Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/22/1990 - Regular` A N ,~ F ~ 9 ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 18 ',~50. 88 gESOUICENTENN~' A Br~Wi~ulBrRinning ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR ACTION AGENDA MAY 22, 1990 1~~ ~~9.8 ~9 e to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Welcom and the fourth Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday m on the Tuesday at 3:00 p.m• publih•heDeviations from this•schedule will fourth Tuesday of each mont be announced. _ _~ ., ,r,,,,Y unARD OF IN THE MEETING. A. NONE OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M-) 1, Roll Call: ALL PRESENT AT 3:05 P.M. 2, Invocation: The Reverend J. W. Fort Lewis Baptist Hatton Church 3, Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, 1, Resolution of Congratulasseyso othedMind team for Junior High School s Ody etition. winning first place in state comp R-52290-1 _ URC LBE MOTION TO ADOSpOMEORS, COACHES, PRINCIPAL RECEIVED RESO, MEMBERS OF TEAM, CERTIFICATES AND COUNTY PINS. 1 2. Resolution of Appreciation to the FifthkAnnualey Youth Soccer Club for hosting Festival Soccer Tournament. R-52290-2 HCN TO ADOPT RESO - URC Dp,MEy BEAMER ACCEPTED D. NEW BUSINESS 1, Request for approval to construct a support facility at the Regional Fire and Rescue Training Center. A-52290-3 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE - URC 2. Request of Appropriation to the School Federal Programs Fund othaPro ram grantn Elfun Grant and JTPA Summer You g A-52290-4 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE APPROPRIATION URC 3. Request to Virginia Department of Transportation for Industrial Access funding for Optical Cable. R-52290-5 BIJ TO ADOPT RESO AMENDING DATE FOR MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS T BEGIN TO AUG. 1, 1990. URC orting an historic preservation 4, Resolution supp grant application to the Department of Historic Resources. R-52290-6 SAM TO ADOPT RESO URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS WORK SESSION ON SPRINILITYCONNECTIONIFEESTAND THEIR RELATIONSHIP LBE REQUESTED THAT UT TO FUNDING OF RESERVOIR BE DISCUSSED AT WORK SESSION. 2 F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS PMM WILL RESEARCH AND BRING BHO 5E MAINTENANCE FEE TOBCOVER ARING REGARDING IMPOSITION OF COURT COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE. ~. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance granting an easement to Appalachian Power Company at Green Hill Park. SAM TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 6/12/90 - URC 2. Ordinance appropriating the fiscal year 1990-91 budget. BLT TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 6/12/90 - URC 3. Ordinance Imposing or increasing user fees for the Parks and Recreation Department. RICHARD COX , PRES. N0. ROANVKEIREC CLUB EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT IMPACT OF FEES ON YOUTH AC STAFF TO MEET WITH ALL INTERESTED GROUPS PRIOR TO SECOND READING FOR INPUT AND DISCUSSION. BOARD EMPHASIS THAT NO CHILDREN BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. HCN TO APPROVE 1ST READING - PMM TO MODIFY ORDINANCE IF NECESSARY 2ND - 6/12/90 - URC H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1, Ordinance to amend Article II of Chapter Code. "Animals and Fowl" of the Roanoke County 0-52290-7 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD - URC 2, Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 12489-6 which imposed certain limitations upon the location of certain types of signs. 0-52290-8 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD - URC 3. Ordinance accepting an offer of and authorizing 3 1 estate, office the execution of a lease of rOffice of the space for the Roanoke County Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. 0-52290-9 - URC HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. _ BI,J REQUESTED THAT STAFF MARUTILITIESOCOSTSTLEASEFINCREASES, LEASED BY COUNTY, INCLUDING INSURANCE AND NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE I~ REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HCONSENTpAJGENDAST READING FOR REZONING ORDINANCE BLJ TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING - 6/' 1, ordinance to be developed Starkey Road Magisterial Martin. :,6/90 rezone 3.49 acres from M-1 to M-2 to into five industrial sites locat~dngn off Terminal Road in est ofvFrank W. istrict upon the requ J~ REPORTS AND INQU RIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR EDDY: (1) ASR D SUPERVISOR MCGRAW TO REPORT IN DETAIL REGARDING NEWSPAPDEF R BOARD CONSIDERATIONTFOR STUED ECH TO NEGOTIATIONS. (2) ASRE COUNTY OPERATIONS BY EMPLO EBACR REPORT WITHLCOSTS•ANDSANp'I'YSNiOR STUDY POSSIBILITY AND GRIN (2) MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF RAFFDLTE~ IIIVV R(A 52290 10)LEY J HIGH SCHOOL ODYSSEY OF THE MIN SUPERVISOR MCGRAW: (1) P YED TAPE OF PROMOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION FROM RICK B SON, WSLQ AND WSLC THAT STATED INCORRECT INFORMATION ON E POSDVISEDTTHIS WASNUNCONSTITUTIONAL. pMM A WORK IN CITY BEING TAXED. SAM DIRECTED PMM TO SEND LETTCONSOLIDATIONSNEGOTIATIONSHREGARDING THIS FACT. (2) REPORTED ON EAST COUN'T'Y RESIDENTS BEING ATLTHEREAWILL BE NOTCHANGESCOMIN PART OF VINTON. ANNOUNCED THA REGARDING THIS ISSUE. UPERVISOR JOHNSON: EXPRESSED CONTio SApROCESSNFUSUGGESTEDRTHAT S PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION AND NEGOTIA PLAN BE FINALIZED AND ALLOW THE CITIZENS TO VOTE• S TO SELECT SUPERVISOR ROBERS: (1) CONGRATULATED ECH ON PROCES POLICE CHIEF AND ANNOUNCED THANR YOU LETTERS WILL BE SENT TO THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED. SUPERVISOR NICRENS: (1) ASRED THAT STAFF INVESTIGATE AN 4 APPROPRIATE MEMORIAL TO H2NORAS~ IPA TOLBRINGEFORTH A POLICY OR RECREATION DEPARTMENT. ( ) PROPOSED ORDINANCE SETTINDG~DERGROUND GA OLINEISTORAGEATANRS CH AS USED IN CAR WASHES AN (3) MOVED THAT AEROSPACE RESPERARC24COR990 BE NREMO DUFROM THREEZONE 51.62 THAT WAS TABLED ON A BLT~HCN,RWR, NAYS-LBE. TABLE FOR RECONSIDERATION. AYES-SAM, 0-52290-11 51.62 ACRES FROM M-2 TO R-1 HCN PRESENTED INFORMATION MEy~LLDWATERAAND SEPTICWSYSTEMSSINGTHATT TMERE ARF NO PROBLEMS WITH AREA AND THAT ALL LOTS WILLWBTHIPROFFERED CONDITIONS, MOTION TO GRANT THE REZONING REQUEST AYES-5AM,BLJ,HCN,RWR NAYS-LBE DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSOLIDATION NEGOTIATIONS LBE SUGGESTED SERIES OF REFH~BEEN ENOU H MEETINGSNAND STILLL AN BOARD CONSENSUS THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAR AT CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS ETC. HCN NOTED JUNE 1 DEADLINMEEEANWITH SALEM REGARDIN RSECOND VOTE AND FORWARD IMMEDIATELY TO FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS. SAM ANNOUNCED THERE WILL FI AA1dC~IALICONSIDERATIONSSREGARDINGTAREA CITY OF SALEM TO DISCUSS THAT MAY JOIN SALEM. BLJ ADVISED THAT BOARD NEEDS TO VOTE ON THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO JUNE 1 DEADLINE. RWR ADVISED HE WAS o THEFpROPOSED p1,p~NSE FROM NEGOTIATORS REGARDING CHANGES T SAM SUGGESTED SPECIAL MEARDICONSENSUS9TOOADJOSURNEFROCI~THIS MEETING PROPOSED AGREEMENT. BO TO 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 29, 1990 TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO CONSOLIDATION PLAN. g, APPOINTMENTS 1, Community Corrections Resources Board 2, Fifth Planning District Commission HCN NOMINATED LEE EDDY TO ANOTHER THREE-YEAR TERM EXPIRING 6/30/93. 3. Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee 5 4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission LBE APPOINTED WILLIAM J. SRELTON, JR. TO ANOTHER THREE-YEAR TERM EXPIRING 6/30/93. 5, Transportation and Safety Commission LBE NOMINATED LT• DATE POLICEESSTERM WII,I,OEXpIRE 4/1/94. TERM REPRESENTING THE ST 6. Virginia Western Community College Board HCN NOMINATED MONTY PLYMALE TO ANOTHER FOUR-YEAR TERM EXPIRING 6/30/94. I,. 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. R-52290-12 BIJ MOTION TO APPROVE WITH "B° ON ITEM L-6 DELETED. URC 1, Approval of Minutes - April 24, 1990 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the League of Older Americans Advisory Board and Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. A-52290-12.a 3. Resolcalonovernmentsgover cablertelevision ntrol to to g A-52290-12.b 4. Acceptance of sanitary sewer facilities serving the Orchards Section 5. A-52290-12.c 5. Resolution requesting approval of a grant application for the Clean Valley Council. A-52290-12.d 6. Donation of drainage easements through Lots 4, 5, 6 6, 13 in Countrywood Subdivision, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. A-52290-12.e 7. Donation of property, slope and drainage easement to the County of Roanoke for road widening purposes along Route 943, Cave Spring Magisterial District. ITEM "b° DELETED A-52290-12.f M. CITIZENS' COMr~IENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE N. REPORTS HCN MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE - UVV 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3, Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid - April 1990 5. Income Analysis and Statement of Expenditures for ten months ended April 30, 1990 6. Industrial Development Authority Audit for the year ending June 30, 1989. O, EXECUTIVE.iE344OA p(7)sasnrequestedCbyeRoanokegCounty Section 2 staf f NONE p. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION 7 NONE RECESS AT 5:20 P.M. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.) Q, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 590-1 Ordinance imposing or increasing certain fees for services for Development and Inspeo~ions, Planning and Zoning, and repealing p actions concerning same. HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 6/12/90 - URC PMM TO AMEND FEES TO STATE CODE LIMITS 590-2 Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia. SAM TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 6/12/90 - URC LBE ASKED THAT INGREA~STD~A~RKAGEFOR CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN BE INCLUDED IN LE R, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 590-3 An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Map designation of a 53.44 acre tract from Development to Principal Industrial and to rezone said property from R-E to M-1 for industrial development, located east of West Ruritan Road and north of Homestead Lane, Hollins Magisterial District upon the request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 27, 1990. PETITIONER WILL REQUEST THAT THIS REZONING BE TABLED.) BLJ MWITH CITYTOF ROANOKE REGARDING ACCESSLROAD,TO WORK 8 S. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS JIM WOLTZ, RT. 2, COOPER HILL, VA. CONCERNED ABOUT IMPACT OF FEE FOR SITE RE~EERWE MAY BERA MISUNDERSTANDINGLOFRFEE.- WILLLMEET WITH RESPONDED MR. WOLTZ. T. ADJOURNMENT RWR MOTION TO ADJOURN TO MAY 29, 1990 AT 5:00 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OUTCOME OF MEETING WITH CITY OF SALEM AND OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING CONSOLIDATION - UVV 9 a A N ,r a ~ _ 9 18 'wSO. 88 +ESOUiCENTENN~'~ Buwi(r18rRiww~eg ova ~~ (~uunfy of ~attnake ' ' 1'9'8'9 ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA .MAY 22, 1990 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. 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. TODAY IS STUDENT GOVERNMENT DAY. THERE WILL BE A MOCK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING PRIOR TO THE REGULAR MEETING IN THE COMMUNITY ROOM WITH STUDENTS FROM ROANOKE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend J. W. Hatton Fort Lewis Baptist 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 Congratulations to Hidden Valley Junior High School's Odyssey of the Mind team for winning first place in state competition. 2. Resolution of Appreciation to the Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club for hosting the Fifth Annual Festival Soccer Tournament. 1 3. Resolution supporting the restoration of control to local governments over cable television. 4. Acceptance of sanitary sewer facilities serving the Orchards Section 5. 5. Resolution requesting approval of a grant application for the Clean Valley Council. 6. Donation of drainage easements through Lots 4, 5, 6, 13 in Countrywood Subdivision, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 7. Donation of property, slope and drainage easement to the County of Roanoke for road widening purposes along Route 943, Cave Spring Magisterial District. M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid - April 1990 5. Income Analysis and Statement of Expenditures for ten months ended April 30, 1990 6. Industrial Development Authority Audit for the year ending June 30, 1989. O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) as requested by Roanoke County staff 4 D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval to construct a support facility at the Regional Fire and Rescue Training Center. 2. Request of Appropriation to the School Federal Programs Fund of a GE Foundation Elfun Grant and JTPA Summer Youth Program grant. 3. Request to Virginia Department of Transportation for Industrial Access funding for Optical Cable. 4. Resolution supporting an historic preservation grant application to the Department of Human Resources. E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance granting an easement to Appalachian Power Company at Green Hill Park. 2. Ordinance appropriating the fiscal year 1990-91 budget. 3. Ordinance Imposing or increasing user fees for the Parks and Recreation Department. H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to amend Article II of Chapter 5, "Animals and Fowl" of the Roanoke County Code. 2. Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 12489-6 which imposed certain limitations upon the location of certain types of signs. 3. Ordinance accepting an offer of and authorizing 2 the execution of a lease of real estate, office space for the Roanoke County Office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. I. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING FOR REZONING ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance to rezone 3.49 acres from M-1 to M-2 to be developed into five industrial sites located on Starkey Road off Terminal Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District upon the request of Frank W. Martin. J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Fifth Planning District Commission 3. Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee 4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 5. Transportation and Safety Commission 6. Virginia Western Community College Board L. 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 - April 24, 1990 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the League of Older Americans Advisory Board and Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. 3 P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION EVENING SESSION 17.00 P M ) Q. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 590-1 Ordinance imposing or increasing certain fees for services for Development and Inspections, Planning and Zoning, and repealing prior actions concerning same. 590-2 Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board_of .Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia. R. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 590-3 An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Mai designation of a 53.44 acre tract from Development to Principal Industrial and to rezone said property from R-E to M-1 for industrial development, located east of West Ruritan Road and north of Homestead Lane, Hollins Magisterial District upon the request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 27, 1990. PETITIONER WILL REQUEST THAT THIS REZONING BE TABLED.) S. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS T. ADJOURNMENT 5 r- r`~ ~. 4.. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION 52290-1 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ODYSSEY OF THE MIND TEAM UPON WINNING FIRST PLACE IN STATE COMPETITION WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School System has always shown a commitment to training and expanding the minds of its students; and WHEREAS, as an example of this commitment, the Odyssey of the Mind teams allow students an opportunity to compete in an effort to solve hypothetical problems; and WHEREAS, the Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind Team consisted of David Allen, Peter Nevin, Andy Newton, Kris Wiseley, Robert Herchenrider, and Ann Schleupner, sponsor Bob Keniston, and coaches Mrs. Lynn Schleupner and Mrs. Diane Herchenrider; and WHEREAS, the Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind Team recently participated in the statewide competition in Williamsburg, and won first place. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of itself and the citizens of the County, does hereby extend its congratulations to the Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind Team; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby extend its best wishes for good luck to the Team when they journey to Iowa to compete in the World Competition. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to approve the resolution and carried by the following recorded vote: ~- AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Congratulations File Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools ~- r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ODYSSEY OF THE MIND TEAM UPON WINNING FIRST PLACE IN STATE COMPETITION WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School System has always shown a commitment to training and expanding the minds of its students; and WHEREAS, as an example of this commitment, the Odyssey of the Mind teams allow students an opportunity to compete in an effort to solve hypothetical problems; and WHEREAS, the~Iidden Valley Junior High Odyssey of the Mind Team consisted of David Allen, Peter Nevin, Andy Newton, Kris Wiseley, Robert Herchenrider, and Ann Schleupner, sponsor Bob Keniston, and coaches Mrs. Lynn Schleupner and Mrs. Diane Herchenrider; and WHEREAS, the Hidden Valley Junior High Odyssey of the Mind Team recently participated in the statewide competition in Williamsburg, and won first place. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of itself and the citizens of the County, does hereby extend its congratulations to the Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind Team; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby extend its best wishes for good luck to the Team when they journey to Iowa to compete in the World Competition. i , :. / "_ °1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION 52290-2 OF APPRECIATION TO THE ROANOKE VALLEY YOUTH SOCCER CLUB, INC. FOR ITS ASSISTANCE IN HOLDING THE FIFTH ANNUAL FESTIVAL SOCCER TOURNAMENT IN THE ROANOKE VALLEY WHEREAS, The Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, Inc. has been instrumental in establishing an annual soccer tournament to be held in the Roanoke Valley each year during the Memorial Day Weekend; and WHEREAS, this tournament has continued to grow so that this year there will be 176 teams competing in 22 divisions over two days of competition; and WHEREAS, over 6,000 participants, family members, and friends will come from 11 states to spend a weekend in the Roanoke Valley to enjoy excellent soccer, the Festival events, and the other opportunities and facilities of our community. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that we express our sincere appreciation to the officers, members, and volunteers of the Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, Inc. for their tireless efforts in organizing and holding the FIFTH ANNUAL FESTIVAL SOCCER TOURNAMENT and wish to each participant a warm welcome to the Roanoke Valley and much success in their athletic endeavors. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File Steve Carpenter, Director, Parks & Recreation ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER ~ - ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution expressing the Appreciation of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to the Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, Inc. for its Assistance in holding the 5th Annual Festival Soccer Tournament in the Roanoke Valley COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• The Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, Inc., a volunteer organization, has been instrumental in bringing to the Roanoke Valley, competitive soccer programs to be a part of the festival celebration. This year the tournament will be held over the Memorial Day Weekend and will host 176 teams competing in 22 divisions during Saturday and Sunday of this weekend. As a result of this tournament, approximately 6,000 participants, family and friends will come to the Roanoke Valley from 11 states to spend the weekend in the Valley enjoying excellent soccer, the festival events and the other opportunities available to Valley visitors. Roanoke County was asked to participate by providing five of the soccer fields to be used in this tournament. These fields will be: William Byrd Senior, Starkey Park, Walrond Park, Hidden Valley, and Northside Senior. It is hoped that the Board of Supervisors will adopt the attached resolution acknowledging the efforts of this organization and the contribution its activities are making to the economy of the Roanoke Valley. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution of appreciation on behalf of the organization. A representative from the Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, Inc. will be present at the 3:00 p.m. session of the Board meeting. "2 Respectfully submitted, Approved by, n M. Chamblijs, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge ~ssistant Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: ACTION Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers VOTE No Yes Abs AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO THE ROANOKE VALLEY YOUTH SOCCER CLUB, INC. FOR ITS ASSISTANCE IN HOLDING THE FIFTH ANNUAL FESTIVAL SOCCER TOURNAMENT IN THE ROANOKE VALLEY WHEREAS, The Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, Inc. has been instrumental in establishing an annual soccer tournament to be held in the Roanoke Valley each year during the Memorial Day Weekend; and WHEREAS, this tournament has continued to grow so that this year there will be 176 teams competing in 22 divisions over two days of competition; and WHEREAS, over 6,000 participants, family members, and friends will come from 11 states to spend a weekend in the Roanoke Valley to enjoy excellent soccer, the Festival events, and the other opportunities and facilities of our community. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that we express our sincere appreciation to the officers, members, and volunteers of the Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, Inc. for their tireless efforts in organizing and holding the FIFTH ANNUAL FESTIVAL SOCCER TOURNAMENT and wish to each participant a warm welcome to the Roanoke Valley and much success in their athletic endeavors. A COPY TESTE: ACTION NUMBER A-52290-3 ITEM NUMBER ~-~ a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 24, 1990 SUBJECT: Regional Fire and Rescue Training Facility Classroom Facilities COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /~ ~~ BACKGROUND: The 1984 comprehensive plan identified a need for a fire and rescue training facility in Roanoke County. A project plan was developed and at the same time (1985) the state legislature passed legislation that collected a surcharge on fire insurance premiums which would be the funding source for the project. The money generated by this charge (approximately $70,000/yr.) is returned to Roanoke County and has been designated for the construction of a regional training facility. This regional concept includes Roanoke County, Roanoke City, City of Salem, and other surrounding jurisdictions. In May, 1986 the Board of Supervisors approved a lease purchase finance plan to begin construction of this center. The money collected over the last 5 years by the state was utilized to pay back the lease purchase program for the expenditures that were made to construct the following: Site work (75% complete), a Burn Building facility, a hazardous materials training area, a confined space rescue simulator, and a water supply system. The estimated value of this center is $750,000 (includes donations from area industry), with no actual financial expenditures incurred by Roanoke County. The five year plan for the initial request is complete and the next phase of the center is being planned. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The next phase of the Regional Fire and Rescue Training Center is the construction of a support facility. This support facility will provide 4 classrooms, a conference room, bath and shower facilities, emergency services library, and office space for state and local training operations. The State Department of Fire Programs has requested to lease space from the county in this facility to house the area manager for fire service training. This arrangement assures the Roanoke Valley that a continued emphasis on '"' emergency service training will be centered around our training center. Completion of the this phase of the Regional Training Center will give us consistent access to a centralized training center for all valley emergency services, and provide local state of the art training. Construction of this facility in 1990 will give all area governments immediate access to the center for regional training and permit training over the next five years while allowing us to construct this facility at current prices. Our architectural firm has projected a cost of approximately $400,000 dollars for a 7,000 square foot training building. The additional funds requested will be utilized to complete the site work, architectural fees, and for furnishings for the new facility. FISCAL IMPACT: Over the next six years, Roanoke County will receive approximately $420,000 from the fire programs fund, approximately $100,000 from leased space to the state (5 year lease, with revenue estimated at $20,000 year), and a $38,000 grant that has been approved for our center. This will equate to approximately X108,000 the first year, and $90,000 each year for the next five years. A lease purchase finance plan is recommended for this project utilizing the money received each year to repay the debt. There will be no direct budgeted money required for this project, as the Department of Fire Programs has indicated that they will be responsible for the utilities, and janitorial costs of the facility in addition to the annual lease payments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize a lease purchase finance plan for the construction and furnishing of the Regional Training Center Support Facility, and completion of the site work. Staff further recommends that approval be given to the County Administrator to enter into a lease agreement with the Department of Fire Programs for their area manager's office, and to utilize those funds to contribute to payment of the project. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: yr.c~i.?~1:~ ~-~ Mark y.7, Light 0.- '~~ Elmer C. Ho ge, r. Battalion Chief County Administrator ~"~ ----------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Harry C.~ Nickens No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson ~_ Referred McGraw _~ To Nickens Robers _~ cc: File Thomas C. Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue Mark W. Light, Battalion Chief Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney ACTION # A-52290-4 ITEM NUMBER ~ ' 'z' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 29, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Request of Appropriation to the School Federal Programs Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /~ ~ =~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County School System has recently received two grants as follows: 1. A grant in the amount of $21,000 from the GE Foundation, Elfun Educational Challenge from the Shenandoah Chapter, to involve students in grades K-12 in a human relations curriculum designed to teach communication skills, decision making and problem solving skills and other interpersonal relationship skills. 2. A grant in the amount of $80,000 from the Fifth District Planning Employment and Training Consortium's Private Industry Council and Policy Board for a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Summer Youth Program to provide remediation in reading and English, mathematics and vocational training for disadvantaged youth ages fourteen and fifteen. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenues would be recorded to reflect $21,000 revenue from Elfun Educational Grant and $80,000 revenue from JTP Summer Youth Program in the School Federal Programs Fund. Related expenditures would also be recorded. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the appropriation of these grant monies and the offsetting expenditures. The Roanoke County School Board adopted the attached resolutions on May 10, 1990. ~ ~~~ ~1 Diane D. Hyatt Elmer C. odge Director of Finance County Administrator ~ -2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( x ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To cc: File Motion by: ua.rrT r rT; ~'.k.E,ris Eddy ~ Johnson ~ McGraw _~ Nickens ~ Robers _~ Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools Ruth Wade, Clerk, Roanoke County School Board -:.. -. F-ROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION AT 7 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990 IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA. RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE 1990-91 SCHOOL FEDERAL PROGRAM FUND FOR A GE FOUNDATION ELFUN EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGE GRANT. WHEREAS, the behavior adjustment program of the Roanoke County School System has received a grant from the GE Foundation, Elfun Educational Challenge from the Shenandoah Chapter, and WHEREAS, the grant project will involve students in grades K-12 in a human relations curriculum designed to teach communication skills, decision-making and problem-solving skills, responsibility, interpersonal relationships, and employability and coping skills; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County on motion of Paul G. Black and duly seconded requests an appropriation by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in the amount of $21,000.00 to the 1990-91 School Federal Programs Fund for the GE Foundation Elfun Educational Grant. Adopted on the following recorded vote: AYES: Paul G. Black, Maurice L. Mitchell, Charlsie S. Pafford, Barbara B. Chewning, Frank E. Thomas NAYS: None TESTE: -~-~-~ ~ ~°- C l e r k c: Mrs. Diane Hyatt ~ -z E'ROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, MEET ~ GOFNTHE USCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION NBUILDING, 1SAOLEM~ THE BOARD ROO VIRGINIA. RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE 1990-91 SCHOOL FEDERAL PROGRAM FUND FOR JTPA SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the County School Board of Roanoke County submitted a proposal to the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium's Private Industry Council and Policy Board for a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) 1990 Title II-B Summer Youth Program, and WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $80,000.00 has been approved for the provision of remediation in reading and English, mathematics, and vocational training for disadvantaged youths, ages fourteen and fifteen; BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County on motion of Barbara S. Chewning and duly seconded, requests the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to appropriate $80,000.00 to the 1990-91 School Federal Program Fund for the JTPA Summer Youth Program. Adopted on the following recorded vote: AYES: Paul G. Black, Maurice L. Mitchell, Charlsie S. Pafford, Barbara B. Chewning, Frank E. Thomas NAYS: None TESTE: ~~ ~ ~~~ Clerk c: Mrs. Diane Hyatt j 1 '^" AT A REGULAR MEET AT THE ROANOKE R OUNTY ADMINISTRATION oENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION 52290-5 REQUESTING INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ROAD FUNDING FROM THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD (VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION) FOR OPTICAL CABLE CORPORATION FACILITIES IN VALLEYPOINTE. WHEREAS, the Optical Cable Corporation has purchased property located in the County of Roanoke and has entered into firm contract to construct its facilities on that property for the purpose of producing fiber optic cable; and WHEREAS, this new facility is expected to involve a new private capital investment in land, building, and manufacturing equipment of approximately $6,500,000 and the Optical Cable Corporation is expected to employ 185 persons at this facility; and WHEREAS, manufacturing operations are expected to begin at this new facility on or about August 1, 1990; and WHEREAS, the property on which this facility will be located has no access to a public street or highway and requires the construction of a new roadway which would connect to Peters Creek Road (Route 117); and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke hereby guarantees that the necessary right of way for this new roadway and utility relocations or adjustments, if necessary, will be provided at no cost to the Virginia Department of Transportation; WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke hereby guarantees that the necessary right of way for this improvement, and utility relocations or adjustments, if necessary, will be provided at no r cost to the Industrial Access Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board provide Industrial Access Road funding to provide an adequate road to this new manufacturing facility; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby agrees that the new roadway so constructed will be added to and become a part of the road system of the County of Roanoke (Secondary System of Highways). On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve resolution with date for manufacturing operations to begin amended to August 1, 1990, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: R ~~ ~~ ~~ Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Virginia Department of Transportation Harwell M. Darby, Industrial Development Authority Item No. AT A REGULAR MEETI TG THE ROANOKE R OUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD A IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 SUBJECT: Request for Industrial Access funding for Optical Cable Corporation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ,{~~~~,,y,,,,c d~ J SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors requested approval for up to $450,000 in IndustrialMarch s andu Apri ro 1988e toomconstruct Transportation Board in ointe. Subsequently, construction industrial access into Valleyp Research Road and to commenced to construct Valleypointe Parkway, relocate Kenworth Road un onst uctlthe road 1 request ac eptancecby Roanoke County agreed to c ears of March VDOT and bond the road improvements within two Calif in industry 17, 1988. Roanoke County sough ustifob the expense of industrial to locate in Valleypointe to j Y access funds . Inclement C ~ he of c Raoanoke n and stRegionalplAirport negotiations with the Y Commission delayed constonthlextension to allow for c mpletion~of County received a six m industr construction and to locate a qualifying Y• During March 1990, Roanoke County and Lingerfelt Development Corporation interested Optical Cable Corporation lointeatinThis fiber optic cable manufacturing facility in Valleyp industry will qualify Fund Program 1mpA of tter sfrom sOpticaa Cable the Industrial Access and its operations Corporation outlining the details of the company is attached as part of the request. FISCAL IMPACT: The Commonwealth Transportrialn access wimprovementse that haveobeen up to $450,000 for Indust expended from the Valleypointe Capital Project fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Bo ~ d to S th ~lVirginiaro Departmentchof resolution and forward Transportation for reimbursement for Industrial Access Funds. ~ -3 SUBMITTED BY: .,~ ' .