Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1993 - Regular• O~ AOAN ~~ ~ p Z ~, 2 a~ 1838 C~~~tx~#~ ~~ ~.~~xx~~~e ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA OCTOBER 26, 1993 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. NOTE: The Board Meeting will start at 2:00 ,p.m. There will be a recess at 3:30 p.m. for the Board members to attend the Forensics Lab Groundbreaking at 4:00 p.m. The meeting will reconvene for the evening session at 7:00 p.m. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (703) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48-hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (2:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. AT 2:05 P.M. FM ARRIVED 2:10 P.M. 2. Invocation: Reverend Rick Elmore Cave Spring Baptist Church i ® Recycled Paper 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS NONE C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II. R-102693-1 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC ACCEPTED BY TORN L. SLAUGHER, CHAIRMAN OF THE CONIlVIITTEE TO COMII~MORATE WORLD WAR II, NORMAN ELMORE~AND WAYNARD CALDWELL D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Authorization to Purchase Replacement for Ladder Truck for Town of Vinton. (T. C. Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue) A-102693-2 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE PURCHASE PRICE OF $407,466, SPLIT BETWEEN COUNTY AND VIIVTON, FROM UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE AND STAFF TO COriTINUE TO MONITOR THE SITUATION TO TRADE OR UTILIZE THE EXISTING VEHICLE URC 2. Request for Funds for Recodification of County Code. a (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) A-102693-3 BLT MOTION TO APPROPRIATE $6,500 FROM BOARD CONTINGENCY FUND URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Expand an Existing Mobile Home Park, Located at 1000 Mattie Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Carolina Mobile Home Park. BL.T MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 11/30/93 URC H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of a Permanent Access and Environmental Clean-Up Easement from Richard P. Rider in connection with the Dixie Caverns Landfill Site. (Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney) 3 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 11/16/30 URC LBE REQUESTED THAT MAPS BE MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE 2ND READING I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Declaring the Pinkard Court Recreation Center as Surplus Property and Authorizing Donation of the Facility to Total Action Against Poverty. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) LBE MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION UNTII. 11/16/93 FOR STAFF TO MAKE ORD MORE BINDING AND GET CO NT FROM TAP - NO VOTE CONSENSUS OF BOARD TO POSTPONE TO 11/16/93 2. Ordinance Governing the Procedures and Standards for the Regulation of Cable Television Rates Pursuant to the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) 0-102693-4 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AYES: BL,.T~.LBF., HCN, FM NAYS: EGK 3. Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of aRight-of--Way and Easement on Fort Lewis Mountain to David Shelor. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 16, 1993 4 BOARD CONSENSUS TO COr~TINUE TO 11/16/93 J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel NONE 2. Regional Cable TV Committee NONE K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WII.L BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WII~L BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WII.L BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-102693-5 B T MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC 1. Approval of Minutes September 28, 1993. for September 14, 1993, and 2. Donation of Sanitary Sewer and Water Line Easements in Connection with the Robert J. Miller Sewer Line Extension Project. A-102693-5.a 3. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Planning Commission. A-102693-S.b 4. Request to Officially Name Bonsack Park. A-102693-5.c 5 5. Resolution Declaring the Intent to Reimburse the County from Proceeds of the 1993 Virginia Public School Authority Bond Sale. R-102693-S.d 6. Request for Designation of Voting Delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties' Business Meeting, November 9, 1993. A-102693-S.e L. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Eddy: 1~Re~uested that Chairman or ECH make inquiries to Roanoke City about exploring adding additional business representative as recommended by Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce. (21 Advised that the recently appointed member to Virginia Western Community College Board donated $1,000 to his election opponent's campaign. M. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE N. REPORTS B .-T MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE REPORTS FOLLOWING DISCUSSION OF ITEM #6 UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 6 4. Payment of Taxes by Credit Card 5. Proclamations Signed by the Chairman. 6. Report on 1991 Water Project LBE ASKED IF THE STATE HEALTH DEPT HAS APPROVED THE WATER TREATMENT PLAN. ECH WILL GET INFO. 7. Report on Bond Projects 8. Report on Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Solid Waste Facilities. O. WORK SESSION (2:30 P.M.) 1. Northside Fieldhouse. PRESENTATIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF NORTH ROANOKE RECREATION CLUB REGARDING THE NEEDS IN THE NORTHSIDE AREA FOR ~1) EDUCATIONAL TEACHING NEEDS BY ROSANNE MYERS;~2) ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR RECREATIONAL PROGRAM BY HOWARD BULLEN~ AND (3) LARGER COMPETITION FACILITY BY CHARLES BRISCOE. ECH ADVISED THAT HE WILL BRING BACK A REPORT TO BOARD AFTER TAN 1ST WITH INFO ON FUNDING HCN SUGGESTED THAT THE PARKS & REC DEPT DESIGNATE A PERSON TO DETERMINE ECON DEV EFFORTS HCN SUGGESTED THAT FACILITY COULD BE PART OF PARKS & REC DEPT WITH PRIORITY GIVEN TO NORTHSIDE AREA BIiT ADVISED THAT HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT SPENDING FUNDS TO UPGRADE GYM AT RCOS LBE SUGGESTED TOURING THE VARIOUS GYMS AS PART OF STUDYING THIS PROTECT P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (5) To discuss the location of a perspective business or industry (7) for consultation with legal counsel to discuss the actual or potential litigation with Charles Cooper. EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD AFTER EVENING SESSION FM MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:30 P.M. URC Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-102693-11 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO AT 9:18 P.M. URC R RECESS (3:30 P.M.) 1. Groundbreaking Ceremonies for the Western Virginia Forensics Science Laboratory and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner FM DECLARED RECESS AT 3:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.~ S. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to Rezone .886 Acre From C-1 to R-3 to s Construct Multi-family Dwelling Units Located on Starkey Road Approximately 150 Feet South of Intersection with Woods Crossing Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Hobart Family Trust. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 0-102693-6 B T MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC ONE CITIZEN SPOKE 2. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct an Accessory Apartment Located at 1845 Mountain View Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Douglas & Dorothy Forbes. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 0-102693-7 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 3. Ordinance to Rezone 0.6504 Acre from C-2 Conditional to C-2 to Construct an Automobile Parts Retail Store Located at 3505 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Floyd T. Critcher. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 0-102693-8 LBE MOTION ~1) TO CONCUR WITH PLANNING COMII~IISSION REC011~Il1~NDATION TO DENY REZONING TO C-2 UNCONDITIONAL ~2) CHANGE THE ZONING TO C-1 UNCONDITIONAL URC TEN CITIZENS SPOKE 4. Ordinance to Amend Conditions on 2.066 Acres to 9 Construct aHotel/Restaurant Located Approximately 200 Feet North of Like Street and Walrond Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Richard W. Sloan. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 0-102693-9 BIiT MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC BBL T_REQUESTED THAT COUNTY ADM WORK WITH DEVELOPER, UTILITY DEPT AND CITIZENS TO SOLVE THE AREA SEWAGE PROBLEMS WHEN THE BACK PORTION IS DEVELOPED AND SEWER LINE EXTENDED ONE CITIZEN SPOKE 5. Ordinance to Rezone 1.22 Acres From C-2 to R-1 to Expand or Replace an Existing House, Located at 5374 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 0-102693-10 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC T. CITIZEN COMII~NTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Bob Peckman~, 8131 Webster Drive, inquired about recent excavation and re filling the area at Walrond Park. BL<T responded that in preparation for building ball fields, a contractor was allowed to take dirt if he would level the proposed area. TMC advised that the contractor encountered rock. U. ADJOi;f RNMENT BL.T MOTION TO ADTOURN AT 9:20 P.M. URC io o~ aon-v ~.~ • • ~, Z ~ 2 0 a 1838 C~~~x~#~ ~# ~~~~~~~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA OCTOBER 26, 1993 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. NOTE: T'he Board Meeting will start at 2:OO..p.m. There will be a recess at 3:30 p.m. for the Board members to attend the Forensics Lab Groundbreaking at 4:00 p.m. The meeting will reconvene for the evening session at 7:OO~.m. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (703) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48-hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (Z:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: Reverend Rick Elmore Cave Spring Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. 1 ® Recycled Paper B. C. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution Commemorating World War II. the Fiftieth Anniversary of D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Authorization to Purchase Replacement for Ladder Truck for Town of Vinton. (T. C. Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue) Z. Request for Funds for Recodification of County Code. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Expand an Existing Mobile Home Park, Located at 1000 Mattie Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of 2 Carolina Mobile Home Park. H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of a Permanent Access and Environmental Clean-Up Easement from Richard P. Rider in connection with the Dixie Caverns Landfill Site. (Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney) I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Declaring the Pinkard Court Recreation Center as Surplus Property and Authorizing Donation of the Facility to Total Action Against Poverty. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 2. Ordinance Governing the Procedures and Standards for the Regulation of Cable Television Rates Pursuant to the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) 3. Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of aRight-of--Way and Easement on Fort Lewis Mountain to David Shelor. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) COriTINUED TO NOVEMBER 16, 1993 J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel 2. Regional Cable TV Committee 3 K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WII.L BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WH.L BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WII.L BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of Minutes for September 14, 1993, and September 28, 1993. 2. Donation of Sanitary Sewer and Water Line Easements in Connection with the Robert J. Miller Sewer Line Extension Project. 3. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Planning Commission. 4. Request to Officially Name Bonsack Park. 5. Resolution Declaring the Intent to Reimburse the County from Proceeds of the 1993 Virginia Public School Authority Bond Sale. 6. Request for Designation of Voting Delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties' Business Meeting, November 9, 1993. L. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS M. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND CO1bIlViUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 4 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Payment of Taxes by Credit Card 5. Proclamations Signed by the Chairman. 6. Report on 1991 Water Project 7. Report on Bond Projects 8. Report on Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Solid Waste Facilities. O. WORK SESSION (2:30 P.M.) 1. Northside Fieldhouse. P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (5) To discuss the location of a perspective business or industry. Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R RECESS (330 P.M.) 1. Groundbreaking Ceremonies for the Western Virginia Forensics Science Laboratory and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner 5 EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.) S. T. U. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to Rezone .886 Acre From C-1 to R-3 to Construct Multi-family Dwelling Units Located on Starkey Road Approximately 150 Feet South of Intersection with Woods Crossing Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Hobart Family Trust. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 2. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct an Accessory Apartment Located at 1845 Mountain View Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Douglas & Dorothy Forbes. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 3. Ordinance to Rezone 0.6504 Acre from C-2 Conditional to C-2 to Construct an Automobile Parts Retail Store Located at 3505 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Floyd T. Critcher. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 4. Ordinance to Amend Conditions on 2.066 Acres to Construct aHotel/Restaurant Located Approximately 200 Feet North of Carvin Street and Walrond Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Richard W. Sloan. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) 5. Ordinance to Rezone 1.22 Acres From C-2 to R-1 to Expand or Replace an Existing House, Located at 5374 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) CITIZEN C011~Il1~NTS AND CO1~~IlVIUNICATIONS ADJOURNMMI:NT 6 -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 RESOLUTION 102693-1 COMMEMORATING THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF WORLD WAR II WHEREAS, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II is being celebrated between 1991 and 1995; and WHEREAS, most of the major battles and campaigns involving American forces took place fifty years ago, in 1943, 1944 and 1945; and WHEREAS, a large number of residents of Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley fought in that war and returned here to live, contributing greatly to our community over the past fifty years; and WHEREAS, by remembering and commemorating the anniversary of World War II, we not only honor the veterans who fought in that war and the people who died during it, but we also remember the horror and sacrifice experienced during that time as we look for ways to keep peace in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the people of Roanoke County, does hereby officially commemorate the FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF WORLD WAR II; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors urges that everyone remember the men and women who served in the Armed Forces during the upcoming celebration of Veteran's Day on November 11. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: renda J. Hol on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Congratulations File G~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF WORLD WAR II WHEREAS, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II is being celebrated between 1991 and 1995; and WHEREAS, most of the major battles and campaigns involving American forces took place fifty years ago, in 1943, 1944 and 1945; and WHEREAS, a large number of residents of Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley fought in that war and returned here to live, contributing greatly to our community over the past fifty years; and WHEREAS, by remembering and commemorating the anniversary of World War II, we not only honor the veterans who fought in that war and the people who died during it, but we also remember the horror and sacrifice experienced during that time as we look for ways to keep peace in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the people of Roanoke County, does hereby officially commemorate the FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF WORLD WAR II; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors urges that everyone remember the men and women who served in the Armed Forces during the upcoming celebration of Veteran's Day on November 11. ACTION N0. A-102693-2 ITEM NUMBER ~ ""' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Request To Replace Vinton Ladder Truck COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: / / BACKGROUND' In 1985 the Town of Vinton and Roanoke County agreed to jointly purchase an aerial ladder truck. The truck was purchased from Grumman Emergency Products and was equipped with a Hahn Fire-Spire Ladder. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 1987 a ladder like the County's experienced a failure in West Caldwell, New Jersey. This resulted in the recall of all ladders of this type. Our truck was taken to Hahn Service Center in Reading, Pennsylvania for evaluation. The inspection revealed the ladder was functional and the unit was put back in service. In April of 1991 the Town of Vinton received a letter from the designer of the ladder advising of a failure in Riverside, California and recommended taking the ladder out of service until it could be tested. The test was performed in December of 1991 and confirmed the defect previously identified by the designer. Since that time, the Town of Vinton and Roanoke County have filed suit against Grumman. Both Hahn and Grumman have gone out of business. OSHA has developed a retrofit and a private engineer has evaluated our ladder and determined the OSHA retrofit will not work on it. During the past two years, the other two County ladder trucks and Roanoke City ladder trucks have routinely responded to fire calls in the Vinton fire district and the other county areas the Vinton ladder normally served. On several occasions the aerial ladders have had to be raised in order to access roof areas, etc. Also, the Insurance Service Office evaluated our department during this period and we were penalized for not having the required third ladder truck in service. ~-~ After exhausting all avenues to repair the ladder, bids were solicited for a replacement unit by the County Procurement Department. Bids were received from four (4) vendors and were opened on October 7, 1993. A committee comprised of Bonnie Preas, Procurement Department, Barry Fuqua, Vinton Fire Chief and Battalion Chief Ron Edwards, County Fire and Rescue Department, evaluated the bids. Prices ranged from $407,466 to $424,500 with two companies offering a trade in allowance for the existing truck. The committee recommended the purchase of a 1993 Simon/LTI 110 Ft aerial ladder truck at a cost of $407,466. They also recommended the trade in of the existing ladder truck for $45,000 credit, making the final cost $362,466. We will have to require the trade to be subject to the outcome of our suit against Grumman, which is scheduled to begin October 25, 1993. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: 1. Trade in the existing Grumman ladder truck and pay one-half the purchase price of the 1993 Simon/LTI ladder truck. The cost to the County would be $181,233 with funding coming from the unappropriated fund balance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. SUBMITTED BY: T. C Fu a Fir Chi f ACTION APPROVED: ~i mer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens Denied ( ) to approve purchase price of Eddy Received ( ) $407,466, split between Johnson Referred County and Vinton, from Kohinke To unappropriated fund balance Minnix and staff to continue to Nickens monitor the situation to trade or utilize the existing vehicle cc: File T. C. Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue B. Clayton Goodman, Vinton Town Manager Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance VOTE No Yes Abs x x x ACTION NO. A-102693-3 ITEM NO. JJ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: COUNTY CODE RECODIFICATION COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: `~~ BACKGROUND• In 1991, the Roanoke County Code was completely recodified by Municipal Code Corporation at a cost of about $8,000. In 1992, Supplement #1 was issued at a cost of $3,621. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a letter from Municipal Code Corporation outlining the costs associated with Supplement #2. The new Zoning Ordinance alone accounts for 224 pages of a 496-page supplement. The Planning Department requested a price estimate for pamphlets containing the Zoning Ordinance to be issued separately from the County Code. FISCAL IMPACTS• $10,168 for 100 copies of Supplement #2; approximately $2,000 for 200 pamphlets of the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There are sufficient funds available in the County Attorney's budget to cover $6,500 of the costs involved and I would request an appropriation from the Board's contingency fund for the remaining $6,500. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney 1 ~D-a Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ~ ) Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy x Denied ( ) to approve staff recommendation Johnson x Received ( ) Kohinke x Referred Nickens x to Minnix x cc: File c:\wp5]\agenda\general\reeod Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance 2 Municipal ~_~, Corporation October 21, 1993 Ms, Susan M. Patterson-Bane Legal Assistant . Roanoke County Po ~X 29500 Roanoke, 't~irginia 24018-0795 Dear Susan, Pursuant to cur conversation muesday~ I am outlining the costs associated r~vith Supplement No. 2 to the Roanoke County Gode. Sug~lement No. 2 100 copies of 496 pages at $20.50 $10,168.00 per page . . . . The new coning ordinance accounts for $4,592.00 of this cost. Many municipalities have additional copies of thrair aoriiriq ordinances printed for separate sale to builders and developers. While they often merely charge cost, some sell. the pamphlets for $25.00 to $50,00 to help recoup the cost of initial publication. Here are some options on publication of additional copies as pamphlets. Reprint Pamuhlets -- Zoning grdi~anCe 50 copies 230 pages at $4.50 per page . . . $1,035.00 GoVers . . . . . • . . . ~~ • QQ Total $1,085.00 Unit price: $21.70 100 copies 230 pages at $5.00 per page . $1,150.00 Covers . ~ 0 Total . . $1,230.00 Unit price; $12.30 Posc Office Box .?235 1700 Capitdl Circle, S.W. Tallahassee, F1.32316 (904 } 5 7b-3171 1-800-2b2-COD>; ~-a Mme. Susan M. Patterson-Bane October 21, 1993 riage 2 We also offer two additional cast-saving ~iptians: (1) We can provide, gratis, unprinted covers, similar to the sample enclosed. ~~~ ~f the County is willing to accept the pamphlet unassembled, we will provide banded pamphlets, along with covers and screw posts separately packaged at a $Q.15 reduction per page, This would save you an additional X34.50. If you exercised bcth these options, yQUr unit prices would fa11 to $2D.D1 and $11.1, respectively, for 50 and 100 copies. You wi11 have about three weeks before we need a decision an pamphlets. If we ha~cte not heard from you }~y the time the supplement is ready to print, we will giye you a pall. We look forward to delivering your Supplement sometime before Thanksgiving, Please feel free to call if you have further questions. Sincerely, l -"~--`~ Rebecca peNeve Supplement Service RD:kt enclosures; (1) ~ ll2 x 11, Single ~alumn Land Use and Aevelopment Ordinance Reprint Pamphlet,, Bay Minette, Alabama (2) Sample cover (3) Sample solar swatch 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: October 26, 1993 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 November 30, 1993. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: (1) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand an existing mobile home park, located at 1000 Mattie Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Carolina Mobile Home Park. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION I3 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 November 30. 1993. G_i (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, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Minnix Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Vote No Yes Abs 5Z// ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ „ .~~. (i ,: ~ .n. `~ 9? .. "9~.R '~ Oqp :.. ,, •, y~ a ~o i i \ ri is »»t~ ~ \ r~ ,,~ \ ~ ~ H .W ~ CI ~fr~y o~- ~o~ ~oxE ~~~ - P~of'~~T~ -z~~~'~ ~, ~'--1 r..~- N a~ DEPARI~NT OF PLANNING PETITIONER: CAROLINA MOBILE HOME PARK (JERRY ALTIERI) TAX MAP NUMBER(S): 39.20 - 1 - 15 AND ZONING REQUEST: SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXPANSION OF MOBILE HOME PARK L ~,,. gaff rise only ~"~ a ~~ For Staff Use Only Proposed Zoning: Same Use Type: Proposed Land Use: Expansion of Existing Manufactured Home Park Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, widthNCEdISrREOUIRED FIRSTnts of the requested district? YES XX NO IF N0, A VARIA Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES XX - NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. NO __ If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES Variance of Sectionls) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR fNCOMPLETE. ws ws Consultation 8 112" x 11 " concept plan Application `~ ~ Metes and bounds description ~ Water and sewer application Justification N' ws Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that / am either the owner of the properly or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and r~sent of the owne~~~ Owner's Signature: For Staff Use On/y: Casa Number Applicant TPr Pam Prn.PPrt i Pa , ; „r ctnn ~ ~~ "' ' _a 1~tobi 1 e Home Park Th'e Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following Questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. 'Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. Manufactured homes provide a .viable and affordable housing, option for a segment of the County's population. Advances in manufactured housing technology make manufactured homes virtually as safe and attractive as conventionally built homes. There is ~an existing need for additional manufactured home lots, particularly in the northeast section of the County, in order to provide affordable housing alternatives for more persons who desire to become residents of Roa-noke County. The current manufactured home park has co-existed with other homes in the area since the early 60's as a convenient, attractive and harmonious community. The addition of-a maximum of 16 manufactured home lots on the existing 6 acre ..tract would have minimal, if any, impact on the health, safety, and general welfare~,of -the public.- Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The _expansion of the existing manufactured home .park conforms to .the general guidelines and policies of the Roanoke County Comprehensive plan. Although the expanded park's density would place it in the middle to high density range, the features of-the area would cause this to have minimal 2 sides of the impact. Since the park lies on a corner of the County, park adjoin industrial-proper-ties in-the Roanoke Center..-for Industry and Technology. The park forms ari excellent buffer from- this industrial area. Since the park was developed in the earlyerit0 in the pareadedThespark has homes and has not deterred other developm been a "good neighbor" and has become an attractive part of the community. (See "Block 2" on Continuation Sheet) Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. . The expansion of _the park will have minimal impact on the surrounding community.. Since the park has existed for over 30 years, there will be no real change in land use or the basic layout of the park. Due to the development of several high density housing communities in the area,. there will be little additional impact on the area's roads. There have been no fires in the park since its inception. Police and rescue calls have been virtually nonexistent. There would be no significant impact on the schools or the parks and recreation facilities. Due to the utilization of septic systems, a private community water system, and private refuse collection, there would be no impact on County utilities. (See "Block 3" on Continuation Sheet) JUSTIFICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONTINUATION SHEET Block 2 This is evidenced by the number of neighbors who live in the area including the park as part of their evening walks. Several residents in the area have even encouraged their relatives or friends to move into the park. The particular area of th d be no impaction any Pesources~cated is not in a flood plain. There woul Block 3 The planned expansion of the park would occur only along the sides of the and the property adjoining Roanoke's Center for Industry and Technology, property owned by Emmett Sherrill. Park expansion plans have been discussed with Mr. Sherrill and have received his full support. With the exception of the addition of a small water storage tank system at the existing pump house, there would be no impact on other areas of the park or on any other adjoining properties. Through the planned expansion and its full compliance with the provisions on the Manufactured Housing Overlay District, the park will serve a need for the provision of affordable housing opportunities and will become a more attractive element of the community. Mr. Emmett Sherr-ill 2034 Broyles Lane Roanoke, Virginia 24012 September 20, 1993 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 3738 Brambleton Ave., SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Sirs: I am the owner of the property' (Tax Map 39.20-1-16) that adjoins Carolina Mobile Home Park on the northeast side. During the time I have lived next to the park} I have noticed no problems from the park. The park is neat and there have been no noise or other problems from the park. In general, the park has been a very good neighbor in the- area and provides a buffer from the Roanoke City Industrial Park. I have discussed the expansion plans of the park with the owner and feel that the expansion would have no negative impact on the area. I fully support the expansion of Carolina Mobile Home Park and would ask that you grant this special use permit. Sincerely, Emmett Sherrill '~ I aao± ~ -~ ~ ~ o ~ v J -~ W „~. ~ oC o M 4 ¢ a- W ~ ~ 0 2 F-- ~ cY -- - - ac '' N - " °u A ~ 4 _ d ~ pCY~ ~. \ ~ J d p¢ ~ O O u i ~ ` U ~ F ~'6 3 Cb +I ~ ' ~ ` i ~ ~ Z 0 .o. a Q W W K '~1~ V 1 N 0 Z ' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ i W I C ~ Q CT- ~ ~ i-1 ~- I M '`• ; ~ o ~O ~ ~ + ~` ~ ~ "-+ ~ ~ S po ["6 O ~ t___- --- J. - -- a ~ ~ ! F ~ I a ~ -+' w ~ o J ~ Z .O l1 O £ -.L+ „ ~ ~ X ~~ w E I I ~ ~ ~y ~J V~ W W CL ~ ~ W e ~ . t~. e 0 a ~ ~ ij ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 a ~ ' Z _ T~ i u a ~ W d ~ o s 1 a ~ ~+- ~,~, ~~ v o~> ~ N a N Q ' ',~~ ~ a ~a ~.~.. u ~ ¢ ~~ 7 ~ .~,~ ~_ ~~ J Q '~ ~ ¢ CJ O £ - W 2 o ~ W 40.. a ~-t'- ' F V ~ r r,, £ S J ~ T Q a ~ ~ Il I "~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z3 z~ CL ~ J ~ ~ ~~ ~ .O O ~ " W E n ~ ~ ~ ~ p -' _ Q ~ W Z N WJ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Z £ W Gh- < ~ OC S ¢ £ .}.1 O N w ~~ w o M ~ ~~ E „i ~3N , ~ w o Z ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ r ~ u M "~ c~ ~ + Z ~ d u il d a ~ ~- ~ C ~ N ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~' T E.. Y S 1 l 39.oy-~ ~ /141 C. ANJ Lou~st M. aoylei 4~-I _ •: ' -~ am. ~ t .. J 't.- ~~ h [S ~: 1 g e. ~ ~. ' j S~R Y ~ '.• 0.t ~ .`y tir ~+~'+~ ,lt .. ,h. . n• -, yr -.:•,r .j+.• ~+a .d -` ~'(.}# w ~.-'~~ 'tom ~....•,:j, ~~ ~~~ /'~' / . ` t t ; ,l y. y . 1 4 .sue ''y~~~ ~ } ~'f''.~ 1 . ~ '4 ' ~^ y '~ ~ a "'° ^'-` ~ ~ ~a ~j ~ ~`7S^ f se ~ ? } ~ ~ , ~ S . ~ ~." ~ ~" 3 r , '~ _ ~a. 1 ( ~-YYP S j ~'y*' ~ ~ / ,~ ~pti ~ ` ~~ t. ~/~ . 9- SZf ~ ~ tit " ji <I" _ _ g+F .R.4~-. -...- .T. ,~ _.,. t.. C • h. i i. ~ - f •f. 1 ~ ~ t~ ~ ~3''~- _ __ _ ' .;y* ' ,~ ' a v+ r ~:~ l ,'''~.~' t. +,~~ Y~ ti~. :. ~s:-_ •~~~;R i J~ ~rfc. '~ ~ ~`~~ :. X •~ ` i`i: -,~ ~ ~°.. ~=- '- z,- __ ~ ~~~ s-. _ _ ~~ tS~=. -- - -.. - _. .c ~ ... .,. ' - - _ 1 • ~ i `j 1 :. _.~ ~I i ~~ _ :. ~ aL t ~ c-~ Y 1t ~~ :; ~, - SY';xr ~ "}.'Yep.;.: __.___ _ - - -~ ~~~ _- t: , :,-~ s: r. Y4` ' s:~ r._ " ~2' c~ ~ } ; ., a,. :;'-fix=~ ? ~~: ~ - - _ ,a,, ,,~ - a .. 1, ~'?; ~ - .•~ ~;yC. >f ~~.~ ~~ ~yMY. l` A Y` _ at:~.!t. :y .Y ":. Y .x ,c ei.,~ ~ t9 +'r`~''j.~+~+`y" t ~ }'~C.~~ 4. [~`l+~N x''~'_!' pis ~ . ~fty^J~,. ~ t F ~,_•- a .r ~ -,. °• t ~`{~+e~'s't' -d cfedY-l` f '~' j ~ a s~~'3 +t~ w r a.~,.. 3 ~j r~ ~~. +~ x ~ ~- +{ j ~,r~ ~A?.~` ,~ 5~'-~ `,~ ~ ','y.` ~~lis4 ~ ~,„~ ~,~ ~ ~~~=yrt~ ~+.~,~ L~~"ati .T~Ir'"~f'~.wZ'Z' ~~~334 .F: ~'c7'n F. d ~t~5 ~ s 'd' t a i.g -.f ~ ,~=.~ x xF S. 'S-,~f '`~- ~: r r~a~c ~%`'`• ~. ~;..~F~f n. (' `dam .r~ xis."' .... Y''r ` ~"'~.^ `' -- -: y a •.t ~~iN1 ~ , J ~.,~ty~ ~F. ~ I w r s. r iA `yY"~ t ~';d'r ~ F t~r~ ~ 4 ~ 1-. y'1y ~ , r ; ~ s. r~ ~}` • ~* ~y '! ~.1~' r. ~ Y~.'iC}-. - "x3` : - - :Y:',~ _ 5 r ~ ~' '' - ' fi L ~•~.. - ..YY~ - L • ~ - ~ -mss ~ _ - ~.K~t~~" bF. ', _ ~~~',, - JP'1`i'i. ~.~ -~ - y~ ,~~.~ T.4 i ~ { r ~ ~~ ~' ~*~ :S - ;~ : ~.' ~~ :;: '~ ~„ _ ~. .-~, '~*~~~ ~ mss' y~,y" r;ij,~w.g24¢t~,vkt '~ 'r;]' ,..,1dR4~t~^ ~~ f y ... t .'~7 e. ~ .;:;.. yi.? r N,~'4.1v,. ~ yr; ~ S s{r~ w^ ^~A .1N.3..4. ~' - - .. ._.`~. i~• a_ .. Fem.. ' - -. 0~ ROANp~.~ - ~. A i ti ~ 2 ~ 7 2 ~ ;. 3 ` a~ 1838 C~~~x~t~ ~# ~~~xx~.~~~ UTILITY DEPARTMENT October 7, 1993 Mr. Jerry W. Altieri JER-PAM Properties, Inc. 5562 Wipledale Avenue Roanoke, VA 24019 RE: Availability No. 93-180 Carolina Mobile Home Park Tax Map No. 39.20-1-15 Rezoning Water/Sewer. Dear Mr. Altieri: Neither public water nor sanitary sewer service are available to this property at the end of Broyles Lane, Tax Map No. 39.20-1-15. The closest public water system is approximately 2,600 feet away from this property along West Ruritan Road. The nearest public sewer system is approximately 2,500 feet away from this property along West Ruritan Road. If the owner would want to extend the. public water and sewer systems to serve this property, you should have your engineer give you a cost estimate and then complete the design. If you or your engineer have any questions or need additional clarification of the above information, please contact me at 387- 6102. Sincerely, -~~ ~' ~ Robert C. Fronk. Utility Engineer ds c: Arnold Covey 1206 KESSLER MILL ROAD • SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 • (703) 387-6104 ® Primed on Recyded Paper ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~`~ - AT A REGULAR MEHELD AT THE ROANOKE OCOUNTY ADMINISTRAT ONO ENTER COUNTY, VIRGINI , MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE. AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A PERMANENT ACCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP EASEMENT FROM RICHARD P. RIDER IN CONNECTION WITH THE DIXIE CAVERNS LANDFILL SITE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: `~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize acquisition of a permanent easement for purposes of access and environmental clean-up in connection with the Dixie Caverns Landfill site, and several unnamed drainages flowing therefrom to the Roanoke River. BACKGROUND' In August of 1992, Roanoke County executed an "Administrative Order By Consent For Removal Action" e~f ~ a removals esponse Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to p action at the Dixie Caverns landfill site. This removal response action includeantsrk leademcadm um Band szincenwhich maynhavehbeen metal contamin released from the site. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In order to comply with EPA regulations and standards, and perform the required removal response action, it is necessary to acquire a permanent access and environmental cleanup easement upon, over, under and across property owned by Richard P. Rider. Staff has negotiated with the property owner for ect toga e royal by necessary easement for the sum of $3,000.00, subj PP ~}-1 the Board of Supervisors. The easement to be acquired is more particularly described as follows: A perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT, to construct, install, operate, inspect, use, maintain, remove, repair or replace certain improvements, and a perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT for access to and from several unnamed drainages flowing from the Buyer's Dixie Caverns Landfill site to the Roanoke River and related improvements, for any purpose in connection with the environmental clean-up of Dixie Caverns Landfill, in accordance with all federal, state, and/or local mandates and requirements, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deeds dated July 22, 1977, and January 23, 1978, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1070, page 713, and Deed Book 1085, page 542, respectively, and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 63.00-1-6. The location of said easement is shown and designated as "CENTERLINE OF NEW 80' ACCESS EASEMENT" on Sheet 2, "CENTERLINE OF NEW 80' ACCESS EASEMENT" on Sheet 3, and "CENTERLINE OF NEW 80' ACCESS EASEMENT", "NEW VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT", and "CENTERLINE OF NEW 30' ACCESS EASEMENT" on Sheet 4, of that certain plat entitled "Easement Plat for County of Roanoke Showing New Access Easements Across the Properties of Appalachian Power Company and Richard P. Rider", dated April 30, 1993, and revised May 12, 1993, prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers - Surveyors - Planners, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County in Plat Book 15, page 111, said plat being by reference incorporated herein; FISCAL IMPACTS' The purchase price of $3,000.00 for the permanent easement would be paid from the available funds in the Dixie Caverns Account. ALTERNATIVES' Alternative Number 1: Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the acquisition of a permanent access and environmental clean-up easement from Richard P. Rider in connection with the Dixie Caverns Landfill Site. Alternative Number 2: Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance and direct staff to initiate eminent domain proceedings. µ-i STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance in accordance with Alternative Number 1. Respec fully submitted, Vick a L. Hu an Assistant County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs ~-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A PERMANENT ACCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP EASEMENT FROM RICHARD P. RIDER IN CONNECTION WITH THE DIXIE CAVERNS LANDFILL SITE WHEREAS, in connection with the cleanup of the Dixie Caverns Landfill and in order to comply with EPA regulations and standards within a specific time frame as set out in the "Administrative Order By Consent For Removal Action," it is necessary to acquire a permanent access and environmental cleanup easement upon, over, under and across property owned by Richard P. Rider, and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 63.00-1-6; and, WHEREAS, the location of the easement is shown and designated on a plat entitled "Easement Plat for County of Roanoke Showing New Access Easements Across the Properties of Appalachian Power Company and Richard P. Rider", dated April 30, 1993, and revised May 12, 1993, prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers - Surveyors - Planners, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County in Plat Book 15, page 111; and, WHEREAS, staff has negotiated the purchase of said easement from Richard P. Rider for the sum of $3,000.00; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 26, 1993; and the second reading was held on November 16, 1993. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: H-I 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to acquire from Richard P. Rider a permanent access and environmental clean-up easement, as shown on the plat recorded in the Roanoke County Clerk's Office in Plat Book 15, page 111, for an amount not to exceed $3,000.00. 2. That the purchase price shall be paid out of the funds available for the Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup Project. 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of Ordinance declaring Pinkard Court Leisure Arts Center surplus property and donating said property to Total Action Against Poverty COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND At the first reading of this ordinance on October 12, 1993, the Board was asked to (1) declare the Pinkard Court Leisure Arts Center surplus property, and (2) donate the property to Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) for the purpose of developing and operating special purpose housing or any other purpose consistent with TAP's mission and local zoning. At the First Reading, the Board asked that the County receive assurances that the building would be used for purposes compatible with the neighborhood. The Board also asked that the staff insure that the County would retain some ultimate control over the use and development of the property should TAP decide to dispose of the building at a future date. The idea of a reverter clause was presented. TAP has indicated in writing their intentions for the short term use of the building, and their longer term desires to use the building for special purpose housing (draft copy attached). Staff has also discussed with Judi Huffman, TAP's Director of Housing Development, the County's interest in retaining some control over the ultimate disposition of the building. She indicated that she understood the County's concerns and that suitable provisions to ensure the long tern appropriate use of the building could be discussed and worked out as part of the formal transfer of the building. ~-- 2 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The attached ordinance declares this property as surplus, authorizes the donation of the property to Total Action Against Poverty, and authorizes the County Administrator to execute any documents necessary to effectuate the transfer of the property to TAP. Any agreements executed will insure the Board's interest in the appropriate and ultimate use of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. Approve second reading of the prepared ordinance. Respectfully Submitted, a-- Terrance L. Harring n, AICP Director of Planni and Zoning Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Motion by Approved, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs TO 7722030 P.02 OCT-12-1993 10 22 FROM TAP 345 4461 ~-i October 1Z, 1993 Mr. Elmer Hodge Couzity Administrator Roanoke County Hoard of Supervisors P.O. Pox 29$00 363$ Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, vA 24018 RE: Acquisition of Pin and Court School Dear Mr. Hodge: We are very excited about the probability of Roanoke County donating the Pinkard Court School to TIaP. T,A,P has requested that Hunter Gxeene, our Architect on the Single Raom Occupancy project, vi8zt the site and work with us in creating potential uses of the Pznkard Court School. Upon acquisition of the building, our first consideration for long term utilization of the building is for housing of a special needs popu7.ation such as physically or mentally impaired individuals capable o:E independent living. Our second possibility would be to utilize the building far a day care center. we are present7.y researching funding , availability for these uses. Share term usage is pJ.~nned to provide offzce and warehouse space far our Weatheriziation, Furnace Repair and Indoor Plumbing pragra.ms. These programs use a maximum of three "step--vans" on a daily basis to service clients and an 5-10 pickup is utilized by the Acting Director of Weatherization and Housing Counseling an a daily basis. Employees would drive their personal cars acid park them fax; the day. on some occasions, clients will be visiting txze site for the application process. Traffic in the neighborhood would not be appreciably iracreaued or disrupted. The short term use of the building for the TAP programs w~.J.l be suspended upon securing ~"unds far ].Ong term usage. It is our intent to work with Ms. Hippard and Ms. St. Clair of the neighborhood to ensure a smooth t.razisitian. ' we are looking forward to creating a long term project- that both TAP and Roanoke County wi].I be proud. zf you should require any further infa.rmation, please contact me or 3udi Huffman, Acting Uirectol: of Housing Development. TD 7722030 P.03 OCT-12-1993 10 22 FRDM TAP 345 4461 ~~ Thank you for this opportunity. Very truly yours, Theodore J. Ed1iCh, zI2 Er2CUtiV2 DireCtOX TOTAL P.03 r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY AD993ISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, ORDINANCE DECLARING PINKARD COURT LEISURE ARTS CENTER SURPLUS PROPERTY AND DONATING SAID PROPERTY TO TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on October 12, 1993; and a second reading was held on October 26, 1993, concerning the disposition of 4.5 acres, more or less, known as the Pinkard Court Leisure Arts Center, Tax Map No. 87.08-1-30; and 3. That the donation of this property to Total Action Against Poverty is hereby authorized; and 4. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the donation of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. c:\wp51\agenda\realest\pinkard•ct AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE 102693-4 GOVERNING THE PROCEDIIRES AND STANDARDS FOR THE REGIILATION OF CABLE TELEVISION RATES PIIRSIIANT TO THE RIILES OF THE FEDERAL COMMIIriICATIONB COMMISSION AND THE CABLE TELEVISION CONSIIMER PROTECTION AND COMPETITION ACT OF 1992 WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1979, the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") passed and adopted Ordinance No. 2308 granting to Salem Cable TV ("Grantee") the nonexclusive right to construct, own, and operate a cable television system in the County; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of April, 1991, the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") passed and adopted Ordinance No. 42391-15 granting to Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. ("Grantee") the nonexclusive right to construct, own, and operate a cable television system in the County; and WHEREAS, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") was enacted on October 5, 1992, and became effective on December 4, 1992. The 1992 Cable Act amends the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and, in particular, Section 623 (47 U.S.C. 543) governing the regulation of rates charged by cable television operators; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 1993, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adopted rate regulations pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act. These FCC rate regulations were released May 3, 1993, and became effective September 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Part 76.900, Subpart N, Section 76.910, on the 8th day of October, 1993, the County submitted FCC Form 328--Certification for Local Franchising Authorities--to the FCC via Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Pursuant to Section 76.910, the date on the return receipt, October 12, 1993, is to be considered the date filed. A copy of FCC Form 328 was also served on Grantee on October 8, 1993, the same day it was submitted to the FCC; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 76.910, the County's certification becomes effective 30 days after the date filed; and WHEREAS, in adopting this Ordinance, the County reviewed applicable FCC regulations governing the basic service tier and provided a reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of interested parties. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 12, 1993; and the second reading was held on October 26, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this Ordinance will govern the procedures to be undertaken by the County for the regulation of Grantee's Cable television rates pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act and the regulations of the FCC as follows: Section 1. Full Regulatory Power Reserved. All rates and charges for basic cable service and any other cable programming services, as defined by the 1992 Cable Act and applicable FCC regulations, shall, to the extent permissible, be subject to regulation by the County in a manner provided by this Ordinance. 2 This Ordinance shall apply to all cable television system operators in the County. The Grantees and/or any other operator of a cable television system operating in the County shall be subject to the rate regulation provisions provided for herein, and those of the FCC at 47 C.F.R., Part 76.900, Subpart N. The County reserves the right to amend this Ordinance from time to time consistent with the requirements of the FCC, and state and federal law. Section 2. Procedures for Implementing Regulation of Basic Cable Service. A. The County hereby adopts and shall follow the rules relating to cable rate regulation promulgated by the FCC at 47 C.F.R., Part 76.900, Subpart N. B. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, a County representative will send to each Grantee and each operator of a cable television system in the County, via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, a written notice, which shall include a copy of this Ordinance and the completed FCC Form 328. C. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice referenced in Section 3.B., each 3 Grantee and any other cable television operator shall respond with rate and benchmark information utilizing FCC Form 393-- Determination of Maximum Initial Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services and Actual Cost of Equipment. 1. If the initial rates and/or any subsequent rate increases are within the FCC standards, the rates will be effective thirty (30) days after submission. 2. If the County is unable to determine whether the rate in issue is within the FCC's standards, based on the material before it, or if the Grantee or any other cable operator has submitted a cost-of- service showing seeking to justify a rate above the FCC's reasonable rate level, the County may take an additional period of time to make a final determination and toll the effective date of the proposed rates for a commensurate period. a. The County may take an additional 90 days if it needs more time to ensure that a rate is within the FCC's rate standards. 4 b. The County may take an additional 150 days to evaluate a cost-of- service showing seeking to justify a rate above the reasonable rate level. c. The County must issue a brief written decision regarding its invocation of the additional time period. 3. If no action is taken within the above referenced time periods, the proposed rates will go into effect, subject to subsequent refund orders if the County later issues a decision disapproving any portion of the proposed rates. 4. In all cases, the County will issue a written decision to approve the rate schedule, disapprove the rate schedule or continue for review. 5. If rates are in excess of the FCC's standards, the rates may be reduced by the County pursuant to applicable FCC regulations. D. After the initial rate schedule procedures are followed, as described in this Section, each 5 Grantee and/or any other cable operator shall, in conjunction with each change in the rates and charges applicable to basic cable service, conform to the standards of the FCC. Before any rate change is effective, each Grantee and/or any other cable operator shall notify the County of its requested rate change by giving the County thirty (30) days advance written notice before the change is effective and by providing the County with its rates and applicable information pursuant to FCC regulations. E. To the extent specifically permitted by federal law and applicable FCC rules, each Grantee and/or any other cable operator shall be permitted to appeal to the FCC for a review of the decision of the County. Section 3. Consultant and Costs. A. The County may utilize a rate consultant to advise it on proposed rate changes and to assist it in the procedures and the standards for review adopted by the FCC. A rate consultant may be any person who has sufficient background and experience, in the sole opinion of the County, to properly evaluate and analyze rates and charges. 6 B. All costs for the review of initial rates or rate changes shall be paid by the cable operator upon demand of the County, unless contrary to applicable rules of the FCC governing these procedures or unless otherwise specifically preempted by state or federal law. The costs shall include, but not be limited to, rate consultants, attorney's fees and the reasonable value of services (as determined by the County) rendered by the County or any County employees, agents or representatives of the County. Section 4. Application of the Requirements in this Ordinance. The requirements described in this Ordinance are applicable to each Grantee and all operators of cable television systems within the County subject to rate regulation according to the 1992 Cable Act and applicable FCC rules. 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Kohinke A COPY TESTE: 7 Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. Salem Cable Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn Ross, Clerk, Town of Vinton Forest Jones, Clerk, City of Salem Howard Musser, Chairman, Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee 8 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: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: An ordinance governing the procedures and standards for the regulation of cable television rates pursu- ant to the rules of the Federal Communications Commission and the Cable Television Consumer Pro- tection Act of 1992 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY• The adoption of this ordinance will satisfy one of the legal prerequisites for obtaining certification from the F.C.C. to regulate rates for basic service as authorized by this Board on September 28, 1993. BACKGROUND• On September 28, 1993, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 92893-2 authorizing the filing of F.C.C. Form 328 with the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) to obtain certification for the county to regulate rates for basic cable service and equipment. One of the certifications required from Roanoke County on Form 328 pertains to the adoption and administra- tion of regulations regarding basic cable service which are consistent with those regulations adopted by the F.C.C. pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act"). These local regulations must be adopted by Roanoke County as the franchising authority for its local cable television systems within 120 days of certification. