The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/17/1992 - Regular~ pOAN ,~.~ ~. z A az ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 1992 rawrr ff na.ue,m~ 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. PRIOR TO THIS AFTERNOON'S MEETING. THERE WILL BE A MEETING OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AT Z:00 P.M. THIS WILL BE THE ONLY MEETING IN NOVEMBER. THE MEETINGS IN DECEMBER WILL BE HELD ON DECEMBER I AT 3 P.M. AND DECEMBER 1 S~ 1992 AT 3 P.M. AND 7 P M A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 3:00 P.M. 2. Irnocation: The Reverend Richard Harris Chaplain, Roanoke County Jail 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE i ® Regded Paper ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS LBE CONTINUED ITEM C-1 TO 12/1/92; ADDED ITEM C-2, PROCIAMATION DECLARING 11/15 TO 11/92 AS AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK; ADDED ITEM M-6, ORAL UPDATE ON DIXIE CAVERNS L~INDFILL CLEANUP, AND SEVERAL EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Congratulations to Mr. & Mrs. Edward L. Truett Upon the Occasion of the Harshbarger House Being Named to the National Register of Historic Places. CONTINUED TO 12/1/92 2. Proclamation Declaring the Week of November 15-21, 1992 as American Education Week. ACCEPTED BY DR. BAYES WILSON AND KITTY BOITNOTT PAST PRES. OF RCEA. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Report on County Operations for the Year ended June 30, 1992. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) A-111792-1 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND RESERVE $606,182 FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AYES-EGK,FM,LBE NAYS-HCN HERE-BI4T 2. Request for Approval to Establish a Regional Disability a Maps and by Adopting and Reenacting the 1992 Zoning District Maps to Implement the Provisions of the New Zoning Ordinance. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) EGK MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 12/15/92 URC I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Library Board 2. Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley Community Services Board FM NOMINATED T. WILLIAM PISTNER TO A 3 YEAR TERM EXPIRING 12/31 /95 3. Roanoke County Planning Commission K. 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-111792-5 BI;T MOTION TO APPROVE RESO WITH ITEM 7 REMOVED URC 1. Approval of Minutes -October 13, 1992 5 2. Approval of Resolution Concurring with the 1995 Highway Functional Classification for Roanoke County as Updated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. R-111792-5.a 3. Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Glade Hill Estates, Sections 3 and 4. R-111792-S.b 4. Request for Acceptance of Elizabeth Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-111792-5.c 5. Request for Acceptance of Apricot Trail and Blueberry Ridge into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-111792-5.d 6. Acknowledgement of Acceptance of 0.27 Miles of Christopher Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. A-111792-S.e 7. Withdrawal of Request for Reconsideration: 301 Gilmer Associates v. Board of Supervisors. R-111792-S.f BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO WITHDRAW RECONSIDERATION AYES-BI.~T,EGK,HCN,FM NAYS-LBE L. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR MINNIX: ATTENDED VACO WHERE HE ATTENDED SESSIONS ON THE DILLON RULE AND WORKING WITH CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. SUPERVISOR .TOHNSON: EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE HP COMPUTER UPGRADE WAS RECONSIDERED AND APPROVED WHILE HE WAS ABSENT AND ON VACATION. 6 SUPERVISOR NICKENS: ~1) ADVISED THAT THE VPI EXTENSION OFFICE WILL LOSE A 4-H EXTENSION AGENT TO THE CITY. ASKED STAFF TO ASCERTAIN IF THE COUNTY IS BEING TREATED EQUITABLY AND TO BRING BACK A REPORT ON 12/1/92. (2) ASKED THAT THE CLERK INCLUDE IN THE RECORD A LETTER FROM THE WM. BYRD PRINCIPAL THAT STATES THAT FIRST PRIORITY FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES IS SCHOOLS AND SECOND PRIORITY IS USE BY RECREATION DEPARTMENT. (3) ASKED STAFF TO RESOLVE BY 12/1/92 PROBLEMS WITH THE VINTON LADDER TRUCK. ECH ADVISED THAT VINTON HAD SENT OUT BID AND HE WILL BRING BACK REPORT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. (4) ASKED THAT ZONING NOTIFICATION PROCESS BE BROUGHT TO BOARD FOR APPROVAL. ECH WILL BRING BACK ON 1/12/93 (5~ ANNOUNCED THERE HAD BEEN A MEETING ON THE PARKWAY SPUR. (~ ASKED THAT BEV FITZPATRICKS LETTER ON WATER AND WASTEWATER BE INCLUDED ON THE 12/1/92 AGENDA UNDER REPORTS. (7) ANNOUNCED HE WAS INITIATING A PETITION DRIVE FORA 1993 REFERENDUM ON THE ELECTION OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS. SUPERVISOR EDDY: (1) ANNOUNCED THAT SUSIE OWEN WAS FEATURED IN THE BLUE RIDGE REGIONAL TOURNAL. ~2) ADVISED HE WILL BE ON VACATION NEXT WEEK. (3) RECEIVED BOARD CONSENSUS TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO THE VOTERS AND EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF THE BOND REFERENDUM. (4) ASKED ABOUT THE STATUS OF CONSULTANTS FOR THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. ECH ADVISED THAT THE PARTICIPATING LOCALITIES HAD HIRED AN ENGINEERING FIRM TO WORK ON ALLOCATION AND EXPANSION OF PLANT. IF REPORT IS READY, WILL BRING BACK TO BOARD ON 12/15/92 (5) ASKED ABOUT MONTGOMERY CO. PURCHASING LAND NEAR SMITH GAP FOR A LANDFILL. ECH ADVISED HE UNDERSTOOD THAT MONT. CO IS LOOKING AT SEVERAL AREAS FOR A POTENTIAL LANDFILL. HE WILL TRY TO GET MORE INFORMATION. (~ ANNOUNCED THAT COUNTY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED XMAS EVE AND NEW YEARS EVE (7) ASKED ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY LIST. PMM ADVISED THE BOARD ADOPTED A LIST IN MAY AND TUNE THROUGH VACO. PMM RECOMMENDED MEETING WITH LOCAL LEGISLATORS FOLLOWING THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING IN TANUARY 1993. M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND CO1~~VIUNICATIONS 1. LISA MERRILL, 10721 BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD SPOKE IN FAVOR OF A PETITION FOR ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS N. REPORTS BIT MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM 5 AND REPORT FROM PMM (ITEM 6~ UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability Per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of October 31, 1992. 5. Report on Impact of Lake Gaston Pipeline to Roanoke River Basin. EGK SUGGESTED WRITING A LETTER TO THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION AND VA. BEACH. THERE WAS BOARD CONSENSUS TO REMAIN SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. 6. Oral Report on Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup O. WORK SESSION s 1. Discussion of the Upcoming 1993-94 Budget NO SUPPORT FOR REQUESTING CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR CIGARETTE TAX. BOARD SUPPORT FOR CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR HOTEL/MOTEL TAX OF 6%. BOARD SUPPORT FOR SEWER RATE INCREASE ON 7/1/93 SUPPORT FOR FUNDING GOAL FOR VISITOR'S BUREAU OF $100 PER CAPITA HEARD REPORT ON FUNDING FOR EXPLORE ROAD AND OPERATIONS FROM HCN. GENERAL SUPPORT FOR UTILIZING ASPECTS OF REINVENTING GOVERNMENT BOOK IN BUDGET PROCESS BUT DIFFERING OPINION ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT. RETA BUSHER ASKED TO POSTPONE FOR ONE YEAR UPDATE OF CIP BUT WILL HAVE A VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (3) to discuss consideration of of real property for public purposes; to discus publicly held real estate (lease with Roanok Soccer Club, Inc.; to discuss the assignment or specific public officers, or appointees (A-1) HCN MOTION AT 6:10 P.M. URC Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION the acquisition s disposition of e Valley Youth appointment of R-111792-6 FM MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 7:02 P.M. AND APPROVE RESO URC EVENING SESSION R PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Special Exception Request to Build a Golf Shop on the 9 North End and to use the South End for a Training Area, 6303 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Pete Dodd t/a Brookside Par 3. A-111792-7 BT;T MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT URC S. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance to Amend Conditions on a 1.19 Acre Parcel Zoned M-1 Conditional, Located at 6560 Commonwealth Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District Upon the Petition of Carlen Controls, Inc. 0-111792-8 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AMENDING CONDITIONS AYES-BI;T,EGK,LBE NAYS-FM,HCN 2 CITIZENS SPOKE (OTHER MOTIONS ATTACHED -PAGE 12~ 2. An Ordinance to Rezone 4.65 Acres from M-: Construct a Church, Located at 8364 Bent Road, Windsor Hills 1Vlagisterial District, Petition of Back Creek Baptist Fellowship. to A-1 to Mountain Upon the 0-111792-9 LBE MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 3. An Ordinance to Rezone Approximately 15.38 Acres from M-2 to B-2 and Obtain a Special Exception Permit to Operate a Golf Driving Range and Golf Learning Center Located on the East Side of Hollins Road and North of Carvin Creek, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Wayne Holley. 0-111792-10 BI{T MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AND APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT WITH CONDITION #1 OUTLINED IN TERRY HARRINGTON'S MEMO URC io 4. An Ordinance to Amend Conditions on a 24.94 Acre Tract, Located on the West Side of Colonial Avenue, Opposite the Ogden Road Intersection in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the Petition of Occidental Development, Ltd. 0-111792-11 FM MOTION TO APPROVE URC 2 CITIZENS SPOKE T. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE RECESS AT 8:40 P.M. RECONVENE AT 8:50 P.M. U. JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD 1. Report and Recommendation Concerning Space Needs for the County and County Schools Administration. HCN MOTION TO (1) AUTHORIZE STAFF TO FINALIZE SALE CONTRACT FOR TRAVELER'S BUILDING;~2) AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE TERMS WITH CURRENT LESSEES OF THE BUILDING• (3) AUTHORIZE STAFF TO WORK WITH THE IDA TO CREATE A FINANCING PACKAGE FOR APPROXIMATELY $4,320,000 (4) RESERVE $350,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE WHICH IN ADDITION TO THE AVAILABLE COUNTY DEBT DROP-OFF WILL COVER THE ESTIMATED OPERATING SHORTFALL FOR THE 1993-94 FISCAL YEAR; AND (5) RECOMMEND THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPLY TO THE VPSA FALL 1993 SALE FOR $2,310,000 AYES- EGK,FM.HCN NAYS-LBE ABSTAIN-BI;T V. ADJOURNMENT BI;T MOTION TO ADTOURN AT 9.30 P M UW li 12 ITEM S-1 ORDINANCE TO AMEND CONDITIONS FOR CAREEN CONTROLS FM MOTION TO DENY -MOTION FAILED AYES-FM, HCN NAYS-LBE,BI~T,EGK HCN MOTION TO TABLE SO THAT STAFF CAN WORK WITH PETITIONER TO FIND ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO EXPAND PARKING -MOTION FAILED AYES-FM, HCN NAYS-LBE,BI~T,EGK BIT MOTION TO APPROVE CONTINGENT UPON PETITIONER MEETING WITH RESIDENTS REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF A PRIVACY FENCE -MOTION FAILED AYES-BI;T,LBE NAYS-EGK,FM,HCN HCN MOTION TO MOVE BALANCE OF AGENDA EGK MOTION TO APPROVE - PMM RULED OUT OF ORDER. NEED MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST. EGK MOVED RECONSIDERATION -RULED OUT OF ORDER - HCN'S MOTION STILL ON FLOOR. LBE RULED HCN'S MOTION TO MOVE BALANCE OF AGENDA IS INVALID. HCN REQUESTED VOTE ON RULE OF THE CHAIR. EGK AND LBE SUPPORTED LBE'S RULING B T,FM, HCN SUPPORTED DENYING LBE'S RULING - LBE'S RULING FAILED. HCN MOTION TO CALL FOR ORDER OF THE DAY AND MOVE FORWARD ON AGENDA AYES-FM,HCN NAYS-BI~T,EGK,LBE PMM RULED HCN MOTION WAS A PRIVILEGED MOTION AND WAS NOT DEFEATED BY A 2/3 MA.TORITY AND THE BOARD SHOULD MOVE ONTO THE NEXT ITEM. BLJ MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM AYES-BI.~T,EGK,LBE NAYS-FM,HCN EGK MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AYES-BI.~T,EGK,LBE NAYS-FM,HCN 13 O~ POAN ,5.~ a h p Z ~ ~ 2 OJ .ate 1838 C~~~xx~t~ ~~ ~.u~xx~~.~e ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 1992 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. PRIOR TO THIS AFTERNOON'S MEETING THERE WILL BE A MEETING OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AT 2:00 P.M. THIS WILL BE THE ONLY MEETING IN NOVEMBER. THE MEETINGS IN DECEMBER WILL BE HELD ON DECEMBER 1 AT 3 P.M. AND DECEMBER 15 1992 AT 3 P.M. AND 7 P.M. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Richard Harris Chaplain, Roanoke County Jail 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS i ® Recyded Paper C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Congratulations to Mr. & Mrs. Edward L. Truett Upon the Occasion of the Harshbarger House Being Named to the National Register of Historic Places. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Report on County Operations for the Year ended June 30, 1992. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) 2. Request for Approval to Establish a Regional Disability Services Board and Appointment of Local Official to Serve on Board. (John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) 3. Request for Support for a FEMA Grant Application to Fund a Portion of the Comprehensive Regional Stormwater Maintenance Program in the Roanoke Valley. (Arnold Covey, Engineering & Inspections Director) 4. Request for Support for a Rural Economic Development Grant (RED) Application for Valley TechPark. (Brian Duncan, Economic Development Assistant Director) E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for Work Session on December 1, 1992 To Discuss Bond Projects. F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS a G. H. I. J. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. An Ordinance to Amend Conditions on Approximately 1.516 Acres to Permit Construction of an Auto Parts Facility, Located Between 3727 and 3773 Challenger Avenue, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Webb-Stevenson Co. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances Amending Section 13-13 and 13-14 of the Roanoke County Code Clarifying Certain Provisions with Respect to Illegal Disposal of Trash and Increasing Certain Penalties for Illegal Dumping. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 2. Ordinance Amending the Roanoke County Code by Creating a Separate Classification of Tangible Personal Property; Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 3. Ordinance Amending the Zoning District Maps for Roanoke County by the Repeal of the Old Zoning District Maps and by Adopting and Reenacting the 1992 Zoning District Maps to Implement the Provisions of the New Zoning Ordinance. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES APPOINTMENTS 1. Library Board 2. Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley Community Services Board 3 3. Roanoke Planning Commission K. 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 -October 13, 1992 2. Approval of Resolution Concurring with the 1995 Highway Functional Classification for Roanoke County as Updated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3. Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Glade Hill Estates, Sections 3 and 4. 4. Request for Acceptance of Elizabeth Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Request for Acceptance of Apricot Trail and Blueberry Ridge into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Acknowledgement of Acceptance of 0.27 Miles of Christopher Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 7. Withdrawal of Request for Reconsideration: 301 Gilmer Associates v. Board of Supervisors. L. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 4 M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND CONIlVIUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4, Statement of Treasurer's Accountability Per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of October 31, 1992. 5. Report on Impact of Lake Gaston Pipeline to Roanoke River Basin. O. WORK SESSION 1. Discussion of the Upcoming 1993-94 Budget P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (3) to discuss consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes. Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION EVENING SESSION R. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Special Exception Request to Build a Golf Shop on the North End and to use the South End for a Training Area, 6303 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Pete Dodd t/a Brookside Par 3. 5 S. T. U. V. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance to Amend Conditions on a 1.19 Acre Parcel Zoned M-1 Conditional, Located at 6560 Commonwealth Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District Upon the Petition of Carlen Controls, Inc. 2. An Ordinance to Rezone 4.65 Acres from M-2 to A-1 to Construct a Church, Located at 8364 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Back Creek Baptist Fellowship. 3. An Ordinance to Rezone Approximately 15.38 Acres from M-2 to B-2 and Obtain a Special Exception Permit to Operate a Golf Driving Range and Golf Learning Center Located on the East Side of Hollins Road and North of Calvin Creek, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Wayne Holley. 4. An Ordinance to Amend Conditions on a 24.94 Acre Tract, Located on the West Side of Colonial Avenue, Opposite the Ogden Road Intersection in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the Petition of Occidental Development, Ltd. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND C011~IlVIUNICATIONS JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD 1. Report and Recommendation Concerning Space Needs for the County and County Schools Administration. ADJOLJIEtNMENT 6 C-I AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. AND MRS. EDWARD L. TRUETT UPON THE OCCASION OF HARSHBARGER HOUSE BEING NAMED TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES WHEREAS, preservation of our historic resources is important to the education, cultural enrichment and sense of community of the citizens of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley has a variety of historic structures which represent the lives of the people who settled the area in the 18th and 19th centuries; and WHEREAS, the Harshbarger House, located in the Hollins Magisterial District in Roanoke County, was constructed in 1797, with a brick addition built in 1825, and may be one of the earliest homes still standing in the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the Harshbarger House has been carefully restored by Mr. and Mrs. Edward L. Truett, was placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register in 1991, and has recently been approved for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the citizens of the County, hereby extends its congratulations to MR. AND MRS. EDWARD L. TRUETT for receiving recognition of their sensitive and authentic restoration of this historic building; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. Truett for preserving an important part of Roanoke County's heritage. "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, pIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOpEMBER 17, 1992 PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEER OF NOpEMBER 15-21, 1992 AS AMERICAN EDUCATION WEER WHEREAS, the future of our democracy and the health of our economy depend on the quality of education our public schools provide; and WHEREAS, the fifty governors and the President of the United States have affirmed education's importance by establishing our six national education goals; and WHEREAS, America's public schools remain the chief vehicle for turning the dreams of our nation's students into realities; and WHEREAS, the learning environment has changed over the past decade and deserves a re-examination as well as a re- evaluation. NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of November 15 - 21, 1992, as AMERICAN EDUCATION WEER and urge all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to our public schools. IN WITNE88 WHEREOF, WE have hereunto set our hands and caused the seal of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to be affixed this 17th day of November, 1992. ACTION NO. A-111792-1 ITEM NUMBER ~ " AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Report of operations for the year ended June 30, 1992 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I am asking the Board to reserve the remaining funds for employee benefits. The County Schools should also reserve their funds for employee benefits. The staff and I will review salary needs with you in the next few weeks. SUMMARY: KPMG Peat Marwick has recently completed the audit of the County of Roanoke for the year ended June 30, 1992. Although the printed financial reports will not be available until December, the County has received a favorable audit opinion on its financial records. The 1991-1992 fiscal year was a very challenging one for the County. The economic slowdown and reduction of state revenues were addressed by a mid-year budget reduction that required the County departments to cut back on expenditures. In addition, $771,314 was reserved from the unappropriated balance to be used if needed to meet revenue shortfalls. The decline in revenues was not as large as we had anticipated, so the reserved unappropriated balance amount was not needed. In addition, a surplus of $606,182 is available from the General Fund operations. Attachment A shows the source of this surplus. The surplus from general fund operations was largely due to actual revenues in excess of budget. Actual revenues from the State were 8% higher than the amounts projected by the State. Actual sales tax were 8% higher than projected. Other areas that were in excess of budget were Federal revenues for Social Services, reimbursements from Salem on Social Services, and permits and fees. In addition, the Schools ended the year with a surplus of $450,318, which was largely due to expenditure savings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating the County year end surplus of $606,182 for employee benefits for County employees. The County Schools anticipate using their year end balance for employee benefits and school buses. ]?-~ Respectfully submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ACTION Approved (~) Motion by: Lee B . Eddy to Denied () approve staff recommen- Received () a ion an reserve Referred () ~ e e To ( ) cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Reta R. Busher, Director, D. Keith Cook, Director, Approv by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ ~ _ Johnson _ _ _ Her e Kohinke _ x Mlririix _ x _ Nickens x Finance Management & Budget Human Resources Attachment A COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) GENERAL FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,1992 VARIANCE BUDGET ACTUAL AMOUNT PERCENT REVENUES ----------- ----------- ----------- -------- REAL PROPERTY TAXES $32,443,174 $32,465,211 $22,037 0.07aYo PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES 12,700,000 12,620,259 (79,741) -0.63% LOCAL SALES AND USE TAXES 4,000,000 4,318,472 318,472 7.9690 BUSINES LICENSE TAXES 2,480,000 2,566,897 86,897 3.5090 CONSUMER UTILITY TAX 3,079,146 2,954,029 (125,117) -4.069 TAX ON PREPARED FOOD 1,800,000 1,854,337 54,337 3.0290 REIMBURSEMENT -SHARED PROGRAMS 210,000 349,217 139,217 66.29aYo REVENUES FROM COMMONWEALTH 5,084,387 5,490,510 406,123 7.9996 FEDERAL REVENUES 1,392,395 1,590,699 198,304 14.2496 ALL OTHER REVENUES 5,697,342 6,124,580 427,238 7.50% ----------- 68,886,444 ----------- 70,334,211 ----------- 1,447,767 2.1090 USE OF FUND BALANCE FOR MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT 771,314 0 (771,314) -100.00% EXPENDITURES (INCLUDING ROLLOVERS) (85,295,578) (85,195,539) 100,039 -0.1296 BOND PROCEEDS 14,925,619 14,925,619 0 0.0096 OTHER USE OF FUND BALANCE AND CHANGE IN RESERVE 712,201 ----------- 541,892 ----------- (170,309) ----------- -23.9196 ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM 1991-92 OPERATION $0 ---------- ---------- $606,183 ---------- ---------- $606,183 ---------- ---------- r ~-i Attachment B GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Audited Balance at July 1, 1991 $5,060,731 January 28, 1992 Mid-year budget review (771,314)* April 28, 1992 Flood damages (200,000) May 12, 1992 Renovation of RCAC lower level 47 0 $4,041,917 Mid-year adjustment not needed 771,314* 4,813,231 Surplus from 1991-1992 operations 606,183 Audited balance at July 1, 1992 5,419,414 August 12, 1992 Dixie Caverns (100,000) September 8, 1992 Cable TV budget (21,149) October 13, 1992 Bloodborne Pathogens Standards (33,800) October 27, 1992 Computer Upgrade 12 2 1 Balance as of November 17, 1992 5,138,184 Allocate 1991-1992 surplus to market survey 60 1 453201 _~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLIITION 111792-2 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL DISABILITY BERVICEB BOARD IN THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT AND THE APPOINTMENT OF A LOCAL OFFICIAL TO SERDE ON THE BOARD WHEREAS, Section 51.5-47 of the Code of Vir inia as amended provides for the establishment of a Disability Services Board, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the County of Roanoke, Virginia to establish a regional Board, with the intent of implementing the provisions of Section 51.5-47 of the Code of Virginia; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Roanoke, in conjunction with member governments of the Fifth Planning District, desires to establish a regional Disability Services Board to be composed of a maximum of fifteen members and shall consist of one local official appointed from each member jurisdiction, and who shall in turn be responsible for the selection of the remaining Board members pursuant to Section 51.5- 47, Paragraph B of the Code of Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Roanoke appoints `ol~rt':~:>;~::;;:;::;:.;:::~~;::'~..>:;.>::::,:>.~~:,:;:.:::>:>:<<:::> :::~:~:>:.~~is~:.~.:~~:::»:<~::<::~::::::::to serve a _....._._. s its local official on the regional Disability Services Board for the Fifth Planning District. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution and appoint John M. Chambliss, Jr. to serve, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: i /~~. ~r• Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth PDC John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator 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: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution for the Establishment of a Regional Disability Services Board in the Fifth Planning District and the Appointment of a Local Official to serve on the Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : Ga~~ J~'Ly~E~~~~ /~Q~G~/ _ ~` EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' Ong of the State's programs to implement the Americans with Disabi hies Act (ADA) is the requirement of all localities to establish or participate in a Disabilities Services Board (DSB). This Board will be comprised of representatives from the local government, private business, and persons or members of families with visual, hearing or physical impairments. The Governor established the State's Disabilities Services Council which has promulgated the guidelines for the establishment of the local DSB and defined their duties and responsibilities. The Council has recommended that the localities create at least one DSB representing the localities within each planning district, but no more than five such boards within the district. The maximum number of representatives on the DSB shall be fifteen persons, appointed within the guideline established by the Council. An Ad Hoc Committee of local government officials from each of the localities represented on the Fifth Planning District Commission has met and agrees to form one Disabilities Services Board to encompass all of the planning district. In accordance with the guidelines, there shall be one local government representative from each of the participating localities. This group will select two business representatives and persons representing the various disabled groups. Staff support will be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services. The purpose of the DSB will be to develop a report with a six- year projection of local service needs and priorities for persons with physical and sensory disabilities in accordance with state guidelines and complete this first report by June 1, 1993. They will obtain input from local public and private service providers and utilize the information in the preparation of the report. The ( ~ ' )....e. ~~e AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION 111792-3 APPROVING THE SUPPORT OF PURSIIING A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN THE ROANORE VALLEY WHEREAS, member governments in the Roanoke Valley have expressed the need since 1984 to address flooding problems related to stormwater runoff, and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission funded a study in 1985 to examine the feasibility of establishing a regional stormwater management program for the Roanoke Valley, and WHEREAS, the 1985 feasibility study discussed the numerous benefits which could be derived from a comprehensive regional approach to stormwater management and outlined those watersheds which should be considered priorities for future planning, and WHEREAS, member governments in the Roanoke Valley in 1990 funded an update to the 1985 feasibility study, illustrating how a comprehensive stormwater management program could address both water quantity and water quality issues within the context of a regional program, and WHEREAS, the Fifth PDC, working with a stormwater technical subcommittee composed of local engineering staff, has established a cost-sharing proposal to pay for regional stormwater watershed master planning (which is the first step in pursuing a regional program), and WHEREAS, the Fifth PDC staff has presented the findings of the feasibility study/update, and the cost-sharing proposal with r ~ the chief administrative officials of member governments in the Roanoke Valley, and WHEREAS, flooding in 1985 and 1992 caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to the jurisdictions of the Roanoke Valley and resulted in the President declaring a Major Disaster Declaration for the affected area, and WHEREAS, the federal government actively promotes both pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation strategies designed to lessen the effects of future disaster events, and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established a grant program, known as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which is intended to support innovative and cooperative hazard mitigation programs such as a regional approach to stormwater management; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the County of Roanoke will participate with the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Town of Vinton in pursuing watershed master plans for the 16 priority watersheds and will allocate their pro rata share of funds for this watershed master planning to be matched against funds provided through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; AND, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Roanoke authorized the Fifth Planning District Commission to serve as the agent to apply for FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Funds and to administer these funds. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: /V Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utility Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Wayne Strickland, Executive Dirctor, Fifth PDC Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Forest Jones, Clerk, Salem City Council Carolyn A. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council ITEM NUMBER /' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 199 2 SUBJECT: Request for Support Fund a Portion of the Comprehensive Program in the Roanoke Valley. for a FEMA Grant Application to Regional stormwater Maintenance COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~z~~y,~-~~,~ BACKGROUND: In 1984, Roanoke County joined with the other localities in the Roanoke Valley and requested the Fifth Planning District Commission to conduct a study toward a regional stormwater management program. The resulting study, entitled Feasibility Study for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive stormwater Management Program, was completed a few months before the November, '85 flood. This study was updated in 1989 to reflect changes in federal/state regulations and stormwater master planning technology. As a result of the April, '92 flood, the Federal Emergency Management Agency recommended in its Interagency Hazard Mitigation Report the implementation of a regional stormwater management program for the Roanoke Valley. It was noted that grant monies could be made available from the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The total estimated cost for developing the master plans for the sixteen high priority watersheds is $690,000. Roanoke County's share is estimated to be $278,000. ($300,000 was included in the recently approved bond issue for this purpose.) The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is a 50-50 cost sharing grant in which the federal government funds 50~ and the localities fund 50$. FISCAL IMPACT: If this grant application is approved by FEMA, the County's share of funding the master plan could be reduced by one-half to $139,000. The remaining money could be used to fund additional remedial projects identified as a result of the master plan. No additional appropriation of County funds is required to pursue this grant. a ]~-3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution authorizing the Fifth Planning District Commission to serve as agent for Roanoke County for the purpose of applying for funds under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. ED BY: Arnold Covey; Direc or of Engineering & In pections APPROVED: ~~,~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred Kohinke to Minnix Nickens 2 r r AT A REGOLAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TOESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLIITION APPROVING THE SIIPPORT OF PIIRSIIING A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN THE ROANORE VALLEY AHEREAS, member governments in the Roanoke Valley have expressed the need since 1984 to address flooding problems related to stormwater runoff, and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission funded a study in 1985 to examine the feasibility of establishing a regional stormwater management program for the Roanoke Valley, and WHEREAS, the 1985 feasibility study discussed the numerous benefits which could be derived from a comprehensive regional approach to stormwater management and outlined those watersheds which should be considered priorities for future planning, and WHEREAS, member governments in the Roanoke Valley in 1990 funded an update to the 1985 feasibility study, illustrating how a comprehensive stormwater management program could address both water quantity and water quality issues within the context of a regional program, and WHEREAS, the Fifth PDC, working with a stormwater technical subcommittee composed of local engineering staff, has established a cost-sharing proposal to pay for regional stormwater watershed master planning (which is the first step in pursuing a regional program), and WHEREAS, the Fifth PDC staff has presented the findings of the feasibility study/update, and the cost-sharing proposal with the chief administrative officials of member governments in the Roanoke Valley, and WHEREAS, flooding in 1985 and 1992 caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to the jurisdictions of the Roanoke Valley and resulted in the President declaring a Major Disaster Declaration for the affected area, and WHEREAS, the federal government actively promotes both pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation strategies designed to lessen the effects of future disaster events, and 3 y~ l ~ -3 WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established a grant program, known as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which is intended to support innovative and cooperative hazard mitigation programs such as a regional approach to stormwater management; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the County of Roanoke will participate with the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Town of Vinton in pursuing watershed master plans for the 16 priority watersheds and will allocate their pro rata share of funds for this watershed master planning to be matched against funds provided through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; AND, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Roanoke authorized the Fifth Planning District Commission to serve as the agent to apply for FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Funds and to administer these funds. 4 r ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION 111792-4 IN SUPPORT FOR APPLICATION FOR RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (RED) PLANNING GRANT FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AT VALLEY TECHPARR WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors recognizes the benefits of economic development, and WHEREAS, the citizens of Roanoke County have expressed their support of economic development through their approval of the November 3, 1992, local bond referendum that included $750,000 for economic development, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority owns the 177 acre Valley TechPark, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County supports the Virginia Community Certification Program, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County supports the Department of Economic Development application for a Rural Economic Development Planning Grant for up to #'>xb~~>`'Ssto be used for preliminary engineering and an environmental audit at Valley TechPark. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors will set aside up to €~ as its 25% match. The Board of Supervisors also directs the Department of Economic Development to pursue entry into the Community Certification program and requests that the Virginia Department of Economic Development be notified as to its intent. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution with changes in the dollar amounts, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: '79'. Mary H. len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy R. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Virginia Department of Economic Development Item No . ~"~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Resolution of Support for application for Rural Economic Development (RED) Planning Grant for preliminary engineering at Valley TechPark. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ~`~`~°~~ The Department of Economic Development is requesting support for its Rural Economic Development Planning Grant and intent to enter into the Virginia Department of Economic Development's Community Certification Program. The Planning Grant request will be for an amount up to $25,000 which must be accompanied by a 25~ match of up to $6,250. If the monies are granted, a preliminary engineering and an environmental audit will be conducted at Valley TechPark. BACKGROUND: The Rural Economic Development (RED) Planning Grant Fund is administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Applications are accepted for projects on publicly owned land. Projects are intended to provide the community with preliminary engineering and environmental audit support for the development of an industrial site. The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development will award grants up to $25,000. A 25~ local non-administrative match is required. All communities seeking RED funds must be a Certified Business Community or at the time of application express an intent to enter into the Community Certification Program. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project design as described in the application would include a review of the site access from U.S. Route 11 & 460, road layout within the site, individual site layout, utility location, stormwater management issues and environmental and geotechnical considerations. The project would be completed in six months or less as required by Virginia Department of Housing and Community ~-Y Development. Total project costs will be no higher than $31,250. The County would be required to set aside up to $6,250. Funds are available in the Valley TechPark fund. FISCAL IMPACT: Necessary funds are available in the Valley TechPark fund. (1012450-8901) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends support of resolution requesting a Rural Economic Development Planning Grant and set aside up to $6, 250 from the Valley TechPark fund for the County's local match and direct the Director of Economic Development to enroll in the Community Certification Program. Respectfully submitted: ~ I f Timo by W. G ala, Director Economic Development ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Approved: o~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Attachment ~-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT FOR APPLICATION FOR RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (RED) PLANNING GRANT FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AT VALLEY TECHPARK WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors recognizes the benefits of economic development, and WHEREAS, the citizens of Roanoke County have expressed their support of economic development through their approval of the November 3, 1992, local bond referendum that included $750,000 for economic development, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority owns the 177 acre Valley TechPark, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County supports the Virginia Community Certification Program, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County supports the Department of Economic Development application for a Rural Economic Development Planning Grant for up to $25,000 to be used for preliminary engineering and an environmental audit at Valley TechPark. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors will set aside up to $6,250 as its 25~ match. The Board of Supervisors also directs the Department of Economic Development to pursue entry into the Community Certification program and requests that the Virginia Department of Economic Development be notified as to its intent. ACTION N0. j~ ITEM NUMBER !- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Work Session on December 1, 1992 to Discuss Bond Projects COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County departments and school administration have been asked to prepare a priority work schedule for the projects included in the bond issue. Staff would like to present these to the Board of Supervisors at a work session on December 1. Finance Director Diane Hyatt will discuss the schedule for the issuance of the bonds. There are many school and County projects that we would like to expedite. However, if we issue the bonds prior to August 1993, we will incur an unplanned additional payment during this fiscal year. It may be possible to proceed with the highest priority projects with interim funding, and Ms. Hyatt will also be prepared to discuss this option. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of on December 1, 1992 to discuss the Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Supervisors set a Work Session bond projects. '~ c~-~ C~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens r ACTION NO. `` ITEM NO. ~ ~ t AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 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 December 15, 1992. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. An ordinance to amend conditions on approximately 1.516 acres to permit construction of an auto parts facility, located between 3727 and 3773 Challenger Avenue, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Webb-Stevenson Co. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERR'S OFFICE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for December 15, 1992. G -l (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Item 1, inclusive, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Respectfully submitted, Y ~' 1, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs G-I ~z NQ ~~ e N z 0 n 22~4AI' VVIW~ ~'~ ~~'! ~l~II..E I" n ~t-0" 5 98° 2t' It" w ~J t~/vT~ ~~ SITE DEVELOPER WE6B - STEVENSON COMPANY ANOOOIATiif1 AaornTi~oTe o SK1 IQ30 26 OGTOB~I'2 IQ~2 287.20' N 99° 20' IQ' {_ .. h / ~ ~ ;mac i ;.~~ P~ ~ht'E C DD ~ ~ ~ ~ _ -~: b~ ,. .09' X , ~ r - - ` r.. } ;~ 4 ~s ~ j/ %~ i~~ ~ low? ~'~ • ~ ~p~ ~i'%~' ~~~~ ~ ~/~~ 1, ~:. ~, ~ iii - _ i44; •- i , i ~ / , /, /~' / (~ ki raZ ~ _ _ ~i ' ~ ~' /_ ~ n._.. - ~. ~ ~~ - ~ rl~. ~.`~ ~~' ,025_ ~ J ~ ,~. ~~~. ,` ' `, ~.~ ~~~% ~ i / %' % - .- _ - . •~ ,. _ ~ , ~ ;:' ~ •~. ' a '~~!-' ,' /~i'~ ,1 /fem. ~ ~ ,` ~ , , ~- .- , uzo 4; e~ } ' .Y RG J ,9 O P 00 V MOB 0 R ' I ~n ~ 1080 e ,A \ 90 IOP RT Q S YI S d51RIBQN~QCR Bl, \~ . \ \ ~ ~3 ' ~ 0 , L Or7v~ ~; R ~~iEwriR~~ '~~Rf CfMRE FOw ~IMOUnmer ` 1238 EC ~ocacr ' _. _ l;aROU'FROfMV[ < ' R ' MIRrR6 • roRaRUrno >. ~ VICINITY M A P 4 h~ i \ I. i ~ i L i •1900 G-~ Q -- ----- -- - - oae muy 4Q17 ^ i~~wo' ALL OTHER PARCELS / n. ARE CONED RE „,. s2 _ ~,,. I .~ a,:.. q v~.~ !li/wmid / f~Yssbr/sriar C/iwcA o/ S.3 2.77 Ae I.Cac ~ .~ Americo H I.IO4 „ i .. I1.1 T/(r5/ ,MI I m ''~e / / r ~ fF.t \ p -- 1 4 t ,. ,w. ~~ / ~ ~ O ~- •• / 40/5 o~' O / ~'o ~ / n / / ~ / ,w'.~.` ~ o o.. , '' / ~ _ o \ a M\ / CgY~1, ~ T i w o. ~.~ • •, ~ ~ / ' / IOUs I Rr i 6~ ///~~- ]1 / , ,.ar , ~~ 3 v s ~ O \ a ?\. ` / uir / m +° ~ .... a / 9~~ 3 •Y ~ S _ +' o 3.laac 104.27 Ac ` ~ .m / tun rp,E. 24 r ''~ ~ O ~ ~~. ,byG ' ~'t25 ~ ~~ ! / ~ c . 93 `e n 0i ~ X3773 ' ~o / oa 2.3 2 i + G~O~ ~ ~ I. oa 2.1 ~3L N 4 ~ NL ZL' 2.6 ~° ~' ~~ ~ 9.33 4c ~ yr ~ / ~, C / Z1 1 ! RE 8.95 Ac. ' Roanoke City RE- SA42 (~• 9 O( WEBB STEVENSON COMPANY ;a~ POnr„ Y DEPARTMIENT OF PLANNING _ 50.01-01-2.1 and 2.6 AND ZONING B2C to B2 N\ ~ ,z.• Amend Proffered -Condition ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinances Amending Sections 13-13 and 13-14 of the Roanoke County Code clarifying certain provisions with respect to Illegal Disposal of Trash and Increasing Certain Penalties for Illegal Dumping COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' These proposed amendments to County Code would clarify certain statutory provisions and increase the penalties for illegal dumping from a Class IV to a Class I misdemeanor. The first reading of these amending ordinances was held November 17, 1992; the second reading is scheduled for December 1, 1992. BACKGROUND' A recent problem concerning illegal dumping has highlighted the necessity for increasing the penalties for such actions from a Class IV misdemeanor (maximum fine $250.00) to a Class I misdemean- or (maximum fine $2500.00 and/or 12 months in jail). Sections 13- 13 and 13-14 provide two different approaches for two similar, but different offenses. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The amendments to Section 13-13 of the County Code clarify the language of this statute by bringing it more closely into confor- mity with the State enabling legislation. This ordinance addresses the person who dumps or disposes of trash on a street or road, or other public property, or on property without the owner's permis- sion, or on property not approved as a disposal area by the County. The amendment to Section 13-14 separates the "trash" offense from the "weed" offense, and makes the former a Class I mis- demeanor, while retaining the latter as a Class IV misdemeanor. This ordinance addresses the person who allows weeds or trash to accumulate on his property. µ-i Both ordinance amendments change the enforcing personnel from the superintendent of development or superintendent of public facilities (these positions no longer exist) to the County Administrator or his designee. FISCAL IMPACTS• No direct impact is foreseen at this time; however, there may be some increase in criminal fine amounts if the sentencing judge imposes the higher penalty authorized by this amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of these amending ordinances. Respectfully submitted: 1 ~. ~ ~~~~~f ~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs c:\wp51\agenda\codeWbbish.rpt a+-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 13- 13 "UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF RUBBISH OR OTHER WASTE MATERIAL" OF CHAPTER 13 "OFFENSES - MISCELLANEOUS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY PROVIDING FOR A CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS AND DESIGNATION OF ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREFOR WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia finds that the illegal dumping and disposal of trash constitutes a significant problem for the County and poses a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and, WHEREAS, a clarification of this ordinance in order to more closely incorporate the provisions of the State enabling legislation is in order, as well as clarifying the enforcement personnel provisions, and, WHEREAS, State enabling authority for this ordinance is found in Section 33.1-346 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 1992, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on December 1, 1992. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That Section 13-13 of Chapter 13, "Offenses - Miscellaneous" is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: 1 kI Sec. 13-13. Unlawful disposal of rubbish or other waste material. (a) No person shall dump or dispose of or leave or cause to be thrown any rubbish, `~„ ~ , trash, garbage, litter or other waste substance or material in or upon and along any public property including a street, road, highway, right-of-way, property adjacent to such hicihway or right-of-wav, park or alley in the county; nor shall any person dispose of, dump or throw any rubbish, trash aarbacte litter or other waste substance or material upon any private property without the written consent of the owner thereof or his agent; nor shall any person dispose of, dump or throw any rubbish, L "' ~ „", trash, garbage, litter or any other waste material or substance upon any lots or property in the county which have not been selected, approved and designated as a garbage or trash disposal area by '~~-rt-k~~~n"~=c-cf the county. (b) In the event a person violating this section is known to the s~ t: *' ~Qe~e€-~tH3~ ~ ' ' } "". "} ""'' "==t Countv Administrator or his designee the Countv Administrator or his designee shall give the violator ten (10) days' written notice, by certified mail, to clean up and remove such rubbish, `~- ~ ~'-, trash, garbage, litter or other waste substance or material. Should the violator not take appropriate action within such ten-day period, the ~;~~_=_~tanr3rlnt County Administrator or his designee shall, by use of county employees or by employing an agent of the county, have the rubbish, '-~- ~ "-, trash, garbage, litter or other 2 N- waste substance or material removed. The violator shall be liable for the charges and costs of such ,removal. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to bar the prosecution of any person for a violation of this section. (c) A violation of any provision of this section shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after December 1, 1992. c:\wp51\agenda\todeWbishl3.]3 3 ~+-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 13- 14 "UNLAWFUL ACCUMULATIONS OF TRASH AND GROWTH OF WEEDS; PUBLIC NUISANCES AND ABATEMENT THEREOF" OF CHAPTER 13 "OFFENSES - MISCELLANEOUS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL ACCUMULATION OF TRASH AND THE DESIGNATION OF ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREFOR WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, finds that the illegal disposal and accumulation of trash constitutes a public nuisance and poses a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the County, and, WHEREAS, the Board further finds that increasing the penalties for these violations would assist in the enforcement of and with this ordinance, and, WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance is authorized by the provisions of Section 15.1-11 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 1992, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on December 1, 1992. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That Section 13-14 of Chapter 13, "Offenses - Miscellaneous" is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 13-14. Unlawful accumulations of trash and growth of weeds; public nuisances and abatement thereof. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following words and 1 N-i phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this subsection: (1) Abatement cost: The county's cost of tabor, equipment and supplies for, or the contract price of, and any charges to, the county, with respect to the removal and disposal of weeds or trash from a parcel. (2) Enforcement agent: The a~--~~~~-~~` County Administrator or his designee. ~~. _~-r------- (3) Owner: Any person shown by any public record to have an interest in real estate lying in the county upon which a public nuisance exists as of the date of the abatement of the public nuisance under this section. (4) Parcel: Any real estate, or any interest therein, situate, lying and being in the county in any areas zoned for residential, business, commercial, or industrial uses or in any subdivision. (5) Public nuisance: Any act or activity the causing or maintaining of which is such an inconvenience or troublesome matter as to annoy, injure or damage the public at large or a substantial portion of the community or a considerable number of persons, and from which any resulting damage is not specifically apportionable to any one member of the community. (6) Subdivision: Any tract or parcel of land divided 2 H-1 into two (2) or more lots or parcels, for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership or development, as otherwise defined in the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance. (7) Trash: Abandoned personal property, garbage, refuse, rubbish. litter or debris, -~~~'~ "`"'" / ~ (8) Weed or weeds: Any plant, grass or other vegetation covering substantially all of a parcel which is over fifteen (15) inches long, other than trees, shrubbery and agricultural plants. (b) All exterior property areas and premises shall be maintained in a clean, safe condition, free from any accumulation of trash and the failure to so maintain any parcel shall constitute a Class ~ 1 misdemeanor and each day the failure to comply with this provision continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall additionally constitute a public nuisance. (c) Weeds growing on ~~-~~~~i==y c„ any parcel shall constitute a public nuisance. It shall be unlawful to cause or maintain a public nuisance with respect to any parcel. An owner shall abate any public nuisance with respect to this parcel. Every owner of real estate situate in the county shall cause to be cut therefrom all weeds a~--~e '~'~ `~" "" ~'~ "'' . Any owner who shall violate the provisions of this subsection shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. 3 H-~ (d) In addition to any applicable criminal sanctions provided in this code, whenever the enforcement agent determines that a public nuisance exists upon any parcel, he shall notify the record owner of such parcel of such fact by certified mail at the owner's last known address, as shown by any source available to the agent, and such notice shall constitute, for purposes of this section, due legal notice as made and provided by law. The notice herein required shall direct that the public nuisance be abated within fourteen (14) days following the mailing. In case the owner's address is unknown or cannot be found, the enforcement agent shall post the notice herein required at a conspicuous place on the parcel on which the public nuisance exists and the posting shall constitute, for purposes of this section, legal notice as made and provided by law. (e) The notice provided for in subsection (d) above shall advise the owner that if he objects to the proposed action of the county he may present, at the time and place indicated on the notice, his objection; provided that, within seven (7) days from the date of mailing or posting of the notice, the owner shall provide the enforcement agent a written statement of his objection. At the hearing, the enforcement agent shall hear and investigate any objection that may be raised and take such action as may be appropriate under the facts and circumstances established. (f) If the owner fails to abate the public nuisance as required, and the enforcement agent finds that the public health, safety, order or convenience is impaired by the maintenance of the 4 H-/ public nuisance, he may request in writing that the county abate such public nuisance. Upon such request, the appropriate county officials may abate such nuisance by county forces or through private contract. Any owner may abate the public nuisance himself without liability to the county, provided that he does so prior to commencement of abatement by county personnel or contractors. (g) The County Administrator or his designee shall keep an account of the cost of abating public nuisances under this section and embody such account in periodic reports with assessment lists which shall be u i. ~ transmitted to the '~ a""'' director of finance and the treasurer at convenient intervals. The copy retained by the director of finance and the treasurer shall be available for public inspection. The reports shall refer to each parcel as to which a public nuisance was abated by description sufficient to identify the parcel, and specify the following additional charges for each such parcel to be assessed against each owner: (1) A service charge of twenty (20) percent of the abatement cost. (2) Interest at ten (10) percent from date of accrual until paid. (h) No more frequently than twice a year, the F a~-•~~ ~r,~~--t enforcement agent shall hold hearings at the Roanoke County Administration Center for the purpose of hearing objections to and comments upon reports and proposed assessments under this 5 fl-l section, of correcting any mistakes or inaccuracies in the reports and of confirming the same. (i) Not less than fourteen (14) days prior to a hearing provided for in subsection (h) above, such reports and assessment lists shall be posted at the front door of the County Administration Center with a notice of the time and place the s~E,~~ende~-ei a~~~~' ~"'~"'~~ enforcement agent will conduct the hearing on the reports and assessment lists, and the ~ a..~,..~ ~~_~~at enforcement agent shall send by certified mail to each owner, at his address as determined from county records, a notice of the time, place and subject matter of the hearing. The notice shall advise the owner of his right to object to, be heard upon, and to contest the confirmation of the report and assessment. The notice shall further provide that, upon the confirmation by the enforcement agent of the reports of abatement costs and service charges the same shall constitute special assessments against the owner and the parcel, a personal obligation of the owner and a lien upon the owner's parcel from the date and time of the recordation of a notice of lien, and bear interest at the rate of ten (10) percent. There shall be included with the notice a statement to the owner of the abatement cost, service charge and accrued interest. (j) At the hearing provided for in subsection (h) above, the ~.~~~~.d~-ei a~-=~' ~~~~-~} enforcement agent shall hear any objections which may be raised by any owner liable to be assessed and may confirm, modify or reject the reports and assessment lists 6 ~-i as he may deem appropriate and send those confirmed to the s~e~~e~rde~_eF F• --~ ~~~ -~~ director of finance and the treasurer for collection of the respective special assessment. (k) With respect to all such accounts remaining unpaid fourteen (14) days after the confirmation of the reports and assessment lists, the ~~~~end ~ ~ ''"""' "" "'" enforcement r anent shall cause a notice of the lien of the special assessment prepared by the county attorney to be recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the county. The county attorney may take appropriate steps, including a personal or in rem suit or action, in the appropriate court to enforce the lien to satisfy the special assessment. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after December 1, 1992. c:\~+p5]\agenda\code\rubishl3.]4 7 ., ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION ,' 1 ~ J Date Rec.: ~ Received By: Case No.: Ord. No. ~~ 1. Owner' s Name : (,y~IGOPROQEtZ~1,eS/SAC1~ I ~ WPLR~ +D 'i'ct Phone : S'1'1-QOp~ Address: ~ t'~ F ~tlx 13~iZ¢~, R~A~ue ~V~ Z.~t031d 2 . Applicant' s Name : ( fig- STEtlE rJS~I GU • Phone : ~Q3• LZ5-'1'1~'i Address: ~P V PS~yc 1O~i~. ~rfLEL~t•s~7t7~ Sf. 2Sb~~ 3. Location of Property: C.S•fA~.~~(rt`1cz ~veN~,c~, Tax Map Number (s) : ri0 p - - - 2+ 1 ~ 50•c~1- t - Z•~ 4. Magisterial District: --{-~UU,~NS 5. Size of Property: (.5'U, 6. Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: ~llW~(s~A 7. Proposed Zoning: '-3'~ Proposed Land Use: ~y>Vna(.t ~-L-c~O YAKS 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: 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.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: ~35GC~~ 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 ~ Concept Plan -~ Metes and Bounds Description / List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) ~ .l Vicinity Map Application Fee Written .Proffers Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of .Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: S ignature~ ~ Z ~~,r• J1r ~A t,~~ Date I b-23-4 L WALDROP L~REALTY October 23, 1992 Roanoke County Planning Commission 3738 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, Virginia RE: Tax Map Number 50-01-1-2.1 50.01-1-2.6 The Webb-Stevenson Company Advance Auto Parts Ladies and Gentlemen: The owners and contract purchaser request a waiver of the proffered parking ratio within the B2 zoning of Perimeter East Commerce Park from the 20% ratio allocated to the frontage parking to permit construction of a 7000 square foot Advance Auto Parts store. Respectfully, ~~ 'F(a 1 d~ J~ r Agent Walco Properties Jack F. Walrond, Jr. Main Office: P.O. Box 1479, 500 East Fourth Street, Salem, VA 24153 (703) 389-8101 Fax 389-6004 P.O. Box 20509, 2727 Electric Road, Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-7200 Fax 772-7201 ROAHOlCE COUNTY UTILITY DEPP,RTMBNT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date t (~- Z3-SZ Name of Applicant G~11~3J3-5-~-Evt~NSJ..~ t0 Phone f~b3- ~~ti•''~'1~~ Address of Applicant Y-v. S3p~+ I8~5. (rt~e~x„~yofl, Lc. Name of Developer Wc~q-Sr~v~so•J C..O Phone Q,b3-tz~i-"-~~-~ Address of Developer Name of Design Engineer "S.4 '~~'Rw:-l~.~sv~ Phone 38"1-153 Address of Design Engineer ~Ih T~~.,.lw~-wrd S~xlw~ Name of Contact Person STItlE ~L~~ Name of Proposed Development ~9yaj..~[ ,s ~.~..: ~ t"'~~.~-s Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) '101~Ct s c~w+~ ¢~ c-our Ads c ~..~ ~~~ Location of proposed development (FURNISH COPY OF MAP AND PLrANIMETRIC NUMBER) / LL ems. ~ e_ ,-~,r~ ~ . ao _ -r'~~ rwe.~ Y','h ./7 [- ~ -7. ~ ~ 5C1.C1~- 1~Z.L \ ~ 12. Size of proposed development in acres: 1-cr1L. Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum feet MSL. Maximum feet MSL Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger future development? _~ No Yes If yes, provide map of entire area if available. ~ature of Applicant ACTION NO. ~,~/ ITEM NO. ' r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY CREATING A SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY: MOTOR VEHICLES FOR DISABLED VETERANS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUNII~IARY This proposal would create a separate classification of property for tangible personal property taxation of motor vehicles owned and regularly used by disabled veterans. The creation of a separate classification of property would allow the Board of Supervisors to levy a tax rate for this property different from the tax rate for other classifications of tangible personal property. BACKGROUND' In June of 1992, a citizen requested the Board to adopt an ordinance to allow disabled veterans to receive a reduced personal property tax rate. On July 14, 1992, the County Attorney responded to the Board by memorandum explaining the enabling legislation, informing the Board of the other classifications allowing special treatment for personal property taxation (currently the Board has authorized only two exemptions: household goods and agricultural animals and machinery), and advising the Board of the potential fiscal impact of the adoption of such an ordinance. On October 13, 1992, the Board directed that staff prepare a report and draft ordinance to implement this request. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The 1991 session of the Virginia General Assembly (Chapter 247) amended Section 58.1-3506 of the State Code. This section of the State Code authorizes the governing body of any county, city, or town to levy personal property taxes on the various separate classes or classifications of tangible personal property enumerated in this section. There are 18 separate classes or classifications 1 ~~ of tangible personal property listed in this section. This provision of the State Code lists specific items of property and declares them to be a separate class of property constituting a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of tangible personal property taxation. The amendment describes this classification of tangible personal property as follows: One motor vehicle owned and regularly used by a veteran who has either lost, or lost the use of, one or both legs, or an arm or a hand, or who is blind or who is permanently and totally disabled as certified by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In order to qualify the veteran shall provide a written statement to the commis- sioner of revenue or other assessing officer from the Department of Veteran Affairs that the veteran has been so designated or classified by the Department of Veteran Affairs as to meet the requirements of this section, and that his disability is service-connected. For purposes of this section, a person is blind if he meets the provisions of Section 46.2-739. Of all the various separate classifications and exemptions to personal property taxation authorized in the State Code, the County has exercised its discretion to apply: •an exemption for household goods and personal effects (authorized by Section 58.1-3504, County Code § 21-19); and •an exemption for farm animals, grain, and farm machinery and tools (authorized by Section 58.1-3505, County Code § 21-20). The County has created a separate classification for taxation for mobile homes; however, the rate of taxation for mobile homes is not reduced, rather the rate of taxation is identical to the real estate tax rate. Subject to certain limitations, the governing body may levy a tax on the various classifications of personal property enumerated in this section at different rates from the tax levied on other tangible personal property. The Commissioner of the Revenue has provided a listing of those individuals receiving from the Commonwealth free Disabled Veteran license plates for motor vehicles. There are approximate- ly 90 vehicles on this list. There are approximately 30 vehicles on this list for POW license plates. Members of the National Guard are entitled to one-half fee license plates (approximately 120 vehicles). Disabled veterans and POWs are currently exempt (National 2 ~-oZ Guard pay one-half) from the County license (decal) fee, see Sec. 12-28(e) of the Roanoke County Code. FISCAL IMPACTS' Adoption of this ordinance and establishing a different (lower) tax rate for this classification of personal property will result in a loss of revenue. The revenue loss depends upon the tax rate. Estimating an average personal property tax bill of $200.00 per vehicle for 90 disabled veteran's vehicles at a 0$ tax rate would result in a revenue loss of $18,000. Over the past three years County personal property tax collections have been stagnant. Any erosion of revenues in this area is of great concern to staff and the Board. It is suggested that this request for preferential treatment for purposes of personal property taxation be analyzed within the broader context of all the fees and taxes levied by the County and the possible petitions for similar treatment by the various other special interest classifications. There are 18 separate classifi- cations authorized in Section 58.1-3506; this request is but one of the classifications. Use value assessment for real estate (agricultural, horticul- tural, forest and open space uses) and real estate tax exemptions for elderly and handicapped/disabled persons are significant, existing programs for County residents. The Board last year adopted an ordinance authorizing the reduction of water rates in hardship situations for elderly or handicapped/disabled persons. The latter two programs are based upon certain gross income and financial worth criteria. The requested preferential classifica- tion for personal property is not subject to any "needs" (income or net worth) analysis. Finally the Board should consider this request within the context of the various requests for tax exempt status for purposes of real estate taxation. Over 9$ of the total assessed value of real estate in Roanoke County is currently tax exempt. ALTERNATIVES' (1) Adopt the attached ordinance creating a separate classification of property for motor vehicles owned and regularly used by a disabled veteran for purposes of tangible personal property taxation. (2) Decline to adopt the attached ordinance. 3 ~`~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board choose alternative (2). This recommendation is based upon the following factors: -that additional losses of revenue from the personal property tax levy is damaging to the County (and may require increases for other taxpayers to maintain the same revenue level); -that adoption of this proposal could establish an unfavorable precedent for further erosion of the personal property tax base by the adoption of the other special personal property classifications; -that this preferential treatment is not based upon "means" or "needs" analysis (for example, income or net worth) as is the real estate tax relief program; -that other programs already provide some tax relief to this category of taxpayers (e.g. real estate tax relief, reduced license/decal fees). Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to c:\wp5]\agenda\code\disablve.rpt Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs 4 N-~, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY CREATING A SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY: MOTOR VEHICLES FOR DISABLED VETERANS WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3506 identifies a series of items of property, and declares each to be a separate class of property, constituting a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of tangible personal property; and, WHEREAS, one motor vehicle owned and regularly used by a disabled veteran, subject to certain qualifications, is one such classification; and, WHEREAS, the governing body may levy a tax on the property enumerated in this section at different rates from the tax levied on other tangible personal property, and the rates of tax and the rates of assessment shall not exceed that applicable to the general class of tangible personal property; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on December 15, 1992. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Article II. "Taxes on personal property" of Chapter 21. "Taxation" is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 21-21, Exemptions-Other Classifications of Tanctible Personal Property. 1 N-a A. The items of property set forth below are each declared to be a separate class of property and shall constitute a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of tangible personal property provided in this Article• 1~,_ One motor vehicle owned and regularly used by a veteran who has either lost, or lost the use of one or both leas, or an arm or a hand or who is blind or who is permanently and totally disabled as certified by the Department of Veteran's Affairs In order to aualifv the veteran shall provide a written statement to the commissioner of revenue or other assessina officer from the Department of Veteran's Affairs that the veteran has been so designated or classified by the Department of Veteran's Affairs as to meet the requirements of this section, and that this disability is service-connected For purposes of this section a person is blind if he meets the provisions of § 46.2-739. B. The Board of Supervisors may levy a tax on the property enumerated in subsection A at different rates from the tax levied on other tangible personal property The rates of tax and the rates of assessment shall not exceed that applicable to the aeneral class of tanc,~ible personal property. C. For the tax year commencina January 1 1993, and for all tax years thereafter unless otherwise chanaed, the rate of taxation on the property enumerated in subsection A shall be (0~, 25~ 50~, 75~ 1000 of the rate of tax applicable to the aeneral class of tangible personal property. l-tf-~ 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1, 1993. c:\~+~p51\agenda\code\dieable.otd 1 ITEM NO. ACTION NO. /-~ -3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: An Ordinance Amending the Zoning District Maps for Roanoke County by the Repeal of the Old Zoning District Maps and by Adopting and Reenacting the "1992 Zoning District Maps" to Implement the Provisions of the New Zoning Ordinance. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' Over the past four months the Planning Commission has prepared and reviewed the proposed 1992 Zoning District Maps. These maps have been reviewed by the public at a series of six Community Open Houses held in October; at a Planning Commission public hearing held on November 2, 1992; and at a Commission worksession held on November 10th. An additional Commission worksession is scheduled for November 17, 1992. The Commission will hold a second public hearing on December 1, 1992 and will recommend the adoption of the maps to the Board at that time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That on November 17, 1992 the First Reading on the ordinance adopting Maps, and schedule the Second Reading December 15, 1992. Respectfully Submitted, Terrance L. Harri on Director f Plan ing and Zoning Board of Supervisors hold the 1992 Zoning District and Public Hearing for Approved, ~'. ~~ ~-~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~-3 Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens VVLC No Yes Abs t ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAPS FOR ROANOKE COUNTY BY THE REPEAL OF THE OLD ZONING DISTRICT MAPS AND BY ADOPTING AND REENACTING THE "1992 ZONING DISTRICT MAPS (MASTER SET #1)" TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, on August 25, 1992, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia adopted Ordinance 82592-12 which adopted and reenacted a new zoning ordinance for Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, the adoption of new zoning district maps is a critical and necessary component to implement the provisions of the new zoning ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission and staff have held six "community open house" meetings throughout the County to provide citizens with an opportunity to review the proposed zoning district maps; the Planning Commission has held two public work sessions to review comments received on the proposed zoning district maps; and the Planning Commission has also held public hearings on November 2, 1992, and December 1, 1992, on the adoption of the proposed zoning district maps; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission has publicly reviewed and discussed all comments received on the proposed maps and has recommended approval of the ordinance adopting the zoning district maps to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law; and display ads were published on November 17 and 1 µ-3 November 24, 1992, to notify the citizens of the date and times of Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor's public hearings. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held on December 15, 1992. BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning district maps of Roanoke County, Virginia are hereby repealed, and that the "1992 Zoning District Maps (Master Set #1) of Roanoke County, Virginia" are hereby adopted and reenacted as the zoning district maps for Roanoke County, Virginia. 2. That the real estate and. the district classification thereof shall be as shown on the map or maps designated as the "1992 Zoning District Maps (Master Set #1) of Roanoke County, Virginia," dated and signed by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and attested by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, upon adoption. This zoning district map or maps, and all notations, dimensions, references and symbols shown thereon pertaining to such districts shall be as much a part of the Zoning Ordinance as is fully described herein and shall be filed as part of the Zoning Ordinance. Said map or maps shall be available for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator for Roanoke County, Virginia. This map together with subsequent applicable amendments shall be conclusive as to the current zoning status of real estate. 3. That said map or maps are attached hereto and 2 -3 incorporated herein by reference. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after December 31, 1992. c:\~+p51\agenda\mde\zonin8•~P 3 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: November 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Library Board Four-year term of Carolyn Pence, Vinton District, will expire 12/31/92. 2. Mental Health Service of the Roanoke Valley Community Services Board Three-year terms of Sue Ivey, Roanoke County Appointee, and Cheri Hartman, Member at Large, will expire 12/31/92. 3. Roanoke Planning Commission Four year term of Michael J. Gordon, Windsor Hills District, will expire 12/31/92. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens ~} rE AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION 111792-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM R - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 17, 1992, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - October 13, 1992 2. Approval of Resolution Concurring with the 1995 Highway Functional Classification for Roanoke County as Updated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3. Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Glade Hill Estates, Sections 3 and 4. 4. Request for Acceptance of Elizabeth Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Request for Acceptance of Apricot Trail and Blueberry Ridge into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Acknowledgement of Acceptance of 0.27 Miles of Christopher Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 7. Withdrawal of Request for Reconsideration: 301 Gilmer Associates v. Board of Supervisors. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Consent Resolution with Item 7 removed, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution to withdraw reconsideration, Item 7, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: ~~ Mary H. A len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Clifford Craig, Director, Utility Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney !~~~ - - Oa Ober 14 ~qq2 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 October 13, 1992 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October, 1992. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Eddy called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee B. Eddy, Vice Chairman Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Harry C. Nickens (Arrived 3:10 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Jr., - nn~nl~er~-142 .~ ~ g WHEREAS, nearly 500 years ago, the first English settlers to reach this continent encountered natives who called this land home for over 10,000 years; and WHEREAS, these Native Americans greeted the colonists with grace and hospitality and shared with them their knowledge of the land and its resources; and WHEREAS, the first encounters with these original Americans played an important role in the history of Virginia and the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the Shenandoah Valley translated means "Daughter of the Stars", and Roanoke being one of the first native words taken into the English language meaning "the place of white shells". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County, does hereby declare the weekend of October 16-17, 1992, as "THE FIRST ANNUAL ROANOKE VALLEY NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE FESTIVAL AND POW WOW", and extends its best wishes for an authentic and successful event. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ?. Reco nition of Mar Allen Clerk to the Board for Receiving Designation as Certified Municipal - n~t~t,p= 1 1~~2 ~ ~ ! - ~ Jernigan advised that the County will realize a savings of $29,700 by administering the vaccine through the Risk Management Department. In response to questions from Supervisors Minnix and Johnson, Mr. Jernigan advised that the program is mandatory and was not included in the budget because the effective date was June 1992 and the staff did not know during the budget process which departments would be in the program. Supervisor Kohinke advised he would oppose this item because the federal government mandated the program but did not provide funding. Supervisor Nickens expressed concern at the cost but moved to approve a $33,800 appropriation from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: Supervisor Kohinke ?. Re est for A ro riation of Funds to Re air a Ladder Truck at the Cave S rin Fire Station. (Tommy Fuaua, Fire and Rescue Chief) A-101392-3 Chief Fuqua reported that as a result of a vehicle check at the Cave Spring Station, the aerial ladder on the ladder truck was found to need repairs. The ladder was taken to a repair facility for emergency repairs, because at that time, only one ladder truck was in service for the entire county. The total cost estimate for the repairs was estimated at $19,001.00. !~' ~ ~ -- ^ctohor l3~ZT¢Z AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Eddy NAYS: Supervisor Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens 4. Rewest for Addition of Projects to the Drainage Maintenance Priority List. (Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections) A-101392-4 Mr. Covey reported that staff is now submitting projects P- 116 through P-158 for approval and inclusion to the Drainage Maintenance Priority List. The projects are estimated to cost $135,400 and funding is available in the current budget. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the drainage maintenance priority list. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None Arnold Covey was directed to provide to the Board members a ranking criteria for drainage projects. 5. Re est for A ro riation of Funds for Jones & Jones Associates Snace Evaluation Study. (Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator) A-101392-5 Mr. Hodge reported that the space study identified a need of approximately 10,000 square feet of additional office space and that the school administration estimated a future need of 5,000 square feet. Staff recommended an appropriation of $5,000 from ~~~ nn~..l.e.. ~ ~ ~ e e e NAYS: None IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for Public Hearinq - Roanoke County Charter Amendments Supervisor Johnson moved to set the public hearing on October 27, 1992. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: Supervisor Kohinke The request for the public hearing was withdrawn following the Executive Session. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance to Vacate and Close a 50 Foot Unimproved and Unnamed Right-of Wav Located in the Sk~view Subdivision, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of William H. and Norma J. Musselman. (Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering ~ Ins ections Mr. Covey presented the staff report. Supervisor Eddy asked Mr. Hodge and Mr. Mahoney to bring back a report and recommendations on the possibility of charging fair market value for purchase of easements. Supervisor Kohinke moved to approve the first reading. The - A _taUpr ~ 4 1 449 The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 4. An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance and/or Acceptance of Certain Parcels of Real Estate or Easements in Connection with the Hollins Communit Develo ment Pro'ect. Paul Mahone Count Attorney) Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 5. An Ordinance Authorizin the Count Administrator to Grant the Right to Use a County Sanitary Sewer Easement for Private Sanitar Sewer Service b PrODerty Owners. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorn ~~ Mr. Mahoney reported that the owners want to extend two private sewer lines in the County~s easement to provide service to the properties. He offered three alternatives: (1) adopt the ordinance to grant the right to use a County sanitary sewer easement for private sanitary sewer service; (2) adopt an ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to sell, for fair market value, the right to use the sanitary sewer easement; and (3) decline to adopt the ordinance. In response to a question from Supervisor Minnix, he advised - (] eh r 1~~ 1Q9~ COIINTY CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEA SECTION 21-9 "IISE OF CREDIT CARD IN PAYMENT OF TAXES" WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3013 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, enables a local governing body by ordinance to authorize the treasurer to accept payment of local taxes, other fees and charges generated by the sale of utility services by use of a credit card, and, WHEREAS, the Treasurer of Roanoke County has recommended to his Board of Supervisors that such ordinance be adopted in order to improve customer service and assist in the collection of taxes, other fees and charges, and, WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on September 22, 1992, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on October 13, 1992. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1) That a new section numbered 21-9 and entitled "Use of credit card in payment of taxes, other fees or charges" be and hereby enacted to read and provide as follows: Sec. 21-9. Use of credit card in payment of taxes, other fees or charges. The treasurer is authorized to accept payments of local taxes, other fees or charges generated by the sale of utility services by use of a credit card. In addition to any penalties and interest, the treasurer shall add to such payment a sum not to exceed four (4) per centum of the amount of the tax, penalty +• 1~ __ nr4~nl,pr 13~19~2 carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLIITION 101392-8 APPROVING AND CONCIIRRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1, that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 13, 1992, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Acknowledgement of Acceptance of (1) 0.07 Miles of Deer Branch Drive, (2) 0.41 Miles of Barrens Village Lane, (3) 0.11 Miles of Barrens Village Court-West, (4) 0.07 Miles of Barrens Village Court-East, (5) 0.27 Miles of Millbridge Road, and (6) 0.23 Miles of Carriage Hills Drive into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 2. Request for Acceptance of Larson Oaks Drive and Larson Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 3. Request for Acceptance of Millwood Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Request for Acceptance of Funds to the School Grant Fund for Special Education. 6. Request for Acceptance of Additional Funds to the School Operating Fund for Vocational Education. g3 . 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Larson Lane from the intersection of Larson Lane (State Route 1679) and Tomarrane Drive (State Route 1679) to the cul-de-sac, for a distance of 0.20 miles and Larson Oaks Drive from the intersection of Larson Lane to the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.20 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Larson Oaks Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 72, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on February 7, 1990 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-ways for the streets. 3. That said roads known as Larson Lane and Larson Oaks Drive and which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said streets or highways by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and - n..~ nl+n.• ~ Z ~ e e e ~~ J shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Nickens• He asked that a personnel .matter regarding the compensation package of the school superintendent and associate school superintendent be discussed in Executive Session. Supervisor Johnson• He complimented the staff on the bond referendum brochure. Public Information Officer Anne Marie Green reported that the brochure will be mailed to all County residences next week, and she reported on the community meetings explaining the bond issue. Supervisor Kohinke• (1) He advised that there is confusion over redistricting in his district and asked that staff help clarify that the Catawba Magisterial District Supervisor remained the same; only the Congressional District in portions of the Catawba District changed. (2) He asked if the Board plans to ~• ~ l note?] r 1~~ 1999 denial of the purchase of the computer equipment was a shortsighted decision. He also asked how repairs to the schools will be covered if the bond referendum does not pass. Supervisor Johnson advised Mr. Scher that the school repairs would be covered by Virginia Public School Authority loans. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Johnson moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance ?. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid - September 1992 5. Statement of Treasurer's Accountabilit er Investments and Portfolio Polic as of Se tember 30, 1992. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 5:30 p.m., Supervisor Minnix moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1- 344 A (7) Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel, namely, potential environmental liability; (7) to consult with legal counsel concerning briefings by staff members pertaining to actual OCtObE!r 1 4 ~ 1 g q 9 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. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the certification resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING - ROANORE COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENTS Supervisor Johnson moved to withdraw the request for a public hearing on the County charter amendments set for October 27, 1992. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 6:30 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. Lee B. Eddy, Chairman r ., i~""' AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLIITION 111792-5.a OF APPROVAL WITH THE 1995 HIGHWAY FIINCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION FOR RIIRAL ROANORE COUNTY AS IIPDATED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, Section 1006, required that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) functionally reclassify the roads and streets in the Commonwealth, by December 31, 1992, based on their current and anticipated functional usage; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has previously functionally classified the state highways in accordance with the guidelines presented in the "Highway Functional Classification Manual" (Volume 26, Appendix 12, Hiahway Planning Program Manual); and, WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Transportation has updated the functional classification in accordance with the "Highway Functional Classification Manual" (Revised, March 1989) and aforementioned ISTEA of 1991, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Roanoke County Board of Supervisors concurs with the "1995 Highway Functional Classification" for Roanoke County as updated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAY5: None A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. A len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections copy for Virginia Department of Transportation ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~' AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Resolution Concurring with 1995 Highway Functional Classification for Rural Roanoke County as Updated by the Virginia Department of Transportation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ ~{J EXECIITIVE SUMMARY: The Virginia Department of Transportation is required by Congress under the 1991 Federal Transportation Act to review the classifications of roads in Virginia and to have concurrence with those classifications from the localities by December 1, 1992. BACKGROUND According to Federal Highway guidelines, roads that are in Roanoke County that are outside of the Urban Service Boundary are given classifications based on the type and level of service they provide. This classification determines the design criteria for roads identified as interstate, arterial, collector and local; and also determines the amount of federal aid received by the Commonwealth of Virginia. VDOT has asked for our concurrence and approval of the functional classification for rural Roanoke County roads as shown on the attachment. A map showing the functional classifications of these roads is available for inspection in the Department of Engineering & Inspections. FISCAL IMPACT: -- This action requires no appropriation of County funds and does not affect the budget for secondary road funds in Roanoke County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has studied the proposal "1995 Highway Functional Classification" Plan for Rural Roanoke County as prepared by VDOT and recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT concurring with said plan. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Arnold Covey, irector Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering & Inspections County Administrator ------------------- ------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred Tn Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens pc: Jeff Echols, Virginia Department of Transportation Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Department ~- AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLIITION OF APPROVAL WITH THE 1995 HIGHWAY FIINCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION FOR RIIRAL ROANORE COIINTY AS UPDATED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, Section 1006, required that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) functionally reclassify the roads and streets in the Commonwealth, by December 31, 1992, based on their current and anticipated functional usage; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has previously functionally classified the state highways in accordance with the guidelines presented in the "Highway Functional Classification Manual" (Volume 26, Appendix 12, Hiahway Planning Program Manual); and, WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Transportation has updated the functional classification in accordance with the "Highway Functional Classification Manual" (Revised, March 1989) and aforementioned ISTEA of 1991, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Roanoke County Board of Supervisors concurs with the "1995 Highway Functional Classification" for Roanoke County as updated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. ACTION # A-111792-5.b ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Glade Hill Estates, Sections 3 and 4 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of Glade Hill Estates, Sections 3 and 4, C & D Builders, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The water and sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by T. P. Parker & Son entitled Glade Hill Estates, Sections 3 and 4, dated April 14 and July 2, 1992, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The water and sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT' The value of the water and sanitary sewer construction is $19,100.00 and $21,000.00 respectively. RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the Glade Hill Estates, Sections 3 and 4 along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. ""~ SUBMITTED BY: Clifford a g, P.E. Utility Di ctor Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred t0 APPROVED: ~-y,,,,,,,/ ~-C~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: Bob L. Johnson VOTE No Yes Abs _ Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Clifford Craig, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections K~ DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT THIS DEED, DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT, made this 20th day of October _, 1992, by and between: C ~ D Builders (Mr. Jim Davis) hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," party of the first part; the BOARD OF S~JPERVISQRS t?F ROANC~KE C~Jl1NTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part; and ELMER C, HQDGE, County Administrator of Roanoke County, VIRGINIA, party of the third part. W I T N E S S E T H THP,T FQR AND IN C(}NSIDERATIDN of the mutual benefits to accrue, the Developer does hereby GRANT, CANVEY, ASSIGN AND TRP,NSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRP.NTY ~F TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all Water and/or sewer lines, valves, fittings; laterals, connections, storage facilities, so{_arces of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto, in and to the water and!or sewer systems in the streets, avenues and public utility, water and!or sewer easement areas that have been or may hereafter be installed by the Developer, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown and described and designated as follows, to wit: As shown on the plan entitled Glade Hill Estates - Sections 3 & 4 dated Ar~ri1 14 and .!u1v 2 1992 made by T.P, Parker ~ Son and on file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department, Page 1 of . ~-3 The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and!or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C, Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke Cc_iunty, Virginia, party of the third part, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No, adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. WITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals: Developer: ~a `~ ~ v~ i•~~~1~5 ~~~ • g v ; ^ ~ L/ ec~~-~ By: °e As: ~~ ~S ~~ 6~fJ State of : U1 ~ t~ ~ tiJ ~ ~- Count" /r~-~ =f : ~Aw~ C~ ~, , to wlt: The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this: a~ ~ day of Dc ~ 19 ~~ By: ~YIR • ,.~ l~ArJl g as 7 Duly authorized officer Title on hehal f of ~ ~' ~ ~U~ ~~ ~ 5 Notary Public My Commission expires: Qf~ ~'!/~f ~O ~°'l" 1~G Page 2 of ~ k3 Approved as to form: Go~~nty Attorney State of: Gounty,lGity of: By to wit: The foregoing deed was avknowledged before me this: day of 19 , by Elmer G. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Roard of S~~pervisors of Roanoke Gourty, Virginia. Notary Publio My Commission expires: Go~~nty Administrator of Roanoke Goy:nty, Virginia Elmer G. Nodge Revised 1Cl/i6/9Q Page 3 of 3 ~~ NORTH S~F\ Z ..3 ~A = i y~~ :~e~ n, ~ ~ II w. t ~1 y` ~ ~ ~ ' ro•JO I ~ / iJJ J"~ II V [cwt ///C III u - n N N/ ~~ N ...~ - SECT/ON3 _ - _ { ___ - ~ ~ ~'• A t'~55 ~ '¢,t~ ~\ o ~ 4g'O~. ~o N ie ha, fIA~I.~G.f ~~ ~ a°' E~ i eGATf zC•lfll5 VALVE x r<v et snlt ~. !S MN ~TA.,,.aro, a M 7s•aT vArEN ricNr C~ C %QAA/E / R O ~ f0U/Rf0 /EN ~ \ ~ ~~fi I ~, ~ i O _. -_-WOP fI60D-YI dIMMKt3107~tOr[DT VICOt p NEOMK. 191SiRC~ ~_ ,(CLUNG CEME7EIPY . ~~ ,~~.~ pa/L ~~ O ! ~ ~n P,LGL c~0`~ r;~ : Jf n.K~.Y w w{ '~ ~~ie' /R I AC7DR q,C N'trnry y MAKE CLNNEC .4 (OS[~i[wi ^ 7DF.r/ST/40 5 r .lH~ I O[~J ~ ~I J' J~WnOV - ~ nn. o i -lL e'Jwl. yrr r o. I j /J JMf[Y IyPI_'4y^ ~ \\ // ~ I 57APM N/9rP aI IkY.iO\\ `r'.!O/uK4^l I wv/CIJErI/< Y \\((s(OKwT ~ ^+> ~LI_ \•A' ~ JD/•!4! JS - (A/Jl /J'l LVJl a / KG ~ ~ T 0 ~/~` ~`~\ /wY/wlGJ 9E CfwC h/C / vpwl•MY/J /M/009' !W 4r r I TNROAT• G' _ _ _ mow.-~....,,-.... .. Cl/FIUN FYISEY SLONE t 4?rM//N/N~ PA'OPEA'7Y Cr[I ev/L[IER1, r§§AC. ~ ;yY 3j 1~ NF ~^ '~~ acs - a 1 11 O z r ~~ ~: ~ a~~ C~ f.'JV..~L~now Ilal nY~~~+ I x~ vi s ! el,~ h~ii~a~~% (YST. OV. •py1~uL cM W1dt M.+u-nl- ii 1 '~ -AIRKDT 9RIK ~ 659 SS 4 w,n co.,.,.:.r rROa v' ..rw~,ne `~ ~ I { ~~ ~O ~ I_ nie.ws>I a~ reAr. ~ ~ ~ ~ C LsrrAeaev A9ACORYI ~ r +~ ~?'1 ~ 5t~hf, to-b~ ~~ ~~. ~~• ~ ~ 1 y O h 1 ~ °j ~v ~~~o~ SECT /ON3 °"10~ ~ 7 $ vea , ~ Ma;;~;6 k t F $~ o~~ .,x ti >ucNMAQK: M ~ ~ V ~ ~~~ ~ ICI{ tl a ro : s~ k O /, /n O n O 6 ,F ~~~ ~ ra~ ~ /! 4 O /~ r//N ' ~ , I1~• k ~ c;V; ~ EaP9KEJ w ~ r o ~ ~~ I YATMN ` p, ( ( .. I. ~ ROANOKE COUNTY .. - UTILITY ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES SERVING DEPARTMENT GLADE HILL ESTATES, SECTION 3 ~ 4 I ~ i AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLIITION 111792-5.c REQIIESTING ACCEPTANCE OF ELIZABETH DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Elizabeth Drive from its east intersection with Beavers Lane to its west intersection with Finney Drive, for a distance of 0.07 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as River Ridge Subdivision and Fox Fire, Section 1, Subdivision which maps were recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 2 and Plat Book 9, Page 90, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on August 9, 1988 and June 30, 1977 respectively, and that by reason of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 3. That said roads known as Elizabeth Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation e-`f NORTH PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) Elizabeth Drive (Route 1070) from its East intersection with Beavers Lane (Route 1066) to its West intersection with Finney drive (Route 1043) for a distance of 0.07 miles. LENGTH: (1) 0.07 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET ROADWAY ,WIDTH: (1) 30 FEET SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 26 FEET SERVICE: (1) 3 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF ELIZABETH DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA ENGINEERING & DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 3 ~i. , . ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Elizabeth Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: F. W. Finney Construction Corporation, the developer of River Ridge, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.07 miles of Elizabeth Drive, from its east intersection with Beavers Lane to its west intersection with Finney Drive. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No county funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Elizabeth Drive into the Secondary Road System. ._., SU$MITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspe APPROVED: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge ions County Administrator Approved Denied Received Ref erred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens K4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF ELIZABETH DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Elizabeth Drive from its east intersection with Beavers Lane to its west intersection with Finney Drive, for a distance of 0.07 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as River Ridge Subdivision and Fox Fire, Section 1, Subdivision which maps were recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 2 and Plat Book 9, Page 90, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on August 9, 1988 and June 30, 1977 respectively, and that by reason of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 4 K-`~ 3. That said roads known as Elizabeth Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5 CORRECTIONS IN PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 MADE 12/4/92 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION 111792-5.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF APRICOT TRAIL AND BLUEBERRY RIDGE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of .15 miles of Apricot Trail east of Carson Road to the cul-de-sac and -9& ~~~] miles of Blueberry Ridge extended to the cul-de-sac to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain maps known as Glade Hill Estates, Subdivision, Sections ~~~r 3 and 4 which maps were recorded in 'k teas>`~:'~~~~~' Plat Book 14, Pa a 36 and Plat Book 14, Page 60, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on ~~~':~1_39~'y~'March 24, 1992 and May 6, 1992, respectively and that by reason of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 3. That said roads known as Apricot Trail and Blueberry Ridge and which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said streets or highways by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 7"3'Cr~rh.c~. 7~ - Mary H. len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation NORTH n _ >>, N ~P S' 80 BO BO SS +~°~ X9.6 e0 ~ \6~ .> eE~ f Cundiff Dr. ; 3~ 3~ M PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) .15 miles of Apricot Trail east of Carson Road to the cul-de-sac. 2. .10 miles of Blueberry Ridge from the intersection of Praline Place to the cul-de-sac. LENGTH: (1) 0.15 MILES (2) 0. 10 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET (2) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 30'-36'Varies (2) 30 FEET SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 26'-32'VARIES (2) 26 FEET SERVICE : 6 HOMES (2) 3 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF APRICOT TRAIL AND BLUEBERRY RIDGE ENGINEERING & INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT SECONDARY SYSTEM Y_. r e- b.~ /`~ a~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLIITION 111792-5.d REQIIESTING ACCEPTANCE OF APRICOT TRAIL AND BLUEBERRY RIDGE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of .15 miles of Apricot Trail east of Carson Road to the cul-de-sac and .08 miles of Blueberry Ridge extended to the cul-de-sac to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain maps known as Glade Hill Estates, Subdivision, Sections 3 and 4 which maps were recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 36 and Plat Book 14, Page 60, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on March 24, 1992 and May 6, 1992, respectively and that by reason of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 3. That said roads known as Apricot Trail and Blueberry Ridge and which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in t Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said streets or highways by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation t K-5 NORTH 152. ~ c~2 cp 2\ ~ `,~ ~$^N ~ 160.6n ~ 55.95 3 ~ 2136.58 ~ r~3 136.5E 8 ~ a~'~~~ X80 0 22 2. o ~ _ a ~'~ N 2~?PO ~o \g ~ a ~ I 160 ran ~~ ~ 160 m o ~ '~ , 69.\24 ~~ . `Z "~ \~ffi0 \~8Q - .`~80 \A 80 ~_, - 'v pro ,y ~ ~ m ~ N l K -. o s~ - . a i° ~ . 6- ~ ,, \~. 1 '5064.62 80 80 8 0 - 55 °j 55 r: C _5.6~' ~% •' ~~ `$ 10 0 ricot rail Mm 62.78 80 B 0 80 55 ~ _ ~, ~ 5 80 .8 v ~~ 1 ` Q1 i ' o 2G " ~9 ~~. ~ i1 ~ ~EJ ti ti ~5 "- ~a N ~3 ~ ' g l~ 4~ ~ 85.95 80 8~ ~~ 80 ~ eG BO BO m ~_ . m PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) .15 miles of Apricot Trail east of Carson Road to the cul-de-sac. 2. .08 miles of Blueberry Ridge extended to the cul-de-sac. LENGTH: (1) 0.15 MILES (2) 0.08 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET (2) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1)30'-36'Varies (2) 30 FEET SURFACE WIDTH: (1)26'-32'VARIES (2) 26 FEET SERVICE: 6 HOMES (2) 3 HOMES ENGINEERING & INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT SECONDARY SYSTEM 3 ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF APRICOT TRAIL AND BLUEBERRY RIDGE ITEM NUMBER ~/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Apricot Trail and Blueberry Ridge into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: C & D Builders, Inc., the developer of Glade Hill Estates, Sections 3 and 4, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept .15 miles of Apricot Trail east of Carson Road to the cul-de-sac and .08 miles of Blueberry Ridge extended to the cul-de-sac. The staff have inspected these roads along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds these roads are acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No county funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Apricot Trail and Blueberry Ridge into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ Arnold Covey, Directo Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering & Insp ctions County Administrator ~( s Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens K-s AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLIITION REQIIESTING ACCEPTANCE OF APRICOT TRAIL AND BLIIEBERRY RIDGE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of .15 miles of Apricot Trail east of Carson Road to the cul-de-sac and .08 miles of Blueberry Ridge extended to the cul-de-sac to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain maps known as Glade Hill Estates, Subdivision, Sections 3 and 4 which maps were recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 36 and Plat Book 14, Page 60, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on March 24, 1992 and May 6, 1992, respectively and that by reason of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 4 K- 5 3. That said roads known as Apricot Trail and Blueberry Ridge and which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from. and after notification of official acceptance of said streets or highways by the Virginia Department of .Transportation. 5 ACTION NO. A-111782-5.e ITEM NUMBER °" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledgement of Acceptance of 0.27 Miles of Christopher Drive into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Transportation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has received acknowledgement that the following road has been accepted into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Transportation effective October 30, 1992. Cotton Hill Estates - Section 3 0.27 Miles of Christopher Drive (Route 767) SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board APPROV BY: _.,.,~,...- t~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L 7ohnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Kohinke x Referred ( ) Johnson x Minnix x To ( ) Nickens x cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections ~d a Q.'FyyA . wi ~: ~~ e -; @r~ ~ ~h inn m~'~,1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 COMMISSIONER November 2 , 1992 Secondary System Addition Roanoke County Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: rc ~ a As requested in your resolution dated September 22, 1992, the following addition to the Secondary System of Roanoke County is hereby approved, effective October 30, 1992. ADDITION LENGTH COTTON HILL ESTATES - SECTION 3 Route 767 (Christopher Drive) - From Route 688 to 0.27 mile West Route 688 0.27 Mi Sincerely, ~~ .~. ~~ Ray D. Pethtel Commissioner TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION 111792-6 CERTIFYING EBECUTIVE 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. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session ~,., c t AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION 111792-5.e ACCEPTING THE NITHDRAWAL OF A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION MADE BY 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES, AND REINSTATING THE PREVIOUS ZONING DECISION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, 301 Gilmer Associates (the "Petitioner") had filed a rezoning request with the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, (the "Board")and that said rezoning request was denied by the Board on September 24, 1991; and, WHEREAS, upon the request of the Petitioner, the Board voted to reconsider this denial on October 8, 1991, in order to enable the Petitioner to negotiate acceptable voluntarily proffered conditions in order to mitigate adverse impacts of this proposed rezoning on adjoining properties and to implement the oral promises made by the Petitioner at the public hearings before the Board; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgement on October 23, 1991; however, the Petitioner had not proffered revised conditions before commencing this litigation; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner has represented to the Circuit Court and to the Board that it desires to withdraw its request for reconsideration, and that it intends to proceed with the proposal submitted to the Board at its September 24, 1991 public hearing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1 1. That the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the request of the Petitioner, and allows the Petitioner to withdraw its request for Board reconsideration of its previous denial of the Petitioner's application for rezoning of that certain tract of real estate containing 0.71 acre located at 6426 Merriman Road (Tax Map Number 97.06-1-6). 2. That by this action the previous decision of the Board denying this rezoning application on September 24, 1991 is hereby reinstated. 3. That the Clerk to the Board is directed to mail a certified copy of this Resolution to the attorney for the Petitioner, David A. Melesco, Esq. and to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, for filing in the official court file of these proceedings. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning David A. Melesco, Esq., Attorney for Petitioner Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court 2 ACTION NO. r ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Withdrawal of Request for Reconsideration 301 Gilmer Associates v. Board of Supervisors COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' The Petitioner in this litigation wants to withdraw its request for reconsideration and to pursue its remedies in the Circuit Court. BACKGROUND' The Petitioners filed their rezoning request (0.71 acre, on Merriman Road, adjacent to Penn Forest Elementary School, R-1 to M- 1) on June 21, 1991. First and second readings were held on July 23, 1991 and August 27, 1991, respectively. This request was referred back to the Planning Commission at the request of the Petitioner for consideration of certain voluntarily proffered conditions. The Board considered the revised petition with proffered conditions at a public hearing on September 24, 1991, and by a 3-2 vote denied this request. Upon request of the Petitioner the Board voted on October 8, 1991, to reconsider this denial in order to allow staff and Petitioner's counsel an opportunity to negotiate acceptable proffers. Before the Board could consider any additional proffers the Petitioner filed a lawsuit on October 23, 1991, challenging the prior denial. On November 14, 1991, the County Attorney filed a response to this premature lawsuit questioning its timing, since the Board had not yet rendered a final decision on this request for a rezoning. At a hearing on October 19, 1992 the Petitioner represented to the Court that it was abandoning its request that the Board reconsider its prior action and afford the Petitioner an oppor- tunity to negotiate and submit acceptable proffers, and that it desired to stand upon its September 24, 1991 request and the Board's denial. K-~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached you will find a letter dated October 30, 1992, from the counsel for the Petitioner, David A. Melesco, Esq., requesting the Board to rule on this matter without any request for recon- sideration and no further conditions. Counsel represents that the Petitioner wants to go forward with its original proposal. Based upon a telephone conversation with counsel, Petitioner will go forward with its September 24, 1991 request. The approval of the new zoning maps zoning ordinance may address this issue; intends to proceed with a judicial remedy FISCAL IMPACTS' to implement the revised however, the Petitioner to resolve this matter. It has been this office's position that litigation should be a remedy of last resort. Negotiation and other methods of dispute resolution should be exhausted before litigation. Staff attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate with Petitioner and its attorneys to resolve this matter through developing an acceptable proffer of conditions. Unfortunately representations by the Petitioner could never be translated into a written proffer of conditions. Therefore this matter will result in the cost and expense of litigation. ALTERNATIVES' 1) Accept the Petitioner's September 24, 1991, rezoning request with proffered conditions. 2) Accept the Petitioner's withdrawal of its request for reconsideration and reinstate the Board's September 24, 1991, decision denying the requested rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board adopt alternative 2), rescinding its reconsideration of this matter and reinstating its September 24, 1991, decision denying the requested rezoning. Respectfully submitted, r~~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by Eddy Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) Kohinke Referred Nickens to Minnix Attachments: 10/30/92 letter from Melesco, Staff report 8/6/91 with proffered conditions (2 different pages of conditions, draft rezoning. ordinance.) c:\W p51\agenda\lit\30] gil.rp[ a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION MADE BY 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES, AND REINSTATING THE PREVIOUS ZONING DECISION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, 301 Gilmer Associates (the "Petitioner") had filed a rezoning request with the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, (the "Board")and that said rezoning request was denied by the Board on September 24, 1991; and, WHEREAS, upon the request of the Petitioner, the Board voted to reconsider this denial on October 8, 1991, in order to enable the Petitioner to negotiate acceptable voluntarily proffered conditions in order to mitigate adverse impacts of this proposed rezoning on adjoining properties and to implement the oral promises made by the Petitioner at the public hearings before the Board; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgement on October 23, 1991; however, the Petitioner had not proffered revised conditions before commencing this litigation; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner has represented to the Circuit Court and to the Board that it desires to withdraw its request for reconsideration, and that it intends to proceed with the proposal submitted to the Board at its September 24, 1991 public hearing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the request 1 K-7 of the Petitioner, and allows the Petitioner to withdraw its request for Board reconsideration of its previous denial of the Petitioner's application for rezoning of that certain tract of real estate containing 0.71 acre located at 6426 Merriman Road (Tax Map Number 97.06-1-6). 2. That by this action the previous decision of the Board denying this rezoning application on September 24, 1991 is hereby reinstated. 3. That the Clerk to the Board is directed to mail a certified copy of this Resolution to the attorney for the Petitioner, David A. Melesco, Esq. and to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, for filing in the official court file of these proceedings. C:\WP51\AGENDA\IdT/301 GILMER.RSO 2 DAVID A. MELESCO FRANCIS H. YOUNG LAW OFFICES GREER AND MELESCO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 110 MAPLE ~:ENUE ROCKY MOUNT, ~ IRGINIA 24151 TELEPHONE (70.? 4835187 TELECOPIER 1703. a83~0996 October 30, 1992 Paul M. Mahoney, Esquire County Attorney for the County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ~~ ~e r'~ti , ' r ~ --, ._r _._ ' ~ ,. t.. i ., ....._1..,.. ~. '' ~ 1±~ 1. ~..,-- - - O~ COV•.=L T. KEISTER 3REER Re: 301 Gilmer Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County Dear Mr. Mahoney: To follow up our phone conversation please ask the Board of Supervisors to rule on this matter without any request for reconsideration from the owners. There will be no further conditions. My client simply feels that this matter needs to be resolved one way or the other. Specifically my client would like to go forward with the original proposal as submitted in the fall of 1991. __---_..__y~~s truly, ~ ~ ~. -%~ _~ - -- __ David A. Melesco DAM/ps ~~ 8?AFF REPORT CAGE NUMBER: 19-8/91 REVIEWED BY: TIM BEARD PETITIONER: 301 GILMER !-BBOCIATEB DATE: AUGUBT 6, 1991 Petition of 301 Gilmer Associates to rezone .71 acre from R-1 to M-1 to allow a self-storage facility, located at 6426 Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. NATURE OF REQUEBT a. Conditional request to improve an existing 4,000 sq.ft. building in order to construct five to nine self storage mini-warehouse units within the current building footprint. b. Concept plan and zoning vicinity map describe project further. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The M-1 , Light Industrial District permits a variety of light industrial uses. The owner has proffered to plant five-foot tall pine trees every 10 feet at the rear (east) and side (north) property lines. Petitioner has also proffered to retain the brick exterior of the building and to apply earth tone colors to the rear roll-up garage doors. b. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance with County regulations. c. VDOT commercial entrance permit required. SITE CHARP,CTERIBTICB TOPOGRAPHY: Predominantly flat; very gentle rise toward center of site. GROUND COVER: Grass; existing, centrally-located brick building. AREA CHARACTERISTICS FUTURE GROWTH PRIORITY: Situated within the Cave Spring Community Planning Area. This area has been designated for stable growth. Urban services are available. GENERAL AREA is developed with residential, institutional, and industrial uses. LAND U8E IMPACT ABSESSMENT 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. z RATING FACTOR COKMENTS ~/„~ SAND USE COMPATIBILITY '\ ~ COMPREHENSIV$ PLAN: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Core land use category. Warehousing land uses are normally discouraged with low compatibility in Core designated areas. The proposal is not consistent with policy C-2 (provide arterial or higher grade street service to each Core area). Proposed use is consistent with policies C-4 (coordinate site design creating a minimum of public street/vehicular access points and building size, shape, height, and materials to complement adjacent buildings) and C-5 (provide separation, screening and buffering along Core boundaries to reduce nuisances with less intensive development. Self-storage or mini-warehouse uses are not mentioned under Core land use applications of mixed use development referred to by policy C-1. 3 SURROUNDING LAND: Adjacent uses include institutional; heavily traveled major collector highway and an industrial access road; immediately south and east of the two roads, single family residential, office commercial, and general industrial uses occur. 2 NEIGHBORING AREA: Single family residential; service commercial; parks and open space; woodland. 3 SITE LAYOUT: Sharply constrained by small size of property and existing building (approximately 4,000 sq.ft.). Single access encircling building will begin and end with Merriman Road at northwest corner of site. Customers will park outside rear units to load/unload vehicles. These storage units will average approximately 600 sq.ft. each. Customers renting units without individual access will park north of loop road and use front door. These storage units are estimated at a maximum of 100 sq.ft. each. 3 ARCHITECTURE: This building has been recognized by Frazier Associates as an historic resource. Zts exact significance has not yet been determined. Existing brick exterior to remain by proffer. A maximum of five roll-up garage doors at the rear of the building will bear earth tone paint to match brick effect. 3 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: The petitioner has proffered to plant five foot tall pine trees, ten feet apart along the property's north and east boundaries (also see suggested proffers). Per the ordinance land use intensity matrix, no plantings, screen, or buffer yard are required. Petitioner intends to plant evergreen shrubs between the building front and Merriman Road. Existing hardwood south of proposed entrance will remain. 4 AMENITIES: Concept plan indicates no parking spaces. Ordinance requires one space due to building size and one per 1-1/2 employees (no employees anticipated). Ample space remains north of access road to construct parking stalls for 4-5 customers who will not have drive-up access to individual storage units (see site layout) . 3 Those customers who will have drive-up access to rear units must park parallel to the building to provide emergency equipment adequate room to pass. Fire & Rescue Dept. will require the installation of fire lane signs to ensure a minimum width travel aisle. 3 NATORAL AMENITIES: Site rests within a naturally low basin and includes well-defined drainage ditches on south and west borders. See Drainage Floodplain. ' TRAFFIC 2 STREET CAPACITIES: 1986 ADT: 2,841 (.9 mi. segment of Merriman Road from Commonwealth Drive to Crystal Creek Road. 1986 ADT: 242 (.3 mi. segment of Commonwealth Drive from Merriman Road to Corrugated Container site. 1987: 2 accidents on Merriman Road between Starkey Road and approximate intersection with Meadowlark Road; none on Commonwealth Drive. Proposed use is expected to generate fewer than 20 vehicle trip-ends per day. 3 CIRCIILATION: Proposed access from Merriman Road; no connection to Commonwealth Drive is planned. Unless traffic generated exceeds expectations, no need for "one-way" flow is anticipated. Customers using rear storage units will be parking in a portion of the travel aisle. See site layout and amenities for further discussion. IITILITIES K-7 2 WATER: Existing well; 12" Starkey water line expected to be in place along Merriman Road by mid-1992. 2 SEWER: Existing 8" line available along Merriman Road. DRAINAGE 2 BASIN: Back Creek sub-basin. No stormwater detention required if interior loop access road is graveled rather than paved. 4 FLOODPLAIN: Engineering staff reports that building was surrounded by floodwaters in 1985 and that a detailed study of the 100 year flood level is needed. Engineering also recommends floodproofing foundation and basement areas (possibly raising or sealing ground-level walls). PIIBLIC SERVICES 3 FIRE PROTECTION: Currently lacks hydrant service (see utilities, water). Tanker truck service available (marginal 4-5 minute estimated response time). 3 RESCUE: Marginal with regard to established service standard (4- 5 minute estimated response time). NSA PARRS AND RECREATION: SCHOOLS: 4 ~7 TA1C RASE 2 LAND AND IMPROVEMENT VALUE: $150,000 TAgABLE GROSS SALES/YEAR: Unknown TOTAL EMPLOYEES: 0 TOTAL REVENUE TO THE COUNTY/YEAR: real estate only Approximately $1,695 improved ENVIRONMENT 2 A2R: 2 1iATER: 2 80IL8: 2 NOISE: 3 SZGNAGE: Not specified. Znd fronta elfootcand not more than one 1-1/2 sq.ft. of signage per q freestanding sign on site. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Core. Mini-warehouse/self storage is consistent with policy C-4 due to minimum number of access points onto Merriman Road and the complementary aspects of the existing building and with C-5 when separation, screening and buffering are provided to reduce nuisances with less intensive development. The proposal is inconsistent with policy C-2 due to the lack of an arterial highway or higher grade street network. STAFF gVALIIATION STRENGTHS: 1) Consistency with Core Policies C-4 and C-5. 2} Infili nature of proposal. 3) Petitioner has proffered to plant evergreen trees along north and east borders of subject site. 4) Petitioner has proffered to retain building's existing exterior and to apply earth tone colors to garage doors at the rear. pEARNESSEB: 1) Proposal is inconsistent with Core Policy C-2. 2) Subject site has suffered from flooding in the past. 3) Wide variety of possible future M-1 district uses poses the threat of incompatibility with nearby land uses. 4) Proposal would convert a building recognized as an historic resource into a storage operation. PROFFERS SIIGGESTED: 1) On-site uses will be limited to the following: wholesale business, storage warehouses; public utilities; silk screen material processing and similar operations. 2) No outside boat or recreational vehicle storage shall be permitted. ..__..v v~ a '~. •. i ~i•~l . ~rr ~ ~ tsT ~1 tw ~~! S G/100 uri':v'~ -~ ~ t~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ 5.7i' -ter - ~ r~~ ^~~- I.P. ~ . ~ ~1 ~, , ~W o~~ .~ ww .. t' O.I~~• ~ ; ~ ~ ,,a ~ +~ ,. ` ~ ' t ,n Q ~- ~ Q ~A .~°' ~ . t ~ ~ , ~~ ~ ,~ .. 1. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~g ~ t ~ • t ~ • k ` V p a , N r'~•r ~' ~ Q D I i~ ~M ~ ~ • - ~~ 1 '~, •~~~•+; ~~. •~~, ~~~ '~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,~ ,,. //~~R~ ~~ '~ `~ ~ oe, ~ ~ ~,~- ~,,... i / ~/ %/ Cep ~ c~dfi+,-l. ~r1A,v iR. ~-ti~ti~T~as .. . . STARifE,l' •_~l UNIr,~~ P ~1 ^~. C _ ~~i.1... i .~ )'. . ~. ',~. ~~ r •• 1UT sllaiN6 o1vIS1011 ... ~ ~.~ :.. ~ no~EllTr 10.1 Ac.1 foi< ~,, .. ;:..:, TFE WUNTY SCHOOL BOARO ,`: Mvaur~+`~.'~~ Of ROW:aXt COINTIf. YIkGIVIA ''• •-+` SITWTED M THE EAST 110E ~A. SEC. t01lTE t~l>I cAtE SM IMO IMiISTEAIAI OISTOICT ' ROYIfE COIMTr. SIKIMIA ~,'~ ~ Y 1 •~jti . , y,. ~ -P P _ _ ST Jg~' 9 77~ ~ ~ ~L ~' 4j #i, i D .OOC 1 VICINITY 'C~" )~'7 N ~ .ti •~~ ~ ~~ S1 ~ r•~y r i i ` .,,a ~~~ NORTB COMMUNITYSBRVICBS 3~1 Gilr~er P,ssociates 97.6-01-76 • •tr. nni~nsnnfin~f+w In the space below, please type in the metes and bounds legal description of the proper requested for rezoning. I 3n accurate metes and pounds description of thc~ property does not exist, you are responsible for ~bt~aininq an accurate description prior to submittal of a rezoning request. !tour application will not be accepted without this description. The metes ~d bounds description must coincide with the area depicted on the concep~~ plan. As an alternative tch flo let disk composed~in Wordperfect15e0 formats information on a 5 1/4 in PPY Owner's Name: acs/ Gi ~~~ i4ssoc~~J7`'e.s Date: ~v~-z ~ 1, l q4I DESCRIPTION: ~x A ~ 6 ~-~ i4' TAX ~1AP # 97.06=1-6 BEGINNING at corner 1, an iroa pia set, being inRoute the easterly right-of-way of Virginia Secondary 613 (Merriman Road)daContainereCorpthethenceWesterly corner of Corrugate . and with Virginia leaving Corrugated Container Corp Secondary Route 613 with a curve to the left which curve is defined by a delta angle of 1° 52' 45" a radius of 7927.87 feet, an arc of 260.02 feet, a chord of 260.00 feet and chord beariag N. 24° 46' 08Virginia leaving corner 2, an iron pia set; thence, Secondary Route 613 and with theofothewCountyoSchool division lines through prVirginia, N. 64° 30' 00" Board of Roanoke County, E. 125.71 feet to corner 3, an iron pin set; thence, S. 21° 08' 30" E. 218.17 feet to corner 4, aroierty pin set, said corner being on the wethence,pwith line of Corrugated Container Corp.; Corrugated Container Corp. S. 47° 17' W. 141.62 feet to corner 1, the place of BEGINNING aiatcpYeparedg 0.71 acres as more particularly shownConEngineers- by Buford T. Lumsden b Associates, P. . Surveyors, Roanoke, Virginia, dated June 16, 19$3; k-7 PROFFERED CONDITIONS -- 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES 1. Pine Trees, 5 feet tall, will be planted every ten feet at the rear and (school) side yard of the property. 2. The existing structure, as long as it is utilized, will be maintained with a predominately brick exterior. 3. Earth tone colors will be utilized on any painted portion o.f the existing structure. 4. The facility will not be utilized for the following: automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling; private off-street parking lots; and indoor flea markets; no outside boat or recreational vehicle storage. 5. No mini-warehouses will be constructed on the site. the o. If the existing structure is demolished or torn down, property will not be developed unless it is in substantial conformity with the concept plan dated January 25, 1992, attached hereto and made a part hereof. prof.n3.p lU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I1~~~~~~1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111Uj _ _ _ _ - ~.~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ APPEARANCE RE UEST - Q _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. __ _ SUBJECT __ __ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES = 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 tune 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. c • S Bakers will be limited to a resentation of their oint of vi - _ P p p ew only. Ques Lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c ~ s ~ _ • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. c _ __ _ • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _ • Speakers are requested'to leave any written statements and/or comments c with the clerk. - i • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED __ ~_ GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT M. _ ~ i ~ s - i PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK mlllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllillllllliilllllllllllliilllllllllllllllllllllillliilllilillllllllllllllillllllllillllilllllllllll~ n-i COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at July 1, 1992 (Audited) ~ of General ~ 1> Amount Fund Expenditures $5,419,414 7.51$ August 12, 1992 Dixie Caverns (100,000) Sept. 8, 1992 Cable TV budget (21,149) October 13, 1992 Bloodborne Pathogens Standards (33,800) October 27, 1992 Computer Upgrade L26,281) Balance as of Nov. 17, 1992 $5,138,184 Submitted By Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Note: On December 18, 1990 the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25$ of General Fund expenditures ($72,151,291). ~ ~` COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at July 1, 1992 $ 24,705 (Audited) Addition to Capital Reserve from 114,760 original 1992-1993 budget July 14, 1992 Lighting of Green Hill Park Ball Fields (15,000) October 13, 1992 Repair ladder truck at Cave Spring Fire Station (19,001) Balance as of November 17, 1992 S 105,464 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance N.3 COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA REBERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Beginning Balance at July 1, 1992 July 14, 1992 Information Program for Bond Referendum July 28, 1992 Roanoke Regional Housing Strategy August 12, 1992 September 8, 1992 September 22, 1992 October 13, 1992 October 27, 1992 Outside Grumman Grumman Space S' Grumman Balance Legal Assistance Litigation Litigation tudy Litigation as of November 17, 1992 Submitted by $ 50,000 (18,250) (2,000) (lo,ooo) (229) (869) (5,000) (941 $ 12,711 ~~,~ ~. ~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance AcrION No._-- ITEM NUNIBER__`~'"" AT A REGULAR NIEEfiING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 10, 1992 AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy, as of October 31, 1992. COUN'T'Y ADi~IINIS'I'RATOR' S COMMENTS SUMMARY OF INFO.RMATON: CAPITOLINE: GRES'rAR BA~vK CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS: SOU'TI:CnTES'P VIRGINIA SAVINGS & I/JAN LOCAL GOV''r INVESTMENT POOL: NA'T'IONS BANK REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: CEN`T'RAL FIDELI'I"Y FIRST VIRGINIA BANK SAVINGS: NATIONS BANK DOMINION BANK TOrAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respect ~ lly Subm' fed by red C. Anderson County Treasurer ACPION Approved ( ) iKotion by:_ Denied ( ) _ Received ( ) _ Referred ( ) _ To ( ) _ 2,139,968.61 100,000.00 2,135,4b5.57 1,000,000.00 4,080,000.00 782.28 4,722.59 9,460,939.05 Appro by- ,) Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy __ _ _ Johnson _ _ __ Kohnike __ __ Minnix _ ^_ _ Nickens ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER `"` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Report on Impact of Lake Gaston Pipline to the Roanoke River Basin COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At a recent Board of Supervisors meeting, Dr. Allan Huffman asked the Board to join the Roanoke River Basin Association to oppose the interbasin transfer of water from Lake Gaston to Virginia Beach. The issue was referred to County staff to research and report back to the Board. Letters were sent to the federal Corps of Engineers and the State Water Control Board asking if there would be any impact to the County's water supply or the wastewater treatment plant. Their responses are attached. These letter indicate that the Lake Gaston project would have no impact on the Roanoke Valley. Therefore, there is no reason for Roanoke County to become involved in this issue. Elmer C. odge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens .~ . ' ~~~~~ ~. REPLY TO ATTENTION OF' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT NORFOLK, 803 FRONT STREET NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510-1096 October 27, 1992 "~ Western Virginia Regulatory Section (Roanoke River) 84-0404-06 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge County Administer County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: This is in response to your October 22 letter regarding Roanoke County's position on Virginia Beach's Lake Gaston Pipeline project. As you know, the Norfolk District has repeatedly found that this project would not have any significant effect on the Roanoke River or its natural resources. Our permit decision has survived all legal challenges up to and including the United States Supreme Court. Your first question asks what impact the Lake Gaston project might have on your permit to withdraw water for your Spring Hollow Reservoir project. It is very hard to prove a negative, but I can't think of an reasonably foreseeable effect. All Corps permits (including yours) are subject to review (as described in 33 CFR 325.7) as new information becomes available, but no such new information has come to light so far which would lead us to review your permit. I'm not sure I completely understand t,.7he intent of your second q~l~~StlUi1. V1rglllla BeCl (.11',51 prVJeCt would def lilitely redji'~e fil7~v~iJ in the Roanoke River downstream of Roanoke Rapids. Your project would have a more complex effect, but downstream of your wastewater discharge the net effect on flows would be very small. Between your intake and Virginia Beach's, flow in the Roanoke River is regulated to a tremendous extent by Smith Mountain Lake, Leesville Lake, and John H. Kerr Reservoir. Water within the Pea Hill Creek arm of Lake Gaston (where Virginia Beach's withdrawal would be located) is well within treatability standards. You should contact the Virginia Department of Health, or perhaps the Virginia Water Control Board, if you are concerned, but I can't think of any effect your wastewater discharge could have on Virginia Beach's withdrawal (assuming you abide by your permitted effluent limitations) or, conversely, any effect their withdrawal could have on your discharge. I don't know if I have adequately addressed your questions or not. If you are concerned about a specific mechanism by which ~, 5 -2- Virginia Beach's project might have some effect on yours, please telephone me at (804) 441-7657 and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Sincerely, ~ ~r~~ J. Robert Hume, III Chief, Western Virginia Regulatory Section a e \ ~M..~ ~V®~L `/Y®i V V V ~~~~Y LL ®~ V JI~~JI ~~~ STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD Richard N. Burton !~''r (~ °~ .~,Q E',`.,~;~ i,.e~ Executive Director P. 0. Box 11143 Richmond, Virginia 23230-1 143 1804) 527-5000 TDD (804) 527-4261 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Mr . Ho~~~ This is in response to your letter of October 22, 1992 regarding the interbasin transfer of water from Lake Gaston and how this might impact Roanoke County. The proposed interbasin transfer will not impact Spring Hollow Reservoir or the wasteload allocations at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant because the proposed transfer is so far downstream of Roanoke County. The Gaston withdrawal does not impact hydrologic conditions on the Roanoke River in Roanoke County. Furthermore, the majority of the water used by Roanoke County is used nonconsumptively and will return to the Roanoke River at the wastewater treatment plant. The permits for the development of Spring Hollow Reservoir contain conservation conditions. These conditions were designed to reduce adverse impacts to the Roanoke River at Roanoke. Likewise, the conditions in discharge permits are designed to protect water quality standards during low flow events. All of these conditions would have been required whether or not a permit for a withdrawal from Lake Gaston was ever issued to Virginia Beach. I hope this has answered your questions. Please let us know if we can be of further asssistance. Sincerely, Richar N. Burton Executive Director cc: Robert G. Burnley Deputy Executive Director for Operations ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER v- / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of the upcoming FY 1993-94 Budget. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUNII~IARY OF INFORMATION: The following is a recommended agenda for the first budget work session in the FY 1993-94 budget process. 1. Discussion of New Revenue Sources a. Cigarette Tax b. Hotel/Motel Tax c. Sewer Rate Increase 2. Funding for the Convention and Visitor's Bureau 3. Funding for the Explore Road and operations 4. Discussion of the budget process a. Reinventing Government b. Capital Improvement Program c. Proposed Calendar of Events Respectfully submitted, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens November 17, 1992 EXECUTIVE SESSION County staff requests the Board to adopt a motion to enter into executive session within the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act as follows: (a) to discuss the disposition of publicly-held real estate (lease with Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, Inc.) in accordance with Section 2.1-344.A.3. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. (b) to discuss the acquisition of real property for public purposes in accordance with Section 2.1-344.A.3. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. (c) to discuss the assignment or appointment of specific public officers, or appointees in accordance with § 2.1-344 A 1. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THEROBANO OGRE COUNTYE ADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE 1992 ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, RESOLUTION 11179TY6WITHTTHEICODEXOFUVIRGINIA ING WAS HELD IN CONFORMI WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on this date pursuant to Virginia has convened an executive meeting 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. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: /~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session ACTION NO. A-1117/92-7 ITEM NO. ""~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit request of Pete Dodd T/A Brookside Par 3 to expand and operate a golf shop and instructional area located at 6303 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ~ s ~/~ y,,~,~~; ~,~° ~~ BACKGROUND: Brookside Par 3 is an existing 9-hole par 3 golf course. The petitioner proposes expansion of the facility in order to construct a golf shop and parking area on the north end of the site, off Clubhouse Drive, and to operate an instructional area on the south end of the site. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ALTERNATIVES• See attached staff report. Alternative 1: Approve the petition for a Special Exception Permit to expand and operate a golf shop and instructional area. Alternative 2: Deny the petition for a Special Exception Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. Respectfully submitted, i ~% ~~ _ ~~~~ C ~. Terrance ~ I~arr~nSgton Directo of Planning & Zoning i Approved, oz~'" "r ~-~- Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Approved Denied Received Referred to (~ Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy ( ) motion to ap rove Johnson ( ) Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs x x x x x cc; File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment STAFF REPORT ~~ CASE NUMBER: SE 2-11/92 REVIEWED BY: Lynn Donihe PETITIONER: Brookside Par 3 DATE: November 17, 1992 Petition of Brookside Par 3 for a special exception permit to build a golf shop on the north end and to use the south end for a training area, locates at 6303 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Petitioner currently operates a 9-hole par 3 golf course on the site. Request is to construct a golf shop and new on-site parking area off of Clubhouse Dr. and to use the southern portion of the site for ar instructional area. b. Concept plan describes request further. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. Part of the site is zoned B-2 and part is zoned R-1. Special exception permits are required for the expansion of the use in botk districts. b. The proposed zoning maps recommend R-2 zoning for the entire site. Golf courses are allowed in the new R-2 zoning district with special exception permit. c. Entrance permit required from VDOT. d. Site plan review required in order to ensure compliance with Count ordinances. SITE CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY: Level throughout, rising on western edge toward Williamson ans Florist Roads. GROUND COVER: Landscaped golf course with mature evergreens adjacent tc single family residences. AREA CHARACTERISTICS FUTURE GROWTH PRIORITY: Situated within the Peters Creek Communiti Planning Area, an area in which growth should be stimulated. Currently receiving urban services. GENERAL AREA is developed with commercial, single-family, and multi-family uses. 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 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has places this area within a Transition land use designation. Public anc private outdoor recreational facilities such as golf courses arE noted as desirable uses in this category. The development guideline in the transition category are not applicable to park developments. The Plan also places the area within a Surface Water and Flood Hazarc designation. The plan encourages protection of the natural vegetation in these areas and states that floodplain areas are ideal for parks and open space. 2 SURROUNDING LAND: Site is bounded by Williamson Road (a primary highway), Florist Road, Verndale Drive, and Clubhouse Drive. ThE southern portion of the site is adjacent to a county park, anc remainder of site borders on single-family residential uses. Proposed expansion of golf course should not significantly increasE impacts on surrounding properties. 2 NEIGHBORING AREA: Area is developed with a variety of commercial anc residential land uses, including a shopping center and multi-famil} housing across Clubhouse Drive. 3 SITE LAYOUT: Petitioner does not propose expansion of existinc building footprint. Concept plan shows proposed building and parkins area located outside of the floodplain. Parking area is locates adjacent to single-family residential sites -- site plan review will ensure that all required screening and buffer yards are met. N/A ARCHITECTURE: No renderings submitted. 3 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Per ordinance. There are existing maturE evergreens on side adjacent to single-family residential. Petitioner does not intend to disturb these trees. 1 AMENITIES: Proposed parking area will eliminate most, if not all, of the on-street parking required by the current site. No parkins spaces are required by the zoning ordinance for existing uses, but any new spaces must conform with the ordinance. 2 NATURAL AMENITIES: The west fork of Carvin Creek runs through the site. Proposed construction should not disturb creek and surroundinc vegetation. TRAFFIC 2 STREET CAPACITIES: 1990 ADT for Williamson road between the city line and Peters Creek Road was 17, 850. Since golf course is existinc on site, proposed golf shop expansion should not significantly increase traffic on surrounding streets. 1 CIRCULATION: Proposed parking lot addition will improve traffic circulation on Clubhouse Drive by eliminating most on-street parking. UTILITIES WATER and SEWER: Adequate treatment and transmission. A monitorinc manhole will be required. DRAINAGE ~_~ 3 BASIN: Tinker Creek. 3 FLOODPLAIN: A major portion of the site is located within the 100 year floodplain. Concept plan does not show proposed building o: parking within the floodplain. Site plan review will ensure tha- floodplain regulations are followed, as this is a critical watershe area. PUBLIC SERVICES 2 FIRE and RESCUE PROTECTION: Within established service standard. 1 PARRS AND RECREATION: Improving existing recreational facility is a heavily developed and populated area. N/A SCHOOLS: ENVIRONMENT N/A AIR: N/A WATER: N/A SOILS: N/A NOISE: 2 SIGNAGE: Per ordinance. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Transition and Surface Water/Flood Hazard Petitioner's request is consistent with the desired land uses in both o these land use designations. STAFF EVALUATION STRENGTHS: (1) Request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (2 Proposed on-site parking will eliminate most, if not all, golf cours parking on Clubhouse Drive. ROANOKE COUNTY APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE Pete Dodd T/A Brookside Par 3 1. Applicant's Name: Address• 6303 Williamson Road Zip: 24018 989-9528 (o) Roanoke, VA r1„ ~~.~, ~p~7 ~9Z ~{'.~ ~C Phone: 24019 Zip: 2 . Property owner' s name Pete B , Dodd Address: 5924 Blackhorse Lane Phone: 774-9960 Roanoke, VA 3 . Location of Property • North side abutts Clubhouse Drive, east abutts homes on Greenway Drive, south abutts Verndale Drive, west abutts both Florist Road ana wittiamson xoaa. Size of property 19.66+ acres/sq.ft. Size of proposed special exception use 19.66+ acres/sq.ft. 4 . Tax Map # : 38.06-8-2 Old Tax Map # 5. Zoning Classification: B-2 and R-1 6. Magisterial District Location: Hollins 7. Existing Land Use: Golf course operation 8. Proposed Special Exception Use: To build .a golf shop on the north e-,nd and to use the south end for a training area. 9. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Transition 10. Proposed Annual Gross Revenue: $200,000 Value of Land $241,000 Value of Proposed Buildings $120,000 (new only. Value of Machinery & Tools 0 Number to be Employed 5 11. Check Completed Items: 8~" x 11" plot plan X Consultation , X List of adjacent property owners x Letter of Application X Filing fee made payable to "County of Roanoke" $1,875 Special Use Permit for sanitary fill method garbage and refuse site $40 All other Special Exception Uses 12. Date of Application: 13. Applicant's Signatuz N/A October 7, 1992 Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Harrington: Ki Please accept this request for a special exception-use for my operation at Brookside Par 3 Golf Course. I would like to build a golf shop on the north end of tax parcel 38.06-8-2 and an instructional area on tax parcel 38.06-8-1. As you know, these parcels are aleady being used for the operation of the course. While Brookside has been located on these parcels for quite some time, it is my understanding that a special exception is required. I am willing to work with your staff further as needed. Thank you. rely, ~L~ Pete Dodd 1 H +Je !Yti~L• p ~ ~.