~"d ~~ !t r+ , / to ' J '~ Timothy W. Gu`bala, Director Economic Development APPROVED: °~~ ~~ Elmer C. odge County Administrator _________ --------------Eaa -- --------------------- Yes Abs ACTION No Approved ( ) Motion by: Johnson Denied ( ) McGraw Received ( ) Nickens Referred Robers to Enclosure ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING HE ROANOKER OUNTY ADMINISTRATION OENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT T 1990 ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, requesting Resolution from the Industrial Access Road Funding Commonwealth Transportation Board (Virginia Department of Transporation) for Optical Cable Corporation facilities in Valleypointe. WHEREAS, the Optical Cable Corporation has purchased property located in the County of Roanoke and has en ~~ ed font the purpose aof to construct its facilities on that prop y producing fiber optic cable; and WHEREAS, this new facility is expected to involve a new private capital investment in land, building, and manufacturing equipment of approximately $6,500,000 and the Optical Cable Corporation is expected to employ 185 persons at this facility; and WHEREAS, manufacturing operations are expected to begin at this new facility on or about June 1, 1990; and WHEREAS, the property on which this facilitari ilr quires athe has no access to a public street or highway construction of a new roadway which would connect to Peters Creek Road (Route 117); and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke hereby guarantees that the necessary right of way foss his w 11 bedprov ded at no costctolthe or adjustments, if neces y, Virginia Department of Transportation; WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke hereby guarantees that the necessary right of way for this imp will ebe~providedtatlno relocations or adjustments, if necessary, cost to the Industrial Access Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby regpccess Road funding to prow de an adequate Board provide Industria road to this new manufacturing facility; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby agrees art of the road system ofntheuCountylof be added to and become a p Roanoke (Secondary System of Highways). . , OPTICAL CABLE CORPORATION (703)389-9900 870 Harr~oa Avg, P. O. Boy 999, Salem, VA?A153-0999 U.S.A. May 9, 1990 County of Roanoke Roanoke County Administrative Offices 3737 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Ro~nokp, ~Jn Gentlemen: With this letter we request your assistance in the construction of an access road to a manufacturing facility which we dustrialoParksintRoanokenCountyedVirginiaValley Pointe In Our intention is to move into a 73,000 square foot building and to conduct our fiber optic manufacturing operations from such site. The site road in ValleydPointe6lndustrialaParkerved by Research The target date for the completion of the building construction is July 15, 1990, with the target date for beginning plant operation August 1 , 1990. The capital 00, with investment plan for the site is $'6,500,000. $4,000,000.00 estimated to be needed for acquisition and construction of the plant facility and another $2,500,000.00 to .b~ invastcd i:t tre manufacturing e~iF~-e:~t • rovedRour 3'e County Industrial Development Authority has app request for revenue bond financing for this project. We expect that there ,will be 70 jobs in the first year; up to 185 in the third year of operation, causing a net increase of our plant's employment in the range of 145 jobs with the average yearly salary being $28,000. The access road improsubmissionscby LingerfelteCorporation. been outlined on the The access road plans have been prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern on behalf of Roanoke County and LingerfeltcheroadparetunderoconstructionlandPexpectpto bbey and Resear completed in the near future. Fan (703) 389-9846 Te1ac 706-290 r' ~ -~ We would estimate that the additional traffic which would use the access road on an average business day would include all employees, an average of 10 trucks per day to pick up our product or deliver raw materials and supplies and any visitors that we may have for business meetings or applying for work. Very truly yours, Optical Cable Corporation 3y ~- Ken Barber Vice President,Finance KWH/drg J ty,j7 'w "). AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION 52290-6 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY VIRGINIA, INDICATING INTENT TO PREPARE A HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION COMPONENT OF THE ROANORE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has expressed an interest in identifying areas and historic properties worthy of local historic resource protection; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has announced that certain grant funds are available to localities on a competitive, matching share basis; and, WHEREAS, a portion of these funds are designated solely for the purpose of conducting local historic surveys or planning activities; and, WHEREAS, the Board has authorized, as part of the adopted FY 90-91 budget, the expenditure of up to $20,000 in cash and in-kind services to be used as a dollar for dollar matching share for any grant funds offered by the Department of Historic Resources for the purpose of identifying Roanoke County areas and historic properties worthy of local historic resource protection; and, WHEREAS, the Board desires to use the information and data obtained from a local historic survey as a basis for future efforts to protect any historically significant areas or properties identified. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Board supports the efforts of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to assist localities with their historic preservation efforts; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board will use the information obtained from the Roanoke County survey of historical areas and properties as a basis for a preservation component of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will direct the Roanoke County Planning Commission to prepare this component. On motion of Supervisor McGraw to approve Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: C~~~t-G(~Ci.~ Brenda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Roanoke Regional Preservation Office Virginia Department of Historic Resources Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget 1 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: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution Supporting Grant Application To The Department of Historic Resources; Intent to Prepare Amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : :~'~ _ ~~~Gti-cam ~~'~ .~9 ~ ~~~~ ~~ BACKGROUND' The Planning Staff, with the assistance of the Roanoke Regional Preservation Office is preparing a $20,000 grant application to the Department of Historic Resources for funding that would allow Roanoke County to have prepared a survey of the County's historical resources. This is a matching grant program; the County's $20,000 ($15,000 cash, $5,000 in-kind services) share was approved by the Board as part of the FY 90-91 budget process. A requirement of the grant program is that the County adopt a resolution indicating an intent to prepare an historic resources protection component to the Comprehensive Plan. The survey results would be the basis of the Comprehensive Plan component. A resolution indicating the Board's intent to prepare such a component is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution at your May 22, 1990 meeting. 2 Respectfully Submitted, Terrance L. arri ton Director of Plan ing and Zoning Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Motion by Approved: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, INDICATING INTENT TO PREPARE A HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION COMPONENT OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has expressed an interest in identifying areas and historic properties worthy of local historic resource protection; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has announced that certain grant funds are available to localities on a competitive, matching share basis; and, WHEREAS, a portion of these funds are designated solely for the purpose of conducting local historic surveys or planning activities; and, WHEREAS, the Board has authorized, as part of the adopted FY 90-91 budget, the expenditure of up to $20,000 in cash and in-kind services to be used as a dollar for dollar matching share for any grant funds offered by the Department of Historic Resources for the purpose of identifying Roanoke County areas and historic properties worthy of local historic resource protection; and, WHEREAS, the Board desires to use the information and data obtained from a local historic survey as a basis for future efforts to protect any historically significant areas or properties identified. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Board supports the efforts of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to assist localities ~_y with their historic preservation efforts; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board will use the information obtained from the Roanoke County survey of historical areas and properties as a basis for a preservation component of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will direct the Roanoke County Planning Commission to prepare this component. 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: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to award an easement to Appalachian Power Company at Green Hill Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• In an effort to secure electrical service to the ball-field area at Green Hill Park, County staff has worked with staff from Appalachian Power Company to determine appropriate easements and coordinate the efforts so as to minimize the impact to the proposed development of the park facility. In reviewing the current easements across the property, Appalachian has agreed to abandon its present easement across the area being developed for the Equestrian facilities, and to utilize an easement along Harbourwood Road, then following a more direct route across the park property to the service area of the proposed concession stand and ball field development. The attached map delineates the proposed easement and shows the easement being released. The County Attorney's office has prepared the attached ordinance for the award of such easement and staff encourages the adoption by the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATION• The Board is asked to approve the first reading of the attached ordinance and to hold the second reading on June 12, 1990. Respectfully submitted, Approv d by „.+ ' '~/ ~!,.~ lye ~-s.~-, - _ ,. '~ohn M. Chamblis~~, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ----------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by. No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw To ( ) Nickens Robers 3780-250848. 274 PL.TATE PROPERTY .-~'~- EX/S T/NG PCYE I 274-/2 a 0 a .~ .~ cr rn w ~o GEORGE K. GOO DE PROPERTY "GREEN HILL PARK' 1Q A Z ~0~ 0" 2 - ,~1~ ~0" RAYMOND L. I WADE PROPERTY ~~~ NEW EASEMENT EASEMENT TO BE RELEASED COUNTY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA CATAWBA DI ST. T. D. 6 6 5000 "s L7' " EXIST/NG P1~L E '205 -/7/ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF" COU NTY_ SU PERK/ I SOBS PROPERTY APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY ROANOKE VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION T. b D. DEPARTMENT PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ON PROPERTY OF ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF DRAWN BY L.M.A. DATE 3-29 -90 APP. BY J.B.A.IIL SCALE I~~= 400 SHEET I OF_~SHEETS DRAWING NO. R - 27 29 !iZDEN W9~M~ DTD 1999Fiytl0l14~B9 ~-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER~NTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING. AN OFFER AND AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY AT GREEN HILL PARK BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses, i.e. electrical service easement; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the disposition of the subject property was held on May 22, 1990; a second reading was held on June 12, 1990; and 3. That the new forty (40') foot easement for electric service runs along Harbourwood Road, then follows a more direct route across the subject property to the service area of the proposed development, said easement being located on the property owned by Roanoke County, known as Green Hill Park, and lying on the westerly side of Virginia Secondary Highway 639 (Harbourwood Road) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and 4. That the offer of Appalachian Power Company in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 5. That the proceeds from the sale of the easement are to be allocated to the capital reserves of Roanoke County; and 6. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute ~'-/ such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said easement, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ "' ~"' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Fiscal Year 1990-91 Budget Appropriation Ordinance COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: -J~ BACKGROUND' The 1990-91 fiscal year budget was presented to the Board of Supervisors by the County Administrator on April 10, 1990. Budget public hearings were held on January 23, 1990 and April 24, 1990 to receive written and oral comment from the public concerning the proposed annual budget. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached for your approval is the 1990-91 Fiscal Year Budget Appropriation Ordinance. The total County budget is $152,930,941. This includes all interfund transfers. The budget net of interfund transfers is $112,619,133. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The first reading of the May 22, 1990. Staff recommend Budget Appropriation Ordinance 1990. /(.1~P /l /J 111 Reta R. Busher Director of Management and Budget ------------------------------------------ ACTION Approved Denied Received Ref erred To appropriation ordinance was held on s adoption of the 1990-91 Fiscal Year after the second reading on June 12, 1~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE 1990-91 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was held on April 23, 1990, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 1990-91; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said budget on May 15, 1990, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 4 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 22, 1990, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on June 12, 1990, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 1990, and ending June 30, 1991, for the functions and purposes indicated: r COUNTY OF ROANOgB, VIRGINIA PROPOSED FISCAL YBAR 1990-91 BUDGBT NAY 22, 1990 -------------------------- PBRSONN6L OPERATING -------------------------- ------------------------ CAPITAL TRANSFBRS ------------------------ ----------- TOTAL ----------- HgPBNDITURBS: GBNBRAL FUND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 3110,689 73,407 600 3184,696 CO ADMINISTRATOR 920 142 15,616 158,536 ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION A RHFHRRAL , 41,617 63,458 105,075 HUNAN RBSOURCBS 126 175 80,972 256,698 ADMINISTRATION , 072 209 30,820 (37,143 202,749 COUNTY ATTORNBY , BCONONIC DBVHLOPN6NT 337 156 22,284 1,500 180,121 ADMINISTRATION , 682 141 141,682 MARgHTING 284 296 , 125,664 34,625 456,513 TREASURER COMMONwBALTH ATTORNEY , 313,373 17,424 776 331,573 000 3 VICTIMINITNBSS 3,000 , COMMISSIONHR OF THB RBVBNUH 933 60 4,925 65,858 ADMINISTRATION , 904 74 4,800 79,704 RHAL HSTATB PBRSONAL PROPBRTY , 191,311 44,875 236,186 BUSINHSS LICBNSB 100,769 8,910 109,739 CLBRg OF THB CIRCUIT COURT 535 359 73,275 432,816 PUBLIC RECORDS MICROFILM , 42,396 38,441 80,837 SHBRIFF'S DBPARTNBNT 265 181 500 38 219,765 ADMINISTRATION CIVIL DIVISION , 621,273 , 52,100 613,373 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION CARE A CONFINHNHNT OF PRISONERS 1,722,473 960 322,911 9,632 960 2,055,016 POLICB DBPARTNBNT ADMINISTRATION 86,355 33,400 119,755 UNIFORM DIVISION 1,496,965 239,999 203,679 1,940,643 486 686 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 594,929 219 908 85,607 105,259 5,950 9,717 , 1,023,255 SERVICBS DIVISION , 000 160 160,000 6911 NAINTBNANCB DBPARTNBNT 600 6 , 69,064 300 75,964 CIRCUIT COURT GBNBRAL DISTRICT COURT , 300 16,772 1,700 18,772 MAGISTRATB 1,210 581 9 2,346 1,210 11,921 FAMILY COURT COURT SBRVICB UNIT , 54,400 1,600 56,000 ASST COUNTY ADMIN-MGT SERVICES 67,098 7,325 74,423 < .7 - ------------------------------------------------------------- PBRSONNBL OPBRATING CAPITAL TRANSFERS TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------- COUNTY ASSESSOR ADMINISTRATION 166,098 41,920 REASSBSSMSNT 383,144 34,925 BOARD OF BQUILIZATION 10,765 FINANCIAL PLANNING CENTRAL ACCOUNTING 238,976 74,508 PAYROLL 60,664 9,475 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 60,200 KANAGBKBNT AND BUDGBT 82,714 17,050 RISH MANAGBNBNT 74,200 1,060,284 PROCURBKBNT SBRVICBS 195,629 23,730 FIRS ADKINISTRATION 55,760 164,879 OPERATIONS 1,218,512 176,544 SUPPORT SBRVICBS 253,585 225,890 VOLUNTBBR FIRE 49,800 VOLUNTBBR RBSCUB 106,869 800NNZ COKNUNICATIONS 3,000 ASST CO ADMIN-COMKUNITY SVCS 111,493 18,500 GENERAL SBRVICBS 194,483 27,768 SOLID WASTB RBFUSB COLLECTION 713,140 563,008 RBCYCLING 62,000 BNGINBBRING BNGINBBRING 215,415 17,217 DRAFTING 8~ RBCORDS 99,921 10,264 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION 117,444 9,364 DRAINAGE 82,640 139,244 ROADfiAY 40,200 7,700 STREET LIGHTING 123,441 BUILDING MAINTBNANCB 293,919 525,528 PLANNING A ZONING ADMINISTRATION 275,828 67,178 ZONING ORDINANCE 53,662 1,000 PLANNING COKKISSION 16,T95 3,000 DBVELOPMBNT AND INSPBCTIONS ADMINISTRATION 47,105 20,286 INSPECTIONS 271,746 17,290 DBVBLOPMBNT RBVIBVI 29,015 700 ASST CO ADMIN-BUKAN SBRVICBS 93,519 8,270 GROUNDS KAINTBNANCE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 631,476 268,185 LEAF COLLECTION 15,502 33,850 STRBBT SIGNS 4,200 PARES AND RBCRBATION COMKUNITY BDUCATION 97,253 2,099 LBISURB ACTIVITIES 100,383 1,000 OUTDOOR ADVENTURE 45,941 0 SBNIOR CITIZBNS 84,729 4,000 SPBCIAL EVENTS 51,366 2,700 THERAPEUTICS 82,373 17,880 ADULT ATHLETICS 60,332 4,000 YOUTH ATRLBTICS 144,326 10,000 2,853 2ao 6,486 203,447 17,Oao 44,375 so,oaa 5,000 (10,800) 296,146 (97,584 11,000 (39,758 15,000 (57,730 15,000 20,275 (20,000 15,054 30,000 3,000 900 28,264 208,018 420,922 10,765 313,484 70,139 60,200 99,964 1,134,484 225,845 424,086 1,412,116 523,850 109,800 111,869 3,000 119,193 222,251 1,932,294 s2,ooa 135,048 81,427 84,078 236,884 47,900 123,441 819,722 35a,osa 54,682 19,795 61,391 319,036 32,715 102,689 927,925 49,352 4,200 99,352 101,383 45,941 88,729 54,066 100,253 64,332 154,326 1 V ~ I~"~ ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEALTH SOCIAL SBRVICBS ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INSTITUTIONAL CARB SOCIAL SBRVICB ORGANIZATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS SVC ORGANIZATIONS LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION RBSBARCH AND CIRCULATION JOINT BOTBTOURT~RHE CNTY LIB EXTENSION A CONTINUING EDUCATION ELECTIONS RBGISTRATION ELECTIONS ANIMAL CONTROL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS NISCELLANBOUS RECOVBRY OF SCH60L DEFICIT ADDITION TO FUND BALANCE TRANS TO DEBT-GBNBRAL TRANS TO DEBT SBRVICB-SCHOOL TRANS TO CAPITAL TRANS TO SCHOOLS TRANS TO SCHOOLS - DENTAL INSURANCE TRANS TO GARAGE II TRANS TO YOUTH HAVEN II TRANS TO INTBRNAL SERVICE TRANS TO UTILITY CAPITAL CONTINGBNT BALANCE 1X TURNOVER SUB-TOTAL GBNBRAL FUND DBBT SBRVICB FUND GBNBRAL FUND OBLIGATIONS SCHOOL FUND OBLIGATIONS PBRSONNBL OPERATING CAPITAL TRANSFERS TOTAL 225,366 83,694 17,000 326,060 417,137 411,137 1,793,377 225,935 2,019,312 986,836 986,836 10,000 10,000 94,984 94,984 46,053 46,053 135,752 810 136,562 661,459 366,750 12,475 1,034,684 22,819 31,195 900 54,914 87,348 38,675 126,023 96,943 20,873 28,357 12,225 113,288 47,347 15,008 924,777 799,996 5oa,ooa 132,220 3,737,420 1,646,575 322,155 30,594,950 128,280 100,000 SD,ooa 656,091 40,006 ~1sa,oool 50,000 4,637,209 2,627,413 117,816 40,582 175,643 924,777 799,996 500,000 132,220 3,737,420 1,646,575 322,155 30,594,950 128,280 100,000 5o,aaD 656,097 40,006 50,000 Ilsa,aool ;66,881,463 4,637,209 2,627,413 7,264,622 CAPITAL FUND 372,155 372,155 YOUTH BAVBN II FUND 259,906 70,413 1,000 331,319 RECRBATION FBB CLASS FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION 32,768 13,107 2,000 48,475 LBISURB ACTIVITIES 25,836 40,624 2,000 68,460 OUTDOOR ADVENTURE 6,459 27,221 1,750 35,430 439 45 SENIOR CITIZENS 6,476 36,963 2,000 0 , T38 53 SPBCIAL BVBNTS 2,153 48,585 3,00 , THBRAPEUTICS 6,997 10,810 1,000 18,807 ~-Z ------------- PBRSONNBL ------------- OPERATING ----------- CAPITAL ---- ------------- TRANSFERS ------------- ----------- TOTAL ----------- ADULT ATHLBTICS ------------- 43,598 ------------ 19,265 -------- 1,000 63,863 073 1 YOUTH ATHLBTIGS 974 4 1,013 347 8 1,500 , 14,821 ADMINISTRATION , , 150 1 1,150 PARR CONSBRVATION , 351,256 INTBRNAL SBRVICBS FUND MANAGBMBNT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 215 159 ADMINISTRATION 145,615 234 79 13,600 175,400 13,497 105,284 , 373,415 OPBRATIONS DBVBLOPKBNT , 237,512 8,100 700 246,312 BND USER 42,266 17,350 59,616 COMMUNICATIONS 221,387 106,959 1,850 - ----330,196- 1,168,754 UTILITY FUND UTILITY BILLING COLLBCTIONS 103,992 98,741 5,000 207,T33 KBTER RBADING 53,334 9,027 2,000 64,361 UTILITY ADMINISTRATION 190,467 46,575 2,880 239,922 WATER OPERATIONS 397,590 1,514,849 36,000 1,948,439 WATER MAINTENANCE 214,044 312,850 100,360 627,254 SBWBR OPERATIONS 95,958 1,081,349 0 1,177,307 601 488 SBWBR MAINTENANCB 241,293 162,508 84,80 , 870 519 SANITARY SBWBR EVALUATION 329,346 152,024 484 473 1 38,500 136,652 , 1,610,136 NON-DBPARTKBNTAL-WATER , , 484 446 1 136,650 1,583,134 NON-DBPARTKBNTAL-SBNER , , - - 8,466,757 OFFSITB FACILITIES FUND-WATER 88,193 88,193 OFFSITB FACILITIES FUND-SBWBR 195,101 195,101 GARAGB II FUND 233,700 233,700 SUB-TOTAL GENERAL COUNTY FUNDS ;85,353,320 SCHOOL OPERATING FUND ;62,573,262 2,724,000 SCHOOL CAFETERIA FUND 1,543,521 SCHOOL FBDBRAL PROGRAMS FUND 736,838 SCHOOL TEXTBOOK FUND - ----- SUB-TOTAL SCHOOL FUNDS ;67,577,621 TOTAL BXPBNDITURBS ALL FUNDS ;152,930,941 ~~~ RBVBNUBS: 366,881,463 GBNBRAL FUND 7,264,622 DEBT FUND 372,155 CAPITAL FUND 331,319 YOUTH HAVBN II FUND 351,256 RBCRBATION FBB CLASS FUND 1,168,754 INTERNAL SBRVICBS FUND 8,466,757 UTILITY FUND 88,193 OFFSITB FACILITY FUND-MATER 195,101 OFFSITB FACILITY FUND-SBMBR 233,700 GARAGE II FUND SUB-TOTAL GBNBRAL COUNTY FUNDS 85,353,320 62,573,262 SCHOOL OPBRATING FUND 2,724,000 SCHOOL CAFBTBRIA FUND 1,543,521 SCHOOL FBDBAAL PROGRAMS FUND 736,838 SCHOOL TEXTBOOK FUND SUB-TOTAL SCHOOL FUNDS 67,577,621 TOTAL RBVBNUBS ALL FUNDS 3152,930,941 E ~-~' '- .U 2. That the County Administrator may authorize the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure to another within the same department or agency. That the County Administrator may transfer up to $10,000 from the unencumbered balance of the appropriation of one department or agency to another department or agency, including the contingency account encompassed in the Non-Departmental appropriation. 3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June 30, 1990, are reappropriated to the 1990-91 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year. 4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 1990, and appropriations in the 1990-91 budget. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of the Ordinance Imposing or Increasing User Fees for the Parks and Recreation Department 0 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ,~ ~,sf~v~Z a~,~'.,"',t.~J,~ /. G~L'~k /Q'<'Y~'',C~J BACKGROUND: The Department of Management and Budget hired a consultant to perform a limited User Fee Study. David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD. (DMG) completed their review of existing and potential new fees, in February 1990, in the following departments: • Development and Inspections • Planning and Zoning • Solid Waste • Parks and Recreation • Jail • Police • Fire The objectives of the Study were to calculate the full costs of providing specific services, to compare these costs with the revenues currently received for theses services, and to recommend fee levels to recover the full costs of services when such fees are practical. A service for which a user fee is charged can be viewed as the time and/or materials costs paid by a governmental agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. Full costs developed for services rendered include direct labor costs, divisional and departmental supervision and administration, and supplies and materials costs. All appropriate indirect costs allocated from County central services, such as accounting, budgeting and data processing, to the departments r division performing the service under review are also included. The principle of user fees dictates that those who use a service pay for the cost of producing the service. Although this principle is firmly established in the private enterprise system, there may be cases of County activities for which it is not regarded as appropriate. It may be desirable to set fees for some services below full cost depending on the circumstances. -.~ f' t is Subsidies are often provided for two basic purposes. The irs to permit an identified group to participate in services which they might not otherwise be able to afford. This is a legitimate function of government, assuring access to importantzservices to all citizens without regard to their ability to pay. A second type of subsidy is based on the perception of the ultimate beneficiary of the service. Many County activities, by their nature, provide benefits beyond the immediate recipient of the service. Therefore, it may be regarded as appropriate to spread the cost of certain services over the large base of p3tential beneficiaries, as opposed to only the direct recipients. For purposes of generating new revenue for the 1990-91 fiscal year budget, staff has recommended the implementation of only three of the fee areas originally identified for study. These include Development and Inspections, Planning and Zoning and Parks and Recreation. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The attached ordinance, authorizing the increase of user fees in the area of Parks and Recreation, is a policy statement outlining the level at which the Board of Supervisors will subsidize our Parks and Recreation programs in the following areas: • Community Education • Leisure Arts • Outdoor Adventure • Senior Citizens • Special Events • Therapeutics • Adult Athletics • Youth Athletics Briefly, the policy regarding Parks and Recreation program cost recovery through user fees is as follows: 1. Community Education, Leisure Arts, Outdoor Adventure, Adult Athletics 2. Youth Athletics 3. Special Events 4. Therapeutics 5. Senior Citizens $5 Registration Fee Per Event; 25~ Indirect Costs; 100$ Direct Costs $5 Registration Fee Per Event 40~ Indirect Costs 100 Direct Costs 20$ Direct Costs $10 Membership Fee Per Year; 100$ Direct Costs 2 ~' ' The Director of the Parks and Recreation Department would be authorized to establish fees for Parks and Recreation programs based upon the above guidelines, subject to the approval of the County Administrator. The above policies will be reviewed periodically by the staff of the Department of Management and Budget in conjunction with the budget process. Please note that the definition of indirect costs used for Parks and Recreation cost recovery is different than the definition used for other departments. The indirect cost figures used for the Parks and Recreation Department do not include approximately $430, 000 in indirect costs for central services such as accounting, budgeting, and data processing. The degree to which volume is affected by the fee level is referred to as the "elasticity of demand". Fees for recreational services are likely to be highly elastic. Therefore, staff recommends phasing in over several years the inclusion of total indirect costs in the cost recovery calculations outlined above. Finally, the staff recommends including in our policy statement a provision for a waiver or fee reduction in the case of "demonstratable hardship" or inability to pay situations. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission has approved the above policy statements concerning the proposed user fee increase for the Department of Parks and Recreation. (See attached schedule for additional detail). FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the proposed cost recovery policy through user fees for the Parks and Recreation Department is an increase in revenues in the amount of $167,013. The policy changes would be effective July 1, 1990. The revenue increase has been included in the FY 1990-91 budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1990. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the above stated cost recovery policy to be effective July 1, 1990 after the second reading of the attached ordinance on June 12, 1990. Reta R. Busher Elmer C. odge Director of Management and County Administrator Budget ------- ------------------------ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved Denied Received Ref erred To Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers 1,2,3 Observations were take from the Consultant's Report. Motion by: 3 1 I--1 d 1 V] F 1 H O 1 1y-1 F 1 p 1 I 1 y 1 V 1 1 1 H m 1 a a 1 o m ~ d' ` 1 i i 1 1 1 I H a m 1 d py 1 d 1 1 1 1 (/] H 1 1 F 1 ObO 1 d d 1 m 1 W 1 F 1 1 1 1 .~ 1 d v~ 1 F 1 C1 .Z 1 m m 1 IY ? 1 In m 1 1 1 1 y m ~ ~ f/] 1 O ~ pi Z 1 m 1 O H H d V 0 m m F 1 H 1 !+'. y U ; 1 ~ ~ D m ~--~ 1 o ` 1 V] O ~] R: 6~. 1 O b I O F ~ w O Z O O y. !>. I w F !~ m d J O F a ! O C U m Oa os y oa ,. 1 I I P ~ ~ M Its I . - 1 O tD 1 M 1 P I M os s0 a0 1 C O H O 1 ~ Ila ~ O 1 N O ep 1 ~• N N ! O~ I O ~ C _ 1 ~ I Os M 1 Os N 1 .--~ 00 N I 1 O Os M 1 ~• I ab ep 1 .. ~ I ~ I 1 M I M tG OO p C 1 1 r I N 1 rt I ~' 1 N I 1 1 Ili 1 N OD 1 N I I ~ N N 1 u'i N N I N N 1 N t D N ~~ u I N ~ 00 C .--1 tD M N I I .--1 N 1 N I N N 1 ~ I N I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 N 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I ~ 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 ~i ~ ~ 1 ~ N N 1~ I 1 1 1 I O~ 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 C )K 1 O 0 0 1 M r C 1 C 1 N . . O I O 1 O 1 O M ; IO ~i C O Q 1 ep O 1 N 1 0 0 0 CO O Ili 1 ~ M 1 1 ,~ 1 I 1 1 sD N N N 1 1 N ; ; Of tD O ILi Ili 1 N N N N N 1 1 1 c 'i c ~i I s 'J 1 M N O 6 .-1 1 N 1 Ili o- 1 I 1 I 1 1 O 1 j ~. rr N I I 1 I 1 i -~ 1 ~ ry N . N N i N ; 1 ~ I ~ I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ~ I 1 i r. O i 1 o ~.• 1 ~ I i o i sNO o~ ~° i M G M 1 -.r• >K 1 O O In O tG 1 1 ~ b 1 I N~ ••'i i o eo i .-1 I ~ 1 ~ N oa r• .. ^ _ 1 O i r t0 C i N N 1 M t0 ; .. ...--~ '[f N r• 1 ~ .. _ 1 M I N N I ~ .--1 1 ~ I N N N N N 1 Os Ili 1 i M I . w N 1 H N N V i N o M rt ~„~ N us I e D 1 1 N N 1 j N N N 1 N 1 1 ~~' 1 1 I 1 N j I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 ; ~ ; ~ ; i 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l o o t o I w N en o v en a I 0 0 1 O 1 I O O ; N M r N ~~ ~ ~ M Os I ~l >K 1 ~• O r' •w O i O 1 N O 1 I O 1 rt 1 M M I 1 1 [i 1 a 'i _ I 1 M 1 s0 O tD CO O 1 r• I O a I j N N N N 1 I ~ ..1 1 Oi 1 1 N N 1 C ~i I .NI• ~ N I N ~ I 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 N N ~ I 1 I 1 1 I N 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 ~ M I I 1 1 O O N I .-1 1 N N I N Ili 1 .ti N <• -1 I O IC) 1 Is9 )K ; N .--1 1 c - O Oi O Oa 00 . ~ ~ O 1 t0 O ; ; 1 `r' tp O ; t0 O M M I • O ~f• Oa Ilf 1 ~ c0 1 Oa Oa O I M C-I .f I O Os 1 .--~ N~ N N 1 I I 1 1 M 1 ~ Ili 1 N 1 N . -y 1 . ~~ ~ N 1 y~ N 1 N ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 N N 1 N 1 N N 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ~ 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- ~ I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 ~ p O O 1 Oa O'+ I O ~- I O O 1 O N 1 I I O 6 0 I 1 I M M 1 O ~~ N I O 1 ~~ 1 C O 1 O Oa 1 M tD N O N N O 1 1 N O N O [O 1 D ; OO N ; OO D w 1 r C I . . N ; N aD 0 0 0 0 0 Oa N N I ; _ 1 I N N N O I N ~ 1 Ita N 1 N N N 1 N N N N ; N M M I N 1 N 1 M i ~.~ 1 N N ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 N 1 I ~ ~ I ~ 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 ; I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 ~ I I[9 N O 1 1 M O 1 1 t N c- 1 _ __ 1 )K 1 C IA 1 Os Ili 1 ~• N OO tp I aO I _ ~ Rte- 1 O C- 1 O ~~ 1 00 ^^ Os Ili O ICi 1 Ili N 1 00 Its I r• 1 1 ~ 1 .- ~ 1 1 1 . - 1 N C 1 O ~~~~~ ICs ep ; ~ 1 1 I I Oa 1 O 1 1 •~• C 1 ti N ; M N .O' N .-r M ~ ; I A N ~ N ~ N N N N ; ~ N i N i N r 1 1 M M N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 ; ; ; I 1 1 1 M N 1 00 N 1 0 0 •.Y• O r• N N 1 p • O r' ~ ; I I 1 Ili O O 1 ~ N I O ~~ 0 0 1 M O 1 M N . 1 N O 1 O IA I m ~ 1 Y 1 N I[i 1 O NO 1 M O •~• O sus N ~ 1 M 1 N 1 ~ ~ 1 ~, ; 1 ~ ; ; M a0 ~ 1 I M N w w N 1 1 s0 1 ~ 1 ~F ~ N 1 N N M 1 •'•'1 I N N 1 N N N 1 1 N M 1 N ~ 1 1 1 I ~ j 1 I N I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 j I I I j I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ; u'i O O 1 ~f• O ~1• 1 N .~. I O~ ;N C •!• 1 1 sp ~ I O I r• O t0 O aD Ili ^. N 1 ~1• O O O M F i I Os Ili 1 1 1 O 1 ~f' N . -~ 1 M N 1 M ~ 1 IA 1 ~ 1 t0 N 1 N 1 aD s"i - I M O O Os 1 I i 1 I _ 1 O 1 t0 N ~ C N 1 ~Y• 0 ~ ~ M _ i ~ N N 1 ~ M N N 1 I 1 N 1 N N 1 N N 1 N 1 M M I N I ~~ 1 I I 1 1 I I N N 1 1 1 ~ N ~ 1 I 1 ~ I 1 I ~ i I ~ 1 I I ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ I 1 1 1 I ~ I I ~ 1 I 1 1 1 ~ b+ 1 ~+ I 1 I 1 I H 1 1 2~ m ~ 1 ~ ~ IU-1 I I 1 1 1 1 I F I n ~ 1 ~ F 1 I m 1 ll! 1 m b m 1 j m 1 ~ y e d 1 ~..~ 1 1 ~ C a z 1 m m 1 Z 1 °" 1 z 1 m m ; F m m ~ F Or ~ x p. 1 ~ F Z I m m 1 a m m I V I m a 6 0 1 Ly+7. ~ 1 ~ m 0 1 ~ 1 V F' uFa Im-1 O b F ~ pyp H 1 K F I 4' m 1 Y ~ I m Gc. Oc~ H O Z F a+ 1 F m 4 C m ~ I ~ y. pa 1 Lti m m F 6 1 m i/] PC 1 O m d' ~ H 0 a O F U Z m y I"-I ~ 1 m U ~ m ~ 1 ~ d Z m m (l I m CC 4s 1 P4 L><. y I Lb of Z 1 C[1 F I Z C d O O a R i I -~1 O C I m -1 F d h. OO 1 ~ 1 ~ V m m Z OLI I Z m 1 O F 1 m Z V 1 /Yl -1 Z d U Oe. F tr, I c~ Z P. C I ` -1 O S Cc. 04 00 6i I Z ~ O C m I Z 1-- POW 1 GC 1 C'L Y'1 O F OZn C 6. ~ U 'i 2 1 y W P4 1 O+ 1 F m I + F' h. [v 1 O OC 1 A ~ GG ~ yl b D O I--I ~+ V 0 ',~ d F 1--1 m I-~•i 1 PC I 1-1 P. 5C I O d d b 1 OG C I m Z» m 1 [Y. ~ .7 O pq ~ m F U m 6. F a' F ~-' I a en CsS 45 OC m 1 ~ 1 U SI V] ' m 1 w cld aC a 1 d F o3 m 1 P.. b 1 F F FC b 1 U O ~ m s i Z a J I--1 m ! d Cc. O ~ O F d a W 1 m F ~ m U fn G. U tr. c V] ; O a (/] m m 1 6 ti] I I-s C/] VJ 1 1 0~.. fl. On rl V Gi V .. m a i d ~ ~ b m pp m m 1 am i z m mom i om i z 1 mm l m -. rs c=~ m>;y i v xz ~ AZ S a o Z Z PC 1 PC 4' Z C 1 F .~ 1 O. a s 1 Z d! i I I -. 1 H Cm'J U m F k A F Z d S -~ 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSING OR INCREASING OF CERTAIN FEES FOR SERVICES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, on September 20, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, selected David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. to conduct a detailed cost/revenue study focusing upon an analysis of user fee services; and WHEREAS, the purpose of said user fee study was to calculate the full costs of providing specific services, compare costs with the revenues received for these services, and recommend fee levels to recover the full costs of services when such fees are practical; and WHEREAS, the Board has found that it is both equitable and efficient to ensure that those individuals who benefit from certain governmental services bear the cost thereof while eliminating unintentional general service cost subsidies; and WHEREAS, as a result of said study the Board determined that it was in the public interest to increase certain user fees, as modified by staff recommendations, budget work sessions, and citizen comments in order to recover 100 of the direct and indirect costs of providing certain services; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on May 22, 1990, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on June 12, 1990. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, -~ 2 Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Director of the Roanoke County Department of Parks and Recreation is hereby authorized to establish fees for parks and recreation services and activities, subject to the approval of the County Administrator, and subject to the following standards: a) Definitions: Indirect costs include the general fund appropriation for each of the cost centers associated with the recreation area based on the 1989-90 fiscal year budget, plus the allocation of the central administrative costs for the Department of Parks and Recreation, and in the case of athletics, the share of the ballfield maintenance, which is provided by the Parks Division of the Department. Direct costs relate to the specific costs of instructors and associated supplies, which the County is currently recovering in the fees charged to participants. The registration fee is proposed to be established at $5 per participant, per activity and the membership fee is proposed to be $10 annually for senior citizens, in lieu of a registration fee. The guidelines, which were approved by the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission, are as follows: b) For activities included under community education: leisure arts, outdoor adventure and adult athletics, the fee should be based upon a $5 registration fee, per participant, plus 25$ of the indirect cost, plus 100 of the direct cost. ~' 3 c) For youth athletics, the fee should be based upon a $5 registration fee per participant.. d) For special events, the budget should plan to recover 40$ of the indirect cost and 100 of the direct cost. e) For therapeutics, there shall be a recovery of 20~ of the direct cost. f) For senior citizens, there shall be a $10 membership fee, plus 100$ of direct cost associated with the program. 