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This ordinance formally adopts for Roanoke County the legal authority provided by the 1992 Cable Act to regulate rates and charges for basic cable service and equipment for all cable television systems operating within the county. It incorporates the F.C.C.'s procedures for review of each cable system's rates in accord with the benchmark approach set forth in the F.C.C. regulations. These procedures will apply to both initial rates as well as subsequent increases. The ordinance specifies further powers available to the Board in the rate review process. ~'- 2r FISCAL IMPACTS' No additional fiscal impact is anticipated beyond that previously authorized by the Board for hiring of outside legal counsel to assist in this rate review process. ALTERNATIVES' 1. Approve this ordinance as required to obtain F.C.C. certification for regulation of basic cable service and equipment rates. 2. Reject the ordinance and risk denial of F.C.C. certifica- tion to regulate local cable television system operators. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Alternative 1. J S Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by istant County Attorney Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs Respectfully submitted, ~+. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 AN ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR THE REGULATION OF CABLE TELEVISION RATES PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND THE CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMPETITION ACT OF 1992 WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of May, 1979, the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") passed and adopted Ordinance No. 2308 granting to Salem Cable TV ("Grantee") the nonexclusive right to construct, own, and operate a cable television system in the County; and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of April, 1991, the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") passed and adopted Ordinance No. 42391-15 granting to Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. ("Grantee") the nonexclusive right to construct, own, and operate a cable television system in the County; and WHEREAS, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") was enacted on October 5, 1992, and became effective on December 4, 1992. The 1992 Cable Act amends the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and, in particular, Section 623 (47 U.S.C. 543) governing the regulation of rates charged by cable television operators; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 1993, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adopted rate regulations pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act. These FCC rate regulations were released May 3, 1993, and became effective September 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Part 76.900, Subpart N, Section 76.910, on the 8th day of October, 1993, the County submitted FCC Form 328--Certification for Local Franchising Authorities--to the FCC via Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Pursuant to Section 76.910, the date on the return receipt, October 12, 1993, is to be considered the date filed. A copy of FCC Form 328 was also served on Grantee on October 8, 1993, the same day it was submitted to the FCC; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 76.910, the County's certification becomes effective 30 days after the date filed; and WHEREAS, in adopting this Ordinance, the County reviewed applicable FCC regulations governing the basic service tier and provided a reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of interested parties. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 12, 1993; and the second reading was held on October 26, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this Ordinance will govern the procedures to be undertaken by the County for the regulation of Grantee's Cable television rates pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act and the regulations of the FCC as follows: Section 1. Full Regulatory Power Reserved. All rates and charges for basic cable service and any other cable programming services, as defined by the 1992 Cable Act and applicable FCC regulations, shall, to the 2 " O`'` extent permissible, be subject to regulation by the County in a manner provided by this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall apply to all cable television system operators in the County. The Grantees and/or any other operator of a cable television system operating in the County shall be subject to the rate regulation provisions provided for herein, and those of the FCC at 47 C.F.R., Part 76.900, Subpart N. The County reserves the right to amend this Ordinance from time to time consistent with the requirements of the FCC, and state and federal law. Section 2. Procedures for Implementing Reaulation of Basic Cable Service. A. The County hereby adopts and shall follow the rules relating to cable rate regulation promulgated by the FCC at 47 C.F.R., Part 76.900, Subpart N. B. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, a County representative will send to each Grantee and each operator of a cable television system in the County, via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, a written notice, which shall include a copy of this Ordinance and the completed FCC Form 328. 3 ,.,j. ` C. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice referenced in Section 3.B., each Grantee and any other cable television operator shall respond with rate and benchmark information utilizing FCC Form 393-- Determination of Maximum Initial Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services and Actual Cost of Equipment. 1. If the initial rates and/or any subsequent rate increases are within the FCC standards, the rates will be effective thirty (30) days after submission. 2. If the County is unable to determine whether the rate in issue is within the FCC's standards, based on the material before it, or if the Grantee or any other cable operator has submitted a cost-of- service showing seeking to justify a rate above the FCC's reasonable rate level, the County may take an additional period of time to make a final determination and toll the effective date of the proposed rates for a commensurate period. a. The County may take an additional 90 days if it needs more time to ensure 4 _-~ that a rate is within the FCC's rate standards. b. The County may take an additional 150 days to evaluate a cost-of- service showing seeking to justify a rate above the reasonable rate level. c. The County must issue a brief written decision regarding its invocation of the additional time period. 3. If no action is taken within the above referenced time periods, the proposed rates will go into effect, subject to subsequent refund orders if the County later issues a decision disapproving any portion of the proposed rates. 4. In all cases, the County will issue a written decision to approve the rate schedule, disapprove the rate schedule or continue for review. 5. If rates are in excess of the FCC's standards, the rates may be reduced by the County pursuant to applicable FCC regulations. 5 ~~' D. After the initial rate schedule procedures are followed, as described in this Section, each Grantee and/or any other cable operator shall, in conjunction with each change in the rates and charges applicable to basic cable service, conform to the standards of the FCC. Before any rate change is effective, each Grantee and/or any other cable operator shall notify the County of its requested rate change by giving the County thirty (30) days advance written notice before the change is effective and by providing the County with its rates and applicable information pursuant to FCC regulations. E. To the extent specifically permitted by federal law and applicable FCC rules, each Grantee and/or any other cable operator shall be permitted to appeal to the FCC for a review of the decision of the County. Section 3. Consultant and Costs. A. The County may utilize a rate consultant to advise it on proposed rate changes and to assist it in the procedures and the standards for review adopted by the FCC. A rate consultant may be any person who has sufficient background and experience, in the 6 ,,.~• sole opinion of the County, to properly evaluate and analyze rates and charges. B. All costs for the review of initial rates or rate changes shall be paid by the cable operator upon demand of the County, unless contrary to applicable rules of the FCC governing these procedures or unless otherwise specifically preempted by state or federal law. The costs shall include, but not be limited to, rate consultants, attorney's fees and the reasonable value of services (as determined by the County) rendered by the County or any County employees, agents or representatives of the County. Section 4. Application of the Requirements in this Ordinance. The requirements described in this Ordinance are applicable to each Grantee and all operators of cable television systems within the County subject to rate regulation according to the 1992 Cable Act and applicable FCC rules. 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. 7 ACTION NO. ITEM NO . ~'~ AT A ERG NI M HELD AT THE ROANOKE O OUNTYERADM NISTRATION C LATER COUNTY, ~ MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Continue Second Reading of an Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of a Right-of-Way and Easement on Fort Lewis Mountain to David Shelor to November 16, 1993 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' In connection with the upgrade of Roanoke County's radio tower on Fort Lewis Mountain as a part of the Phase II Public Safety Trunked Communications System, Mr. David Shelor has provided to the County's contractors and employees working on this project a right- of-way across his property which substantially reduced the time and distance required to travel to this tower. As part of the consideration to Mr. Shelor for not charging the County, or its contractors, any rent or fee for the continuing use of this right- of-way, Mr. Shelor has requested a right-of-way from the County from the end of Westward Lake Drive to a parcel of real estate presently owned by him. At the Board meeting on October 12, 1993, the Board approved the first reading of an ordinance granting the right-of-way to Mr. Shelor with the second reading to be held on October 26, 1993. The Board further asked the staff to determine the relative value of the easement compared to the benefit he has provided to Roanoke County from the use of the right-of-way over his property. Staff was also requested to examine issues related to the State standards for roads over both his easement and the remaining property of Mr. Shelor. Si,TNIlKARY OF INFORMATION Staff is working to obtain clarification from Mr. Shelor as to road standards for any future development of his property and the continued use by County employees of the right-of-way to the top of Fort Lewis Mountain. ~" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the second reading of the ordinance be continued to November 16, 1993. Respectfully submitted, J eph Obenshain, Esq. S~ for ssistant County Attorney Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Approved ( ) Motion by Eddy Johnson Denied ( ) Kohinke Received ( ) Nickens Referred Minnix to Vote No Yes Abs ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ ~ "~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Grievance Panel Two-year term of Joy A. Herbert, Alternate expired October 10, 1993. Ms. Herbert is moving out of the Roanoke Valley and is not eligible to serve another term. 2. Regional Cable TV Committee Three-year unexpired term of Thomas E. Finton, citizen representative. His term will expire June 11, 1995. Mr. Finton has resigned. Submitted by: '`~)'") ~ Mary H. lien, CMC Clerk to the Board Approved by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) _ Minnix Nickens ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 RESOLUTION 102693-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 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 October 26, 1993 designated as Item K - 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. Approval of Minutes for September 14, 1993, and September 28, 1993. 2. Donation of Sanitary Sewer and Water Line Easements in Connection with the Robert J. Miller Sewer Line Extension Project. 3. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Planning Commission. 4. Request to Officially Name Bonsack Park. 5. Resolution Declaring the Intent to Reimburse the County from Proceeds of the 1993 Virginia Public School Authority Bond Sale. 6. Request for Designation of Voting Delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties' Business Meeting, November 9, 1993. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol n, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Rec Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning ~- September 14, 1993 5fi0 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 September 14, 1993 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 September, 1993. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Minnix called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Vice Chairman Lee B. Eddy, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Harry C. Nickens 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 C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Chairman Minnix. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. 56L September 14, 1993 ' by countless individuals, through expenditures of both time and money; and WHEREAS, the kick off for the 1993 campaign will begin with the Day of Caring, from noon on September 14 until noon on September 15, at which time employees from local businesses will help paint, repair, plant and remodel at assorted United Way Agencies throughout the Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that September 14-15 is hereby proclaimed to be the 1993 DAY OF CARING in Roanoke County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its appreciation to the corporate and individual citizens throughout the Valley who will be participating in the event. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: NEW BIISINE88 1. Request for Authorization to Pursue Refundinq of a Portion of the 1991 Water Revenue Bonds. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) R-91493-2 Ms. Hyatt reported that interest rates have now declined to the point where refunding a portion of the 1991 Water September 14, 1993 564 WHEREAS, Section 15.1 227.46 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, requires the Board of Supervisors to submit a plan of refunding to the State Council on Local Debt ("SCLD") and to receive the approval of the SCLD before issuing bonds to advance refund the Prior Bonds: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE: 1. The Board of Supervisors authorizes the issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds to advance refund all or a portion of the Prior Bonds upon the terms and conditions to be determined by subsequent resolution or resolutions. The Refunding Bonds shall not be issued or sold until the SCLD has approved the issuance of the Refunding Bonds. 2. The County Administrator, the Director of Finance and such officers and agents of the County as either of them may designate are authorized and directed to apply to the SCLD on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for approval of the issuance of the Refunding Bonds to refund all or a portion of the callable Prior Bonds and to take such other action as may be required to obtain SOLD approval. The County Administrator and the Director of Finance or either of them, shall determine the portions of the callable Prior Bonds to be included in the plan for advance refunding to be submitted to the SOLD for approval; provided, however, that the issuance of the Refunding Bonds and the advance refunding of the Prior Bonds as determined by such officers or officer shall produce a Present Value Savings Ratio (as defined September 14, 1993 ~ V L~ 3. Request from the Roanoke Arts Commission for Donation to SupDOrt the 1994 High School Art Show. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) A-91493-4 Mr. Hodge requested that the Board approve a $500 donation from the Board Contingency Fund f.or the 1994 High School Art Show. Supervisor Nickens moved to deny the request for funding because he felt that the Board should not approve additional contributions when several other similar requests were denied during the budget process. Supervisor Eddy made a substitute motion to defer to September 28, 1993 to get more information on what other localities are doing; and that staff bring back all denied budget requests for funding from service organizations with their level of County participation. The motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy NAYS: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix Supervisor Nickens' motion to deny the request for funding carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens NAYS: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix 4. Request for Authorization to Submit an Application for a Virginia Community Development Block Grant for Valley TechPark. (Tim Gubala. Economic ~6~ September 14, 1993 moderate-income persons, and WHEREAS, citizens participation requirements have been complied with through two duly publicized public hearings. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Administrator to sign and submit all appropriate do~:uments necessary to constitute an application for 1993 Virginia Community Development Block Grant funds. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None 5. Request from the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission for Authorization to Purchase a Rescue and Fire Fighting vehicle. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) R-91493-6 Ms. Hyatt advised that the City and County of Roanoke have been asked to approve the Airport Commission's purchase of a aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicle at an approximate cost of $270,000. The federal government will reimburse the Commission for 90$ and the State will reimburse the Commission for 5$ of the costs. Supervisor Minnix moved to authorize the purchase and adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following September 14, 19.93 570 , Administrator and Clerk to the Board are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any additional documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval, as more particularly set forth in the report to this Board on this subject from the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission dated August 31, 1993, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Authorizing Cony-eyance of an Easement to Appalachian Power Company for Electric Service Across Roanoke County Property. (Clifford Craig. IItility Director) Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for September 28, 1993. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None Mr. Craig was directed to have the Parks & Recreation Department review the easement for the impact on future park use. 2. ordinance Amending Article iy, Seaer IIse Standards September 14, 1993 57~ Mr. Craig was directed to review Mr. Goria's comments and have a response by the September 28, 1993 meeting. 3. Ordinance Authorizing Acquisition of a Water and Sewer Easement from Dairymen. Inc. (Clifford Craig, IItility Director) There was no discussion. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for September 28, 1993. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None 4. Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance of an Easement to Appalachian Power Company for Electric Service Across Vinyard Park. (Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attornev) Staff was requested to review the easement with Parks and Recreation prior to second reading. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for September 28, 1993. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 12-34. Display of Decal Generally, of Article II. County Vehicle License of Chapter 12 of the Roanoke September 14, 1993 5~4 traffic summonses to residents of the locality where such vehicle is registered to enforce local motor vehicle decal requirements; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 24, 1993; and the second reading for this ordinance was held on September 14, 1993. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 12-34 of the Roanoke County Code entitled "Display of decal generally" be amended and reenacted to read and provide as follows: Sec. 12-34. Display of decal generally. a) A license decal issued under this article shall be attached to and displayed on the windshield of the vehicle for which issued in such manner as to be clearly visible. b) It shall be unlawful for any person ~`~r~~ti „< .................................................................................. obtai.h»>aric~ t~~.spl~y`<?c~ to operate a motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer required to be licensed under this article on any street, highway, road, or other traveled way in the County, unless a current license decal is displayed thereon as required by this section. The fact that the current license tax has been paid on such vehicle shall not bar prosecution for a violation of this section. A violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars ($20.00) and not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00). Any violation of this section may not be discharged by payment of such fine except upon _ _. adopt the ordinance. recorded vote: September 14, 1993 5 7 b The motion carried by the following AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ORDINANCE 91493-8 AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 10-33. REAIr ESTATE SERVICES., SECTION 10-34. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. AND SECTION 10-36. PERSONAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE OCCOPATIONB. OF ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL, OF CHAPTER 10, LICENSES, TO E%EMPT GROSS RECEIPTS LE88 THAN $3,000 FROM BUSINESS LICENSE TA% LIABILITY. WHEREAS, Section 10-36, "Personal and Business Service Occupations" of the Roanoke County Business License Ordinance imposes a business license tax of $0.34 per $100.00 of gross receipts upon a wide variety of personal and business services conducted within the County of Roanoke with a minimum license tax of thirty dollars ($30.00); and WHEREAS, the broad definition of "personal and business service" defined by representative example in subsection (b) of Sec. 10-36 includes many services conducted on a part-time basis and by juveniles and retired individuals; and WHEREAS, Section 10-34, "Professional services" of the License Ordinance imposes a business license tax of $0.50 per $100.00 of gross receipts upon every person providing professional services within the County with a minimum license tax of thirty dollars ($30.00); and WHEREAS, the definition of "professional services" defined in subsection (b) of Sec. 10-34 may include retired or part-time professionals or those individuals who maintain a valid 5 7 ~' September 14, 1993 1. That Section 10-33 Real Estate Services. , Section 10-34. Professional Services. and Section 10-36 Personal and business service occupations. of Article I. In General, of Chapter 10, LICENSES, be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 10-33. Real Estate Services. (a) Every person engaged in the business of providing a real estate service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of fifty cen~~s ($0.50) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the business during the preceding calendar Sec. 10-34. Professional services. (a) Every person engaged in the business of providing a professional service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of fifty cents ($0.50) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the occupation during the ~~ V September 14, 1993 It was consensus of the Board to nominate Jeffrey Ottaway to serve the unexpired four-year term of Patrick Shafner. Mr. Ottaway's term will expire June 30, 1995. Supervisor Johnson announced the resignation of Ron Massey, Hollins Magisterial District representative, from the Planning Commission. He requested that staff prepare a media release. ZN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-91493-9 Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda after discussion of-Item 5. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None Staff was directed to send a letter to Cox Cable TV, and television channels 7 and 10, encouraging them to come to an agreement and not negatively impact service to the citizens. RESOLIITION 91493-9 APPROVING AND CONCIIRRING 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 September 14, 1993, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 Septemb®r 14, 1993 582 announced that he had attended Opening Day activities of the Southwest Soccer Association with Chairman Minnix. (3) He advised that he has prepared a position paper on the School Board selection referendum which he has given to the supervisors. He suggested that all board members make sure that the citizens are well informed of this issue. Supervisor Nickens: He passed out to the members of the Board an economic impact s•~udy on the Blue Ridge Parkway. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Kohinke moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 1. General Fund IInappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund IInappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Police Department Activity Report 5. Fire & Rescue Reaction/Response Report IN RE: RECESS Chairman Minnix declared a recess at 5:25 p.m. IN RE: RECONVENEMENT Chairman Minnix reconvened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Joint Work Session with School Board to Dfacuss Capital Planning. School Board Chairman Frank Thomas called the School September 14, 1993 J S ~F members concerning contract negotiations: (a) Sigmon, Boone & Beasley cases; and (b) Litigation with Grumman Emergency Products; and Section 2.1-344 A (1) Discussion of a personnel matter; evaluation of the County Administrator. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EBECIITIVE SESSION R-91493-10 At 7:09 p.m., Supervisor Nickens moved to return to Open Session and adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None RESOLIITION 91493-10 CERTIFYING E%ECIITIVE 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 586 September 14, 1993 ' Ridge Parkway from AG-1 to AR. (Terry Harrington, Planning ~ Zoning Director) 0-91493-11 County Administrator Elmer Hodge reported that in December 1992 the Board delayed the zoning of parcels along the Blue Ridge Parkway and asked staff to evaluate the impact of development on the Parkway. A Parkway Review Committee was established and they identified eleven critical viewsheds that should be protected. Mr. Hodge advised that this public hearing will address 450 parcels on both sides of the Parkway. Most of the parcels have been zoned AG1. The Planning Commission recommended that they be rezoned either AR or R-1. Mr. Hodge reviewed action on the four separate properties as follows: 1. Sigmon Property: Strauss Construction is requesting R-1 zoning limited to 2.5 units per acre. 2. Beasley Property: Boone, Boone & Loeb filed suit against the County in an effort to get R-1 zoning of certain properties on the north and south side. 3. L. T. McGhee Property: Mr. McGhee purchased this property after the Board zoned it AG1. He is satisfied with the proposed AR zoning on half the property but not with the AG1 zoning on the other half. 4. Critical Viewsheds: The eleven critical viewshEds have not been advertised for a public hearing and would be left at their current zoning of AG1. The following citizens spoke in regard to the proposed Septembe2' 14, 1993 58 10. Alan Graczyk, 5507 Castle Rock, spoke supporting the rezoning because of the need for growth, jobs and affordable housing. 