~.r_ •~.:•...... ... ~.. ..~~/~y..~~~-gyp .. / - 1 ` ~ _ ~ - -_ r e - - _ -a - .. ~ ~!_ mss,.. .m a y ~\ a/ ,~ ~. i .:• -~ •.~ 110' .n .iT AO.- 'r ~. / 7-15 1.11 O ~ ' ,~Q -_ ~ :_ .~ ~ ~ - ~ . N' ~" ~~ ~ .+ `~ ` ^: .~ uos~°~1,1 M :- / / /' / •_^. J ~/ .~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, i .~ l~ 1 s ' Z 9 C~ G ~ 5 c+ C SG Q ~- 0 k i I /~ 4 .? r" / ~ .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ a;. / . )~ ,~ Z < ~. .u r~ ~ ~ '~ v • ` ^ 1 • ,mom ~ ~ ~ .QS ~ ~ cD ' 1~ • N y ,~~ ~,t CC1~ C2IL ~CDr+~uaa~g -~• ~ '~ s ~~ c.. ~~ t1 ~ ~~ Ift~ ~- z 0 .. '. , 1 V \ i !< ~. . r .o' g ..0 ± .~ ~ ' ' ~. , ~ , •. I , ' « s .. .\ i t. - '-. s 4 13 I~ ri. b- st'~ ~. 4' •'- -~.• 4 ('a' ~re.rer~ _ tea- .tj9 r ` 14 .. ~~ ..... ,,. 2 ~ 091_ _ ~ ~ ~ -.r`,~. .. ti ° zzza ~ ~9 ~. ~ - , -~ _ P Q\\ ~ ~I .~ - :. y 'y < / .. ro I Z ~ ~ ``• ' ~~ . 6 ~ o ~ _ :• .yam ski. °i ~'.a S' +'O s : ~ - 4' ` aft - it 4 _ c • ~ ' ~.. ., a l•~ 9 . ~- & ~ . - - ,. ~6• ` C , ,9r w ¢,a 5I ~. Fit, "° ° ~ _ _ e. ` \. -. wz, ~ i~ `'''a ;8 o - r C n K ~ _ 91 yr ... - e a ... ~ 0 .. ~ ~~ft '- - ~` - _ -.. ~y ~ rm~ Z Yom'. -+ + ~ct ~ ~. r~.~, Z ~ P .~ _ - ~ pie, bliO f tt~, .. • ~ J ` - ` r °~a M ~ _ .n ~ .. ~ ~ It ` .. ~ -. g Z1 `\\ - ~ pl oVP£Z - ~ ~ .. •~ I =~ n II j o ,~ ~ S 4 - _ \; t ._~ ° •' ;y~q - n ~ " ~ I ~to~ 1 ~ ~~~ t •o , ~::. -I l ., t. • s~~c ~ b Ir! ~ ~ ~ nyygnl~ ~ a . I ~ ~ '^t .. ~~ e r~ oo / ~' Z L~s~ pe ~~' s,r / •f4'' A ~'" iZai '-~ ~ ~.. ~ 1 f County of Roanoke Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum TO: Lee Eddy FROM: Terry Harrington DATE: November 17, 1992 RE.: Special Exception Request of Wayne Holley; Golf Driving Range on Hollins Road. If the Board wishes to attach conditions to the use and operation of the golf driving range, here is some suggested wording: (1) Vegetation and trees along creeks shall be preserved in order to protect water. quality, provide a visual. screening effect, minimize light glare on adjacent properties and streets, and for the safety of adjoining properties._ This shall not prohibit routine maintenance of trees and vegetation when required for -- healthy growth and for safety and welfare of the public. (2) In the event stray golf balls become a problem for adjoining property owners, the owner/operator of the driving range shall be required to install netting, fencing, or other method(s) of retaining golf balls on the site. AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE 111792-8 TO AMEND PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING OF A 1.19-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 6560 COMMON~PEALTH DRIVE (TA% MAP NO. 87.14-3-2.1) IN THE CAVE BPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-1, LIGHT IriDIISTRIAL DISTRICT, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT/CONDITIONAL (AMENDMENT TO PROFFERS) UPON THE APPLICATION OF CAREEN CONTROLS INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 27, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held November 17, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 2, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, this property was rezoned to M-1, Light Industrial District, with proffered conditions, on November 28, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1.19 acres, as described herein, and located at 6560 Commonwealth Drive (Tax Map No. 87.14-3-2.1) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-1, Light Industrial District, to the zoning classification of M-1, Light Industrial District/ Conditional, with amended proffered conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Carlen 1 controls, Inc. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following amendments to proffered conditions approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 28, 1989, which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: (1) The property will not included permitted uses for: (a) Automobile painting, upholstering, 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 Supervisors; and (e) Seed and feed stores. (2) A minimum '~~z 50-foot buffer yard along the western property ate- +- ~. }w ~„--=~t~~ F" "c.. if~~t~i -$ ce'~t9 ~ ~ n ~ 6~---~~ i '-' boundary shall 9~.~c~e~i-3~3~-9i-i~ir~~c^c-zz-v=« u~~ 7 ,.,,.,..-. be established. During development, a temporary barrier shall be erected along the buffer line to avoid disturbing vegetation within the buffer yard After completion of development Virginia pines which, if they fell, could fall onto the parking lot shall be removed and a more desirable evergreen species shall then be planted to replace said Virginia pines on a one-to-one ratio. (3) Sound levels shall not exceed 60 dba when measured at adjoining residences. (4) Hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on this property. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin located N. 27 deg. 15' 35" E. 41.83 feet from the southwest corner of Lot 6, Block "G," Section 3 of Penn Forest (PB 6, page 83), said pin being the N.E. corner of the parcel herein described; thence N. 2 34 deg. 38' 24" E. 211.07 feet to a set pin; thence S. 51 deg. 23' 57" E. 264.68 feet to a set pin; thence S. 38 deg. 36' 03" W. 99.12 feet to a set pin on the right-of- way of Commonwealth Drive; thence with the right-of-way of Commonwealth Drive, a curve to the right with a radius of 55 feet and an arc of 109.70 feet to a set pin; thence continuing with Commonwealth Drive with a curve to the left and a radius of 25 feet and an arc of 22.39 feet to a found pin; thence N. 51 deg. 23' 57" W. 250 feet to the Place of Beginning, containing 1.193 acres and being Tract 1 of the Southwest Industrial Park, Phase 3, as shown on a plat by John D. Abbott, P.E., CLS, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke in Plat Book 12 at page 173. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy NAYS: Supervisors Minnix, Nickens A COPY TESTE: /'Y . Mary H. Al en, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 3 S-1 PETITIONER: CAREEN CONTROLS CASE NUMBER: 19-10/92 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 2, 1992 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 17, 1992 A. REQUEST Petition of Carlen Controls Inc. to amend conditions on a 1.19 acre parcel zoned M-1 conditional, located at 6560 Commonwealth Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mike Pace representing Jan Oliver, 3616 Meadowlark Road, said that his client opposes a reduction in the buffer because of the negative impact on her property in terms of aesthetics and value. When Ms. Oliver bought her house in 1990, she had her agent inquire about the buffer to ensure it was there; she relied on the 100 foot buffer when she bought the property. Mr. Pace presented photos taken from Ms. Oliver's property showing the property line. He pointed out that it was Roanoke County, not the owner, that recommended and required that certain restrictions be imposed on the property to protect the adjacent neighborhood; the most important of which is the 100-foot buffer. The 1989 staff report cited several significant findings: 1) The area proposed for rezoning was retained in the R-1 district to serve as a buffer between the adjoining neighborhood and the Southwest Industrial Park. 2) Policy I- 9suggests that exceptional design measures are necessary to mitigate land use impacts when residential and industrial uses are adjacent to one another. 3) The rezoning petition was not accompanied by any proffers, and the staff at that time specifically recommended that the owner voluntarily proffer several conditions one of which was the 100-foot proffer. A reduction in the buffer at this point would amount to a complete reversal of what happened only three years ago. The Commission asked Mr. Pace what the negative impact would be for his client on the change in proffered condition. Mr. Pace responded that there are several but the ones that are most important have to do with the negative impact on the value of the property upon resale. What was done before was reasonable and justifiable and we think it ought to stay. William Andrews stated that this was his second time back and restated that he wants the 100-foot buffer to remain to ensure his privacy. He expressed concern that a reduction in the buffer would lower his property value. He said that Carlen Controls has other options without encroaching into the residential area. Richard Blasser expressed concern with noise. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commission wanted to know if there were any regulations as to plantings when the 100- foot buffer was set up; is it conceivable that the owner could clear 50 feet of plantings that is there now and still comply with the 100-foot buffer? Staff stated that the proffer was written in such a way that existing vegetation was to remain. .'° 2 The Commission asked about truck traffic. Mr. Carlen said that there is an occasional flatbed that brings in steel, but most deliveries are by local delivery trucks and UPS. Ms. Hooker expressed concern that the replacement trees may not be as dense as the existing buffer. Mr. Natt said the type E screening and buffering will provide the dense screening. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. The property will not include permitted uses for (a) automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling; (b) manufacturing of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products; (c) veterinary hospitals and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards; (d) flea markets unless a special exception has been granted by the Board of Supervisors; (e) seed and feed stores. 2. A minimum 50-foot buffer yard along the western property boundary shall be established. During development, a temporary barrier shall be erected along the buffer line to avoid disturbing vegetation within the buffer yard. After completion of development, Virginia pines which, if they fell, could fall onto the parking lot, shall be removed and a more desirable evergreen species shall then be planted to replace said Virginia pines on a one- to-one ratio. 3. Sound levels shall not exceed 60 dba when measured at adjoining residences. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. on this property. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt stated that he was involved with the 1989 rezoning and agreed with Mr. Natt about why the 100-foot buffer was placed on the property. Knowing the use of the property it is not unreasonable to see a 50-foot buffer there. In my opinion it's not a negative impact, and I move to recommend approval of the petition with proffered conditions. Messrs. Gordon and Robinson and Ms. Hooker concurred with the 50-foot buffer yard. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Hooker, Witt, Gordon NAYS: Massey ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE Mr. Massey said that he too was here in 1989 when the 100-foot buffer was recommended. Ms. Oliver bought her property in good faith as did Mr. Carlen, all knowing that the 100- foot buffer was there and I think it should stay that way. G. ATTACHMENTS: -Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map - Staff Report _ Other ~,, Terrance Ha 'ngton, cretary Roanoke C unty Planning Commission MEMORANDUM J~~ TO: Roanoke County Planning Commission FROM: Tim Beard DATE: October 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Petition of Carlen Controls to Amend Conditions Approved in 1989 Carlen Controls Inc., manufacturer of feedback devices, encoders, sensors and other similar precision equipment, is proposing to amend one of the proffered conditions on its 1.193 acre portion of _property approved for rezoning from R-1 to M-1 Conditional in December 1989 (see attached). At that time, the original tract totaled 11.84 acres. Proffer #2, accepted in 1989, requires a 100-foot buffer yard. The purpose of this request is to remove a portion of the required 100-foot buffer yard in order to construct an approximate 5,000 sq.ft. building addition and associated parking. The petitioner is requesting reduction of the proffered natural buffer from 100 feet to 30 feet in order to expand the facility. The proposed building addition can be realized without modifying the buffer yard proffer. However, the area required for expanded parking can only be found within a portion of the 100-foot buffer yard. The owners have informed the staff that, at this time, there is an existing parking shortage on the site. Thus, expanding the parking lot is a more immediate concern than the proposed building addition. If no buffer yard .proffer is applied to this site, the County's Type E buffer yard would be required. This Type E standard requires a 35 to 50 foot buffer yard heavily vegetated with evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs (and an 8' high opaque fence in the case of the 35' yard). The current proposal to reduce the buffer yard to a minimum of~ 30 feet does not conform to this general code provision of the County. Any proffer proposing a buffer of less than 35 feet should not be accepted by the County. In considering this proposal, staff focused on three site components most affected by the proposed buffer yard reduction and accompanying development: 1) screening and buffering; 2) parking; and 3) stormwater detention/drainage. 1. Screening and Buffering At the time the property was originally rezoned to M-1 in 1989, no specific uses were identified for any of the 11.84 acres. The original 100-foot wide buffer was an effort to provide the adjacent neighborhood with an area sufficiently large enough in size and dense enough in vegetation to successfully mitigate potential negative impacts from any of a variety of industrial uses. Carlen Controls is not a substantial negative impact industry in terms of noise, dust, or aesthetics. ~' 2 The VA Department of Forestry has suggested, and the staff concurs, that "upon establishing the new buffer line, a temporary barrier be erected along the line to keep workers and equipment from disturbing vegetation in the buffer area during development. The forestry department also recommends removing all Virginia pines within striking distance of the parking lot after construction due to their tendency to fall during a storm. Desirable evergreen species should then be planted to replace the Virginia pines. These suggestions can be accomplished during site plan review for the project. 2. Parkin The location of the expanded parking lot will be closely linked to whatever new buffer line is created. The petitioner has indicated that as many as 30 workers could be on-site for the main shift necessitating at least 30 spaces per County standards. The concept plan indicates proposed incursion no further than 50 feet into the existing buffer which the staff estimates could be further reduced under a different design including narrower traffic aisles. Rather than encroaching within 30 feet of the rear boundary, alternative space and aisle locations could allow for as much as 50 to 60 feet of the existing buffer to remain. 3. Stormwater Detention/Drainage Regarding stormwater detention and drainage, Carlen Controls must submit detailed calculations for future review in order to determine if existing facilities can handle the increased runoff created by this proposed expansion. In summary, a reduction in the 100-foot buffer yard may be warranted given the operating characteristics of Carlen Controls. However, a 30-foot buffer proffer cannot be accepted as it violates general County zoning ordinance standards for screening and buffering. The staff has concluded that a buffer yard of 50-60 feet will allow the owner to expand the building and parking lot in conformity with the submitted concept - plan and County standards. Other than the requested buffer yard reduction, all of the other existing proffers accepted in 1989 will remain intact. These include limited hours of operation from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. and maximum sound levels of 60 dba measured at adjoining residences. Also, the following industrial uses will continue to be specifically prohibited on the property: automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling; pottery/figurine and similar ceramic manufacturing; veterinary hospitals and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards; flea markets; and seed and feed stores. ajb s-r 1989 Proffers: (1) The property will not include permitted uses for: (a) Automobile painting, upholstering, 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 Supervisors; and (e) Seed and feed stores. (2) A minimum 100 foot buffer yard along the western property boundaries to be otherwise administered in conformance with Section 21-92 of the Zoning Ordinance; that existing vegeta- tion be retained within the 100 foot buffer yard, and supplemented where necessary in order to maintain the existing screening of this site from adjoining residences. (3) Sound levels shall not exceed 60 dba when measured at adjoining residences. (4) Hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. " to 11:00 p.m. on this property. 5. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be December 19, 1989. On motion of Supervisor Robers, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by .the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett ~~~ THE UNDERSIGNED does hereby proffer the following conditions which shall apply to the 1.19 acre parcel of land located at 6560 Commonwealth Drive in the County of Roanoke: 1. The property will not include permitted uses for: a. Automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or j 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 Supervisors; and e. Seed and feed stores. 2. A minimum 50-foot buffer yard along the western property boundary shall be established. During development, a temporary barrier shall be erected along the buffer line to avoid disturbing vegetation within the buffer yard. After 'I completion of development, Virginia pines which, if they fell, could fall onto the parking lot, shall be removed and a more desirable evergreen species shall then be planted to replace said Virginia pines on a one-to-one ratio. 3. Sound levels shall not exceed 60 dba when measured at adjoining residences. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on this property CSTERHDUOI, fERGUSON, MATT, AHERON & AGEE ATTD R N EYS-AT-LAW RDANGKE, VIRGINIA 24019-1699 ~~ t WITNESSETH the following signatures as of November 4, 1992: ERIC T. CAREEN, Owner SHIRLEY OLICK, Owner CAREEN CONTROLS, INC., Occupant By c.~ .,:~ c ~-- I t s "i-~r~ ~ s . prof.nl.h CSTERHOUOT, FERGUSON, NATT,AHERGN & AGEE ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW RGANOKE, VIRGINIA 24G1~3-1fi99 2 Date Rec .: ~'o~ ~ ~~j" Received By: Case No.: Ord. No.: OANORE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION ~~~e4C Ribs ~ -- ~`~ R 1. Owner's Name• Shirley B, .Bolick. & Eric T. Carlen Phone • 772-1736 T/A Carlen Controls, Inc. Address: 6560 Commonwealth Drive P.O. Box 21068 Roanoke VA 24018 2. Applicant's Name• Shirley Bolick & Eric Carlen. Phone' 772-1736 Address' 6560 Commonwealth Drive, P.O. Box 21068, Roanoke, VA 24018 3. LoCatlon of Property' Southwest Industrial Park Tax Map Number (s) : 87.14-3-2.1 4. Magisterial District: Cave Spring 5. Size of Property: 1+ acre 6. Existing Zoning: M1-C Existing Land Use: Industrial 7. Proposed Zoning' Removal of proffers Proposed Land Use: Industrial expansion 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Principal 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.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: $85,000* ($150,000 existing) es ima e 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application.' Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: X Letter of Application X Concept.Plan X Metes and Bounds Description X List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) X Wr tten Proffers X Application Fee X Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: Signature ~_ . ~~ .~ Date g -20 -9~- • r ~• __ ~~ CWM/rf iNl TALLY.:.. ,~/'' ~/ s~ I(ANIfJ Aa'M~ A-r G•NTA/NINf r.cecs. ~ .,t...ara/A/t N•T A ~ .j'~ ~~ e nl ~ ~i ' r_ ~ ,. ,~ q r' 1 • ~[r oN~rO'S ~, -- -. M --'AN.1 {AMi <V1rMbtr~~ T.ttit a ~ ; .. I. - ~# 1 *a~~i o ' 1 ~ `mow ''~. ~oPos e ~ , o - o _ o u T -• c.iv • H -- N ~ .. ^!Kf Lwr -• r. i.}au ~ 1 f/iN ~(t 1 "~ - ~,,,•~ (:M, _. , Pro posed ~ ~ ` kl K~ \ ~ Is9aK i .. W 3i• AAa• ~ I 1I' /t~ ~ .rvt /iIl A7A.;y . 2 nriY cwtt = 1 ~. . • _aaw •laA. '~• ~~ ,~P~n.. •Floor ilw. 128.35• So •_~ It1. ' YRItI'tlA/ li• ~ IaY,yI ~ I t f. It w/aaa . ~ f f • • ` 1 • ~.. / f.vwluwq a Z .a. ~ ~. /1if N/A.a -- - .M. -1-3 °_~ t-+ /a.s~,e,ar• ------ .n s 3a' 86' 0$ M(` "' ~9.fL/ - -- ~ ~ - '/lI~4Nl ~~ IA•I• IJ" CM/ ~ NI t/ S W/ •t, •/ Ar •YIf1Ir /R./. M1MraiwA /Wl. !IT[ O/-TANtt ~ NOO /r• •1• ~ ' a f'^/ • /I r.t• r/M •A'I~ /N V. -~ pA/tN tlA=?lw~s,1. t1•a 1 . ' p er.. rv,p . iLa D>r'i v~ r 11 .. • U .~. •tf. J' ~. •I•IIA' _ _ ' •,fl~r~ SAN. MANIN(l /• ~ 7rr • //M.a,a ..Alb-•• , ~ /NV. • I~O.•~ J-~ • ~ • ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ti o r ~ ii ~ M T tT ~ ~ • • ~ M I, I!1 t1 ~ • o~ ., _ .~- ~ • It - oc ,~ ~ 4f .11 p ~M '~ ~ . ~ v • ~~ 10 ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ti~ ~ o '~~j ,s~ ` 11 ~ ib ~,~o '~ ~ A ~ • .1 i ~ w ~ / ~ ~~ 13 ~ ~ 1.1 12 ~ ~' , .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o • ~o « ~ ~e 16 ~~-~ ~ ~ 2S ~ ~ ~ • ~~' » H ~ ~~~ ~ 1.11 i 24 ~ REZONING & LAND USE PERMITS REVIEW COMMENTS . S-I OCTOBER pLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM ~ ~~ PRIG DEPAI~II~T PROJECT CAREEN CONTROLS INC.: M-1C TO M-1 (ELIMINATE CONDI~N 29800 IbQANOIa;, 24018-079 -_ PLEASE REVIEW AND RETURN COMMENTS gy WEDNESDAY - SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 ~Nt S~crlaN of T=orb€SrE ~ ~~~~} AFrEcr~p 13y THIS R~bV~sr i S PR i m~2i~y ;~ ERR ~ ~ r ~ ~ : ~ ~, ~Y SVcCESSa~~I~~'~ LOuJ, ` ~ 4.(/~G-t'~~ol~( 5Q S~ F j ~ , ~ l ~ Ql~ ~rtlTy s d ~C.~ G ;, t ;fe ,` , ~ ,' '~. F ?. ) e~, 6F N~AJENI QLAc.K cNFl~2y fl/JQ /ZED ~f}PL~, Ol~k-E ~TH~.r f3v~FE(L / -~- utrvt Is ES ~~gL1S1-(ED l~ i E-~tPoR1~R~~ BARRl~2 sr/~~zr~ ~ ~ ~' ~ R EcTE p A ~ o y { ; . NG~ fiNE ~ IsuC Ta keEP wo(~K~`R..S f9-~tJO ~Qu ~ P-ne~ur i ,.. ' ~Reh . - ,t , DIS?uRg/>V4 V~GE1-pTIoN iRl 'rK~ BVFFE2 /~R~~} OUR(N4 DEVtzoPr~etiT",` ' ps~r~>r2 ~~ Co~SiR/cT/o,v ~s Cor+~P~~Tt~ ViRG-Inl1~ Pi~t1~,S ~ ~ 1 rH 5?21Ktn,c: P IS~RNc~ ~~ rKe PRRKc~v 4 Lvr SNav~ o ~z Rc~o~~ >7 /+s ~ ~(~s -S ~} ulE,~x iPoor~ ~ B~z~rne-~o~p~p gPec(~s ~{g,- ~ovt~D c~}u5t D/~i~ilq~E iu i9- S'~P ,. , `-n'/.. , ,_,: `" Coti1 SI D E2 PcAnJrING ~ REQvtPEp g~,~FEjz rR~t~' wN1TE `PiA/t /}cRaSS~ Tk t S dR~~q A~F,~ SovhE ~/ic/~S ' a ~2 ~ ~~ and /ED >~IISTEH o ~ F ~ c. a~u ~ r~C P R d P~ R7-Y LINE cJNE/Qc SC=E ~/ahT~+ c,iTy 1-lRS ~CCN H~Gy 5~~~~~ ~y _. ~~~ ~ ~~~~ 3~ s~G i i4+} TQ +~nnTmTl'~PIAr C07~r`~Q' TC nGf~~1T06`11 . TTCT2 DQ~7~RCR CTT1R *** ROANORE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION 1. Owner's Name: Shirley B. Bolick & Eric T. Carlen Phone: 772-1736 T/A Carlen Controls, Inc. Address: 6560 Commonwealth Drive, P.0. Box 21068, Roanoke .VA 24018 ___ 2 . Applicant' s Name • Shirley Bolick & Eric Carlen Address• 6560 Commonwealth Drive, P.0. Box 21068, Roanoke, VA 24018 3. Location of Property: Southwest Industrial Park Tax Map Number (s) : 87.14-3-2.1 4. Magisterial District: Cave Spring 5. Size of Property: 1+ acre 6. Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: 7. Proposed Zoning: M1-C Industrial Remoual of proffers Proposed Land Use: Industrial 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: ansion Principal Industrial 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No % (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.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: $85,000* ($150,000 ' existing) es ima e 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: X Letter of Application g Concept.Plan X Metes and Bounds Description g List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) g Vicinity Map X Application Fee Written Proffers x Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: Signature ~, ~1~,.-! .~ Date . ~ ~~ , . , Date Rec .: ~'02 ~ ~v~ Received By: Case No.: Ord. No. ~~~c Ribs ~ ... I Phone: 772-1736 ~ -20 -91-- 8-a d -g ~ . T CAVFSPNING f~ DO C9 'IC 4,~ ••• E F ~ r EN FOREST` e ~ STA7WN ~ ~m~,~,' o `~ . / • °~ ~~ a q, (p P N~ °q ~pf M4 h ~q< t c ~ 3- '+' P C c ` ¢ .In. _ •. ~ ~vIARK r ~~ ~ ~ qp ~rS P~ HUNTING .q74 °••. 6 ~ > GO. ~~ HG .TSk~ SC .I HILLS... O f w ~ ~ 4 ~ U `P4 W a •. E~51 r87 \3a D / •°« h ~F I / W I vc. arh Q. 4lr(r ae, Y I ifNN 1 V "[' u /~ - REEK aR.$ ~g ~ A y o S " o¢T P ` rp00 I • ~ ~~,•\ UN /N t ~., u 4' co S/ON L/NE wotd~o ~ 3 ... ~ •• 734R7fEY ~ M .................. ~ -. n r .1300 ....~11.``.. .'.'~ .... .. ~ ~PLANTf Y I C I N I T Y MAP B ';DEaIVO~i • f.g5rnawsnusya+; <.~yg. .A. ~ r` ~i 0 a NORTN j~9 31 s ss -~ - . ti'~ 32 'P° 3T ', /ae 30 nP .~ i ~ 2, IaiT 29 0 `+ a'~~'y ie.a ''9z .~,p s 38 / ~ Sk ~~ N 9 ~ A ~ ~o h / N~ 7629 j e° ~o DVS sy 60 ~ a h ,~ v _ •~9a MapOPO e°616 rSex 3610 ~ as q 9 ,°~~S~O 31u ,yg~ 6 ~'a ~ '362° 25 N, 24 ;. ~ ~ ~ ~ . b x ~ ~ `650 28 ~" ~ n cT 6w ,60 n ~ 7 u ~ loo l02 sa ` 0 8 ~ / 6 P/O M87.13~ I- I e~,,s ~~ 2p9H ::/ ~Oa ~ 'p ~ M1 C CoaNy StAoo/ Boord o/ RoanoAr s'as 3d hb\ / yb 9 c Conn/y sa aou+ 6;9 e^' , Caw 5~171np H/pA SeAoo/ is ~ 3 ~ u • 6~6 ~'ea J ~ ~' ° ,~'N ~ ' s r ~ I j640 ,a~ ' z, s 'sa '~ ' e ~1 ry" ss ~.' 14 / ~ebti0 12 ' ~° sa; 9bh9 C `/ p~ h .~ s 2.1 M 1 C \~ Zr ~, oohb 13 s~ ., 1.19 Ae ~ ~ ~ 2 2 s I I 12 ,,o hb j ~ 5.95 At 10 Y ~° 13 oa ti 'aq s „ bb P c ~ M2 9 ~ 312 rsv cols h ~ M 2 1 8 ~P~ 1 \ ;~ ri2e ~''~yo 0 'asa • 110 • 3 3 z / ~ a 'hb- 15 ~ s ~•~ ~ 1°°69 ~ i e ~ ?z ~ x145 ~o 31; 2T $ H 25 ,~0 16 1.11 "" +~ ~ ~ Zti M2• c e ~ s 24 1~c 17 : ~ ~/s by "a' b ~s a° ~ rB91 ps,4S ~ Q ~ 2t ,f' M 146 3 • ~ 1.5 ~Y j 3s ~ `~ ~ b ?y ' 23 h e° Ab ~ M 2 ho ~ h° ''4 M2 W o h ao .7 h y 'o s : ~ Nasy • o bti 19 as-s-z ~t,.y° 1.8 ~r s +r Y .~ ti ~ .s 22 ti ~ / ,~ s9~ 8 MZ 1.8 c . ` ~ 1.02 Ac ~' M 2 a r ~ u.Y ~Zn 'sf '~ ~za.7a ~' ~ ~ bhti M2 s ~° nzja $1 .'ry 20 ~ s-a-/ ~3s.oo 33 ~ / Rt ~aa F 21 hh ' / m h ~= t ~ ~ 12 568 ~ e31 '~ !1 sx J7?i qti h ~ 1.01 Ac ° 2 M2 J~^" J~JZ 32 ~ s h,:a„ ~ M 2 ~a ENO S.r 19 a Sh ~ wi 1.4 3 .~ :'' ° a ~° ,~ 2.02 Ac o° O M 2 h . Is ~, Z ~ b M 2 1 - -'• - 18 A u~ ~ c L0 ALL OTHER PARCELS ~ . ~` 24 0° ~ by 3.02 Ac 19 ARE ZONED R-1 ' r • ~ 4.28Ac ` ao<N o- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ;- ~ CAREEN CONTROLS, INC. a. AND ZONING 87.14-3-2.1 ~2.• M1C TO M1 (Removal of Proffered Conditions) +,. SI AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING OF A 1.19-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 6560 COMMONWEALTH DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 87.14-3-2.1) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT/CONDITIONAL (AMENDMENT TO PROFFERS) UPON THE APPLICATION OF CAREEN CONTROLS INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 27, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held November 17, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 2, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, this property was rezoned to M-1, Light Industrial District, with proffered conditions, on November 28, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1.19 acres, as described herein, and located at 6560 Commonwealth Drive (Tax Map No. 87.14-3-2.1) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-1, Light Industrial District, to the zoning classification of M-1, Light Industrial District/ Conditional, with amended proffered conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Carlen 1 S-1 controls, Inc. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following amendments to proffered conditions approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 28, 1989, which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: (1) The property will not included permitted uses for: (a) Automobile painting, upholstering, 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 Supervisors; and (2) A minimum meet 50-foot buffer yard along the western property ~, a ~ w.. ~...~~..:,_ ~-w..a n6usiaai~-~e8-c9-p~-~lszr~-~=e 3~~i~i-ia~zr~~riir-@9Ft~61~uaiee i 94tp~-~-e~kei~ea~r-e-3}eGES ~ei~~9~ins~izr-z-ire =---^_}---~ e~eeg e€-~~s s-~ boundary shall be established. During development, a temporary barrier shall be erected along the buffer line to avoid disturbing vegetation within the buffer yard. After completion of development, Virginia pines which, if they fell, could fall onto the parking lot, shall be removed and a more desirable evergreen species shall then be planted to replace said Virginia pines on a one-to-one ratio. (3) Sound levels shall not exceed 60 dba when measured at adjoining residences. (4) House of operation shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on this property. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin located N. 27 deg. 15' 35" E. 41.83 feet from the southwest corner of Lot 6, Block "G, " Section 3 of Penn Forest (PB 6, page 83), said pin being the N.E. corner of the parcel herein described; thence N. 34 deg. 38' 24" E. 211.07 feet to a set pin; thence S. 51 deg. 23' 57" E. 264.68 feet to a set pin; thence S. 38 2 .S- ~ deg. 36' 03" W. 99.12 feet to a set pin on the right-of- way of Commonwealth Drive; thence with the right-of-way of Commonwealth Drive, a curve to the right with a radius of 55 feet and an arc of 109.70 feet to a set pin; thence continuing with Commonwealth Drive with a curve to the left and a radius of 25 feet and an arc of 22.39 feet to a found pin; thence N. 51 deg. 23' 57" W. 250 feet to the Place of Beginning, containing 1.193 acres and being Tract 1 of the Southwest Industrial Park, Phase 3, as shown on a plat by John D. Abbott, P.E., CLS, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke in Plat Book 12 at page 173. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are, repealed. c:\wp57\agenda\zoning\cazlen 3 O~ (\OANp~.~ Z .A ~ ~ i$ 150 ~ $$ YEAflS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SFS~?UICENTENN\P~' A Beautiful Beginning M E M O R A N D II M TO: Edward A. Natt, Attorney FROM: Brian T. Duncan, Assistant Director DATTs: November 12, 1992 SIIB.7ECT: Carlen Controls - Southwest Industrial Park s-I ALl-AMERICA CITY ''I I~/ 1979 1989 Year Buffer - distance from Tax Parcel Company Opened property line 87.14-3-2.1 87.14-3-1.11 87.14-3-1.5,6 87.14-3-1.4 87.14-3-1.7 87.18-3-34 87.18-3-1.1 Carlen Controls Noble-Met Brumfield Insulation Systems Southeastern Optical Green & Associates and PHI Commonwealth Tool 1990 100' buffer 1991 35' to dumpster/parking 1989 45' to building 1989 40' to building 1990 30' to dumpster; 40' parking 1987 45' to loading area 1986 45' to parking area Corrugated Container Corporation Duncan/Allied Moving Architectural Wood Primedica - under construction Virginia Construction Supply - recent purchase Virginia Department of Transporation - recent purchase P.O- BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VA 24018-0798 (703> 772-2069 FAX. NO.: <703) 772-2030 - l Meadowlark - Residential Appraised Values Property Abutting Southwest Industrial Park Tax Parcels 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 87.14-3- 9 69,200 68,700 72,600 74,000 75,300 76,200 10 67,000 68,400 71,700 73,200 a 78,400 79,400 11 67,200 68,200 71,500 73,000 76,100 80,300 12 61,400 62,300 68,500 70,600 77,900 79,200 13 63,300 64,600 70,000 70,800 75,400 75,900 14 65, 400 65, 600 69,100 71,100 76, 600 77, 600 15 64,700 66,100 69,500 70,300 75,400 76,100 16 64,400 65,800 69,300 71,800 75,400 76,600 17 66,500 67,900 71,300 b 72,800 78,700 79,900 18 60,800 61,900 64,700 67,100 70,500 72,200 19 60,500 62,400 67,400 68,400 69,500 71,400 20 62,100 63,500 67,600 68,000 73,100 73,600 21 66,800 68,200 71,600 73,100 76,300 77,500 22 66,800 69,400 71,700 73,100 76,500 79,900 23 67,700 69,600 72,400 73,800 78,500 79,200 24 59,700 63,000 66,200 66,700 71,200 74,000 25 68,300 ~ 70,200 72,900 74,300 78,700 79,500 26 48,000 d 52,600 55,900 58,000 63,000 63,900 27 41,100 50,100 54,100 56,100 62,200 63,700 e 28 52,100 54,600 58,600 60,700 67,000 67,900 87.18-3-21 59,200 62,100 65,700 66,700 70,500 71,500 20 51,300 53,600 56,000 58,100 64,100 65,000 19 54,200 56,700 59,500 61,700 66,700 67,700 18 59,100 63,100 67,300 68,300 72,000 73,000 17 64,400 65,100 69,200 70,200 72,600 73,700 16 53,900 57,500 60,300 63,100 68,000 69,100 15 58,700 61,700 68,000 71,000 73,800 75,100 14 54,000 59,200 62,300 64,600 67,300 68,400 13 66,300 68,200 71,400 72,500 75,000 76,000 12 60,500 62,500 66,500 67,400 70,400 71,100 TOTAL $ 1,827,600 $1,892,800 $2,002,800 $2,050,500 $2,176,100 $2,214,600 DIFFERENCE $65,200 $110,000 $47,700 $125,600 $38,500 "Sold in 1990 for $84,500 which was $11,300 over 1990 assessment and is $5,100 over the 1992 assessment e Sold in 1989 for $85,000 which was $13,700 over 1989 assessment and is $5,100 over the 1992 assessment Sold in 1987 for $77,500 which was $9,200 over 1987 assessment and is $2,000 less than 1992 assessment d Sold in '87 for $60,000 which was $12,000 over '87 assessment and is $3,900 less than the '92 assessment. e Sold in 1992 for $71,700 over 1992 assessment f Sold in 1991 for $69,000 which was $7,000 over 1991 assessment and is $1,100 over the 1992 amount 9 Sold in 1992 for $75,000 which is $10,000 over 1992 assessment. s_~ Meadowlark - Increase in Appraised Values of Property Abutting Southwest Industrial Park Tax Parcels Amount of Increase Change 87.14-3-9 7,000 9.2 10 12, 400 15.6 11 13,100 16.3 12 17, 800 22.5 13 12,600 16.6 14 12,200 15.7 15 11,400 15.0 16 12,200 16.0 17 13,400 16.8 18 11,400 15.8 19 10,900 15.3 20 11,500 15.6 21 10,700 13.8 22 13,100 16.4 23 11,500 14.5 24 14,300 19.3 25 11,200 14.1 26 15,900 24.9 27 22, 600 35.5 28 15,800 23.3 87.18-3-21 12,300 17.2 20 13,700 21.1 19 8,600 12.7 18 13,900 19.0 17 9,300 12.6 16 15,200 22.0 15 16,400 21.8 14 14,400 21.1 13 9,700 12.8 12 10,000 14.9 l Meadowlark - Increase in Appraised Values of Property Abutting Southwest Industrial Park Tax Parcels Amount of Increase Change 87.14-3-9 7,000 9.2 10 12,400 15.6 11 13,100 16.3 12 17,800 22.5 13 12,600 16.6 14 12,200 15.7 15 11,400 15.0 16 12,200 16.0 17 13,400 16.8 18 11, 400 15.8 19 10,900 15.3 20 11, 500 15.6 21 10, 700 13.8 22 13,100 16.4 23 11,500 14.5 24 14, 300 19.3 25 11,200 14.1 26 15,900 24.9 27 22,600 35.5 28 15,800 23.3 87.18-3-21 12,300 17.2 20 13,700 21.1 19 8,600 12.7 18 13,900 19.0 17 9,300 12.6 16 15,200 22.0 15 16,400 21.8 14 14,400 21.1 13 9,700 12.8 12 10,000 14.9 V ~1 / Meadowlark - Residential Appraised Values Property Abutting Southwest Industrial Park Tax Parcels 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 87.14-3- 9 69,200 68,700 72,600 74,000 75,300 76,200 10 67,000 68,400 71,700 73,200 a 78,400 79,400 11 67,200 68,200 71,500 73,000 76,100 80,300 12 61,400 62,300 68,500 70,600 77,900 79,200 13 63,300 64,600 70,000 70,800 75,400 75,900 14 65,400 65,600 69,100 71,100 76,600 77,600 15 64,700 66,100 69,500 70,300 75,400 76,100 16 64,400 65,800 69,300 71,800 75,400 76,600 17 66,500 67,900 71,300 b 72,800 78,700 79,900 18 60,800 61,900 64,700 67,100 70,500 72,200 19 60,500 62,400 67,400 68,400 69,500 71,400 20 62,100 63,500 67,600 68,000 73,100 73,600 21 66,800 68,200 71,600 73,100 76,300 77,500 22 66,800 69,400 71,700 73,100 76,500 79,900 23 67,700 69,600 72,400 73,800 78,500 79,200 24 59,700 63,000 66,200 66,700 71,200 74,000 25 68,300 ~ 70,200 72,900 74,300 78,700 79,500 26 48,000 d 52,600 55,900 58,000 63,000 63,900 27 41,100 50,100 54,100 56,100 62, 200 63, 700 e 28 52,100 54,600 58,600 60,700 67,000 67,900 87.18-3-21 59,200 62,100 65,700 66,700 70,500 71,500 20 51,300 53,600 56,000 58,100 64,100 65,000 19 54,200 56,700 59,500 61,700 66,700 67,700 18 59,100 63,100 67,300 68,300 72,000 73,000 17 64,400 65,100 69,200 70,200 72,600 73,700 16 53, 900 57, 500 60, 300 63,100 68, 000 69,100 15 58,700 61,700 68,000 71,000 73,800 75,100 14 54,000 59,200 62,300 64,600 67,300 68,400 13 66,300 68,200 71,400 72,500 75,000 76,000 12 60,500 62,500 66,500 67,400 70,400 71,100 TOTAL $ 1,827,600 $1,892,800 $2,002,800 $2,050,500 $2,176,100 $2,214,600 DIFFERENCE $65,200 $110,000 $47,700 $125,600 $38,500 "Sold in 1990 for $84,500 which was $11,300 over 1990 assessment and is $5,100 over the 1992 assessment a Sold in 1989 for $85,000 which was $13,700 over 1989 assessment and is $5,100 over the 1992 assessment Sold in 1987 for $77,500 which was $9,200 over 1987 assessment and is $2,000 less than 1992 assessment d Sold in '87 for $60,000 which was $12,000 over '87 assessment and is $3,900 less than the '92 assessment. e Sold in 1992 for $71,700 over 1992 assessment f Sold in 1991 for $69,000 which was $7,000 over 1991 assessment and is $1,100 over the 1992 amount s Sold in 1992 for $75,000 which is $10,000 over 1992 assessment. IUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi~IIllilliillllllllllllllllllillllllilllillllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllU .. APPEARANCE RE UE T - Q AGENDA ITEM NO. S ~ ~ c SUBJECT ~a ~/e,-, ~„-~ -f,. / ~ zo.~,~ ~ - • I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM , - I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRE ' c SS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES ' LISTED BELOW, c • 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- Lions of clarification maybe 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 times. _- - -_ • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. c • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR 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 i ~" NAME - ~ ~~ ~~ ~ .T~~-~ O/I've ~ _ - - - ADDRESS ~? d - ~vX /dJ~ T oan~~~ Ida. z4~o5 _ _ - - PHONE 9 8 z- g o o n - - - w _ - - s I III11111111111111111111IIIIIIIilllllllllill I Illiiilllllllll Illilllllllllllllilllllillilllllllllllliilllllllllll IIIliilillilllll~ lU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ll~~~l~l~i~lll~li~~ll~~illllllllllilllllllllllflllllllllilllllillllllllllllllllllill~lll~ll~~l~illlllilllj c+s / ~~ ~ _ r ~ ~ ~ __ _ APPEARANCE RE UEST Q _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ AGENDA ITEM NO. --- 1 _ _ _ SUBJECT _ _ would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to = recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM , _ I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE _ _ RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES _ 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 lunited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- tions of clarification maybe entertained by the Chauman. c • 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. c __ _ - Speakers are requested 'to leave any written statements and/or comments s with the clerk. _ _ c • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED c GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION c __ FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT _~ M. _ s PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK _ :_ _ NAME _ _ ~ ~~ i ~ ~~ _ ADDRESS ~ ~ ,~,~ ~~f1 _ . ~~~ ~~~ 'pct c.