an employee or agent of a program authority who holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of project inspection. Certified plan reviewer means an employee or agent of a program authority who: (1) Holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of plan review; (2) Is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to article 1 (Code of Virginia, ~ 54.1-400 et seq.) of chapter 4 oftitIe 54.1. Certified program administrator means an employee or agent of a program authority who holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of program administration. Clearing means any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover including, but not limited to, root mat removal or top soil removal. Conservation plan, erosion and sediment control plan or plan means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units ofland will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives. County means the County of Roanoke. Denuded means a term applied to land that has been physically disturbed and no longer supports vegetative cover. Department means the department of conservation and recreation. 2 Development means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three (3) or more residential dwelling units. Director means the director of community development or his assignee. District or soil and water conservation district refers to the Blue Ridge Soil and Water Conservation District. Dormant refers to denuded land that is not actively being brought to a desired grade or condition. Erosion impact area means an area ofland not associated with current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less used for residential purposes. Excavating means any digging, scooping or other methods of removing earth materials. Filling means any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials. Geotechnical Report means a report provided at the applicant's expense, prepared and stamped by a Professional Engineer, that communicates site conditions, and recommends design and construction methods. (1) The Geotechnical Report shall include any or all of the following basic information, as determined by the Professional Engineer: a) Summary of all subsurface exploration data, including subsurface soil profile, exploration logs, laboratory or in situ test results, and ground water information; b) Interpretation and analysis of the subsurface data; c) Specific engineering recommendations for design; d) Discussion of conditions for solution of anticipated problems; and e) Recommended geotechnical special provisions. (2) For guidance in investigating site conditions and preparing geotechnical reports, the Professional Engineer may refer to all applicable sections of: "Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and Specifications", US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHW A ED-88-053, as amended. (3) The Geotechnical Report shall be submitted to the plan-approving authority and included in site development files prior to issuance of a land disturbing permit. Grading means any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled conditions. Land-disturbing activity means any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, 3 clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, except that the term shall not include: (1) Minor land-disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work; (2) Individual service connections; (3) Installation, maintenance, or repairs of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk provided such land-disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard-surfaced; (4) Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land-disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system; (5) Surface or deep mining; (6) Exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads, feeder lines, and off-site disposal areas; (7) Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops, or livestock feedlot operations; including engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; however, this exception shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of chapter 11 (Code of Virginia ~ 10.1- 1100 et seq.) of this title or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in subsection B of Code of Virginia ~ 10.1-1163; (8) Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; (9) Agricultural engineering operations including but not limited to the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the Dam Safety Act, article 2 (~ 10.1-604 et seq.) of chapter 6 of the Code of Virginia, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; (10) Disturbed land areas for all uses ofless than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet and/or less than two hundred fifty (250) cubic yards in size; (11) Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; (12) Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided that if the land- disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan, if the activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in 4 accordance with the requirements of the plan-approving authority. Land disturbing permit means a permit issued by the county for the clearing, filling, excavating, grading, transporting of land or for any combination thereof or for any purpose set forth herein. Local eros ion and sediment control program or program means an outline of the various methods employed by the county to regulate land-disturbing activities and thereby minimize erosion and sedimentation in compliance with the state program and may include such items as local ordinances, policies and guidelines, technical materials, inspection, enforcement, and evaluation. Owner means the owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a property. Permittee means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed. Person means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity. Plan-approving authority means the department of community development which is responsible for determining the adequacy of a conservation plan submitted for land-disturbing activities on a unit or units of lands and for approving plans. Post-development refers to conditions that may be reasonably expected or anticipated to exist after completion of the land development activity on a specific site or tract of land. Pre-development refers to conditions at the time the erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to the plan-approving authority. Where phased development or plan approval occurs (preliminary grading, roads and utilities, etc.), the existing conditions at the time the erosion and sediment control plan for the initial phase is submitted for approval shall establish pre-development conditions. Program authority means the county which has adopted a soil erosion and sediment control program approved by the board. Responsible land disturber means an individual from the project or development team, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out a land-disturbing activity covered by an approved plan or agreement in lieu of a plan, who: (1) Holds a responsible land disturber certificate of competence; (2) Holds a current certificate of competence from the board in the areas of combined administration, program administration, inspection or plan review; (3) Holds a current contractor certificate of competence for erosion and sediment control; or 5 (4) Is licensed in state as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to article 1 (~ 54.1-400 et seq.) of chapter 4 of title 54.1. Single-family residence means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family. Steep slope means a slope greater than 3:1, or 33.3%. Stabilized means an area that can be expected to withstand normal exposure to atmospheric conditions without incurring erosion damage. State waters means all waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the commonwealth or within its jurisdictions. Town means the incorporated Town of Vinton. Transporting means any moving of earth materials from one place to another place other than such movement incidental to grading, when such movement results in destroying the vegetative ground cover either by tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such transporting occurs. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8.1-4. Administration of chapter in conjunction with subdivision and zoning ordinances. This chapter shall be administered, where applicable, in conjunction with the county's subdivision and zoning ordinances wherein such apply to the development and subdivision of land within the county or where such apply to development on previously subdivided land within the county. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8.1-5. Local erosion and sediment control program. (a) Pursuant to Code of Virginia ~ 10.1-562, the county hereby adopts the regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications promulgated by the state soil and water conservation board and those more stringent local stormwater management criteria which the county board of supervisors, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources. Said regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications for erosion and sediment control are included in but not limited to the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations" and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as amended. (b) The county hereby designates the director of community development or his assignee as the plan-approving authority. ( c) The program and regulations provided for in this chapter shall be made available for public inspection at the office of the department of community development. 6 (d) Pursuant to Code of Virginia ~ 10.1-561.1, an erosion control plan shall not be approved until it is reviewed by a certified plan reviewer. Inspections of land-disturbing activities shall be conducted by a certified inspector. The erosion control program of the county shall contain a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified inspector, who may be the same person. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8.1-6. Regulated land-disturbing activities; submission and approval of plans; contents of plans. (a) Except as provided herein, no person shall engage in any land disturbing acti'/ity until he has submitted to the department of community de'/elopment for the county one (1) of the follmving for the land disturbing activity and it has been approved by the plan approving authority. (1) Where the land-disturbing activity results in between two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet and five thousand (5,000) square feet and/or two hundred fifty (250) to five hundred (500) cubic yards of disturbed area, an "agreement in lieu of a plan" may be substituted for an erosion and sediment control plan if executed by the plan-approving authority. (2) Where the land-disturbing activity results in between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet and/or five hundred (500) to seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards of disturbed area, either a plot plan prepared by a certified responsible land disturber or an engineered plan prepared by a professional engineer showing the erosion and sediment control measures must be submitted and executed by the plan-approving authority. A certified responsible land disturber must be named. (3) Where the land-disturbing activity results in ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more and/or seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards or more of disturbed area, an erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted which has been prepared by a professional engineer. For disturbed areas ofless than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, refer to the chart below to determine requirements for the site. Square Feet And/Or Cubic Yards Requirements <2,500 0 Exempt from E&S Plan; *building permit plot plan required 2,500--5,000 250--500 "Agreement in Lieu" of a plan; permit fee; *building permit plot plan required 5,000--10,000 500--750 Certified RLD, *building permit plot plan by a certified RLD or a P.E.; permit fee >10,000 >750 RLD, Erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a P.E.; agreement; surety; a *building permit plot plan, if required by the building commissioner 7 (b) *Refer to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for Building Permit Plot Plan Requirements. ( c) If lots in a subdivision are sold to another owner, that person is responsible for obtaining a certified responsible land disturber and submitting a plot plan for each lot to obtain an erosion and sediment control permit. (d) The standards contained with the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations," and The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and those more stringent local storm water management criteria which the board of supervisors of the county, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" are to be used by the applicant when making a submittal under the provisions of this chapter and in the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. In cases where one standard conflicts with another, the more stringent applies. The plan approving authority, in considering the adequacy of a submitted plan, shall be guided by the same standards, regulations and guidelines. (e) The plan approving authority shall grant written approval within 45 days of the receipt of the plan, if it is determined that the plan meets the requirements of the local control program, and if the person responsible for carrying out the plan certifies that he or she will properly perform the erosion and sediment control measures included in the plan and will conform to the provisions of this chapter. When the plan is determined to be inadequate, written notice of disapproval stating the specific reasons for disapproval shall be communicated to the applicant within forty-five (45) days. The notice shall specify the modifications, terms and conditions that will permit approval of the plan. If no action is taken by the plan- approving authority within the time specified above, the plan shall be deemed approved and the person authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. (f) Responsible land disturber requirement. As a prerequisite to engaging in the land-disturbing activities shown on the approved plan, the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence, to the program authority, as provided by section 10.1-561, of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land-disturbing activity (the responsible land disturber). Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence prior to engaging in land-disturbing activities may result in revocation of the approval of the plan and the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be subject to the penalties provided in this chapter. However, the plan-approving authority may waive the certificate of competence for an "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" for construction ofa single-family residence meeting the requirements in 8.1-3(t)(10) of this chapter. Ifa violation occurs during the land-disturbing activity, then the person responsible for carrying out the "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" shall correct the violation and provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence, as provided by section 10.1-561 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence shall be a violation of this chapter and may result in penalties provided in this chapter. 8 (g) An approved plan may be changed by the plan approving authority when: (1) The inspection reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or (2) The person responsible for carrying out the plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this chapter, are agreed to by the plan approving authority and the person responsible for carrying out the plan. (h) In order to prevent further erosion, the county may require approval of a conservation plan for any land identified in the local program as an erosion impact area. (i) When land-disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission, and approval of an erosion control plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. G) 'Nhene','er electric and telephone utility companies or railroad companies undertake any of the activities included in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection, they shall be considered exempt from the provisions of this chapter. Electric, (1) Construction, installation or maintenance of electric transmission, natural gas and telephone utility lines, and pipelines; and (2) Construction of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of the railroad company. The board shall ha','e 60 days in \vhich to appro','e the specifications. If not action is taken by the board within 60 days, the specifications shall be deemed appro','ed. Indi','idual appro','al of separate projects within subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection is not necessary when appro','ed specifications are follo',','ed. Projects not included in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection shall comply '.vith the requirements of the appropriate local erosion and sediment control program. The board shall have the authority to enforce approved specifications. Individual 2 (k) State agency projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter, pursuant to Code of Virginia, ~ 10.1-564. (1) If the grade of a site is more than thirty-three and one-third (33.3) percent, refer to the International Building Code for steep slope development requirements. 9 (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) (m) Cut slopes or fill slopes shall not be greater than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical), unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. (n) Cut slopes or fill slopes shall not be greater than 25 vertical feet in height, unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. Cut slopes or fill slopes less than or equal to 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may exceed 25 vertical feet in height and shall not require a geotechnical report. ( 0) F or any cut slopes or fill slopes greater than or equal to 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) and greater than or equal to 25 vertical feet in height, as-built plans showing that the finished geometry is in substantial conformity with the design shall be provided to the plan-approving authority. (p) Fill materials, compaction methods and density specifications shall be indicated on the site development plans. Fill areas intended to support structures shall also be indicated on the site development plans. Compaction test results (per VDOT standards) shall be submitted to the plan approving authority. (q) drainage. Development plans for all new subdivisions shall show proposed lot grades to ensure positive Sec. 8.1-7. Permits; fees; bonding; etc. (a) Agencies authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for activities involving land-disturbing activities may not issue any such permit unless the applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. (b) No person shall engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has acquired a land-disturbing permit, unless the proposed land-disturbing activity is specifically exempt from the provisions of this chapter, and has paid the fees and posted the required bond. (c) Fees. An applicant requesting permission to begin land-disturbing activity pursuant to this article shall pay the following fees to cover the administrative expense of review, permitting, and inspection. Square Feet And/Or Cubic Yards Fees Cap Requirement <2,500 <250 $0.00 None 2,500--5,000 250--500 $25.00 In lieu of agreement 5,000--10,000 500--750 $50.00 Responsible land disturber >10,000 >750 $100.00 + $500.00 Certified inspector for $IOO/disturbed acre or project portion >10,000 >750 $100.00 + No certified inspector $IOO/disturbed acre or for project portion (d) Bond. All applicants for permits shall provide to the county a performance bond, cash escrow, or an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the director of community development or his assignee, to ensure 10 that measures could be taken by the county at the applicant's expense should the applicant fail, after proper notice, within the time specified to initiate or maintain appropriate conservation measures required of him as a result of his land-disturbing activity. Should it be necessary for the county to take such conservation action, the county may collect from the applicant any costs in excess of the amount of the surety held. Within 60 days of adequate stabilization and completion of all other site requirements, as determined by the director of community development or his assignee, such bond, cash escrow or letter of credit, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereof shall be either refunded to the applicant or terminated. (e) These requirements are in addition to all other provisions relating to the issuance of permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the requirements for such permits. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8.1-8. Monitoring, reports, and inspections. (a) The county may require the person responsible for carrying out the plan and/or the responsible land disturber to monitor and maintain the land-disturbing activity. The responsible land disturber will maintain records of these inspections and maintenance, to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the plan and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Upon failure to comply within the specified time, the permit may be revoked and the permittee shall be deemed to be in violation of this chapter and, upon conviction, shall be subject to the penalties provided by this chapter. (c) Upon determination of a violation of this chapter, the director of community development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this chapter, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land-disturbing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken. If land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or proper permits, the director of community development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this chapter, issue an order requiring that all of the land-disturbing and/or construction activities be stopped until an approved plan or any required permits are obtained. Failure to comply will result in civil penalties as outlined in section 8.1-9 of this chapter. 11 Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the commonwealth, or where the land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or any required permits, such an order may be issued without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in this chapter. Otherwise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect for a period of seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate relief to the circuit court. If the alleged violator has not obtained an approved plan or any required permits within seven (7) days from the date of service of the order, the director of community development or his assignee may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved plan and any required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or the land records of the county. The owner may appeal the issuance of an order to the circuit court of the county. Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey an order issued by the director of community development or his assignee may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in the circuit court of the county to obey same and to comply therewith by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Upon completion and approval of corrective action or obtaining an approved plan or any required permits, the order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the director of community development or his assignee from taking any other action authorized by this chapter. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8.1-9. Penalties, injunctions, and other legal actions. ( a) Violators of this chapter shall be guilty of a class I misdemeanor. (b) Civil penalties: (1) A civil penalty in the amount listed on the schedule below shall be assessed for each violation of the respective offenses: a. Commencement of land disturbing activity without an approved plan as provided in section 8.6-1 shall be one thousand dollars ($I,OOO.OO)/day. b. Vegetative measures--Failure to comply with items (1), (2) and (3) of the minimum standards shall be one hundred dollars ($IOO.OO)/violation/day. c. Structural measures--Failure to comply with items (2), (4), (9), (10), (11), (15) and (17) of the minimum standards shall be one hundred dollars ($IOO.OO)/violation/day. d. Watercourse measures--Failure to comply with items (12), (13) and (15) of the minimum standards shall be one hundred dollars ($IOO.OO)/violation/day. 12 e. Underground utility measures--Failure to comply with item (16)a. and/or c. shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00)/violation/day. f. Failure to obey a stop work order shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00)/day. g. Failure to stop work when permit revoked one hundred dollars ($100.00)/day. (2) Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. However, in no event shall a series of specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts result in civil penalties which exceed a total of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), except that a series of violations arising from the commencement of land-disturbing activities without an approved plan for any site shall not result in civil penalties which exceed a total of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). The assessment of civil penalties according to this schedule shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions and shall preclude the prosecution of such violation as a misdemeanor under subsection (a) of this section. (c) The director of community development or his assignee may apply to the circuit court of the county to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this chapter, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. (d) In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter may be liable to the county in a civil action for damages. (e) Civil penalty enumerated. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation. A civil action for such violation or failure may be brought by the county. Any civil penalties assessed by a court shall be paid into the treasury of the county, except that where the violator is the locality itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the state treasury . (f) With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or condition of a permit or any provision of this chapter, the county may provide for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in subsection (b )(2) of this section. Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection (b) or (e). (g) The county's attorney shall, upon request of the county or the permit issuing authority, take legal action to enforce the provisions of this chapter. (h) Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be prima facie evidence in any legal or equitable proceeding for damages caused by erosion, siltation or sedimentation that all requirements of law have been met, and the complaining party must show negligence in order to recover any damages. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8.1-10. Appeals and judicial review. 