11. Melanie Graczyk, 5507 Castle Rock, spoke in support of the proposed zonings. 12. Jim Loesel, 2753 Tanglewood Drive, S. W., representing the Citizens Environmental Council, urged the Blue Ridge Parkway officials to act to protect the Parkway. 13. Sam Maxey, 3912 Sandpiper Drive, spoke in support of residential zoning because of the need for affordable housing. 14. Robert France, 2502 Carolina Avenue, representing the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation, spoke in support of agricultural zoning. 15. Robert E. Crawford, Jr. 6620 Shingle Ridge Road, supported protection of the Parkway scenic views. 16. Karen Scott, 8443 Poor Mountain Road, President of the Bent Mountain Civic League, spoke in opposition to R-1 zoning of the properties. 17. Rick Whitney, 5346 Castle Road, representing the Regional Homebuilders Association, supported delaying a decision on the Beasley/Boone property. 18. Al St. Clair, 3951 Carson Road, spoke in opposition to development because of higher taxes on small farmers near the property. 19. Ginny Owens, 6161 Cotton Hill Road, Citizens for September 14, 1993 ~ 9 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens NAYS: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix Supervisor Johnson moved to execute the Consent Order regarding the litigation with Strauss. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ORDINANCE 91493-11 AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAPS FOR ROANORE COIINTY, BY THE ADOPTION OF CERTAIN MISCELLANEOIIS CHANGES THROIIGHOIIT THE COIINTY TO SAID MAPS (BONBACR, COTTON HILL, POAGES VALLEY ROAD) WHEREAS, on December 15, 1992, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopted Ordinance 121592-10 which amended the Zoning District Maps for Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, citizens in various areas of the County have requested that the zoning classifications as reflected in the new zoning district maps of their properties be re-examined to address their questions and concerns; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held public hearings on June 1, 1993 and July 6, 1993, and have made recommendations to the Board; and WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require that the following properties and zoning district maps be, and hereby are, submitted to the Board of Supervisors for amendment; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been September 14, 1993 86.19-1-11; 86.19-1-12; 86.19-1-13; 86.19-1-14; 86.19-1-15; 86.19-1-16; 86.19-1-17; 86.19-1-18; 86.19-1-19; 86.19-1-20; 86.19-1-21; 86.19-1-22; 86.19-1-23; 86.19-1-24; 86.19-1-25; 86.19-1-26; 86.19-1-27; 86.19-1-28; 86.19-1-29; 86.19-1-29.1; 86.19-1-29.2; 86.19-1-29.3; 86.19-1-30; 86.19-1-31; 86.19-1-32; 86.19-1-32.1; 86.19-1-33; 86.19-2-1; p/o 8fi.19-2-9; 86.19-2-31; p/o 86.19-2-32; 86.19-2-33; 86.19-2-33.1; 86.19-2-33.2; 86.20-3-1; 86.20-3-3; 86.20-3-4; 86.20-3-5; 86.20-3-6; 86.20-3-7; 86.20-3-8; 86.20-3-9; 86.20-3-10; 86.20-3-11; 86.20-3-12; 86.20-3-13; 86.20-3-14; 86.20-3-15; 86.20-3-16; 86.20-3-17; 86.20-3-18; 86.20-3-19; 86.20-3-20; 86.20-3-21; 86.20-3-21.1; 86.20-3-22; 86.20-3-23; 86.20-3-24; 95.02-2-44; 95.02-2-45; 95.02-2-46; 95.02-2-47; 95.02-2-48; 95.02-2-48.1; 95.02-2-49; 95.02-2-51; 95.02-2-53; 95.02-2-54; 95.02-2-55; 95.02-2-56; 95.02-2-57; 95.02-2-58; 95.02-2-60; 95.02-2-60.1; 95.02-2-60.2; 95.02-2-60.3; 95.02-2-60.4; 95.02-2-61; 95.02-2-61.1; 95.02-2-61.2; 95.02-2-62; 95.02-2-63; 95.04-1-6; 95.04-1-7; 95.04-1-8.1; 95.04-1-8.2; p/o 95.04-1-12; 95.04-1-14; 95.04-1-16; p/o 95.04-1-17; 95.04-1-18; 95.04- 1-19; 95.04-1-20; 95.04-1-21; 95.04-1-22; 95.04-1-23; 95.04-1-24; 95.04-1-25; 95.04-1-26, 95.04-3-1; 95.04-3-2; 95.04-3-3; 95.04-3-4; 95.04-3-5; 96.01-1-1; 96.01-1-2; 96.01-1-3; 96.01-1-4.1; 96.01-1-5; 96.01-1-6; 96.01-2-1; 96.01-2-2; 96.01-2-3; 96.01-2-4; 96.01-2-5; 96.01-2-6; 96.01-2-6.1; 96.01-2-6.2; 96.01-2-7; 96.01-2-8; 96.01-2-9; 96.01-2-10; 96.01-2-11; 96.01-2-13; 96.01-2-14; 96.01-2-15; 96.01-2-16; 96.01-2-17; 96.01-2-18; 96.01-2-19; 96.01-2-19.1; 96.01-2-19.2; 96.01-2-20; 96.01-2-21; 96.01-2-21.1; 96.01-2-21.2; 96.01-2-22; 96.01-2-23; 96.01-2-24; 96.01-2-25; 96.01-2-26; 96.01-2-27; 96.01-2-28; 59 ~ September 1~, 1993 96.04-1-16; 96.04-1-17; 96.04-1-19; 96.04-1-20; 96.04-1-22; 96.04-1-23; 96.04-1-25; 96.04-1-26; 96.04-1-28; 96.04-1-29; 96.04-1-31; 96.04-1-32; 96.04-1-34; 96.04-1-35; 96.04-1-36; 96.04-1-36.1; 96.04-1-38; 96.04-1-39; 96.04-2-4; 96.04-3-1.1; 96.04-3-1.4; 96.04-3-1.5; 96.04-3-1.7; 96.04-3-1.8; 96.04-3-1.10; 96.04-3-1.11; 96.04-3-1.13; 96.04-3-1.14; 96.04-3-1.16; 96.04-3-1.17; 96.04-3-1.19; 96.04-3-1.20; 96.04-3-1.22; 96.04-3-2; 96.04-3-4; 96.04-3-5; 96.04-3-7; 96.04-4-1; 96.04-4-3; 96.04-4-4; 96.04-4-6; 96.04-4-7; 96.04-4-9; 96.04-4-10; 96.04-4-12; 96.04-4-13; 96.04-4-15; 96.04-4-16; 96.04-4-18; 96.04-4-19; 96.04-4-21; 96.04-4-22; 96.07-1-2; 96.07-1-4; 96.08-1-1; 96.08-1-3; 96.08-1-4; 96.08-2-2; 96.08-2-3; 96.08-2-6; 97.01-2-1; 97.01-2-2; 97.01-2-4; 97.01-2-5; 97.01-2-7; 97.01-2-8; 97.01-2-14; 97.01-2-15; ~ e~~e~r-~A- Northern P/O ~~P'~-~- 97.01-2-17 97.03-1-20; 97.03-1-23; 97.03-1-26; 97.03-1-29; 97.03-1-32; 97.03-1-36; 97.03-2-1; 97.03-2-4; 97.03-2-7; 97.03-2-10; 97.03-1-21; 97.03-1-24; 97.03-1-27; 97.03-1-30; 97.03-1-33; 97.03-1-37; 97.03-2-2; . „., ~ ., , 97.03-2-8; 97.03-2-11; 96.04-1-18; 96.04-1-21; 96.04-1-24; 96.04-1-27; 96.04-1-30; 96.04-1-33; 96.04-1-35.1; 96.04-1-37; 96.04-2-3; 96.04-3-1.3; 96.04-3-1.6; 96.04-3-1.9; 96.04-3-1.12; 96.04-3-1.15; 96.04-3-1.18; 96.04-3-1.21; 96.04-3-3; 96.04-3-6; 96.04-4-2; 96.04-4-5; 96.04-4-8; 96.04-4-11; 96.04-4-14; 96.04-4-17; 96.04-4-20; 96.07-1-1; 96.07-1-5; 96.08-1-2; 96.08-2-1; 96.08-2-4; 97.01-2-3; 97.01-2-6; 97.01-2-9; 97.01-2-16; 97.03-1-22; 97.03-1-25; 97.03-1-28; 97.03-1-31; 97.03-1-34; 97.03-1-38; 97.03-2-3; 97.03-2-6; 97.03-2-9; 97.03-2-12; ~~ 4 97.03-2-13; 97.03-2-14; 97.03-2-15; September 14, 1993 596 To discuss legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by the County Attorney and briefings by staff members concerning contract negotiations: (a) Sigmon, Boone & Beasley cases; and (b) Litigation with Grumman Emergency Products; and Section 2.1-344 A (1) Discussion of a personnel matter; evaluation of the County Administrator. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EXECIITIVE SESSION R-91493-12 Supervisor Johnson left the meeting at 9:45 p.m. and Supervisor Nickens left the meeting at 9:50 p.m. At 9:50 p.m., Supervisor Eddy moved to return to Open Session and adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Eddy, Minnix ABSENT: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens RESOLIITION 91493-12 CERTIFYING EXECIITIVE 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 ~/ September 28, 1993 ~9~ Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 September 28, 1993 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September, 1993. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Minnix called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Vice Chairman Lee B. Eddy, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Harry C. Nickens 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 C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Jay Owens, Lynn Haven Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. September 28, 1993 60C 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 8 - 9, 1993, as "THE SECOND ANNUAL ROANOKE VALLEY NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE FESTIVAL AND POW WOW", at:d extends its best wishes for an authentic and successful event. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ?. Introduction of Thomas 8. "Pete" Haislip, Director of Parks and Recreation and Jonathan Vest. Horticulture Agent for VPI Extension. Mr. Hodge introduced Thomas S. "Pete" Haislip, Director of the Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Chambliss introduced Jonathan Vest, Horticulture Agent for VPI Extension. Septamb~r 28, 1993 ~ o ~. - --- -- Proposed Rule-making, in MM Docket No. 92-266, implementation of sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Rate Regulation, FCC No. 93-177, released May 3, 1993, effective September 1, 1993, ("FCC regulations") which describes a comprehensive process whereby franchising authorities may regulate the rates charged by existing cable television operators for the basic service tier; and WHEREAS, the FCC procedure allows franchising authorities to seek certification from the FCC and thereafter regulate the rates charged by cable operators for the basic service tier; and WHEREAS, the County, as franchising authority, has reviewed the FCC certification process and applicable FCC forms and determined that it has the legal authority and financial capability to exercise rate regulation under the FCC's regulations; and WHEREAS, the County, with assistance from qualified advisors, has determined that it is in the best interests of the County, its residents, and cable television subscribers to exercise the regulatory authority afforded franchising authorities under the FCC's regulations; and WHEREAS, the County has determined that its best interests are served by moving forward in an expeditious manner seeking certification from the FCC to regulate the basic cable service tier to avoid potential rate increases which may result Septambar 28, 1993 60 4 The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None 3. Rec[uest for Inclusion in the Roanoke County Pao Plan of the Chief Deputies in the County Treasurer's, the Commissioner of the Revenue's. and the Clerk of Circuit Court's Offices. (Elmer c. Hodge. County Administrator) R-92893-4 Mr. Hodge reported that three Constitutional Officers have requested that their Chief Deputies be included in the County's Pay and Classification Plan. However, he advised that they will be exsmpt from certain aspects of the County personnel system because of the unique nature of their positions. These include the grievance procedure and application, qualification and appointment policies. Mr. Hodge advised that funds are available within the salary survey monies to cover increased salary costs. Following discussion, Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the resolution and include the Chief Deputies of the Clerk of Circuit Court, the Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue in classification plan and adopt resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Kohinke September 28, 1993 soy Employee Handbook shall from and after the adoption hereof be applicable to each of the employees of the aforesaid offices; and 4. That the elected officer of the constitutional office shall be exempt from the terms, provisions, and conditions of the County personnel system. The Chief Deputy in each said office shall be exempt from the terms, provisions, and conditions of the County personnel system relating the application, qualification, appointment, disciplining, dismissal, and grievance procedure provisions of the Roanoke County Employee Handbook. The Chief Deputy of each said officer is deemed to be a confidential, policy-making position. These positions shall remain subject to the express provisions of § 15.1-48 of the State Code; and 5. The participation of the employees of these constitutional offices in the County personnel system shall continue until revoked by the constitutional officer, either by written notice to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or by the election, qualification, and assumption of office by a new individual; and 6. The effective date of this resolution shall be September 28, 1993. 7. That an attested copy of this resolution be forthwith transmitted to each of the aforesaid constitutional officers. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: September 28, 1993 6 0 8 governmental entities in the areas proposed will permit more effective and efficient delivery of municipal services and promote the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the governing bodies of the County and the City adopt measures reflecting their desire to relocate and change a portion of the boundary line between them as requested by certain property owners within said areas; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that: 1. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke, in form approved by the County Attorney, establishing a new boundary line at certain points between said jurisdictions as more particularly shown on a plat by T. P. Parker & Son, dated April 12, 1993, entitled "Plat from records and subdivision for Roanoke College Investment Corporation and Morris Elam" and "Showing the Resubdivision of New Tract "B" (39.694 Ac.), Map for Roanoke College Investment Corporation (PB 14, Page 29) and a 13.552 Ac. Tract and Creating New Tract "B-1" (39.576 Ac.) and New Tract "B-2" (13.552 Ac.) situate on Wildwood Road and Waldheim Road." 2. The boundary line set forth in said agreement shall be described by metes and bounds. 3. Upon the agreement being duly executed by the Mayor for the City of Salem and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, said executions to be authorized September 28, 1993 6 ~ G viewsheds. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) R-92893-6 Mr. Hodge reported that at the September 14 meeting, Supervisor Johnson suggested that the National Park Service and Blue Ridge Parkway officials hold a public hearing to deal with protection of the viewsheds along the entire length of the parkway. He further requested that the appropriate state and federal legislators be invited to attend the public hearing. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: hYES: Supervisors Johnson, Fohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None Supervisor Johnson asked that the resolution be sent to all the Congressmen and local governments adjacent to the entire length of the Blue Ridge Parkway. RESOLIITION 92893-6 REQIIEBTINa THAT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND BLIIE RIDGE PARKWAY HOLD A PIIBLIC HEARING ON PROTECTION OF THE BLIIE RIDGE PARKWAY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has recognized the importance of protecting the view from the Blue Ridge Parkway by establishing a committee that recommended critical viewsheds located in the County that should remain agricultural; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the citizens in the Roanoke valley are vitally interested in protecting the scenic beauty of the Blue Ridge Parkway as evidenced by the September 28, 1993 R-92893-7 Ms. Hyatt explained that the State Council on Local Debt had met and approved the refunding of the 1991 Water System Revenue Bonds. The bonds will be issued in the principle of $56,000,000, an increase over the original request of $30,800,000 because of the favorable market rate. The estimated savings now exceeds $2,000,000 over the forty year term of the bond. Supervisor Kohinke moved to adopt the resolution as amended by Ms. Hyatt. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None RESOLUTION 92893-7 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA AUTHORIZING THE ISSIIANCE AND SALE OF THE COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA WATER SYSTEM REFUNDING REVENIIE BONDB, BERIEB 1993 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is advisable to refund a portion of the outstanding principal amount of the County's $59,731,373.75 Water System Revenue Bonds, Series 1991 consisting of the bonds maturing on July 1, 2021 and July 1, 2031 in the aggregate principal amount of $47,615,000 ("Refunded Bonds"). WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors proposes to issue revenue bonds of the County payable solely from revenues of the County's water system ("Bonds") pursuant to the Master Indenture September 28, 1993 1 L Indenture and the Second Supplemental Indenture. Nothing in this Resolution, the Bonds, the Master Indenture or the Second Supplemental Indenture shall be deemed to pledge the full faith and credit of the County to the payment of the Bonds. 3. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution and the Bond Purchase Agreement (as, defined below). The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form, shall be dated such date as the County Administrator or Chairman of the Board of Supervisors may approve, shall mature in the years and amounts determined by either of such officers and set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, shall bear interest payable semi-annually at the rates set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, shall be in the denominations of $5,000 each or whole multiples thereof and shall be numbered from R-1 upwards consecutively. 4. Sale of Bonds. The Board of Supervisors authorizes the sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $56,000,000 to Alex. Brown & Sons, Incorporated, as underwriter ("Underwriter"). The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or either of them, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Bond Purchase Agreement with the Underwriter (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"), providing for the sale and delivery of the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or either of them, are authorized and directed to determine and approve the final details of the Bonds, including, without Septesber 28~ 1993 V Director of Finance is authorized and directed to apply to the State Council on Local Debt, if required, for approval of the refunding of the Refunded Bonds maturing on July 1, 2031. 6. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants. The County Administrator and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate are authorized and directed to execute a Non- Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board of Supervisors covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the County's Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein. 7. Disclosure Documents. The County Administrator, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and such officers and agents of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver an appropriate preliminary official statement, official statement, and such other disclosure documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. Such disclosure documents shall September 28, 1993 V ~ o actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. 10. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-227.9 of the Virginia Code. 11. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of the Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on September ~8, 1993. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke, to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None 7• Request to Chance the Date to Celebrate Halloween from Sunday. October 31, 1993 to Saturday, October 30. 1993. Mr. Hodge advised that since Halloween falls on a Sunday this year, several localities are considering change the date for celebration to Saturday, October 30. The Town of Vinton and Roanoke City both plan to make this change. Supervisor Nickens moved to change the date for September 28, 1993 620 Richard W. Sloan. 5. Ordinance to Rezone 1.22 Acres From C-2 to R-1 to Expand or Replace an Foisting House, Located at 5374 Main Street. Catawba Magisterial District, IIvon the Petition of the Roanoke County PlanainQ Commission. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temoorarv Gradinc and Construction Easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia in Association with the Construction of the New Forensic Lab and to Accept a Water and sewer Easement from the Commonwealth of Virginia. (John Chamblss~_ Assistant County Administrator There was no discussion on this ordinance. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for October 12, 1993. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. ordinance Author'zi Conve ance of an Eas to Appalachian Power Company for Electric service Across Five oaks Road. (Clifford Craig, IItilit~ Director) 0-92893-8 september 28, 1993 e2z THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on September 14, 1993; and a second reading was held on September 28, 1993. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power Company for the provision of electrical service in connection with the County water system. 3. That donation of a right-of-way, forty feet (40') in width, running in an easterly direction from U.S. Route 221 through the approximate center of the County property located at 7826 Five Oaks Road, to Appalachian Power Company is hereby authorized. 4. That donation of certain future rights-of-way and easements to Appalachian Power Company which may be necessary upon or across the County property located at 7826 Five Oaks Road for the provision of electric service to serve the County water system is hereby authorized, upon review and recommendation by the Director of the Roanoke County Department of Utilities, and upon concurrence of the Board of Supervisors by resolution. 5. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized September 28, 1993 iii, of Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code of 1971). 623 , WHEREAS, the 1972 Sewage Treatment Agreement entered into by and between, and still binding upon, Roanoke City and the County of Roanoke requires the County to adopt such ordinances and regulations as necessary to conform to those adopted by the City of Roanoke as they pertain to Sewer Use Standards; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance # 62486-146, § 1, adopted on June 24, 1986, Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code of 1971 was amended to add an Article III relative to sewer use standards and by Ordinance # 91289-14, adopted on September 12, 1989, said Article was further amended; and WHEREAS, recent regulatory requirements enacted by the State water Control Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have necessitated changes by the City of Roanoke to its Sewer Use Standards; and WHEREAS, the operative requirements of the current Sewage Treatment Agreement between Roanoke City and the County of Roanoke requires amendment of the County's ordinances to bring them into conformity with the current Roanoke City Sewer Use Standards; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 14, 1993, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the amended "SEWER USE STANDARDS" be reenacted as "ARTICLE IV. SEWER USE STANDARDS" of CHAPTER 18 of the Roanoke County Code of 1985. CHAPTER 18 ARTICLE IV. SEWER USE STANDARDS Sec. 18-151 Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the words and phrases set out in this section shall have the following meanings: Act means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., as amended. BOD (biochemical aygen demand) means the quantity of oxygen by weight, expressed in mg/1, utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory conditions for five (5) days at a temperature of twenty (20) degrees centigrade. Building sewer means the extension from the building drain to the public sewer or other place of disposal (also called house lateral and house connectionl. Saptembar 28, 1993 6 2 Total suspended solids (TSS) 62.5 lbs./day 75 lbs./day Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)62.5 lbs./day 75 lbs./day Total phosphorus (TP) 3.75 lbs./day 4.5 lbs./day Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 4.50 lbs./day 5.4 lbs./day Group B wastewater means the discharge of permitted industrial wastewater not otherwise qualifying as Group A wastewater. incapacitating revez~.~ie ~I~~t~s~j : ~r Z. `Pose a substantial present ar::~~o~e~tia~:~ha~a s. ncompatc ~ e waste mearis~ ~ ~a ~~~wast~e~ which is not susceptible to adequate treatment by the wastewater treatment plant. Lidustrial user means any user that c~iseharges.,! non-dp~ltie~t~t, pollutants iota the sartikar}1 sewer ox' : p~.ant, reguJ~~~,t,~ by Sections ::307 ,, b ... . ( ), (c) and 'td~_ of the AGtF or any user of pu~hic~y owned treatment works identified in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987, Office of Management and Budget, as amended and supplemented, under divisions A, B, D, E and I, including governmental facilities that discharge wastewater to the sanitary sewer or plant. Industrial waste means waste resulting from any process of industry, manufacturing, trade or business from the development of any natural resource, or any mixture of the waste with water or normal wastewater, or distinct from normal wastewater. .Infiltration means water entering a sewer system, including service connections from the ground, through such means as, but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints, connections or manhole walls. Infiltration does not include, and is distinguished from inflow. Inflow means water discharged into a sewer system, including service connections, from such sources as, but not limited to, roof leaders, cellar, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole covers, cross connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch basins, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters, or drainage. It does not include, and is distinguished from infiltration. Interference means a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, (1) inhibits or disrupts the plant, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; or (2) causes a violation Septambor 28, 1993 6 2 sewers in which the average concentration of total suspended solids and BOD is not more than 250 mg/1, total phosphorus is not more than 15 mg/1, total Kjeldahl nitrogen is not more than 18 mg/1 and total flow is not more than 25,000 gallons per day. Overload means the imposition of organic or hydraulic loading on a treatment facility in excess of its engineered design capacity. Pass through means a discharge which exits the plant into water of the United States in quantities which may cause a violation of the plant's VPDES permit. Person includes individual, corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership association and any other legal entity. pH means the logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration expressed in grams per liter. Phosphorus (total) means the sum of the various types of phosphate expressed as elemental phosphorus found in wastewater. The various forms include ortho phosphate, condensed phosphates (pyro, meta, and poly-phosphates), and organically bound phosphates. The concentration of total phosphate is determined by the "Standard Methods" test procedure. Plant means the City of Roanoke Regional Sewage Treatment septembar 28, 1993 62 a~senarge, J~[ug means any discharge of water, wastewater or industrial waste which, in concentration of any given constituent or in quantity of flow, exceeds, for any period longer than fifteen (15) minutes, more than five (5) times the average twenty-four (24) hour concentration or flows during normal operation. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) means classif is to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual Executive Office of ~z-yes=Qe~~. A€€}ee ~ ~ Standard nation~~~~~~~~~~~and~~~~ analytical edition, at the time of e Examination of Water and published jointly by the the American Water Works Met procedures set forth in the latest analysis, of "Standard Methods for th Wastewater" as prepared, approved and American Public Health Association, ation pursuant issued by the September 28, 1993 6 3 r Y in liquid, gaseous or solid form, resulting from domestic, agricultural or industrial activities. Wastewater means a combination of the water-carried waste from residences, business buildings, institutions and industrial establishments, together with any ground, surface and storm water that may be present. Wastewater facilities includes all facilities for collection, pumping, treating and disposing of wastewater and industrial wastes. Wastewater service charge means the charge on all users of the public sewer whose wastes are treated at the plant and is the appropriate sum of the user charge and user surcharge. Wastewater treatment plant means any municipal-owned facilities, devices and structures used for receiving, processing and treating wastewater, industrial waste and sludges from the sanitary sewers. Wastecourse means a natural or man-made channel in which a flow of water occurs, either continuously or intermittently. Sec. 18-152. General Requirements. (a) All discharges into public sewers shall conform to requirements of this article; however, the federal categorical pretreatment standards as.. amend~d~~. ~. ~ttt = C.P.;R Cha~~Af~, ;. Subchapter N,'' Par s 40f~~71y~ or any standards imposed ~''by~`"`the state water control board or its successor in authority, ag amended,; are hereby incorporated by reference where applicable and where such standards are more stringent than those set for`.h in thin article. (b) No significant industrial user or other user as ..•••. %' %I.MNY. determined by the c- authority shall discharge industrial wastewaters into the~santary sewer system without an appropriate industrial waste discharge permit as provided in this article. c Unless exce tion is `"~" ~ ""~ p granted by the a~r~~g o~E authority or by other provisions of this chapter, the ~'~pubY~c sewer system shall be used by all persons discharging wastewater, industrial waste, polluted liquids or unpolluted waters or liquids. (d) Unless authorized by the State Water Control Board or its successor in authority, no person shall deposit or discharge any waste included in subsection (c) of this section on public or private property in or adjacent to any natural outlet, watercourse, storm sewer or other area within the jurisdiction of the County. (e) The control authority shall determine, prior to discharge, that wastes to be discharged will receive such treatment as is required by the laws, regulations, ordinances, rules and orders of federal, state and local authorities, or such discharge shall not be permitted. (f) Each industrial user discharging industrial waste waters into the sanitary sewer system shall provide protection september 28, 1993 6 3 3 fish kills, or any other damage to person or property; nor shall such notification relieve the user of any fines, civil penalties, or other liability which may be imposed by this article or other applicable law. A notice shall be permanently posted on the user's bulletin board or other prominent place advising employees whom to call in the event of a dangerous discharge. Employers shall insure that all employees who may cause or suffer such a dangerous discharge to occur are advised of the emergency notification procedure. (g) In the event of an emergency, as determined by the a~~g catrol authority, the a~~ con~tro authority shall be authorized to immediately halt any actual or threatened discharge. (h) A person discharging in violation of the provisions of this article, within thirty (30) days of the date of such discharge, shall *sample, analyze and submit the data to the -rr-.. .~~ -1 a~ag control. authority ~~--? _=- `-'-=_ -- - - -- - -=t-==- =~.., _--_`-= Sec. 18-153. Prohibited•Discharges Generally. (a) No person shall discharge into public sewers any waste which, by itself or by interaction with other wastes, may: (1) Injure or interfere with wastewater treatment processes or facilities; (2) Constitute a hazard to humans or animals; or (3) Create a hazard in receiving waters of the wastewater treatment plant effluent. (4) Generate heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the plant resulting in interference, and in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the plant exceeds forty (40) degrees Celsius (one hundred four (104) degrees Fahrenheit) unless the approving authority approves alternate temperature limits. (b) Discharges into public sewers shall not contain: (1) Antifreeze. (2) Fluoride other than that contained in the public water supply greater than 10.0 mg/1. (3) Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene (BTEX) greater than 5.0 mg/1. (4) ~ (5) Substances~~~causing a chemical oxygen demand (COD) greater than 1,500 mg/1 in the wastewater. (6) Strong acid or concentrated plating solutions, whether neutralized or not. Septambor 28, 1993 6 3 5 (4) Cadmium: 0.02 mg/1 (5) Chromium, Total: 2.0 mg/1 (6) Chromium VI: .011 mq/L. (7) Copper: 1.0 mg/1 (8) Lead: (9) Manganese: 1.0 mg/1 (10) Mercury: 0.005 mg/1 (11) Nickel: 2.0 mg/1 (12) Selenium: 0.02 mg/1 (13) Silver: o.i mg/1 (14) Zinc: 2.0 mg/1 (15) Cyanide: 1.0 mg/1 In addition, if it is determined that any one of these parameters exceeds the state effluent requirements for the wastewater treatment plant, an adjustment in the given parameter concentration limit will be required. To accomplish this, the industrial discharge permits for industries discharging the particular compound will be adjusted to insure compliance. (c) No other heavy metals or toxic materials shall be discharged into public sewers without a permit from the approving authority specifying conditions of pretreatment, concentrations, volumes and other applicable provisions. (d) Prohibited toxic materials include, but are not limited to: (1) Herbicides. (2) Fungicides. (3) Pesticides. sec. 18-155. Discharge of garbage. (a) No person may discharge garbage into public sewers, unless it is shredded to a degree that all particles can be carried freely under the flow conditions normally prevailing in public sewers. Particles greater than one-half inch in any dimension are prohibited. (b) The control authority shall have the right to review and approve the installation and operation of any garbage grinder equipped with a motor of three-fourths horsepower (0.76 hp metric) or greater. sec. 18-156. Discharge of storm water and other unpolluted drainage. (a) No person shall discharge into public sanitary sewers: (1) Unpolluted storm water, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff or subsurface drainage. (2) Other unpolluted drainage. (b) The ccl~~ authority shall designate storm sewers and other watercourses~~~~~into which unpolluted drainage described in subsection (a) of this section may be discharged. Sec. 18-156.1. Purpose It is the policy of this County and the purpose of this ordinance to establish a separate procedure for the enforcement of the Sewer Use Standards (Article IV of Chapter 18 of the September 28, 1993 sewer user, property owner or other responsible person shall be given six months to correct the illegal or improper activities or facilities contributing to the discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system. If corrective measures to eliminate the illegal or improper discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system are not completed and approved by the Utility Director, or his designee, within six months from the date of the notice provided in Sec. 18-156.2(c). then the County shall impose upon the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person a monthly surcharge in the amount of $200 per month until the required corrective measures are completed and approved. If the property owner or responsible party fails to pay the monthly surcharge when due and payable, then the County shall terminate the water and sewer connections and service to the property, and disconnect the customer from the system. During and after periods of heavy rainfall resulting in actual or potential inflow or infiltration in excess of 200 gallons per day, the Utility Director may in his discretion temporarily terminate the sewer connection to protect the public sewer system and other sewer users. (b) For structures or property with actual or potential discharge, infiltration or inflow determined to be less than 1,000 gallons per day but more than 500 gallons per day into the public sanitary sewer system, the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person shall be given six months to correct the actual or potential illegal or improper activities or facilities contributing to the discharge, infiltraticn or inflow into ~che public sanitary sewer system. If corrective measures to eliminate the actual or potential illegal or improper discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system are not completed and approved by the. Utility Director, or his designee, within six months from the date of the notice provided in Sec. 18-156.2(c), then the County shall impose upon the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person a monthly surcharge in the amount of $100 per month until the required corrective measures are completed and approved. If the property owner or responsible party fails to pay the monthly surcharge when due and payable, then the County shall terminate the water and sewer connections and service to the property, and disconnect the customer from the system. During and after periods of heavy rainfall resulting in actual or potential inflow or infiltration in excess of 200 gallons per day, the Utility Director may in his discretion temporarily terminate the sewer connection to protect the public sewer system and other sewer users. (c) For structures or property with actual or potential discharge, infiltration or inflow determined to be less than 500 gallons per day, but more than 200 gallons per day into the public sanitary sewer system, the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person shall be given six months to correct the illegal or improper activities or facilities contributing to the discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer X39 Sept~bar 28, 1993 from a failure to pay the monthly surcharge, shall continue until the Utility Director or his designee determines that the corrective measures are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. If water and sewer services have been terminated under this ordinance, the sewer user, property owner, or other responsible person may request resumption of water and sewer service as follows: (1) By taking the corrective measures specified in the notice, and by eliminating the actual or potential discharge, infiltration, or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system. (2) By requesting an inspection and determination by the Utility Director or his designee as provided in this section. (3) By submitting a written request to the Utility Director requesting reinstatement of public water and sewer services and verifying that all standards of this chapter have been satisfied. Sec. 18-156.5. Appeals (a) Any sewer user, property owner, or responsible person may appeal a determination of the Utility Director or his designee by submitting a Notice of Appeal to the County Administrator within fourteen (14) days from the receipt of the written notice as provided in §18.1-156.2(c). (b) The County Administrator shall conduct a hearing on this appeal within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of this Notice of Appeal. The County Administrator shall render a decision with five (5) business days of the date of the hearing. (c) The Notice of Appeal shall state the technical grounds and objections for the appeal. At the hearing the County Administrator shall hear and investigate any objection that may be raised and take such action as may be appropriate under the facts and circumstances established. (d) The sewer user, property owner, or other responsible person may appeal the decision of the County Administrator to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by submitting to the Clerk of the Board a written Notice of Appeal within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of the County Administrator's written decision. This Notice of Appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal. (e) In all other respects the substantive and procedural requirements for this appeal shall comply with the provisions of § 15.1-550, et seq, of the State Code. Sec. 18-157. Temperature of discharges. No person shall discharge liquid or vapor having a temperature higher than one hundred fifty (150) degrees Fahrenheit (65° Centigrade), or any substance which causes the temperature of the total wastewater treatment plant influent to increase at a rate of ten (10) degrees Fahrenheit or more per hour, or a combined total increase of plant influent temperature to one hundred four (104) degrees Fahrenheit. sec. 18-158. Discharge of radioactive vastos. {a) No person shall discharge radioactive wastes or isotopes into public sewers, without-the permission of ~yi Septe4bor 28, 1993 this subsection. ( e) The ~on~tfl~ authority shall regulate the flow and concentrat'on~~`~?`of slugs. ind~str~al :.users...::sha~.~. t~o~s~y~~e <~c~~al .>,autho~#~~° Q alI <discharges .~nc~.ud~:hg ~',~.~g ~c~~td~S.g~ wh~.ch taa~: (1) Impair the treatmentprocess; (2) Cause damage to collection facilities; (3) Incur treatment costs exceeding those for normal wastewater; or (4) Render the waste unfit for stream disposal or industrial use. Industrial operations which, on occasion, release sludges of waterborne wastes into the sewers, or which, on occasion, release any significant quantities of materials which adversely influence the effectiveness of treatment in the wastewater treatment plant shall notify the plant in advance of their release, and shall control, at the discretion of the control authority, the rate of release of these wastes. Permission for such planned releases shall not be unreasonably withheld. Persons failing to comply with these requirements shall be subject to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per incident, and shall also be liable for the payment of any damages caused, either directly or indirectly, by the unapproved discharge. (f) No person shall discharge into public sewers solid or viscous substances which violate subsection (a)of this section, if present in sufficient quantity or size, including but not limited to: (1) Ashes. (2) Cinders. (3) Sand. (4) Mud. (5) Straw. (6) Shavings. (7) Metal. (8) Glass. (9) Rags. (10) Feathers. (11) Tar. (12) Plastics. (13) Wood. (14) Unground garbage. (15) Whole blood. (16) Paunch manure. (17) Hair and fleshings. (18) Entrails. (19) Paper products, either whole or ground by garbage grinders (20) Slops. (21) Chemical residues. (22) Paint residues. (23) Bulk solids. !o y3 Septesber 28, 1993 contras authority: ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ (1) Provide equipment and f acilities of a type and capacity approved by the approving authority; (2) Locate the trap in a manner that provides ready and easy accessibility for cleaning and inspection; and (3) Maintain the trap in effective operating condition. sec. 18-163. Measurement, sampling, etc., and report of discharges. (a) The owner of each facility discharging other than normal wastewater or discharging ~3'S$ !Grot2~ A wastewater shall submit monthly, or at such other frequency as may be required by __ the contxal authority, to the County, on forms supplied by the County, a"certified statement of the quantities of its wastes discharged into the sewers and sewage works of the County or into any sewer connected therewith. Copies of pertinent water bills may be required to be submitted with the above statement. Such documents shall be filed with the County not later than the tenth day of the following month. A separate statement shall be filed for each industrial plant. The total quantities of wastes to be measured and certified by the person so discharging shall be established by the cohtbo~ authority and shall, as a minimum, include: (1) Liquid in gallons. (2) Five-day BOD in pounds. (3) Suspended solids in pounds, on a dry solids basis. (4) Total phosphorus in pounds. (5) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in pounds. (6) COD in pounds. (b) Unless otherwise provided, each measurement, test, sampling, or analysis required to be made hereunder shall be made in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 136, as amended. (c) In order to provide for accurate sampling and measurement of industrial wastes each g' g Class . , person dischar in Group...... A......wastewater, or.....,a11~~:~`.:..~~...:.E'3~~~ei~tr±~~.::::::..~......:...:.~.~ necessar}~ by 'the Control A~ti~~~f~~ shall provide and maintain, on each~~~ of ~~~~~its~ ~ industrials ~ ~waste~~~outlet sewers, a large manhole or sampling chamber to be located outside or near its plant boundary line, where feasible. If inside the plant fence, there shall be a gate near the sampling chamber with a key furnished to the County. There shall be ample room provided in each sampling chamber to enable convenient inspection and sampling by the Count ~rl .;girder.:::::::. ~~ ~ ~~~:: .~:::.:;,... .::.. . ., :; .., :.;....: ~I ........''. ~...... ~:r :;~'.. _ .. ' .. ... ....,..4.,~>. .. .. y ff':. .. i %'7%;f`:l.!r?c, .6.Y' f ...~ l L~:i~~•:?r%.• (d) Each -sampl~inq ch~~a~er s~ial~ contain a Parshall flume, accurate weir or similar device, with a recording and totalizing ''7 September 28, 1993 authority to discharge industrial waste into the public sanitary sewer system unless an appropriate Industrial Discharge Permit has been issued b the ~~~~~~ ~ x,;,.,,.~.. y aag ~t~l't?:G authority. In order to obtain an Industrial Discharge Perm~;`~~~~'such person shall: (1) Submit a complete application at least ninety (90) days prior to the date proposed for initial discharge on forms supplied by the f,..:.xi ... contm2 authority. The Q~ap authority will act upon the application 'within sixty (60) days. (2) Comply with all requirements for the discharge permit including, but not limited to, provisions for payment of charges, installation and operation of pretreatment facilities and sampling and analysis to determine quantity and strength. (3) Provide a sampling point subject to the provisions of this article and approval of the ai~~ control authority. (4) Compy~ with the requirements of federal categorical standards, where applicable, including the development of any required compliance schedules or the applicable provisions of this article. (b) An industrial user applying for a new discharge shall meet all conditions of subsection (a) of this section and shall secure a permit prior to discharging any waste. (c) A person not applying for a discharge permit within the allotted time and continuing to discharge an unpermitted discharge shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. (d) A permit issued under this section shall be valid for up to five (5) years from its date of issuance, after which time the industrial user shall be required to obtain a new discharge permit. to y 7 September 28, 1993 ~'y9 September 28, 1993 ~~ September 28, 1993 (0 33 September 28, 1993 charge to cover the cost of collection and treatment in addition to capital costs. When a permit application for industrial waste is approved, the County or its authorized representative shall issue a permit stating: (a) The terms of acceptance by the County; and (b) The basis of payment. Sec. 18-167. IIser charges and added costs. (a) If the volume or character of the waste to be treated by the plant meets the requirements of other provisions of this article and does not cause overloading of the sewage collection, treatment or disposal facilities of the County, the eontroY authority shall require that the discharger pay a charge to be determined from the schedule of charges which shall include capital costs. (b) If a proposed discharge of waste is responsible for exceeding the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities and the wastewater treatment plant must be upgraded, expanded or enlarged in order to treat the wastewater, the approving authority shall require that the discharger pay in full all added costs which shall include capital costs the County may incur due to acceptance of the wastewater. (c) The schedule of charges pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Capital costs, including debt retirement and interest on debt, of the County's cost on all capital outlays for collecting and treating the waste, including new capital outlay and the proportionate part of the value of the existing system used in handling and treating waste. (2) Operation and maintenance costs (capitalized), including but not limited to, salaries and wages, power costs, costs of chemicals and supplies, proper allowances for maintenance, depreciation, overhead and office expense. sec. 18-168. schedule of charges. (a) Persons discharging wastewater shall pay a charge to cover the capital cost and the cost of collection and treatment of all wastewater discharged. (1) All Class I users discharging normal wastewater or Group B wastewater shall pay a user charge computed upon cost per volume of wastewater. discharged. (2) All Class II users discharging Group A wastewater shall have their user charge computed upon a cost per unit volume basis for the amount plus the unit cost of treatment for all over the base amount for volume, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), phosphorus (P) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). In computing the contaminant loading, the parameter concentrations for normal ~,~s Sapteab~r 28, 1993 treatment costs based on the previous year's experience. Sec. 18-170. Billing and payment of charges. (a) The County may bill the discharger by the month or by the quarter and shall show waste charges as a separate item on the regular bill for water and sewer charges. The discharger shall pay in accordance with practices existing for payment of sewer charges. (b) In addition to sanctions provided for by this article, the County is entitled to exercise sanctions provided for by the other ordinances of the County for failure to pay the bill for water and sanitary sewer service when due. Sec. 18-171. Right of entry to enforce article. ................... . (a) The control authority and other duly authorized employees of the County bearing proper credentials and identification shall be authorized to enter any public or private property at any reasonable time for the purpose of enforcing this article for sampling purposes, inspect monitoring equipment and to inspect and copy all documents relevant to the enforcement of this article, including, without limitation, monitoring reports. Anyone acting under this authority shall observe the establishment's rules and regulations concerning safety, internal security, and fire protection. (b) Appropriate information submitted to the control 'authority pursuant to these regulations excluding any information utilized in determining effluent limits may be claimed as confidential by the submitter at the time of submission by stamping the words "confidential business information" on each page containing such information. If a claim is asserted, the information shall be treated in accordance with applicable law. (c) No person acting under authority of this section may inquire into any processes, including metallurgical, chemical, oil refining, ceramic, paper or other industries, beyond that point having a direct bearing on the kind and source of discharge to the public sewers. sec. 18-172. Authority to disconnect service. (a) The County reserves the right to terminate water and wastewater disposal services and disconnect a customer from the system and revoke any discharge permit issued under this article when: (1) Acids or chemicals damaging to sewer lines or treatment process are released into the sewer causing rapid deterioration of these structures or interfering with proper conveyance and treatment of wastewater; (2) A governmental agency informs the County that the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant is no longer a quality permitted for discharge into a watercourse, and it is found that the customer is delivering wastewater to the County's system-that cannot be sufficiently treated or recptires September 28, 1993 ~ps (c) Any person who knowingly makes any false statements, representations or certifications in any application, record, report, plan or other document files required to be maintained pursuant to this ordinance, or wastewater permit, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a fine of $1,000.00 per violation, per day, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. ........................ (d) The ag~~ev~ cattt~o~2 authority shall be authorized to implement such other program and enforcement mechanisms as are consistent with regulatory guidelines and are deemed appropriate. Sec. 18-175. Payment of costs for work required by prohibited deposits. In any case where a sewer main or pipe connection is stopped, damaged or choked by any materials or rubbish being deposited therein contrary to the provisions of this article, by any tenant or property owner, upon due ascertainment by the County Administrator, he shall cause the main pipe connection or manhole to be opened, cleaned, replaced or repaired, and shall cause the cost for doing such work to be collected from the property owner. The payment of such cost shall not relieve any person from prosecution for a violation of this article. Sec. 18-176. Public access to data. Effluent data complied as part of the approving #e~~Ls controX!pretreatment program shall be available to the public. 2: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Eddy 3. Ordinance Authorizing Acquisition of a Water and Sewer Easement from Dairymen, Inc. (Clifford Craig, IItility Director 0-92893-10 There was no discussion. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ~ s9 Septetb~r 28, 1993 On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None 4. ordinance Authori$inq Conveyance of an Eaaa~nt to Appalachian Power Company for Electric Service Across yinvard Park. (Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attornevf 0-92893-11 There was no discussion. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ORDINANCE 92893-11 AIITHORIZINa CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POIPBR COMPANY FOR ELECTRSC SERVICE ACROSS VINYARD PARK PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke Department of Parks and Recreation is developing soccer fields and related facilities on the property owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, located along Virginia Route No. 635 (Berkley Road) in the Town of Vinton and the City of Roanoke, known as Vinyard Park; and, WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) requires a right of way for an overhead line across Vinyard Park to provide electric service for lighting the soccer fields, as shown on APCO Drawing No. R-3007, dated August 13, 1993, and, to !o / 3aptember 28, 1993 On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ZN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Industrial Development Authority Supervisor Nickens nominated Darnall Vinyard to serve another four-year term. This term will expire September 26, 1997. 