~~'--c,c ~t~ 1'~ _ s ~ _ = I""a _ _ PHONE ~ .) 7 ° ~~ ~,~~ _ _ _ mlllllillllllllllllllllillllllllilllliilllllllliliillliillllllllilllllllllilllllllllllliillllllll s IIIIIIIIIillllllllllllllllilllll~ ti .w ~ ~ ,,. __. ~. AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE 111792-9 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 4.65 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 8364 BENT MOIINTAIN ROAD (TA% MAP NO. 94.00-1-57) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A-1 IIPON THE APPLICATION OF BACK CREEK BAPTIST FELLOWSHIP WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held November 17, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 2, 1992; 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 4.65 acre, as described herein, and located at 8364 Bent Mountain Road, (Tax Map Number 94.00-1-57) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-2, General Industrial District, to the zoning classification of A-1, Agricultural District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Back Creek Baptist Fellowship. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin on the southerly side of U. S. Route 221, corner to C. C. Craighead property (DB 403, page 177), and being the northwesterly corner of the property previously conveyed to L&H Company; thence .~ t with the southerly side of U. S. Route 221 along the arc of a circle to the left, whose radius is 384.26 feet, whose chord is N. 83 deg. 47' 57" E. 100.07 feet, an arc distance of 100.38 feet to a point, thence still with Route 221, N. 76 deg. 18' 53" E. 325.90 feet to a point; thence along the arc of a circle to the right whose radius is 334.26 feet, whose chord is N. 84 deg. 25' 55" E. 93.68 feet, an arc distance of 94.71 feet to a point; thence with the line of another tract owned by L&H Company (DB 1160, page 218), S. 17 deg. 07' 30" W. passing an old iron on line at 6.74 feet, in all 595.58 feet to an old iron; thence still with the line of L&H Company N. 65 deg. 12' 31" W. 250.13 feet to a point; thence N. 62 deg. 12' 31" W. 199.37 feet to an iron pin set 2 feet north of a fence post on line of Craighead property; thence with the line of Craighead property, N. 9 deg. 45' 33" E. 235.57 feet to a post; thence N. 34 deg. 57' 33" E. 51.45 feet to the BEGINNING and containing 4.65 acres, more or less, and being as shown on a map by C. E. Lacy, Jr., October 10, 1981. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~2~y ~- C~ Mary H. lien, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney "~ "~ PETTI'IONER: BACK CREEK BAPTIST FELLOWSHIP CASE NUMBER: 20-11/92 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 2, 1992 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 17, 1992 A. REQUEST Petition of Back Creek Baptist Fellowship to rezone 4.65 acres from M-2 to A-1 to operate a church, located at 8364 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Gordon moved to recommended approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Hooker, Witt, Gordon, Massey NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map Staff Report _ Other Terrance Ha gton, Secretary Roanoke Co my Planning Commission STAFF REPORT s-a CASE NUI~ER: 20-11/92 REVIEWED BY: Lynn Donihe PETITIONER: Back Creek Baptist Fellowship DATE: November 2, 1992 Petition of Back Creek Baptist Fellowship to rezone 4.65 acres from M-2 to A-1 to operate a church, located at 8364 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Unconditional request to rezone 4.65 acres from M-2 with conditions to A-1 Agriculture. Petitioner intends to operate a small church (15-30 members) out of the existing building on the site. If approved, request would eliminate industrial zoning in a rural residential and agricultural area. b. This site was rezoned to M2C in 1983 in order to have a storage area for contractor's equipment. While the conditions on the site did not limit the use of the property,.they did limit the amount of equipment to be stored and the location of the stored equipment. A third condition provided that the zoning would revert back to A-1 if the property was ever sold or leased. The site is still held by the same owner who requested the 1983 rezoning. The owner, L&H CO., desired to lease the building to Back Creek Baptist Fellowship, assuming that the property would revert to A-1 zoning. However, the planning staff informed the owner and leasee that "reversion clauses" are not recognized now as enforceable conditions. Reversion conditions were routinely accepted in past years as part of rezoning requests. Current legal opinion in Virginia holds that these types of conditions should not be accepted, as they result in a change of zoning by an administrative act rather than a legislative act as required by the Code of Virginia. c. Although no new development is currently proposed, a concept plan based on existing improvements is available for review in the Planning Department. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The M-2 zoning district permits a variety of heavy industrial uses including manufacturing; automobile and truck repair, painting, and body work; cabinet shops; contractors'storage yard; truck terminal; and blacksmith shops. The current zoning conditions on the site would not prohibit any of these uses. b. The A-1 district permits single-family and two family dwellings; agricultural and forestry operations; schools, churches; c. Site Plan review is required in order to ensure compliance with County regulations. d. VDOT entrance permit is required. SITE CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY: Level area near road with site steeply sloping down in rear. GROUND COVER: Existing developed area is clear, with remainder of site wooded or in pasture. AREA CHARACTERISTICS sa FUTURE GROWTH PRIORITY: Situated within the Bent Mountain Community Planning Area. Designated for limited growth, not receiving urban services. GF:NF.RAT. AREA is agricultural and rural residential. Large undeveloped wooded tracts with steep slopes, large-lot (2+acre) subdivision, and some farming/grazing. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMIIdT 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 COrIlKIIdTS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Rural Village land use category. This category encourages low density housing, rural community centers, agricultural and forestal enterprises, and outdoor recreation areas. Industrial uses, other than limited mining and extraction, are not encouraged in Rural Village areas due to the potential harmful effects on houses and farming activities. Petitioner's request is consistent with the development policies and land use principles of the Rural Village areas in that rural institutional uses such as churches are encouraged in the rural village. 1 SURROUNDING LAND: Site borders on Route 221. Existing commercial use on property directly east of site. Pasture and wooded land on remainder of surrounding land. Rezoning request and proposed low intensity use of building is compatible with surrounding land uses while current zoning and permitted uses are not. 1 NEIGHBORING AREA: Low density and rural residential. See "Surrounding Land." 2 SITE LAYOUT: Applicant intends to use existing metal storage building for church and existing gravel area for parking. Concrete area adjacent to building would provide handicapped parking space. 2 ARCHITECTURE: Existing metal storage building with attached barn. 3 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Per ordinance for proposed use or other non-agricultural uses of the site. Existing wooded areas buffer developed area of site from adjoiner to west. 2 NATURAL AMENITIES: Approximately half of this property is forested with poplar, black cherry and black locust, on a steep slope. A buffer of trees shuld be left along the creek at the bottom of the slope to protect water quality. TRAFFIC ~-p~ 2 STREET CAPACITIES: 1990 ADT for Bent Mountain Road between Tinsley Lane (Bent Mountain) and Crystal Creek Drive was 9,885 vehicles. Potential traffic from a 15 to 30 member church would be minimal. 3 CIRCULATION: Petitioner proposes sharing entrance with existing commercial site to east. VDOT has indicated that required site distances and entrance standards may make it difficult to obtain an entrance permit for the site. UTILITIES 2 WATER and SEWER: Private well and septic. DRAINAGE BASIN: Back Creek N/A FLOODPLAIN: None. PUBLIC SERVICES 2 FIRE and~RESCUE-PROTECTION: Within established service standard. N/A PARRS AND RECREATION: N/A SCHOOLS: 2 AIR: 2 WATER: 2 SOILS: 2 NOISE: 2 SIGNAGE: Per ordinance. Maximum 30 square feet for identification signs. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Rural Village. _-Petitioner's request is consistent with policy guidelines and recommended land use types in the comprehensive plan. STAFF EVALUATION STRENGTHS: (1) Unconditional request for A-1 zoning is consistent with surrounding land uses. (2) M-2 zoning is not appropriate for this area, given its location, topography, and lack of utilities. WEAKNESSES: (1) Entrance permit for site may be difficult to obtain. ~(~~ / Date Rec.: ~ , ~ ~.~- Received By: i. Case No.: Ord. No. ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION 1. Owner' s Name : ~. ~ f~` ~ ~ ~T r~/ ¢ ~//~Lt~ ~ ~Y~`~~ L~1/C~p~one Address : '~~CG' Uc~- ~~ ~y~~i~~ 2. Applicant's Name:,~f~P~ e/~~/L ~~~57 ~~~'.s~i/-~ Phone: ~7 ~~~/~ rv ~ Address: 3. Location of Property: d ~~~ ~L~i'~ ~l"~- ~~~1"a Tax Map Number (s) : y~, (~ ~ -''~ ~ -' 4 . Magisterial District: ~/i/Q ~'~/C. ~~i ~S 5. Size of Property: ~~~~ /f 6. Existing Zoning: /~- ~ ~ Existing Land Use: ~j,~T' /'~~ 7. Proposed Zoning: ~'~~ Proposed Land Use : ~~l/C Pi/~ 8 . Comprehensive Plan Designation: /~G'/~.-~ y 1~~179~ 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No~ ~l (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.) 10.-Value of Land and (Proposed) 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 Concept Plan ~~ Metes and Bounds Description _~_ List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) Vicinity Map Application Fee Written Proffers _~~ Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: Signature ~ ~~-~ ~' ~J ~v . Date- /~ ~ /9~~ ROAHOICE COONTY OTILITY DEPARTMBNT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE ~~ TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date ~Il(~IcZ ipt..t ~' eafZpL LACNoV~I1CZ c Name of Appl scan t ~. ~~ Co ~ Phone ~ ~ `~ - ~ ~ S Address of Applicant ~~`~~ ~~'~'~~lr~V~ ~~~ ~ ~~.E Z~otB Name of Developer gAGiL C2t/EK- P~.~tSt' ~~-t-U'W Phone 77~~ (9 tZ-- Address of Developer ~~~~ Pj~~T MO~t~lT~~~ ~~~~ Name of Design Engineer t11~, Phone Address of Design Engineer Name of Contact Person Name of Proposed Development Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) C•~4UO.~t-~ Fot?. 15 - 3o PGO~~t . ~KcS+ tt~l4 M~TAL1 f3 L~ Location of proposed development (Furnish copy of map) : & PLANIMETP.IC NiJI~ER Size of proposed development in acres: ® Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum feet MSL. Maximum feet MSL Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger future development? No Yes If yes, provide map of entire area if available. (OVER) ~~~~~-~ Signature of Applicant AID a f S I~DT RE(> u Eli 1 ~i ~GtGt-1- ~7 TN (.S i t M~ , I '. P~ ~ I J~~ ~i ~t.0 ~> ~ ~ i pP 916 O I Qi \\y ,-~~ ~~ 612 ,/ „_ ~ C ,ozl oe4 I 1 c o.c 695 1 70 os'o 694 ~ t - '? n LOST M0; NTAI o o °r ROOges t u 69v I ~ ~ 89 51 \ 1 IAII t 4 ~1. s V ~, z .... ~w ~ wn..,. o `b~~ i Oave • --- ~~E---_~. M1 000 t /~ M430M) 711 6eH7 0 690 -t •MOe ~.\ 0 q 2 o.)s 61~ o0 6901 6R Y > 1 (n 76R ~ "~ MO~Mrg7 Y r~ i t VICINITY MAP-f ~ S-~ NORTH / e)oo 31 - /I 9zzz ,~ 35 ~ 2.eS4 ~ 9210 ~ n9o M 3L2 zri4 ~~ i4 7000e I 29 30 27.51 Ac / 60.54 Ac / 33 31.3 / 6234 32.524 r 32 7594 31 30 34 33 .2004 Zoo4 2i04< ! ~~ „w1 31 ~ 2.254 2.354 1612 >SS2 T54 > 29 19 • Rt. 1999 1934 I 2634 16.65 Ac 33 26 2 ]7.1c 1 1511 1609 1.32 :.r 313 ~ 8571 i5T9 1464 26 27 1613 -~- 4< 36 1@4c 2.404 2.264 \ 2n`c ezn 40 4 146 $ ' • 1 3 ~y 3.13 4 950) \ Bert f ?3 ~ ~ 20 Q 17 Is Is 1529 23 ~ \ 4 \ 2234 3644 a.66Ae 3644 14643>- a I lei \ O ' 38 \ ~ 37 e2D S.I61~c hard ~ 2.66 AC 101 ~ >S 29 TGi-. , ~\\ \ 3s uc1C1 34z4 A~ ~ 9.n -- _ =, sa \ ~ _~ I 2a 21 ~i / ~ 1.3)4 3.604 ,~ RI 221 64 • B, ~o ea2z ~ ~~ ~~ ~ g3 G t ~ 22 / egos 63 cJ7 ~ _, 8338 ~ eo4 ~ 62 1284c 1.58A ~3~56 ~ . 36 4.65Ac ` /~/ ~ ° 8311 \ / / 5 83 Ac / 6 1.31 Ac Al .. 61.1 B75o ~ 9.68:4 125 c - - 61 55.3 AI ; ~ \~ 8356 r 7.80 Ac ~ 1.96 Ac ej99$1C,% -F-' t+, i `: vc 55.1 ea~a I§traw berr 612n•~ T6 » ` `~ v j~ X49 _~`'.: 43.6 AC 55 ,,~, ,,, 6142 814 40.03 Ac A ~ 8140 . 58 AI JI 65.28Ac ALL OTHER PARCELS ARE ZONE Al 59 60 I 32.40 Ac 55 60Ac w ao4tio~f DEPARTI~NT OF PLANNIATG BACK CREEK BAPTIST FELLOWSHIP _- a AND ZONING 94.00•-1-57 le3e S~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 4.65 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 8364 BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 94.00-1- 57) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A-1 UPON THE APPLICATION OF BACR CRE$R BAPTIST F$LLOWSHIP WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held November 17, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 2, 1992; 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 4.65 acre, as described herein, and located at 8364 Bent Mountain Road, (Tax Map Number 94.00-1-57) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-2, General Industrial District, to the zoning classification of A-l, Agricultural District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Back Creek Baptist Fellowship. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin on the southerly side of U. S. Route 221, corner to C. C. Craighead property (DB 403, page 177), and being the northwesterly corner of the property previously conveyed to L&H Company; thence with the southerly side of U. S. Route 221 ~` "! along the arc of a circle to the left, whose radius is 384.26 feet, whose chord is N. 83 deg. 47' 57" E. 100.07 feet, an arc distance of 100.38 feet to a point, thence still with Route 221, N. 76 deg. 18' 53" E. 325.90 feet to a point; thence along the arc of a circle to the right whose radius is 334.26 feet, whose chord is N. 84 deg. 25' 55" E. 93.68 feet, an arc distance of 94.71 feet to a point; thence with the line of another tract owned by L&H Company (DB 1160, page 218), S. 17 deg. 07' 30" W. passing an old iron on line at 6.74 feet, in all 595.58 feet to an old iron; thence still with the line of L&H Company N. 65 deg. 12' 31" W. 250.13 feet to a point; thence N. 62 deg. 12' 31" W. 199.37 feet to an iron pin set 2 feet north of a fence post on line of Craighead property; thence with the line of Craighead property, N. 9 deg. 45' 33" E. 235.57 feet to a post; thence N. 34 deg. 57' 33" E. 51.45 feet to the BEGINNING and containing 4.65 acres, more or less, and being as shown on a map by C. E. Lacy, Jr., October 10, 1981. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. c:\wp51\agenda\zoning\back.crk AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE 111792-10 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 15.38-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HOLLINS ROAD AND NORTH OF CARVIN CREEK (TA% MAP NO. 38.16-1-3) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 AND APPROVING A BPECIAL E%CEPTION PERMIT TO OPERATE A GOLF DRIVING RANGE AND GOLF LEARNING CENTER UPON THE APPLICATION OF WAYNE HOLLEY WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held November 17, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 2, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 15.38 acres, as described herein, and located on the east side of Hollins Road and north of Carvin Creek, (Tax Map Number 38.16-1-3) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-2, General Industrial District, to the zoning classification of B-2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Wayne Holley. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at the southeasterly intersection of Plantation Road and Hollins Road, said point being 60 feet northeast from the Roanoke County/Roanoke City line; thence following the southerly right-of-way of Hollins Road, the next 5 calls: N. 80 deg. 15' E. 105 feet; N. 47 deg. 45' E. 70 feet; a curve to the left bearing N. 47 deg. 45' E. with a radius of 375 feet and length of 143 feet; N. 31 deg. 38' E. 325 feet; and a curve to the right bearing N. 39 deg. 15 E., with a radius of 285 feet and length of 205 feet to a point in the center of Tinker Creek; thence with the centerline of Tinker Creek as it meanders approximately S. 44 deg. 30' E. 830 feet; thence still with the centerline approximately S. 19 deg. 55' E. 550 feet; thence S. 22 deg. 15' W. 80 feet to a point in the center of Carvin Creek; thence with the centerline of Carvin Creek the next 7 approximated calls : N . 31 deg . 2 5' W . 9 0 feet; N. 64 deg. 04' W. 295 feet; N. 67 deg. 32' W. 280 feet; N. 75 deg. 12' W. 190 feet; N. 88 deg. 01' W. 255 feet; N. 68 deg. 45' W. 205 feet; N. 74 deg. 00' W. 150 feet to a point on the eastern right-of-way of Plantation Road; thence N. 1 deg. 55' E. 60 feet to the Place of Beginning and containing approximately 15 acres. 4. That a Special Exception is hereby granted to operate a golf driving range and golf learning center on the property identified in paragraph 3 above in accordance with Section 21-24-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 6 of the Roanoke County Code. .~... .:::::::::::.~~a~:.::::~:~:~:::::~.:::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::....::::::::::::::.::.~::::::::::::::....:::::::::::::::::.~:::::::::.: «:.::::::,:.:::::::::.::::,::...,,,,,................... ........................................ 6. thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect approve the special exception permit with condition (a) and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney S.- ~ PETITIONER: WAYNE HOLLEY CASE NUMBER: 21-11/92 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 2, 1992 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 17, 1992 A. REQUEST Petition of Wayne Holley to rezone approximately 15.38 acres from M-2 to B-2 and obtain a Special Exception Permit to operate a golf driving range and golf learning center, located on the east side of Hollins Road and north of Carvin Creek, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission asked about the location of lighting. Frank Caldwell pointed out on the map that lights would probably be around the sides and down the middle; focused into the driving range. He explained that the proposal would have to go through the site plan review process and the lighting can be addressed at that time (will likely require an engineered site lighting plan). Mr. Robinson commended the petitioner on a good use of a flood plain area for a private enterprise developing recreational facilities. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Massey announced that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this petition due to a potential conflict of interest. He turned the chair over to Mr. Witt. Ms. Hooker moved to recommended approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Hooker, Witt, Gordon NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Massey F. DISSENTING PERSPEC'T'IVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map Staff Report _ Other Terrance Ha gton, S etary Roanoke C my Pla 'ng Commission STAFF REPORT .~ ~3 -CASE NUMBER: 21-11/92 REVIEWED BY: Lynn Donihe PETITIONER: Wayne Holley DATE: November 2, 1992 Petition of Wayne Holley to rezone approximately 15.38 acres from M-2 to B- 2 and obtain a Special Exception Permit to operate a golf driving range and golf learning center, located on the east side of Hollins Road and north of Carvin Creek, Hollins Magisterial District. NATURE OF REQIIEST a. Unconditional request to rezone 15.38 acres in order to construct and operate a golf driving range and learning center. Future plans include a miniature golf course, batting cage, putting green, and sand trap. Petitioner also anticipates constructing a 2,400 square foot club house and having food and beverages available on the premises. b. Concept plan describes request further. APPLICABLE REGIILATIONS--~: a. The B-2 district permits a variety of commercial and institutional uses. Golf driving ranges are permitted in the district only with a special exception approved by the Board of Supervisors. The new zoning ordinance will permit golf driving ranges and similar forms of commercial outdoor recreation in the C-2 district by right. b. The floodplain ordinance permits golf courses and similar public and private recreational activities in the floodway and floodplain. c. Site Plan review will be required in order to ensure compliance with county regulations, including the floodplain ordinance and lighting standards. d. VDOT commercial entrance permit required. SITE CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY: Site is level throughout. GROUND COVER: Most of site is covered in grassed areas, with trees and undergrowth along the banks of Tinker and Carvins Creeks. AREA CHARACTERISTICS FUTURE GROWTH PRIORITY: Situated within the Peters Creek Community Planning Area, an area in which growth should be stimulated. Currently receiving urban services. GFx~uAr, Amp, is developed with commercial, industrial, multi-family, and single family residential uses, including an historic home. LAND IISE 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. R_~1TING FACTOR CONIlKENTS ,o.. LAND IISE COMPATIBILITY 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Surface Water and Flood Hazard designation. The plan encourages. protection of the natural vegetation in these area and states that floodplain areas are ideal for parks and open space. Petitioner's request is consistent with the purposes of the flood hazard. designation in that minimal disturbance of the area will be necessary and that most of the site will be maintained in a state similar to its natural condition. Current M-2 zoning permits few if any uses compatible with the guidelines of the Flood Hazard designation. 2 SIIRROIINDING LAND: The site is bordered by Carvins Creek and industrial uses to the south and southwest, Tinker Creek and vacant industrially zoned land to the east and northeast, and Hollins Road to the northwest. Proposed .use should not conflict with existing uses of surrounding land. 3 NEIGHBORING AREA: A shopping center and greenhouse operation lie across Hollins Road from the site. Single-family and multi-family housing are located in the city across Plantation Road, on sites much higher in elevation than the petitioner's site. An historic home is also sited across Plantation Road. SITE LAYODT: No structures may be~built nor areas filled within the floodway. Petitioner's concept plan shows proposed building(s) located within the floodplain, not the floodway. Floodplain provisions will be enforced in site plan review. Staff is concerned about the short distance from the tees, especially the synthetic and covered tees areas, to the Elizabeth Arden rear parking lot. Based on the concept plan, a drive as short as 150 yards from these areas could end up in the parking lot. Petitioner should consider measures for insuring that golf balls remain on site. 3 ARCHITECTIIRE: No renderings submitted. 2 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Parking lot adjacent to right-of-way will be screened per ordinance. Petitioner intends to retain existing vegetation along creek banks as a buffer and screen from adjacent properties. AMENITIES: Exterior lighting will be necessary for petitioner to operate after daylight hours. This lighting could interfere with the vision of motorists approaching the site from Plantation Road in the city, as cars will be at an elevation close to that of the lights. Potential lighting problems may be resolved by adjusting the angle of bulbs. The zoning ordinance requires that no lights project glare onto roads or adjacent residential properties and that the intensity of exterior lighting be no greater than 0.5 footcandle at those boundaries. 3 NATIIRAL AMENITIES: Petitioner has indicated that existing trees and vegetation will be retained along Tinker Creek and Carvins Creek, although this has not been proffered. TRAFFIC ~""~ 3 STREET CAPACITIES: 1990 ADT for Plantation Road between the city line and Williamson Road was 8,975 vehicles. 1990 ADT for Hollins Road between Plantation road and was 4639 vehicles. No trip generation estimates are available for this type of use. However, a similar facility in Salem with batting cages, miniature golf, driving range, and golf lessons serves 75-100 people a day in peak season. This should not significantly impact volume of traffic on Hollins or Phantation Roads. 3 CIRCULATION: Conceptual site plan shows traffic circulation limited to a straight parking area on the front of the site. Ingress/egress is proposed on both ends of the parking area, with one entrance shown aligned with the existing entrance to the shopping center across Hollins Road. UTILITIES 2 WATER and SEWER: Both public water and sewer are available to the site. Developer must connect to both when the property is developed. DRAINAGE 3 BASIN: Tinker Creek 3 FLOODPLAIN: The entire site is located within the 100-year floodplain. A 100 to 200 foot wide strip along the boundaries with Tinker Creek and Carvins Creek lies within the floodway according to a July 1992 FEMA study. PUBLIC SERVICES 2 FIRE and RESCUE PROTECTION: Will continue as currently being provided. 1 PARKS AND RECREATION: Request will provide additional recreational facilities in a developing and populated area .' N/A SCHOOLS: ENVIRONMENT 2 AIR: 2 WATER: Water quality of Tinker and Carvins Creeks should be protected with buffer of existing trees and vegetation. 2 SOILS: 2 NOISE: In a developed commercial and industrial area, additional noise from the golf driving range should not be significant. 2 SIGNAGE: Per ordinance. B-2 zoning allows the lesser of 1.5 square feet of sign area per 1 linear. foot of frontage or 500 square feet. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Surface Water and Flood Hazard. Petitioner's request is consistent with recommended and permitted uses of floodplain and floodway areas. STAFF EVALIIATION STRENGTHS: (1) Petitioner's request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and makes good use of a floodplain and floodway area. (2) Provides additional recreational activities in a populated and developing area. WEAKNESSES: (1) Existing vegetation on .creek banks is not protected by proffer. (2) Potential for lighting problems on adjacent streets, although this should be taken care of during site plan review. PROFFERS SIIGGESTED: (1) A lighting plan will~be prepared and submitted for the site plan review process to verify the intensity of light at nearby streets and address the angles of lights when viewed from streets and residential properties. (2) Vegetation and trees along creeks will be preserved in order to protect water quality, provide a screening effect, and for the safety of adjoining properties. This shall not prohibit routine maintenance of trees and vegetation when required for healthy growth and for safety and welfare of the public. ~s ~` ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION Date Rec .: _ G; j~ -~~ ' Received By: (.~~, (,~.~~ ~~ Case No .: -~- ~~l" Ord. No.: ~I ~~ ~.S`-3 1. Owner' s Name • Mildred & David Hinman Dominion Trus t Co . Address• 213 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, VA 24011 2 . Applicant' s Name : Wayne Holley Address: 7034 Ardmore Drive, Roanoke, VA 24019 3. Location of Property: Hollins Road (Route 601) Tax Map Number(s) : 38.16-1-3 4. Magisterial District: Hollins 5. Size of Property: 15.38+ acres 6. Existing Zoning: M-2 Existing Land Use: Agricultural 7. Proposed Zoning: B-2 Proposed Land Use • Golf driving range (and golf learning center) 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: 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.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) 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: X Letter of Application ~; Concept Plan x Metes and Bounds Description x List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) X Vicinity Map Application Fee Written Proffers X Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: Signature '~ ~~~ 1 Date September 17, 1992 r' Linda Wade Phone : 563-7785 Phone : 366-3084 ROANORE COUNTY APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE 1. Applicant's Name: Wayne Holley Address• 7034 Ardmore Drive, Roanoke, 'VA 24019 ,S 3 Phone: 366-3084 ZiP=.. _.._.... 2. Property owner's name Mildred & David. Hinman Dominion Trust Co. Linda Wade Address: 214 South Jefferson Street - _ -~ Phone: 563-7785 Roanoke, VA .. _Zip.•._. 24011 3 . Location of Property- Hollins -Road . (Route 601) Size of property 15.38+acres/sq.ft. Size of proposed sp"ecial exception. use ~ 15.38+ 4 . Tax Map # : 38:16-1-3 Old -Tax Map ~ _ ^acres/sq.ft. 5. Zoning Classification: M-2 -~~~ 6. Magisterial District Location: Hollins 7. Existing Land Use: Agricultural 8. Proposed Special Exception Use: Land to be used for golf driving range and golf instructional center) -> 9. Comprehensive Plan Designation: 10. Proposed Annual Gross Revenue: N/A _ -. . Value of Land Value of Proposed Buildings~- Value of Machinery & Tools Number to be Employed 11. Check 'Completed Items: g 82"-x 11" plot plan X Consultation X List of adjacent property owners X - Letter of Application Filing fee made payable to "County of Roanoke" - $1,875 Special Use Permit for ~sanitary fill. _ ... method garbage and refuse site ~---- $40 All other Special Exception Uses 12. Date of Application: 10/23/92 13. Applicant's Signature: ~c,JJCiy ~ $'-3 September 14, 1992 Mr. Terrance Harrington Director of Planning and Zoning County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA Dear Mr. Harrington: I respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider my request to rezone the particular parcel of land described on the enclosed application. The purpose of requesting the rezoning of this particular tract of land is so that I may develop a golf driving range and learning center on the property. Future plans include a miniature golf course, batting cage, putting green and sand trap. I also anticipate constructing~a club house, 2,400 square feet or less, and have food and beverages available on the premises. Please contact me if you desire additional ~.nformation. Sincerely, di.J ~~7d-~~ Wayne Holley 7034 Ardmore Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 (703) 366-3084 ROAgO1CE COONTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date September 17, 1992 Name of Applicant Wayne Holley S3 Phone 366-3084 Address of Applicant 7034 Ardmore Drive, Roanoke, VA 24019 Wayne Holley 366-3084 Name of Developer Phone Address of Developer 7034 Ardmore Drive, Roanoke, VA 24019. Name of Design Engineer Frank Caldwell phone 387-1153 T.P. Parker Address of Design Engineer 816 Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 Name of Contact Person Wayne Holley Name of Proposed Development Wayne Holley Golf and Learning Center Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) Golf driving range Recreation facility for learning and practice of golf Location of proposed development (Furnish copy of map) : & PLANIMETRIC NUMBER Hollins Road (Route 601) Size of proposed development in acres: 15.38+ - Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum feet MSL. Maximum feet MSL Is this application section of a larger If yes, provide map Planimetric map attache (OSIER) for a development that will be a part or future development? No Yes of entire area if available. d ~~ ~~ Signature of Appli an t -- ----_1 -- . 1.1 _ ~ _,-~_ ~-~ - ' ~ ~,, - .k DSO j -~_~~ ~ N N x O ~A' N . / ~ N :. i '-~. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ - r .~ s~ _ - - . _ . ~~:~ `toy ~ ``~ -~. ~-_ _t ~~- ~ t. f . + ~ ok . ,. ^. ~ °,~ _-~. - ~ ;~ f~ ~~,.\ Sao /~ ~-~ -.: ~~ ~; \ ~- %, '~` ~`-- - i ~. ~ ~ ,~ - i ~ ~ ~ / q - ~ ~x ~ .- f - ~; a o ~ ~t _ . fix; :. _ ._ . ; - ,: i - - - t r- . - ~, i ,;. ~ J ("~ .y-~ ~~ 1 :~ _ ' .. - s ~ F. - '~ .~~_ ~ 1 `r~+~`~ ham' ~~~ ~ "T r ~ r -a' ~~ n ti ~ rC~ 4 _ ~j ~ . -r '4 f ~? ,'~ t a ~ +P _ _ ~., ~ y F _ _ +~ ~ - ...- - - .` x } L f ~ rte' ~:. C7 t `+. ~ 1 -i+ ~ V - 4 _ ~~ ` 3t _ -- e -4`~-,~- ~ ~" ;.~ .ice.. ~ ~ / ~lr" ~~ f \~ X µ ~ - . ~ ,~ -~ .: CA m,: ~ ~~ 1 ~. vl .: r ti l]1 `t ~ ~ it :I~l}.. ~ -~ -~.~t ` tv~ ~ - '.r y` -~~ i f :i ; { •• : ~y 1 -. ~ ~ 1, q t~j t, ~ ~ '~.c ~ l ~ ~~ r r ~ rho ~i ~) 3 ._ - - ImZ -ZONE X_ _ . .. ZONE X ~ ' 0 '1bi i c - ~. . .a --~-.. ,` ~. ZONE X~ ~ ZONE AE 3 1006 Q, ' ZONE X .! •' ZONE X 7004 = ZONE X i '7 L iooz Dam 9a AC - qC: '- _ ZONE X z ~- ~ ~ '9g _ i ~ _- .'~ 9 c g9T ZONE X 989 - . -- RM ,m, - J69 .a ( i ~. qe 98 ZON ~ A4 ~- ~l' . i I°} a ZONE X ;~ ~. ~A. JOHN ~ s PICHAROSON •~'~~j~ RoPO~ \ `O ~ ,ZONE AE. - -~ ~ ~° _ - /c6 / ~ r /~ /i%/ a ~~ ZONE AE _ ~iRM70 .~; -.. '----- - ZONE HOUSTON X ZONE X __ __~_ r rl y' / .. i , ZONE X i x 83 _ PRESTON AVENUE ___ ..- _.__-~. --- ---- -- - - - -- - - RM 71 t ~ /, ~ ,. 9 2 `2 ' ; 2 _ .. -._ '-- i0''y- S-3 Roanoke Cep Uninroiporatec W f lV S ~, OJ~O ~ ~C P a ~O't' QO . ¢ Op OF Q. ,`1 8 ~/~ _~ Y Jv 4 0 z. _ EX _ COLr~,uBr4 -~STPEE~ ](~~IF V = z c' F <' a ZONE X a __._. a z.~ " m- s W • .y~ 7^ .'~ W ~~ ~~ w~ =y~ 1~ V ~~' ~a d GO~ 2r~-= a.m '~9 a • Qy • _. Q W ~ O t t Q. ' p ~ J E+ arti 4=~O~> >, v u3 tL O' ~ f- ~ ~/ ~ o ~` ~ ~j I a _ 4.M~ 1r~ ,~ ~ ~ /°~ I .ate `~~ ~a ~ I~~ ,~ :~ :: I y ~~ ~ ~ ~~ _ W f ~ ~; ~ ~~ 7 • a O Q • .~ ~ ~ ~ I O Y u / °e ` 7 N ~ I~ O •• , o _- +• ~: '•• Oa ~ t'e ~' ~ ~~ ~yY I ~ ~~ ~ ~yY i :, ~~ a- ~ ~~ ~ :~~~ I ~ ~ ____ ~~ •, ~ \ ga ~ ~; v ' \\ ~ ` y ~ I ~ W ~~.~ ~~. Y W _ tau ~a~uus s • d a 90619+O'~a~.~~o -----_-\ '~, ~ ///I ,b ~ O+ e ~ ~r G1~ ~ ~-J d b ~~ e _ ' 1 ~~ ~ 161 °y+o \\ \\ 6 Q \ .~~. :« - Sig b ~6Oj ~ `' y1/) 6 ~'~'r 1 - ' OP / is 9? 1 j .' '.. ~ b,~•1 b~~o +. ~O/y,~ ~~ i ~`O?P,; i Q ~ _~ 0 H N .~3 ic[ xrpnox . EEx rSE g~~,,.. LA °" ~il~ --_ -- '-'-G a SU 8AL ~ u '- zs~ M[ s s - n D c ^. _4 MILE C, ~STC _ x04xES$ '. 9 G .. ~ P ON AM j CMUxoy aNi R ~F;ro + BL~1E{ a + HI L L MPL1 T~ `9'V oB ~ ~ ~ i s Z ^{l: ;oo° - --709x. Q°. ox ~ ouu cais „~ ~ t'RiOG'E t+ ?~ $ ~. a F ° O Au f~P B OR y o ~ ~ ~ n ° o ~ s~ ~- ~ecus4uTMG.E. V'EMOr,`Al+ ^' So o APPY S\S FA VISiA AV ~ y a° _ ~ O'' ^ +CARL;ENS~~ns~~~ p as L• ~c;q „o AHEIGHTS ~: Exixpx[, f0 + ~ ~d1 p+ ~5 ~. E N OR'' JF'Y~ EEOw CREE.; xsouc ~Qrdps~,f P+ fx ~ T° ~ ~REElJ` w ccue p~ P~5 F ltr ° 'li p.f eOJ ~f ~~~ Sf ~ TT rac[xO5 io 625 6' , -Y X111' sr. ox ' Cv 1F S?'?. O~~[c~ oP rP a p y xox ,.0 ~: O ~f xaio.~ ~p ~ Pf,~ Sf~ ~G` yo; Q 1~ ~ \ ~ ~/ sia arr no sxa tiv cFx Q 6co ~, `~ ^4~0 "' I, ~^ .` 90 v ','., ~s~' 'L%, xown~ OANO ~'E 6 R p _,. ~$ ,~ `.nor " ~, ~ ~ Ifi'~ ook RGL! S RqT / T xOIFlNG ~ ~ e IR ~ 4R~ t' s REGI~N/J L Rte` _` so '' , ~ ~[ TERPPCEP~iO - y~~ '' iw 1 EM. I tHEpT ~ t p9.... +' P~ ~ ~ ~< A/RP RT CR055FOAD 9 J~ ~ ^ ~ ~ j MING ¢FABE - 9 CONSU R ~ ND ~J: ~ U m '~~ AR ae -• _ L1~ PJ. y z 17 ~ K-MART~gLL ~~ VA II ~ V - s. o Q \..:. ~ VICINITY MAP-_~ .~--~ ~N7w .. ;- ;--~ 3 „ f Q. Q s3 NORTN 4 x nII Via. I Eou.~ a... ,~ ' /~ / of / Aso: .~ O ~ a ..Y ~ / / Y ~ M w IT Y ~ R K. _ 6 .. I , I ~ ~ v- '~J- A.. ------ R~ •y ~ . ~~ n I ~~ ~ X23 , .o rsBaa ~ , II J I I / r•aa \ ~~ i i ~ ~ - _¢ \ Ri 4 ~ ~\ 1\ ~\ \ , - - - - ~, ~ ~ \ R1 ~ ~ R3 R 1 \~~ ~~ ~ ~ B~1( I 1 625 ¢ R3 i .. ¢` i t. ,~y x ' \\\ \ '•• ~ / ~~~ a~.'=' G~.r ~~ --- 'R~ '~:~ $ ~ ~ i ML ~' $ ~ . `` Tom ~ ~ - ~ \ ~ ~. ~ is ~ / ,,.,,, ~. G[y ° ` M - - C'u~i pY~ g Y ~' ~~... ~ ` ~ \a _ ~\ iy W_ ...-. ~Q.r.. R~Ah 4dAYNE HOLLEY ~.. *f DEPARTI~NT OF PLANNING Part of 38.16-1-3 Z, ~ - ~ AND ZONING o ,_ • M2 t0 B2 ie~Y .S'-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 15.38-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HOLLINS ROAD AND NORTH OF CARVIN CREEK (TAX MAP NO. 38.16-1-3) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 AND APPROVING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO OPERATE A GOLF DRIVING RANGE AND GOLF LEARNING CENTER UPON THE APPLICATION OF WAYNE 80LLEY WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held November 17, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 2, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 15.38 acres, as described herein, and located on the east side of Hollins Road and north of Garvin Creek, (Tax Map Number 38.16-1-3) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-2, General Industrial District, to the zoning classification of B-2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Wayne Holley. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at the southeasterly intersection of Plantation Road S-3 and Hollins Road, said point being 60 feet northeast from the Roanoke County/Roanoke City line; thence following the southerly right-of-way of Hollins Road, the next 5 calls: N. 80 deg. 15' E. 105 feet; N. 47 deg. 45' E. 70 feet; a curve to the left bearing N. 47 deg. 45' E. with a radius of 375 feet and length of 143 feet; N. 31 deg. 38' E. 325 feet; and a curve to the right bearing N. 39 deg. 15 E., with a radius of 285 feet and length of 205 feet to a point in the center of Tinker Creek; thence with the centerline of Tinker Creek as it meanders approximately S. 44 deg. 30' E. 830 feet; thence still with the centerline approximately S. 19 deg. 55' E. 550 feet; thence S. 22 deg. 15' W. 80 feet to a point in the center of Carvin Creek; thence with the centerline of Carvin Creek the next 7 approximated calls: N. 31 deg. 25' W. 90 feet; N. 64 deg. 04' W. 295 feet; N. 67 deg. 32' W. 280 feet; N. 75 deg. 12' W. 190 feet; N. 88 deg. O1' W. 255 feet; N. 68 deg. 45' W. 205 feet; N. 74 deg. 00' W. 150 feet to a point on the eastern right-of-way of Plantation Road; thence N. 1 deg. 55' E. 60 feet to the Place of Beginning and containing approximately 15 acres. 