13 Any applicant under the provision of this chapter who is aggrieved by any action of the county or its agent in disapproving plans submitted pursuant to this chapter shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the county board of supervisors. In reviewing the agent's actions, the board of supervisors shall consider evidence and opinions presented by the aggrieved applicant and agent. After considering the evidence and opinions, the board of supervisors decision shall be final, subject only to review by the circuit court of the county. Any applicant who seeks an appeal hearing before the board of supervisors shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled board of supervisors public hearing provided that the board of supervisors and other involved parties have at least thirty (30) days prior notice. Final decisions of the county under this chapter shall be subject to review by the county circuit court, provided an appeal is filed within thirty (30) days from the date of any written decision adversely affecting the rights, duties, or privileges of the person engaging in or proposing to engage in land-disturbing activities. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) Sec. 8-1.11. Civil violations, summons, generally. (a) The director shall prepare an appropriate erosion and sediment control civil violation summons for use in enforcing the provisions of this chapter. (b) Any inspector of the plan approving authority charged with enforcing this chapter shall serve upon any owner or permittee in violation of this chapter, a summons notifying the owner or permittee of said violation. If unable to serve the owner or permittee in person, the inspector may notify by summons an owner or permittee committing or suffering the existence of a violation by certified, return receipt requested mail, of the infraction. The county sheriffs office may also deliver the summons. The summons shall contain the following information: (I) The name and address of the person charged. (2) The nature of the violation and chapter provision( s) being violated. (3) The location, date, and time that the violation occurred, or was observed. (4) The amount of the civil penalty assessed for the violation. (5) The manner, location, and time that the civil penalty may be paid to the county. (6) The right of the recipient of the summons to elect to stand trial for the infraction and the date of such trial. (c) The summons shall provide that any person summoned for a violation may, within five (5) days of actual receipt of the summons or, within ten (10) days from the date of mailing of the summons, elect to pay the civil penalty by making an appearance in person, or in writing by mail to the county treasurer's office and, by such appearance, may enter a waiver oftrial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the violation charged and provide that a signature to an admission of liability shall have the same force and effect as a judgment in court; however, an admission shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. 14 (d) If a person charged with a violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the county shall cause the sheriff of county to serve the summons on the person charged in the manner prescribed by law. The violation shall be tried in general district court in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as provided for in Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia. In any trial for a scheduled violation authorized by this section, it shall be the burden of the county to show the liability of the violator by the preponderance of the evidence. Any admission of liability, or finding of liability shall not be a criminal conviction for any purpose. ( e) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative, and are not exclusive and, except as provided above, shall be in addition to any other remedies by law. (f) The owner or permittee may pay the civil penalty to the treasurer prior to the trial date, provided he also pays necessary court costs in addition to the civil penalty. (g) Within the time period prescribed in (c), above, the owner or permittee, may contest the violation by presenting it to the director, who shall certify the contest in writing, on an appropriate form, to the general district court. (h) Failure to pay the civil penalty, or to contest the violation, within the time period prescribed in (c), above, shall result in the immediate issuance of a stop work order and the revocation of the permit, if any. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) 15 ACTION NO. Ub ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss conditional zoning SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Among all of the land use powers that are granted to local governments by Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, none stands out so significantly as conditional zoning. Virginia's system of conditional zoning is unique in the United States and it gives land use in the Commonwealth its unique character. Local governments may accept "proffered" conditions (when those conditions are submitted in writing in advance of the public hearing to the governing body) that are in addition to the general, uniform regulations applicable under the locality's zoning ordinance. Conditions and restrictions proffered by the applicant, once accepted by the locality, become a part of the zoning of the property and are binding on it until it is rezoned or when the proffered conditions are amended in the same manner as the original rezoning. Proffers are meant to be voluntary. Proffers are theoretically exactions in the same sense that impact fees or involuntary conditions on special use permits are. This is assuming that proffers are indeed voluntary and that the land owner can not demonstrate in some fashion that they have been forced upon it. As the 4th Circuit stated in Board of Supervisors v. United States 48 F3rd 520 (1995) "however euphemistically described, it has now become common practice for local government units with zoning and planning authority to exact from developers various concessions as a condition to granting the necessary changes and planning code approvals for proposed developments. These exactions range from requiring the developer initially to 1 install at the developer's own costs the roads and sewers needed to serve the development, to dedicating land for public recreation facilities and other public needs, to making cash payments to local schools as recompense for the additional students generated by the development." The Federal court was concerned that this express arrangement - proffers in exchange for rezoning - presented a strong argument for characterizing this relationship as a contract. Since the proffers did not give rise to contractual obligations on the part of the locality and because the locality retained its ultimate legislative authority over land use, the Court rejected the contract zoning attack. So long as the locality undertakes no affirmative obligations through conditional zoning and proffers remain development conditions and restrictions applicable to the proposed use, then it is probable that the courts will not find that the locality has engaged in impermissible "contract zoning." Zoning is concerned with the uses of land. The Code of Virginia and the County Code limit the Board's acceptance of proffered conditions, provided (1) that the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the condition; (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning; (3) all such conditions are in conformity with the Comprehensive or Community Plan; (4) the conditions must be clearly understood and enforceable; and (5) the conditions must not require or allow a design or standard that is less restrictive than the general provisions of the zoning ordinance (see Sec. 30-15). It is unclear what the consequence would be of a locality's acceptance of proffers which are either not authorized by the enabling legislation or which are found to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In the event of a successful challenge on either of these grounds, it would seem unlikely that a court would invalidate a rezoning in its totality, even if it finds noncompliance with the conditional zoning enabling legislation. Instead, the court probably would only invalidate only the offending proffer, and conduct a "severability" analysis, concluding that the locality would have approved the rezoning despite the elimination of the particular proffer. The legislative and judicial limitations on conditional zoning are intended to protect landowners from legislative over-reaching. Special use permits are unique. Special use permits are distinguished from conditional zoning by the authority given to localities to issue them "under suitable regulations and safeguards." [S15.2-2286(a)(3)] This means that a locality may impose reasonable conditions on the issuance of special use permits or exceptions, in contrast to proffers that must come voluntarily from the applicant. The Virginia courts have determined that there are limitations on the authority to impose conditions on a special use permit. For example, a locality can impose conditions to address on-site access to public roads, but it cannot lawfully address matters solely within the jurisdiction of VDOT such as entrance design, site distances, etc. The authority to impose conditions does not extend to a requirement for dedication or 2 construction of on- or off-site road improvements if the need for these improvements is not substantially generated by a development before the locality. Finally, the United States Supreme Court has rendered several decisions indicating that there is a Federal Constitutional basis to limitations on such conditions. The relationship required between involuntary development conditions and the demands generated by the proposed development must meet the Constitutional requirements of the 5th and 14th Amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is suggested that Mr. Thompson and I develop a series of proffer guidelines for the consideration of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. These guidelines could include the following: 1. Identify all the owners of the property, including any unusual ownership status. 2. Each proffer should be clearly stated using the word "shall" rather than "should" or "may". The proffer should state in clear concise language what is being promised. 3. Each proffer should be written with the dignity of a zoning regulation. The proffer becomes part of the zoning regulations applicable to the rezoned property. 4. Each proffer should be comprehensive in that it addresses the reasonably foreseeable issues that may arise from the proffer. 5. Each proffer shall impose only regulations or conditions that are in addition to those required by the zoning ordinance. A proffer may only impose regulations or conditions that are in addition to what is required by the applicable zoning regulations. The proffer may neither modify, waive, substitute, nor relax the applicable zoning regulations. 6. Avoid any proffer that imposes an affirmative obligation on the County. Since a proposed proffer that imposes an affirmative obligation on the County may be perceived by the Court to be impermissible contract zoning, delete any language that attempts to impose affirmative obligations on the County. 7. Avoid conditional proffers. Avoid proffers that arise only under certain circumstances (for example, if/then scenarios). If/then scenarios may be an indication that there are important issues that are unresolved at the rezoning stage. Unless all of the possible scenarios have been completely evaluated, the Board may be faced with considering a rezoning application that is a moving target. 8. Encourage applicants to use similar language for similar situations. 3 Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006 RESOLUTION 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. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ -I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 25, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve the optional Flexible Leave Plan and disability insurance for Roanoke County employees effective November 4,2006 SUBMITTED BY: Joe Sgroi Director of Human Resources APPROVED BY: Rebecca Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge ~ Al~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Staff is complimented for the initiative taken in the development of the Flexible Leave Plan (FLP). It is based on best practices and offers an alternative benefit package that strengthens the County's recruitment and retention efforts. This plan was shared with the Employee Advisory Committee (EAC) and they agreed that the plan had merit and should be taken to employees to see if they had interest in the plan's concept. Human Resources staff has indicated that the majority of the employees attending the meetings were very interested and receptive to the FLP. I recommend approval of the FLP as an optional benefit for employees and moving forward expeditiously. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the March 14,2006 work session, information of an optional leave plan for employees was discussed. Also, approval was granted to move forward to obtain proposals for both short and long term disability. At this time we would like to review the plan and update you on the progress made to date. Backqround The current leave plan has been a part of the County's benefit program since before 1989 with only two amendments in 1994 and 1995. This program has become outdated and does not recognize the many diverse needs of employees for the time off required to balance home/work life situations, nor does the current program provide the income 1 protection necessary to cover periods of extended illness or injury for less senior employees. The Human Resources and Finance Departments have worked closely together to create an alternative benefit program called the Flexible Leave Plan (FLP) that addresses these concerns. See Attachment 1 for proposed changes to the employee handbook. The FLP focuses on current and future workforce needs and shifts costs within our current leave program without adding costs to the County. It is a comprehensive benefit program which includes a leave plan that encourages employees to self-manage the use of their time off and to take this time on a scheduled basis. The FLP offers other attractive components including a cash-in option for leave not taken as well as short and long-term disability insurance. See Attachment 2 for comparison details of the FLP plan. The proposed FLP will be presented as an optional benefit plan. Existing employees may choose to either enroll in the FLP plan or remain in the traditional annual and sick leave plans. Employees that do not enroll when the plan is first presented may enroll every year during the open enrollment period. All new employees will be automatically enrolled in FLP. The FLP achieves these main objectives: 1. County recruitment and retention efforts are strengthened with a more competitive benefit package. Note: 50% of the County's workforce has less than 5 years of service and is between ages 20-40. 2. Time off is a highly valued benefit for today's workforce. Greater access to and flexibility in the use of leave time are gained with the FLP. 3. Employees are at financial risk under the current sick leave plan, especially less senior employees. The addition of short and long-term disability insurance is a proactive benefit that protects the employee from financial harm. 4. The FLP rewards employees for good attendance. 5. Employees are kept "whole" - those that transition to the new plan will not loose accrued leave balances. Process Request for proposals were solicited for short-term and long-term disability to 17 carriers. Carriers were hesitant to offer proposals based on the high number of police and fire employees to be covered. Four proposals were received, although only two met the County's plan design requirement. One of these carriers, The Standard, currently administers the long-term disability plan for the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority. 2 Using predefined criteria for determining the most qualified bidders for disability insurance, an evaluation prepared by our consultant, Wachovia Employer Solutions Group, and an independent review of the proposals submitted, the County Disability Committee selected The Standard to interview. Based on the bids submitted, interviews conducted, follow up negotiations, references, and evaluations of each finalist, the committee unanimously agreed that The Standard was the most qualified bidder and should be awarded the contract. The Standard was founded in 1906, is a national leader in disability insurance coverage, and has received multiple "A" ratings for financial strength. The short term disability will be self-funded by the County, has a 30-day elimination period, with a 60% of earnings benefit for a maximum of 60 days. The premium for long-term disability will be split 50/50 between County and employee. This is a fully funded plan which begins when the short term benefit ends and continues paying 60% of salary. The disability insurance is an integral component of FLP and all employees will be automatically enrolled in both short and long term coverage. Communication In early February 2006, Human Resources met with the EAC to review the components of the flexible leave concept. The EAC was used as the initial focus group as a means of gauging the potential level of interest in the plan. The EAC agreed that the FLP had merit and should be shared with employees. We continued to meet with senior and mid-level management, as well as employees from all departments throughout the County. Initially employees had questions about the details of this proposed plan and how it would be implemented, and we incorporated many of their suggestions into the final plan. The overall response to these first meetings was positive. Many employees realized the value of disability income protection and were receptive to various aspects of the plan. With Board approval, Human Resources will plan a major communication initiative to explain the final details and the enrollment process. See Attachment 3 for proposed implementation timeline. FISCAL IMPACT: The Flexible Leave Plan (FLP) was designed to shift costs within our current leave program without adding costs to the County. The benefit design of the FLP will provide the County long term savings and reduce the liability for compensated absences. 3 Below is a summary of the associated costs for long-term and short-term disability: Premium 2006-2007 County Benefit Employee Rate Employee Pa s .5890 per $100 $1 ,128 per claim 50.00% 0.00% The cost for an employee earning $40,000 is $4.90 per pay period for long-term disability and no cost for short-term disability. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the following: (1) the Flexible Leave Plan as outlined above; (2) changes to the Employee Handbook (Attachment 1) effective November 4, 2006; and (3) the contract with The Standard as the administrator for short- term and long-term disability. 4 Attachment 1 Employee Handbook Changes July 2006 1. Wherever references to annual and sick leave appear in the handbook, flexible leave has been included. 2. Chapter 3: Section K, Compensation and Benefits - the following language on short and long-term disability insurance has been added K. Short and Lonq- Term Disabilitv Insurance Only full-time employees are eligible to participate in the County's short and long-term disability plans. Short and long-term disability are integral components of the Flexible Leave Plan (FLP) and new employees are automatically enrolled. These plans have been established to provide income protection during times of extended illness or injury when the employee is unable to work. The County fully funds the short-term disability coverage and partially funds the long-term disability. Upon enrollment, a document explaining the plans and benefits will be provided. Contact the Human Resources Department for additional information on short and long-term disability. 3. Chapter 4: Section A, Leaves of Absence - the following section describing the Flexible Leave plan has been added A. Flexible Leave The FLP is a comprehensive program that recognizes the many diverse needs of employees for time off from work, and includes a disability plan for income protection. Hours accrued in the flexible leave plan may be used for any purpose when scheduled in advance or at times when unforeseen circumstances cause an unscheduled absence. An integral part of the FLP is short and long-term disability insurance to cover periods of extended illness or injury. Employees are automatically enrolled in the disability plans as a part of the FLP. Additional information on short and long-term disability insurance may be found in the Benefits section of this handbook or by contacting the Human Resources Department. . Employees hired after November 4, 2006 will only have the FLP available for the accrual of leave time. . Employees hired before November 4, 2006, may choose to enroll in the FLP or remain in the traditional annual and sick leave plans. Employees who do not enroll in the FLP when first eligible may join during annual open enrollment periods. For late entrants, evidence of insurability will be required with application to the long-term disability plan and acceptance 1 Attachment 1 into the plan may be denied. Transitional details are documented in the Human Resources Management Policy on flexible leave and can be found on the Human Resources intranet site. . Accrual schedules for the FLP for Fire and Rescue personnel are available from the Fire and Rescue departmental management. 1. Accumulation Full-time employees will accrue flexible leave hours based on their years of continuous County selVice. Leave is applied biweekly to the employee's payroll record according to the table below: Years of Annual Biweekly SelVice Accumulation Accumulation o up to 4 20 days 6. 1539 hours 5 up to 9 23 days 7.0770 hours 10 up to 14 26 days 8.000 hours 15+ 29 days 8.9231 hours Flexible leave may be taken in quarter hour (15 minutes) increments and is available for use after leave accruals have been applied. Unless the employee has accrued flexible leave available for use, he or she will not be granted flexible leave. Absences with pay due to flexible leave, civil leave, military leave or other types of paid leave do not affect the flexible leave accumulation. However, leave will not accrue for any unpaid absence of 40 hours or more, per biweekly pay period including absences for FMLA reasons. This applies to new employees, those leaving County selVice or employees on leave without pay. Flexible leave will accrue for all employees selVing a probationary period. Employees may accumulate Flexible leave not to exceed 400 hours (50 days) by the last pay period of any fiscal year (June 30) or when the employee leaves County selVice. 2. Schedulina Flexible Leave Although flexible leave is a benefit provided for employees to self-manage their time off, it should be scheduled so the ongoing work effort in a department is still productive. Flexible leave may be used for any purpose and should be scheduled in advance. Leave requests must be submitted no less than three working days in advance and approved by the appropriate supelVisor. The supelVisor may waive the three-day requirement in emergency circumstances or when an unforeseen circumstance causes an unscheduled absence. In some departments, flexible leave must be requested more than three days in advance. The 2 Attachment 1 appropriate supervisor will inform the employee when hired if a longer submission time applies. 3. Flexible Leave Upon Termination Employees who leave County service are entitled to payment for flexible leave up to the maximum accrual rate of 400 hours (50 days). This includes retirement, voluntary resignation, death, or dismissal. The County will pay the employee once all County property is returned to the appropriate department(s) and any debt to the County is settled. An employee must give a two-weeks notice of resignation. Any flexible leave taken during this time must be approved by the appropriate supervisor and must not interfere with the ongoing work effort of the department. Flexible leave can not be used to extend a resignation past the two-week notice. 4. Holidays Durina Flexible Leave Any scheduled holiday that falls during an employee's flexible leave time will not be charged to that leave balance. 5. Verification and Notification The appropriate supervisor has the right to request verification of absences reported as unscheduled flexible leave by requiring a physician's statement. When an unforeseen need for flexible leave occurs, employees must notify the appropriate supervisor no later than the beginning of their shift. In some departments a longer notification period may be required. The appropriate supervisor will inform the employee if this applies. Failure to notify the supervisor of an absence, except in an emergency situation, is considered grounds for counseling and/or disciplinary action. 6. Extended Illness or Disability It is recommended that employees maintain enough flexible leave hours to cover unexpected absences, including FMLA, workers compensation, and the short-term disability waiting period. If an employee will be out of work because of a prolonged illness or injury, he or she should refer to the Benefits section of this handbook describing short and long-term disability for more information. 7. Maternity/Paternitv The time an employee is medically disabled from a pregnancy-related condition is treated as any other personal illness or disability described in 3 Attachment 1 this chapter. Absences may be charged to accrued flexible leave for any medically disabling condition related to pregnancy that is certified by a physician. Maternity and paternity absences for parental bonding and/or child care following the birth or adoption of a child may also be charged to flexible leave, not to exceed 160 hours (20 working days). To request maternity or paternity leave, the employee must obtain a physician's statement or a statement from the adoption agency. This statement must be submitted to the appropriate supervisor 30 days in advance, when possible, of the requested absence. Following the appropriate supervisor's approval of the absence, the Department of Human Resources is notified. If the employee's accumulated flexible leave balance has been exhausted, the employee may charge maternity/paternity absences to compensatory time (if eligible), or leave without pay. An employee requiring maternity leave should refer to the Benefits section of this handbook describing short-term disability and contact Human Resources. 8. Familv Death The County provides up to three working days to cover any absence related to the death of the employee's spouse, the employee's child or stepchildren, brother, sister, stepbrother, step-sister, parent, spouse's parent, stepmother, stepfather, grandparent, grandchild or a relative living in the employee's household. In unusual circumstances, the Director of Human Resources may extend the three-day limit or the six-day fiscal year limit at the recommendation of the employee's supervisor. This time off is not deducted from the flexible leave balance. If additional time off is required, the employee may use flexible leave, compensatory time (if eligible), or leave without pay, following the guidelines in this chapter. 