2. Regional Cable TV Committee It was the consensus of the Board that Committee members Supervisor Nickens, Anne Marie Green and Angela McPeak will make a recommendation to fill the unexpired term of Thomas E. Finton, citizen representative. ZN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-92893-12 Supervisor Kohinke moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None RESOLIITION 92893-12 APPROVING AND CONCIIRRING 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 G !.3 s0ptembor 28, 1993 regulations regarding smoking in County buildings. (2) He asked if staff had received any further information from Delegate Cranwell regarding the September 21 meeting with Delegate Cranwell and the Valley government officials. Mr. Hodge advised that he is setting up the next meeting date, and that the Board needs to appoint an elected official and appointed official to represent the County. It was Board consensus to appoint Board Chairman Minnix and Mr. Hodge. (3) He advised that he and Supervisor Nickens were on WFIR to discuss the school board selection referenda and he will be speaking to the Roanoke County Council of PTA's along with Supervisor Nickens and Supervisor Kohinke. (4) He met with Senator Goodlatte on September 24 to view the Blue Ridge Parkway viewsheds. Senator Goodlatte advised that there would probably be no federal money available. (5) He advised that contrary to the Roanoke Times & World-News article on consolidation, his discussion with Windsor Hills residents shows no support for consolidation. supervisor Nickens: (1) He thanked Don Myers for his memo on regional decal enforcement. He suggested that Salem, Vinton and Botetourt County be involved in future meetings with Roanoke City. He asked staff for a report on the additional employee to work on decal enforcement. (2) He thanked Mr. Hodge for the letter to Gary Everhardt, Blue Ridge Parkway Superintendent, regarding delay on the access road to Explore. He asked Mr. Hodge to move forward if there is no response to the letter. sun•rvisor Johnson: (1) He expressed concern abo'ut' the `o <~ur September 28, 1993 Discussion on acquisition of real estate for public purposes, i.e. Dixie Caverns removal action; (3) Discussion with legal counsel regarding litigation with City of Roanoke, i.e. water bill adjustment and (1) Personnel Matter, evaluation of the County Administrator; (1) another personnel matter. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EBECOTIVE SESSION R-92893-13 At 7:09 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to return to Open Session and adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens (Left at 6:00 p.m.) RESOLIITION 92893-13 CERTIFYING EBECIITIVE 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 ~D~ 7 Septeab~r 28, 1993 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RE30LIITION 92893-1~ OF CONGRATIILATIONS TO NORTH ROANORE AMERICAN GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM FOR FINNING THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, the North Roanoke American Girls Softball Team won the State of Virginia Championship on July 27, 1993, in Bedford, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the team represented the State of Virginia at the Dixie Softball Ponytail National World Series Tournament in Zephyr Hills, Florida; and WHEREAS, the team is sponsored by the North Roanoke Recreation Club and coached by Wes McMillian, Gary Clarke, Bill Myers, and Gary Hurt; and WHEREAS, throughout the season and tournament, the members of the team member demonstrated their skill, ability and good sportsmanship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby express its congratulations to the NORTH ROANOKE AMERICAN GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM for winning the state championship; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors commends the North Roanoke American Girls Softball Team for `'~ September 28, 1993 RESOLUTION 92893-15 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EBCEED $2,310,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDB OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOlCE, VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AIITHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF The Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $2,310,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. The County has held a public hearing, after due publication of notice, on September 28, 1993 on the issuance of such bonds in accordance with Section 15.1-227.8, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). The School Board of the County has requested by resolution, the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) and has consented to the issuance of the Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation school bonds of the County in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,310,000 ("Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") for the VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at the price of par upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the form on file with the County Administrator ("Bond Sale Agreement"). 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in denominations of multiples thereof; shall be dated the date $of Oissuance hand delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 1993"; shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each June 15 and lo- ?/ 8aptoa~bet.28, 1993 shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and (c) Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 7. Preoavment or Redemption. The Principal installments of the Bonds coming due on or before December 15, 2003, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 2003, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds coming due after December 15, 2003, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after December 15, 2003, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after December 15, 2003, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices e of Principal Installments to be prepaid( or the eprinc ipal eamount of the Bonds to be redeemed). set forth below interest to the date set for re a Plus accrued p p yment or redemption: Dates ' es December December 15, 15 2003 to December 14, 2004 t 2004, inclusive..... 103$ December , 15, o December 14, 2005 to December 14, 2005, inclusive..... 2006 inclusive 102 December 15, 2006 and thereafter.. , ..... 101 ....... ............. 100; Provided, however, that while the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the VPSA. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. 8. Execution of the Bonds The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit of the principal of, the premium, if any, andrtheeinterestponmthe Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual a v all taxable property in the County subject- to 1~ t xmtion sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of th®_pipal ~ 7R3 September 28, 1993 action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 14. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 28, 1993, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES The following public hearing was continued to the October 26,1993 meeting: Ordinance to rezone 0.85 acres from R-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to Operate a Used Automobile Dealerahi~. Located at the South Side of Peter Creek Road West th North Park office complex. Hollins Mavisterial District. Upon the Petition of William L. Hite. i. ordinance Authorizinc a special IIse Permit to Egoand Northside High school, located at 6758 Northsid• Hich School Road Catawba Ma isterial District U o the Petition of the school Board of Roanoke Count er Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-92893-16 ~~rs Septeab~r 28, 1993 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to allow the expansion of an existing school building located at 6758 Northside High School Road in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. That the Board hereby grants a Special Use Permit to the School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia, to allow the expansion of an existing school building located at 6758 Northside High School Road in the Catawba Magisterial District. 3. 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, Eddy, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ?. Ordinance Authorizin a 8 e a IIse Permit to 152 foot Self-su o tin eroadcastin Tower to Honeysuckle Road, 1.75 Miles from Intersection of Honevsuckle Road and Poor Mountain Road. Windsor Hilis Magisterial District. IIcon the Petition of Aoc la Power Company. (Terry HarrinQ on. Director o! PlanniwR and aoninc) ~~7 September 28, 1993 the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 28, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to erect a self-supporting broadcasting tower on Honeysuckle Road 1.75 miles from the intersection of Honeysuckle Road and Poor Mountain Road (Tax Map No. 93.00-1-44) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of ~ 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. That the Board hereby grants a Special Use Permit to Appalachian Power Company to erect a self-supporting broadcasting tower on Honeysuckle Road 1.75 miles from the intersection of Honeysuckle Road and Poor Mountain Road (Tax Map No. 93.00-1-44) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District subject to the following condition: Maximum tower height to be 16o feet, or a total maximum height of 170 feet including antenna. 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon adoption. 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, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix ~ 7,9 SaptOaba 28, 1993 aid in administering the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973; and, WHEREAS, the proposed base flood elevations proposed in the Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps were published in the Roanoke Times and World News on December 11, 1992 and December 18, 1992 and were published in the Fe Register at 58 FR 8578, on February 16, 1993; and, WHEREAS, an integral part of the National Flood Insurance Program is the establishment of local floodplain management programs which regulate development in areas subject to flooding and are mandatory in order to maintain the availability of flood insurance for property owners in the County; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 30-74, FO Floodplain Overlay District be amended and readopted as follows: PROPOSED REVISION TO THE ROANORE COIINTY ZONIN~i ORDINANCE SEC. 30-74 FO FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 30-74-4 Delineation of Areas (A) The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the 100 year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the WTB,- !08 September 28, 1993 determined for this area using other sources of data such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to existing land use and potential development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the County Engineer. Sea. 30-74-5 Creation of Overlay (B) The boundaries of the floodplain areas are established as shown on the ~~; '•~~ ~~~>RS~~~>s~~I~ which is declared to be part of this ?iiY.•:ti4Y//A%f:•iiFv%<{i:..i{ryii:•}ii:•iii~:b:•'.niii:::. chapter and which shall be kept on file in the office of the Administrator. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after October 15, 1993. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. ~ g3 September 28, 1993 & Budget and Mr. Hodge. He described the criteria that would be considered for replacement and a "decision tree" which would determine whether the vehicle had reached the set mileage/age for replacement. He advised that the group developing the policy recommended that a new computer system to track maintenance records be purchased and the position of Fleet Manager be created. Ms. Preas responded to questions that were raised by the staff during development of the policy. A schedule of the seven year cost projections was presented that included $90,000 for a computer system and funding for the Fleet Manager position. Following discussion on the need for the new position, the proposed computer system and the inclusion of fire and rescue vehicles, staff was directed to bring back to the Board a report which would include statistics, maint.~nance records and information on computer software. IN RE: OTHER BIISINESB: 1. Structural Damage at Courthouse. Mr. Hodge advised that staff has inspected the courthouse and determined that there is structural damage that needs to be repaired. There was Board consensus to hire a structural engineer to review the damage at the courthouse using funds collected from the $2.00 courthouse maintenance fee. 2. Groundbreaking at Forensic Lab on October 26. 1993. Mr. Hodge reported that the Groundbreaking at the new Forensic Lab on October 26 has been scheduled for 4:00 p.m. so ACTION NO. A-102693-5.a ITEM NO. ~ - "~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Donation of sanitary sewer and water line easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in connection with the Robert J. Miller Sewer Line Extension Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SLTNIIKARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves the donation of the following easements to the Board of Supervisors for sanitary sewer and water purposes in relation to the Robert J. Miller Sewer Line Extension Project in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke: a) Donation of a sanitary sewer and water line easement, of variable width, from Earl H. Rakes and Mary Lou Rakes, husband and wife, (Deed Book 573, page 407) (Tax Map No. 27.12-3-22) shown and designated as "17.5 SAN. SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT," "NEW 15' SAN. SEWER EASEMENT," and "SAN. SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT" on a plat prepared by Jack G. Bess, Certified Land Surveyor, dated Jan. 6, 1993, revised March 16, 1993, a copy of which is attached hereto. b) Donation of a sanitary sewer and water line easement, seven and one-half feet (7.5') in width, from Jean B. Stevens, single, (Deed Book 777, page 544) (Tax Map No. 27.12-3-23) shown and designated as "NEW 7.5' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT" on a plat prepared by Jack G. Bess, Certified Land Surveyor, dated Jan. 6, 1993, revised March 16, 1993, a copy of which is attached hereto. c) Donation of a sanitary sewer and water line easement, fifteen feet (15') in width, from Pauline W. Hindley, single, (Deed Book 1273, page 383) (Tax Map No. 27.12-3- 13) shown and designated as "20' SAN. SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT" on a plat prepared by Jack G. Bess, " ~, Certified Land Surveyor, dated Jan. 6, 1993, revised March 17, 1993, a copy of which is attached hereto. (d) Donation of a sanitary sewer and water line easement, five feet (5') in width, from Dominion Trust Company, Trustee under the will of Ray E. Firestone, (Deed Book 1249, page 836) (Tax Map No. 27.12-3-12) shown and designated as "10' SAN. SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT" on a plat prepared by Jack G. Bess, Certified Land Surveyor, dated Jan. 6, 1993, revised March 17, 1993, a copy of which is attached hereto. The location and dimensions of these properties have been reviewed and approved by County staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of these easements. Respectfully submitted, ick'e L. f n Assistant County Attorney Action Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Bob L. Johnson vote No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Nickens x Minnix x cc: File ~ / ~ / \ (~ LOT 1 LOT 2 , BLOCK Z - ~ A.RpMORE PB. S, PC_a.3 ~ ff ~ ~ 24°02'E --' -- I~ ; h q0.2 C° • ~~ o r ~+. ~~we2 a..in _ ~~~ce.cr o~-, PROPOSED 7 __ -- - >.S. U, ~t PRor: ~I MA,1.1}-40LE 2I >S ~ SE.WER~u 23 :zg,.E ._._ N ~_ r NEW IS' N.4-Z°O~ l~l. 3.eo 5AI.I.SEWE L=A5EME4,1~ 5 '''-PROPOSED IZ 5" MATINOLE 4 .-~.5~1 7 ~ dY ~ I PLAT ~ot~ 3, PA.~'aE 2Z¢ lU L0T I d Lo-t 2 gt_ K 4 ~ ~ ~ w S ` QL~cK I , J Q.. S EG . d W ~ ~ ~ Bw GK owe.. (TALC ~1° 27. lZ- 3-22~ ~d Q a ~ I.tEW 5' sb.uITARY r~ I cal c~ ~ SEWER EASENta=N'~" ~ o ~ - W ., fr , ' ' 3 P~oPERT-( pF ExISI IuG 10 Z y - EARL ~` M~.2`'( l~U eA-ILEg PUBLIC I l Z v. B. PG-~• U?ILITY -f EASEMEN'~ I c~. 5• Q Q m N No. 1242 a ~ ~! I a Z ~ ~ 90.00' ~- S 14.40' 1r( GRUTG}{F-ELD STREET PROPOSED ~ SO Q ~ W MA1.IHO~E ~i Pt-AT MI~DE <=ofZ ll~ ~ Q tr `~ ~ Q -r E3C15'('ING 12' P~r3~lc UTI L ITS( EASEMENT' _'_ _ --- N Ew -r.5 SANITAR SEWE2 Y EASEMENT' LOT 3 EARL ~ M/~R`~ LOU RAKES SHOwltlca ,4 t`lEW I5' aliD a I~t>=.wl VARtAgt_E WIDTH ~E~-LTh/ 5 E.WE.R E~.SEMEI~IT +, ~` TH ~ U G E-l t_o7 Z , E L.ocK t , s Ec . I , MP.P o F N U RT+-l AP_D JACK G. 6ESS ~ '~L~O 54-10 W I tJC~ ANEW I O' SP.11. SEWER E}~.SEMEh1T. ROP.~i~tGE. cou--rrY, ~.rt2GlE-clp- a . ~..-- IFiCATE No. 1010 ,~ g~r : , Pc-K U . B es s ~j CERTIFIED (..Ai10 Sl)2~1=YOQ JP, JP~I.1. ro, I`~°l3 SOLE.: I'~ 20~ LAND 9 REV. MP.RG>-( tG, t~`i3 N.g..~-~2 D-~l'3_l ~- a LOT 2 I LOT 3 N -- I ~ ~l 24°OZ' E -- -- __ _ m 8q,.9-~' ~` ~ExISTING 12' _ O PUV,LIC UT(LIT r ~. PROPO ESES p __ -~- --- ao ~ EsaSEMENT y SA>,t• SEWE2~- --1 ~ ~. 2~ 2 5 ' ZPe t= h' PROPOSED e`I.9 9 ~ MALI HOLE 3 SAN I TA Ry SEy,/ER EASEMEnI'r Lo7 z Lo-r 3 6~OCK l F3LOG K. ~ ~"A1C 1.1-° 2-1.12-3-23 A P. g. 3 Pc-~• 224 3 ~ PeoPeRZ`C of ~J~A N S . S-t~.v Et~15 W ~ lr o. ~. -t~-l Pc-,.54.5 a r 0 ~ ~ ~ r ~a N 33.0 8' ~- S19°40'W ~- S 3 ~ 0.54. 4p. ~ CR~r~~~r Ego sO~RiwSTREET ~LaT Iv(?~~E Fot~ ,JE~,~.) B. STEVENS LOT 1 B~K . 5 , sE.c 3 UORTN ARDMORE P F3 4 , PG .39 SHOWIt.{U A NSW "1.5~ 5P-NtTAR ( SE4~lE2 ~P~SEetEr-iT ~~~-LTI~ (~. THeo~wt-t ~ o i 3 , ' L f3~o~K I, SEG, 3, t~t~P OF t~102TK !~-X01'-<02E IACK 6. 6ESS ~ ~~~,.~ R.OA.ti10KE U.~U!-QTY( VIRCatt.,ilP~ IFICATE No. 1070 .~~ BY; JA~-K G. 6ES5 P,~ .-•, A.I. ~o, 1993 C-E RZ'IFIEO (.a,-..Io JU Q~lEKOR SCQ.LS=•. I~= 20 LANO 9J RED(. MO.R~H ta,(`!93 ~1.(3.J- 12 O- ~", 1-10t_E " PROPOSF~ 49.30' E -,.. MA~l1-I~~E L 12'i• . 3 2' l.~r I B l.O G K. ~ Sec. 4 (,TA1~ U° 2'1.12-3-I? KEFFIE~D~~ EX1511NCa MAU• -~- 4.32. 0 7 7 Q W ~~ 7~ d~ ~a o~ N W I}' d N 0 s I~ O I~ ll~ Z S ~~~ A 1 3~ I~ Ia 0 I' I~ I~ Iw' z~ w ~I w al rl ~_- I J ~~ PLAT P_-~oOK 4 ~ PAU E S 3 Lo-c 2 Bl-.OGK SEC.. 4 } ~3 ~o ~~ IZ ~' I of a d~ u WI N PR.OPERT`-C o ~ C~OMlhilol`l TRUST CON~PP-NY 'CrzuSTtES RB•' 124` PG• 83~ P2o PERT`( of Pav L I N E wl . K I l~i D L.EY D. B . 1213 PC~• 3~3 ~~~~ `n ~ UK~~'~~/ s I Qv jG~ ~ / i ~2 /~ ~RoPER.TY 0 I 5~~% / / .~ '3 LIME ~ I ~~~Ary ~ / /"~~ ~.\ I U~J cj ~N / ~ ~ OZ / ~1L~ I G.J Z /~ ~ O _ _ _ gl.T'f' ~3 r /~ `li ~~ Z~ ~ o ~ 't \ .ten- `~'f0' 3 $' ~,~( _- p / ~~aC.~' / Lo-r I BLOGK I Pl.../1T MP'pE FOR PAUL.INE W. KINDLE.` S }-l0 W 1 NCa P- Peo POSED SF~t-~ IT~R ( SEW ER t_11-t E TN~. E,45E-MEt1T Tf-{Q000a~ l...OT I, L g~oOK -1, 5~~. 4, MP-P OF tJORT+-t .~-~DMORE LACK ~. LE$$ Er 2oA-t~1oKE c~oul~'T't, vle~all~-1L5. ate: sa~K ~. e~ess E~TIfICATE Na. .Q X10 -~ GE0.T(F(2JJ LAUD SURV~~oQ ~ J Ate! . Co , 19 °~ 3 5CP-tE •. 1'~ ^ 20 ~i~/~~ IAN `'~P,~ _ REV. MA.RCJ-( 1'i~ l9 `l3 -- N.a.J-12 D-GI"~~ _~ F10~E ~~ PRO~SED /~! 49.30' E. ,-- MALI1-IOLE 1 12'(.32' W , I BLOCK. ~ S Ec. 4 ,TA1c. U° 2~I.12-3-13 KEFFIELD~~ EXISTING MAU- a• 32 qa 0 ~, l~ d~ ~W W '~ ~W ~W z 7 ~ dW ~F ~o ~ N I~ I ~., I~ a I~ i~~ ~~ I~ w Ix I ~3 to ~0 Iz ~~ 5' I W ~I d `~ d ~. I~ qN W ~ ~W I n°~. ~I~ I~ 0 I~ _ ~W ~ I~ 0 ul ~I~ S~ R~~~ Lo-r 2 B~ocK ~' ~~ SEC.4 Pt-faT BooK 4 P~.CaE 53 P20l~ERT'f o F I D. ~ . I'Z"Z 3 PU • 3 8 3 P~.oPE.RT''( DF ~oMIN-ott TRUST GOtVcPA-t~l~( T2USTE=ES ~•~• ~24-°t ~'~'836 ~~~~• 15• -r I I ~2 PJ~L/ ~ ~~' Pr~opER y I G ~ ~ I ~ ~ `~~ ~j ~ ~ I / D,L ~ / ~~, ./ \ 0 y ~ Z~ ~~ ~ 5 I ~ 5 ~. ,` ~ Po~~° - - ~. ~ ~3o z QR~~~P- - - - o•~' ,N i`' 2 6~ q-.-r-r• 2 ~ -C ~ '~- s'JO. 3a• W l.o? ~ ~L,OGK I ,TH ° ~.° ~,~- ~ ~~.. i Pt_aT crcP~oE FoR DOMi~(ION -CRUST COItitP~~t`( TRUSTEES SKOWIt1C~ P• P20R~S~-D S~JJITA,R`~' ~~-~/ lER Ll til ~ EASEMEN I 7~R000-~1-C LoT 2, '" '~~. ~c.oc.K "f, SEG. ¢, MP-P ot= NORTK ARDMQRE ri~~. {yE$$ ~yy~EY FZOP,110KE COUNT-C~ Vl2CaIl~ilP- 4EtTiFICAorT.E Mo. QQQ~~• gY: JP-~-K ca. Bc-55 ~~~ ~ GE2TIFIroD 1A110 ~ ~2`tE~fOR Q~ _1/~t~l. Co, t°i~13 SGp-~.E: t"= 2.0 ~~ LANO ~ REV. NI~Rc•--c I~f, tg°l3 Iy.B.J-IZ n-g3a A= ~° 3~. ACTION NO. A-102693-5.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: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Planning Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nomination was made at the October 12, 1993 meeting. 1. Planning Commission Supervisor Johnson nominated William Todd Ross to complete the unexpired four-year term of Ron Massey. This term will expire December 31, 1995. RECOMMENDATION' It is recommended that the above appointment be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, ~• _ Mary H. llen Clerk Approved by, r~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Planning Commission File ACTION NO. A-102693-5.c ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Official Naming of Bonsack Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Q/~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: One of the major projects included in the 1992 Bond Referendum was the development of a baseball field, picnic shelter and play apparatus in the Bonsack area of Roanoke County. The Department of Parks and Recreation has coordinated efforts with the School Board to use a part of the site owned by the School Board in the Orchards subdivision to place these facilities for the community. The Bonsack Area Residents' Coalition (BARC) has formally requested that this park be designated "Bonsack Park". This designation will help to preserve the heritage and pride of this community and denotes its benefit to more than the one subdivision in which it may be located. On October 28, 1993, a ground breaking ceremony will be held to begin the construction of the facilities approved in the bond referendum. Having the official title recognized will be an important part of this program. FISCAL IMPACT• None. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Accept the staff and community recommendation to designate and officially name this new facility as "Bonsack Park". 2. Take no official action at this time. ~s- y RECOMMENDATION' 1. Staff recommends that the Park be officially designated as "Bonsack Park" in recognition of the heritage of this community. Respectfully submitted, Appr ved b` , ~~~~ ~~ ohn M. Chamb ss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodg Assistant Administrator County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc Pete Haislip, Director of Parks and Recreation Mike Koon, President BARC File John Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator BONSACK AREA itESIDENTS COALITION Please reply to: Mike Koon, President 5263 Orchard Hill Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 703-977-3021 October 7, 1993 John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Roanoke County, Virginia Dear John, A consensus has arrived at the following name for the park to be started on October 28, 1993 in Bonsack. It has been decided that this park should be called, "Bonsack Park." We'd appreciate it if you could put this name on the sign to be displayed at the ground breaking on October 28. Please check with me if there is any reason why this request cannot be implemented. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens of Bonsack. Very truly yours, _ i Mike Koon, President BARC ` ~,, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ~C-S RESOLUTION 102693-5.d OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF A FINANCING FOR SCHOOL PROJECTS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") and the County School Board have determined that it is necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping certain capital projects for public school purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. 2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the County or the County School Board to pay the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project from the proceeds of its debt or other financings. The maximum amount of debt or other financing expected to be issued for the Project is $2,310,000. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ADOPTED this 26th .day of October, 1993. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~l,Y?~.~~r~J Brenda J. Hol on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools 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: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Reimbursement Related to 1993 VPSA Bond Sale COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: DI~'~`~'-~r~'"' SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In order to meet the current tax law provisions, it is necessary for the Board to adopt a resolution authorizing expenditure of bond funds prior to the receipt of these funds. The School Board is in the process of issuing $2,310,000 in VPSA bonds that are expected to be received in hand by late November 1993. The School Board would like to begin work on these projects at this time. In order to be able to reimburse ourselves out of the bond proceeds when they are available in November, the attached resolution needs to be adopted expressing this intent of the Board. FISCAL IMPACT: The School Board would be utilizing funds currently available in the County's cashflow that would be repaid in November 1993. This will not cause a problem with available cash. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution declaring the intent to reimburse the County of Roanoke from the proceeds of the 1993 VPSA bond sale. Respectfully submitted, Appro d by, ~~~ ~ ~~ Diane D. Hyatt Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION VOTE Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy _ _ _ Johnson _ _ _ Kohinke _ _ _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens _ _ _ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON ~_._.~" TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF A FINANCING FOR SCHOOL PROJECTS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") and the County School Board have determined that it is necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping certain capital projects for public school purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. 2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the County or the County School Board to pay the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project from the proceeds of its debt or other financings. The maximum amount of debt or other financing expected to be issued for the Project is $2,310,000. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ADOPTED this 26th day of October, 1993. ACTION NO. A-102693-5.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: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Designation of Voting Delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties' Business Meeting, November 9, 1993 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Association of Counties Annual Conference will be held at The Homestead from November 7, 1993, through November 9, 1993. Supervisor Kohinke plans to attend this conference and Supervisor Minnix plans to attend the November 7th session only. The attached memorandum was received from James D. Campbell, Executive Director, VACo, requesting the designation of a voting delegate from Roanoke County for the Business Meeting to be held on November 9th. It is requested that the Board designate Supervisor Kohinke to serve in this voting capacity, and return the voting credentials form to VACo by November 1, 1993. Appr ved b , Elmer C. Ho ge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs ( ) Edd x Denied y Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File James D. Campbell, Executive Director, VACo Supervisor Kohinke UR. RSSN. OF COUNTIES TEL 804-788-0083 Oct 19,93 23:42 PJo.032 P.01/03 ctG S i m i Ce ri~t e S S a e VIRGINIA ASSUCIAI'lON OF COUNTIES ~_ ~ 1001 E. Broad Street, Suite LL20 Old City Hall Richmond, VA 23219-1901 (804) 7$8-6652 Fax: (804) 7$8-00$3 ~s memo an attachments are a so ern mailed to ou to a . ?U: Chairmen and Chairwo~ticn, Gounty Board of Supervisors County Chief Administrative Officers f~71bf,• James D. Campbell, Executive Director ~: Voting Credentials for the Annual Business Meeting D.