4. That a Special Exception is hereby granted to operate a golf driving range and golf learning center on the property identified in paragraph 3 above in accordance with Section 21-24-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 6 of the Roanoke County Code. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. c:\wp51\agenda\zoning\holley S~~ County of Roanoke Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum TO: Lee Eddy FROM: Terry Harrington DATE: November 17, 1992 RE: Special Exception Request of Wayne Holley; Golf Driving Range on Hollins Road. If the Board wishes to attach conditions to the use and operation of the golf driving range, here is some suggested wording: (1) Vegetation and trees along creeks shall be preserved in order to protect water quality, provide a visual- screening effect, minimize light glare on adjacent properties and streets, and for the safety of adjoining properties.. This shall not prohibit routine maintenance of trees and vegetation when required for healthy growth and for safety and welfare of the public. (2) In the event stray golf balls become a problem for adjoining property owners, the owner/operator of the driving range shall be required to install netting, fencing, or other method(s) of retaining golf balls on the site. r~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE 111792-11 AMENDING PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING OF A 24.94-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLONIAL AVENIIE OPPOSITE THE OGDEN ROAD INTERSECTION IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3, CONDITIONAL (MODIFICATION TO PROFFERED CONDITIONS) IIPON THE APPLICATION OF 000IDEN- TAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. WHEREAS, this property was rezoned from R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to R-3, Multi-Family Residential District, with proffered conditions in September of 1988; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 7, 1990; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 14, 1990; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 28, 1990; and WHEREAS, this application was denied by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on August 28, 1990, and Occiden- tal Development Ltd. challenged this denial in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Occidental Development Ltd. proposed revised proffered conditions to settle this litigation and a public hearing thereon was held on November 17, 1992; 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 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 24.94 acres, as described herein, and located on the west side of Colonial Avenue opposite Ogden Road intersection in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is hereby chaged from the zoning classification of R-3, Conditional with proffered condi- tions, to the zoning classification of R-3, Conditional with amended proffered conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Occidental Development Ltd. 3. That the owners have voluntarily proffered in writing the following amendments to the conditions approved by the Board of Supervisors in September of 1988, which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: (1) Olde Towne Road, Ashmeade Drive, and Greencliff Road will not be extended beyond their present terminuses at the boundary of the referenced parcel or otherwise used for vehicular access to or from the parcel. (2) No more than eleven dwelling units per acre will be constructed on the land. No more than two hundred sixty-four dwelling units will be constructed in the entire development. di~~.~~}-}33a t~ n ; tom- ~.r ' ~ y ••+- .• ~}s--nr~rrr~,~e tT''r~ee~~- ~.~~T No more than one hundred forty off= eiaht dwelling units will contain as many as two bed- rooms. No dwelling unit will contain more than ~~ee two bedrooms. (3) Access to Petitioner's intended development within the parcel will be by a single entrance on Colonial Avenue at its intersection with Ogden Road, S.W. (4) Development of the land in this parcel will be in substantial conformity to the concept plan dated August 3, 1990, by Buford T. Lumsden & Assoc., a copy of which plan has been submitted with peti- tioner's application. However, Petitioner may 2 elect to construct fewer buildings and dwelling units then depicted on the concept plan. (5) Area lighting in the immediate vicinity of adjacent residential properties will be focused toward the interior of the project to avoid unnecessary glare and distraction to neighboring residents. Free- standing light poles will not exceed 20 feet in height, and the intensity of the lighting will not exceed 2-foot candles on the ground beneath the lamp. (6) No building will be constructed closer than 100 feet to the Georgetown Park Subdivision. (7) Buffering of the type described as Type C-Option 2 in the ordinance will be provided along the bound- ary of Georgetown Park and Greenwood Forest where existing natural growth specifies a 25-foot buffer yard with small evergreen trees (having an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater and planted each 15 linear feet) and evergreen shrubs (having an ulti- mate height of 6 feet or greater, at least 18 inches at time of planting and planted each five feet). Planting will occur as soon as feasible in the course of construction. (8) All dumpsters will be screened by solid wooden fencing and landscapping. No dumpster will be closer than 75 feet to Georgetown Park or Greenwood Forest. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at Corner 1, an iron pin set on the western line of Colonial Avenue (having a right-of-way of varying width) at the northeast corner of property now or formerly belonging to Charles A. Bushnell and Nellie E. Bushnell; thence N. 44 deg. 58' 00" W. 519.26 feet to a marked 12" hickory; thence N. 31 deg. 33' 00" E. 352.10 feet to a set iron pin; thence N. 53 deg. 34' 00" W. 652.50 feet to a set pin designated Corner 4; thence N. 23 deg. 13' 07" E. 446.16 feet to a set iron pin; thence N. 23 deg. 45' 07" E. 370.00 feet to an existing iron pipe; thence S. 50 deg. 43" 51" E. 1,237.80 feet along the line of property now or formerly owned by the City of Roanoke to a set iron pin designated Corner 7 on the western side of Colonial Avenue; thence (and with all remaining courses along the western side of Colonial Avenue) S. 31 deg. 30' 35" W. 205.68 feet to a point; thence N. 58 deg. 29' 25" W. 9.00 feet to a point; thence S. 31 deg. 30' 35" W. 10.00 feet to a point; thence S. 58 3 deg. 29' 25" E. 9.00 feet to a point; thence S. 31 deg. 30' 35" W. 81.00 feet to a point; thence N. 58 deg. 29' 25" W. 81.00 feet to a point; thence N. 58 deg. 29' 25" W. 9.00 feet to a point; thence S. 31 deg. 30' 35" W. 10.00 feet to a point; thence S. 58 deg. 29' E. 9.00 feet to a point; thence S. 31 deg. 30' 25" W. 370.32 feet to a point; thence with a curve to the left, whose radius is 2, 316 feet and whose chord bearing and distance are S. 27 deg. 35' 35" W. 316.50 feet, the arc distance of 316.75 feet to a point; thence s. 23 deg. 40' 35" W. 37.69 feet to a point designated Corner 18; thence with a curve to the left whose radius is 2,839.79 feet and whose chord bearing and distance are S. 25 deg. 06' 08" W. 141.30 feet, the arc distance of 141.32 feet to Corner 1 and the point of beginning, containing in the aggregate 24.94 acres and being designated as Tract #l, all according to that certain plat of survey entitled "Plat showing property of Catherine Aicagurre Ronk" dated April 25, 1988, by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C., the details of which plat are incorporated herein by this reference. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~z~~ ?~• Q~e~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 4 S - ~,t VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 24.94 acre parcel of land ) generally located on the ) western side of Colonial ) Avenue, S.W. opposite the ) intersection of Ogden Road ) within the Cave Spring ) Magisterial District, being ) parcel # 77.11-1-55 in the ) Roanoke County Tax Records. ) PROFFER OF CONDITIONS June 22, 1990 Occidental Development, Ltd. Revised: July 5, 1990 Revised: August 7, 1990 Revised: November 17, 1992 TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner, Occidental Development, Ltd. 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. This proffer of conditions supersedes all proffered conditions previously tendered by the Petitioner. 1. Old Towne Road, Ashmeade Drive and Greencliff Road will not be extended beyond their present terminuses at the boundary of the referenced parcel or otherwise used for vehicular access to or from the parcel. 2. No more than eleven dwelling units per acre will be constructed on the land. No more than two hundred sixty-four dwelling units will be constructed in the entire development. No more than one hundred forty-eight dwelling units will contain as many as two bedrooms. No dwelling unit will contain more than two bedrooms. 3. Access to Petitioner's intended development within the parcel will be by a single entrance on Colonial Avenue at its intersection with Ogden Road, S.W. 4. Development of the land in this parcel will be in substantial conformity to the concept plan dated August 3, 1990 by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C., a copy of which plan has been submitted with Petitioner's application and petition. However, Petitioner may elect to construct fewer building and dwelling units than depicted on the concept plan. Wetheringt~n srMelchionna 5. Area lighting in the immediate vicinity of adjacent ~"`~`~a"°"x'`~"'~ residential properties will be focused toward the interior of the project to avoid unnecessary glare and distraction to neighboring residents. Freestanding light poles will not exceed 20 feet in height, and the intensity of the lighting will not exceed two-foot candles on the ground beneath the lamp. 6. No building will be constructed closer than 100 feet to the Georgetown Park subdivision. 7. Buffering of the type described as "Type C-Option 2" in Section 21-92(G) of the Roanoke County zoning Ordinance will be provided along the boundary of Georgetown Park and Greenwood Forest where existing natural growth does not provide reasonably similar buffering. "Type C-Option 2" buffering specifies a 25- foot buffer yard with small evergreen trees (having an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater and planted each 15 linear feet) and evergreen shrubs (having an ultimate height of 6 feet or greater, at least 18 inches at time of planting and planted each five feet). Planting will occur as soon as feasible in the course of construction. 8. All dumpsters will be screened by solid wooden fencing and landscaping. No dumpster will be closer than 75 feet to Georgetown Park or Greenwood Forest. Respectfully submitted, Occidental Development, Ltd. By : - ~-a Donald L. Wetherington, its attorney dr Melchionna AiTLMNFIS.LVl~ C~Y:k~tlQPS 2 ~IIIIIIII1111111111Illllllllllllllllllllllllllilllliiilllliilllilllllllllllllllililllilllllllllilllllllllllllllllillllllillilllllll,~ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~. _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ APPEARANCE RE VEST - Q _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~-~, -- ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ - - SUBJECT ~~, ~.. ,,~~~.\ ~~ ~.-~~ f +~ r I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter = so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW. ~ s ~ !_ c • 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 lunited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- Lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. -_ ~ s 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. ~_ c • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. ~ i • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED ~_ GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION c FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. _ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK __ mlllllllllllllllllllllllllilllliilllllllillllilllliilllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllilllllll~ jU11111111111111111111111IIilllllilillillllllllilllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllilillllllllilllllllllll,~j _ - _ _ .~ ~_ - APPEARANCE RE UEST s ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _. = AGENDA ITEM NO. ~S'-~ ~ '~~~'~~~ ~'' «`~' __ _ _ _ _ SUBJECT '`~~~,~ ~;~~.~ J~~- - ~ ~~-~ ~~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Su ervisors to reco nize me durin the ublic hearin on the above matter _- so that I ma comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODI - Y ~~ I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW. • Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment s whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, c and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to = do otherwise. s -_ • Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- c __ Lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. • 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. c _ • Speakers are requested 'to leave any written statements and/or comments = with the clerk. ~ i • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED `_ GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION c FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK mllllillllllllililillllllllllllillllllillllillilllllllillllillllllilllllllllllllllllllliillllllllllllllllllllilillliliillllllllll~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO . `-c3 _ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING OF A 24.94-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLONIAL AVENUE OPPO- SITE THE OGDEN ROAD INTERSECTION IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3, CONDITIONAL (MODIFICATION TO PROFFERED CONDITIONS) UPON THE APPLICATION OF OCCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' Adoption of this ordinance with amended proffered conditions would settle pending litigation with Occidental Development, Ltd. BACKGROUND' See attached "Background and Update" mailed to adjacent property owners. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Occidental Development, Ltd. has proposed an amendment to the proffer of conditions, originally denied by the Board of Super- visors on August 28, 1990, in order to settle pending litigation with the County.. This settlement offer eliminates any 3-bedroom apartment units, and provides for 116 1-bedroom units and 148 2- bedroom units. Supervisor Minnix met with the Georgetown Park Civic Associa- tion on October 11, 1992 to discuss this proposed settlement. The members in attendance were unanimous in their support of this settlement. Public notice has been provided as required by statute, and a public hearing has been scheduled to receive citizen comment on this proposed settlement. s-~ ALTERNATIVES' 1) Adopt the proposed ordinance accepting the amended proffer of conditions, and settling this pending litigation. 2) Refuse to adopt the proposed ordinance, and continue the litigation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The County Attorney recommends that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~ v ~' l~Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by Eddy Johnson Denied ( ) Kohinke Received ( ) Nickens Referred Minnix to s-~ BACKGROUND AND UPDATE November 9, 1992 A public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 17, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia to consider a proffer of conditions by Occidental Development, Ltd. This summary will provide you with background concerning this public hearing and an update on the status of this dispute. This property was rezoned upon the request of Occidental Development, Ltd. ("Occidental") on September 27,1988..ts a 61-bedroom unitshand 118 2 bedroom~t ) this development to 264 apartment uru Occidental attempted to change the proffered conditions attached to this rezoning to allow 36 3-bedroom units, 961-bedroom units, and 132 2-bedroom units; however, the Board of Supervisors denied this request on August 28, 1990. Occidental challenged this Board denial by filing a lawsuit in the Circuit Court. This litigation has proceeded and trial is scheduled for November 24, 1992. Occidental has suggested a possible settlement to this dispute. It will drop its request for 3-bedroom apartments and will request 116 1-bedroom units and 148 2- bedroom units. At the request of both Occidental and the County this settlement has been referred back to the Board of Supervisors for a public hearing. This settlement was discussed with representatives of the Georgetown Park Civic Association on October 11, 1992. The members in attendance were unanimous in their support of this settlement. The public hearing has been scheduled to provide an opportunity for the citizens to comment on this proposed settlement. After the public hearing the Board of Supervisors will discuss the proposed settlement, and either accept or reject it. Additional information on this request may be obtained by contacting the Department of Planning and Zoning at (703) 772-2068. - 'T IMPORTANT NOTICE -PLEASE READ A request of the property described below has been filed with the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Information relative to this request is as follows: Petitioner Occidental Development Ltd. Purpose of Request Ordinance to amend proffered conditions on the rezoning of a 24.94-Acre tract of real estate located on the western side of Colonial Avenue opposite the intersection of Ogden Road (Tax Map No. 77.11-1-55) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District from the zoning classification of R-3, Conditional, to the zoning classification of R-3, Conditional (Amendment to Proffers) allowing 1161-bedroom units and 148 2-bedroom units upon the application of Occidental Development Ltd. Location of Property A. 24.94 acre parcel of land generally located on the western side of Colonial Avenue, SW, opposite the intersection of Ogden Road within the Cave Spring Magisterial District being Tax Map Parcel #77.11-1-55. The date, time, and place of the public hearing scheduled by the Board of Supervisors of on this request is as follows: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - 7 P.M. ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER -COMMUNITY ROOM 3738 BRAMBLETON AVENUE, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Additional information on this request may be obtained by contacting the Department of Planning and Zoning at (703) 772-2068. Terrance Harrington, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission spb S-y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ORDINANCE AMENDING PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING OF A 24.94-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLONIAL AVENUE OPPOSITE THE OGDEN ROAD INTERSEC- TION IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3, CONDITIONAL (MODIFICATION TO PROFFERED CONDITIONS) UPON THE APPLICATION OF OCCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. WHEREAS, this property was rezoned from R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to R-3, Multi-Family Residential District, with proffered conditions in September of 1988; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 7, 1990; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 14, 1990; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 28, 1990; and WHEREAS, this application was denied by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on August 28, 1990, and Occiden- tal Development Ltd. challenged this denial in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Occidental Development Ltd. proposed revised proffered conditions to settle this litigation, and a public hearing thereon was held on November 17, 1992; 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 s-~ 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 24.94 acres, as described herein, and located on the west side of Colonial Avenue opposite Ogden Road intersection in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-3, Conditional with proffered condi- tions, to the zoning classification of R-3, Conditional with amended proffered conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Occidental Development Ltd. 3. That the owners have voluntarily proffered in writing the following amendments to the conditions approved by the Board of Supervisors in September of 1988, which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: (1) Olde Towne Road, Ashmeade Drive, and Greencliff Road will not be extended beyond their present terminuses at the boundary of the referenced parcel or otherwise used for vehicular access to or from the parcel. (2) No more than eleven dwelling units per acre will be constructed on the land. No more than two hundred sixty-four dwelling units will be constructed in the entire development. - ----- ~ee~s= No more than one hundred forty ^+~ ei ht dwelling units will contain as many as two bed- rooms. No dwelling unit will contain more than wee two bedrooms. (3) Access to Petitioner's intended development within the parcel will be by a single entrance on Colonial Avenue at its intersection with Ogden Road, S.W. (4) Development of the land in this parcel will be in substantial conformity to the concept plan dated August 3, 1990, by Buford T. Lumsden & Assoc., a copy of which plan has been submitted with peti- tioner's application. However, Petitioner may 2 S- ~ elect to construct fewer buildings and dwelling units then depicted on the concept plan. (5) Area lighting in the immediate vicinity of adjacent residential properties will be focused toward lare interior of the project to avoid unnecessary g and distraction to neighboring residents. Free- standing light poles will not exceed 20 feet in height, and the intensity of the lighting will not exceed 2-foot candles on the ground beneath the lamp. (6) No building will be constructed closer than 100 feet to the Georgetown Park Subdivision. (7) Buffering of the type described as Type C-Option 2 in the ordinance will be provided along the bound- ary of Georgetown Park and Greenwood Forest where existing natural growth specifies a 25-foot buffer yard with small evergreen trees (having an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater and planted each 15 linear feet) and evergreen shrubs (having an ulti- mate height of 6 feet or greater, at least 18 inches at time of planting and planted each five feet). Planting will occur as soon as feasible in the course of construction. (8) All dumpsters will be screened by solid wooden fencing and landscaping. No dumpster will be closer than 75 feet to Georgetown Park or Greenwood Forest. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at Corner 1, an iron pin set on the western line of Colonial Avenue (having a right-of-way of varying width) at the northeast corner of property now or formerly belonging to Charles A. Bushnell and Nellie E. Bushnell; thence N. 44 deg. 58' 00" W. 519.26 feet to a marked 12" hickory; thence N. 31 deg. 33' 00" E. 352.10 feet to a set iron pin; thence N. 53 deg. 34' 00" W. 652.50 feet to a set iron pin designated Corner 4 ; thence N. 23 deg. 13' 07" E. 446.16 feet to a set iron pin; thence N. 23 deg. 45' 07" E. 370.00 feet to an existing iron pipe; thence S. 50 deg. 43' 51" E. 1, 237.80 feet along the line of property now or formerly owned by the City of Roanoke to a set iron pin designated Corner 7 on the western side of Colonial Avenue; thence (and will all remaining courses along the western side of Colonial Avenue) S. 31 deg. 30' 35" W. 205.68 feet to a point; thence N. 58 deg. 29' 25" W. 9.00 feet to a point; thence S. 31 deg. 30' 35" W. 10.00 feet to a point; thence S. 58 3 s-y deg. 29' 25" E. 9.00 feet to a point; thence S. 31 deg. 30' 35" W. 81.00 feet to a point; thence N. 58 deg. 29' 25" W. 9.00 feet to a point; thence S. 31 deg. 30' 35" W. 10.00 feet to a point; thence S. 58 deg. 29' E. 9.00 feet to a point; thence S. 31 deg. 30' 25" W. 370.32 feet to a point; thence with a curve to the left, whose radius is 2 , 316.83 feet and whose chord bearing and distance are S . 27 deg. 35' 35" W. 316.50 feet, the arc distance of 316.75 feet to a point; thence S. 23 deg. 40' 35" W. 37.69 feet to a point designated Corner 18; thence with a curve to the left whose radius is 2,839.79 feet and whose chord bearing and distance are S. 25 deg. 06' 08" W. 141.30 feet, the arc distance of 141.32 feet to Corner 1 and the point of beginning, containing in the aggregate 24.94 acres and being designated as Tract #1, all according to that certain plat of survey entitled "Plat showing property of Catherine Aicagurre Ronk" dated April 25, 1988, by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C., the details of which plat are incorporated herein by this reference. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4 ACTION NO. ~' ITEM NUMBER A-111792-12 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADNINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE:. November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Report and Recommendation Concerning Space Needs for the County and County Schools Administration. S"OLTM'~'Y ADMINISTRATOR' S COM~11~$NTS : ~ ~r~~rrTVr~: Stn~x,AV; As you know, a study of space needs was recently completed. The study resulted from a discussion on January 14, 1992, by the Board of Supervisors regarding our $284,000 annual office rental and the potential for using that sum as debt service for financing a new facility, A Space Study Team, consisting of representatives from both the County and the Schools, held its first meeting on February 7, 1992, and initiated an effort which resulted in the recommendation contained in this report. BACK OUND: In recent years several studies, both internal and external, have addressed space needs for the County and the Schools. The Blue Ribbon Commission, appointed in July, 1987, recommended that the County should "seek to build a central administration facility in the very near future." Internal studies in 1987 and 1988 also identified a serious need for more space and improved facilities. Our most recent study, conducted by Jones & Jones Associates, identified a current need for an additional 10,000 net square feet for the County and a projected need of 13,000 square feet by the year 2000. Office areas at the Administration Building were found to be extremely crowded and in some cases poorly situated for efficiency in dealing with the public and with each other. These conditions not only inhibit efficiency and effectiveness, but also have a negative impact on employee morale. The School administrative offices have similar problems. Based on their own studies, school personnel have indicated the need for an additional 5,000 net square feet. Several alternatives for addressing these needs have been identified, developed, evaluated from a financial standpoint, and discussed at length. The alternatives considered are briefly summarized here: 1. Purchase the Traveler's and Penn Forest Corporate Center and move both the County and School Administrations to them. !/~- "` 1 2, Purchase the Traveler's and the Brambleton Corporate Center and move the School Administration and selected County offices. 3A & B. Purchase the Traveler's Building only and move the School Administration and selected County offices. Two variations of this alternative were explored. 4A & B. Purchase the Brambleton Corporate Center and move additional County offices there. Two variations identified. 5, Purchase the Traveler's Building and move the County Administration. 6, Move the School Administration to the present RCOS site. Purchase the Traveler's Building and move the County Administration there. It is the feeling of those involved in the study, both from the County Administration and the Schools, that Alternative 6 best meets the total need. The following is a further description of that alternative. o Construct a wing at Northside High School to allow the transfer of North County ninth graders from Northside Junior High to Northside High School. This, in turn, would allow sixth graders from Burlington, Glen Cove Masons Cove and Mountain View elementary schools to move to Northside Junior High, thereby creating a true middle school for North County. This would also provide for the mainstreaming of RCOS students and eliminate the need for using the RCOS in the future for the student population. o Move the County School administrative offices to the present RCOS site. School personnel have said that this building would suit their needs very nicely from the standpoint of overall square footage, and in the way the building is arranged. Open bay areas there would provide excellent space for textbook storage and for the print shop. The building is air conditioned except for three bays. Some building refurbishment will be necessary. o Relocate Social Services and Health Services to the present school facilities at 526 College Avenue. The facilities would be refurbished for this purpose. Square footage available is not only adequate, but would provide for some future growth. o Move those offices currently located in the County Administration Center (RCAC) and those currently located in the Brambleton Corporate Center to the Traveler's Building. 2 ~-i o Convert the RCAC into a Recreation Center. Although same refurbishment of the building would be required, it would make an excellent facility for this purpose. This segment of the plan would involve the following components: - Move the Ogden Senior Citizen's Center to the RCAC. - Move Leisure Arts from the Pinkard Court Facility to the RCAC. - Use the community room at the RCAC as a multi- purpose room, including a gymnasium. - Move the Recreation Department Staff to the RCAC. - Sell the Ogden and Pinkard Court properties, or possibly convert Pinkard Court to low cost housing. Of all the alternatives considered, Number 6 best meets the total need: o Eliminates all office rent expense except for Health Services in Vinton. o Provides for greatly improved working conditions for the School and County Staff with the consequent improvement in service to the citizens and students. o The School Board and School Administration support this alternative. o Addresses the need to mainstream RCOS students which we must do by order from the Office of Civil Rights. o Allows the acceleration of the creation of a planned Middle School for North County. o Provides for a consolidation and an improvement in recreational facilities. o Frees up two County properties, Ogden Senior Citizens Center and Pinkard Court, to be sold. 3 ALTERNATIVES-:- 1. Implement Alternative 6 as described above. 2 . Rent an additional 10 , 000 square feet of office space . At the rate we are currently paying at the Brambleton Corporate Center ($9.50 per square foot), this would amount to $95,000 per year, excluding intial costs for rearrangement, wiring, etc. 3. Continue to occupy existing space only. SmA.,Fg RgCO1~II~IP:NDATION Staff recommends that Alternative 6 be implemented. gTNAxcrAr.TlSPACT: The attached Exhibit 2 outlines the annual cost to the County based upon the capital costs shown in Exhibit 1. Staff recommends appropriating $350,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance to pay for the expenses during the 1993-1994 fiscal year. Expenses in subsequent fiscal years will be covered by the debt drop off . Respectfully submitted, N~C~ Donnie C. Myers Assistant Administrator Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Gc~.~t.- Bayes .Wilson, Superinten ent Roanoke County Schools --------- ----------- ------------ ACTION ------------------ -------------- VOTE Approved (x) Motion by• Harry C. Nickens No Yes Abstain Denied ( ) - five part motion - see Eddy x Received ( ) next age Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x Attached: Exhibit 1 - Capital Cos ts for Alternative 6 Exhibit 2 - Twenty-Year Cashflow Analysis Exhibit 3 - Space Usage and Requirements Statistics Exhibit 4 - Schedule of Events Exhibit 5 - Summary of Leased Space 4 LI~~. Harry C. Nickens motion to (1) authorize staff to finalize sale contract for Traveler's Building; (2) authorize staff to negotiate terms with current lessees of the building; (3) authorize staff to work with the IDA to create a financing package for approximately $4,320,000; (4) reserve $350,000 from the general fund unappropriated fund balance which in addition to the available County debt drop- off will cover the estimated operating shortfall for the 1993- 94 fiscal year; (5) recommend that the School Board adopt a resolution to apply to the VPSA Fall 1993 sale for $2,310,000. cc: File Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta R. Busher, Director, Management & Budget Timothy R. Gubala, Secretary, IDA D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources John R. Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Bob Jernigan, Risk Management Elizabeth Leah, Registrar ~~ Exhibit 1 CAPTIAL COSTS - Alternative 6 Purchase Traveler's and Move Schools to RCOS November 17, 1992 Fall '93 Revenue Bonds VPSA Traveler's Buildina Cost of Building $2,400,000 Partitioning, Carpet and Painting 210,000 Telephone and Computer 200,000 ADA Work 10,000 2,820,000* NorthsidelRCOS Northside Construction $1,910,000 RCOS Renovations 250,000 Telephone and Computer Instalation 150,040 2,310,000 $gpovat'~~a of Existing Build~nas School Administration & Annex 750,000 1_50 X000 RCAC 900,000 Total Capital Costs 3,720,000 2,310,000 Issuance Cost 100,000 Debt Service Reserve 500,000 Total Bonds $4,320,000 $2,310,000 * Based on this number, the cost per square foot for the Traveler's Building is $45.36. 5 ~ ~x nib. d .~ - o ~ ~ s N ~ _ o m o ° o ~` w a 'a } ll ~ ~ w c c o ° 0 y ~ N ~ .-~ ? ~ _. +' ~ s ° m U y I ~ o .-. 0 ° .-a ~ °o Y ~ o Z w ..yi b O ~ ~ °o '~ a ..`r' N it d o r~ w o .--. i o r ~_ c=. r ~~ H y F qq.. -" H u s b O K u m s _ w ...° m .-0. N ~ y o W .~ n ~ ~ O J _ w a ~ j .Q O d S b N i ~..r yq I> Y U 0. < 61 4-~ 0. OO m O N W C h 1.1 m ~ y e ~ h C _ GAO N ' ~ rU-i 6r O N m _ M o0 `~ b W n " b ~ ...-. U m m~ m y e ~^ ~ H ~ 2 m O d ~ w q ~ ~ D it 2 b w o ~ .tl •. V c'= y .a ~ ~ N ~ ~ o..--~ ti d N 6 ~- ~ ~ "`~ ~ ~ s ~ = ~ V `° '= ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i - - - ~ ? 0 0 0 ~ ? - - ~ ~ ~ m - - ~ ° _ _ - o ~ i c o ~ 1 ~ ~ i i d d Y. Nry ~ y o n u „, ~ o ~ •a c w d :o ~ ~ a » W W .L W .yppy~ O v w y h c e U w O w P. U o~ y 0. o '`.. "0 ~ a ~ V 0 o G r ° u C m O ~ ~ p 'O y G a Y S ~ ~"+ C z a , N b U in i m m ~ ~ N ~ C ~_ i ~~ Z ~. l u O , ~ .r ~ ti "J ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~~ ~~ ~ ~ m v ~ > D _ ~ ~ N O a"a - j ~ y w .~-~ ~ b ti w > ~ m . j. p Y Y sa fn H G ` d 10 •.~i F ~ 1n V pO C F ? N ~~ d Lf ./ F ~ d y W z ??~~ u u o V- w a ... o ~~ > '~ z > v m ~ ~ m ~ o o °o °O 1b. °' F .. ~ ~ ~ m m PO m ~ y ~ y ~ m W ~~ C > P. 4- ~ H C d N ~ ~ 'J' qqy. O w si O~ m , pp ~l J d y y d 00 4 a .-- I .y 9 m ~~ D. i '~ { ""r C N y Y y s~ 1 d m ~ µ -q .-i d ~ V b PO Y < m .-H m ++ V .O M m va G y ppp~~~ N Y m o ~ ~r h [q ~ y{ N +J F _ ~ ..ti O OG oC ~ c~ F y ~ a' W .Z G. O U ~J ___._ / __ ___~_-__ _ om_ -__~ N - ~N 0. O Y U P. ~> +~ 4 va A 19 .~j .~-1 U y ID p G 0 0 U U .. . O O O O O O O ~ A ~ D ~--~ ~ ~ b Y y p O O O o2 y ~ ~.---i Exhibit 3 Space Usage and Requirement Statistics November 17, 1992 Net Area Net Area Now Used ~Q~au=red Administration Center (RCAC1 Administration and Board of Supervisors 2,836 3,500 Commissioner of Revenue 2,555 2,357 2,800 4,350 Treasurer 932 1,500 County Attorney 805 805 Economic Development Engineering and Inspections Finance 2,546 660 4,350 950 Management and Budget 682 1 1,750 Planning and Zoning , ~~ 2,150 Procurement Subtotal RCAC 20,423 27,455 Community Room -~-+-~ ~ -~00 Total RCAC (Net Square Feet) 23,423 28,955 Common Area (Halls, Bathroom, etc) 7.077 Total Gross Square Feet 30,510 Bra~~ip+-on Corporate Center Human Resources 1,578 2,708 Real Estate Assessor 1 580 2,580 Risk Management 600 6~Q Conference Room Total BCC (Net Square Feet) 4,555 6,038 ;~trar Registrar Office * 650 1,000 Additional Conference Room 1,500 Management Information Systems ,692 Grand Total Net Square Feet Required 28,628 42,185 Net Available at Traveler's Building 49,483 c o s The Schools have projected a need of 42,000 gross, or 33,600 net square feet. The RCOS building would provide approximately 40,000 net square feet which would allow for growth. * The registrar also has 1,500 square feet of storage space at the Public Service Center. 