9. Worker's Compensation Leave All work-related accidents must be reported to the appropriate supervisor as soon as possible. If the accident requires medical attention, the cost may be covered by worker's compensation insurance. (For more information on this insurance, see Chapter 3, section M, "Worker's Compensation. '? 10. Cash-In Option Employees may cash-in up to 40 hours of accrued flexible leave per fiscal year. To be eligible for the cash-in option, a minimum 40-hour balance must be maintained in the FLP after any cash-in payment is made. Hours may be cashed-in only during May and November of each fiscal year. The request to cash-in must be received in the Payroll Department by the first 4 Attachment 1 day of the month and will be paid during the last pay period of the month. Cash-in hours will be paid at the employee's regular hourly rate at the time of the request. Pay received from the cash-in option can be rolled over into the deferred compensation plan if the employee has an established account. 4. Chapter 4: Section B & C, Leaves of Absence - the following notes were added to the sections describing annual and sick leave A. Annual Leave Note: Annual leave only applies to employees hired before November 4, 2006 who have not enrolled in the FLP. C. Sick Leave Note: Sick leave only applies to employees hired before November 4, 2006 who have not enrolled in the FLP. 5 Attachment 2 PROPOSED FLEXIBLE LEA VE PLAN COMPARISON CHART CURRENT LEAVE PLANS FLEXIBLE LEAVE PLAN (FLP) . Annual Leave: . Flexible Leave Plan (FLP) o - 4 years 12 days o - 4 years 20 days 5 - 9 years 15 days 5 - 9 years 23 days 10 - 14 yrs 18 days 10-14yrs 26 days 15+ years 21 days 15+ years 29 days . Sick Leave: . Annual leave balance transfers as new FLP Annual accrual = 15 days . Sick leave balance transfers to Frozen Sick Bank and no longer accrues . Maximum annual leave accrual . Maximum FLP Accrual: 42 days or 336 hours 50 days or 400 hou rs . No max on sick leave accrual . N/A . Add Short- Term Disability (STD) 30 day waiting period - Pays 60% wages for 60 days No cost to employee, County funded . N/A . Add mandatory Long- Term Disability (L TO) 90 day waiting period - Pays 60% wages 50/50 Employer-Employee Premium Split . N/A . Add Cash-In Option allowing employee to cash in up to 40 hours of Flex Leave per year rather than taking or losing time . 3 days Bereavement Leave . 3 days of Bereavement Leave is not deducted from taken from Sick Leave Balance Flex Leave balance . $10 per unused sick day paid at . Unchanged - at termination Frozen Sick Bank termination up to $2,400 balance paid at $10 per unused day up to $2,400 . $35 per unused sick day paid at . Unchanged - at retirement Frozen Sick Bank balance retirement - no maximum paid at $35 per unused sick day - no maximum . Sick Leave Bank - after 30 day . N/A absence, a 45 day loan that must be paid back Attachment 3 FLP IMPEMENTATION TIMELlNE DATE TASK Tues, 7/25 BOS Meeting & Approval Wed,7/26 Award STD/L TO Carrier Contract - Standard Mon, 8/14 - Fri, 9/1 Supervisor Training Fri, 9/1 Deadline for Standard to establish plan & deliver materials Mon, 9/11 - Fri, 9/29 Employee Meetings & Enrollment Period Fri, 10/6 Deadline to receive employee enrollment forms Mon, 10/9 - Fri, 10/20 L TO deduction & FLP leave accrual set-up in Lawson Mon, 10/23 - Fri, 10/27 L TO deduction upload to Lawson Fri, 11/3 1st L TO deduction withheld Sat, 11/4 FLP Begins: Any leave taken from 11/4-11/17 will be reported as FLP on 11/18 timesheet Sat, 11/18 1 St day of pay period with FLP fully functional S -I PETITIONER: Daniel W. Doss CASE NUMBER: 19-7/2006 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 10, 2006 July 25, 2006 A. REQUEST The petition of Daniel W. Doss to obtain a Special Use Permit with amended conditions for the operation of a used automobile dealership on .467 acres, located at 6717 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District. (WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION{S) F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission Daniel W. Doss 10255 Slings Gap Road Bent Mountain~ VA 24059 July 6, 2006 Roanoke County Department of Community Development Attn: John Murphy RE: Zoning Appeal 6717 Williamson Road Roanoke, VA 24019 pear Mr. Murphy, Pel" our conversation yesterday, I would like to withdraw my request for a zoning appeal on the above referenced property at th is time. I have several items that I must address with the property prior to proceeding with my request. I will not, therefore, be present at the zoning board meeting on July 10, 2006. Once the issues with my property have been addressed, I willl'e~apply to the board for consideration of 111 y requests. Thank you fOT your guidance to this point. Sincerely, /l j{-~ 'Do- . ant e s-~ PETITIONER: Amina AI-Hindi a/kJa Amina AI-Habashy CASE NUMBER: 15-7/2006 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 1, 2006 (Continued from July 10, 2006) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 22, 2006 (Continued from July 25, 2006) A. REQUEST The petition of Amina AI-Hindi a/k/a Amina AI-Habashy to obtain a Special Use Permit for the construction of an accessory apartment on .387 acres, located at 2923 Embassy Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. (Continued at the request of the petitioner) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission COJRT SERVICE UNIT Fax;15408531589 2923 Embassy Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 July 9, 2006 Ms. T ammy Wood Planning Committee Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, V A 2401 S RE: Case # 15-7/2006 Hearing Dates: PC: 07110/2006 BOS: 07/25/2006 Dear Roanoke County Representatives: Jul 9 2006 20:2~ P. u:t I have applied for a Special Use Permit to construct an accessory apartment within my principle residence on Embassy Drive. My hearing dates are noted above. I am writing to request that my dates be postponed until August, 2006. My bx:other-in-la\.v who resides in Pennsylvania has died. The funeral will be on 07 -10-06. I pray that you will grant this postponement due to this tragic event. Please contact me at 853-2360 or the address noted above to advise me of your decision. Thank you in advance for your CO;"idera(j) "v J' n- sm~.1La; Amina Al-Hindi (aka Al-Habashy) 3-3 PETITIONER: Valley Gateway, LLC CASE NUMBER: 18-7/2006 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 1, 2006 (Continued from July 10, 2006) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 22, 2006 (Continued from July 25, 2006) A. REQUEST The petition of Valley Gateway, LLC, to rezone .69 acres and .48 acres from R1 Low Density Residential to C2 General Commercial District in order to construct a retail sales facility located at 4065 Challenger Avenue and 4053 Challenger Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District. (CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission J. Wayne Craig Stewart W. HubbeU Gene R. Dess Michael S. Agee Sleven A. Campbell Randy W. Beelmer County of Roanoke Department of Community Development Planning & Zoning P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Attn. Ms. Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Mattern Be Craig CONSUlTING ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS Wm. Thomas Austln Bradley C. Croig D:nrid P Wilson Edwin K. Mcrt1ern. Jr. 0949.1982) Sam H. McGhee, m (Rewed) July 10, 2006 Re: Application to Rezone Tax Parcel ID Nos. 040.17-02-13.00-0000 '& 050.01-01-05.08-0000 Valley Gateway, LLC M&C Commission No. 2578 Dear Ms. Scheid: . . On behalf of the applicant, Valley Gateway, LLC, we hereby request a 3D-day continuance on the public hearing before the Roanoke County Planning Commission. This continuance will pennitthe property owner and the developertime to finalize arrangements for the development of the property. We apologize for inconveniences this request may cause the Department of Community Development staff and the members of the Planning Commission. WTNMa (J'mel Scheid 06D710.wpd) cc: Roland Guyot, Valley Gateway. LLC @ Sincerely, MATTERN & CRAIG ~h Wm. Thomas Austin. P.E. Project Manager I Principal 701 P1rst Street. SOW., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 (540) 345-9342 Pax (540) 345-7691 s-~ PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Bethel Assembly of God 12-5/2006 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 10, 2006 (Continued from May 2,2006) July 25,2006 (Continued from May 23, 2006) A. REQUEST The petition of Bethel Assembly of God to obtain a Special Use Permit for the operation of a religious assembly, located at 6200 block Meacham Road (revised driveway location), Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS One citizen inquired about the proposed condition for landscaping in relation to a home he was considering buying. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Hooker inquired about site design with respect to pavement of the parking lot and the condition requiring landscaping. Mr. Jarrell inquired about the location of the proposed easement with respect to the property line for the home at 6224 Meacham Road. Mr. Azar inquired of the petitioner whether they were in agreement with the suggested conditions. Staff clarified that the trees would be planted within the easement, and, per the petitioner's drawings, the driveway easement would be approximately 15 to 20 feet from the adjoining property line. Mr. Paul Hicks, property owner and member of the church, agreed with the proposed conditions. The Commission noted that the revised driveway location from Meacham Road was an improved design over the previous Kelley Street location. D. CONDITIONS 1. All improvements shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the Interstate Route 81 right of way. 2. Tax parcels #063.04-03-49 and #063.04-03-51 shall be used for the entrance driveway only. 3. Large or small evergreen or large or small deciduous trees shall be planted within the entrance driveway easement between the entrance driveway and property at 6224 Meacham Rd, per the planting specifications in Section 30- 92-5 (D) 3. of the zoning ordinance. The intent of this condition is to fill in the open spaces between existing wooded areas. 4. The development shall be in general conformance with the concept plan entitled Proposed Church Facility for Red Lane Assembly of God, dated 5/30/06. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker then made a motion to recommend approval of the request, with the four suggested conditions. Motion passed 5-0. 1 F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 2 Petitioner: Request: Location: Magisterial District: Proffered/Suggested Conditions: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Bethel Assembly of God Special Use Permit for Religious Assembly 6430 Kelley Street Catawba 1. All improvements shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the Interstate Route 81 right of way. 2. Tax parcels #063.04-03-49 and #063.04-03w51 shall be used for the entrance driveway only. 3. Large or small evergreen or large or small deciduous trees shall be planted within the entrance driveway easement between the entrance driveway and property at 6224 Meacham Rd; per the planting specifications in Section 30-92-5 (D)3. of the zoning ordinance. The intent of this condition is to fill in the open spaces between existing wooded areas. 4. The development shall be in general conformance with the concept plan entitled Proposed Church Facility for Red Lane Assembly of God, dated 5/30/06. Bethel Assembly of God requests a special use permit to construct a new church. The 26.32 site is zoned AR, Agricultural Residential and adjoins rural residential and agricultural land uses, as well as Interstate Route 81. The site is designated Transition in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The proposed development is generally consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Community Plan. The site has ample space to conform with all applicable development standards. No negative impacts are anticipated. The Planning Commission may wish to impose a condition requiring additional setbacks from the 1-81 right ofwaYt in anticipation of possible right of way acquisition for future widening of the highway. Three other conditions with respect to the entrance driveway and general conformance with the concept plan are also suggested. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site development review is required. Religious Assembly is allowed by special use permit in the AR, Agricultural Residential zoning district. Use and design standards in the zoning ordinance require screening and buffering where parking areas and recreational areas adjoin residential land use. A commercial entrance permit is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Well and septic permits are required by the Health Department. 