~`!*E: October 19, 1993 The 1993 Annual Business Meeting of the Virginia Associa~on of Counties will be held on Tuesday, Novcmtx~r 9, from 10:1 a.m. to Noon at The Homestead in Bath County. Article VI of the VACo Constitution st<~tcs that each county shall designate a ieprescntative of its board of supervisors to cast its vote(s) at the Annual Business Meeting. However, if a member of the board of supervisors cannot be pi•cscnt for this meeting, the Association's Constitution does allow a county W designate anon-elected official Crom your county or a member of a hoard of supervisors from another county to cast a proxy vote(s) for your county. For your county to be certified to vote at the Annual Business MC~;ting, your aruiual dues must be paid in full and either a completed Voting Credentials Form or a Proxy Statement (attached) must be submitted to VACo by November 1, 1993. Alternatively, this information may be submitted to the Credentials Committee at its meeting on Monday, Navcmbcr 3, at 4:15 p.m, or to the conference registration desk before this meetistg. REGIQ~iAL CAUCUSF~ Iin several regions of the state, more than one; candidate has emerged to be considered for the VACo Board of Directors. We hope that these contests can be decided within the region before the Nominating Committee prepa~•cs its slate for consideration by the full membership. Accordingly, we have scheduled room from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. on Sunday Novetnbcr 7, for regional caucuses: Region 1 in the Blue Ridge Room Region 3 in the Valley Room Region S in the Cascades Room Region 7 in the Allegheny Room Region $ in the Regency Room Region 10 in the Hunt Room Region 12 in the Virginia Room If your region does not have a meeting room and would like one, please advise mec soon as possible. Plcasc call me at (804) 788-5652 if you have any questions about this process. VH. ASSN. OF COUNTIES TEL: 804-788-0083 Oct 19,93 23:42 No.0z2 P.02i0 1~'~ - l0 Voting Delegate: (Supervisor) Name VACo 1993 Annual Meeting Voting Credentials Form Edward C. Kohinke, Sr. Title Supervisor, Catawba Magisterial District Locality Board of Supervisors Alternate Delegate: (Supervisor) Name Title Locality Certified by: (Clerk of the Board) Mary H . Allen Name Title Clerk to the Board Locality Dk - d of Su ervisors VACo 1993 Annua! Meeting Proxy Statement County authorizes the following person to cast its vote at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties on November 9, 1993. anon-elected official of this county. -OR- asupervisor from County. This authorization is: Uninstructed. The proxy may use his/her discretion to cast _ County's votes on any issue to come before the annual meeting. Instructed. The proxy is limited in how he/she may cast _ County's votes. The issues on which he/she may cast those votes and how he/she should vote are; (List issues and Instructions on the back of this form) Certified by: Name Title Locality e Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Fax Number (703) 772-2089 Administrator's Office (703) 772-2004 FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 29, 1993 TO: Tames D. Campbell, Executive Director COMPANY: VACo NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 1 FROM: BRENDA HOLTON, DEPUTY CLERK DEPARTMENT: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NUMBER TO CALL IF TRANSMITTAL IS INCOMPLETE: 772-2005 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at is meeting, October 26, 1993, designated Supervisor Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., as the voting delegate to the VACo Business Meeting, November 9, 1993. VH. ASSN. OF COUNTIES TEL 804-788-0083 Oct 19 93 23 42 No .032 P.02i ~~..~rir-~~ r °:..:.~ ~----_ VACS 1 ~ _ ~~~ e., Votingo, Cttitil.. . --~---- . _;~ Voting Delegate: (Supervlaor) Edward G. Kohinke, Sr. Name Title Supervisor, Catawba Magisterial District Locality oard of Su ervisors Alternate Delegate: (Supervisor) Name Title Locality Certified by: - (Clerk of the Board) Mary H . Allen Name Title .Clerk to the Board Locality ~~ Su ervisors VACo 1883. Annual Mooting of the Vi ginia AssoeiNiNrp~.~ ~Psxa~osstrs caisa lts votr~~;. ~F~ tti~, ~.. '" nofRcat of this county. . •OR- a supervisor from may. T~hijs authoNzation is: U Uninstructed. The proxy may use-hlsAler dispryprt b cyst on any issue tD come before the annual n~selinq ~ ~' '' LJ Instructed. The proxy is limited in how he/shf• .q~E The issues on which he/she may cast those votos and hehho should vote are. (List issues and Instructwns on the back of this form Certified by: Name ACTION NO. A-102693-5.e ITEM NUMBER ~- w AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Designation of Voting Delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties' Business Meeting, November 9, 1993 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Association of Counties Annual Conference will be held at The Homestead from November 7, 1993, through November 9, 1993. Supervisor Kohinke plans to attend this conference and Supervisor Minnix plans to attend the November 7th session only. The attached memorandum was received from James D. Campbell, Executive Director, VACo, requesting the designation of a voting delegate from Roanoke County for the Business Meeting to be held on November 9th. It is requested that the Board designate Supervisor Kohinke to serve in this voting capacity, and return the voting credentials form to VACo by November 1, 1993. Appr ved , Elmer C. Ho ge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved (x ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Bob L. Johnson Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs x x x x x cc: File James D. Campbell, Executive Director, VACo Supervisor Kohinke Vp~. ASSN. OF COUNTIES TEL 804-788-0083 acsimile Oct 1993 2342 No .032 P.OliC message VIRGINIA ASSOCIAT'lON OF COUNTIES 1001 E. Broad Street, Suite LL20 Old City Hail Richmond, VA 23219-1901 (804) 788-6652 Fax: (804) 788-0083 memo are `~: Chairmen and Chairwomen, County Board of Supervisors County Chief Administrative Officers f~Q91~L• James D. Campbell, Executive Director ~: Voting CrcdcnliaLs for the Annual Business Meeting D,'~TE; October 19, 1993 f~- C~ The 1993 Annual I3usincss Meeting ~f the Virginia Association of Countic;s will be held on Tuesday, Novcmlx;r 9, from 10:15 a.m. to Noon at The Homestead in Bath County. Article VI of the VACo Constitution states that each county shall designate a representative of its board of supervisors to cast its vote(s) at the Annual Business Meeting. However, if a member of the board of supervisors cannot be present for this meeting, the Association's Constitution does allow a county W designate anon-elected ofC~cial from your county or a member of a board of supervisors from another county to cast a proxy vote(s) foe your county, For your county to be certified to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your aa~iual dues must be paid is full and either a completed Vati~cg Crodpuisla Form or a Proxy Statement {aaacbedj mnat be submilteci to VACo by November 1,1993. Altieraativcly, this information may be submitted to the Credentials Committee at its meeting on Monday, Novcmbar 3, at 4:15 p.m, or to the conference registration desk before this meeting. In scvcrul regions of the suite, mote than one candidate has emerged to be considered for the VACo Board of Directors. We hope that these contcs~g can be decided within the region before the Nominating Committee prepares its slate for consideration by the full membership. Acx;ordingly, we have scheduled room from 2:00 to 3:04 p.m. on Sunday November 7, for mgional caucuses: Region 1 in thr Blue Ridge Room Region 3 in the Valley Room Region 5 in the Cascades Room Region 7 in the Allegheny Room Region $ in the Rcgcncy Room Region 10 in the Hunt Room Region 12 in the Virginia Room if your region dots not have a mt~tmg room and would like one, please advise mew soon ~ os i le. Please call me at (804) 788-6bS2 if you have any questions About this process. N- / COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Amount Beginning Balance at $4,512,763 July 1, 1993 (Unaudited) Original 1993-94 Budget Addition to reserve 80,668 Original 1993-94 Budget Previously reserved for employee benefits and new administration building (886,182) % of General Fund Expenditures July 27, 1993 Reserved for ISTEA match (49,200) August 24, 1993 VDOT Revenue Sharing Match 25 000 Balance at October 26, 1993 3 633 049 4_ 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 revenues ($77,411,447). /~~`~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE July 13, 1993 Beginning Balance at July 1, 1993 (Unaudited) Northside High School Ball Fields $ 90,464 62 000 Balance as of October 26, 1993 Submitted by ~~~ ~. ~-~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 28 464 :~'-- 3 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY July 13, 1993 Beginning Balance at July 1, 1993 $100,000 Clerk of Circuit Court New Position 26 400 Balance as of October 26, 1993 73 600 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance O~ p0AN0,I.F ti~ ~ z c~ ~ z °v a~ 1838 C~~ixx~t~ ~# ~Z.~~xx~~.C~e October 21, 1993 The Honorable H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, ~~ ALFRED C. ANDERSON, CFO, CGT TREASURER As you read this I shall be attending the Appalachian Regional Conference at the Marriott as a member of the 5th Planning Commission. I regret that I am unable to communicate this to you in person. On October 13, 1992 by ordinance- the Board approved the acceptance of credit cards by the Treasurer to pay County taxes and other fees due the County. This is to be just another payment option for County residents. We now have a credit card company that is willing to work with Roanoke County as provided by Section 58.1-3013. The company is the Discover Card. They have agreed to our adding a nominal service charge not to exceed $5.00 as provided by law. The bank credit cards would rather lose the business than accept the wording of the above section of the Code. In economic bad times it will give residents an opportunity to be responsible in paying of their just debts. It will be a convenience and in the long run a cost benefit. We hope the residents of Roanoke County will explore the payment options and get a "charge" out of paying their local taxes. Sincerely,P ~~ r" ~ ~ ~ /, ~,, ~f ~, ~ Alfred C. Anderson, CFO, CGT Treasurer, Roanoke County P.O. BOX 21009 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0533 • (703) 772-2056 • FAX: (703) 772-2015 ® Recycled Paper N'J ~,~pCYQt~f.Qtlpr! PROCLAMATION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO PEGGY H. GRAY FOR OVER NINETEEN YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANOi~ COUNTY WHEREAS, Peggy H. Gray was first employed on December 3, 1973 as an Office Manager in the Roanoke County court system; and WHEREAS, Peggy H. Gray was appointed Clerk of the Roanoke County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court in February 1977; retiring on Juty 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, Peggy H. Gray, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the qualify of life for its citizens. NOW, 7NEREFORE BE 1T PROCLAIMED that 1, Chairman H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, on behalf ~f the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, express my deepest appreclatlon and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to PEGGY H. GRAY for over nineteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, 1 express my best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. ~~~~~ % ~ . H. Odell 'F innix, Chai an ATTEST: ~ci,t.c~-. 1d . Mary H. Allen, Clerk ACTION # ITEM NUMBER / Y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: October Report on 1991 Water Projects COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' In order to keep the Board of Supervisors informed, staff will provide a monthly report on the progress of the Spring Hollow Reservoir Project, Water Treatment Plant Project and the Water Transmission Line Project. SPRING HOLLOW RESERVOIR PROJECT The construction of the reservoir is now in its twenty third month and the project is on schedule. Construction activity during the last month included: ° Continued work on gate house ° Completed slip forming of withdrawal tower ° Set motors for pumps at river pump station ° Completed final clearing and grubbing The current project contract total costs including existing and pending change orders is $25,044,000. This cost remains unchanged from the previous report. Funds expended to date for the construction phase of the reservoir are $23,222,782.74 and $1,527,157.76 for engineering construction phase services. During the next month, the contractor will perform the following: ° Complete construction of the intake tower ° Continue the pump station pump control room construction ° Continue gate house construction. ° Continue access road across dam crest ° Begin grouting of Pond Spring WATER TREATMENT PLANT The Water Treatment Plant continues in the design phase. Activity during the last month included: ° Plans and operational data are currently under review by the County and State. During the next month, staff will perform the following: ° Work on equipment specifications and contract documents ° Continue construction drawings WATER TRANSMISSION LINE The following work continues on the Water Transmission Line: ° Title certification ° Easement negotiation ° Obtaining easements ° Preparation of construction drawings. '"` Work will continue on acquisition of easements during the next month. SUBMITTED BY: Cliffo aig, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Minnix Johnson Kohinke Eddy Nickens ACTION NO. ~ ITEM NUMBER ~i ~ ~.,__ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Bond Project Status Report COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is narrative overview of the bond projects approved in the 1992 Bond Referendum (Attachment A) and a time line for the projected/actual activity of the various work components (Attachment B). FISCAL IMPACT' None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Questions may be directed to either the specific project coordinator listed on the time line worksheet or John Chambliss. Respectfully.?submitted, Appr ed b /.~ hn M. Chambliss, Jr. ;,° ~` Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator -------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens N-? BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment A October 26, 1993 1992 BOND REFERENDUM PROJECTS PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY The design team is working on construction documents and the project is on schedule. Staff from the Engineering and General Services Departments have agreed to review construction documents when they are presented for inspection. A site plan has been submitted for review. A model of the renovated and expanded building has been completed and will be presented for public viewing on October 21, 1993. The Office of Community Relations has developed a campaign to publicize the progress made on the project with a planned unveiling of the model; an open house; and a participatory project for school children. PARKS AND RECREATION Bonsack Park - A groundbreaking will be held for Bonsack Park on October 28, 1993. FIRE HYDRANTS This project is three months ahead of scheduled. To date, 25 fire hydrants have been installed in North County and Vinton. Progress is being made in the South County area. Because of unexpected expenditures, the goal of 71 hydrants will not be meet; however, it is anticipated that 50 hydrants will be installed. ROAD PROJECTS All plant mix projects were completed on October 13, 1993, except for Sierra Drive between Charnwood Circle and Grove Lane. This section of street will be coordinated with the drainage project at Sierra and Fenwick Drives. The resurfacing of Sierra Drive may have to wait until Spring. VDOT has completed the deed preparation, staking projects in the field, and starting negotiations with property owners in association with the incidental projects. ~~- ~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 1,500,000 S 26,694.20 PROJECT COORDINATOR: SPENCER YATTS ACCOUNT CODE: 104030 COMMENTS: The design team is working on construction documents, and the project is on schedule. Staff from the Engineering and General Services Departments have agreed to review construction documents when they are presented for inspection. A site plan has been submitted for review. A model of the renovated and expanded building has been completed and will be presented for public viewing on October 21, 1993. The Office of Community Relations has developed a campaign to publicize the progress made on the project with a planned unveiling of the model; an open house; and a participatory project for school children. 1 ,~.v BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 DRAINAGE PROJECTS -SIERRA DR/FENWICK DR BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 90,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: BUTCH YORg1AN ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 COMMENTS: 1. No easements needed. 2. Coordinate with VDOT (95% Project in VDOT RW) 3 / V ~°' BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 DRAINAGE PROJECTS -GREEN VALLEY BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 75,000 $ 97,500 522,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: BUTCH YORKMAN ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR DESIGN PHASE PLANNED I! ACTUAL MEET W/VDOT PLANNED & CITIZENS ............ PHASE I ACTUAL MEET WITH PLANNED CITIZENS - PHASE II AWARD CONTR.- PHASE I ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL 22,000 COMMENTS: 1. No permanent easements needed. 5. Phase I - 57,500 from F & W & E15, 000 from 2. Phase I Murray Run below F & W Bldg. F (Upstream from Phase II) Drainage Budget; Phase II - $75,000 from Bond 3. Phase II Trunk line along Colony Ln. & drainage easement 6. P-120 to be constructed with Phase II 4. Discuss curb 8 gutter option w/VDOT along portion of Colony Ln. 7. Phase I to be constructed under hourly rate contract. Phase I is complete and approximately $22,000 was spent. Also Project #P-120, which involved opening a drainage ditch on Colony Lane, has been completed. 4 N- BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 DRAINAGE PROJECTS -NOTTINGHAM HILLS AREA BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 45,000 520,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: BUTCH WORKlU1N ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (FIELD) PLANNED ACTUAL MEET WITH PLANNED CITIZENS ACTUAL HOURLY PLANNED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: 7. No permanent easements needed 2. To be in conjunction with P-103 3. Projects are in three (3) locations - Cave Spring Ln., Cynthia Dr., & Farmington Dr. 5 iy - 7 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 DRAINAGE PROJECTS - MT. VERNON HEIGHTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 20,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: BUTCH HORKMAN ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR SELECT PLANNED SURVEYING FIRM ACTUAL ACTUAL SURVEY PLANNED DESIGN PLANNED ACTUAL MEET 411TH PLANNED CITIZENS ACTUAL HOURLY PLANNED CONTRACT ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PLANNED ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: 1. Permanent easements are needed. 6 N- ~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 300,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: GEORGE SIMPSON ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APPLY FOR PLANNED FEMA GRANT OF MATCHING FUNDS ACTUAL RFP PLANNED ENGINEERING SERVICES ACTUAL SELECT PLANNED CONSULTANT ACTUAL PRELIMINARY PLANNED ENGINEERING ACTUAL PREPARE PLANNED WATERSHED PLANS ACTUAL REGIONAL PLANNED POLICY ACTUAL REMEDIAL PROJ. PLANNED INVESTIGATION ACTUAL REMEDIAL PROJ. PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: The County is awaiting notification from FEMA on approval of matching monies. 7 ~~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 1,750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: JOHN CHAMBLiSS ACCOUNT CODE: 104209, 104201, 104203 104204 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR WALROND PARK PLANNED 31 000 ENG!' Et;tS BTO .. '>sCON 'CON CON' SOCCER FIELD ACTUAL ENG1 CON ! ENG >'BiD WALROND PARK PLANNED 62 000 l:t~G' E'NG BTD : > CON GIN Ct7b'` 2 BASEBALL FIELDS ACTUAL <ENG "<CI~N> <ENG> i`EI'~iXci NORTHSIDE PLANNED 52 000 ;: >:>EON ssEON, ;.. ,,G061`: REALIGN FIELDS '> '• "'' ACTUAL 8,898 <ENG E1~G COtd`: Goa : CON rGOFI<: BONSACK PARK PLANNED 20 000 ;.: :>GON CON CON':< BALL FIELD ':" '' >>' ACTUAL E1fG.. iNG ............ ENG ............ ENG . _.._ ............. E1~G :> EbfG::: BONSACK PARK PLANNED 15,000 >EON CON USE: PICNIC SHELTER ` ACTUAL ENG ''ENG BiD ' BiD » CON'': BONSACK PARK PLANNED 10 000 CON'! CON 'i3SE `` PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ACTUAL ENG 'BID VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 62 000 `tc#FG B'iD;;' EON:i CON !CON 2 BASEBALL FIELDS ACTUAL ENG.;<. ENG ENIi VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 150,000 CONS: GON ' !'USE CER LIGHT SOC FIELD CTUAL ,413 ENG :: BID ; BiD . CON" ON ? SE G ~>>'.>: >~ "' %R``<. t::>:. .. TOTAL PLANNED 402,000 ACTUAL COMMENTS: Northside - Engineering work has been completed. The piping contractor has installed the storm water drainage system, sanitary sewer line and domestic water line for the property. Grading work is progressing so that the final work may be completed this fall. Bonsack Park - The engineering for the development of a baseball field at this site is being reviewed by the County Development Review process. Construction activity should begin in the early fall. The school is assisting in obtaining the appropriate access to this site. Staff met with the community civic league to obtain input in the play apparatus and picnic shelter scheduled for this site. Various stages of work will occur during this summer/fall. Groundbreaking is scheduled for October 28, 1993. Walrond Park -Branch Highways has completed the removal of dirt from the development site and the final engineering is being completed. Engineering for the 2 baseball fields and 1 soccer field have been approved and bids will be received in September for the final grading. Final construction should occur during the fall of 1993. 8 /1/~- r/ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 BUDGET S 1,750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: JOHN CHAMBLISS ACCOUNT CODE: 104204, 104210, 104212 104205, 104207 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 25 000 ;>~AEG >~~fG a :::BID:::: :~> . ";CON ~'.p~j' ..~ PARKING ACTUAL ENG EKG::: VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 25,000 .;ENG B'10`. ''CON :' CON '.USE,? RESTROOM UTIL ACTUAL ''' ENG <: EKG :: ENG :' VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 50 000 ENG:;: ::::EI~EG.::; ><HIU':;' ;;Gi7N.:;::> QN .::C__... LIGHT BASEBALL ACTUAL INYARD PARK I LANNED 5,000 .:::........: >>~i~G- :::...:..:::. >9<;~KG':; .:::......::: s;6;I~"' :::::..:.. `~~' "` ..Crj - - CONCESSION/ STORAGE ACTUAL MT. PLEASANT PLANNED 40,000 ">CrNG;::':`: ;_'~I~G..;> :;B`ilti:':>.> PARK BALL FIELD ACTUAL STONEBRIDGE PK PLANNED 25 000 ;: ;:. ;:.EEG , _ E=NG,.. _.BtD. 'EON' :z£ON:>: RESTROOM UTIL. ACTUAL BYRD SCHOOL PLANNED 60,000 CON' CON USE'' LIGHT BASEBALL FIELD ACTUAL "ENG B:ID 8TD E3iD;< E}~G ENG .... ... WHISPERING PLANNED 31,000 .?ENG' BID ' CON` ........ CON ! ..... . CON PINES PK. - BASEBALL FIELD ACTUAL 632 ENG` EKG" ENG TOTAL PLANNED 281 000 ACTUAL COMMENTS: Lishtin9 -Bids were opened on June 11 for the lighting of five sports complexes in Roanoke County. The lights on the Vinyard soccer fields were completed on August 31. Contracts have been awarded for the replacement lights at the Career Center and for the new lights for the baseball field at Starkey Park. Further review of the bids with the vendor is occurring for Byrd baseball field and Garst Mill. Vinyard Park -Engineering services for the baseball fields and improvements at Whispering Pines Park have been awarded and are currently undergoing development review. PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE 9 Y BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE $ 1,750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: JOHN CHAMBLISS ACCOUNT CODE: 104207, 104211, 104206, 104213, 104202 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR WHISPERING PLANNED 60,000 >ENG_: >fNG:::>: <::6:iD<:::: :::>:GON::::i s:.G~.... PINES - LIGHT BALLFIELD ACTUAL WHISPERING PLANNED 25,000 iFIG EItA `` <GQN CON ' GQN PINES - RESTROOM UTIL ACTUAL FN6 ENG ENG WHISPERING PLANNED 36 000 , ff~fG... :.:6iD? CON::: GCIN > COH II~E' PINES -TENNIS/ ::::::. `` BASKETBALL CT ACTUAL ;::EN;G'::, .. ENG... .ENG ;:.;:.;:.;: ;::: ::::: :::::::. .:::::::::::: : . GREEN HILL PK PLANNED 30 000 E}AEG::> ::>:EI~G:i: ?::BID::_ ~~~ N< ::.~0.... '<'CON> 2 PICNIC SHELTERS ACTUAL 81D Siff 'GON GARST MILL PK PLANNED 124,000 '.fNG Bf0:: CON' CON 'tiSE LIGHT 2 BALL FIELDS ACTUAL fNG BID BTD GIB, BTD ! BID :; WINDSOR HILLS PLANNED 50,000 AREA PURCHASE WINDSOR HILLS AREA - 2 BALL FIELDS PLANNED ACTUAL 62 000 ;:anu".' '''':cK~:>> .>o:'"`' STARKEY PARK PLANNED 62 000 ............ ''EON`'E[ ............. }35E> 2 BASEBALL FIELDS ACTUAL 22 656 ~1SE>, TOTAL PLANNED 449 000 ACTUAL 12,829 COMMENTS: Starkey Park -The baseball field has been constructed, the piping installed to improve drainage in the middle of the park, and the soccer field reoriented to provide two soccer fields at this site. Future work will include correcting erosion problems along the creek to preserve our investment in this park and providing utilities for future restroom facilities. 10 /`(- 9 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 BUDGET $ 1,750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: JOHN CHAMBLISS ACCOUNT CODE: 104202, 104214, 104218, 104220, 104219 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR STARKEY PARK PLANNED 31 000 1 BASEBALL FIELD ACTUAL STARKEY PARK PLANNED 62,000 , ,,.Et~G::::.: :::;.B.:IA;:;.; ;.:GON: :::.GQN.:.: ;11~.E;:. LIGHT 1 FIELD ACTUAL °Ei~6 ;. H 0 >: 6T33 B 0' ;:;:::>:z:::> `: CtIN' >::::>::::>:> CON'::: STARKEY PARK PLANNED 25,000 NG.: RESTROOM UTIL ACTUAL TENNIS COURT PLANNED 210 400 <6ID EON ' COW :; :rE1~EI'r`> RENOVATIONS ACTUAL 1,000 .::.ENG E~fG ENG Eu0 ENG E>JG BALL FIELD PLANNED 62,000 <'E`ON:; ~~~ ~~~'' FENCING ACTUAL ENG';: BID' COW. BID,': FACILITY PLANNED 41,000 ENG ENG BIO;: CDN ` ' CON REPAIRS CRAIG AVENUE ACTUAL 7 745 ENG'' CON< CON CON FACILITY PLANNED 11 000 ENG ENG BID> EON CON.;` REPAIRS LEISURE ARTS ACTUAL HLO>~ Ht0 Hl.I1 FACILITY PLANNED 4 500 ENG ENG BID CON' ' GIN;: -::::.:.: REPAIRS WALROND OFC. ACTUAL 2,115 ,;CDN USE C tl .,: M P `L 1;.... 