8 V`- ` t Exhibit 4 Schedule of Events Sale of Revenue Bonds 4/93 Sale of VPSA Bonds 4/93 Brambleton Corporate Center to Traveler's 4/93 RCAC to Traveler's - Completed 9/93 Recreation Staff to RCAC 10/93 Ogden to RCAC 1/94 Leisure Arts to RCAC 1/94 School Administration to RCOS 8/94 Occupy New Wing at Northside and Related Moves 9/94 Social Services to School Administration 11/94 Health Department to School Administration 6/95 9 -1 Exhibit 5 SUMMARY OF LEASED SPACE 1/22/92 FACILITY SQ. FT. ANNUAL STATE COUNTY SAIEM TERM OF RENT SHARE SHARE SHARE LEASE HEALTH DEPARTMENT - VINTON OFFICE 6,688 38,456.04 21,150.83 12,113.65 5,191.56 7/1/86 - 6/30/2000 No Janitorial or Utilities HEALTH DEPARTMENT - SALEM OFFICE 7,025 T2, 708.00 39,989.40 22,403.02 9,815.58 7/1/90 - 6/30/95 Includes Janitorial and Utilities SOCIAL SERVICES 13,267 97,512.48 78,009.99 13,651.75 5,850.74 3/1/90 - 2/28/94 (Salem Bank and Trust Building) No Janitorial or Utilities V.P.I. EXTENSION OFFICES 4,342 33,650.50 0.00 24,237.87 9,412.63 7/1/90/ - 6/30/93 (Roanoke College Property) ` Includes Janitorial and Utilities BRAMBLETON CORPORATE CENTER 3,700 42,239.40 0.00 42,239.40 0.00 2/1/89 - 1/31/92 (3433 Brembleton Avenue housing Risk Management, Human Resources and Real Estate Assessments) Includes Janitorial and Utilities ------------------------------------------------------- 35,022 284,566.42 139,150.22 115,145.69 30,270.51 10 ACTION NO. AT A REGiJLAR MBER'ING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN'T'Y, VIRGINIA HELD AT TAE ROANORE COUNTY AD1rIINISTRATION CENTER IrISE't'ING DATE: November 17 , 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Report and Recommendation Concerning Space Needs for the County and County Schools Administration. COUNTY NISTRATOR~S COI4~ENTS~ EXECOTIVE SUl~II~ARY: As you know, a study of space needs was recently completed. The study resulted from a discussion on January 14, 1992, by the Board of Supervisors regarding our $284,000 annual office rental and the potential for using that sum as debt service for financing a new facility. The study, conducted by Jones & Jones Associates, identified a current need for an additional 10,000 net square feet for the County and a projected need of 13,000 square feet by the year 2000. The School administrative offices have similar problems. Based on their own studies, school personnel have indicated the need for an additional 5,000 net square feet. A Space Study Team was appointed to deal with the matter. Several alternatives for addressing these needs have been identified, developed, evaluated from a financial standpoint, and discussed at length. A final report on the findings of the Team will be completed and distributed to the Board on Monday, November 16. c~ ~~.-~ ITEM NUMBER ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Motion by: . - o ~-, ~~~ Recommended Action on Space Needs 1. Authorize staff to finalize sale contract for the Traveler's Building. 2. Authorize staff to negotiate terms with current lessees of the Traveler's Building. 3. Authorize staff to work with the IDA to create a financing package for approximately $4,320,000. ~~ e S e-I^ V'e. 4. --rr--r.=~1= $350,000 from the General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balance, which in addition to the available County debt drop-off will cover the estimated operating shortfall for the 1993-1994 fiscal year. 5. Recommend that the School Board adopt a resolution to apply to the VPSA Fall 1993 sale for $2,310,000. `~~ ` ~~~~ VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL November 2, 1992 Dr. Harry Nickens Roanoke County Supervisor p. O. Box 29800 Rcanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Dr. Nickens: It is a policy of Roanoke County Schools and William Byrd High School to give first priority in the use of school facilities to each individual school and second priority to the Roanoke County Recreation Department. It has been our philosophy at William Byrd to encourage the use of our facilities because the youngsters involved are either our students now or will be in future years. I am attaching the Roanoke County School Board Policy regarding the use of our facility by the Recreation Department. I hope this information will be helpful to you as you explain this policy to interested East County citizens. Sincerely, R. A. Patterson Principal RAP/ls Attachment 8.1.2 Page 1 of 3 8.1.2 GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE USE OF ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION The basis for the following guidelines is the policy adopted by the Roanoke County School Board which made available, under certain conditions, school buildings, grounds, and athletic fields for use by the Roanoke County Department of Parks and Recreation. A. Booking Procedure 1. Schools will provide the recreation department with schedules for football, basketball, wrestling, gymnastics, baseball, tennis, softball, and soccer. Required use of tennis courts for physical education, tennis practice, and tennis matches will be specified as to dates and time. 2. All building use for recreation shall be scheduled by the recreation department. 3. All booking for one-time or short-term use shall be done two weeks in advance. Exceptions must have principal's approval. 4. All seasonal programs shall be booked one month in advance. 5. All bookings shall be made by use of the recreation department facility permit form. B. Supervision of the Recreational Activit 1. It is the responsibility of the recreation department to plan, schedule, supervise, and execute the activity. 2. Supervision of the activity, when deemed necessary will be performed by a person or persons who will not be involved in officiating, scoring, timing, etc. 3. Qualified personnel shall be provided for supervision cf activities. 4. Compensation of supervisors, whether school personnel or not, shall be the responsibility of the recreation department. C. Custodial Service 1. Responsibilities: to open and close the building and clean up areas used (gym, auditorium, classroom, lobby, restrooms). 2. Compensation of custodian: (a) If the activity occurs while the custodian is on duty for the Roanoke County School Board, he will not be compensated by the recreation department. (b) If the activity occurs after the custodian's normal working hours, he will be compensated by f .1.2 Page 3 of 3 4. Watering of school athletic fields: It shall be the responsibility of each school to insure that athletic .f ields are watered according to need and water conservation guidelines. F. Damage to Building, Equipment, or Grounds 1. Repairs or replacement due to damage to school facilities or equipment by use for recreational purposes shall be the responsibility of the recreation department. 2. Upon discovery of such damage, the school principal shall promptly submit a written report of the damage to the recreation director and send a copy to the superintendent of schools or his designee. 3. The supervisor for the recreation department shall make note of apparent damage to equipment or facilities immediately prior to recreation department use. This prior damage shall be reported to the principal as soon as possible. G. Cancellation of Use of School Facilities 1. Principals shall notify the recreation department when an emergency makes it necessary to cancel the use of the facility and will arrange for a makeup date. This should be done in time for the recreation department to make necessary arrangements. 2. It shall be the responsibility of the recreation department to notify the scheduled users of the cancellation. H. Conflicting Activities 1. Auditorium and gymnasium activities are not always feasible on the same night depending on location of these spaces and-the types of activities. 2. Each school will keep a calendar of recreation department activities scheduled in the building and avoid conflicting activities. I. Use of School Equipment 1. The recreation department shall supply all expendable items such as bats, ping-pong paddles, and balls for recreational programs. 2. Score'ooards and timers in gyms and on fields are purchased and maintained by each school. The life of such equipment is limited, and replacement costs will be borne by each school. Any recreation department use will be arranged with the principal. 3. Any use of nonexpendable equipment in a school by the recreation department will require the principal's approval. Revised: 6/27/91; 8/8/91 ~ pOAN ~, F ~ ~ ~... p z `a 13 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS November 20, 1992 LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN GTAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERUL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY MINNIX GVE SPRING MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERW.. DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Rev. Richard Harris Chaplain, Roanoke County Jail 401 East Main Street Salem, VA 24153 Dear Reverend Harris: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 1992. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings and the Board is very grateful for your contribution, Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. Sincerely, Lee B. Eddy, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors LBE/bjh ® Regded paper 4f ~ p AN ,1, F a z A 2 a 38 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 November 20, 1992 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGSSTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Mr. Wayne Strickland Executive Director Fifth Planning District Commission P. O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24010 Dear Mr. Strickland: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 111792-2 for the establishment of a Regional Disability Services Board in the Fifth Planning District and the appointment of a local official to serve on the Board. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 1992. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, `i'Y) ~L.c~ ~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment cc: John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Cn~~xx~~ ~a~ ~~xx~~.~e P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 ®Recyded paper F~ AN,1. ~ p z o a 3 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 ~L~~~~ ~~ ~~~~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERLU. DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERW. DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERUL DISTRICT November 20, 1992 (703) 772-2005 Mr. Wayne Strickland Executive Director Fifth Planning District Commission P. O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24010 Dear Mr. Strickland: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 111792-3 approving the support of pursuing a Comprehensive Regional Stormwater Management Program in the Roanoke Valley. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 1992. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, yl'1 Gzt~, 7~ . Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment cc: Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utility Terrance L. Harrington, Director,. Planning & Zoning Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Forest Jones, Clerk, Salem City Council Carolyn A. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council ®Recyded P>~ . i~l~~~~ L - n~~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~, ; , ~ , ~1,~~ n~ C~ h. ~~~-~ Ohl TYN'` ~. EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION r ? ,~ ~ 714 SOUTH BROAD STREET f--..~ ~ :~ ; e. <.i SALEM, 24153 J. A. ECHOES RESIDENT ENGINEER October 15, 1992 PO Box 3071 Salem, Virginia 24153 re - 1992 Functional Reclassification .•Ir. t ~ mer C. Hodge Roanoke County Administrator PO Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: Attached is a copy of the Inventory and Functional Classification map for Roanoke County. This is for your review and approval. Also attached is a copy of a sample resolution to be used when this is approved by the Board of Supervisors. From a review of the previous map, there are no changes made in Roanoke County for the area covered by this map. The area within the urbanized study area is not included at this time and is part of the MPO process. To meet the Federal Highway Administration deadline, all comments need to be received by November 1, with an approved resolution before December 1. I request that this be reviewed and approved with a resolution from the Board of Supervisors forwarded to this office prior to the December 1 deadline. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, ~. A. Echols Resident Engineer JAE:es ATTACHMENT TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY SAMPLE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, Section 1006, required that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) functionally reclassify the roads and streets in the Commonwealth, by December 31, 1992, based on their current and anticipated functional usage; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has previously functionally classified the state highways in accordance with the guidelines presented in the "Highway Functional Classification Manual" (Volume 26, Appendix 12, Hi hwa Planning Program Manual); and, WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Transportation has updated the functional classification in accordance with the "Highway Functional Classification Manual" (Revised, march 1989) and aforementioned ISTEA of 1991, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT (NAME) County Board of Supervisors concurs with the "1995 Highway Functional Classification" for (NAME) County as updated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING DATE Number: 193974 Posted: 11/05/92 07:54 Type: Regular Message Received: Subject: Traffic Signalization - Route 419 From: MHA - Mary Allen To: DHJ - Diane Jernigan Diane: Mr. Hodge has asked that George Simpson prepare a Board Report for the Nov. 17 Board meeting on Traffic Signal requests, especially the ones at Route 419-Kagey Road (Allstate) and the intersection of Penn Forest and Chapparel. There may be one other one George knows about. I guess if George has questions, he should talk to Mr. Hodge. Mary Allen Mr. Hodge: I talked to Arnold Covey about a Board Report on traffic signalization at Penn Forest Blvd. and Allstate and Duigoods Lane. He said that the signal at Penn Forest/Chapparal just needed a letter to VDOT from Roanoke County approving the use of VDOT maintenance funds for installation. He asked if you just wanted to report prioritizing these lights or if you wanted more? He needs more info. Mary Allen 11/5/92 /~~S- L,o/a~ o-~-~c' ~ ~-- ,~ ~ ~ ~.~ixz~~~ .~f ~..a~xx~~~.e COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 MEMORANDUM K144-92 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I.EE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTEAIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN GTAWBA MAGI571tAlAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLJNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL'FUZZY MINNIX GVE SPRING MAGISTERAL D45TRIC'I' HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT TO: Members, Board of Supervisors ~ (7oa) 772-loos FROM: Edward Kohinke /C/. ~i~~%~"~`G ~ ~" Catawba District Supervisor DATE: November 5, 1992 SUBJECT: ROANOKE SYMPHONY POLO MATCH I find public intoxication insufferable, no matter how high-minded the cause, and no matter how much it "helps" our local economy. Further, I was shocked to learn that the County would permit the use of alcoholic beverages by a small special interest group, yet not allow the public in general to use alcohol in our County parks. I am especially embarrassed to have this happen in a County park located in my district, at an event that is not at all well received anyway by those who live in the area. The fact that this is being brought to us by a County employee who is also a father, volunteer firefighter, resident of the area, and a constituent of mine makes me doubly resolved to call for some action. I request that this. matter be brought before us at our next meeting, with some suitable alternatives on which we can vote. EGK/bjh cc: Elmer Hodge Paul Mahoney Mary Allen Chief John Cease ®~~ Pam„ NOVEMBER 17, 1992 Results of SSE/R Evaluations lst reading - Parade Permit Ordinance -Pers Prop Tax exempt - Disabled Vets .-'Plan of Action - County Space Needs ;/lst - Ordinances regarding illegal dumping ~-Year-end Audit ,~ Reso of Support - Bot. Co. PH -"eliminate Conditions - 6560 Commonwealth Drive V~ezone 4.65 ac from M-2 to A-1 - Church Bent Mtn. Road ,/Rezone 15.38 ac./Sp Exec.Hollins Road - Golf Range C anges to Charter ~~ ~ ~~ '~ Work Session - 1993-94 Budget Process ~~ Funding - Hollins Rescue Squad / Disability Services Board NOTICE OF ~~ /~ 7~ PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTE Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17 of T'tle 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and specifical y Section 15.1- 835, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, irginia, hereby gives notice of a public hearing to be held on ~Tc~~+~r??~-_'~~~, at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center at 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, so that the citizens of Roanoke County shall have an opportunity to comment upon the County's request that the General Assembly amend its existing charter. An informative summary of the proposed charter amendments is as follows: Section 2.02 - Taxing powers - relating to taxes on hotel/motel rooms and tax on cigarettes or tobacco products A copy of the text of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ~~,,,~, `~M.. ~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Please publish on the following day: October 16, 1992 Please send bill to: Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Attention: Ms. Mary Allen MEMO - 10/21/02 To: Supervisors From: Lee B. Eddy Subject: Request for Work Session Between now and the end of the year, I would like to schedule a work session for the Board and staff to discuss the process by which the FY1993-94 budget will be developed. Specifically, I would be interested in exploring ways that the Board members can be better informed as to specific requests and justifications submitted by department heads. Also, I would like to discuss the possible implementation of some of the budget-related suggestions in "Reinventing Government", such as no line items and the possibility of departments keeping a portion of year-end surpluses for the next year. To implement these measures would require a clear and accountable mission statement for each department. I plan to submit this suggestion for a work session at our Board meeting on October 27. Your comments will be appreciated. copy: Elmer Hodge Don Myers Reta Busher Mary Allen LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 17, 1992, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on a Special Exception Request of Pete Dodd t/a Brookside Par 3 to build a golf shop on the north end and to use the south end for a training area at 6303 Williamson Road, in the Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 28, 1992 ~, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, November 3, 1992 Tuesday, November 10, 1992 Direct the bill for publication to: Pete Dodd t/a Brookside Par 3 6303 Williamson Road Roanoke, VA 24019 (703) 989-9528 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 17, 1992, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Wayne Holley to rezone approximately 15.38 acres from M-2 to B-2 and obtain a Special Exception Permit to operate a golf driving range and golf learning center, located on the east side of Hollins Road and north of Carvin Creek, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 28, 1992 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, November 3, 1992 Tuesday, November 10, 1992 To be paid on delivery by: Wayne Holley 7034 Ardmore Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 (703) 366-3084 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 17, 1992, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Back Creek Baptist Fellowship to rezone 4.65 acres from M-2 to A-1 to construct a church, located at 8364 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 28, 1992 ~~ L~~~.~c~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, November 3, 1992 Tuesday, November 10, 1992 Direct the bill for publication to: L&H Company c/o Carol Lachowicz 7606 Apple Grove Lane Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 774-0154 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 17, 1992, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Carlen Controls Inc. to amend conditions on a 1.19 acre parcel zoned M-1 conditional, located at 6560 Commonwealth Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 28, 1992 '~ ~-- ' I /~ „ e~~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, November 3, 1992 Tuesday, November 10, 1992 Direct the bill for publication to: Carlen Controls Inc. PO Box 21068 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-1736 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 29018 ~~! MEMO - 7/16/92 To: Paul Mahoney From: Lee B. Eddy Subject: Personal Property Tax Exemption or Classification For Disabled Veterans Thanks for the memo of July 14, 1992 on this subject. The data appear to be very complete, and I thank you for making a clear staff recommendation. By copy of this memo to Mr. Hodge and Ms. Allen, I will ask them to place this matter on the agenda for our next Board meeting. copy: Board Reading File Wayne Compton Elmer Hodge Mary Allen * - With copy of PMM memo ~a-~c~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ /D - 8- 9a MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors ~,~ ~~ FROM: Paul M. Mahoney DATE: July 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Personal Property Exemption or Favorable Classification Disabled Veterans At the meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held on June 23, 1992, the Board directed the County Attorney to research a recent amendment to State law providing a favorable personal property tax classification for disabled veterans and requested the Commissioner of the Revenue to report to the Board concerning the fiscal impact of implementing such an amendment to the County Code. The 1991 session of the Virginia General Assembly (Chapter 247) amended Section 58.1-3506 of the State Code. This section of the State Code authorizes the governing body of any county, city, or town to levy personal property taxes on the various separate classes or classifications of tangible personal property enumerated in this section. There are 18 separate classes or classifications of tangible personal property listed in this section. By letter dated June 17, 1992, Mr. Robert R. Mitchell, Jr. requested Supervisors Eddy and Nickens to consider sponsoring the necessary ordinance to allow disabled veterans to receive a reduced personal property tax rate. It is my understanding that Mr. Mitchell has also contacted the Commissioner of the Revenue by telephone concerning this issue. This provision of the State Code lists specific items of property and declares them to be a separate class of property constituting a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of tangible personal property taxation. The amendment describes this classification of tangible personal property as follows: One motor vehicle owned and regularly used by a veteran who has either lost, or lost the use of, one or both legs, or an arm or a hand, or who is blind or who is permanently and totally disabled as certified by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In order to qualify the veteran shall provide a written statement to the commissioner of revenue or other assessing officer from the Department of Veteran Affairs that the veteran has been so designated or classified by the Department of Veteran Affairs as to meet the requirements of this section, and that his disability is service-connected. For purposes of this section, a person is blind if he meets the provisions of Section 46.2-739. Of all the various separate classifications and exemptions to personal property taxation authorized in the State Code, I am aware of only two exemptions that the County has exercised its discretion to apply: • an exemption for household goods and personal effects (authorized by Section 58.1-3504); and • an exemption for farm animals, grain, and farm machinery and tools (authorized by Section 58.1-3505). The County has created a separate classification for taxation for mobile homes; however, the rate of taxation for mobile homes is not reduced, rather the rate of taxation is identical to the real estate tax rate. Subject to certain limitations, the governing body may levy a tax on the various classifications of personal property enumerated in this section at different rates from the tax levied on other tangible personal property. The Commissioner of the Revenue has provided me with a listing of those individuals receiving from the Commonwealth free Disabled Veteran license plates for motor vehicles. There are approximately 90 vehicles on this list. There are approximately 30 vehicles on this list for POW license plates. Members of the National Guard are entitled to one-half fee license plates (approximately 120 vehicles). Disabled veterans and POWs are currently exempt (National Guard pay one-half) from the County license (decal) fee, see Sec. 12-28(e) of the Roanoke County Code. If the Board decides to adopt an ordinance creating a special classification(s) for tangible personal property, and adopts a reduced rate for taxation, the revenue loss would depend upon the tax rate. Using an average personal property tax bill of $200.00 per vehicle for 90 disabled veteran's vehicles would result in a revenue loss of $18,000, if the tax were eliminated. Expanding the number of preferential treatment classifications for personal property taxation would result in a significantly greater revenue reduction. It is suggested that this request for preferential treatment for purposes of personal property taxation be analyzed within the broader context of all the fees and taxes levied by the County and the possible petitions for similar treatment by the various other special 2 interest classifications. There are 18 separate classifications authorized in Section 58.1- 3506; this request is but one of the classifications. Use value assessment for real estate (agricultural, horticultural, forest and open space uses) and real estate tax exemptions for elderly and handicapped/disabled persons are significant, existing programs for County residents. The Board last year adopted an ordinance authorizing the reduction of water rates in hardship situations for elderly or handicapped disabled persons. The latter two programs are based upon certain gross income and financial worth criteria. The requested preferential classification for personal property is not subject to any "needs" (income or net worth) analysis. Finally the Board should consider this request within the context of the various requests for tax exempt status for purposes of real estate taxation. Over 9% of the total assessed value of real estate in Roanoke County is currently tax exempt. Accordingly, staff recommends that this request be denied. PMM/spb 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ _ / THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Report and Recommendation Concerning Space Needs for the County and County Schools Administration. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COPII~iENTS: EXECUTIVE SLTMMARY• As you know, a study of space needs was recently completed. The study resulted from a discussion on January 14, 1992, by the Board of Supervisors regarding our $284,000 annual office rental and the potential for using that sum as debt service for financing a new facility. A Space Study Team, consisting of representatives from both the County and the Schools, held its first meeting on February 7, 1992, and initiated an effort which resulted in the recommendation contained in this report. BACKGROUND' In recent years several studies, both internal and external, have addressed space needs for the County and the Schools. The Blue Ribbon Commission, appointed in July, 1987, recommended that the County should "seek to build a central administration facility in the very near future." Internal studies in 1987 and 1988 also identified a serious need for more space and improved facilities. Our most recent study, conducted by Jones & Jones Associates, identified a current need for an additional 10,000 net square feet for the County and a projected need of 13,000 square feet by the year 2000. Office areas at the Administration Building were found to be extremely crowded and in some cases poorly situated for efficiency in dealing with the public and with each other. These conditions not only inhibit efficiency and effectiveness, but also have a negative impact on employee morale. The School administrative offices have similar problems. Based on their own studies, school personnel have indicated the need for an additional 5,000 net square feet. Several alternatives for addressing these needs have been identified, developed, evaluated from a financial standpoint, and discussed at length. The alternatives considered are briefly summarized here: 1. Purchase the Traveler's and Penn Forest Corporate Center and move both the County and School Administrations to them. 2. Purchase the Traveler's and the Brambleton Corporate Center and move the School Administration and selected County offices. 3A & B. Purchase the Traveler's Building only and move the School Administration and selected County offices. Two variations of this alternative were explored. 4A & B. Purchase the Brambleton Corporate Center and move additional County offices there. Two variations identified. 5. Purchase the Traveler's Building and move the County Administration. 6, Move the School Administration to the present RCOS site. Purchase the Traveler's Building and move the County Administration there. It is the feeling of those involved in the study, both from the County Administration and the Schools, that Alternative 6 best meets the total need. The following is a further description of that alternative. o Construct a wing at Northside High School to allow the transfer of North County ninth graders from Northside Junior High to Northside High School. This, in turn, would allow sixth graders from Burlington, Glen Cove Masons Cove and Mountain View elementary schools to move to Northside Junior High, thereby creating a true middle school for North County. This would also provide for the mainstreaming of RCOS students and eliminate the need for using the RCOS in the future for the student population. o Move the County School administrative offices to the present RCOS site. School personnel have said that this building would suit their needs very nicely from the standpoint of overall square footage, and in the way the building is arranged. Open bay areas there would provide excellent space for textbook storage and for the print shop. The building is air conditioned except for three bays. o Relocate Social Services and Health Services to the present school facilities at 526 College Avenue. The facilities would be refurbished for this purpose. Square footage available is not only adequate, but would provide for some future growth. o Move those offices currently located in the County Administration Center (RCAC) and those currently located in the Brambleton Corporate Center to the Traveler's Building. o Convert the RCAC into a Recreation Center. Although some refurbishment of the building would be required, it would make an excellent facility for this purpose. This segment of the plan would involve the following components: Move the Ogden Senior Citizen's Center to the RCAC. - Move Leisure Arts from the Pinkard Court Facility to the RCAC. - Use the community room at the RCAC as a multi- purpose room, including a gymnasium. - Move the Recreation Department Staff to the RCAC. - Sell the Ogden and Pinkard Court properties, or possibly convert Pinkard Court to low cost housing. Of all the alternatives considered, Number 6 best meets the total need: o Eliminates all office rent expense except for Health Services in Vinton. o Provides for greatly improved working conditions for the County Staff with the consequent improvement in service to the citizens. o Provides for improved office facilities for the School Administration. o The School Board and School Administration support this alternative. o Addresses the need to mainstream RCOS students which we must do by order from the Office of Civil Rights. o Allows the acceleration of the creation of a planned Middle School for North County. o Provides for a consolidation and an improvement in recreational facilities. o Frees up two County properties, Ogden Senior Citizens Center and Pinkard Court, to be sold. STAFF RECOl~II~iDATION Staff recommends that Alternative 6 be implemented. FINANCIAL IMPACT' Please see attached Exhibits 1 and 2. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Donnie C. Myers Assistant Administrator Motion by: Bayes E. Wilson, Superintendent Roanoke County Schools ------------------------------ ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------- VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Attached: Exhibit 1 - Capital Costs for Alternative 6 Exhibit 2 - Twenty-Year Cashflow Analysis Exhibit 3 - Space Usage and Requirements Statistics Exhibit 4 - Schedule of Events Exhibit 5 - Summary of Leased Space LAW OFFICES OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON £~ AGEE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1919 ELECTRIC ROAD, S. W. CHARLES H. OSTERHOUDT P. O. BOX 200GB TELEPHONE MICHAEL S. FERGUSON ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 703-774-1197 EDWARD A. NATT p 2401 V FAX NO. MICHAEL J. AHERON 703-7 7 4-0961 G. STEVEN AGEE MARK D. KIDD November 12, 1992 Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County HAND DELIVERED RE: Amendment of Proffers - Carlen Controls Gentlemen: Enclosed please find the original Proffer amending the conditions for Carlen Controls. This matter is set for the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on Tuesday, November 17. I would appreciate your including it in the Board Packages. Should there be any questions, please advise. Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON & AGEE, P.C. ~9~ ~~' Edward A. Natt EAN/cnh Enclosure cc: Ted Carlen Carlen Controls P. O. Box 21068 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Roanoke County Planning Department P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 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: November 17, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Public Hearing - Roanoke County Charter Amendments COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUNII~IARY OF INFORMATION Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing in order that citizens of Roanoke County have an opportunity to comment upon the County's request that the General Assembly amend its existing Charter. The proposed Charter amendment is Section 2.02 - Taxing powers - relating to taxes on hotel/motel rooms and tax on cigarettes or tobacco products. ALTERNATIVES' (1) Authorize public hearing to be held on December 15, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. (2) Not authorize a public hearing. Respectfully submitted, ti. 1 r l ~.. .. ~/'~, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by Eddy Johnson Denied ( ) Kohinke Received ( ) Referred Nickens to Minnix c:\wp51\agenda\general\public.hea 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1992 RESOLIITION REQIIESTING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO AMEND THE CHARTER FOR THE COIINTY OF ROANORE WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has complied with the provisions of § 15.1-835 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby requests the General Assembly to amend the existing Charter of the County of Roanoke. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby requests the General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia to amend the Charter of the County of Roanoke as follows: 1. § 2.02. Taxing powers.--In addition to the powers granted by other sections of this charter and general laws, the county shall have the power to raise annually by taxes and assessments, as permitted and limited by genera law, in the county such sums of money as the board of supervisors shall deem necessary to pay the debts and defray the expenses of the county in such manner as the board of supervisors shall deem expedient. In addition to, but not as a limitation upon, this general grant of power the county shall have power to levy and collect ad valorum taxes for admission to or other charge for any public amusement, entertainment, performance, exhibition, sport or athletic event in the county, which taxes may be added to and collected with the price of such admission or other charge; to levy and collect taxes 1 on hotel and motel rooms not to exceed :..= r--~="'t ~1>.3 of the amount charged for the occupancy thereof; to levy and collect taxes on the sale of meals, including nonalcoholic beverages, only as provided for by general law and such tax shall apply also to food prepared on premises and sold to take out, such tax is subject to limitations as may be imposed by general law; to levy and collect privilege taxes, local general retail sales and use taxes as provided by law; unless prohibited by law, to require licenses, prohibit the conduct of any business, profession, vocation or calling without such license, require taxes to be paid on such licenses in respect of all businesses, professions, vocations and callings not exempted by prohibition of general law; to franchise any business or calling so as to protect the public interest; and to require licenses of all owners of vehicles of all kinds or the privilege of using the streets and other public places in the county, require taxes to be paid on such licenses and prohibit the use of streets, alleys and other public places in the county without such license; <<` ~ tax on lw .. ~.. i- L. -. ++~; t B' t .C! uc :~:.: :~~.: o od r 0 cc a tob n ~'~ ~><>~ P .... t those taxes specially authorized in Title 58.1 of the Code. In addition to the other powers conferred by law, the County of Roanoke shall have the power to impose, levy, and collect, in such manner as its board may deem expedient, a consumer or subscriber tax at a rate or rates not exceeding those authorized by general law upon the amount paid for the use of gas, electricity, 2 telephone, and any other public utility service within the county, or upon the amount paid for any one or more of such public utility services, and may provide that such tax shall be added to and collected with bills rendered consumers and subscribers for such services. 2. That the Clerk to the Board shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly representing Roanoke County. 3. That this resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. c:\wp51\agenda\code\charter.rso 3