1 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background - Bethel Assembly of God is currently located at 1683 Red Lane Extension. The church had considered expanding at that site, but could not make their plans work. One of the church members owns the property that the church wishes to purchase, and that purchase would be contingent on obtaining a special use permit. This petition was originally submitted with a design showing access from 6430 Kelley Street. The church representatives decided to pursue an alternative access point from Meacham Road, and the petition was continued from the May 2 public hearing until the July 10 hearing. TopographvN egetation - The property at the proposed entrance in the 6200 block of Meacham Road slopes gently down to the south and contains a single family home and surrounding yards. The second property that the entrance road would cross is mostly wooded, and contains an existing dirt/gravel road which the church plans to improve as their entrance road. The adjacent property which the church wishes to purchase and where the new building would be located slopes down to the south to a drainage/intermittent stream. The property then slopes back up toward Interstate Route 81. Most of the property is open hay fields, with some perimeter portions still wooded. The areas where the building, parking lots and drainfield are proposed have gradual slopes of 10% - 15%, or less. Surrounding Neighborhood - The site and all surrounding properties are zoned AR, Agricultural Residential zoning district. Most of the neighborhood consists of single family homes on I-acre to 3-acre lots. Tracts to the east and southwest of the prOperty are larger, ranging from 3 to 9 acres, and contain single family homes, agricultural uses and forested land. Interstate Route 81 adjoins to the south. VDOT staff have noted that future improvements to 1-81 may require additional right of way. From available aerial photography, it appears that the 1-81 right of way adjoining the petitioner's property is wider than where it adjoins other nearby properties, and the right of way boundary is approximately 200 feet from the edge of pavement. While it appears that there should be adequate right of way width for widening ofl-81, the Planning Commission may wish to impose a condition to require a 50-foot setback for all improvements from the 1-81 property line. 2. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout! Architecture - The concept plan shows a new entrance driveway serving the site from Meacham Road. The driveway would cross a residential property at 6218 Meacham Road, and then follow an existing dirt/gravel road across adjoining property to the south, to reach the proposed site. Mr. Paul Hicks owns all three properties that are subjects of the special use permit. The two properties closest to Meacham Road would only be used for the access driveway and the third would be used for the church and associated improvements. Mr. Hicks would grant an access easement through tax parcels #063.04-03-49 and #063.04-03-51, and would sell a portion of tax parcel #063.04-03-53 to the church. Staff suggests a condition limiting the use of tax parcels #063.04-03A9 and #063.04-03-51 for the entrance driveway only. The proposed driveway passes very close to the home at 6224 Meacham Road, and staff has suggested to the petitioner that they consider landscape/screening trees between the entrance road and that home. The entrance driveway would pass by two other rental homes owned by Mr. Hicks, and he has not expressed a desire to screen those homes. Staff suggests a condition to require tree planting along the entrance driveway where it passes by the home at 6224 Meacham Road. These plantings could be per specifications in the zoning ordinance for small or large evergreen or deciduous trees. 2 According to the petitioner, the architectural rendering submitted with the petition is for reference only as a general representation of the building. The architectural rendering shows a one-story design, while the proposed building would be two levels. The proposed 7,200 square-foot building is shown on the concept plan and would contain a 240-seat sanctuary and supporting services on the main floor, with classrooms in the basement floor. The proposed 62-space parking lot is adequate to meet Roanoke County parking requirements for the sanctuary. Staff suggests a condition of general conformance with the petitioners' concept plan. Access/Traffic Circulation - The site would be accessed via Twine Hollow Road and Meacham Road. VDOT and County traffic staff have noted increased traffic from the proposal, but that the road network is capable of handling the increase in traffic volumes as the peak church traffic times do not coincide with normal peak traffic times for the neighborhood. Mr. Ford, County Traffic Engineering Manager noted that the anticipated traffic volumes are not high enough to trigger a traffic impact study/analysis. According to the petitioners, their growing congregation lives within a 25 mile radius of the proposed site. Fire & RescuelUtilities - Fire and Rescue services would be provided by Fort Lewis Fire Station. The building would be served by private well and septic systems. Community Meeting - A community meeting to discuss the petition was held the evening of June 19,2006 at the Glenvar High School cafeteria. Approximately 25 citizens attended, many of whom were members of the church. Several nearby residents voiced concerns about existing problems on Meacham Road, especially with respect to steep shoulders needing guardrail, and curves with limited visibility. These particular issues have been investigated by Roanoke County Traffic Engineer, Brian Epperly. Mr. Epperly has begun dialog with VDOT to discuss the issues, and determine whether the work can be handled with regular VDOT maintenance funds, or would need county revenue sharing funds. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated Transition in the Roanoke County Community Plan future land use guide. The Transition designation lies along Interstate Route 81, and is a land use designation that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Being along the interstate highway, this land use designation differS from other Transition areas around the county, since access is not directly from the interstate highway frontage. However, this church development could serve as a developed buffer between the interstate highway and nearby or adjacent lower intensity residential development. Office/institutionalland uses are encouraged in the Transition designation. The proposed use is generally consistent with the Community Plan. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The proposed development is generally consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Community Plan. The site has ample space to conform with all applicable development standards. No negative impacts are anticipated. The Planning Commission may wish to impose a condition requiring additional setbacks from the 1-81 right of way, in anticipation of possible right of way acquisition for future widening of the highway. Three other conditions with respect to the entrance driveway, and general conformance with the concept plan are also suggested. 3 CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DA TES: 12.0512006 David Holladay PC: 07/10/06 (original date 05/02/06) BOS: 07/25/06 4 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onl fz -Q(slY)@:!d Date received: '3 -:;2. q - Or.. Received by" Application fee: :folic. ~ PCfBZA date: r-o-, v.~ 2.. 2-cu ~ 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Placards issued: BOS date: ALLAPPLfCAl'lrs. Check type of application filed (check all that apply) o Rezoning IWSpecial Use 0 Variance o Waiver o Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address whip .Be...Ktc l f-\~Se;y\61'i I b g 3 ~ed Lo. I'\..e. S l. J". . Owner's name/address wlzip ~e.~~ Pr.sSllei",bll{ c.r- b-od... ~ o--u,\ +\ ~ cJ,-( s Property Location b J.. 0 () l3. I ~ e-yc .~ l' :;}L\ _ -Ke I \ "-I --Sf- - fit ~~ f2v ( revu..:../ tL/l-U'fv> !oC-t*'-o"l ') Tax Map No.: ~3. 04 - '3 -t<j:f ~?) r;- ( 03. 04'-.3 - 5'3 . e,(""' tor Size of parcel(s): Acres: :2 b - "3 ;,L.. o ~ Gvd lS "cl. Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: Phone #: Work; Fax No. #: Magisterial District: Co.. -l 0.. Lv be..... Community Planning area: Existing Zoning: A R A h_"__ ..... ,n", .. ,.", ".." ,. " . .. '"'' " '.., ...........,.,., _, ,_. _, . _ _,' 1lfi6Niiw}SFECIAL UfiEPERMltA'NJJ wAIvERAJ}fliCANrs (R/SrW)" Proposed Zoning: A R S - S pee ;o..t Use.Perm.'lt Proposed Land Use: 'Re I j 'IOU ft6;$ Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes fit' No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for tbe requested Use Type? Yes 0 No 0 IF NO, A V ARlANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No 0 ......- ".- ..'..,,',.,.,.-,. .,',,' ',' .'.""" . " . .....-. ,....,.-. - ...,...... --- .. - .... .... .... . "'..',', .------ -.. .. ....,- --- - ,.,-._..,.,'-,-,_.- ...... ---- ... .....................'.. .. , ,.---,----- . - .-....- - --.. - -- ---- - ---- - ------ - - -- VARIANCE, fyArrif,i1,.4.iV]) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPL!CANTSfV/JfIAA) VariancelWaiver ofSection(s) N / fI I Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICA nON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R1SIW V/AA R/SIW V/AA R1SIW VIM m Consultation ii 8 1/2" x II" concept plan ~. Application fee Application . .. Metes and hounds description Proffers, if applicable V Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners 1 herehy certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent ofth,o~". ~ Own,,', S;gn,n", / . oJ 2 ., . , ,., " ,'.. .. . '-'" - ",.. '" ",.. .. , , '" "" .. ... '" "" . JUSTIFICA 'flONFORREZONING, SPECIALU~EP:ERMIT OR W AIYER REQUEST Applicant The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. 1. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. Tke.. ie'bue.st W; II f' '00"': d ~ t'o> 1-. adee,u.u:te ,', ~ k t, Q." r C C:.1.~ ',t; ':'1.. ~ c,(."\:1. ~ c" ; l."-1'1. e~ cf o..c(~est o...,.<.! saTe,tj) will f'lo+ CC.\Ll.S'E Co."I'je.,!..t/t,;t ."'. Pv.bhc Sff'e.d~ ('lnd lVill. p"c~J'~df"':' eLM. o.ttrcu:~',v.e.. (~r:..t.;vitj ~e,jJtt_e..... 'f:~'Jl','.t~e;._ . " CDil1l\'\Ujt1.t~, 1'10 kIS.-f::..c,',....IC- blllldln.5~ 0'" ('LI~eli_S wdl be. de.st. ojt"__d or .eJ'\ci"'oClcked UPCI'\. The .....e.rt,ue~.t wou./d ~'ID10 t~e. Smu.ll'- S~o....Ie d.e.....e.lopetneVlt o-P CL c',y':c. USe cornpa:tuJ:)le. LU:th.. tke. COn'\~u..V\it~. . "'R.e,1;3'iOU~ ASSemblj 'IS a.llo.u..;e.d 11'1. .the... "Ii.R. AljT'1 cLdturo..l Ke..$ld e.nt let!. ZOI1C:: bj Spe.cial use permit. 2. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. fh.e- Co;'Y\ p rd'1. e.t1S'i'Vc:..1>lo-i,t d e ~.; C)t1 o...ce.. s t his. D-~ecL (\.s, T('a.,I<t,g ~t.. 0 lot Irlst;.tLAt~ol'lal sites J such Ct.$. chu.-....,ches I cu~e... e r, CD u.r"'Q.~r~-d.. lCt-Vtd U.Se .t ~ pe .s. 3. Please describe tbe impact(s) ofthe request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ., '1 t J.. ~ (l IlL r.t:' ~().V\.ted '-t:.he.. ('-e~ues.t, Will o.~ o~ ,(1.. vD..Ca.n. .L('(\Cl. t't' .ClYta. co, be. CJeve10ped It'\.&" (J.., pl~c-e. Q.p rel.510us (i.S~em blj' A permanet'\ S-tru..cb.L.re 11.....11', be e..y"ec:~ed a,S ~DD~ a...S p.O.s$f ~te.. ''R.egu.ir-e.merd-s 0 the X-Ci'\.in-q ~r~i'r1CLnc:e. UJI/( .be ~e.t. (Ie:- IO-Y1.dsC:UPlti<,)} par" k:.l f'\3 I,cove-fa etc.,,)... AclJo;~,I'\-3. ,p~oper-tles will f'ece.i.Ve.. f10 1i'l"\pCl.c:t otltei" Lhl;LVl !!: . s I (jh.t Vi ~uo..' I m pac. t.. . I, W i Y\f- H oll DU..) j Me a. c h..o..-M Cl r\d Kc:. ~I ~ l.U 0 uld e.](. p e.(' i e t\ ce.. (l.- S I ~ ~ k t t~~('e.o..se "IV'\. t-rCl..-Pf'.tc:' pr;o(' to Ql'td. af-ce..r ~Sui'lda..j Se.Y'v;c.e,~ CL\-1.d dtul~c I l.:.ve.,,\.ts... Sct-tDolj p'urk/f'ec.i"'e(.L.t.o,,\ wtll v\o'l be. (l..f'~eci:ed. T=;..e-I re;;;~l.1e I SS'(Je.s wt II be o..de.gu.(L.tle.~ add reS$ed ~ Ch..u..,...dl woul d use. 'P'''lvClte we.11 a.'I\d $e :t:'\c S stem.. 3 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO ApPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PlJBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICA nON ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition ifnew or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IWACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Transportation Engineering Manager or staff [rom the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective Date: April] 9. 2005 ~ec'ldl Nl~e~eetltpermlL - LAZ~ mo.~c:tt 3 \ j 2000 Date I CONCEPT PLA~ CH~CKLIST ., A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building pennit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the injtial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use pennit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent pennitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALIyAPPLfCANTS ~ ,a. Applicant name and name of development / b. Date, scale and north arrow /' c. v" d. Le. ~ f. ./ g. /'h. /l. L J. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties All property lines and easements All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS t4Jk. -.L I. / m. V' n. ~ o. NjJl p. ? - q. Existing utilities (water, sewer, stonn drains) and connections at the site Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections Locations of all adjacent fIre hydrants Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. ?bf'G " ,Date 6 I "- ~ " " - - .... .... .... "' , .... I -- " , ~ " '\ " -- - - '] ~ '\ " ... " , \ ~ \ --', Q ,[, ~ \ \ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ --- --- - --- ..... ..... , ..... ..... " '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ..... o '" ~ \ \ " I \ o '" '" \ \ \ \ \ \ o '" "" " " , \ iQ -> !--.-- ~'I .,-j ,~..., I' .. 12(1 , ~e!:.; tl~~ 0<1: ;:jU V 0 Q "" Ii Q ~ ;:! J ~ ~~; ~ "3 ;y! t1 ;:J ~;; ~ I!l 'J; r ~ 2, ~ F i 94 " ..J e :1 o 4: ~--Jf ~ 8 ~ ~ p.: 6' 'i,11 . ! ~ Ci ~ ri ~ J-' ',j -!:. r. '.( ~ -;; j p ~ ~ 1 ~ .. :f t: ~ li '" r:i -{~~~ bI )j 0 - '.0:' · 'S ii ,j\, J;t ~ ._" I'i , i I~ ~ I' 1;- '0: l:-j i~ Ii... o r tll! :, ~. ,;: j: ,i I J (j1 .{ ii~F. ~ : _ <t !O ...J ~ \!l i>-' '1 Ii " <( .. - Ii: ~ ~ ~ 1 () ~ 4! I .. ' " r< I: 2' 1-', ~ '" ~ ~' .s." .: d f r--l :", ',.i - 4'J12\; .4 b "",, 'J 6 LP 140 :1:0.27 MILe TO RT<. 778 I , R W TWINe HOLLOW ROAO 9 1 0 30 ~("O'55"E 1 Il <(10/ I A I I \ -- f ~/J~.~~ I I, ~_~ 1\ ",P&>'?c ~'/f 18.12' I I I I ., ~ ,,\,. \L''iA' I I I I ~~~ P ~ '// I r I I ~~ ~ ~~.(J. I' I I ~~_'..l. t;<' ~I f I I I r "'::j", <:> ~ ....~. I ~ I I I I ~ :: a -1--". I I I I f :i~::i 6":S>::.r~ \ \;! I I 'I os '" "" "0 'uN --.; I I I ..F6"" ~' /;>- 45/?8"" I I I i1: 6<'J.7' I , N.?'?~ 13.30' \ >-. _,~ ~" I I JJ.2..60'-?"W I ~i ~ rQ I I I I trsi';'" 0, 501 I tr..>~/~" It! 'Jil' ~.$:-~ ,^,:-- I I I 1/1,;; ",... I I I I !~~ UTlUTY POLE l5- .....~ I J ~...... " CORNCR~ r---- .r----t-PRPPt>S,&l 59'-R,.LW- .