2. That the Director shall develop guidelines for the waiver or reduction of fees based upon demonstrable hardship and inability to pay. 3. That the effective date of this ordinance and for the imposition of the fees and charges authorized herein shall be July 1, 1990. I~Il~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IllJ - - - - - .. - - APPEARANCE RE UEST Q _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ -_ AGENDA ITEM NO. _ __ - SUBJECT ~ " ,~, _- - - - ~ - ~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supex~isors to recognize me during the public hearingg on the above matter ALLED TO THE PODIUM, - so that I ma comment.WHEN C _ _ _ - I WILL GI E MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE - _ _ _ RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINE =_ LISTED BELOW. • Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, = and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to - do otherwise. __ • Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- bons of cl ' 'cation may be entertained by the Chairman. c • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized c speaker and audience members is not allowed. _ • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. -_ • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments -_ with the clerk. c • ALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FQR AN ORGANIZED _ INDIVIDU "" GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. - PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLER - ~~ NAME ti ,; .: = ADDRESS .5 "% ' ~` c:,,~; ~= , -_ - PHONE ~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `~~' _ mlllllllllillllillllillllilllllllillllllllllllllllillllllllilllllllllllllllillliilllilllllllllllllliliiillllliiilllllllillllllll . f~°"~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE 52290-7 AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 5, "ANIMALS AND FOWL" OF THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Sections 5-24, 5-29, and 5-44 are amended and Section 5-34 is enacted of Article II of Chapter 5, "Animals and Fowl" to read and provide as follows: Sec. 5-24. Limitation on number kept per dwelling unit. The harboring or keeping of more than (2) dogs over four (4) ~-{~)- months of age per dwelling shall be unlawful, unless a private kennel license has been issued pursuant to this article. ~ * ~r Sec. 5-29. Same-Impoundment. (d) If a dog confined pursuant to this section is not claimed by the owner within seven (7) days from the time notice was given to the owner or if the owner cannot be located within seven (7) days after confinement, such dog may be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of ~=e ^^-^" '~ section 3.1-796.96 of the Code of Virginia. ~_ A pickup fee of ten dollars ($10 00) for the first offense, twenty dollars ($20 00) for the second offense and thirty dollars 30.00 for the third offense shall be im osed in addition to the normal board fee of five dollars ($5 00) per day when any dog is claimed by its owner or custodian. Sec. 5-34. Penalties. Sal The enalties for violation of Section 5-26 shall be as follows• j1~_ A fine of not less than one hundred dollars ~ 100 00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00 . The ' ud e tr in the case ma order the owner or custodian to remove such dog from the county within twenty-four (24) hours of entry of such order or within twenty-four (24) hours after the rabies observation eriod has ex fired if a licable or both. ~bL The enalties for violations of all other sections of this chapter shall be as follows: ~1Z For the first offense a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10 00) nor more than twenty dollars ($20.00)• ~_ For a second offense within a consecutive twelve month (12) period a fine of not less than twenty dollars ($20.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00). ~.l For a third offense within a consecutive twelve month (12) period, a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). ~_ The fudge tryina case may order any animal permanently removed from the county within twenty-four (24) hours of such order. Sec. 5-44. Tax imposed (a) An annual license tax is hereby imposed on dogs required to be licensed under this division in the following amounts: (1) Male ~"'~ "' ''oy - Ten Dollars ($10.00) (2) Female dog - Ten Dollars ($10.00) (3) Neutered or spayed dog - Five Dollars ($5.00) Twee n ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ ^^ ` with a veterinarian's certificate that the dog has been neutered or spayed. (4) Kennel for up to twenty (20) dogs - Twenty-five „ , , ~ ~ ~- R^,~- Dollars ($25.00) '-''~=~L~~=-'~T , (5) Kennel for up to fifty (50) dogs - Thirty-five Dollars ($35.00) (2) The effective date of this ordinance shall be November 1 1990 for Section 5-44 and Jul 1 1990 for all other amendments. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: •~ '_ . ~~~ Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Ken Hogan, Chief Animal Control Officer S.P.C.A. Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer Magistrate Sheriff's Department Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke, 24016 Main Library Roanoke County Code Book Roanoke County J&D Court, Intake Counsellor 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: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Article 2 of Chapter 5 "Animals & Fowl" of the Roanoke County Code COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~~,~.~,,,N~~ GLf~.~-G2~~ BACKGROUND• On May 8, 1990, the Board of Supervisors held the first reading on the proposed amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance and offered the following changes, which have been incorporated in the proposed ordinance amendment: 1. Increase the license rate for a male dog to $10.00. 2. Increase the license rate for the neutered/spayed dog to $5.00. For the 1989-90 fiscal year, the estimated revenue from the sale of dog tags was $15,500 and the cost of operating the animal control department was $164,044. The recently adopted contract requires the S.P.C.A. to provide and operate the animal shelter facility for the County at a cost of $5.00 per animal per day. In order to recover boarding costs and also to update several other sections of the County's ordinance, the following amendments are suggested: Section 5-29 {e} imposes a fee of $10 for the first offense, $20 for the second offense and $30 for the third offense, in addition to a boarding fee of $5 per day, when an animal picked up for running at large is claimed by its owner or custodian. Section 5-35 imposes penalties for violations for the various sections of the Animal Control ordinances. /-/ Section 5-44 amends the license rate as outlined below: Current Proposed Tvpe License License 1. Male Dog $6.00 $10.00 2. Female Dog 6.00 10.00 3. Neutered/Spayed Dog 3.00 5.00 4. Kennel (up to 20 dogs) 15.00 25.00 5. Kennel (up to 50 dogs) 25.00 35.00 The table below compares the current fees for the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton, and County of Roanoke (current) with the proposed County rate. Roanoke County County Tvt~e Citv Salem Vinton Now Proposed Female $10.00 10.00 $ 7.50 $6.00 $10.00 Male 7.50 10.00 7.50 6.00 10.00 Spay/neuter 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 Kennel (up 20 dogs) 20.00 15.00 - Kennel (up to 50 dogs) 35.00 - - 15.00 25.00 25.00 35.00 ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: Alternative #1: Adopt the proposed amendments to the Animal Control ordinance (copy attached), which increases our license fees and imposes strict penalties for violation of said ordinance. This recommendation is being made for an enforcement purpose and not for the purpose of generating additional revenue. h~- / RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the second reading of this ordinance amendment. Respectfully submitted, Approv d by, ~~~ ~~~~ John M. Chambliss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ----------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by. No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw To ( ) Nickens Robers Attachment ~-' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 5, "ANIMALS AND FOWL" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Sections 5-24, 5-29, and 5-44 are amended and Section 5-34 is enacted of Article II of Chapter 5, "Animals and Fowl" to read and provide as follows: Sec. 5-24. Limitation on number kept per dwelling unit. The harboring or keeping of more than (2) dogs over four (41 -~ months of age per dwelling shall be unlawful, unless a private kennel license has been issued pursuant to this article. Sec. 5-29. Same-Impoundment. (d) If a dog confined pursuant to this section is not claimed by the owner within seven (7) days from the time notice was given to the owner or if the owner cannot be located within seven (7) days after confinement, such dog may be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of ~' '"' '" '~ section 3.1-796.96 of the Code of Virginia. ~ A pick ~ fee of ten dollars (S10 00) for the first offense, twenty dollars j$20 00) for the second offense, and thirty dollars ~ S30 00 ~ for the third offense shall be imposed in addition to the normal board fee of five dollars (S5 00) per day when any dog is claimed by its owner or custodian. ~f -~ ~ Sec. 5-34. Penalties. ~ The enalties for violation of Section 5-26 shall be as follows• 11-)- A fine of not less than one hundred dollars x$100 00~ nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00)._ The judge trying the case may order the owner or custodian to remove such dog from the county within twenty-four (241 hours of entry of such order or within twenty-four (24) hours after the rabies observation period has expired, if applicable, or both. _( b_)_ The enalties for violations of all other sections of this chapter shall be as follows: For the first offense a fine of not less than ten dollars (S10 00) nor more than twenty dollars (520.00). For a second offense within a consecutive twelve month ~12~ period, a fine of not less than twenty dollars (520.001 nor more than fifty dollars ($50.001. For a third offense within a consecutive twelve month ~12~ period, a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than five hundred dollars (5500.00). The iudcre trying case may order any animal permanently removed from the county within twenty-four (24) hours of such order. Sec. 5-44. Tax imposed (a) An annual license tax is hereby imposed on dogs required f-/-- / to be licensed under this division in the following amounts: (1) Male `~-~~' " ''o" - Ten Dollars ( $10.00 ) `9 \ Y " / (2) Female door - Ten Dollars (510.001 (3) Neutered or spayed dog - Five Dollars ($5.00) ~~ with a veterinarian's certificate that the dog has been neutered or spayed. (4) Kennel for up to twenty (20) dogs - Twenty-five / r ~ ~ nrt~r~r . \ Y / Dollars (525.001 - r (5) Kennel for up to fifty (50) dogs - Thirty-five Dollars (535.001 ' (2) The effective date of this ordinance shall be November 1 1990 for Section 5-44 and Jul 1 1990 for all other amendments. ! I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE 52290-8 REPEALING ORDINANCE 12489-6 WHICH IMPOSED CERTAIN LIMITATIONS UPON THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS WHEREAS, on January 24, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopted Ordinance 12489-6, said ordinance provided for a limitation or prohibition upon the location of certain types of signs; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 1990, the Board adopted Ordinance 42490- 11 which provided for new zoning regulations pertaining to the display of signage and repealed or amended certain existing zoning regulations pertaining to the display of signs; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 42490-11 supersedes and replaces Ordinance 12489-6 in its purpose and effect, and it is therefore just and appropriate to repeal same; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 8, 1990, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 22, 1990. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Ordinance 12489-6 is repealed in its entirety. ~~E~E~~re-$~~d-e ~ ~ / , / / ~..~.s r -- r -- ~ - -- , ui I / / / / / • / / ~~i-~-a-~~ ~~ a , } a. ~w a' ---- i, i s ~ ' ~~*~i ~/ ~ ~ crrrr 6 / ~, rm nnnT rw7~ .i. L, n a n.,,., i~v - / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1-33' ~' w v } / ~.. ~ / i.. ~... i i ay / ~ ~ ~ / / .~. ~~ ~~'C'~e ~" ~ *IT'e ~. L. ~ ... ~ b. ~ a ~ '-11 (YP 1~-r-rr ~i-vc {,..111 ~ v. ' a .. i.. ~.. ' .. a_ .. L-z'i~r~ 1 c~x'vx~~3-~E-9 e '. ~ "' L 1, i- ~ p( . ~ L B~ / j = ~ } L. . ~'e 77 ~ , i- L. l l - ' - } ~ e ~ .,. a . ~rl' ~ ~.'e. GIr .e'~1 CCT [i ' " C'I7- -~vzrSzzzr~~-6i~-e~-c~-9~~--e ~ y i r e'1-~ • a a ~~ 1 ~n~ 11.11 I ~ a n ~ r ~ i. ,. ~ ~,. ~ 3- e~--6i3--~9 ~" ~ r ,. r } i., ..-oar irr-uucrt~~ . -e / , 1 / ~ gi 9--~ra~9-nom c-srr'oTUTSG'~,-a-a~. a av ~. 2. This ordinance shall be effective May 8, 1990. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning and Zoning Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Magistrate Sheriff's Department Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke, 24016 Main Library Roanoke County Code Book Roanoke County J&D Court, Intake Counsellor 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: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 12489-6 WHICH IMPOSED CERTAIN LIMITATIONS UPON THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' On January 24, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted Ordinance No. 12489-6. This ordinance prohibited or limited the location of general advertising signs (billboards) within the County. The Board made certain findings concerning the adverse effects of billboard advertising upon the County environ- ment. In adopting this ordinance it followed the April 1988 action of the Salem City Council which adopted an ordinance prohibiting the location of general advertising signs within the corporate limits of the City. This ordinance was adopted not as part of the County's zoning ordinance but rather was adopted under the general police powers of the County pursuant to Section 15.1-510 of the State Code. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On April 24, 1990, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 42490-11 which adopted a new set of zoning regulations pertaining to the display of signage within Roanoke County and repealing or amending certain existing zoning regulations pertaining to the display of signs. This ordinance is a significant revision of the County's zoning ordinance. Ordinance No. 42490-11 supersedes and replaces Ordinance No. 12489-6 in its purposes and effects. Therefore, it is just and appropriate to repeal Ordinance No. 12489-6. The first reading of this proposed ordinance is scheduled to be held on May 8, 1990; the second reading is scheduled to be held on May 22, 1990. • . FISCAL IMPACTS• None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: •~ It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of this proposed ordinance. Respectfully submitted, ~1 Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs f-/ - .2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 12489-6 WHICH IMPOSED CERTAIN LIMITATIONS UPON THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS WHEREAS, on January 24, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopted Ordinance 12489-6, said ordinance provided for a limitation or prohibition upon the location of certain types of signs; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 1990, the Board adopted Ordinance 42490- 11 which provided for new zoning regulations pertaining to the display of signage and repealed or amended certain existing zoning regulations pertaining to the display of signs; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 42490-11 supersedes and replaces Ordinance 12489-6 in its purpose and effect, and it is therefore just and appropriate to repeal same; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 8, 1990, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 22, 1990. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Ordinance 12489-6 is repealed in its entirety. vita wTT TT/~L~ 1 ~] $ ~6-2ST'S~+ifI7'ST'f~STTi"DT~TC'~L~i~TT~ mLT~ -T LTn77~ /ti l1TTTT /9/ITL+ T!1 TZL)_p1.7T T1 i L:/119~~T~=D~~~-TpTrpl•~--~rj G~~V1T~"'CiPD']..i~- r1CV-V -'TOT T~1l~T TT/1TT !1T? !'9 L~T]TT TAT T[1TlL'~[~ !'1 L~ PTI'~TT [~ / ~ ~ i .. c n -c r a ~. i ,., a -~7rT-a ~ -YY,r ~-r - --rrs ~-~e- ~..~ v rate Qx I u a a ~ l CF l iL. ~..,..~FF~ uiG~.y - ~ T~~77~~~ 1~~1 7t'IT~L~ ~ ~~++~- 1~ ... .. ~ CG ~_7 -__- 1 'CS'eT - - - C 1 =~e' ~~ ~LTTGTe Q~ ~e 7 ~ ... -- - - ; i i C ~ ~ , ~ s / ~ ~ • / ~e~s e~ ~e ~ , 6 T ~L~-~TI'~I " " '~ A , ~ F S ~ } ~ F ~ ~ i ~ , ~~ ~Tr SS ~T ~ ]'] ~.1 r~ [ n T~ v Z <A 1 l l l.a p7~ ~TL TT / 1Tfr1T ~ TLTL~T ~ L,l aG DO'C a CtC~"8 ~ 71. • ~ ~ / T ...Fi :~' ~. 1V1 . . 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' / ~ ~ ~ ~~ V 1.11 ~M G1 y ^~ (1~~~I e~e ~ e L e 1 ..~ u ~+ y + M`~ `" ^a ~~ ~ G~ ~ / ~ ins-d es--~ n~-- e ~~ ~~ _ •~- ~ ~ ' ~ ~ T _ - L~ y'~ u L ~ ~ w v~ i. ~0"1 ~L ~S~ ! 1, r1: GITCCGT T' i , ' ~ s ~ ~~es~e ca ~ a ~. r ~i.. ,,.a ~ c auulr ~ ~ ~ ~~ x-13-e~---4r' .,. a , ~e --ee~~rse~e~-eT--a-s~~~--- f-/- ~ Tra__-uuu ~~ ' 'e 1 L. n 1- j Aa ~- ..~.. L. i w.i G L. 1 C f 11. .. n.... ...a a / ~ ~w ~ ~ ~ ~ y, i • }. ~ T L 1., .. n ni~-~' 1 v~rr-v~-c:'3T~ ~,,, ~ ~}~ y~ ~rrc-~cv-c~rr-~ ..~. j r 61~-~-zTrr 2. This ordinance shall be effective May 8, 1990. r ~; -3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE 52290-9 ACCEPTING THE OFFER OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE OF REAL ESTATE, OFFICE SPACE FOR THE ROANOKE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Virginia as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the acquisition of any interest in real estate, which includes a lease of office space, shall be accomplished by ordinance and pursuant to the authority found in Sections 15.1-262 and 15.1-897 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County the first reading on this ordinance was held on May 8, 1990, and the second reading was held on May 22, 1990, concerning the lease of office space for the use of the Roanoke County office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service at 916 Kime Lane in the City of Salem, Virginia, commonly known as Hundley Hall, situate on the Elizabeth Campus of Roanoke College, together with all appurtenances thereto belonging; and 3. That this lease is with THE TRUSTEES OF ROANOKE COLLEGE, a Virginia non-stock corporation, of approximately Four Thousand, Three Hundred Forty-two (4,342) square feet of office space for a term commencing the first day of July 1990 and ending the 30th day of June, 1993 for a base rental for the initial three (3) year term of the lease of One Hundred Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty-One and 50/100 Dollars ($100,951.50) and with options to t ~ renew or extend the term of the lease; and 4. That the lease agreement setting forth the terms and conditions of this lease is incorporated herein by reference. 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute this lease on behalf of the County of Roanoke and to execute such other documents and take such other actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~ Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Lowell Gobble, Director, VPI&SU Extension Service Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER _ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of an Ordinance Accepting the Offer of and Authorizing the Execution of a Lease of Real Estate, Office Space, for the Roanoke County Office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• In November, 1987, the County of Roanoke sold to Roanoke College, the old Courthouse facilities, which previously housed the office space of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service for the County of Roanoke. Under the terms and conditions of the sales agreement, Roanoke College was to continue to provide space for this operation through June 30, 1990. In April, 1989, the space formerly occupied by the Extension Service in the basement of the old Courthouse was needed by Roanoke College to house some of their library operations, and arrangements were made to relocate the Extension Service to the proposed location in Hundley Hall on the Elizabeth Campus of Roanoke College The proposed facility includes approximately 4,342 sq. ft. of office and meeting space, with the first year annual rental rate of $32,565.00 ($7.50 per sq. ft.), beginning July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991. The initial lease would be for a three year period with the rental factor increasing 25 cents per sq. ft. annually through June 30, 1993. The County shall also have the option of renewing said lease for an additional three year period beyond said period of time. The City of Salem shares in the local costs of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service budget in the amount of approximately 25~ (based on ratio of population), and therefore, will share the proportionate cost of this lease. The first reading of the ordinance to approve the proposed lease was held and approved on May 8. Staff will continue to seek appropriate facilities for our Human Service Agencies and attempt to minimize or eliminate our need for leased facilities. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: Alternative #1: Approve the second reading of the attached ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to execute said /-7 lease with the trustees of Roanoke College, for the lease of ft., beginning July 1, 1990 through June approximately 4,342 sq. er sq. ft. Monies 30, 1993, at a beginning rental rate of $7.50 p have been included in the 1990-91 budget request to cover said rental expenses. Alternative #2: Seek noose th ps operation ce space to become available July 1, 1990, to RECOMMENDATION• Staf f recommends approval of the second st ed r g o °eXecute ordinance, thereby authorizing the County Adman for the lease of said lease with the trustees of Roanoke College, approximately 4,342 sq. ft. ofthef RoanokeCeCountytoffices of sthe Roanoke College, for use by Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. Approved by Respectfully submitted, ,? Elmer C. Hodg John M. Chambliss, Jr. County Administrator Assistant Administrator _________-- --------------------- VOTE ------- ACTION No YeS Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Eddy Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred ( ) Nickens To ( ) Robers Attachment cc: Lowell Gobble N -.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE OFFER OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE OF REAL ESTATE, OFFICE SPACE FOR THE ROANOKE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Virginia as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the acquisition of any interest in real estate, which includes a lease of office space, shall be accomplished by ordinance and pursuant to the authority found in Sections 15.1-262 and 15.1-897 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County the first reading on this ordinance was held on May 8, 1990, and the second reading was held on May 22, 1990, concerning the lease of office space for the use of the Roanoke County office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service at 916 Kime Lane in the City of Salem, Virginia, commonly known as Hundley Hall, situate on the Elizabeth Campus of Roanoke College, together with all appurtenances thereto belonging; and 3. That this lease is with THE TRUSTEES OF ROANOKE COLLEGE, a Virginia non-stock corporation, of approximately Four Thousand, Three Hundred Forty-two (4,342) square feet of office space for a term commencing the first day of July 1990 and ending the 30th day of June, 1993 for a base rental for the initial three (3} year term of the lease of One Hundred Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty-One and 50/100 Dollars ($100,951.50) and with options to 1 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: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• 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 June 26, 1990. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. An ordinance rezoning a 3.49 parcel of land from M-1 Conditional to M-2, said parcel being located on Starkey Rd. approximately 350 feet north of Terminal Rd. in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the request of Frank W. Martin. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this rezoning ordinance for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for June 26 1990. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to Item 1 and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon this item the separate vote tabulation for such item pursuant to this action. -~ ~ / 2 Respectfully submitted, l~~• Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION ~" Date Rec .: ~ ~ `~ ~ Received By: SS Case No.• Ord. No. c,4c~-z.~~~ i ,5~ ~ o ~ti < <f ~~ 1. Owner' s Name • Donald H. Pollard Phone : 989-3264 Address : 5350 Black Bear Lane, Roanoke, VA 2. Applicant's Name: Frank W. Martin (Contract Purchaser) Phone: 989-5127 Address: P. 0. Box 20073, Roanoke, VA 24018 •;` 3. Location of Property: Starkey Road (Rt. X1904) off Terminal Road (Rt. 4753)_ Tax Map Number(s) : 4187.15-2-8 4. Magisterial District: Cave Spri 5. Site of Property: 6. Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: 3.49 acres + M-1 G Vacant 7. Proposed Zoning: M-2 To be developed into five industrial sites, one of which will Proposed Land Use: be used by applicant for contractors' equipment storage yard or plant 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No x (If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica- tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.) Land $160,000.00 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: my building $45,000.00 4 other industrial lots for buildings 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: & Letter of Application x Concept Plan x Metes and Bounds Description x List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) x Vicinity Map x Application Fee Written Proffers ~- Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's ent: S ignatur /' `~ ~ ~~ Date ~'I - ~ ~ """~L~ ~-/ ~, ~ . ~ ~~~, 1990 I April 20, Roanoke County Department of Planning and Zoning P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Re: Proposed Rezoning of M-1 Light Industrial Industrial District Gentlemen: Tax Map #87.15-2-8 from District to M-2 General I hereby make application to you to rezone a certain 3.49 acre tract known as Tax Map #87.15-2-8 lying on Starkey Road (Route No. 904) off of Terminal Road (Route No. 753) currently owned by Donald H. Pollard. I have entered into a sales contract with Donald H. Pollard to purchase this property subject to the said property being rezoned to M-2. The property is currently zoned M-1 Light Industrial District, and I hereby make application to rezone the property to M-2 General Industrial District. I am now and have for many years been engaged in the land development and building construction business. I intend to erect a building on the property and to use it as my contractors' plant and equipment storage yard. As a part of my application, I enclose herewith the following items: 1. Roanoke County Rezoning Application. 2. Metes and Bounds Description. 3. The application fee of $155.00. 4. A list of adjacent property owners. 5. Vicinity map. 6. A detailed concept plan. 7. Application for Water and Sewer Service. I ask that this application be referred to the Roanoke County Planning Commission for its meeting to be held June 5, 1990. Very truly yours, ~~i~)m a~{~ Frank W. Martin FWM/klb Enclosures pc.~~/f.+fio,~I / pi~eu~/6 Co. ~ ~pi~ ~ . ~ ~ 0 ~ 'o . ~~ e" ~~ o . ~'.~ . ~ ~~ ~~ I Ot ~ W J . a ~q b° ~, e ~ ?~' V Qo- uo, ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 I 0 b~ CQEd' P..g. ~ Z~ ~ ~8.. y Z'j O ~p~r~ ~ ~ b O V V ~ ~~ ~ °~ oc o ~~a ,~ ah ~ ~ Q Wh Q \ ~ ~ ~ ~ OC ~ o ~ o "'~ o Qe~W~ ~ W ~ ~~ ~~~~h ~ ~ ~ ~ tia ~ ~ ho ~eti~o ~ ~v v a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ \ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ vb~ ~tV v a ~ap~V ~ ~~~ t ~o h o~V 0~ o~ ~ ~ ~ t _ h ~ _ Ei-LTF/ ~ LACK G. LESS ~E11 G`~ P~~ .? lr. ENTIFK;ATE No. 1010 ~.~ _ J F~ UNO `~P N e.~ ,~o_ ~~~ ~ g. rs6io.V c 1~ 4 ~ ti , ;' v ~ v O~ W p a o ~~~ a O W W ~~ ~~~ ~ . a ~ ~ ~ ~~~ N ~~i ~~~~ a ,G ~ o ~ e2 ~ J Q t °v oa M•~~~" Choir 3B~43' ••~09'/` ~ ~ . !l1•~s ~Z97 i.~f.9s E ~a,qp 1' p.cf~AL O~~K ~/ jE~~9s~ 9 0~ Rr ar~ z- `~ . ~~~ ~°aooEQ ~ 39?~ mac. '~P, ~/ arOA,y ~-sue S, ~ PN yc~.v~r,,d ai os 30 I ~7G, v . /p iy ~ J ~Pµ, I so, o ~ i ~ I m , ~~ e a Prw ~ H ? ~ I i i h ,e~ ~ I " ~~ ~ ~A tie ~/ \ •...':', •. . ~`~ Po °I8 ~, °'p 610 '0 1643 '4 '•~-~.':~••'. o ~ 6 "~ .~ 419 ~ ~ ~~ a 1737 867 o ~ti o t63 ~. _ 7 ~: r ^ 2 0~. o VICINITY MAP 70 ~' ~- 25 ~~.so 862 oti 169 , I o~+' '-' ° g' 6 I ~, ?95 ~° 02 ~ 16 ~ 1513, I69 ~ 79 0~ p~° . ~, °' °. ` •03' ~ 878 .oS •.. • .. ~. ` \ . ~ ~ ,1738 ~p ~ d . L . ~ o• 709 877 ~~..~: X1512 ~ ., '6 0 .~6 do p0 o a24 795 1946 876 ~ .so. . o.ss ago o ti 844 0 'o ti~ \ ~. 0 o a ~. ~ 531 1533 J 169 N 1944 ,so ~; ~ z` ~ 1538 .0 53 ~ o 0,~9 `o o' 1945 > > o y 53 x.09 °~ o?" 1540 ,~a 1541 ~e9 Z.~~ ~ o.ze i57 57 6330 _904 2 1532 °j 74 b d 4 I oZe v ' ' ~ 156 o j IS64 ...,.... , .. 191 ~ 7 9 2 _ ~., ~ ......r .,;,~ 1 90 001 ' °° d' ~ ~ °.~ ~ so 1571, oe t570 9 S 54 t; 569 ' o oe Ova- 7 5-° Y~ 905 c F ~o ~ 5 09 OP .06 1 ~ 0a O..s 6 'S~ ~ o o .~ i568 03 0 A^ 4 qC b o• ,~ 90 o.ss 06 '~J o' / ,~~ 716 0. 0 1936 ~ ~ .~ 1566 0 Quo 718 o q,s ~ 87 5 Q, '3S 7 t 7 ~ ~ Zo '0~ 0 ~ o ,;~ °~ 1591 ~ 632 904 0• a, 0 j7 ~'' ,~ 1723 ° ~` Q» 6 7 9 o .08 ~ • p,1 ~ N 613 M~ 172 0 91 h o vN-~p,IN ~ 613 ~`~ ACTION NO. A-52290-10 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of a Raffle Permit from the Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind Team COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind Team has requested a Raffle Permit to hold a raffle on June 8, 1990. This application has been reviewed with the Commissioner of Revenue and he recommends that it be approved. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit be approved. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------- _ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ~ Motion by: Lee B Eddy No Yes Abs Eddy x Denied ( ) Johnson x Received ( ) Referred ( ) McGraw x To ( ) Nickens x Robers x cc: File Bingo/Raffle Permit File _....- COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMMISSIONER OF' THE REVENUE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT RAFFLES OR BINGO Application is hereby made for a bingo game or raffle permit. This application is made subject to all County and State laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations now in force, or that may be enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the under- signed applicant and which shall be deemed a condition under which this permit is issued. All applicants should exercise extreme care to ensure the accura- cy of their responses to the following questions. Bingo games and raffles are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. sew. of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 et. s_eq. of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investiga- tion prior to granting a bingo or raffle permit. The Board has sixty days from the filing of an application to grant or deny the permit. The Board maytoebe~inuspriat ~ompliancetwithP county and organization found not state law. Any person violating county or state regulations concererson hwho permits shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any p uses any part of the gross receipts from bingo or raffles for any purpose other than the lawful religious, charitable, community, or educational purposes for which the organization is specifi- cally organized, except for reasonable operating expenses, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (check one) RAFFLE PERMIT BINGO GAMES a~/~sS <~ ~~ r-~ ,cJ~ Name of Organization ~~i`~r7 ~N /A C.CEy ~'° H~£l~ SCI-~'~~" Street Address L{~ ~~ H i `1 ;J~ ~ /~ FLL ~y S ' f- 1 ~ ~~ ` Mailing Address City, State, Zip Code T`~R N cal ~. ~~ ~`~ ~~ ~ Purpose and Type of Organization r l~~'C'H-;~oN~i ln1s;-i-~-v~~l',~ When was the organization founded? ~~ 7 ~ 1 Roanoke County meeting place? yF ~ Has organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two con- tinuous years? YES~_ NO Is the organization non-profit? YES ~ NO Indicate Federal Identification Number # d N FI~~ Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter. Officers of the Organization: ~NC~~AL QSS,S;R-++ ~ Pair-~c.G~.Ai Address: 5dll C~4+~F SC'CiiNr; Ciyt Address: yy'oZ K ~~~~~ y~cc>`y SC H; ~`~ PdA~dk~. dA a4-d/ ~' Secretary: Address: gZC1 /~,~ 11cEt /,4 yZS~ Cl r Treasurer: Address: Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera- tions: Name ~A ~ ~~ ~~ ~'~ ' ~o Home Address 5U i I ~A~~ ~Sr''=f ,~~' ~' 12 Phone ~8~- yi;3 ~ Bus . Phone 77~- 7S J® A COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OoF~ U~RE~,T MEMBER- SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION. C \lI Specific location where Raffle or Bingo Game is to be conducted. ~ IfjvTime of Drawing /L'ocu /vaa,v RAFFLES : Date of Drawing ~jZJ N ~ BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of Activity: Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday From To From To From To From To From To From To From To 2 State specifically how the proceeds from the Bingo/Raffle will be used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds. Use estimates amounts if necessary. v N~~ ~ ~;~~ ;-~ ~ ~ i/~c.z~ y ~N. ~Sz r`~~c 4n CNA~~ -'-I-~ ~' H SC 1-}c a ~ u ~~~ P;i o ~ ~ ~ ,ti, s ~4 ~ ,~ r a `JAN 3 J BINGO: Complete the following: Legal owner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted: Name: Address: County State Zip Is the building owned by a 501-C non-profit organization? Seating capacity for each location: Parking spaces for each location: ALL RAFFLE AND BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 - 19 1. Gross receipts from all sources related to the operation of Bingo games or Instant Bingo by calendar quarter for prior calen- dar year period. INSTANT BINGO BINGO lst Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total 2. Does your organization understand that it is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person or firm, associa- tion, organization, partnership, or corporation of any classifica- tion whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing, or con- ducting Bingo Games or Raffles? y~ 3. Does your organization understand that it must maintain and file complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to Bingo games and Raffles, and that such records are subject to audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue? y~3 4. Does your organization understand. that the Commissioner of the Revenue or his designee has the right to go upon the premises on which any organization is conducting a Bingo game or raffle, to perform unannounced audits, and to secure for audit all re- cords required to be maintained for Bingo games or raffles? vas 4 5. Does your organization understand that a Financial Report must be filed with the Commissioner of the Revenue on or before the first day of November~/of each calendar year for which a per- mit has been issued? / ~ ~ 6. Does your organization understand that if gross receipts ex- ceed fifty thousand dollars during any calendar quarter, an addi- tional Financial Report must be filed for such quarter no later than sixty days following the last day of such quarter? yGS '7. Does your organization understand that the failure to file financial reports when due shall cause automatic revocation of the permit, and no such organization shall conduct any Bingo game or raffle thereafter until such report is properly filed and a new permit is obtained? y~S 8. Does your organization understand that each Financial Report must be accompanied by a Certificate, verified under oath by the Board of Directors, that the proceeds of any Bingo game or raffle have been used for these lawful, religious, charitable, commu- nity, or educational purposes for which the organization is spe- cifically chartered or organized, and that the operation of Bingo games or raffles have been in accordance with the provisions ~o~ Article 1.1 of Chapter 8, Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia. ~' 9. Does your organization understand that a one percent audit fee of the gross receipts must be paid to the County of Roanoke upon submission of the annual financial report due on or before the first of November? ~~S 10. Does your organization understand that this permit is valid only in the County of Roanoke and only at such locations, and for such dates, as are designated in the permit application? ~~S 11. Does your organization understand that no person, except a bona fide member of any such organization who shall have been a member of such organization for at least ninety days prior to such participation, shall participate in the management, opera- tion, or conduct of any bingo game or raffle, and no person shall receive any remuneration for participating in management, operation, or conduct of any such game or raffle? y,~5 12. Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke, Virginia? y~5 13. Does your organization understand that any organization found in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or §18.2- 340.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is subject to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member o.r employee of such organization who violates the above to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member or employee of such organizatioy•who vi`~l~the above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felon ~ Y S 5 14. Has your organization attached a complete list of its member- ship to this application form? /Vb loN ~=iC~~ 15. Has your organizati//on attached a copy of its bylaws to this application form? a(a loN fiL~~- 16. Has the organization been declared exempt from property taxa- tion under the Virginia Constitution or statutes? ~/~S If yes, state whether exemption is for real, personal property, or both and identify exempt property. qe.c. ~~sc..~}-~r=~. - 17. State the specific type and purpose of the organization. ~e'?pv~iJ4=~ /'i)JC~#~I~i~ 'ib C/-~iL'~~N ~~ RC~/~~CIC3: C".4~'Jr~I-F 18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia? /~/C7 If yes, name and address of Registered Agent: 19. Is the organization registered with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs pursuant to the Charitable Solicitations Act, Section 57-48 of the Virginia Code?1C/d - (If so, attach copy of registration.) Has the organization been granted an exemption from registration by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs? /p (If so, attach copy of exemption.) ALL RAFFLE APPLICANTS DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES, AND PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION. Article Description C.ySS~~~ P~Ay~z Pic N/c G3gs~<~; Fair Market Value /DO ~ ~S 6 ALL BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWE NOTARIZATION QUESTIONS 20 - 27 BEFORE RAFFLE APPLICANTS, GO 20. Does your organization underst not be conducted more frequently t calendar week? 21. Does your organization understa complete records of the bingo game. 340.6 of the Code of Virginia and must include the following: a. A record of the date, quantii bingo supplies purchased, as we the supplier of such instan+ invoice or receipt is also requ stant bingo supplies? b. A record in writing of the da the number of people in atten amount of receipts and Ariz (These records must be retained c. A record of the name and addre door prize, regular or specia from the playing of Bingo is aw NOTARIZATION. nd that the bingo games shall an two calendar days in any d that it is required to keep hese records based on §18.2- §4.98 of Roanoke County Code ,~, and card value of instant 1 as the name and address of bingo supplies, and written red for each purchase of in- es on which Bingo is played, ance on each date, and the s on each day? for three years.) s of each individual to whom a Bingo game prize or jackpot rded? d. A complete and itemized recor~ of all receipts and disburse- ments which support, and that agree with, the quarterly and annual reports required to be filed, and that these records must be maintained in reasonable order to permit audit? 22. Does your organization understand that instant Bingo may only be conducted at such time as regular Bingo game is in progress, and only at such locations and at such times as are specified in this application? 23. Does your organization understand that the gross receipts in the course of a reporting year from the playing of instant Bingo may not exceed 33 1/3~ of the gross receipts of an organization's Bingo operation? 24. Does your organization understand it may not sell an instant Bingo card to an individual below sixteen years of age? _ 25. Does your organization understand that an organization whose gross receipts from all bingo operations that exceed or are ex- pected to exceed $75,000 in any calendar year shall have been granted tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501 C of the United States Internal Revenue Service? (Certificate must be attached.) 7 26. Does your organization understand that a Certificate of Occu- pancy must be obtained or be on file which authorizes this use at the proposed location? 27. Does your organization understand that awards or prize money or merchandise valued in excess of the following amounts are illegal? a. No door prize shall exceed twenty-five dollars. b. No regular Bingo or special Bingo game shall exceed One Hund- red dollars. c. No jackpot of any nature whatsoever shall exceed One Thousand Dollars, nor shalt the total amount of jackpot prizes awarded in any one calendar day exceed One Thousand Dollars. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTARIZATION: THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set forth in §18.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and beliefs. All questions have been answered. Signed by: Title ,5Ci1 c~4+lE Home Ac Subscribed and sworn before me, this day of My commission expires: 19 19 Notary Public RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION TO: COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE P.O. Box 20409 Roanoke, VA 24018-0513 s~2+~G, r~~~ ~'R v`l~ol 3ress 8 -~ NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED The above application, having been found in due form, is approved and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of this calendar year. Date om iss over of t Reven The above application is not approved. Date Commissioner of the Revenue 9 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE 52290-11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 51.62 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED OFF ROUTE 939 (AEROSPACE ROAD) (TAX MAP NO. 90.00-3-12) IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 27, 1990, and the public hearing was held April 24, 1990; and, WHEREAS, this ordinance having been tabled for further study and consideration, was removed from the table and the second reading of this ordinance was approved and adopted on May 22, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 3, 1990; 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 51.62 acres, as described herein, and located off Route 939 (Aerospace Road), (Tax Map Number yu.uu-.t-1G) in zii~ Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of. M-2, General Industrial District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Single Family Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Aerospace Research Corporation. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. All lots in the proposed subdivision shall contain a minimum land area of one acre. b. A minimum 50 foot buffer yard will be maintained between the M-2 and R-1 properties. The existing trees on the land will remain to implement the buffering. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at Point A in Back Creek at the western most point of the property, thence S. 56 deg. 30' E. 31 poles to point 44; thence S. 77 deg. E. 7.38 poles to a point on the Aerospace Road right-of-way; thence following Aerospace Road right-of-way 30.1 poles to point 43; thence N. 30 deg. E. 18.14 poles to point 42; thence N. 72 deg. 30' E. 40.92 poles to point 42A; thence N. 29 deg. 45' W. 96.9 poles to a point in the creek at 25 1/2; thence S. 89 deg. W. 42.39 poles to a point in the creek at 26; thence S. 20 deg. 15' W. 22.42 poles to a point in the creek at 27; thence S. 8 deg. 15' W. 52.54 poles to a point in the creek at 28; thence S. 7 deg. 11' W. to point A the beginning. Comprising a total of 51.62 acres, more or less. 5. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be May 22, 1990. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to grant rezoning request with proffered conditions, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~52~~ Brenda J. olton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney P A N ,~. F ~ A Z ~ ~ a 18 ~~) 88 aF80U1CENTENN~~' A Btaun~ul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AU AME11KAdrr Ir ~'I I~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ 1979 C~~un~ 1989 MEMORANDUM Members, Board of Supervisors ~' ,,~~~~~~~ Harry C. Nickens ~ ~ ~tj',I;~;~''~f~,~ May 14, 1990 0 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE•CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY VdINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERAL D15TRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HpLL1N5 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION REZONING REGIUEST As you are aware, the Board, on motion to reconsider a previous action, tabled the request of Aerospace Research to rezone to R-1 approximately 50 acres at their site. Your indulgence has allowed me to follow up with the Roanoke County, Vinton Health Department, State Water Control Board, and the County's Utility Department. The following summarizes my findings: WATER Proposed subdivision is in the Pre-Cambrian Cambrian Zone and produces wells up to 200 gallons per minute. Water bearing properties of Pre-Cambrian rock vary from poor (on top of hills) to good (in low areas). The land in the proposed subdivision is well below Windy Gap Mountain off State Route 116 and is only 180 ft. above the bed of Back Creek at tts highest point. Therefore, the water bearing properties of the parcel in question are in the 'good' area for water development. SEPTIC SYSTEMS Roanoke County's Utility Department reports that they are 'not aware of any problems with the failure of individual wells or on-lot septic systems in this general area.' The Health Department states that they cannot 'justify classifying the area poor for housing development.' This position indicates a lack of problems with septics in this general area. Given the size of the lots, all in excess of one acre, the fact that the Planning Commission supported the rezoning, five to zero, and saw the development consistent with the future land use in that area, and given the apparent lack of problems with well water and septic systems in that area, I would ask for your support in a reconsideration of this rezoning. As you know, this matter has been tabled and can be brought off the table at some future meeting. I will be in touch with you regarding this request before this is brought back for any future public consideration. HCN/bjh pc: Elmer Hodge t. ~ t. 1 4 r ~- ^~ ~~ PETITIONER: AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORP. CASE NUMBER: 15-4/90 Planning Commission Hearing Date: April 3, 1990 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 24, 1990 `f~io -~. A. REQUEST Petition of Aerospace Research Corporation to rezone 51.62 acres from M-2 to R-1 to develop a subdivision, located off Route 939 (Aerospace Road), Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no opposition to the request. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS None. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. All lots in the proposed subdivision shall contain a minimum land area of one acre. Half of the lots are well over one acre. 2. A minimum 50 foot buffer yard will be maintained between the M-2 and R-1 properties. E. COMMISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON Mr. Robinson moved to approve the request with proffered conditions. Mr. Winstead requested an amendment to the motion which would eliminate the two unenforceable proffers. The amended motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES:Massey, Winstead, Witt, Robinson, Gordon NAYS:None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: Concept Plan Vicinity Map Staff Report Other f ~~v+-c..ti-i Terrance Harington, cretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 1~ %L% - !r STAFF REPORT CASE NUMBER: 15-4/90 PETITIONER: Aerospace Research Corp. REVIEWED BY: Jon Hartley DATE: March 30, 1990 Petition of Aerospace Research Corporation to rezone a 51.62 acre parcel from M-2 to R-1 to develop a residential subdivision, located off of Route 939 (Aerospace Road), Vinton Magisterial District. 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Petitioner has modified a request denied by the Hoard of Supervisors request in January, 1990 to develop a portion of the Corporations land holdings for residential use. Where the original proposal contained 25 lots on 22.5 acres, this proposal contains 23 lots on 51.62 acres. Petitioner has proffered as a conditions that all lots shall contain a minimum of one acre. Petitioner has also proffered to preserve as many trees as possible, and to work with the local fire department in forest fire prevention measures. Aerospace Research Corporation is a research and development firm involved in alternative fuels research for gas turbines, a wide variety of environmental testing, and rocket fuel research. Petitioner has indicated that present activities are small in scale and involve only very small quantities of explosive or hazardous materials. The present M-2 zoning adjoining the 52 acre parcel would permit a wide variety of uses which may or may not be compatible with the proposed residential uses. b. Attached concept plan and zoning vicinity map describe project more fully. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The R-1 district allows only single family residences, public facilities, community and country clubs, and churches. The minimum lot size required is 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres), unless larger lots are required for sewage disposal by the Health Department. b. The M-2, Manufacturing district, permits a wide variety of light and heavy industrial uses including, automobile assembly, contractor's yard, truck terminals, brick manufacturing, etc. c. Subdivision plans must be submitted for review and approval by the County, including approval of well and septic drain field locations, prior to the sale of any lots. As proposed, the street must met the same standards required in the Urban Service area due to the density. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: The majority of the 148 acre parcel owned by Aerospace Research consists of a series of ridges and moderate to steep valleys, with moderately level plateau areas scattered throughout the property. This topography makes this site generally unsuitable for intensive industrial development without extensive earth movement and grading. The terrain of the property proposed for rezoning consists of a ridge, with moderate to steep slopes leading downward to minor drainage ways and Back Creek on either side of the ridge. ~'~~-~ b. Ground Cover: Vegetative cover consists of 25-30 year old forested stands of Virginia pine, poplar and maple. The state area forester recommends that most of the trees on this site should be retained during and after development, other than those near buildings which may be hazardous, to prevent erosion problems and protect water quality. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Mount Pleasant Community Planning Area. The growth initiative for this area is to limit growth. b. General area consists of scattered residential development, open space, and woodlands. 5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed action. Use a scale of 1 through 5. 1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable impact, 4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and N/A = not applicable. RATING FACTOR COMMENTS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 3 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1965 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Rural Preserve land use category. The proposed use for residential purposes is consistent, but the density of development proposed is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and map. The density recommended in the plan is less than one unit per five acres. The petitioner's concept plan depicts a density of one residence for every 2.2 acres, while the petitioner has only proffered a density of not less than one residence per acre. A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map was submitted with the previous petition. This request was denied by the Board of Supervisors, consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. ~ b. Surrounding Land: Immediately adjacent to the site is woodlands and open space, and the facilities of Aerospace Research Corp, and a residential subdivision on a ridge above and overlooking the subject property. 2 c. Neighboring Area: Within the neighboring area are a few scattered residences, and a contractor's storage facility. The balance of the area is wooded open space. 2 d. Site Layout: The road shown on concept plan submitted follows a ridge. The lots on either side would have moderate to steep slopes and will require careful site planning for each residence to accommodate all necessary improvements. 2 e. Architecture: No architectural style has been indicated. `~`9r~ -~ N/A f. Screening and Landscaping: Screening and buffering requirements are imposed on the more intensive use at the time of development or expansion. Therefore screening and buffering would occur on the adjoining M-2 property only if the adjoining industrial facility is enlarged. N/A g. Amenities: 2 h. Natural Amenities: (See Ground Cover above.) TRAFFIC 2 i. Street Capacities: The 23 residences currently proposed would generate approximately 230 ADT. In 1986 Aerospace Road (Route 939) had an ADT of 89, while Route 116 had an ADT of 3,370. Four accidents were reported in the vicinity of the intersection of Routes 116 and 939 during 1987. 2 j. Circulation: Access to the 23 lots proposed would be provided by a new street. Subdivision regulations require that the road be built to county and state standards and dedicated to the state. Sight distance, grades and other design aspects of this road will be reviewed during the subdivision review process against those standards. However, sight distance appears to be adequate. UTILITIES 2 k. Water: Public water is unavailable. Private well locations must be approved by the Health Department. 2 1. Sewer: Public sewer is unavailable. Private septic systems and drain fields must be approved by the Health Department. DRAINAGE 2 m. Basin: Located on a minor tributary of Back Creek. 2 n. Floodplain: Portions of the property proposed for rezoning and development is located in the federally designated floodplain along Back Creek. The specific 100 year flood plain elevation would have to be delineated on any subdivision plat, with development prohibited in those areas. PUBLIC SERVICES 3 0. Fire Protection: Within established service limits. This area is served by the Mt. Pleasant Fire and Rescue Station. Petitioner has agreed, as a proffered condition, to work with the local fire department in forest fire prevention measures. 2 p. Rescue: Within established service limits. This area is served by the Mt. Pleasant Fire and Rescue Station. 2 q. Parks and Recreation: No park or recreation facilities are proposed in association with this petition. 2 r. Schools: The 23 lots proposed in this rezoning petition would generate approximately 15 school aged children. Adequate capacity is available in the Mt. Pleasant/William Hyrd Jr & Sr High system to accommodate these students. ygo-~ TAX BASE 3 s. - Land and Improvement Value: 3 22,100 (Present) - Taxable Gross Sales/Year; Not Applicable - Total Employees: Not Applicable - Total Revenue to the County/Year: Not Available ENVIRONMENT 2 t. Air: 2 u. Water: 2 v. Soils: 2 w. Noise: 2 x. Signage: b. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Rural Preserve. The petitioner's request is consistent with the uses encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan, but the density proposed is inconsistent with the plan policies. 7. STAFF EVALUATION a. Strengths: (1) The topography makes this site generally unsuitable for intensive industrial development without extensive earth movement and grading. (2) The proposed use is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan while the present zoning and use is inconsistent with the plan. b. Weaknesses: (1) The present M-2 zoning adjoining the 52 acre parcel would permit a wide variety of uses which may or may not be compatible with the proposed residential uses. (2) The density of development proposed is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and map. (3) The lots proposed would have moderate to steep slopes and will require careful site planning for each residence to accommodate all necessary improvements. c. Proffers Suggested: None ~` ~o _ ~ AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION 5454 AEROSPACE RO. - ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24014 TELEPHONE 342-2859 AREA CODE 703 February 22, 1990 irector of Planning, Roanoke County ..0. Box 29800 oanoke, Virginia 2018-0798 _ttention: Mr. Terry Harrington =ear Mr. Harrington: An application is hereby submitted for rezoning 51.62 acres of Aerospace esearch Corporation property now zoned M-2 to R-1 for the purpose of devel- ~ping a residential subdivision for single family housing. There are no plans ='~r providing water or sewer services to the area by the county. In addition =he contour of the terrain is such that it is poorly suited for industrial -use. Mr. Gubala has viewed the property and agrees that it is not suited to ~~mmercial use. We are making the following proffer in the use of the land: 1. All purchasers of lots in the subdivision will be urged to preserve all trees that can safely be retained and they will be referred to the State Forester for advice. 2. The :~`ount Pleasant Fire Department will be consulted regarding their advice and participation in preventio:~ of and responding to forest fires in the area. 3. All lots in the proposed subdivision shall contain a minimum land area of one acre. F:41f of the lots are well over 1 acre. Any assistance your department can provide in effecting the rezoning of =his property will be appreciated. Very truly yours, ~~~ - ;• -TH/cd FER 22 199 PlA~if~'Y1116, IOgItN~ ~ ~~ ~~ AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION Joseph T. Hamrick President .' 1 ~~ ~ ~ M i~ 2 . `{. _ - T ~ -,.' ~ _ -~ ~' _ ~~ ~, r= 1 :~ I .,... ~~_ _ - , f y 03 a F1¢ ~9 \ & FN ~ \ ~ I J n J p ~ i ~ v - ~ .~,~ , .. _ Q ,~ ~ ~ + ~ j U _ OV r J t L ~ ~~' 4 Z \ \ C ~ V ~ ~ ~~~ 0~2 ~ u ' Z y ¢- 9 \ ,J W Jx,Y ~aa -) Q' I y \ 4 i n F 4[ ~'1 Q ~~~ o ., ~ z~ JrQ~ i n ?00 ~ru / // ~ J' ~ Z 'J ~ '~ o \ \ i ' a~` ~ m4oo W n L u p O ~ ~•A LLpOJ 03°-'~ I N Q ~ ~~, ~ I z I ~ ~ O N ° 1 \ n ° o0 I V N =2 r W W y~ Ir t dOU1 /~ Yd ij1U ~ r ~ J~'~n r 4 a NW poi Ot JOW °~ f o a~ a~ ~ ~ Q ~~ „ V W J ~ u? ~~ 6 om ~ 9~ - ~.~ .. .•,1~/~ W Q ~ Q1v n~ G 0 ~2 j ~~- N U ~~- i n ~ Q J ~i U 2 J I}- -' 1 J,~T Oj u ~ryr Q ~ J ' in i F- ~ _ , j ~ l J c. W t l ~ f - ~ J 1!~ ~ 1 dz .C= a e_N li C Z' ~ 90 - ~ AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION 5454 AEROSPACE RD. - ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24014 TELEPHONE 342-2859 AREA CODE 703 April 9, 1990 ~: ;~',. .I c` "~ ~ ; 1990 Director of Planning, Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 2+018-0798 Attention: Mr. Terry Harrington Dear Mr. Harrington: Ali',. si i:. Pli (~j j; ~ vl lT rf.~ lbt7~~ ~vl~d'Y As agreed upon at the Planning Commission meeting of April 3rd, 1990 the following proffers on the 51.62 acres of Aerospace Research Corporation land, which is to be developed as a 23 lot subdivision, are confirmed: 1. All lots in the subdivision will be one acre or greater in area. 2. A fifty foot wide buffer strip will be maintained between the back side of any lots and land zoned M-2. The existing trees on the land will remain to implement the buffering. If you have any comments on this please contact us. Very truly yours, AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORFORATION oseph T. Hamrick resident JTH/cd ~~~U' ~ ~ X90 - ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1990 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 51.62 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED OFF ROUTE 939 (AEROSPACE ROAD) (TAX MAP NO. ~ ~., 90.00-3-12) IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF AEROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 27, 1990, and the second reading and public hearing was held April 24, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 3, 1990; 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 51.62 acres, as described herein, and located off Route 939 (Aerospace Road), (Tax Map Number 90.00-3-12) in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-2, General Industrial District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Single Family Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Aerospace Research Corporation. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. All lots in the proposed subdivision shall contain a minimum land area of one acre. X90-1~ b. A minimum 50 foot buffer yard will be maintained between the M-2 and R-1 properties. The existing trees on the land will remain to implement the buffering. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at Point A in Back Creek at the ~~ western most point of the property, thence S. 56 deg. 30' E. 31 poles to point 44; thence S. 77 deg. E. 7.38 poles to a point on the Aerospace Road right-of-way; thence following Aerospace Road right-of-way 30.1 poles to point 43; thence N. 30 deg. E. 18.14 poles to point 42; thence N. 72 deg. 30' E. 40.92 poles to point 42A; thence N. 29 deg. 45' W. 96.9 poles to a point in the creek at 25 1/2; thence S. 89 deg. W. 42.39 poles to a point in the creek at 26; thence S. 20 deg. 15' W. 22.42 poles to a point in the creek at 27; thence S. 8 deg. 15' W. 52.54 poles to a point in the creek at 28; thence S. 7 deg. 11' W. to point A the beginning. Comprising a total of 51.62 acres, more or less. 5. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be April 24, 1990. ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Communitv Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired August 13, 1988. One-year term of Bernard Hairston expired August 13, 1989. 2. Fifth Plannin District Commission Three-year term of Lee B. Eddy expires June 30, 1990. Mr. Eddy is filling the unexpired term of Bob L. Johnson. 3. Landfill Citizens Advisor Committee Carl L. Wright, representative from the Cave Spring Magisterial District has resigned and another representative should be appointed. 4. Parks and Recreation Advisor Commission Three-year terms of Linda Shiner, Cave Spring Magisterial District, William J. Skelton, Jr., Windsor Hills Magisterial District, and Roger Smith, At-large member, will expire June 30, 1990. Mr. Smith is filling the unexpired term of Michael Lazzuri. 5. Transportation and Safety Commission Four-year term of Lt. Delton R. Jessup, State Police 1~/-Co Representative expired 4/1/90. 6 Virginia Western Community College Board Four-year term of Monty Plymale will expire June 30, 1990. SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. A lemon Clerk to the Board APPR ED B . ~,~~, fit Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by• No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Fifth Plannin District Commission ~_ „~ g 313 Luck Avenue, S.W. P.O. Box 2569 Roanoke, Virginia 24010 (703) 343-4417 May 2, 1990 Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Ms. Allen: According to our record of appointments, the term of Mr. Lee B. Eddy, elected representative of Roanoke County on the Fifth Planning District Commission, expires June 30, 1990 (Mr. Eddy was elected in January to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Bob L. Johnson). The Commission Bylaws state that all appointments are for three-year terms. Mr. Eddy is, of course, eligible for reappointment. Please notify the Commission of Roanoke County's official action in filling this upcoming vacancy on the Commission. Thank you. Yours truly, I_ G~'. c3~o.~,~oC ~~ Wayne G. Strickland Secretary to the Commission WGS:jlp cc: Mrs. Elizabeth Bowles, 5PDC Chairman Lee B. Eddy Alleghany County • Botetourt County • Craig County • Roanoke County City of Clifton Forge • City of Covington • City of Roanoke • City of Salem • Town of Vinton ~~ + .... ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION 52290-12 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 22, 1990, designated as Item L -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 8, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - April 24, 1990 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the League of Older Americans Advisory Board and Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. 3. Resolution supporting the restoration of control to local governments over cable television. 4. Acceptance of sanitary sewer facilities serving the Orchards, Section 5. 5. Resolution requesting approval of a grant application for the Clean Valley Council. 6. Donation of drainage easements through Lots 4, 5, 6, and 13 in Countrywood Subdivision, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 7. Donation of property, slope and drainage easement to the County of Roanoke for road widening purposes along Route 943, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve Consent Resolution with "B" of Item L-6 deleted and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: /<~~~ Brenda J. Hol on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Paul Mahoney, County Attorney ~ _,. ~ April 24, 1990 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 24, 1990 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April, 1990. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Robers called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Robers, Vice Chairman Steven A. McGraw, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator for Management Services; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board; Anne Marie Green, Information Officer 261 April 24, 1990 2 6 3 ,~¢~~. r-a ~ r i mess niiu ovvi ~.~ iuca~a. .~ ~.v.r..va+ ~.. ...1-~~-- ---'-- ~ Demonstration Center Freedom's Foundation Award Roanoke County PTA 1989-90 Membership Award United States Department of Education School for Excellence Finalist Roanoke County Council PTA Outstanding Elementary Unit Commonwealth of Virginia Outstanding Elementary School 1987-88 WHEREAS, this recognition is due to the hard work and commitment to excellence of the students, teachers, and staff of Green Valley Elementary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors does hereby, on behalf of its members and all the citizens of the County, extend its congratulations to the students, teachers, and staff of Green Valley Elementary School on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of its dedication. On motion of Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Eleanor Knott for thirty years of service to the Roanoke County School System. R-42490-2 April 24, 1990 2 6 5 following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None 3. Proclamation declaring the week of Aril 22 - 28, 1990 as Professional Secretaries Week. Certified Professional Secretaries Wanda Riley, Susan Patterson, Cynthia Kinney, Susie Owen and Carolyn Wagner accepted the proclamation. Carolyn Wagner was further recognized for recently completing the requirements to be designated a Certified Professional Secretary. Supervisor Robers moved to adopt the proclamation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None IN RE: NEW BIISINESS 1. Request from the Mount Pleasant First Aid-Crew for approval of matching funds grant to purchase a squad truck. A-4290-3 Fire and Rescue Chief Tommy Fuqua reported that in 1987, a grant program was approved to assist in the purchase of fire and rescue equipment. This rescue truck is a specialized April 24, 1990 267 increase. Supervisor Johnson requested that the economic development staff look at the land that the SPCA recently sold to see if it was conditionally rezoned by the County. Supervisor Eddy asked if dog tag fees could be increased to offset the increase in the SPCA contract. Mr. Chambliss responded that the Animal Control Office is investigating this, checking with other localities and a report will be brought back to the Board. Supervisor Nickens moved to authorize the County Administrator to execute the contract. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None 3. Request from School Board for acceptance of federal special education preschool grant funds. 7~-~2~90-5 Dr. Eddie Kolb, Director of Special Education presented the report on behalf of the Schools, advising that this grant totalled $25,029 of which the schools have already budgeted $3,554. The funds will be used for materials, equipment and summer school instruction for the preschool program. Supervisor Nickens moved to accept the grant. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers April 24, 1990 2 6 9 Construction, was present to answer questions. Supervisor Johnson expressed concern about future growth up Bent Mountain. Supervisor Eddy agreed, but felt that utilities should be expanded closer to the urban area. Supervisor McGraw pointed out that movement continues in rural areas regardless of the level of services available. Supervisor Robers moved to approve the staff recommendation. -The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None 6. Request from Strauss Construction for 100% reimbursement of the cost of off-site sewer facilities at Cotton Hills subdivision. A-42490-8 Mr. Craig presented the staff report. He advised that staff recommends authorizing the credit of 100% of the sanitary sewer fees estimated to be $60,000, and sharing the remaining costs of the off-site sewer facilities with the developer on an equal basis. Supervisor Eddy suggested that easements could be obtained for sewer lines that could be used in the future as greenways. Mr. Craig responded this could be done if the board desired. Mr. Hodge felt that the concept was good but should be studied further. April 24, 1990 27 ~ ~ Request for Work Session on June 12. 1990 regarding Spring Hollow Reservoir Mr. Hodge updated the Board members on the Spring Hollow Reservoir project. Supervisor Nickens moved to set the work session for June 12, 1990. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING FOR REZONING ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to approve first reading and public hearing dates of May 22, 1990 for the following rezoning requests. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None 1. An ordinance to rezone a 2.56 acre parcel from R- 1 Conditional to B-2 Conditional for the purpose of constructing a convenience store with gas pumps located on Hardy Road in the Vinton Magisterial District upon the petition of Henry J. Brabham, IV 2. An ordinance to rezone a 2.25 acre parcel from B- 2 Conditional to B-2 Conditional (Amendment of Proffers) for the purposes of constructing a retail drive through window located at 4515 Brambleton Avenue in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Springwood Associates. April 24, 1990 ~ 7 3 Supervisor Robers directed Clerk Mary Allen to contact Webb Johnson to ascertain whether- he would like to be reappointed to the League of Older Americans. Supervisor Eddy directed her to inquire if Lt. Delton Jessup wishes reappointment to the Transportation and Safety Commission. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda with Item 1 removed for a separate vote. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None Supervisor Nickens moved to approve Item 1. carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Eddy RESOLIITION 42490-10 APPROVING AND CONCIIRRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THI8 DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA The motion 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 April 24, 1990 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 April 24, 1990 2 7 5 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Update on Automated Library System IN RE: EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS ~ Recognition of emplo}~ees for their nears of service to Roanoke County. Chairman Robers and County Administrator Elmer Hodge, assisted by Human Resources Director Keith Cook presented Certificates to Roanoke County employees in recognition of their years of service in five-year increments. Special recognition and plaques were also presented to 11 employees who have over 25 years service with Roanoke County. Mr. Hodge announced that they were the charter members of the Quarter Century Club. IN RE: RECESS Following service awards, Chairman Robers declared a recess for a reception in honor of those employees who received recognition for their service. EVENING SESSION IN RE: RECONVENEMENT At 7:04 p.m., Chairman Robers reconvened the meeting April 24, 1990 ~ 7 I 6. Mary Noon, 6715 Fair Oaks Drive, President of the Roanoke County Council of PTA's, asked for full funding of the School Board budget. 