---c'oz"e: r 711'EJlSl!MENr'\, N69'Z6 9' / , I I ! r 100..4 / I / I i J / I /fi' ,- / /// I t:,- /// /fJ;:iD I ,~ 1:1 /1 I I'M ~,~ / ~~4 ~ ~ ~ / "",;:/"jIfJ;/ // ~, 1fJ/ //- -- / / /..-:/ / / PI .~. / / /..--/ -..-- ~D/ PAI.JL W. .. a~::eITH <. HICKS ~ l!!) 0.8. / /.58. PC. 48 T.M. /5J.04-0J-5/.00 l<- ..-- (";1\Jo SUR'>I'(,.-(l /f/./ .: iD _ ----!'- ~ //'0 ./h // 10// / ~~// / .\5';' ~ // f CASeMeNT TO SIGN AS .\#~. // SHOWN ON SI.JI?VfY Br f:J'l- /' / OHN O. ABBOTT, P<.. CLS ~ / \ / // \~ / / />\~/ //// / ----;:::..--- / / ./' / / / / / -~ /// CXISnNG G:'i'A>!,L ORI>!' ( --~ / . \_~/ PROPOSeO 50' R/W _ - \ 0' f'ASEMeNT AS SHOWN ON - 5 \",=-~G SI.J~r Br JOHN O. r ABBOTT, PC as \ ~ \ - \ \ -;. --e-- - ~ --B- _ \ ~~ --;-=-;w 110.84' S86'SO'00"W 88.00' - - \ S8O'4S 05 "- \ ~ ~ '?, \ NOTES: ...:.'tl, oj, \ \ 1. OWNERS OF RECORD: PAUL W. &: ELIZABETH E. HICKS 1 . ~ \ 2. LEGAL REFERENCE: DEED BOOK 11 B 1, PAGE 943 'ii,'&. '1 \ \ TAX MAP NUMBER: 63.04-03-46.00 ,,~a; '6 \ \ LEGAL REFERENCE: DEED BOOK 115B, PAGE 4B :z.'2.~~ \ TAX MAP NUMBER: 63.04-03-51.00 >0 m -. \ 3. PROPOSED 50' RjW ESM'T BOUND BY CORNERS A - L TO A ..: 6 ~ \ INCLUSIVE IS TO BE GRANTED BY DEED. '5 \ \ 4. SEE "PARTIAL SURVEY FOR PAUL W. &: ELIZABETH E. HICKS" ~ \ PREPARED BY JOHN D. ABBOTT. PE.. CLS. DATED MARCH 22, 2005 \ \ 5. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. \\\ \ 6. UNDERGROUND UTILITY SERVICE LINES TEL: 540-772-95BD FAX: 540-772-B050 PLANNERS ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS \ Balzer &: ASSOCiates, Inc. 120B Corporate Circle Roanoke Va. 24018 LEGEND GRAPHIC SCALE o DEEDED CORNER . IRON PIN FOUND - - DEEDED UNE _ SURVEYED UNE "0 I \Qt: ~@ ::t:ll:l ll::'" ~c:i ~~ ::>:a ~.., lrJ).. CJ:l ~ a '" ~ '" ~ ll:: ~ ~ ClS IN rEET ) 1 inch ~ 6Q ft. UTE ROAD RO rllCHAM Mv' __---- ~-- LINE TABLE LINE BEARING L1 N2r49'47"w L2 N03'56'25NE L3 N34'1B'16HE L4 N57'16 '4 1 HE T LENGTH 20.14 43.40 41.34 66.89 TAX EASEMENT SKETCH FOR PAUL HICKS SHOWING A PROPOSED 50' RjW EASEMENT CROSSING PARCELS #63.04-03-46.00 &: #63.04-03-51.00 CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SURVEYED MAY 31, 2006 JOB QR0610342.00 SCALE: 1" = 60' \ \ N/F MICHAEL R. .. C4R0/. rN M. MCCI.JLLEY D.B. 1578. ?G. UlJJ T.M. /5J.04-0J-.f6.00 DRN: SCB CHK: JLN PROPOSEO 50' R/W CASeMeNT AS SHOWN ON SI.JI?VfY Br JOHN O. ABBOTT. Pc.. as PROPOSED SO' R/W EASEMENT LINE BEARING LENGTH A-B NB6'!O'5SHE 50.46 B-C SOJ'S6'04"W 325.68 C-D SS,.,O'JO"W 75.06 D-E S6S'22'57"W 67.62 E-F 547'S3'10"w 28.50 F-G S52'19'18"W 350.47 C-H N19"!4' 6"W S2.70 H-I N52'19'18"E 327.76 I-J N47"5J'10"E 36.32 J-K N53"22"57"E 54.27 K-L Nsr'O'JOH 47.85 L -A N03'56 '04 HE 297. OT - _.,- ,./;>-.,.,.- << 00""- _ <76.00' - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ L-t- <: <;> '" "- - ~"'<;> ~~~ I c:i~ ti .....t".l. ~~t"Io. \!O'~':2. OJ ..... '" . ~ci:: '>:; oc 1 - - ~ N/F PAI.JL W. .. eLlZABETH <. HICKS O.s. 1/58. PC. 48 T.M. /6J.04-0J-52.00 BALZER - ..1t'l""\.ItrTINI; TDMOIlt,.OW ......... .D<oIM:rR:li .AlCHIT'ECl'S .,""",,,,", AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 25,2006 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY ON 26.32 ACRES lOCATED IN THE 6200 BLOCK OF MEACHAM ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 63.04-3-49, 51, PART OF 53) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF BETHEL ASSEMBLY OF GOD WHEREAS, Bethel Assembly of God has filed a petition for a special use permit for the operation of a religious assembly to be located in the 6200 block of Meacham Road (Tax Map No. 63.04-3-49, 51, and part of 53) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 10, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on April 25, 2006; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on July 25, 2006. 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 for the operation of a religious assembly to Bethel Assembly of God to be located in the 6200 block of Meacham Road in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as amended, 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: 1 (1) All improvements shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the Interstate Route 81 right-of-way. (2) Tax Parcels 63.04-3-49 and 63.04-3-51 shall be used for the entrance driveway only. (3) Large or small evergreen or large or small deciduous trees shall be planted within the entrance driveway easement between the entrance driveway and property at 6224 Meacham Road per the planting specification in Section 30~ 92-5 (D) 3 of the Zoning Ordinance, The intent of this condition is to fill in the open spaces between existing wooded areas. (4) The development shall be in general conformance with the concept plan entitled Proposed Church Facility for Red Lane Assembly of God, dated 5/30/06. 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. 2 --- Zoning _.I'm _EP II1III11111111 A/31 81 ~:\" \~'~r-""'.. \"" Site 81 - Applicants Name: Bethel Assembly of God Existing Zoning: AR Proposed Zoning: ARS Tax Map Number: 63.04-3-49,51,53 (portion of) Magisterial District: Catawba Area: 26.32 Acres Roanoke County Department of Community Development May 26. 2006 Scale: 1" = 400' 5-5 PETITIONER: Kahn Development Company, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 17.7/2006 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 10, 2006 July 25,2006 A. REQUEST The petition of Kahn Development Company, Inc, to rezone 17.24 acres from 11- C Industrial District with Conditions to C2 General Commercial District in order to construct a retail sales facility located at the 3900 block Challenger Avenue, near the intersection of Valley Gateway Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Planning Commission discussed traffic issues with Mr. Anthony Ford, D. CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Azar then made a motion to recommend approval. Motion passed 5-0. ,. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT. Petitioner: Kahn Development Company, Inc. Request: Rezone 17.24 acres from 1-1, Industrial with Conditions to C.2, Commercial Location: 3900 Block of Challenger Avenue Magisterial District: Vinton Proffered/Suggested Conditions: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request is to rezone 17.24 acres from Industrial to Commercial, C-2 in order to develop a retail shopping center including a grocery store and home improvement center. The applicant is requesting an unconditional C-2, Commercial zoning. The Community Plan land use designation of this property is Principal Industrial to reflect the Industrial zoning district and the proximity to a primary arterial road and public utilities. The rezoning request is not consistent with that Principal Industrial land use designation. Based on the analysis of the growth and development patterns along the Route 460 corridor including Roanoke City, the eastern section of Roanoke County and the western portions of Bedford County, staff would recommend changing the land use designation to Core. The commercial zoning designation sought by the applicant would be in conformance with a Core designation. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. VDOT commercial entrance permit will be required. 2. Site Plan review and approval will be required prior to construction or issuance of building permits. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS BackQround - Property is currently zoned Industrial with the following conditions: a. The property will not include permitted uses for: i. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products: ii. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards: Hi. Outside flea markets, unless a special exception has been granted by the Board of Supervisors. b. That alllocational signage (Sec. 21-93(0)) will be aesthetically pleasing and be not more than forty (40) square feet in sign face and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. c, That all utilities will be underground. d. That there will be no on-street parking. e. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site, as necessary, f. That the Petitioner will evaluate the drainage situation for the subject tracts and implement a design for drainage facilities to either retain or detain the two (2) year storm (as required by Roanoke County) and the retention or detention for a ten (10) year storm, g. That primary access to the property will be limited to Route 460. h. Building placement and parking will be designed to not impede the future widening of one additional lane along Routes 460 and 758. 1 i. Should out-parcels be subdivided along Route 460 frontage (Parcel A), access will be provided via an internal road network plan utilizing the existing median cut on Route 460. J. Type E (Option 2) buffer and screening and requirements will be provided between Parcel "A" and single-family residences. All Roanoke County screening and buffering requirements will be implemented as specific development occurs. k, Existing oak trees on Parcel "A" will be preserved to the extent allowing for feasible development of the subject parcel. I. All internal thoroughfares will be designed and constructed to VDOT standards for future dedication. m. Dust mitigation controls will be implemented during site excavation activities. n. The developer will cooperate with the Roanoke County Utility Department to provide necessary utility easements(s) for a sanitary sewer submain along Route 758 (Carson Road) at a mutually agreed upon location. Kahn Development Company has contracted with F&W Properties, the owners, to purchase the subject 17.24 acres along with an adjoining 4.47 acres that is currently zoned C-2, with no conditions. The subject property was part of a 105 acre rezoning in 1989, At that time, the Industrial Development Authority (lOA) rezoned the property from residential to industrial. In 1995, the development patterns along Route 460 prompted the IDA to request that 21 acres of that industrial land be rezoned from industrial to commercial. This request is to extend that commercial zoning to these 17.24 acres for the purposes of retail development. No conditions have been proffered. In early 2006, a new traffic signal was installed at the intersection of Rt. 460 and West Ruritan Road in close proximity to this property, TODOQraphvNeqetation - This property rises from Route 460 and from Valley Gateway Boulevard. The front portions of the property are cleared while the back portion includes substantial tree coverage. Surroundinq Neiqhborhood - The property adjoins commercial land on the northwest, industrial land on the east, south and southwest along with residential land on the northwest. The 4.48 acres of residential land on the northwest corner, which is bounded by commercial land on the west and industrial land on the south and east with Rt. 460 directly to the north, is for sale with the intention of filing for rezoning to commercial. Integrity Windows manufacturing plant, built in late 2001, is to the south of this parcel. Integrity is in the process of a major 200,000 square foot expansion. The vacant "shell" building owned by Roanoke Gateway, LLC and built in 1997 is also to the south. In 2005, the Planning Commission considered a rezoning for an Arby's at the intersection of Rt. 460 and West Ruritan Road. That petition was eventually withdrawn due to VDOT concerns but there continues to be commercial interest in that intersection. In addition, there are commercial and retail plans for the frontage property at the Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology, along that northern side of Rt. 460, and extending across the County line. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site LavouUArchitecture - The concept plan shows the total acreage of approximately 21.5 acres being developed as a retail shopping center. The plan depicts a 83,000 square foot grocery store, a 133,000 square foot home improvement center with attached garden center in addition to approximately 23,000 square feet of additional retail space. The concept plan shows an access point on Rt. 460 between the signal light at West Ruritan Road and the intersection of Rt. 460 and Valley Gateway Blvd. This proposed access point may violate Roanoke County 2 Code for minimum distance between access points on an arterial highway. Additional access points are shown on Valley Gateway Blvd. and on Integrity Drive. Accessrrraffic Circulation - A Traffic Impact Study has been requested by both VDOT and Anthony Ford, County Transportation Engineering Manager. Upon review of that study, information will be available concerning traffic counts on Rt. 460, Valley Gateway and Carson Road, in addition to information on needed turning lanes, decal lanes, access points and signal light warrants. A new traffic signal light is planned for the intersection of Rt. 460 and Valley Gateway Blvd. This signal light has been anticipated since the 2001 construction of Integrity Windows but was delayed until the traffic warrants justified the light. The County will incur the cost of this signal light as a part of the Integrity public- private partnership agreement. Any other off-site public infrastructure improvements will not be the responsibility of Roanoke County. Mr. Ford highly recommends that this applicant work cooperatively with the developer for the proposal on the east side of Valley Gateway Boulevard to coordinate access points, turning lanes, etc. Fire & Rescue/Utilities - Public utilities are available and there will not be a significant impact on fire and rescue services. Economic Development - The Roanoke County Economic Development Department supports this request. CommunitvMeetinq - A community meeting was held to discuss this rezoning petition on Monday, June 26, Citizens spoke regarding existing problems with Carson Road and stormwater management problems along this road and specifically concerning the small bridge. One citizen spoke of concerns regarding groundwater contamination and noted that the area was a significant aquifer. Cut-thru traffic concerns on Carson Road were also discussed. One citizen suggested exploring alternative stormwater systems. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN As stated in the Executive Summary, this commercial proposal does not comply with the Principal Industrial land use designation. Staff acknowledges though that the land use designation, given the growth and development of this corridor through the City and the County, needs to be updated and revised to Core. The retail development proposal would be consistent with the Core land use designation. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The applicant's property is located adjacent to Route 460, Challenger Avenue, a major east-west primary arterial road in the eastern portion of Roanoke County. Challenger Avenue connects downtown Roanoke to the developing eastern corridor of Roanoke County and the Bonsack area. Development of this site, whether by-right industrial or as commercial, brings concerns regarding additional traffic both on Rt. 460 and on Carson Road, It also brings concerns over the potential for increased stormwater runoff to nearby properties and roads. These issues need to be addressed, Staff supports rezoning this property. DATE: 6.28.06 CASE NUMBER: 17.7/2006 HEARING DATES: July 10, 2006 & July 25,2006 PREPARED BY: J. Scheid 3 p~ ti(j)L)) County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onl . 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 . ,,'r.: ;~'1-!f~' :fjipPL!CANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) OCRezoning [J Special Use 0 Variance [J Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address whip Kahn Development Company, Inc. P. O. Box 1608 Coltnnbia SC 29202 Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 803-736-3325 ~8~:~i8:~i~~ (B. Temple) Owner's name/address whp F & W Properties 1I, Inc. P. O. Box 20069 Roanoke VA 24018 Property Location Tract C, Valley Gateway Business Park ';1.;lol3lucY-- Li-v.))..~ e,r. 1/'"7:-. Tax Map No: 050.01-0 -05.05 Size ofparcel(s); Acres: 17.24 . Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Magisterial District: Vinton Community Planning area: ~Qnsack Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: Vacant ,- , , - '..-' . , ' ,,~- - " - " - - >-', - ;~. ~., ,- ,'- . ' : JiEfq!'fJ!i(l; SPEClALUSE f~J!MIT; JK-1!VE"R";ANPJ;;f?jftffLA!!(Js.t:,~2,F),R$VIEW APPLlCANtS,J;,I~!$IW/O*) Proposed Zoning: C- 2 Proposed Land Use: Commercial (retail cent er) Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? ~ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type~ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FmST Ifrezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No ~. .~; 'f/A~~l'!/J:t;WAIVER AN.QJ#I. " .'. ___.........._H... ....._ "-'_' ...[1sr~l~~rt~~~t~l~NtJ1ii;W{,~) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal ofInterpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal ofInterpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check ifenclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RJS!WICP V/AA RlSIWICP V/AA RISIW/CP VIM rn Consultation ~ & 112" xII" concept plan ~ Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffer.;, ifapplicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining propeIty owner.; I hereby certifY that Jam either the owner of the pro or eo er's age rcontractp haserand am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner, C ' Kahn By: Owner's Signature 2 GLENN ._ .. _~___"___.._ .,,_. _ .._, '_".U."..'.. _____ FELDMANN ---- . ..-._~- -~------ -- DARBY ----.- -, - -- ---.-. . ---- ~- GOODLAlTE 210 1st Street SW. Suite 200 Post Office Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 5402248000 Fax 5402248050 gfdg.wgfdg.com MARYELLENF. GOODLATTE Direct Dial (540) 224-8018 E-ma,1 mgoodlatte@gfdg.colll May 26, 2006 Mr. David Holladay Roanoke County Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Re: Rezoning Application for Kahn Development Company, Inc. Tract C, Valley Gateway Business Park - 17.24 acres Tax Map Parcel 050.01-01-05,05 Dear David: Enclosed please find the following in connection with the above-referenced application: I. Rezoning Application; 2. Original and one copy of the concept plan; 3. Metes and bounds description; 4. List of adjoining propeliy owners; and 5. Our firm's check in the amount of $1,521.00 representing the filing fee. As you know, we are requesting that the 17.24 acre parcel which is the subject of this application be unconditionally rezoned to C-2. Kahn Development Company has contracted with F & W Properties II, Inc., the owner of the property, to purchase the 17.24 acre parcel which is the subject of this application along with an adjoining 4.4738 acres. The adjoining 4.4738 acre parcel is already zoned unconditional C-2. Kahn proposes to use the 4.4738 acre parcel and the 17.24 acre parcel for a retail shopping center development. GLENN .__,_n___...__ ~,_c _, _.___...~,_ ._._~__ FELDMANN .______ ..__.____u DARBY -- -". - -...-."..- --. GOODLATTE 210 1st Street S.w Suite 200 Post Office Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 5402248000 Fax 5402248050 gfdg@gfdg.com Mr. David Holladay May 26, 2006 Page 2 The combined acreage was part of a 105 acre rezoning in I 989, which rezoned the acreage from residential estates to industrial. That rezoning was requested by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Roanoke. By 1995, growth and development patterns along 460 caused the Industrial Development Authority to seek a rezoning of 20,93 acres of that parcel from industrial to commercial. In December 1995 the Board of Supervisors rezoned that 20+ acre parcel which adjoins the subject property, from I-I (C) and C- I to C-2 without conditions. Our request is the logical extension of that action taken in 1995. Like the 1995 action, this reclassification recognizes the commercial nature of the subject property. Enclosed with this application is an alternate concept plan which incorporates two adjoining parcels (having tax map nos. 050.01-01-03.00 and 050.01-01- 04.00) with the parcels Kahn has under contract. Those adjoining parcels are currently zoned residential and are under contract to a fee developer for a national drugstore chain. Obviously, any development of those parcels for commercial purposes will require rezoning, Kahn has beE.:n working with the contract purchaser of those parcels toward a plan of co-development. The alternate concept plan enclosed herewith illustrates how all the parcels could be incorporated into this retail development. In fact, this reflects the ultimate vision of Kahn and the co-developer for the entire site. Kahn delayed filing this rezoning request anticipating that the contract purchaser of the adjoining parcels would be able to submit its rezoning request at the same time. However, that contract purchaser is not yet ready to proceed. Kahn's contract with F & W Properties II, Inc., having strict timelines, does not permit Kahn to continue to wait. Kahn encloses this alternate concept plan so that you can see how the center would be configured if the adjoining parcels were incorporated into the same. If the inclusion of those parcels cannot be accomplished, Kahn is prepared to move forward with the acquisition and development of a retail shopping center on the 17.24 acre parcel and the 4.4738 acre parcel currently under contract. The need for flexibility on the configuration of the retail center underpins our request for an unconditional rezoning to C-2. That treatment is consistent with the County's actions in the past with respect to Valley Gateway Business Park parcels. GLENN . ----.-- ..-,,~.- ".~. ,.---- _..-.- '".-. ---- FELDMANN ----'-.--..--.....- DARBY -.. "~-_._.'---'_.- _.,~._,-- GOODLATTE 210 1st Street SW Suite 200 Post Office Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 240m 540 2248000 Fax 540224.8050 gfdg@gfdg.com " I.',: ~ ., Mr. David Holladay May 26, 2006 Page 3 Please let me know what additional infoTITIation we can provide you as the County reviews this request. Very truly yours, ~ Maryellen F. Goodlatte MFG: 100:5267007 Enclosures c: Kahn Development Company, Inc. (w/enc.) Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majoxity of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memoxandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIc ANAL YSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Transportation Engineering Manager or staff from the Virginia Department of Txansportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is wananted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date, Effective Date: Apdl19, 2005 Inc. Robert M. Temple I ~W-~ }l, to()c. Date F&W Properties II, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Owner of the property subject to this petition, hereby consents to this rezoning petition and agrees to be bound by the conditions that are proffered in this petition. Owner acknowledges that at the time of signature below, no proffers have been submitted, and should proffers become necessary, written consent from Seller will be required. Its: Executive Vice President Date: 4 ~1-/-0fo AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 25,2006 ORDINANCE TO REZONE 17.24 ACRES FROM 11-C, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, TO C2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL SALES FACILITY LOCATED AT THE 3900 BLOCK OF CHALLENGER AVENUE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY GATEWAY BOULEVARD (TAX MAP NO. 50.01-1-5.5), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF KAHN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 2006, and the second reading and public hearing were held July 25, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 10, 2006; 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 17.24 acres, as described herein, and located at the 3900 block of Challenger Avenue near the intersection of Valley Gateway Boulevard (Tax Map Number 50.01-1-5.5) in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of 11-C, Industrial District with conditions, to the zoning classification of C2, General Commercial District. 2, That this action is taken upon the application of Kahn Development Company, Inc, 3, That a portion of this property was included in the 1989 rezoning upon a petition by the Industrial Development Authority of a 105 acre parcel from residential to 1 industrial, at which time the following conditions were placed on the property; which conditions are now being REMOVED: a. The property will not include permitted uses for: i. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products: ii. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards: iii. Outside flea markets, unless a special exception has been granted by the Board of Supervisors. b. That alllocational signage (Sec. 21-93(0)) will be aesthetically pleasing and be not more than forty (40) square feet in sign face and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. c, That all utilities will be underground. d. That there will be no on-street parking. e. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site, as necessary. f. That the Petitioner will evaluate the drainage situation for the subject tracts and implement a design for drainage facilities to either retain or detain the two (2) year storm (as required by Roanoke County) and the retention or detention for a ten (10) year storm. g. That primary access to the property will be limited to Route 460. h. Building placement and parking will be designed to not impede the future widening of one additional lane along Routes 460 and 758. i. Should out-parcels be subdivided along Route 460 frontage (Parcel A), access will be provided via an internal road network plan utilizing the existing median cut on Route 460. j. Type E (Option 2) buffer and screening and requirements will be provided between Parcel "A" and single-family residences. All Roanoke County screening and buffering requirements will be implemented as specific development occurs. k. Existing oak trees on Parcel "A" will be preserved to the extent allowing for feasible development of the subject parcel. I. All internal thoroughfares will be designed and constructed to VOOT standards for future dedication. m. Dust mitigation controls will be implemented during site excavation activities. n. The developer will cooperate with the Roanoke County Utility Department to provide necessary utility easements( s) for a sanitary sewer submain along Route 758 (Carson Road) at a mutually agreed upon location. 2 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on Integrity Drive (formerly Woods Farm Road) being the northeastern corner of the hereinafter described parcel as shown on a Plat from Survey and Records showing Dedication of Right of Way and Easements for Integrity Drive from Tract "B", Tract "C" and Tract "0", Valley Gateway Business Park dated September 5, 2003, made by HSMM and recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Plat Book 27, page 23 (the "Plat"), then along Integrity Drive 914.14 feet to a point marking the southeastern corner of Tract "C" as shown on the Plat; then N. 67 degrees 24' 04" East 781.46' to a point marking the southwest corner of Tract "C" as shown on the Plat; thence N. 01 degrees 29' 30" West 1077.57' to a point marking the northwestern corner of Tract "C" as shown on the Plat; thence N 83 degrees 52' 32" East 783,75' to the point of beginning, being Tract "C" containing 17.2432 Acres as shown on the Plat. 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. 3 Zoning I. Pro R1 R2 - Applicants Name: Kahn Development Company, tnc. Existing Zoning: /1-C Proposed Zoning: C-2 Tax Map Number: 050,01-01-05.05 Magisterial District: Vinton Area: 17.24 Acres Roanoke County Department of Community Development May 30, 2006 Scale: 1" = 400'