7. William Horne, 144 Rutledge Drive, Salem, a teacher at Arnold Burton, asked for increased funding for the electronics program and the School Board budget. 8. Bill Grey, 435 High Street, Salem, requested increased funding for vocational education programs. 9. Pam Kestner-Chappelear, P. O. Box 598, Roanoke, Director of Information and Referral, the Council of Community Services asked for funding of the information and referral service. 10. Steve Strauss, 2776 Bobolink Lane, spoke in opposition to increasing the building and construction fees. 11. Melody Stovall, 329 Colorado Street, Salem, Executive Director of the Harrison Heritage Museum of African- American Culture, asked for funding for the museum. 12. Stanley Brosky, 1724 Grandin Road, Roanoke, Executive Director of the Virginia Museum of Transportation, requested funding for the museum. Supervisor Johnson expressed concern about misunderstandings by the citizens of the school system. He pointed out that the schools are losing population. Since the beginning of the budget process additional funds have been added to the school budget. He pointed out that this year is the largest dollar increase for the smallest number of students in April 24, 1990 279' representatives three time to discuss and negotiate changes to the draft. He advised that fifteen different provisions were discussed and negotiated. Staff agreed with seven of the sign industry's recommendations, compromises were proposed and agreed to on three provisions, and no agreement was reached on five of the recommended changes. He reviewed the changes to the proposed sign ordinance. The following citizens spoke regarding the proposed ordinance: 1. Neil Kinsey, 3771 Hummingbird Lane, who spoke regarding the following: (1) freestanding signs should be allowed on any size lots; (2) 250 foot separation between freestanding signs is too large and (3) opposed to the limit on the number of signs a business can have. 2. Don Witt, 3332 Kenwick Trail, member of the Planning Commission and Sign Committee advised he felt the compromises weakened the ordinance and urged support. 3. Ted Key, Director of the Williamson Road Business Association, expressed concern about the 250 foot separation of freestanding signs. 4. Larry Etzler, 3515 Williamson Road, also was concerned about the 250 foot separation of signs and the limitation of number of signs. Following discussion, the board members and staff agreed to further modify the ordinance regarding the limitation on the number of signs. April 24 , 1990 2 8 1 WHEREAS, legal notice for the public hearing was provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of these signage regulations is necessary and expedient in order to secure and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of the County, since signs directly affect the appearance, aesthetics and vitality of the community, the enhancement and preservation of property values, traffic safety, and the value of the County's industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural areas. NOW, .THEREFORE BE _ IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County is hereby amended by repealing the following: Section 21-93 Signs. (REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY) Section 21-20 Words and Phrases The following words and phrases are REPEALED: Administrator Sign Sign Structure Section 21-22-5 R-MH Manufactured Housing Combined District I. (e) (REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY) Section 21-23-3 B-3 Special Commercial District B. Signs (REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY) April 24, 1990 ~ 8 architect, developer, builder, general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, and or financing entity participating in construction on the property on which the sign is located. DIRECTIONAL SIGN Any sign displayed for the direction and convenience of the public, including signs which identify rest rooms, location of public telephones, public entrances, freight entrances or the like. ESTABLISHMENT Any business or other land use permitted by this ordinance for which a sign permit may be requested. FREESTANDING SIGN A sign which is supported by structures or supports in or upon-the around and is independent of any support from any building. GLARE A bright light which is unnecessarily cast on to property due to direct transmission, refraction, or reflection. HISTORIC SITE SIGNS A sign erected and maintained by a public agency, or non-profit historical society, that identifies the location of, and provides information about, a historic place or event. HOME OCCIIPATION SIGN A sign associated with home occupation uses as provided for elsewhere in this ordinance. IDENTIFICATION SIGN A permanent on-premises sign displaying only the name of a subdivision, multi-family housing project, shopping center, industrial park, office park, church, school, public or quasi-public facility or similar type use. ILLIIMINATED SIGN Any sign with an artificial light source incorporated internally or externally for the purpose of April 24, 1990 2 8 5 access, customer and employee parking provided on-site, provision of goods delivery separated from customer access, aesthetic considerations, and protection from the elements. BIGN Any device, structure, fixture or placard using graphics, symbols, and/or written copy designed specifically for the purpose of advertising or identifying any establishment, product, goods, service, or activity. SIGN HEIGHT The vertical distance measured from grade to the highest portion of the sign or sign structure. SIGN SETBACK The minimum distance required between any property line and any portion of a sign or sign structure. SIGN BTRUCTIIRE The supports, uprights, bracing or framework of any structure exhibiting a sign, be it single faced, double faced, v-type or otherwise. SIISPENDED SIGN A sign that is suspended from a wall, roof, canopy, awning, marquee, mansard wall, parapet wall, or porch of a building by means of brackets, hooks or chains, and the like, and whose face is roughly perpendicular or parallel to the building element to which it is attached. TEMPORARY SIGN Any sign structure which is not permanently affixed to the ground, a building or other structure, and/or an on-premise sign applying to a seasonal or brief activity such as, but not limited to, summer camps, horse shows, yard sales, Christmas tree sales, business promotions, auctions and carnivals. For the purposes of these regulations, on-premises real estate signs and signs displayed on active construction April 24, 1990 2 8 7 _ requiring that signs not create a hazard due to collapse, fire, decay, or abandonment. (6) To ensure that signs do not obstruct fire-fighting efforts, and do not create traffic hazards by confusing or distracting motorists or by impairing drivers' ability to see pedestrians, obstacles, or other vehicles or to read traffic signs. (7) To provide for the reasonable advertising of business and civic products and services, with recognition of the effects of signage on the character of the community. (8) To control visual clutter, and encourage high professional standards in sign design and display. (9) To establish clear procedures for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. B. DEFINITIONS (1) Definitions pertaining to provisions of these sign regulations may be found in Section 21-20 of this ordinance. (2) Graphic representations of sign designs and terminology may be found in Section 21-93 (R) of this ordinance. These graphics should be viewed as illustrative examples only, and are not intended to be inclusive of all sign designs. C. PERMITTED SIGNS-GENERALLY (1) Any sign displayed in Roanoke County shall be in accordance with: (a) All provisions of Section 21-93 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; and April 24, 1990 289 square feet in area warning t.respas5cia vL a,=,..~.._...~..7 r._..=.__ -, -- posted. (g) Signs displayed on a truck, bus, or other vehicle while in use in the normal conduct of business. This section shall not be interpreted to permit the parking for display purposes a vehicle to which a sign is attached or the use of such a vehicle as a portable sign. (h) Flags and insignias of any government except when displayed in connection with commercial purposes. (i) On-premises real estate signs in residential or agricultural zoning districts not exceeding five (5) square feet in area, or on-premises real estate signs in commercial or industrial zoning districts not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in area. On-premises real estate signs larger than these exempted allowances may be installed as temporary signs in accordance with Section 21-93 (J) (2). (j) Clocks that display time and temperature through the use of mechanical means or the controlled display of lights, provided these devices do not display any other message. (k) Political campaign signs provided that they are located outside of the public right-of-way, and are removed within fourteen (14) days after the campaign. (1) Signs displayed between Thanksgiving and Christmas associated with the sale of Christmas trees and wreaths. (m) Signs on the inside of establishments, except April 24, 1990 1 9 ' ( ) Flashing or revolving lights, or beacons intended to direct attention to a location, building or service, or any similar device otherwise displayed that imitates by its design or use, emergency service vehicles or equipment. (i ) (Reserved ) (j) Any sign that simulates an official traffic sign or signal, and which contains the words "STOP", "GO", "SLOW", "CAUTION", "DANGER", "WARNING", Or Slmllar WOrdS. (k) Any sign or portion thereof that rotates, or otherwise moves through the use of electrical or wind power. This prohibition does not include the changing of messages on electronic message boards. (1) Signs advertising activities or products that are illegal under federal, state, or county law. (m) Any sign that obstructs any building door, window, or other means of egress. (n) Any electrical sign that does not display the UL, ETL, CSA, or ULC label, unless such sign is constructed, installed, and inspected in accordance with Section 21-93 (K) (2) - (o) Signs or sign structures that are erected on, or extend over, a piece of property without the expressed written permission of the property owner or the owner's agent. (p) Any sign that due to its size, location or height obstructs the vision of motorists or pedestrians at any intersection, or similarly obstructs the vision of motorists April 24, 1990 193 signs be applied for at one time. (5) After the issuance of an approved sign permit, the applicant may install and display any such sign or signs approved. Once installed, the Zoning Administrator may inspect the sign(s) for conformance with the approved sign permit and this ordinance. If the displayed sign(s), due to size, location, height, or number do not conform to the information on the approved sign permit, or the applicable standards of this ordinance, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant in accordance with Section 21-93 (G). (6) Any sign permit issued shall be null and void if any sign for which the permit was issued is not installed in accordance with the permit within six (6) months of the date the permit was approved. (7) Maintenance, repair, or restoration of nonconforming signs shall be in accordance with Section 21-93 (M). Zf the value of such work exceeds fifty (50) percent of its replacement value, it shall only be authorized after the approval of a sign permit application. G. ENFORCEMENT (1) The Zoning Administrator shall have the responsibility for enforcing the provisions of this ordinance. The Zoning Administrator may, as necessary, solicit the assistance of other local and state officials and agencies to assist with this enforcement. April 24, 1990 295 a wall, fence, or other building element shall be the entire area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of each word, group of words, symbol, numeral, groups of symbols, or groups of numerals, where the symbols or numbers are meant to be read as a unit. (c) The area of a freestanding sign shall be the total area of all surfaces (excluding poles or other support structures) visible from the public right-of-way. For double or multi-faced signs, only the area of surfaces visible at any one time, at any one point on the public right-of-way shall be measured when calculating sign area. (d) The area of monument-type freestanding signs shall be determined by (1) the size of the copy area, (2) visual breaks in the structural components of the sign, and/or (3) variation in the monuments color scheme. (2) In situations where these criteria do not provide guidance in determining sign area, the zoning administrator shall determine the size of the sign. Z. CALCIILATION OF ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA ON CORNER LOTS (1) On corner lots, the f ront shal l be either ( a ) the side fronting the street providing major access, or (b) the side which the main entrance of the structure faces. In situations where neither of these methods clearly distinguishes the front, the Zoning Administrator shall make a determination. (2) For commercial or industrial uses, the front shall not be a primarily residential street. April 24, 1990 297 (c) No business or establishment shall display more than two temporary signs simultaneously and the total square footage of any temporary signs displayed at one time shall not exceed sixty (60) square feet. (2) Real estate signs greater than sixteen (16) square feet in commercial or industrial zoning districts or greater than five (5) square feet in agricultural or residential zoning districts may be installed on a lot provided that each such sign does not exceed ninety-six (96) square feet in area, and has a minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet from any public right- of-way. All real estate signs must be-removed withinll4 days" after the property has been sold or leased. (3) On premises construction signs may be installed on active construction sites. No construction sign shall exceed ninety-six (96) square feet in area. Any such sign must have a minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet from any public right- of-way. All construction signs must be removed from a construction site prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building or project. R. ILLIII+IINATED SIGNS (1) Signs may be illuminated either through the use of backlighting or direct lighting provided the following standards are met: (a) Information on any illumination proposed as part of a sign must be provided by the applicant on the sign permit application. April 24, 1990 2 9 9 =. (1) Nonconforming Signs-Generally. Any sign which was lawfully in existence at the time of the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the provisions herein, and any sign which is accessory to a nonconforming use, shall be deemed a nonconforming sign and may remain except as qualified in section (2), below. No nonconforming sign shall be enlarged, extended, structurally reconstructed, or altered in any manner; except a sign face may be changed so long as the new face is equal to, or reduced in height, sign area, and/or projection. (a) The addition of lighting or illumination to a nonconforming sign, shall constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure, and shall not be permitted under these regulations. (2) Removal of Nonconforming Signs. Nonconforming signs may remain, provided they are kept in good repair, except for the following: (a) Damage or destruction of a non-conforming sign. A nonconforming sign which is destroyed or damaged to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of its replacement value shall not be altered, replaced or reinstalled unless it is in conformance with these sign regulations. If the damage or destruction is fifty (50) percent or less of its replacement value, the sign may be restored within ninety (90) days of the damage or destruction, but shall not be enlarged in any manner. (b) Damage or destruction of use. A nonconforming on-premises sign shall be removed if the structure April 24, 1990 3 0 ' exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (a) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty- five (25) square feet of signage. IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A maximum of thirty (30) square feet shall be allowed per use. HOME OCCUPATION SIGNS A maximum of two (2) square feet shall be allowed per home occupation, or group of home occupations within one home. HISTORIC SITE SIGNS A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. TEMPORARY SIGNS Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 21-93 (J). (b) No freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than two hundred (200) feet of lot frontage. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be 250 feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. (c) Any freestanding sign erected. must have a minimum sign setback of 40 feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or 15 feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. (d) No freestanding sign shall exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. (e) No establishment shall be allowed more than April 24, 1990 3 O ~ ~~ lot having less than two hundred (200) feet of lot frontage. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be 250 feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. (c) Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of 40 feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or 15 feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. (d) No freestanding sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in height. (e) No establishment shall be allowed more than two (2) signs. (3) B-1 OFFICE DISTRICT REGULATIONS (a) Lots within a B-1 district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-half (.5) square foot of sign area per 1 lineal foot of lot frontage. The following signs shall be allowed in the B-1 Office District subject to the regulations contained herein: BUSINESS SIGNS Each permitted business in a B-1 district shall be allowed a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (a) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. April 24, 1990 30 5 The following signs shall be allowed in the B-2 General Commercial District subject to the regulations contained herein: BIISINE88 SIGNS Each permitted business in a B-2 district shall be allowed a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (a) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. IDENTIFICATION SIGNS Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this zone. HISTORIC SITE SIGNS A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. TEMPORARY SIGNS Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 21-93 (J). (b) No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be 250 feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. (c) Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of 40 feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or 15 feet from any front property line, whichever April 24, 1990 307 allowed on any lot having less than one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be 250 feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. (c) Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of 40 feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or 15 feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. (d) No freestanding sign shall exceed twenty- five (25) feet in height. (e) No establishment shall be allowed more than five (5) signs. (6) INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS (a) Lots within M-1, M-2, and M-3 districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet of sign area per 1 lineal foot of lot frontage. The following signs shall be allowed in the M-1, M-2, and M-3 districts subject to the regulations contained herein: BOSINESS SIGNS Each business in an industrial zoning district shall be allowed a maximum of three hundred (300) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (a) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed April 24, 1990 30 9 allowed in the B-2, B-3, M-1, M-2 and M-3 Districts provided the following location and design standards are met: (a) No off-premises sign shall be located within a five hundred (500) foot radius of a~n existing off-premises sign, or an off-premises sign for which a valid permit has been obtained, but has not yet been erected. (b) No off-premises sign shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of any residential zoning district, public square, park, school, library, or church. (cj No off-premises sign shall be allowed to be installed on any roof structure, nor shall any such sign exceed 35 feet in height above the abutting road. (d) Side by side, double and multi-decker off- premises signs shall not be permitted. (e) Any off-premises sign must have a minimum sign setback of 40 feet from the centerline of any public right- of-way, or 15 feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Any off-premises sign shall have a minimum side and/or rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. (f) The maximum size of any off-premises sign on a lot shall be 378 square feet plus 10$ for embellishments. (2) SSE NOT PROVIDED FOR PERMITS In conjunction with the approval of any Use Not Provided For Permit, the Board of Supervisors, after consideration of the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission, shall impose sign limitations for the use as may be deemed appropriate. Prior to acting, the Planning April 24, 1990 3 lot in a location that conforms to these provisions. (6) LOTB HITHODT PIIBLIC 8TRB8T FRONTAG$ Lots without public street frontage that existed upon the effective date of this ordinance shall be allowed signage based upon the applicable district regulations as provided for in Section 21-93 (O) of this ordinance. Permitted signage shall be calculated based upon the frontage width of the lot that parallels the nearest public street. Q. VARIANCES (1) Requests for variances to these sign regulations shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 2i-123 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Zoning Appeals, in considering any variance request, shall follow the guidelines of this section, and Section 15.1-495 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. The power to grant variances does not extend to an economic hardship related to the cost, size or location of a new sign, or to the convenience of an applicant, nor should it be extended to the convenience of regional or national businesses which propose to use a standard sign when it does not conform to the provisions of this section. R. GRAPHICS (1) The graphics incorporated herein are provided as illustrative examples of various sign types and sign related terminology used in this ordinance. As such they are not intended to be inclusive of all sign designs. 3. Severability April 24, 1990 3 1 rezoning because of lack of water and sewer. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the petition. The motion was denied by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens NAYS: Supervisors Eddy, Johnson, Robers The petitioner was present and asked why this development was being denied when there are other homes all around the proposed subdivision. Supervisor Nickens agreed with the petitioner and stated that the Board should be consistent and deny all rezonings which are not served by water and sewer. Supervisor McGraw pointed out that the terrain of the property will not allow industrial development and lack of water and sewer will not limit residential areas. Supervisor Johnson moved to reconsider the vote on the rezoning. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: Supervisor Eddy Supervisor Johnson moved to table the rezoning, explaining that this will allow the issue to be brought back to the Board for another vote without the petitioner going through the entire rezoning process again. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: Supervisor Eddy 490-7 An ordinance to rezone approximately 7.64 April 24, 1990 3 ~ 5 ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw ORDINANCE 42490-12 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 7.64 ACRES TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED NORTH OF PLANTATION ROAD (TA]I MAP NOB. 27.06-5-2 and 27.06-5-9) IN THE HOLLINB MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF H-2 l1ITH CONDITIONS DPON THE APPLICATION OF DOMINION HANRSHARES WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 27, 1990, and the second reading and public hearing was held April 24, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 3, 1990; 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 7.64 acres, as described herein, and located north of Plantation Road, (Tax Map Numbers 27.06-5-2 and 27.06-5-9) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of A-1, Agricultural District, to the zoning classification of B-2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Dominion Bankshares. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: April 24, 1990 3 ~ 7 4, S. 29 deg. 51' 08" E. 525.81 feet to an iron pin, corner to the First National Exchange Bank (now Dominion Bank, National Association) parcel; thence with the same, S. 57 deg. 31' 40" W. 380.71 feet to an iron pin, corner to the lands formerly owned by G. H. and Mary E. Riley; thence with the same N. 21 deg. 37' 37" W. 318.91 feet to an iron pin, corner to the parcel of land formerly belonging to A. B. McDaniel and wife (Deed Book 463, page 277); thence with the same, N. 62 deg. 11' 18" E. 60.83 feet to an iron pin, corner also to said parcel formerly belonging to said A. B. McDaniel and wife; thence further with the same, N. 21 deg. 37' 37" W. 228.97 feet to an iron pin in the south line of said Virginia Secondary Route No. 1895; thence with the same the following three courses and distances: N. 61 deg. 26' 07" E. 147.04 feet to a Virginia Department of Highway Monument; thence N. 28 deg. 33' 52" W. 10.00 feet to a iron pin; and thence N. 62 deg. 18' 59" E. 93.98 feet to the place of BEGINNING, and containing 3.84404 acres, being Tract 2 as shown on a map prepared by Raymond B. Huffman showing the survey of a division of the lands of O.H. and Lila Huffman, situate in the Catawba Magisterial District of Roanoke County, Virginia, dated July 26, 1974, and made by Raymond E. Robertson, Engineer and Surveyor, a copy of which is of record in Deed Book 1004, page 689, reference to which map is hereby specifically made; and BEING the same property conveyed by Lila E. Huffman by deed dated June 10, 1975, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1019, page 660. 4. That the Church of God, as owner of the real estate, has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. The property will not included permitted uses for undertaking establishments and funeral homes; public billiard parlors, poolrooms, bowling alleys, golf driving ranges and similar forms of public amusement; animal hospitals or clinics and commercial kennels; flea markets; home for adults; clinics, April 24, 1990 ~ 1 ~ opera ion. Horace McPherson, 3561 Forester Road, announced he owned property near the proposed site of the concerts. He expressed concern about the traffic situation coming onto Peters Creek Road and going into Valleypointe. Supervisor Johnson advised there were solutions such as shuttle service from other locations. In response to questions from Supervisor Eddy, Mr. Harrington replied there will personnel at the site to direct traffic and parking to the proper areas. Supervisor Eddy suggested the permit be approved subject to a plan submitted by the petitioner for parking and traffic movement. Mr. Harrington responded the Planning staff did not have the expertise to evaluate such a plan. Supervisor Nickens also expressed concern about the lack of adequate parking and traffic circulation. Susan Knight, Easter Seal Society, was present to answer questions. She described the plans for the parking that were developed by Valleypointe and Al Lingerfelt, and advised if the concerts are successful, they are considering shuttle service from other areas. She responded to a question from Supervisor Robers that 'the concerts will be held at the Salem Civic or the Lancerlot in case of rain. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the ordinance amended that the permit is valid from May 17, 1990 to September 20, 1990. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers 321 April 24, 1990 amending that the permit is valid from May 17, 1990, to September 20, 1990, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Eddy 490-9 An ordinance to amend the Future Land Ose Plan map designation of approuimately 0.5 acre from Neighborhood Conservation to Transition and to rezone said property from R-1 to B-1 for office use, located at 5304 Malvern Road, in the Hollins Magisterial District, upon the request of Irvin Aarren Simpson. 0-42490-14 Mr. Harrington reported that the primary significant factor identified was the concern that approval of this rezoning would open the door for similar commercial rezoning requests in that area since this area is designated Neighborhood Conservation. The petitioner proffered that this structure will be used only as an office. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the petition and the Land Use amendment. Petitioner Warren Simpson was present and explained he desired the rezoning because of the change to commercial development in the neighborhood and he has been unable to sell his home as a residence. David Murray, 5733 Santa Anita Terrace, President of the Boxley Hills Neighborhood Association spoke in opposition. He advised that 61 people who attended a meeting in March were April 24, 1990 323 County, Virginia, as follows: DENIED on motion of Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the followinq recorded vote: AYEB: Supervisors 8ddy, McGrav, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYB: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCEB 1. Ordinance accepting an offer and authorizina the conveyance of a storm sewer easement to the Town of Vinton. There was no discussion and no one present to speak to the ordinance. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve first reading. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the acceptance and acquisition of surylus real estate (Cave Spring Junior Hiah School site) from the Roanoke County School Board, and further authorizing the conveyance of same to the Commonwealth of Virginia. 0-X2490-15 There was no discussion and no one was present to speak April 24, 1990 32r amended. 4. That the acceptance and acquisition of certain real estate located along Route 221 in front of the Cave Spring Junior High School Site and identified as Parcel A (Parcels 044 and 074 as shown on Sheets 10, it and lOD of the plans for Route 221, State Highway Project 0221-080-107, RW201) and Parcel B (a portion of the former Eaton Property as shown on Sheets 11 and 12 of the plans for Route 221, State Highway Project 0221-080-107, RW201) from the Roanoke County School Board is hereby authorized. 5. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate is being made available to the Commonwealth of Virginia for other public uses, namely, the widening of State Route 221. 6. That the offer of the Virginia Department of Transportation in the amount of $73,632 for the acquisition of Parcel A and improvements and $63,220 for the acquisition of Parcel B and improvements is hereby accepted and shall be credited to the School Capital Outlay Fund, and the conveyance of the real estate described above to the Virginia Department of Transportation for other public uses is hereby authorized and approved. 7. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish these transactions, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the April 24, 1990 3 2 of Roanoke County, Virginia, that a new public sanitary sewer system should be constructed as hereinafter provided, and that the cost thereof be assessed by contract to certain landowners, as provided by law; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 112288-7 adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, pursuant to authority found in Article 2, Chapter 7 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes the County to impose certain costs upon benefiting property owners for certain local public works improvements; and WHEREAS, certain abutting and benefiting property owners have agreed to share in the equitable allocation and apportionment of the construction costs for said improvements; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 10, 1990; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on April 24, 1990. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the construction of a new public sanitary sewer system to serve a special sanitary sewer service area in the County of Roanoke which includes certain properties along Highfields and Lakedale Road is hereby authorized. This special sanitary sewer service area is designated on a certain map which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. That the estimated cost of this sanitary sewer 32 9 April 24, 1990 specifically approved by the County. The interest rate of these installments shall be eight percent (8$) of the unpaid balance. 4. That the property owner shall execute a promissory note and a lien document or instrument which shall be recorded among the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia. This lien instrument or document shall secure the repayment of the promissory note by the property owner to the County and shall be a lien against the property and shall be satisfied upon any conveyance of the property. The property owner further agrees to pay the County any Clerk's fees for recordation costs which may be required to record said lien instrument or document in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. 5. That any property owner within the special sanitary sewer service area applying for public sewer service after July 1, 1990, and within six years (6) after the completion of construction of this project, shall pay a total sanitary sewer connection fee which shall include: a special sanitary sewer connection fee of Five Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($5,200), the off-site sewer facility fee in effect at the time of application, and the basic connection fee in effect at the time of application. This total sanitary sewer connection fee shall be due and payable prior to the connection to the public sewer system and no installment payment financing by the County shall be available under the provisions of this ordinance. 6. That the County Administrator is authorized to April 24, 1990 331 question from Supervisor Eddy, Mr. Cook advised benchmark positions were identified and benefits were included. He advised that Roanoke County will still be approximately 5$ below the market after the survey as only those employees 10$ below the market will receive the adjustment. It will cost $391,000 to fund the market survey. These dollars could represent a 7$ salary increase across the board for all employees. Mr. Hodge advised most employees affected by the market survey will receive a 5$ raise. Supervisor Johnson asked who would receive over a 5$ salary and what positions they were. Supervisor McGraw asked for a list of positions that will be funded in the market survey. In response to questions, Mr. Cook advised that school salaries were not included in the market survey, but most key positions in the schools are higher than those in the County. Following additional discussion, staff was directed to prepare an executive summary of the market survey including categories that will be funded and a list of positions that are below market and to conduct a market survey comparing County salaries with school salaries. Mr. Hodge presented the breakdown between the Sheriff's Department and the Police Department. In the proposed budget, the sheriff's employees are funded by the State Compensation Board and the police department employees will be funded by local funds and "99" funds. Supervisor Nickens advised he did not support funding additional police department officers at this ACTION NO. A-52290-12.a ITEM NUMBER ~" ~' '""' ' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the League of Older Americans Advisory Board and Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The following nominations were made at the May 8, 1990 board meeting. League of Older Americans Advisory Board Supervisor McGraw nominated Murray White to serve a one-year term expiring March 31, 1991. Total Action Against Poverty Board of Supervisors Supervisor Eddy nominated Elizabeth Stokes as a County appointee and E. Cabell Brand as a joint appointee with the City of Salem to two-year terms expiring May 5, 1992. RECOMMENDATION' It is recommended that these appointments by confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, 7rt~-c~- Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator '"' ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Rnh r._ ,Tnhns~n No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) McGraw x To ( ) Nickens x Robers x cc: File League of Older Americans File Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors File r ~ ~ ,.. L+^ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION 52290-12.b URGING THAT THE CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO RESTORE TO MUNICIPALITIES SIGNIFICANT CONTROL OVER THE REGULATION OF RATES AND OPERATION OF LOCAL CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS WHEREAS, municipal regulation of cable television is essential in order to regulate the use of valuable and limited public right-of-way, to protect consumers' interests, to foster public educational and governmental use of cable television systems, and to provide for the protection of community cable related needs and interests; and WHEREAS, although the Cable Communications and Policy Act of 1984 was intended to increase competition and lower cable rates, the impact of this legislation has been to impose major restrictions on local regulation and localities' ability to control increasing cable rates; and WHEREAS, a number of legislative proposals are now before Congress which would return regulatory power over cable television to local governments. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby urges enactment of appropriate congressional legislation to provide significant local control over the operation and regulation of rates for local cable television systems. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk to the Board is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Honorable John Warner and the Honorable Charles S. Robb, Members, United States Senate and the Honorable Jim Olin, Member, United States Congress, as well as the members of the Regional Cable Television Committee. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. olton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File The Honorable John Warner The Honorable Charles S. Robb The Honorable Jim Olin Members, Regional Cable Television Committee Paul Mahoney, County Attorney r ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER L '' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE' AGENDA ITEM: May 22, 1990 Resolution supporting the restoration of control by local governments over cable television COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' In 1984, the Cable Communication and Policy Act increase competition and lower cable rates, but at limited the control that local governments could cable television. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: was adopted to the same time, exercise over There are several legislative proposals before Congress at this time which would restore to local governments greater control over cable television. Roanoke City recently adopted a resolution urging enactment of such legislation. Roanoke County board members who also serve on the Cable TV Committee have asked that the Board of Supervisors adopt a similar resolution. RECOMMENDATION' It is recommended by the Board members who serve on the Cable TV Committee that the attached resolution be adopted and forwarded to the appropriate federal legislators. ~1'/r~t ..~ ~%' Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION URGING THAT THE CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO RESTORE TO MUNICIPALITIES SIGNIFICANT CONTROL OVER THE REGULATION OF RATES AND OPERATION OF LOCAL CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS WHEREAS, municipal regulation of cable television is essential in order to regulate the use of valuable and limited public right-of-way, to protect consumers' interests, to foster public educational and governmental use of cable television systems, and to provide for the protection of community cable related needs and interests; and WHEREAS, although the Cable Communications and Policy Act of 1984 was intended to increase competition and lower cable rates, the impact of this legislation has been to impose major restrictions on local regulation and localities' ability to control increasing cable rates; and WHEREAS, a number of legislative proposals are now before Congress which would return regulatory power over cable television to local governments. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby urges enactment of appropriate congressional legislation to provide significant local control over the operation and regulation of rates for local cable television systems. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk to the Board is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Honorable John Warner and the Honorable Charles S. Robb, Members, United States Senate and the Honorable Jim Olin, Member, United States Congress, as well as the members of the Regional Cable Television Committee. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw To ( ) Nickens Robers ACTION # A-52290-12.c ITEM NUMBER L-- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving The Orchards Section 5 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of The Orchards Section 5, F&W Community Development Corporation, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The sanitary sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Jack G. Bess, CLS entitled The Orchards Section 5, dated March 5, 1986, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT' The value of the sanitary sewer construction is $48,000. RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. L-y SUBMITTED BY: ~~a,~ ~ Cli rd Craig, P. Utility Director APPROVED: f~` E1 er C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x to Nickens x Robers x cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering 'V f AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION 52290-12.d AUTHORIZING THE CLEAN VALLEY COUNCIL TO APPLY FOR AN ANTI-LITTER PROGRAM GRANT FOR ROANORE COUNTY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board hereby expresses its intent to combine with the City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt County, and City of Salem in a mutually agreed upon and cooperative program, contingent on approval of the application by the Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter Control and Recycling, and contingent on receipt of such funds for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991; and 2. That the Board hereby authorizes Clean Valley Council, Inc., to plan and budget for a cooperative anti-litter program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991, which shall represent said program for all localities named in this resolution; and 3. That the Board further authorizes Clean Valley Council, Inc., to apply on behalf of Roanoke County for a grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation, and completion of the program; and 4. That the Board further accepts responsibility jointly with the Clean Valley Council, Inc., and the City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt County, and City of Salem for all phases of the program; and 5. That said funds when received will be transferred r immediately to Clean Valley Council, Inc.; all funds will be used in the cooperative program to which the Board gives its endorsement and support; and 6. That the financial records of Clean Valley Council, Inc., shall be subject to inspection and review by the Assistant County Administrator of Management Services and such data shall be presented to allow proper reporting on a timely basis by the County; and 7. That the Board requests the Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter Control and Waste Recycling to consider and approve the application and program, said program being in accord with the regulations governing use and expenditure of said funds. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: !~~/~~ ~~ Brenda J. olton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Clean Valley Council Clerk, City of Roanoke Clerk, City of Salem Clerk, Town of Vinton Clerk, County of Botetourt Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance 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: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution requesting approval of a grant application for the Clean Valley Council COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS • ~2.~~fvr2~~~,/~~'`'ti2c/1 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Each year Roanoke County receives a request from the Clean Valley Council for adoption of a resolution designating the Clean Valley Council as the agency to handle litter control for Roanoke County as well as the cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Town of Vinton and Botetourt County. This resolution is necessary to apply for grant funds for operation of the program. All participating localities must adopt similar resolutions to allow the grant application to be sent to the State Division of Litter Control and Recycling. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution authorizing the Clean Valley Council as the designated agency to handle litter control for Roanoke County, and requesting approval of the grant application. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: ~~ ~~ dr Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers VOTE No Yes Abs L„-- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLEAN VALLEY COUNCIL TO APPLY FOR AN ANTI-LITTER PROGRAM GRANT FOR ROANORE COUNTY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board hereby expresses its intent to combine with the City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt County, and City of Salem in a mutually agreed upon and cooperative program, contingent on approval of the application by the Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter Control and Recycling, and contingent on receipt of such funds for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991; and 2. That the Board hereby authorizes Clean Valley Council, Inc., to plan and budget for a cooperative anti-litter program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991, which shall represent said program for all localities named in this resolution; and 3. That the Board further authorizes Clean Valley Council, Inc., to apply on behalf of Roanoke County for a grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation, and completion of the program; and 4. That the Board further accepts responsibility jointly with the Clean Valley Council, Inc., and the City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt County, and City of Salem for all phases of the program; and 5. That said funds when received will be transferred L- 5 immediately to Clean Valley Council, Inc.; all funds will be used in the cooperative program to which the Board gives its endorsement and support; and 6. That the financial records of Clean Valley Council, Inc., shall be subject to inspection and review by the Assistant County Administrator of Management Services and such data shall be presented to allow proper reporting on a timely basis by the County; and 7. That the Board requests the Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter Control and Waste Recycling to consider and approve the application and program, said program being in accord with the regulations governing use and expenditure of said funds. x ~ ~ ~ " ~, ~~ ,Y ~~ ~~~.k,cy ~~~~ . C©~~~~'~ti'E~`1LT~I ~f vIRCI~TI~ DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT 11th Floor, MonroR Bui'ding 101 N. 14th Street Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 225-2667 TDD (804) 371-8737 April 5, 1990 MEMORANDUM L~~ TO: City Managers, County Administrators, Town Mayors/Managers, and Litter CQAtrol Grant Contacts ~Y~. FROM: R. Allan Lassiter, Jr., Director. Division of Litter Control and Recycling SUBJECT: 1990-91 Litter Control Grant Processes I am pleased to enclose a copy of the litter control grant regulations, grant application, and funding schedules for FY 1990- 1991. Also enclosed are the Performance and Accounting Reports for F'~ 1989-90. This year, we are encouraging all incorporated towns to combine funds with their county to form a "cooperative" program. Last year, 51 of 126 towns did so (see enclosed example of Charlotte County and the four incorporated towns). This change will benefit both the towns and the Department of Waste Management (DWM). Towns will eliminate almost all paperwork {application, performance reports, and contract execution; a resolution is still needed) and could participate in a much larger program run by the _ounty's litter control coordinator. DWM benefits by not processing 126 applications, 126 checks and accounting vouchers, and 126 annual performance reports; we could spend our time on more efforts to assist you. Please note that DWM has begun a planning assistance program to aid localities in meeting planning and recycling requirements. We will be conducting a two-day workshop in eacr. planning district to provide guidance and materials for each locality. Each planning district staff is aiding us in this effort; you should be getting a meeting notification directly from them. The tentative scr..=dule is. L~ Page Two City, ;ounty, and Town Administrators April S, 1990 Southwestern Virginia - April, 1990 Central Virginia - May, 1990 Northern Virginia - June, 1990 Eastern Virginia - July, 1990 Plans are due on July 1, 1991. I encourage you to include your litter control efforts in your comprehensive solid waste plans. The DWM will continue to provide the annual formula grants to each city, county, and town for litter control efforts. Zn many localities, the litter control committee also runs the recycling effort. This is certainly permissible, but in order to meet the planning requirements and the 25% recycling rate, the jurisdiction's permanent staff (such as public works, planning, and public information departments) will need to be involved. Your litter control committee can assist with the promotion and educational efforts needed for an effective recycling program. In addition, the litter control agency can also continue to operate the recycling effort as long as it is broad enough to cover all solid waste streams (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional). Also note that the litter grant funds can't be used exclusively for recycling; there must be some litter control effort each year by the grantee. Please remember the following: (1) Performance and Accounting Reports (form LCG-6) for FY 1989-1990 must be completed and returned on or before July 20, 1990. We cannot fund your 1990-91 grant until we receive your completed Performance and Accounting Report. (2) Grant applications must be completed and postmarked no later than May 31, 1990. Failure to do so will result in a delay in receiving your grant. (3) The grant application must include a line item budget, clearly stating the use of funds and breakdown between litter control and recycling activities (see example budget attached). The application must also include a resolution adopted by the local governing body approving the grant application (Sec. 6.a.(3)). Remember that Article 7 in the grant application must be signed by the local official as authorized in the resolution. IF THE LINE ITEM BUDGET AND RESOLUTION ARE NOT ENCLOSED, THE GRANT APPLICATION WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. 1990-1991 promises to be an exciting year for litter control and recycling in Virginia. The DWM staff encourages continued litter control efforts even in light of all the emphasis on recycling. Please call me at (804) 786-8679 if you have any questions regarding your grant application. RAL/jw ENCLOSURES cc: Cynthia V. Bailey ACTION NO. A-52290-12.e ITEM NO . ~ _ `f' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Donation of drainage easements through Lots 4, 5, 6, and 13 in Countrywood Subdivision, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, to the County of Roanoke COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves the donation of the following easements, fifteen (15') feet in width, to the County of Roanoke for drainage purposes off Countrywood Drive in the Countrywood Subdivision: a) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from Edward W. Staley, Jr. and Beverly A. Staley (Deed Book 1287, page 1927) (Tax Map No. 94.04-1-28) as shown on a plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated 9 February 1990. b) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from David L. Hudspeth and Saranne Hudspeth (Deed Book 1319, page 412) (Tax Map No. 94.04-1-27) as shown on a plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated 9 February 1990. c) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from William H. Bradshaw and Lora R. Bradshaw (Deed Book 1194, page 1359) (Tax Map No. 94.04-1-30) as shown on a plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated 9 February 1990. d) Donation of a fifteen (15') foot drainage easement from Angela C. Mull (Deed Book 1288, page 751) (Tax Map No. 94.04-1-37) as shown on a plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated 9 February 1990. The location and dimensions of these easements have been reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of these easements. 1-~ Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by g~,h T. .~T„~~hn cnn Eddy x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities _ ~..... r C 55.00 54.54 29.75T-- 52.33'i N 37' S 34 W __56'48"52" ~~OTES: 1.• THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY A TITLE REPORT BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY. . ~^ LEGEND S 85 08,12 M.B.L. MINIMUM BUILDING LINE E P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 336.93' D.E. DRAINAGE EASEMENT CL CENTERLINE LOT 6 ® WELL w ~ ~ ~ PROPERTY OF N cv WILLIAM H. & LORA R. ° ~ -,~i ~"~ BRADSHAW j n' 1o N * ~' TAX # 94.04-1-30 N 0D- m^ Z ~``'~°c~O, ~ ~, D.B. 1194, PG. 1359 °i~ ~ ~• ~ .~h ~ ~ tc. m $ 5~6 ~~~~~ ~9 ~e •'Sh ~ LOT 7 ,~ ~ 'E' S~`~ 6~~ ~%` ~6 _' w- s ~ ~• 50 ~ - - --- _. _.~ ..`1' .._ -~- ~ p E 331.28' ~ IRON ~,~ N 83'53 34 15 C.M.P. - 000NTRYV)I00 DR. 42.74' PIN 4.71, S 5~• -- ~ -- 50 R W FND ~ - ~6 4 S~ F --~ ~ .0 \ S IRON 1 gg~g-- - FND S 88'19'38" E~,yp ~ ~ 1 .68' 0~, ~ s ~3434SyLOT 5 NI 6~0 1~ CL NEW 15 / ••.~ 4g• F ~ ~1 w ~' ~`~~ EASEMENT S r N X37 ~'~ C'~ ~' S S y0 ~ w ~ 3 S4 08 j CM p113 628 F ~.F'+~S~oly m o ~ L 0 T 4 ~ s? o~• s F PROPERTY OF c< 1S~c /s ° d' N ~ EDWARD W. STACEY JR. & p ••• } o '`~ a 1~ BEVERLY A. STACEY 'F Z PROPERTY OF N 1° TAX # 94.04-1-28 DAVID L de SARANNE 1 385.00' D•B• 1287. PG. 1927 HUDSPETH N r TAX # 94.04-1-27 S 87'32'47" W 3 o ~-- ° ~+ rn ti ~~ss ~ ~ St9, • ~~~ S?. A8 N , !y 120.00' _,, LTH of ~ LOT 2 N 8s~1o'1s' w .. o~E '~, ,~ x V JOHN T. PF,S}CE1;„ ~ EASEMENT PLAT SHOWING NEW 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH LOTS 4, 5 & 6, COUNTRYWOOD, P.B. 9 PG. SITUATE ON COUNTRYWOOD DRIVE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX N0. at.vr-~-~i, zts, sV N.B~Gp-/52 CALC. LRD DRJ~WN CADD ~.D T. P. PARKER 8• SON tnyinetr+ d' nsrveyors. ltd S.lL3'Y. PIRGINIA R st1RV>R°i 143 I SCALE: 1" ~ 100' I DATE: ~• 9 1990 W.O. 90-0240 I D-37213 I "B" 68.02' 67.09' _-_36.56' _ 64.41' S 33'47'43" E _56'30'58" [~C 16.77' 28.79' 19.41' 25.38' S 43'37'48" W 98'20'05"- NOTES: '~°° '~ 1. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY A TITLE REPORT BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY. ~~-~ 12 N 6 40.~~• E 23~ •9a LOT aa'~ ~~ ~. ~a~r. ~~ 3 RY S 27'49'15" E ~i r ~ 0~4 ~~OQ 1x8.51' ~- ~ ~~~;° ~ ~ pR~~'F \/ h EXISTING v ^~ S 10'37'19" E \ ~s CL 15' P.U.E. ~ ~ 79,26 N 13'03'36"~ _ 252.58' 1 , ~- ~ e OT ~ ~ ~~ _ 1p~.22 103.95' ~C'. 1 , ~i ~, " W ~' S a 17,28" W 5 ~ 3~ 2g N 87'12'09" W o~~~yTx of yr~ V JOHN T. PAFjY,~R _ ~- RTE 221 v.S' EASEMENT PLAT SHOWING NEW 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH LOT 13, COUNTRYWOOD, P.B. 9, PG. 143 PROPERTY OF ANGELA C. MULL SITUATE ON U.S. RTE. 221 & COUNTRYWOOD DRIVE LEGAL REFERENCE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT D.B. 1288, PG. 751 ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX N0. 94.04-1-37 SCALE: 1" 100' N.B. G-52 CALC. LRD T. P. PARKER & SON DATE: FEB. 9 1990 LR CADD •ng{r-~ars d' surveyors, ltd ORA~ CK'D ~ SALBAf, VIRGINIA W.O. 90-0240 D-37212 4" CONC. V DITCH ~~ cDS v: ~ ~s •~, rn o ., ,/ 1 F~~~ so. ~r.~ ~~~/ 13 'A~,\ ' ~~ ~ LEGEND M.B.L. MINIMUM BUILDING LINE P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT D.E. DRAINAGE EASEMENT CL CENTERLINE c~ a o~ m a 0 NEW 15' 24" c.M.P. DRAINAGE ESMT. ~ 20' LONG ~ S ~ 24" CONC. PIPE 2~.3 j2~ 71' LONG NEW 15' ~ F Cp DRAINAGE ESMT. ~ ~ ANT ACTION NO. A-52290-12.f ITEM NO . ~ + AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Donation of property and a slope and drainage easement to the County of Roanoke for road widening purposes along Virginia Route 943, Cave Spring Magisterial District COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves the donation of the following property to the County of Roanoke for road widening purposes along Virginia Route 943 in the Cave Spring Magisterial District: a) Portion of the property (Tax Map No. 96.03-1-13) of Stephen and Theresa Light (Deed Book 953, page 273) containing 0.001 acre as shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated 4 December 1989. n~-~ f--Frte~re~-~a~---'Bl~e~res~a-- _ _..s__~.ight ---(Deed-~oal~-- g-5~~-, __ _ __ - a .. a... a w n.,.z., - - --- --- ---.~~ mhe~--- - - c) Portion of the property (Tax Map No. 96.03-1-14) of David W. and Melody Y. Light (Deed Book 1255, page 1311) containing 0.018 acre as shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. dated 4 December 1989. d) Portion of the property (Tax Map No. 96.03-1-10) of Charlie A. Chockley III and Carol D. Chockley containing 0.032 acre as shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. dated 4 December 1989. The location and dimensions of these properties and easements have been reviewed and approved by the County's engineer- ing staff. ~-7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this property. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved Denied Received Referred to ( ) Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy (x) to approve with paragraph b) Johnson ( ) deleted McGraw Nickens Robers cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Vote No Yes Abs x x x x x PROPERTY BEING GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE 8Y CHARLIE A. CHOCKLEY III AND CAROL D. CHOCKLEY FOR STREET WIDENING PURPOSES LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE 1-2 S 78'52'29 W 15.78' 2-3 N 02'08'46" E 80.00' 3-4 N 34'30'01" E 28.70' 4-1 S 02'08'46" W 100.62' TOTAL AREA = 0.032 ACRES rAx : 96.oa-r-rp PROPERrr vF GNARGIE A. GHOGKZI;Y IlI &i GAR06 Q, CHOGKGEY VIYIC•~I~~in ~,,,,,,.... - TAX f 96.Da-I-9 - PROPER(Y OF GAWRENGE i• GAUSEY 0.9.1295 PC~.l0i7 PLAT SHOWING PROPERTY BEING GRANTED TO - THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY CHARLIE A. CHOCKLEY III AND ~LTH a~ CAROL D. CHOCKLEY ~$ `r ~ ~, 's. LEE FOR ROAD WIDENING PURPOSES HENDERSON, JR. 3.~,,.,~,,,,,~1~.''= SITUATE ALONG VA. SEC. RTE. #934 No. taco CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT t,~~ st>g~~4 ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 50' DATE: 4 DECEMBER 1989 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ~. . . . ~ , ~, .. ~. ,. '67- 9526 r PROPERTY BEING GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY DAVID W. & MELODY Y. LIGHT FOR STREET WIDENING PURPOSES LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE • 1-2 S 40'50' 24" E 121.06' 2-3 N 47'10'53" W 106.24' 3-4 N 29'42'54" W 14.53" 4-1 N 41'26'46" E 9.01' TOTAL AREA = 0.018 ACREA TAX '~ 96.03-I-13 PROPERLY OF 5(EPHEN LIGHt 6. tXEAESA G/GHt G•g. 95~ P~. Z93 e~ G~ 9~ ~~ A ' 9,9 -f~ 9~ .. `~`c 4, ~i 9 y .~. .. 'c a` w 0 0 I~ ~~ o ~ m ~o7a? ~ ~ J T 0 mow? ~Q_~~ ~ O CC o x ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ tAx "~ R6.o3-1-~4v v PROPERTY OF gAVlq W. G1GNt Rv i " 1 MEGOQY Y. 6~GNt ~.A. I Z55 1'G. 1311 V/RC~INIA hEGON~ARY ~OUtE X934 PLAT SHOWING PROPERTY. BEING GRANTED TO' THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY ~~~'~L°~,~ DAVID W. & MELODY Y. LIGHT ~° FOR ROAD WI ~' 8. LEE x DENING PURPOSES ~ HENOERSON, JR. y . /3.au,~`„~,lJ~. SITUATE ALONG VA. SEC. RTE. #934 No. 1a8° / CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ~,~~ ~~~o'~ ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ~*tik~ SCALE: 1" = 50' DATE: 4 DECEMBER 1989 LUM5bEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA L- 7 NEW' SLOPE Ec DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY STEPHEN & THERESA LIGHT LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE 4-5 N 41'26'46" E 189.00' 5-6 5 20'50'11" W .125.00' 6-7 S 49'29'20" W 46.46' 7-8 5 82'55'19" W 45.96' 8-4 N 01'31'20" E 11.00' TOTAL AREA = 0.119 ACRES i ;a 0 U NEW hZOPE &i • n~AINAGE ' EIA} ~EMENr \ ..w Hi~l1f~+11. G~ ~C ' 9!~ G~ ~q 4 fAX ¢ 96.03-1-3 ~9,_ •paopEa(Y QF. ~ L 5(EPNFN d. I•NERESA LlGNt `~ O.A. 95~ AS. 77 2.30 AG.~ PROPERTY BEING GRANTS COUNTY OF ROANOKE FC WIDENING PURPO~ LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE 1- 2 5 29'42'54 E 14.53' 2-3 N 47'10'53 W 13.76' 3-1 N 41'26'46 E 4.36' TOTAL AREA = 0.001 ACRES lAz `96.03-l-f4 paoPOSE~ a/w AROp1;AfY OF DAV~Q W. W6Ht 9v MELODY Lf6Hf _~ O.e. ~?55 • PG r~~- '~ . ~ -• O C 9 q A '.~ ~- O ~. / 9Q i 1 r ~ ~ ~` 1 ,~ 'o C ~ ~ ' ~ ~ :1 ~ y ~n -o 0 s pi ~_ .~ ~• PaOPObE~ R!W . PROPERTY 8EIN0 GRANTED TO VA. hEG, aOUfE '9~4 THE COUNTY OF .ROANOKE FOR ROAD WIDENING PURPOSES • SLOPE do DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO ~~~iz~F'`f THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE ~c 8 Y 8. LEE ~ i STEPHEN & THERESA LIGHT HENDERSON, JR. lj. ~.••..Q'-v„d..~'-. SITUATE ALONG VA. SEC. RTE. #934 No. 1480 ,CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT • ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA f *h~f~~o4 SCALE: ~'1' 50' DATE: 4• DECEMBER 1989 ~~ Ld'~ISDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS /1/-/ COUNTY OF ROANORE~ VIRGINIA CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at September 12, 1989 Contribution towards March 13, 1990 Automatic Court Docu; April 24, 1990 Contribution towards Squad Truck Balance as of May 22, 1990 July 1, 1989 $ 89,608 Hollins Fire Truck (25,000) anentation System (25,000) Mt. Pleasant Rescue (30,000) $ 9,608 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance / ' J °~ COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE ~ of Amount General Fund Balance at July 1, 1989 $4,483,543 7.10 November 15, 1989 Dental Insurance November 28, 1989 Drainage Projects December 19, 1989 Library Automation December 19, 1989 Drainage Engineer - half year December 19, 1989 Bushdale Road Right of Way January 9, 1 990 Hurricane Hugo Expenses January 23, 1990 Implementation of New Police Department March 13 , 1990 Contract Mowing and Equipment for Parks and Recreation April 10, 1990 School Deficit April 10, 1990 Recycling Grant Matching Funds April 10, 1990 Renovation of the Offices of the Treasurer, Commissioner of the Revenue and Procurement Balance as of May 22, 1990 (106,980) (180,000) (300,000) (17,500) (15,000) (109,000) (157,700) (50,000) (500,000) (150,600) (56,000) $2,840,763 4.50 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance On December 19, 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at a minimum of 6.25 of General Fund expenditures ($63,168,000), which is $3,948,000. ~~ COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 Additional Amount from 1989-90 Budget June 14, 1989 Contribution to Va. Amateur Sports July 11, 1989 Purchase of drainage easement July il, 1989 Option on 200 acres real estate July 25, 1989 Donation to Julian Wise Foundation August 8, 1989 County supplement for new position in Sheriff's Department August 22, 1989 Part time volunteer coordinator August 22, 1989 Public Information for Police Department referendum November 28, 1989 Stormwater Feasibility Study December 22, 1989 Copy machine rental for Treasurer's Office (Administratively approved) December 29, 1989 Portable telephones for Rescue personnel (Administratively approved) Balance as of May 22, 1990 $11,395 50,000 (25,000) (5,000) (3,750) (5,000) (869) (5,800) (9,000) (3,382) (2,415) L1, 045) $ 134 Submitted by (,cX.rnst~ ~ • ~~~ 0 Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid - April 1990 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: $1,666,559.24 Payroll: 4/13/90 $412,679.39 4/27/90 407 663.09 820.342.48_ $2,486,901.72 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: (~ ~,~ Diane D. Hyatt Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator ----------- ------------------------ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw Nickens To Robers !' "~ COUNTY OF ROANOgE STATBNBNT OF EXPENDITURES TBN MONTHS BNDBD APRIL 30, 1990 - BUDGBT ----------- BXPBNDED ------------ - X ----------- GBNBRAL ADKINISTRATION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~ 179,678 s 147,371 82 COUNTY ADKINISTRATOR 256,668 206,766 80 HUKAN RESOURCES 245,596 195,013 79 COUNTY ATTORNEY 186,341 136,170 73 COKKISSIONBR OF REVENUE 513,713 431,232 84 TRBASURBR 506,642 404,319 80 BLBCTIONS 163,012 127,476 78 SBSQUICENTBNNIAL 0 23 0 FISCAL KANAGEKENT ASST. CO ADK. KANAGBKBNT SBRVICBS 69,621 56,156 81 COUNTY ASSES50R 699,978 572,478 82 CENTRAL ACCOUNTING 389,935 410,304 105 PROCURBNBNT 218,274 176,790 81 KANAGBKBNT A BUDGBT 133,657 107,805 81 RISE KANAGEKENT 1,130,318 810,280 72 JUDICIAL ADKINISTRATION CIRCUIT COURT 143,133 17,225 12 GBNBRAL DISTRICT COURT 20,204 10,105 50 KAGISTRATBS 730 377 52 FAKILY COURT 11,758 8,389 71 CLBRB OF CIRCUIT COURT 516,653 414,096 80 COKKONWBALTH'S ATTORNEY 312,279 258,573 83 COURT SERVICE UNIT 44,175 31,825 72 VICTIM YITNESS 6,670 2,405 36 PUBLIC SAFETY POLICB DBPARTKBNT 347,634 12,924 4 SHBRIFF'S DEPARTMENT 4,034,034 3,311,694 82 HIGHIiAY SAFETY COHKISSION 960 210 22 FIRE 2,098,059 1,535,902 73 RESCUE SflUAD 458,759 453,144 99 BKERGBNCY SBRVICBS ~ HAZ KAT RESPONSB 44,035 31,198 71 CONFINBKENT/CARE OF PRISONERS 2,018,249 1,725,293 85 ANIKAL CONTROL 164,044 142,578 87 HAZ-KAT RESPONSB 0 17 100 HUGO DISASTER RECOVERY 109,000 108,883 100 COKKUNITY SBRVICBS AND DBVBLOPKENT ASS. CO ADK. FOR COKN. SBRVICBS d, DBVBLOPKBN 116,056 93,077 80 BNGINBBRING 931,290 496,871 53 GBNBRAL SERVICES 208,870 172,230 82 BUILDINGS KAINTENANCB 832,204 587,900 71 PARES k RBCRBATION _ 990,924 780,938 79 SOLID iIASTB 1,599,749 1,358,264 85 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 65,400 41,962 64 GROUNDS KAINTBNANCB 983,729 814,016 83 Financial Statements: Page 2 of /~~,~ COUNTY OF ROANORE INCONB ANALYSIS GENERAL OPERATING FUND 1988-89 - - ------------- ------------ 1989-90 --------------- ----- ------------- -------------- ACTUAL ----------------- - ACTUAL ACTUAL 6-30-89 4-30-89 4-30-90 BUDGET (12 NONTRS) (10 NONTHS) X BUDGET (10 HONTHS) X TAXBS-REAL ESTATB ------------ $ 25,780,009 ------------ 26,802,142 ------------ 13,256,704 ---------- 51 $ ------------ 28,511,770 ------------ 14,519,145 ---- 51 TAXBS-PERSONAL PROPBRTY 10,200,000 11,872,517 642,520 6 11,668,447 2,183,233 19 OTRBR PROPERTY TAXES 1,257,293 1,325,954 1,267,688 101 1,435,000 1,403,406 98 SALES TAX 4,390,492 4,140,633 3,118,826 71 4,200,000 3,298,047 79 BUSINESS LICENSB 2,400,000 2,248,433 2,138,669 89 2,100,000 2,279,400 109 AUTO DECALS 1,150,000 1,322,655 119,074 10 1,325,000 269,219 20 OTRER LOCAL TAXBS 4,015,220 4,123,198 2,744,515 68 4,180,000 3,032,686 73 DOG TAGS 18,000 14,963 12,855 71 15,504 11,234 72 ZONING FEES 15,000 25,426 21,343 142 10,500 18,305 174 BUILDING FBBS 345,000 321,549 252,636 73 408,611 351,36T 86 OTAER PBRNIT, FEBS k LICBNSES 11,282 38,314 26,329 233 7,250 16,496 228 FINES AND FORFEITURES 162,000 226,709 166,868 103 173,850 138,860 80 SALES A USB OF BQUIPNBNT k SUPPLIES 0 151 150 0 0 1,913 0 CHARGBS FOR SBRVICBS 150,510 203,654 134,697 89 162,038 132,250 82 RECOVERED COST-LOCAL 504,029 582,557 666,880 132 554,708 483,171 87 ABC PROFITS 230,045 185,794 158,709 69 200,000 152,802 76 CONNONWEALTR'S ATTORNEY BXPBNSES 263,843 244,8?1 184,247 70 251,670 188,300 75 SHERIFF'S BXPBNSES 3,770,000 3,574,719 2,429,248 64 3,837,277 2,636,895 69 CONNISSIONBR OF THE REVENUB'S EXPENSES 179,485 165,210 108,263 60 180,000 137,218 76 TREASURER'S EXPENSES 171,853 168,125 144,153 84 180,000 134,392 75 WELFARE GRANT 1,961,441 1,950,053 1,224,036 62 2,067,474 1,320,481 64 LIBRARY GRANT 175,000 174,860 174,860 100 175,000 111,630 98 OTRER STATE REVENUE 321,075 264,908 177,776 55 245,000 306,186 125 NON-REVBNUB RECEIPT 5,035 6,520 292,74? 5,814 0 13,235 0 TRANSFER FRON OTAER FUNDS 0 0 0 0 16,000 16,000 100 57,476,612 59,983,915 29,463,T93 51 61,905,095 33,215,871 54 BEGINNING BALANCE USED TO BALANCE COSTS OF OPERATIONS 4,091,702 0 0 0 3,820,577 0 0 TBNPORARY LOANS 6. LEASE PURCNASB PROCEEDS 778,764 572,891 0 0 2,268,968 66,800 3 BOND PROCEEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # 62,347,078 # 60,556,806 $ 29,463,793 47 $ 67,994,640 # 33,282,671 $ 49 ~ SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ADDED TO BASIC CONPUTATION Financial Stateuents: Page 1 of 3 N-s COUNTY OF ROANO6E STATENBNT OF EXPBNDITURES TBN KONTHS BN DBD APRIL 30, 1990 HEALTH A SOCIAL SBRVICBS PUBLIC HEALTH 425,799 305,161 72 SOCIAL SBRVICBS ADMINISTRATION 1,840,244 1,465,432 80 PUBLIC ASSISTANCB 954,030 673,995 71 INSTITUTIONAL CARB 36,000 13,488 37 SOCIAL SBRVICB ORGANIZATIONS 94,984 64,988 68 DEVELOPNBNT PLANNING ~ ZONING 336,553 232,693 69 BCONONIC DEVELOPMENT 264,530 221,996 84 DEVELOPMENT RBVIBW 134,602 108,302 80 PLANNING COMMISSION 18,695 14,718 79 CONSTRUCTION BUILDING SERVICBS 262,842 202,549 77 NON-DEPARTMENTAL ASST. CO. ADM. HUNAN SERVICBS 97,675 79,544 81 LIBRARY 1,087,333 861,048 ?9 EXTENSION A CONTINUING EDUCATION 104,694 45,739 44 EMPLOYBB BENEFITS 787,138 497,184 63 CONTRIBUTIONS TO SBRVICB ORGANIZATIONS 30,000 21,450 72 NISCBLLANBOUS 669,930 171,320 20 CONSOLIDATION 196,350 45,550 --- 23 --------- TOTAL ------------ 28,295,430 ------------ ------------ 21,217,436 ------------ --- 75 --------- TRANSFERS AND RESBRVBS REIMBURSABLB EXPENDITURES 0 182 0 TRANSFBR TO DEBT SBRVICB 5,673,804 3,369,564 59 TRANSFER TO INTERNAL SBRVICB 343,365 254,860 74 TRANSFBR TO SCHOOL OPBRATING FUND 28,717,090 21,874,261 76 TRANSFBR TO SBWER FUND 40,000 33,333 83 TRANSFER TO UTILITY CAPITAL 525,000 437,500 83 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL PROJECTS 2,666,112 2,222,177 83 TRANSFER TO YOUTH HAVBN 78,658 65,548 83 TRANSFBR TO GARAGB II 120,000 0 0 UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE 1,531,295 0 0 RBSERVB FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY 3,884 ------------ 0 ------------ --- 0 --------- TOTAL TRANSFBR ITBHS 39,699,208 ------------ 28,257,425 ------------ --- 71 --------- GRAND TOTAL ~ 67,994,638 ~ 49,474,861 73 ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Financial Statements: Page 3 of 3 LAW OFFICES CHARLES H. OSTERHOUDT MICHAEL S. FERGUSON EDWARD A. NATT MICHAEL J. AHERON GSTEVEN AGEE MARK D~KIDD OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON £~ AGEE ~"' fj A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION W S 919 ELECTRIC ROAD ^ i r;. ; ~.h ', ~ y U 1 / i . . . . 1 , ~ ~ / . P.O. BOX 20068 ~ v/~ TELEPHONE ~•~ iRGiNIA ROANOKE, V / { ~~ (n'V ^ 3-77a-1ie7 /l y~ ~y~'~1 (~' 11 ' FAX NO p 2401° ' ~ . - i 3.p -77a-0961 E '~ - May 8, 1990 Mr. Timothy Gubala, Secretary Industrial Development P_uthority County of Roanoke Department of Economic Development P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Tim: G,'. F1..;,~vi„« i~Gu1., , , ~,~~ Enclosed pleased find a copy of the Audit for the Industrial Development Authority for the year ending June 30, 1989. I apologize for not having sent one to you earlier. If you need anything further please advise. With best personal regards, I am, Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON & AGEE, P.C. Edward A. Natt EAN/sai Enclosure l~-(~ INDIISTBIAL DEVELOPMEN'P AIITHOBITY OF 80ANORE COIINTY. VIRGINIA FINANCIAL 8EP08T Juae 30, 1989 J~~1J V V ' (~~1a1~. ~ 1 Certified I'~blic Accountants ~~~'~ ~~.~ttt z-.k ~ a.ir~ar~ti' N-f, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA FINANCIAL REPORT June 30, 1989 e~~ ~~:~tt r~ 'f~t1?1,ti1' OFFICERS Charles R. Saul, Chairman Tim Gubala, Secretary Tom Isenhart, Assistant Secretary .* BOARD OF DIRECTORS Billy H. Branch Tom Isenhart ' J. Carson Quarles Bill Triplett W. Darnall Vinyard Daniel A. Zahn ~~~ 4~ *`~ C I i~U~i\1~ N--(~ C O N T E N T S INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheets Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance Notes to Financial Statements Page 4 5 ' 6 7 ~' ^ B~1UVN, ~, ^ haw ^ c~ANY Certified Piul~lic Account<v1t~ Tennessee • Virginia • West Virginia INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT Members of the Board of Supervisors and Board of Directors Industrial Development Authority Roanoke County, Virginia We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, as of June 30, 1989, and the related statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance fob the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the management of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,'as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, at June 30, 1989, and the results of its operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial statements of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, for the year ended June 30, 1988, were audited by other auditors whose report, dated August 3, 1988, expressed an unqualified opinion on those statements. ,1S)'Yt.~ Co d' ~ ( ~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Salem, Virginia December 21, 1989 Memc~r SEC and Private Companies Practice Sections of Amencon Institute of Cemfied Public Accwntants and Associated Regional Accounting Firms ~~'k a~~at r~ ~u~ti~• INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA BALANCE SHEETS June 30, 1989 and 1988 ASSETS Cash LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Fund balance IY--~ Page 5 1989 1988 S 3,333 2,281 $ 3.333 S 2,281 .~ The Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements. .. ~~~ a~~~ INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Years Ended June 30, 1989 and 1988 Page 6 1989 1988 REVEUES Application fees Audit fees Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Professional fees Directors' fees Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues over Expenditures FUND BA:_ANCE AT BEGINNING OF YEAR FUND BALANCE AT END OF YEAR $ - $ 1,000 2,802 1,087 147 2.802 2.234 1,200 1,200 550 750 1.750 1.950 1,052 ., 284 2.281 1,997 S 3,333 S 2,281 The Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements. tit ~~~1 F~ ~~:~w r,.k ~ _ f n ~'~htt*~ti~ `'' INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 1989 Page 7 Note 1. Significant Accounting Policies A. Purpose The Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, was created by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County on August 11, 1971, pursuant to Chapter 33, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended (Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act). It is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Authority promotes industry and develops trade by encouraging manufacturing, industrial, governmental, and commercial enterprises to locate or remain in Roanoke County. The Authority issues low- interest, tax-free industrial revenue bonds to acquire and improve property and equipment which is then sold or leased to the enterprise at terms necessary to retire the financing. B. Basis of Accounting -• The modified accrual basis of accounting is followed by the Authority. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recorded when received. Expenditures are recorded when the liability is incurred. C. Limitation of Liability The Authority has issued revenue bonds and notes to acquire and finance improvements of property and equipment which are immediately sold or leased. The notes and bonds, as to principal and interest, are payable solely from lease payments or payments on notes receivable. The long-term leases are essentially sales agreements as the lessees have a bargain purchase option to acquire the property at the expiration of the lease. The Authority does not reflect in its accounts any ownership in the properties. If the lessee or note makers default, the holders do not have recourse from the Authority but must obtain indemnity from the lessee, note maker or by sale of the property. Bonds and notes issued pursuant to the provisions of the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act are not deemed to constitute a debt of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof and are guaranteed by the Authority only to the extent of revenues and other security pledged under the terms of the individual agreements. However, the Authority and the County of Roanoke, Virginia, may choose at their option to assume responsibility for the debt issues in the event of default to preserve the credit rating of the Authority for future issues. Note 2. Revenue Bonds and Notes As of June 30, 1989, the Authority has issued and outstanding $46,412,493 of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds and Notes, pursuant to Chapter 33, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. These debt issues are not included in the accompanying financial statements since the Authority is not liable for their repayment, as discussed in Note 1. (Continued) ~~~ INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 1989 Note 2. Revenue Bonds and Notes (Continued) The following information as to original issue amount, balance at June 30, 1989, and purpose was obtained from correspondence with the trustees or no teholders/bondholders of the various projects: Original Industrial Revenue Notes Date Issue Truck Enterprises December 7, 1978 $ 1,000,000 Coles Egg Farm June 20, 1979 2,400,000 Corrugated Container Corporation November 1, 1979 1,000,000 Sloan, Inc. December 28, 1979 450,000 Dr. Stavola April 23, 1980 350,000 Gofland, Ltd. July 29, 1980 280,000 C & B Associates December 17, 1980 3,500,000., Corrugated Container Corporation November 23, 1982 550,000 Jack L. Hartman April 21, 1983 250,000 Friendship Manor October 1, 1972 3,460,000 Medeco Security Locks November 1, 1973 2,100,000 McVitty House November 1, 1976 5,780,000 Mitchell Distributing March 1, 1977 725,000 Crestar Bank October 1, 1979 2,500,000 Friendship Manor November 1, 1979 2,545,000 Friendship Manor November 1, 1979 9,860,000 Medeco Security Locks January 2, 1980 750,000 Dominion Bank July 11, 1980 1,500,000 Dominion Bank September 25, 1981 1,000,000 Medeco Security Locks December 1, 1981 2,750,000 Freight Terminals, Incorporated December 15, 1981 1,200,000 Garden Development Corporation December 23, 1981 400,000 Buford T. Lumsden March 30, 1982 340,000 C & F Associates October 22, 1982 250,000 Aston-Vinton December 31, 1982 1,900,000 Clearbrook Limited April 15, 1983 325,000 Corrugated Container Corporation November 19, 1983 450,000 Regine Archer December 2, 1983 1,900,000 Joseph Penn and Barry Wolfe December 12, 1983 400,000 Maury Strauss December 28, 1983 200,000 Manassas Associates December 28, 1983 315,000 Seaboard Farms April 27 , 1984 1,000,000 Roanoke Fish & Oyster Company December 17, 1984 600,000 Fralin & Waldron Office Park December 21, 1984 2,100,000 Vinton Real Estate Investments December 21, 1984 185,000 Springwood Associates December 27, 1984 1,024,000 R. C. Gallagher December 28, 1984 1,000,000 (Continued) rV '' K~ Page 8 Balance June 30, 1.989 $ 500,176 1,212,489 543,787 138,212 163,130 175,872 3,373,466 147,090 195,811 1,960,000 790,000 3,840,000 150,000 500,000 670,000 8,885,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 17,000 720,000 391,705 318,304 45,479 75,000 309,000 194,609 1,822,800 288,888 176,300 282,069 380,952 457,143 1,989,032 158,529 991,752 840,000 Type o Project Truck Sales and Service Facilities Egg Production Facility Plant Facility Restaurant Medical Facilities Real Estate and Professional Office Facility Hotel Equipment Expand Business Facility Hospital Center Manufacturing Plant Nursing Home Industrial Facility Shopping Center Hospital Center Hospital and Residential Care Center Equipment Shopping Center Shopping Center Building Expansion Freight Terminals Restaurant Office Building . McDonald's Restaurant Shopping Center Health Center Facility Manufacturing Facility Warehouse and Office Facility Office Building Office Building Office Building Feed Mill Office Building Office Building Office Building Office and Shopping Center Mini-Warehouse Facility ., N~ INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 1989 Note 2. Revenue Bonds and Notes (Continued) ndustrial Revenue Note Commonwealth Tool Spec., Inc. Promenade Park Associates ROCA Realty Project Southern States Cooperative Eddie F. Hearp Project Atelier, Inc. Seaboard Farms, Inc. Fralin & Waldron Office Building Hollins College Date July 29, 1985 September 23, 1985 October 2, 1985 October 9, 1985 October 15, 1985 October 15, 1985 June 19, 1986 August 1, 1987 June 1, 1988 Original Issue $ 450,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 4,120,000 550,000 512,225 1,800,000 780,000 3.000.000 S 70.651.225 Note 3. Subsequent Event In July 1989, the Board approved the issuance of $1,550,000 of industrial development revenue refunding bonds for Promenade Park Associates. N-(~ Page 9 Balance June 30. 1989 Tune of Project $ 399,439 Storage Building 1,553,642 Retail Shopping Center Facility 1,334,720 Medical Office 3,995,000 Refunding 1982 Bond 490,202 Office Building 468,705 Office Building 1,207,190 Egg Production Facility 760,000 Office Building 3.000.000 Gymnasium -. S 46.412.493 P AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive 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 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that such executive 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 executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. ACTION #. ITEM NUMBER ~ ~'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of the Ordinance Imposing or Increasing User Fees for the Development and Inspections and Planning and Zoning Departments COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ BACKGROUND: The Department of Management and Budget hired a consultant to perform a limited User Fee Study. David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD. (DMG) completed their review of existing and potential new fees, in February 1990, in the following departments: • Development and Inspections • Planning and Zoning • Solid Waste • Parks and Recreation • Jail • Police • Fire The objectives of the Study were to calculate the full costs of providing specific services, to compare these costs with the revenues currently received for theses services, and to recommend fee levels to recover the full costs of services when such fees are practical. A service for which a user fee is charged can be viewed as the time and/or materials costs paid by a governmental agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. Full costs developed for services rendered include direct labor costs, divisional and departmental supervision and administration, and supplies and materials costs. All appropriate indirect costs allocated from County central services, such as accounting, budgeting and data processing, to the departmentlor division performing the service under review are also included. The principle of user fees dictates that those who use a service pay for the cost of producing the service. Although this principle is firmly established in the private enterprise system, there may be cases of County activities for which it is not regarded as appropriate. It may be desirable to set fees for some services below full cost depending on the circumstances. ~~~ W 1 Subsidies are often provided for two basic purposes. The first is to permit an identified group to participate in services which they might not otherwise be able to afford. This is a legitimate function of government, assuring access to importantzservices to all citizens without regard to their ability to pay. A second type of subsidy is based on the perception of the ultimate beneficiary of the service. Many County activities, by their nature, provide benefits beyond the immediate recipient of the service. Therefore, it may be regarded as appropriate to spread the cost of certain services over the large base of p3tential beneficiaries, as opposed to only the direct recipients. For purposes of generating new revenue for the 1990-91 fiscal year budget, staff has recommended the implementation of only three of the fee areas originally identified for study. These include Development and Inspections, Planning and Zoning and Parks and Recreation. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The attached ordinance, authorizing the user fee increases in the Development Inspections and Planning and Zoning Departments indicates a policy of recovering 100$ of the total cost of providing County services in these two departments. Total cost includes all indirect and direct costs identified above, including the cost of such central services as accounting, budgeting and data processing. The specific fees that are proposed to be increased are as follows: Development and Inspections • Site Plan Review • Small Subdivision Review • Large Subdivision Review • Erosion/Sediment Control Plan Review • Subdivision Waiver/Variance • Vacation of Subdivision Plat and Easements Planning and Zoning • Variance • Administrative Appeal • Rezoning to Agriculture or Single Family • Rezoning to Multi-Family • Rezoning to Industrial • Rezoning to Commercial • Land Use Plan Amendment • Special Use/Landfill $685 + $40 per acre $25 $220 + $45 per lot or parcel $100 + $100 per acre or portion thereof $190 $190 $190 $275 $415 + $20 per acre or portion thereof $660 + $25 per acre or portion thereof $840 + $30 per acre or portion thereof $945 + $30 per acre or portion thereof $710 $1,875 2 ~~0_1 Please see the attached schedule for the detail comparison of old and new user fee rates. The user fees, with regard to the policy of recovering 100$ of total cost, will be reviewed periodically by the staff of the Department of Management and Budget in conjunction with the budget process. The proposed user fee policy for the Departments of Development and Inspections and Planning and Zoning both were reviewed with representatives of the Homebuilders Association. They understood the total cost recovery concept and the definitions of direct and indirect costs, however, their wish was for a two-year phase in of the user fee rate increases. Staff indicated during these discussions that the increased user fees would go a long way in supporting increased services such as a shorter turn around time for site plan and subdivision reviews. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the proposed cost recovery policy through user fees for the Development Inspections and Planning and Zoning Departments is an increase in revenues in the amount of $128,800. The policy rate changes would be effective July 1, 1990. The revenue increase has been included in the FY 1990-91 budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1990. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the above stated cost recovery policy and the resulting user fee rate increases to be effective July 1, 1990 after the second reading of the attached ordinance on June 12, 1990. Reta R. Busher Director of Management and Budget Approved Denied Received Referred To Motion by: i r Elmer C. odge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers No Yes Abs 1,2,3 Observations were take from the Consultant's Report. 3 b aV d uw.a -.r C ~ .d 1 +~ •~ d .. « ; « 1 ~ ~ O CC d ; d 'O G 1 ~ ! I 1 I 1 1 ~. d d d d d d H a. Ir .. H y ya ca ~ U U J J 'O U O 6 C ` 'A d 1 e a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ° ° M ~ w o d _ ° °~ m b d d O~ 0 0 0 M E~ O « « « r + + + '. « + + ~« O I U 1 O O Ica O C lea ~ I N O 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o i i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i o i m a d c.5 i o ooo~ 0 1 0 1 ooNO O_Ne°-~ t o o a Z 1 O O 1 O 1 N m 1 m ++ q o - 1 1 - - ~ 1 q •.+ d i M 1 1 ~. M ..• N A M 1 i d .tea > a.a 1 Icf .--i 1 o- 1 « ~ _ ~ 'C o-i W 1 d -p ; s 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 d d d ad . H a H y . r d I U o 6 `~== 'O 1 ` ~ q 1 0 ~ M 1[f m 0 V' d d 1 m m C- M O ~ N N C- `J] r d 1 les -r m m .sa O O r tr+ « N « M ~--1 r-1 ~ V• t N N .--~ M O + T + « N« '-I m ti N « ~ • ~i- ~ U 1 d O O la'a 6 0 [ice 1 N 6 m ~ !m0 tm 1 •--1 M 1 m N m N m m ti ~ I[f O Y lea u1 yea M .--~ m d a~ M .M c-- N N N ~- N !N- Oa .--~ b0 U m Of N .-~-i ~--1 .-r ~ _ b d Y « « ay •.-a W 1 .-'~ .--1 .--~ d O O > as U ~ O. 1 ' 1 0 0 ua a~ iti ~ O Oa O N E t O N v ~ O F t0 M N ~~ m~ m N ^'1 b0 q . N +a 1 . to .--r s0 N Q ~ O eJ ~ 1 1 I C q b d4 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 eD m M ~ M m 0~ N N m m 1 I 1 N O N ~--~ 1 O q fn q d O_ e- .-r oa ~ m M~ e- I t Oa N to ti m to .--1 O I 1 e0 ~ O ~0 1 N 1 Os O t0 1 m 1 1 A q .-y Y 1 1 1 .--~ ~--1 M M I I M Os l0 m 0 M u'> M I[a N ref ~ oa a a ~ .--I m ~ o i ~ 0 N 1 -. .--1 « « ~^ 1 w l d dC 'O U Oti U I i N i . 1 1 O q q b d 0 d I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 ~ 1 O [Y. Op b . 0a q O a. ~ 1 1 1 d O Y o0 N U O N I >. .~.~ q d W 'O Pa m d W ++ d 1 1 O O u's N~ yea .-+ m a[a ~ 0 co O O 00 I 1 1 I o- oa O oa ~ N O •~a• 0 a a D I O O N w 0 O I C-- lea ~--~ ~ r• 1 rn 1 0 M a p U H O Z o N G 1 H d I _ 0 .-~ M i ; u 's e ~f M lea •.a• O M O m to N lea 1 1 O 1 _ 1 t0 m O e f ~--~ ~"'~ M 1 q H 7 d N 1 1 « 1 1 1 b o. Y U oe 1« I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 O d r a. ° .- . d O IA .F ~ ~--1 yes 1[a O ••~I• ~ ~ Ila I[a ~ N M M M O O > 1 r• N N N O ~-+ N O q b0 d A d 1 « N 1r d er d tr. a Y U i d d Y i4 d d ~ H V H 1 1 Ir O U U J d V U U U 6 ~ s v0 `! 1 d d 1 d O.-r ~ O= =O ~ o ~ 0 7 7 0 O ~ t. M O O O N lea ~'. O a-i d i 14 Oc. 1 . .1 . i . -1 o .+ .~ ~ so a-~ ty Ir H as tr a. Z Is'a N •+ ~~ « a N « t -F ~ O 1 U 1 1 • + A W W b W b b b b 9 > > ? > > > ~ Y « 0 0 ~ ~ ~.e• O ~ d 4 ~ p, .7 ~ d '-1 ---1 ~ Y ~ s. oo U q q d .I.a U O O m r ~ ~w q A '-~ .-1 04 ty Y N 1 ry d •.r .N Y Y r H Oa . . 00 to CG A i.i W d +~ ~ W d W ~ u 1 : d w d 0a o n. z > > H m r _ .. . o r g v ~-i w 'C r b q ~ i 1 o d -w d a . + . + b q m al a i ~. 'O 'O .--I O d P. Ow '-1 •.-1 as r d g o r. b b m d t Z' 1--1 U fY J b d d q .O ~ [Y b +-1 b r R. a+ m a0 q m U U U 4 d d b0 60 bO bO d d d H N ~~ . i C -~ O q- d d P. d y U !. q q q b 1 1 ~-1 Od0 H +..a .0 A d •^1 d ~--1 f0 b U r i1 O +a E q •rl ~ r ~ q C q o C O O O 'O U I .1-a b f+ O~ U •.-r d 7 U •.-1 N 60.0 aC r W Ir A~ ~-I d d d 1 O Y N ~ r N W W u q d b 'O d d d d j y ' y v i e.~ a m ~ m m w an a U ci y au b ca a ~ x~ oe ce a -0 0 0 Y q o A N C d 1 +) ya 'O q r C U d d A r a m U d A i [] G. » O 4 q tr. . d I O '-1 q ca u 1 r d a .d M p 1 I d D D. S~o-l ~! d - 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE IMPOSING OR INCREASING CERTAIN FEES FOR SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND INSPECTIONS, PLANNING AND ZONING, AND REPEALING PRIOR ACTIONS CONCERNING SAME WHEREAS, on September 20, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, selected David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. to conduct a detailed cost/revenue study focusing upon an analysis of user fee services; and WHEREAS, the purpose of said user fee study was to calculate the full costs of providing specific services, compare costs with the revenues received for these services, and recommend fee levels to recover the full costs of services when such fees are practical ; and WHEREAS, the Board has found that it is both equitable and efficient to ensure that those individuals who benefit from certain governmental services bear the cost thereof while eliminating unintentional general service cost subsidies; and WHEREAS, as a result of said study the Board determined that it was in the public interest to increase certain user fees, as modified by staff recommendations, budget work sessions, and citizen comments in order to recover 100$ of the direct and indirect costs of providing certain services; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-466.A.(i) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, authorizes the imposition of reasonable fees and charges for the review of plats and plans and the inspection of facilities, such fees and charges shall in no instance exceed Sao- 2 an amount commensurate with the services rendered, taking into consideration the time, skill and administrator's expense involved; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-491(f) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, authorizes the collection of fees to cover the costs of making inspections, issuing permits, advertising of notices and other expenses incident to the administration of a zoning ordinance or to the filing or processing of any appeal or amendment thereto; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-29.14 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, directs the advertising, public hearing, and enactment of certain fees and levies, said requirements having been satisfied as required by law; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on May 22, 1990, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on June 12, 1990. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there is hereby established certain fees for public services provided by and through the Roanoke County Department of Development and Inspections relating to the review of subdivision plats and plans and similar development services rendered for and on behalf of citizens, as follows: Review Site Plans Review Small Subdivisions (less than 5 lots or parcels) 5685 + $40 per acre 25 Review Large Subdivisions $220 + S45 per lot or parcel .5"~o-l 3 Review Erosion/Sediment Control Plan $100 + $100Lner acre or portion thereof Subdivision waiver or variance 190 Vacation of subdivision plat and easements 190 2. That Section 8-32, "Filing Fee," of Chapter 8, "Erosion and Sediment Control," of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 8-32. Filing fee. An applicant submitting a plan pursuant to this article shall pay a f i l i ng fee o f ~-i €t-~-~$~~}-e~e3~a~~s-}93-~s-~a £t ~e~ea~-~e~~--a-}~e~i-e~k~e~ee~rtet~e e~eeed~~ One Hundred ($100) dollars plus One Hundred ($1001_ dollars for each acre or portion thereof to cover the administrative expense of review and inspection and approval of such plan. 3. That there is hereby established certain fees for public services provided by and through the Roanoke County Department of Planning and Zoning related to zoning and variance services rendered for and on behalf of citizens, as follows: Variance 190 Administrative Appeal Rezoning to A-1, RE, or R-1 to R2, R3, R4, R5 R-MH, R6 to M1, M2, M3 to B1, B2, B3 Land Use Amendment 275 $415 + $20 per acre or portion thereof $660 + $25 per acre or portion thereof $840 + $30 per acre or portion thereof $945 + $30 per acre or portion thereof 710 Special Use~Landfill 1 875 ,.~~a-i 4 Use Not Provided For Permit $145 + $5 per acre or portion thereof PUD $145 + $5 per acre or portion thereof Special Use Permit/Special Exception 20 4. That in addition to the fees established herein, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of the full cost of any legal advertisement or publication costs which may be required by law. 5. That Resolution No. 2368, which was adopted by this Board on August 14, 1979, and which established a schedule of fees for the review of preliminary and final subdivision plats, is hereby repealed. 6. That Resolution No. 82-213, which was adopted by this Board on November 22, 1983, and which established a schedule of fees for certain services for zoning matters, is hereby repealed. 7. That Resolution No. 84-96.q., which was adopted by this Board on June 12, 1984, and which established a fee for variance requests, is hereby repealed. 8. That Resolution No. 85-30.E, which was adopted by this Board on March 12, 1985, and which established a fee for conditional rezonings and subdivision waivers, is hereby repealed. 9. That Action No. A/2-11-86-34, item F3, which was adopted by this Board on February 11, 1986, and which established a fee for administrative appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals, is hereby repealed. 10. That the effective date of this ordinance and for the imposition of the fees and charges contained herein shall be July 1, 1990. 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: May 22, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 14.1-46.01:1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• Last year on June 13, 1989, the Board adopted an ordinance to increase its salaries pursuant to the provisions of Section 14.1- 46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia. This section of the State Code and Section 3.07 of the County Charter require that any increase in supervisor's salaries be accomplished by ordinance after public hearing between May 1 and June 30. Any increase is limited to an annual five (5~) percent inflation factor SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The first reading and public hearing of this proposed ordinance is scheduled for May 22, 1990; the second reading was held on June 12, 1990. The proposed salary for Board members will be increased from $8,805 to $9,245. In addition, this ordinance establishes the additional annual compensation for the Chairman of the Board at $1,800 and for the Vice Chairman at $1,200. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Five (5~) percent increase in Board salaries: ($440 each x 5 = $2,200) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ~~~-~ Action Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs ~5~0-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 14.1-46.01:1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and WHEREAS, Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain population brackets; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members to be $8,805 by Ordinance 61489-13 and further, has established the additional annual compensation for the chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five (5~) percent; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the establishment of these salaries was held on May 22, 1990; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May 22, 1990; the second reading was held on June 12, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of five (5~) percent ~~ pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $9,245 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1990. ,5~9~ - ,~ M E M O RAN D U M TO: Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board P FROM: Tim Gubala, Director of Economic Development DATE: May 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors rezoning request for a 53.44 acre tract on West Ruritan Road Fralin and Waldron has written a letter to the City of Roanoke asking for consideration of access through the Centre of Industry and Technology. This is one of the proffers made at the Planning Commission that is unreasonable unless the City of Roanoke will agree to grant access. As part of their letter; and reiterated during the May 15, 1990 community meeting in Bonsack, Fralin and Waldron has requested that the rezoning be tabled until the access issue is resolved between the City and County. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors should vote to table this rezoning request until the access issue is resolved. Please call if you have any questions. sbo Enclosure c Elmer C. Hodge F~ ~~ FRALIN and WALDRDN, INC. May 11, 190 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager CITY OF ROANOKE 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: 53 ± ACRE POLLARD TRACT WEST RURITAN ROAD Dear Bob: ~~° ,, a ~ f , ,.~ +. Fralin and Waldron, Inc. is presently processing a rezoning application with Roanoke County (co-applicant) for the above referenced parcel. As you are probably aware, citizens of the area are extremely concerned about the rezoning of this tract from RE (residential estate) to M-1 (light industry). Their concerns involve land use compatibility items including noise, visual impact, nature of potential uses with regard to pollution and general water contamination and traffic. Of these concerns, we believe many of these items can be mitigated through effective site development utilization and proffers to assure protective screening and elimination of adverse/or undesirable uses. The anticipated traffic to be generated from any use on this property has been a very strong concern of the residents living on or near West Ruritan Road. We have met with Roanoke County officials throughout this process and they have referenced their earlier discussions with the City regarding access to this tract via the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. Although a final agreement was not ratified between the City and County; we remain encouraged, that in the spirit of joint economic development goals, that such an agreement is attainable. In an effort to lessen neighborhood opposition, we have suggested alternatives which include reducing the acreage of our rezoning request to allow a residential buffer and have traffic access the site from Blue Hills Drive. It appears that we will need to proffer a condition to the rezoning, prohibiting access to West Ruritan Road. P. 0. BOX 20069 2917 PENN FOREST BOULEVARD S. W. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0503 0 ^ FW f RALINsnd WALDRON IMCpp.OA~TtD Mr. W. Robert Herbert May ~11, 1990 - Page Two - ~~~ I would respectfully request that you review the status of earlier negotiations with your staff and Roanoke County and please advise me as to the steps necessary to obtain access to Blue Hills Drive. Once you've had an opportunity to review this request, I believe it would be beneficial to meet for further discussion. The rezoning is scheduled for May 22, 1990 following a May 15, 1990 neighborhood meeting. Since I feel the proffered condition will be necessary, I am going to file a request to defer action until after access to Blue Hills Drive can be obtained. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this request. If I can be of any assistance, please contact this office. Sincerely, ~~ Richard S. Whitney, Jr. Executive Vice President RSW , ' JR . / lcw cc: Mr Elmer Hodge ti p 2 f7 Z J a~ DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 18 E50 8$ SFSQUICENTENN~P4 A Beautiful Beginning MEMORANDUM T0: Mary Allen, Clerk, Board of Supervisors ..---~ FROM: Tim Gubala, Director, Roanoke County Economic Development ~j,M DATE: March 23, 1990 SUBJECT: Rezoning of 54 Acres on West Ruritan Road After discussing with Fraln & Waldron, I request a continuance of this rezoning approximately 60 days until the May 22, 1990 meeting. This action is necessary to allow for consideration of citizen comments and concerns regarding uses, screening and buffering and access through the Centre of Industry and Technology. Please contact me if you have any questions. cc: Elmer Hodge Terry Harrington Steve Claytor P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE . VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2069 FAX. NO.: (703> 772-2030 PETITIONER: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (FRALIN & WALDRON) CASE NUMBER: 1-1/90 Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 6, 1990 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: March 27, 1990 A. REQUEST Petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to amend the Future Land Use Plan map designation of a 53.44 acre tract from Development to Principal Industrial and to rezone said property from R-E to M-1 for industrial development, located west of West Ruritan Road and north of Homestead Lane, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Ray Scher, a nearby resident, voiced the following: the proposal makes good economic sense except that consolidation hasn't happened yet--the Centre for Industry is located in the city; northern portion of the property (most feasible site to build on) is much higher than the other residential properties in the area and a building on this site would completely dominate the landscape; proposed site is surrounded by 75% residential area of which 100% is Roanoke County residential property. Maggie Angell expressed the following concerns: proposed site is not compatible with residential neighborhood; no absolute guarantee that access will be granted from the city; Ruritan Road cannot handle addit- ional traffic; there is no fire protection available in the area; inadequate police protection. Also there is no guarantee from a buffer zone. I live near Gardner Denver now; at 2 o'clock in the morning, they wake me testing their machines. They have a buffer zone, it doesn't help and it doesn't help with the lighting. She presented a petition with signatures of 209 residents who are opposed and 5 in support of the request. Also, she requested that the residents of the Bonsack area be allowed to participate in a 460 corridor study (if a study is done). Max Beyer spoke in opposition to the request noting that he is against an M-1 designation. Buddy Davis, an adjacent property owner, also expressed his opposition. Pam Pope said that she agrees with the proposal, subject to an extensive study of the proffers and how the land would actually be used. If proposal is approved, it would keep traffic from West Ruritan Road. Yolanda Petite questioned requirements for the project; air quality, noise, zoning laws, and its effect on the rest of the area. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS 1. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within the Development designation. This designation encourages low- to middle-density residential development and finds office and retail services of moderate compatibility. The Development designation discour- ages or prohibits industrial parks and manufacturing facilities. To determine whether the existing Development designation is appropriate consider the following land use determinents outlined in the Comprehensive Plan: (1) Public Facilities Capacity - If this site was developed as single- family residences, approx. 120-140 homes could be built in conformance with Roanoke County regulations and surrounding neighborhoods. This would add approx. 80-90 school age children to the local schools (Herman Horn Elem., W. Byrd Middle, and High) which appear to have adequate capacity; _ _ ____- ______ l ___ __- . - _ - _ _ -- unless a-special exception has been granted by the Board; seed and feed stores; automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, _ _ _ _____,_ L~....,, ,~,,.,,;Y;,,n a„~ nvPrhaulina: no ~~~ 2. All utilities will be underground. ~~ 3. There will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site, as necessary. 4. Petitioner will evaluate the drainage situation for the subject tract and implement a design for drainage facilities and for the retention or detention for a ten year storm. 5. Exclusive access to the property will be limited to a connection through the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology except for emergency vehicle access as necessary. 6. Type E (option 2) buffer and screening requirements will be provided between the subject parcel and all Single family residences. All County screening and buffering requirements will be implemented as specific development occurs. 7. All internal thoroughfares will be designed and constructed to VDOT standards for future dedication. 8. Dust mitigation controls will be implemented during site excavation activities. E. COMMISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON Mr. Massey moved to deny the land use map amendment because of a resolution passed earlier in support of a 460 East Corridor/Bonsack area study, and it would be premature to recommend an amendment before the study is done. Mr. Witt agreed saying that a study of the corridor is needed and that is the time to make changes in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Winstead reiterated his views on the industrial rezonings initiated by the County saying that if we're serious about long-term economic development, we have to do area and corridor studies for those areas where major industrial development is going to occur; we have to update the Comprehensive Plan; revise the text of the zoning ordinance; and revise the zoning maps. This should be done in the context of a plan that mitigates the impact and that people have the opportunity to see and comment on. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Robinson, Massey, Winstead, Gordon NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Massey moved to deny the rezoning request saying that there are too many unknown factors that have not been addressed; potential impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Witt noted that Fralin & Waldron did not receive more input from the citizens at the community meetings because nobody knows what is going on the property and issues could not be addressed. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Robinson, Massey, Winstead, Gordon NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: Concept Plan './Vicinity Map ~~ Staff Report ~ Other Jon an Hartley, ternate Secretary Roa e County Planning Commission .:~ ~' ~~ ~. STAFF REPORT CASE NUMBER: 1-1/90 REVIEWED 8Y: Janet Scheid 1. NATURE OF REGIUEST PETITIONER: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors DATE: February 6, 1990 a. This is a conditional request to rezone 53.44 acres from Residential Estates to Light Industrial. b. The specific uses for this property are not known at this time. This request has been submitted to increase the County's inventory of industrial sites in accordance with the recommendations of Roanoke County's 1989 economic development action plan. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The M-1 Light Industrial District permits a wide variety of industrial uses. The landowner has proffered to exclude six of these particularly troublesome uses. Any building in a M-1 district, that is adjacent to a residential district boundary, must provide a 30' yard on the side of the building adjacent to the residential district boundary. b. The screening and buffering regulations of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (Section 21-92) will apply to the development of this parcel of land. The landowner has proffered to comply with Type E (Option 2) requirements. c. Site plan review will be required for any future development on this site to ensure compliance with all County regulations. d. Stormwater control regulations will be applied. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topographys This parcel of land is relatively flat with a few, low rolling hills. b. Ground Cover: This parcel is completely in grass. c. Improvements: There are no improvements on this land. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Hopsack Community Planning Area. The initiative is to stimulate growth in this area. ~fi.~"~ b. General areas The areas surrounding this parcel of land are single-family residential in the County and industrial (Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology) in the City of Roanoke. The residential area is a stable, well- maintained, low-density neighborhood. 5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed action. Use a scale of 1 through 5. 1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable impact, 4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and N/A = not applicable. RATING FACTOR COMMENTS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 4 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within the Development designation. This designation encourages low- to middle-density residential development and finds office and retail services of moderate compatibility. The Development designation discourages or prohibits industrial parks and manufacturing facilities. To determine whether the existing Development designation is appropriate consider the following land use determinents outlined in the Comprehensive Plan: (1) Public Facilities Capacity - If this site was developed as single-family residences, approximately 120-140 homes could be built in conformance with Roanoke County regulations and the surrounding neighborhoods. This would add approximately 80-90 school age children to the local schools (Herman Horn Elementary, W. Byrd Middle, and W. Byrd High), which appear to have adequate capacity; (2) Water and Sewer Availability - Public water and sanitary sewer facilities are adjacent to this site. Only on-site water and sewer lines would be needed; (3) Environmental Capacity - This site is a grassy field with low, rolling hills. Natural land features would not constrain residential development; (4) Major Street Access - Direct access to Route 460 via West Ruritan Road can be obtained from this site; (5) Urban Sector - This land is within the urban service area. The petitioner has filed a Land Use Map amendment to change the designation of this parcel of land to Principal Industrial. The following land use types are desirable within Principal Industrial areas: (1) small industries, (2) industrial parks, (3) agricultural industries. The land use factors that determine which areas should be designated as Principal Industrial are as follows: (1) Areas where industry has historically developed - this part of syo_ 3 ~, the county has historically been residential, although the site is adjacent to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology in the city; (2) Areas where land is currently zoned for industrial use - this land is currently zoned for residential use; (3) Locations that have been identified as having potential for future industrial development - this site was identified in the 1981 industrial site inventory and reconsidered in the 1989 update; (4) Areas located near an abundance of labor-intensive industry - the areas of the county adjacent to this site are residential neighborhoods. As stated earlier, the site also borders on the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology; (5) Areas where land is generally flat or gently sloping - the topography on this site is almost ideal; (6) Areas outside the flood- plain - this site is not in the 100-year flood zone; (7) Areas where valuable resources are not threatened - There are no known natural resources that would be threatened. The neighborhood environment and stability of the surrounding homes could be threatened; (8) Locations where water and sanitary sewer facilities are available or proposed - this site is adjacent to public water and sanitary sewer facilities. Only on-site water and sewer lines would be needed; (9) Locations that have access to public streets - it has been proffered that access will be limited to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology; (10) Areas in close proximity to major transportation facilities - this site is easily accessible to Route 460; (11) Areas within the urban service area - this site is in the urban service area. 5 b. Surrounding Land: In Roanoke County this parcel of land is surrounded on three sides by single-family residences. The western side of this property borders City property in the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. 4 c. Neighboring Area: In general, the neighboring areas of the county are predominantly residential in nature. There exists a mixture of established, stable neighborhoods and new subdivision development. Route 460 has some commercial sites along the corridor. 5 d. Site Layout: The required concept plan has not been submitted. N/A e. Architecture: Not available. 3 f. Screening and Landscape: The development of this site will have to be done in compliance with the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 21-92, "Type E", Screening and Buffering. J~` ~~`~ S g. Amenitiess The required concept plan has not been submitted. Amenities can not be evaluated. 3 h. Natural Features: This site is a grassy field. TRAFFIC 3 i. Street Capacities: Route 460 between Route 220 Alt. and the northeast Roanoke City line had a 1986 average daily traffic count of 13,000 passenger cars and an additional 6,000 trucks for a total of 19,000 vehicles per day. In the absence of a concept plan, to estimate the potential traffic impact of this land being developed as an industrial site assume an industrial park is developed. The increase in daily traffic would be approximately 1,000 vehicles per day. Through a proffer, this access would be limited to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. In comparison, if this site was developed as single-family residences in conformance with Roanoke County regulations and the surrounding neighborhoods, .120-140 homes could be built increasing average daily traffic by approximately 1,300. These vehicles would access via West Ruritan Road. There were five reported traffic accidents in 1987 at the intersection of Route 460 and West Ruritan Road. There were three additional accidents on West Raritan Road. 3 j. Circulation: It is impossible to evaluate circulation since the required concept plan has not been submitted. Petitioner has proffered to limit access to this site, except for emergency vehicle access, to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. UTILITIES 3 k. Water and Sewer Facilities: Public water and sanitary sewer facilities are adjacent to this site and are designed to provide industrial service. Only on-site water and sewer lines will be needed. DRAINAGE 3 1. Basin: This site is in the Glade Creek drainage basin. 3 m. Floodplain: This site is not in the 100-year floodplain. PUBLIC SERVICES 3 n. Fire Protection and Rescue Services: Adequate fire and emergency services can be provided to this site if water standards are met in the development. N/A o. Parks and Recreation: The potential industrial development of this site will not effect parks and recreation services in the County. ~_':~ ~~:~ _ ~ N/A p. Schools: The potential industrial development of this site could affect the area schools through job creation and an influx of new employees from outside the area. The impact of this is impossible to determine at this point in time. If the site is developed with 120-140 single-family residences, approximately BO-90 school-age children would enter the local school system. Hased on estimates from school administration personnel the local schools have capacity to handle this influx. TAX RASE N/A q. -Land and Improvement Value: Unknown -Taxable Gross Sales/Year: Unknown -Total Employees: Unknown -Total revenue to the County/Year: Unknown ENVIRONMENT 3 r. Air: Since the specific intended use of this land is not known, it is difficult to assess the air pollution impacts. Petitioner has proffered to exclude some of the more troublesome uses. 3 s. Water: Same as "r" above. 3 t. Soils: Stormwater and erosion control will have to comply with Roanoke County regulations. 3 u. Noise: Same as "r" above. 4 v. Signage: No proffer submitted. Would suggest that each industrial lot on this parcel must limit Signage to 1.5 square feet per one linear foot of public street frontage, up to a maximum of 300 square feet. 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Development. Petitioner has filed a Land Use Map amendment to change the designation to Principal Industrial to achieve consistency with the proposed zoning. 7. STAFF EVALUATION a. Strengths: (1) The landowner has proffered to exclude some of the more troublesome uses permitted in the M-1 District. (2) The landowner has also proffered to limit access to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology, except for emergency vehicle access as necessary. b. Weaknesses: There are numerous serious weaknesses to this petition. Of overriding and general concern is the ~~o-~ lack of a comprehensive evaluation of the Route 460 corridor's potential for industrial development. More specifically: (1) The lack of a concept plan for development of this site poses problems in evaluating the site's impacts on the surrounding land uses; (2) Policy I-9 of the Principal Industrial land use designation prohibits industrial development adjacent to residential uses, unless exceptional design measures are applied to achieve compatibility. Since no concept plan has been submitted or proffered there is no design to evaluate. c. Proffers Suggested: The landowner should proffer to: (1) Exclude commercial laundry and dry cleaning plants in addition to the six other uses that have already been excluded; (2) Limit signage on each industrial lot to 1.5 square feet per one linear foot of public street frontage, up to a maximum of 300 square feet; (3) Mitigate noise levels associated with an industrial site. The landowner should restrict noise levels, at all times, to less than 60 d8(A) when measured at the adjoining residential structures; (4) Revise proffer #8 regarding dust mitigation during site excavation to include dust mitigation during construction and operation of any industrial facility on this site; (5) Submit a concept plan to allow the staff and citizens a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the potential impacts of the petition to rezone this site from residential to industrial use. djSt Vllb •tlG DVHlt/ VI VVV/'111 JVCLhviJVhJ VC hVtu\vhl+ VVV/\11 A 53.441 acre parcel of land, ) generally located north of ) `! Route 460 East, off of West ) ;, Ruritan Road, within the ) PROF Vinton Magisterial District, ) OF District, and recorded as parcel ) CONDITIONS / Nos. 39.20-1-50, 39.20-1-51 in ) '~i~ l the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) ~ ~ ~ -- `,~ TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOICE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Section 21-1O5E. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the County Petitioner, Fralin and Waldron, Inc., hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the following conditions to the rezoning of the above referenced parcel of land: 1. The property will not include permitted uses for: a. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products; b. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards; c. Outside flea markets, unless a special exception has been granted by the Board of Supervisors. d. Seed and feed stores. e. Automobile painting,upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing and overhauling. f. No free standing communication towers will be permitted. 2. That all utilities will be underground. 3. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site, as necessary. 4. That the Petitioner will evaluate the drainage situation for the subject tract and implement a design for drainage facilities and for the retention or detention for a ten (10) year storm. 5. Exclusive access to the property will be limited to a connection through the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology except for emergency vehicle access as necessary. ` 6. Type E (Option 2) buffer and screening requirements will be provided between the subject parcel and all single family residences. All Roanoke County screening and buffering requirements will be implemented as specific development occurs. 7. All internal thoroughfares will be designed and constructed to VDOT standards for future dedication. 8. Dust mitigation controls will be implemented during site excavation activities. Respectfully submitted, Fralin & Waldron, inc. Blf _<~ 1~..~ GGG~I~ Richard S. Wh t Jr. Executive Vice President C~nunt~ ~f ~2~ttnnke DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M L M O R A N D U M TO: Terry Harrington, Director, Planning and Zoning FROM: Timothy Gubala hector, Economic Development DATE: October 19, 1989 ~7 SUBJECT: Rezoning application - Fralin & Waldron, Inc. property On behalf of the Board of Supervisors I am submitting an application for the rezoning of approximately 53.44 acres from Residential Estates RE to Industrial District M-1..~~This property is one of several evaluated as part of the 1989 study of potential industrial sites that was initiated by the Board of Supervisors. Please note that the Concept Plan and water and sewer application are not included because there is not a user for the property. Rezoning of the property must precede the detailed site planning. Several proffered conditions are listed that affect permitted uses, access to the property and restrictive covenants. Suggested proffers: 1. The property will not include permitted uses for: a. Automobile painting, uphlstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling; b. Manufacturing of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products; c. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards; d. Flea markets, unless a special exception has been granted by the Board, of Supe~~~.sar., e. Seed and feed stores. Please advise me with your comments and questions. Thank you. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE . VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2069 FAX. NO.: 1703) 772-2030 Syu-3 C~nun1~ of i2attnnke ~'"' DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D II M TO: Terry Harrington, irector, Planning and Zoning FROG[: I Timothy W. Gubala Director, Economic Development DATE: October 20, 1989 SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Amendment for Fralin and Waldron property on West Ruritan Road Bachground This property was purchased by Fralin and Waldron in 1982 from the Pollard Estate. Roanoke County Economic Development staff evaluated this site as being a potential industrial site and recommended that the Board of Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property so that it could be used for future industrial development. Requested Land Use Plan Amendment: A Plan Amendment from Development to Principal Industrial is requested. Effect of the Amendment on Surrounding Properties The Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology is an adjacent land use to the southwest and large lot residential uses are located to northwest and southeast. Twelve residential lots are located to the northeast along West Ruritan Road. Buffering and screening will be required to protect the proposed industrial use from adjacent residential areas. Types of uses should be limited under the proposed industrial zoning to enhance compatibility with adjacent residential uses. The proposed industrial amendment can be complimentary with adjacent residential. The AMP rezoning on Old Hollins Road serves as a Roanoke County model for blending industrial and residential uses. A master plan is recommended prior to development. ~teasons for the Amendment: The Roanoke Valley is deficient in "ready to go" industrial sites to offer to prospective industrial clients from outside the Commonwealth. The Board of Supervisors adopted strategy for FY 89- 90 is to take action to encourage industrial site development through changes in land use and zoning, water and sewer extensions P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE .VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2069 FAX. NO.: (703) 772-2030 A Bt~rtif iJ~iening Syo-~ ~..:,-~~ and long range highway planning. Opportunities for public-private partnerships exist to implement site development by the private sector. Specifically, this site is adjacent to the Centre for Industry and Technology which is not identified in Roanke City's comprehensive Plan. This land is zoned LM under the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance. It is the intent of the Economic Development staff to affect an extension of a road from the industrial park into the County. Access will come from Roanoke City. Tustification for the Amendment: Existing Land Use Pattern - Industrial development in the City's Centre for Industry and Technology and residential in Roanoke County. Existing Zoninct - Currently residential in area. This property and several other sites in the area is proposed to be part of a new East County industrial area adjacent to the Route 11/460 Corridor. Potential Industrial Site - Identified as a site in the original 1981 site inventory and reconsidered in the 1989 update requested by the Board of Supervisors. Employment center - This property is adjacent to such a center in the City of Roanoke's Centre for Industry and Technology. ToQouraphy - Land is within the 10$ slope criteria land use determinant. Flood Hazard - Outside floodplain area. Water supply - 12" water service adjacent to site in West Ruritan Road. Sewer service - 12" sewer service extends through site to West Ruritan Road. ccess - Access is proposed to be through Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology behind Orvis. Transportation Center - Close to Route 11/460 Corridor. Urban sector - Within Urban Service Sector. ~~~3-~ ~~~~ ~- eo_ . '••. o~ P~ ~. ~~~•• I ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~~ / i ^^ sr •J Mt . ~ ti ~~ ti"A ' , ~ ~fi 1 • ~O Zoninq: ~ Comprehensive Plan Designation: Development Access: West Ruritan Road Water: on site Sewer: On site Availability: Owners will make property available for industrial use. Recommendation: Amend Comprehensive Plan to Principal Industrial. Rezone property to M1. Fiscal Impact; 1990 - - ---- - - Department of Economic Development e name: Fralin & Size: 53.44 acres ~y~ -3 ~, ~_.~~ ~a. a9~~d 3 Q Qom. , ,/. ~J. off., UA ayo~s-a~9~ ~~.~~o tva'J ~ f I~u9 - . .~:.., i~ _....u.. ..:iJ~+l ~~~y~P s >~~a~,. ,~~-Q~• LJ~ 2tz _c~~~J/ ~s Z~: ~,a J ~ eonr~~. t t d ~ a.u ~- E'urw«:,= ~ ~ _ - gyn. !J~' ~~ y s~ R~a.l a /~.~,z 1ko ,~,.G.d t.J~~ Gm~n~..~na~ ,~ ~~ -~.~ ~'~ o~ ~. ~ a,~..Z C~c-c, ~i,-, i'~ ~.ec~v,, ~ a.. va-~ 1G?~.- ~ a~f (~''//K~~~~c2Yvrri,? v" ~ Grt' C/-~ c, ~c.Gt G~ wa-f..1~ Gin- ~ u.- c`c~.-` Zlc.t Q~uQ . ~~O-u~~ G~a.~ !~ Gc1ct-a/ .~vv~ hew, wa.~. ~~` G~ ~v~7` ~ ~ ~. .~ ~~ ~~ ~G..f ~~ t fie... ~ ~-~ h; ~ a-~ - ~ /~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~- ~ ~ S y0- 3 3~/B-/ ~.Q~ ~ o.~ ~ ~~, i ..1.2 2a~4 ~ au~~v ~~.~ Z:~~~ u,-,~4 u-n m~.~..~o~ea~ t, Y.(.- .,ea-c ,~ ~ t~ z~ G~.,~ ~v ~ r~ w c6nc~,.~+-~ a.,../ Go~ner,~-.n..~*-o E Y~-.1 2,~Q ~G.,,~ ~-~ .plc ~ fir..-.:L4.~ c~~.fJ a,Ll ~ J, n.,.- C2 ~ .fie ,a-ee ~ Cli~e~Q ~'EQ y~-e- ,a ~yn ol~i.,tLo4G~ l7Gl W. ~~~~~~ ~z~ ~~, U~ ayaia A i" n _ ~. ~~~ .~ li"~ ~ ~~t ~I '- ~ '; FFR 1 199(1 YY L;~1r•. ~I\ 1 ~~ ' ' riobert M. Felton ~14~ Sourwood Street Roanoke, Va. ~q.c_~1 ~9 Januar•,< 1989 Roanoi::e County Planning ~~ Zoning Dept. 8 Erramb leton Avenue, :-,,, W, Roanoke, Va. 24k~18 Attn: h1r^, Ron Massey wear Sir: I am a resident of the La Belle~.~~te s!~bdivision in northea_t F:oanoF::e Cor_~n t_y, and I am wr' i t ing to _'„o~ i to e;:pr^e.s rnv opp~_~s i t i on to the proposed rezoning of a tract of lard I': ing «es.r of West R!,rita.n F;~c.~d, a.s re~,uested by Fra.Iin _. 1.~1_.ldr'on, inc. I !-,:a•~% tht'ee reasons for r,ppr~sin: the pr~~p~c-ed r^.~_:cnina. Fir-=.t, a..~ ew'idenced b r a ser-i~_s _. got art is Le= !'-~_r:~ni_ i.' e~F~='~r'i„g z~i the Ro.eno~:e Times ?.. Worlr~ ~'~iews, Fr~.~.;,in ~ W.=.!dre:,n I-~a.= ~~~e It f='.L.~ln tr~c.t G~"i~?_yr 4tiii.l Pr'iJ~lli~~? a.nyfjrlln~ t•~ q_'t _. r'~`_-•~i.7nin .and wi 11 then do a.s the_,;~ pleases, det~4~ ing the .~ ~-y cc~mm~_~nit~_. •.o step them. They t-~a..~e r^epeatediy dispia;ec conte~T~pt ror^ the pr-oces_~es of orderl4' grawth a.nd good gcver^nment. I do not belie•:e a w~~r'r of r~=ir- promise=, anti cannot lm.a ~ ~ dine wh',; a.nV char-thinh:lny p~~r~~on w~:_t i ~ , Secon.:~, w~~ ,~o.'.'t i1F~eL~ i~. itict=i7ri:i7.!-i~ f:~_! Studii_- F'er-*~~r`ITIe~~ ~t the Center ~cr- Pu.blic ~er-,~,lce at The Jrr;~~ersity~of `Jir'9inia, Roanoke Cour:t_~• will Grow at a negligible r.a.te during the coming dew-=•de• H= there ar-e curr^entiv n~_Lmerou~ parcels available tor^ development in this area in e::isting ind~LStr'ial par'E::s - and no taE:ers - forecasts of economic ruination if this Farticular-~ piece isn't made available have ~, distinctl.; tinny sound. Third, development of the subject tract wo~_~ld undoubtedi•,- lead 'to degradation of one of F:oanoE::e s most ~=harming residential arc~.s, damage that could not oe r'epair•ed, To wreck: a neighborhood of ~_~ncisputed lo~~~el iness, in contemplation of growth that isn't going to happen, on the strength of promises of a firm that betrays each day contempt for' the community in which it lives, would be indefensible fool i~shness, And you can bet we voter's aren't going to stand for it. S~ c rely, ~~ Robert M. Felton 1u _ - s ~ ~ - - - - ~_ ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ - -i ~_ ~_ ._ - AGENDA I M NO. ~~ .= Ems, ~ ~~ ~ ~~ - SUBJ _ • ~~ - ~. w = o ~. - I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supex~isors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter =_ CALLED TO THE PODIUM, - so that I ma comment.WHEN _ = ILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE - IW - _ _ - RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINE =_ LISTED BELOW. • Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment =_ = whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, = and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to - do otherwise. __ - = • Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- = tions of cl ' 'cation may be entertained by the Chairman. _ _ • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. - = • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all tunes. = • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. - = • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FQR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION = FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT - THEM. • - PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK NAME 1 ~~~ ~ ~~~ - ~ -_ ADDRESS ~. ~-~5 ~ ,~.~ ,~ -, , ~.~ ~ .~ . <~ PHONE ~'[ '2 ~ . ~ ~. ~~~.~~ mlllllliilillllllllillllllillllllilllllllllilllllllilillllltlillllllllilllllllilillllllllllllllllllliilllililiilillllllllllliilll O~ ROAN ,I.~ ~ ,A p z ,? o a 18 E~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P A BcautifulBeginninG COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Rev. J. W. Hatton Fort Lewis Baptist Church Route 1 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Reverend Hatton: May 23, 1990 RICHARD W• ROBERS. CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to take this opportunity to let you know of our appreciation for your attending the meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, to offer the invocation. We feel it is most important to ask God's blessing on these meetings so that all is done according to His will and for the good of all citizens. Thank you for sharing your time with us. Sincerely . W. obeys, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors All-AMERICA CITY ((~~ fi ~ ~~~~~~~ 1979 ~i~~xl~t~. ~ 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29600 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 77i ~ 11 ~ ~^ j ~ v MAY 2-' 1~ C®MM®NW~~]L~'~ o f ~1g~~~N~A i hulh C. Miller, Director May 23, 1990 Department of Historic Resources The Honorable Richard W. Robers Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Robers: 221 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Telephone (804)786-3143 TDD: 804-786-4276 I want to thank you for your support of matching funds for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources grant to survey his- toric properties in Roanoke County. I also want to applaud your resolution to use the architectural survey as a basis for prepar- ing a preservation component of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Thanks to your support, Roanoke County is now prepared to record its historic properties, to evaluate the importance of those properties, and to take reasonable steps for the preservation of those which are found to be most significant. Moreover, the people of Roanoke County will be able to take civic pride in recognizing the historic properties highlighted by the survey, and special educational programs can be prepared so that Roanoke County school children can learn their past from lessons based on the architectural record of their heritage. It has been my pleasure to speak to you about the need for this architectural survey. I look forward to working with you and with Roanoke County planning officials and educators to implement its execution for maximum public benefit. Sincerely, hn R. Kern, Ph.D., Director ROANOKE REGIONAL PRESERVATION OFFICE 1030 Penmar Avenue, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 (703) 857-7585 ~P AN~F z cpi ° a ~ 8 E50 a8 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ul Bcginnin~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Ms. Ann E. Weaver Executive Director Clean Valley Council P. O. Box 3320 Roanoke, VA 24015-1320 Dear Ms. Weaver: May 23, 1990 ill-~MERIU CIiY 1II I'~ 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW, VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 52290-12.d, authorizing the Clean Valley Council to apply for an anti-litter program grant for Roanoke County. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 1990. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, -~y~- ,~. Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Clerk, City of Roanoke Clerk, City of Salem Clerk, Town of Vinton Clerk, County of Botetourt C~uun~~ of ~nttnnkr P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 F PTE, h v 9 z c~ Z a ~a ~~~~ 8a 8~8~UICENTENN~P~ A Beaun~ulBrRinninR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mr. E. Cabell Brand 701 West Main Street Salem, VA 24513 Dear Mr. Brand: May 24, 1990 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRKT STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWEiA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTC>rl MAGISTERL4L DIS'iRICT The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Total Action Against .Poverty Board of Directors for a two-year term. Your term will expire on May 5, 1992. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. Both of these acts were amended by the Virginia General Assembly in July, 1989. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors MHA/bj h Enclosures pc: Theodore J. Edlich, III, Executive Director of TAP Forest G. Jones, Clerk, Salem City Council All AMERICA CITT ~ 1' I I'' ~~ ~~~ ~~ 1979 ~~~~~ ~ 19a9 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 2 .. G~ ~ 2 a 18 (~J 88 aE80U1CENTENN~'~ A Bcauti~ulRrginninR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE May 24, 1990 Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk Roanoke County Circuit Court Roanoke County Courthouse Salem, VA 24513 Dear Mrs. Stokes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. RO9ERS. CHIURMAN uvE srRxra MAOKTLRIAL DISTRIC'- STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE•CH/URMAN CATAWBA MAt315TER1AL DISTRICT I.EE B. EDGY WIND80R MILLS MAOISTERVII DISTRICT 808 L JOHNSON tgILttJS MA615TERIAL 015TRICT HARRY C. NlG!(ENS VINTON MAa13TERUL DISTRICT The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors for a two-year term. Your term will expire on May 5, 1992. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. Both of these acts were amended by the Virginia General Assembly in July, 1989. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ~n~-~ ~, MHA/bjh Enclosures pc: Theodore J. Edlich, III, Executive Director of TAP Forest G. Jones, Clerk, Salem City Council All YIEMCJI Cllr ICI' ~' I f' (~'(~ ~ ~~~~~~~ 1979 ~+'+'~~~ ~ 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 •~ ~~.~ O~ POAN '~F L ~ 9 Z c~ z a 18 (E50~ 88 sFSQUECEN7ENN~P~ A Beautiful BeAinnin~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C.HODGE Mr. Murry K. White P. O. Box 137 Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mr. White: May 24, 1990 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN UVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL p15TRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE•CHAIRMAN UTAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON NOLLINS MAGISTERALL. DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the League of Older Americans Advisory Board for a one- year term which will expire March 31, 1991. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. Both of these acts were amended by the Virginia General Assembly in July, 1989. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, ~- Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures pc: Executive Director League of Older Americans 706 Campbell Avenue Roanoke, VA 24009 Ilu ~rEelGtlrr ~ 1'I ~~~ (~' ~~ ~,~ ~~~ ~~ 1979 ~+' ~ ~~~ 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 & PD~CI.'~.F ~vA 9 Z Z a 18 E50 88 SFSOUICENTENN~P~ A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mr. David Blevins 5011 Cave Spring Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Blevins: May 24, 1990 All AMERICA CIi'! 1' I I'' 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN GVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN GTAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT At their regular meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the Hidden Valley Junior High School Odyssey of the Mind Team for a raffle permit. The raffle will be conducted on June 8, 1990. The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed. You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it be displayed on the premises where the raffle is to be conducted. The State Code provides that raffle and bingo permits be issued on a calendar-year basis and such permits issued will expire on December 31, 1990. This permit, however, is only valid on the date specified in your application. PLEASE READ YOUR APPLICATION CAREFULLY. YOU HAVE AGREED TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND REVOKING OF YOUR PERMIT. YOU MUST FILE A FINANCIAL REPORT BY NOVEMBER 1 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR. PLEASE SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OR DATES YOUR ORGANIZATION PLANS TO HOLD BINGO OR RAFFLES. PERMITS EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 772-2003. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisor ~' ,~,/ . Q-~-e-~a, bjh Enclosures cc: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer C~nixn~~ of ~nttnnk~e P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 ~ pOAN 'rF z ~ ~ a 18 E50 88 S'FSOUICEN7ENN~P~' A Beauti~ul8eginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE ~pltritlJ pt 'LRDMtIp~iP ALL ~MERIU CITY ,'II~~ 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW, VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT May 24, 1990 Mr. Harwell M. Darby Industrial Development Authority P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, VA 24001 Dear Mr. Darby: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 52290-5 requesting industrial access road funding from the Commonwealth Transportation Board (Virginia Department of Transportation) for Optical Cable Corporation facilities in Valleypointe. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 1990. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, `~'~ GtJi.~~ ~ , Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment pc: Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development P.O. BOX 29600 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703> 772-2004 OF FiOANp~.~ Z i c ~ J 2 a 18 ' 88 SFSQUICENTENN\P~' .~ BeautifulBeQinning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE MEMORANDUM TO: Lee B. Eddy Bob L. Johnson Steven A. McGraw _ ~ ~ _~ Harry C. Nickens Rich rd W. Robers ~r~i FROM: E mer C. o e County Administrator DATE: May 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Control over cable television system BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRfCi STEVEN A. MCGRAW, VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDGY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHN'' fV HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a resolution adopted by the City of Roanoke requesting that the U. S. Congress enact legislation to restore control over the regulation of rates and operations of local cable television systems. Based on the citizen comments at the recent public hearings, Cox Cable has a good record for service delivery. However, there is quite a demand in the County for extension of service into developing areas. I am somewhat concerned about returning to the level of control that I have seen in the past. Under the present system, the County is not held accountable for actions taken by Cox Cable such as rate increases or changes in programming. I believe the extension of service can be addressed when the new franchise is awarded. If the County has greater authority over the cable systems, we will have to handle citizen complaints regarding rates, programming, cable installation and other details that can be better handled by Cox Cable. In Chesterfield County, it required one staff person assigned just to handle citizen complaints. If you support restoring greater control to the governing body, please let me know and I will place the issue on the May 22nd agenda. All ~MfR1G1: ~-` (~ rt (~ Imo/ 1 I I I ~' ~Yi-~ ~~~~ l~ ~ i~~ ~~i~ ~~ 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 E s~;w a ~ __ -~ ~. ;z 9pril 10, 1990 File X448 Ofifiice of the City Clerk '- y ~':~ . ~__.~ Mr . Howa rd E. Musser ) Mr, jti. Robert Herbert ) Mr. 8everty T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. ) Mr. George iti. Nester ) Mr. Roy G. ~YlcCarty ) Mr. Elmer C. Hodge ) Mr. Steven A. McGraw ) .Mr. Harry C. Nickens ) Gentlemen: Regional Cable Television Committee I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. Congress enact legislation to restore to cant control over the regulation of rates cable television systems. Resolution .No. by the Council o f the City o f Roanoke a t on Monday, April 9, 1990. ~K r .30008-4990 urging that municipalities signifi- and operation of local 30008-4990 teas adopted a regular meeting held Sincerely, ~ ~ /~t.~----- r Mary F. Parker , CMC/-4.AE City Clerk Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 E MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNT , T ~ p.M. ON MAY 10, 1990 IN FROM TH SALEM, VIRGINIA, MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION HE BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, T VIRGINIA. RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATIONFUND TO THE 1990-NDATION ELFUNEEDUCATOIONAL CHALLENGE FOR A GE FOU GRANT . WHEREAS, the behavior adjustment program of the Roanoke hool System has received a grant from the GE Foundation, County Sc and Elfun Educational Challenge from the Shenandoah Chaptertudents in WHEREAS, the grant project will involve s ned to teach rades K-12 in a human relations curriculum desig g roblem-solving skills, decision-making and p communication skills, and employability responsibility, interpersonal relationships, and coping skills; School Board THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County 1 seconded Black and du y of Roanoke County on motion of Paul G. an a propriation by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke requests P the amount of $21,000.00 to the 1990-91 School Federal County in rams Fund for the GE Foundation Elfun Educational Grant. Prog Adopted on the following recorded vote: Maurice L. Mitchell, Charlsie AYES: Paul G. Black, Chewning, Frank E. S, Pafford, Barbara B. Thomas NAYS: None TESTE: ~~,~'._.~ C l e r k ,~r~- c; Mrs. Diane Hyatt