'T ; ~ .." '>0'? TOTAL PLANNED 446 900 ACTUAL 2,115 COMMENTS: Tennis Court Renovations - The consultant has completed the study and prepared the specifications to allow the repairs to the various facilities. Bids for the renovation will be received to allow repairs to begin in the summer/fall of 1993. Ball Field Fencing -Technical specifications have been prepared and the inventory of fencing needs has been established. Bids are being taken to repair fences and to establish the fencing cost for new ball fields. PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE 11 ,~-~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 1,750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR' JOHN CHAMBLISS ACCOUNT CODE: 104221, 104216, 104217, 104208 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR ADA ACCESS PLANNED 15 100 Et~G!.. Bib CON 'CON iE4N» ACTUAL GROUND COVER PLANNED 42 000 ;EIEG.: BPD:; cone coh ::~.ya~:; FOR PLAY- > GROUND EQUIP. ACTUAL ENG; Bl0 '''BiD :: INFIELD SURF. PLANNED 54,000 .EON ' ~1~G Bi:D': Ci7Fi'; frQN?: [:~iTW:3: MATERIALS FOR BASEBALL FIELDS ACTUAL 5,100 GON . ENG:> BiO: Bib :: CAREER CENTER PLANNED 60 000 ENGr BTD„', <:CON CON:::;: REPLACE LIGHTS ''' ACTUAL ":ENG ..B10: 6iD Bib` CQN `CON: TOTAL PLANNED 171 000 ACTUAL 5,100 COMMENTS: Repairs at Craig Center -handicap access and installation of a new HVAC system. Handicap Access to 4latrond Office Building (Cabin) -Repairs have been completed. 12 ~- 7 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 ROAD PROJECTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 500,000 5 500,000.00 S 1,000,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: ARNOLD COVEY ACCOUNT CODE: 104070 TASK VDOT PREPARES PLANNED BIDS ACTUAL VDOT PLANNED ADVERTISES ACTUAL VDOT AWARDS PLANNED CONTRACT ON ALL PROJECTS (57> ACTUAL ALL PROJECTS PLANNED CONSTRUCTED & COMPLETED ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR COMMENTS: Adams Construction Company is to start Plant mix projects July 12, 1993. Incidental projects - VDOT is actively pursuing right of way. Because of a delay in obtaining the right of ways for projects, the actual construction may not begin until Spring, 1994. Beside the heading, VDOT AWARDS CONTRACT ON ALL PROJECTS (57), the shaded area is only for incidental projects. Also beside the heading, ALL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED & COMPLETED, the shaded area under March and April, 1994, is for incidental projects only. All plant mix projects were completed on October 13, 1993 except for Sierra Drive between Charnwood Circle and Grove lane. This section of street will be coordinated with the drainage project at Sierra and Fenwick Drives. The resurfacing of Sierra Drive may have to wait until Spring. Incidental projects - VDOT has completed deed preparation, staking projects in the field, and starting negotiations with property owners. 13 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 ~\/- 7 VALLEY TECHPARK BUDGET CONTRACT S 750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: TIM GUBALA EXPENDITURES TO DATE ACCOUNT CODE: TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR ~ MASTER PLAN ~ PLANNED LAND PLANNED AC(JUISITION/ EXCHANGE ACTUAL DETAIL PLANNED ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL PLANNED ACCESS REQUEST ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PLANNED BIDS ACTUAL START ROAD, PLANNED UTILITY CONSTRUCTION ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: The Preliminary Engineering Report was completed in June. The Industrial Access request to VDOT was approved in June. The construction plans and preliminary quantities were submitted to VDOT on July 1, 1993 for review. They were returned with 44 comments. The VDOT Industrial Access Office in Richmond has forwarded to the County the approved County/State agreement for the Board's consideration. The local VDOT office anticipates bidding this project in October. Bids will be opened in December. Mrs. Helen Cox-Richards has agreed to sell the County/IDA a .48 acre tract for 510,000. This acreage along with the property owned by Mr. Edward Bruce HiIL is needed for the industrial access entrance. Ue are nearing closing on both properties. 14 N~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 FIRE HYDRANTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 184,000 J. P. Turner 567,191.48 PROJECT COORDINATOR: RON EDWARDS ACCOUNT CODE: TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR PREPARE SITE PLANNED LOCATION MAPS ACTUAL PREPARE PLANNED SPECIFICATIONS FOR FIRE HYRDRANTS ACTUAL BID FIRE PLANNED HYRDRANTS ACTUAL BID PLANNED INSTALLATION OF HYDRANTS ACTUAL INSTALLATION PLANNED ACTUAL FINAL INSP., PLANNED ACCEPTANCE & PROJECT ACTUAL COMPLETION TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: This project is three months ahead of schedule with 25 hydrants installed to date. Due to an increase in materials cost, new DO7 requirements, and other unexpected expenditures, this project will probably not meet the goal of the 71 hydrants. I do anticipate the installation of 50 or more with the monies available. Hydrants have been installed in North County and Vinton. Presently the crew is working on South County as near as possible to the priority list. Some of the water maps are marked incorrectly; therefore, certain hydrants on the list will not be installed. 15 N-~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B October 26, 1993 PURCHASE OF LAND FOR HIGH SCHOOL BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 750,000 S 240,121.01 PROJECT COORDINATORS: JOHN CHAMBLiSS AND HOMER DUFF ACCOUNT CODE: 155140 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR PURCHASE OF PLANNED 750 000 LAND ACTUAL 240 121 TOTAL PLANNED 750 000 ACTUAL 240,121 COMMENTS: The first of several tracts of land to be purchased for the eventual building of a new Cave Spring High School has been completed. The site is located immediately in front of Penn Forest Elementary School and across from Starkey Park. Although there are no immediate plans to construct the school, the land will be preserved for the eventual development and will be used for Parks and Recreational purposes until that time. The acquisition cost including testing for the 28 acres tract was $240,121.01. Staff has met with other property owners concerning the remaining tracts of land. 16 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER r~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: Tuesday, October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Status Report on Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Solid Waste Facilities COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a status report that was presented to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority at its October 21 meeting. This status report gives an update on all phases of the project. Respectfully submittesi: ~ ~ /~' y ," ,: f "John R. Hubbard Chief Executive Officer Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ------------------------------------------ Edd Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) y Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke to Minnix Nickens IY -~ MEETING: October 21, 1993 PROJECT: Master Schedule STATUS: Progress continues to be made with some delays. The overall project completion remains behind schedule. Below is a brief description of the status of each portion of work. Smith Gan: . Rough Grading: Grading is complete in Phase I of the landfill disposal area. Road grading continues along with grading in Phase II-III & IV of the disposal area. Leachate tank site grading is complete. . Tipper Station: Structural steel is in place on buildings. Masonry work continues. Office area work is beginning; still behind schedule. . Landfill Liner: Soil liner has been installed on approximately half of disposal area. The synthetic liner placement is underway. . Utilities: Water tank and lines complete. Leachate collection system will begin by late October. . Water Well Supply: The well pump, controls and building have been ordered and are waiting installation. An additional well has been sited for drilling. . Gas Monitoring Wells: Plans and specifications are ready for bidding, however, will be delayed until disposal area is complete. Paving: Paving to be delayed until construction complete. Likely to be performed in Spring. N-$ Transfer Station . Building: . Lid Removal System: Rail Tran~rtation: . Rail Spur: . Stone Track: . Rail Cars: Ecfuip_= ment: . Heavy Machinery: Schedule: Most work complete. Office area and paving are major activities at this time. Structure built and lifting hoist being installed. Majority of rail work complete and ready for use. Portion through building remains to be completed. Stone delivery will start October 19, 1993. Six cars on site at Transfer Station, with deliveries weekly to total 30. All equipment has been ordered and most ready for delivery. Delays continue to postpone completion. The system should be operational in December, but final completion scheduled for later. Attached is a summary of the project schedule and status. Respectfully submitted: / ~<r~~ `/ J,- ~ -~if~. % "~~John R. Hubbard, P.F~'~ Chief Executive Officrer PROJECT STATUS ~"~ ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY MASTER SCHEDULE BOND PROCEEDS ONLY FINANCU\L STATUS ESTIMATED COSTS ACTUAL TO DATE % TOTAL COMPONENT S 12,046,204 53,812,433 32°~6 Landfill 6,297,614 53,810,087 61 % Transfer 9,000.000 -0- 0% Transportation S27,343,818 57,622,520 28% TOTAL ACTION NO. ,~"''~ ITEM NUMBER (..,1~"~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Presentation and Work Session on Northside Fieldhouse COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: As the Board may remember, this time was set aside for a second work session on the fieldhouse at Northside High School. Representatives of the schools and athletic associations will be in attendance and have requested twenty minutes to make their presentation to the Board. The work session will follow the presentation. Appr ed yb /, Elmer C. Hod County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens 1 C~ N i ~ 1-..-, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~ -~ ~, ~` ~`,~. ~\ /, I ~/ . .L._~~ F_ L.' i..,. .~ f~ ~..., O U W v 0 Q .~ ,~~ .:, ~' .~ 1 ~~~ ~r ~.'' G'7 i,~ C,~ N Cry ~ o 3 ~ ~ ' ~ \~ `~ i `~- ~~ ~_~--~ r Virginia Department of Planning and Budget County Population Projection 1986 Year Nu 1970 53,817 1980 72,945 1990 81,100 2000 88,700 2010 96,300 2020 103,900 2030 11.1,500 Northside Projected Enrollment Middle school Grade yeaz 6th 7th 8th 9th Total 1992-93 264 271 249 784 1993-94 280 264 271 815 1994-95 268 256 280 804 1995-96 263 268 256 787 1996-97 261 263 268 792 1997-98 263 261 263 787 19yg_g9 257 263- 261 781 Hi r hschool Grade Year 9th 10th 11th 12th Total 1992-93 283 251 264 798 1993-94 249 283 251 78..3 1994-95 264 271 249 283 1,067 1995-96 280 264 271 249 1,064 1996_g7 256 280 264 271 1,071 1997-98 268 2.56 280 264 1,068 1998-99 263 268 256 280 1,067 1999-2000 26 l 263 268 256 1,048 NORTHSIDE EDUCATIONAL/ATHLETIC COMPLEX OVERVIEW 10-26-93 Very few things we as parents, teachers, and community leaders do are more impor- tant than educating our children. Not only must we educate their minds, but we must also provide classes and activities that help develop their physical fitness. To this end, we look to good teachers, good materials,and good facilities. It is the issue of facilities that we need to address today. Northside Jr. High School has one gym. It is the smallest of the junior high/middle school gyms in Roanoke County, seating only 300 people. There is also a multipurpose room, intended for use as an auditorium for curriculum integrated instruction, plays, performances, assemblies, etc. Current enrollment at Northside Junior High School is 840 students, all of whom take P.E. During the course of one day, 31 Health and P.E. classes are held with an average class size of 28-30 students. To accommodate all these students, not only must the gym be used, but the so-called multipurpose room must be utilized as a gym. This immediately eliminates the availability of space for the aforementioned activities, with- out amajor overhaul of the schedule. The middle school curriculum emphasizes intramurals and a strong activities pro- gram. At the present time space severely limits, or completely eliminates, the programs at Northside. These programs are important in the total development of middle school age students and offer positive alternatives for after school activities. A new educational/athletic complex could provide multi-teaching stations, reducing class size and eliminating the use of the multipurpose room as a gym. Thus, the multi- purpose room could be utilized for other student activities. It would also offer the neces- sary space to provide a wide range of intramural activities and adult education class- rooms.Attaching the gymnasium facility to the junior high school will eliminate student class movement outside in cold or inclement weather. A small auditorium (seating approximately 350) would meet the varied needs of Northside Junior High School, Northside High School, and the North County commu- nity.This space could be utilized for grade level assemblies, team teaching, and drama programs. A smaller setting such as this enables students to learn appropriate large group behavior and also provides for various learning environment experiences. Com- munity groups could also use this facility in the evenings and weekends for meetings and social functions. These facilities are needed no~v to address the educational needs of the students and community of North County. The time is now while the interest rates are low and the needs for facilities keep mounting. Waiting any longer will only deprive more of our children of the quality of education that we have come to expect of Roanoke County Schools. We, the citizens of North County, implore you to make this educational/ath- letic complex a priority on your capital improvement planning list. ~orEh /~oanohe I~ecrea~ion (~lu~ P. 0. Box 7431 Roanoke, Virginia 24019 "Saving Tbr Nortb County Area" SUPPORT FOR EDUCATIONAL/ATHLETIC COMPLEX AT NORTHSIDE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF YOUTH ATHLETICS/RECREATION: A. YOUTH ATHLETICS/RECREATION PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES 1. TO DEVELOP BASIC SKILLS IN SPORTS 2. HEALTHFUL PHYSICAL EXERCISE AND FITNESS 3. POSITIVE SOCIAL INTERACTION WITH PEER GROUPS 4. POSITIVE INTERACTION WITH ADULT COACHES AND LEADERS 5. TO LEARN SPORTSMANSHIP AND FAIR PLAY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF HEALTHY COMPETITION 6. POSITIVE SOCIAL TRANSITION FROM ELEMENTARY TO SECONDARY SCHOOLS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF POSITIVE ASSOCIATIONS 7. PREPARATION IN BASIC ATHLETIC SKILLS FOR SCHOOL SPORTS PROGRAMS 8. ALTERNATIVES TO LESS DESIRABLE INFLUENCES FOR YOUTHS 9. FELLOWSHIP FOR PARENTS SERVICE D B ELIVERY SYSTEM/PARTNERSHIP . 1. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION AND SCHOOLS PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE 2. REC CLUBS PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, SUPPORT, AND MANAGEMENT 3. AS A PARTNERSHIP, WE HAVE HISTORICALLY WORKED TOGETHER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR YOUTHS 4. TOGETHER, THE RESOURCES UTILIZED TO SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES ARE SEEN AS AN INVESTMENT, NOT JUST AN EXPENSE, IN THE FUTURE WELL BEING OF OUR YOUTHS AND OUR COMMUNITY. C. NORTH ROANOKE RECREATION CLUB HIGHLIGHTS 1. WE SERVE THE COMMUNITIES OF THE HOLLINS AND CRTAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS 2. WE PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMMING IN 11 SPORTS: BOY'S BASKETBALL, GIRL'S BASKETBALL, INSTRUCTIONAL BASKETBALL, T- BALL, BASEBALL, SOFTBALL, SPRING SOCCER CLINICS, FOOTBALL, BOY'S SOCCER, GIRL'S SOCCER, AND CHEERLERDING (MANY CLUBS FOCUS ON ONLY ONE SPORT ACTIVITY) 3. OVER 1400 FAMILIES PARTICIPATE IN THE NRRC 4. OVER 3000 TEAM MEMBERS PARTICIPATE EACH YEAR 5. OVER 200 ATHLETIC TEAMS ARE SPONSORED EACH YEAR 6. OVER 230,000 HOURS OF YOUTH PARTICIPATION LAST YEAR 7. OVER 500 ADULT VOLUNTEERS 8. 40,000 VOLUNTEER HOURS WERE PROVIDED LAST YEAR 9. DIRECT BUDGET COSTS OF THE NRRC REACHED $121,000. 10. VALUE OF VOLUNTEER CONTRIBUTIONS REACHED $150,000. 11. TOTAL VALUE OF NRRC PROGRAMS - OVER 1/4 MILLION DOLLARS 12. COST FOR ONE PARTICIPANT FOR ONE HOUR - 51.17 (NOT A BAD INVESTMENT!) D. FACILITY NEEDS 1. NRRC PARTICIPATION HAS GROWN OVER 60`s IN LAST 5 YEARS 2. SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION IDENTIFIED TEAM SPORTS AS THE #1 MUST REQUESTED ACTIVITY BY TEENS IN THE COUNTY. 3. FACILITY NEEDS ARE BEING MET FOR BASEBALL, SOFTBALL, AND SOCCER TN THE NORTH COUNTY AREA AS A RESULT OF THE BOND REFERENDUM. 4. A CRITICAL SITUATION EXISTS IN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR BASKETBALL RECREATION IN NORTH COUNTY 5. 58 TEAMS WERE SPONSORED LAST YEAR BY NRRC 6. 7 SCHUOL GYMS WERE UTILIZED LAST YEAR ( 1 LESS THAN 5 YEARS AGO DUE TO THE CONVERSION OF SOUTHVIEW SCHOOL ) 7. PROJECTED TO LOSE 1 MORE GYM IN THE CONVERSION OF RCOS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ADMINISTRATION FACILITY 8. 15 TEAMS IN THE OLDEST AGE DIVISIONS HAD NO SET PRACTICE SCHEDULE DUE TO LACK OF GYM TIME AND SPACE LAST YEAR 9. TEAMS ARE LIMITED TU SHORTENED PRACTICE SCHEDULES AND GAMES/PRACTICES ON SUNDAYS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM 10. AN EXPANDED EDUCATION/ATHLETIC COMPLEX AT NORTHSIDE WILL ADDRESS THE RECREATION NEEDS OF OUR YOUTHS WELL INTO THE NEXT CENTURY. E. NRRC REQ UESTS COUNTY SUPPORT FOR NORTHSIDE EDUCATION/ATHLETIC COMPLEX 1. BY YOUR CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES IN YOUTH ATHLETICS AS INVESTMENTS IN THE POSITIVE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF OUR YOUTHS AND UUR COMMUNITIES 2. BY YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED TO ADDRESS THE OBVIOUS INADEQUACIES OF THE CURRENT NORTHSIDE FACILITIES TU MEET THE EDUCATIONAL AND ATHLETIC NEEDS OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THE HIGH SCHOOL SERVING OUR COMMUNITIES 3. BY INCORPORATING THE CONCEPT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROJECT. ( AREA, REGIONAL, AND STATE COMPETITIONS BRING INCREASED TAX REVENUES TO THE COUNTY) 4 ~rpo~N~ wao0000o c~ U u~aoaornrnoor~r~t~cocor~oo 0 o~av~iofvviaio~coiciiriicioo ~t0~ rN~~r~ ~NNN~~ 01 !r! di !9 Vf Y! ~R ~A f9 to IN V! ~.. Q N Q ~ ~ NOo. U ~ 0. y to to 1A 1n to ~ IA ~ ~ ~ ~ Z N yy ~c~rorNimi rn~t°~ti°it~ a~Qj ~O~ I I I rNNlOc7 ciC70 Q = ~_~ ZZ .~ yW otAlAln Of to c00000000 ~ _ _ t0 10 nj ch <O N t~ t~ ~' of tt o>w ~, ~ ~z ~No w zo w ~ ~ ~~~ , i ~W O W O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn g o c~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c9i, c~, ~o..rap~n.o..o..~A1Atq F Oo I I ou~in~n I I I Q 14o'~.S? l oooc9i,c4i,c? IQ lq ~ r r r r r r N !^ LL ~ 0 0 >- >- ~- p ~ LL.W~~~-~~~ZZZ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ N NYNCnW $'~~~~~ ww rMt7r~M JJ =XXXXX ~~ UNtnNF-m a~~~z~ Z QQ ~zz rz u~ v~v~cntnv~ww U ~xxtX--Fx-'x~~~~~~FF ~~~_~~ o000o Q qtr rrrr ~] Z~~ Z~ X X X X X X ~ fnNNNlnN ~~ N ~fL [!:[~~IL~LC Q~ ~______====ZOO O.yZr Urr~l7r~Ph`d~t'~tZZ ~~y J~O O =0J=0 tCC7~ OU000=OU=OU=J (~y =NtnOOUONUONUO ooh U}r==~=~-Nr~-NoJ ocv W N~~UU}U~~-U~~=o aW~ ~ o~~~~~~~~~~~=v ~Q~ I y Ga..~~jWW~I11~~W~w~(~ yy~ U>Zpp~ w ZWWW~2[~U~ mOW pUF-~~>~~>~~OOO J zz ~~~ UO~~~Z~~U~~U~h- Q N » > ~> o°~o xQ~~~~l-~ I-~ 00 0 ~.LL,~„ ~gcnggC7~cnc9~m(7zz I- c~ ao co rn ca rn ~ r• 00 c7 tU O ('~ r r N (O r' r ~ N a0 t0 r- r (O O .- ap N to f~ ~t r r N In r 00 Z O ~ ~ ~ r(~ONC7 1'~ r r N ~ r W= Q T ~~W zg Q Y (~~ O a' o- ~ Q Q ZUQ W J ~ ~ O~ N ~Q WHO .~ Q~ O O=W F- Q ~ m J mW~m IW m 0 ~ ~ .... Y Q m O ~ 0 ~ ~ OOQ O ac ~- z W cn m cn . ~-- z 2. A. 4. ROANOKE COUNTY PARKS_8 RECREATION DEPARTMENT (QUARTERLY RECREATION ACITIVITY~PROGRAM REPORT DIVISION: YOUTH ATHLETICS QUARTER: _____._WINTER ___ YEAR: 19.93 PREPARED BY: DATE: 05-_13_9.3 BOB _.GUTHR.LE/_S TAR. PATTON ~ R ~ Y. BU DGE SPORT ~€6B GR~~P PAR TC. MES U EXP REV NR 7-8 13/156 0 B A S 1 K 9 NR NR NR NR 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-17 13/156 10/120 5/60 3/36 84.5 55 27.5 19.5 65 50 25 15 E 9 T 2 g / A 9 L 3 L CS CS CS CS CS 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-17 16/192 14/168 10/120 5/60 5/60 91 45 27.5 32.5 0 70 50 25 25 VN 7-8 6/72 0 VN 9-10 7/84 42 35 VN 11-12 5/60 30 25 VN 13-14 2/24 11 10 VN 15-17 0 0 <<-,,t 0 TOTALS ~gIV/CO 1~T~213Z 7~3 695.00 QUARTER BEGINNING ENDING QUARTE EXP REV ~L~~~D L EXP REV VAR 695. 836 TOTALS TOTALS BUDGET BEGINING ENDING VAR OFFICIAL 17841.50 19021.00 -1179.50 SCOREKEEP 7730.00 7985.00 -255.00 SUP CUST 20230.00 15251.32 +4978.68 OFF/COORD 1150.00 1250.00 .-100.00 TOTALS 46951.50 43507.32 +3.444.18 ~~ ~~ R Y. BU DGE SPORT C~6B P GR PAR C. GAMES EXP REV MP 7-8 3/36 0 B ~MP 9-10 2/24 12 10 A MP 11-12 2/24 12 10 S 1 MP 13-14 0 0 0 K 9 MP 15-17 0 0 0 E 9 T 2 GL 7-8 5/60 0 B / A 9 L 3 L GL GL GL GL 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-17 4/48 2/24 0 0 24 11 0 0 20 10 0 0 MC 7-8 1/12 0 MC 9-10 1/12 6.5 5 MC 11-12 0 0 0 MC 13-14 0 0 0 MC 15-17 2/24 13 10 BOT.CO. 15-17 4/48 26 0 TOTALS ~ R Y. BU DGE SPORT CC6B GK~FP 1~7~K TC. GAMES EXP REV G I R L S NR CS VN MP GL MC 9-10 9-10 9-10 9-10 9-10 9-10 5 60 8/96 3/36 0 2/24 0 22.5 44 13.5 0 9 0 25 40 15 0 10 0 R.CITY 9-10 4 48 22 O B A S 1 NR CS 11-12 11-12 5/60 7/84 25 31.5 25 35 K 9 VN 11-12 4/48 20 20 E 9 MP 11-12 1/12 5 5 T 2 GL 11-12 3/36 13.5 15 B / MC 11-12 1/12 5 5 A 9 L 3 L NR CS 13-14 13-14 3 36 3 36 15 15 15 15 VN 13-14 1/12 5 5 MP 13-14 0 0 0 GL 13-14 1/12 5 5 MC 13-14 0 0 0 R.CITY 13-14 2/24 10 0 BOT.CO. 13-14 1/12 5 0 TOTALS i,~~ ' Proposed Complex Hourly Use The third area of our presentation, which involves the least number of stu- dents, yet probably has the highest recognition and support is athletics. Both Northside Junior High and Northside High School have the smallest gyms in their respective leagues and the high school has the second smallest in the en- tire Region III, eventhough at this time we do not play regional championship in our local gyms in the Blue Ridge. It is through the venue of athletics that the window to the community opens on each school. What the schools have to offer is reported by the media (paper, TV. and radio) which touches every person in the Roanoke Valley and even ex- tends beyond those county lines. Over the past eight years, Northside Senior has won 66% of their basketball games, been District Champions (1989-1991- 1992), Tournament Champions (1990-1991), Regional III Runner-up (1991), and Regional Champions (1992). We have been to the state competition twice in the past three years and we were State Runner-up (1992). The sad thing about all this success is that for the past five years we have had turn away students, parents, fans, and visitors from other schools because of our lack of space. The bleachers that we have were built in 1960 and while we would not send a 1960 school bus out on the road with 66 students, we_seat 75 fans per section on these bleachers at each home game, opening ourselves to great liability. A the present time we have 12 of our boys and four of our girls playing college basketball. This does not include the fact that we have five of our boys and three of our girls running track in college, or that our wrestling team has a distin- guished record with back-to-back undefeated seasons. We do not want you to think that the North County area is going to quit striving for excellence in all areas of our programs for our children. We are not! We are looking for support from the Capital Investments Committee to give our four elementary schools, Northside Junior High School, Northside Senior High School, and the entire North County community, an athletic%ducational com- plex which will provide the space and environment needed for us to stay on the "Quest for Excellence." ~ C C Q :a O L .Xi J V N .'yam.. J ~ E ti `~ n ~ Fyn, ~ "' u v J „ ~ c^7 c ~ C > n C L j y L: ~ p ~ ,`,'~, d :I :J ~ ^J .- J - p J C y y ~ 'J C n .A G..C L ` - q .n :I .V n J C J J 11 J ~ U Y G J ; n J G~ ~ _ 'J " C N x ~ fir; X ... N ~ ~p ~:. ^ v C Cl _ (`l ~ ~.^, Q K, ~ ;~ ~ fr, ~ .~ M ~ ~ X v^, K ~ ~ ~ ... .-, C`l t '"' (` CI ,~ ,- ~ ¢ .J C _C t (V C~; .. C N C rt C J --~ X ~ :~ Cl "C'f .~ ~ 50 M X M CO t T ` ~ ~pQ ^" (`7 rl X ~ k ^C f 1 ~ ti f ^ C] !+1 .-. C1 CD C V w-. o ti~ ~ C - n ~ c~ '~ L ~ _ J n C c ~l ^ ^ E . L C - n y ~ n ~ ~ J _ = J C ~. _ L .. L ~ - ~ r •-' ~ JJ Vl •'y r _ C j,^ ~; t i c '~ J 'n CJ ` ~ J J C ~ ~ L ,~ 7 j,1 72 C M te C L ~ n J X W. C T ~ J •-^ CI Cl ~ K r ,' '.A .! .'.D _ U _U ,~ ~ e4 O _ _ Q ~ .. ? „~ :~ U. '-i 'I. T ~ ... 1 J 1 "~ ,;: .... V .: F ~ ~ - . . L ~, O ~ 'o x y J t L = ._ ^ O ~ ti i `n p '` r C7 ~ 7 l ._ C a . U~~~ C ~ Y ~ t x Y , tC a ,- i W A F L? ~ 1 U ~ ~ ,"~ ~ :L ~ v ~ ` ~-y U i ':.~ CJS F .- t - - r. N C J - v, - .1 n :J w ~ =J ^D ~ w m Ln .`L L C = ,~-rs - _ ^ rl G~ = rt ~ L 2 O v F r C t y J C t ~ ~ O ~ ~ r7 ~ + •~ ~„ ~e cC [~ ^ ~ ~ L . .. ' Cl (`I ~: .p _. _. M f! 'r M !'• 'J' ~ CI cl . . " f~'. C '!; M Ir; CI _ N ~ C ^' C` " X 'i M 'f' 1 O z _ ~ ~ x ~A U ~% 7 " J 1, `7 G w ~ GO `~ ti 7 ~ ,^J ~ n ]l x x c 1 ~" r.-. T, :J U N 1--i 'dotal t'~rojected Complex Hourly Use 142,920 Hours 53.040 Hours 28, 080 Hours 470, 400 Hours 6, 048 Hours 675 Hours 57,600 Hours 40,960 Hours 16, 320 Hours 6,723 Hours 1,344,046 Hours P.E.lHealth Education Recreation Basketball Recreation Soccer Season Recreations Soccer Tournament School Basketball School Volleyball School Track Meets School Track Invitational Meets School Wrestling Invitational Matches School Visitor Basketball/Volleyball of use per year by P.E.IRecreationaUSchool 1,339,246 Hours divided by $6,000,000 = $0.2232076* *We have not even addressed district, regional, or state event potential in: Basketball Volleyball Track Wrestling Band Choir Speech Income Projections $112.50 Spent Per Day for Events Basketball 2000 spectators x $3.00 admission (Adults) _ $6,000.00 1600 x $2.00 (Students) _ $3,200.00 3600 x $1.25 (Concession) _ $4,500.00 = $13,700.00 Track 2000 spectators x $3.00 admission = $6,~•~ Wrestling 6000 x $4.00 = $24,000.00 Volleyball 3000 x $3.00 = $9,000.00 Regional Play (3 night competition) 10,800 spectators x $3.00 admission = $32,400.00 this does not include concessions or hoaesing Indoor Soccer (2 day competition) 100 teams Cor East Venue 12 players per team 1200 players x $225.00 (Expense Projection) _ $270,000.00 PROFOSED CONSIDERATIONS FOR ATHLETIC-PHYSICAL EDUCATION COMPLEX ON NORTHSIDE PROPERTY I. General Considerations A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. 0. P. 0. Air conditioning throughout complex. Adequate parking. Elevator for handicapped. Adequate window treatment throughout. Aesthetic considerations: 1. Landscaping 2. Brick to grade Custodial areas. Adequate storage areas: 1. School 2. Concessions 3. Recreation Adequate lobby area: 1. Ticket booths 2. Concession areas 3. Reatrooma 4. Trophy cases Vending machine areas. Adequate lighting in all areas. Adequate seating for competitive events. Facilities available for adults to walk, Adequate office facilities 1. Physical education 2. Athletics 3. Recreation Security considerations: 1. Safety 2. Partitioned areas 3. Entrances and exits 4. Electronic surveillance of some type 5. Outside lighting Adequate restroom facilities. Totally handicap accessible. dog, etc. Adequate intercom system throughout complex. II. Teachin4 Facilities A. Four teaching classrooms with movable walls to convert to large multipurpose room. 1. Tables and chairs - lightweight and easily movable 2. Adjacent storage area 3. Minimum 20' x 30' for each classroom 4. Basic kitchen facilities nearby B. Weight rooms: 1. Free weight room 2. Weight machine room C. Wrestling room with meta 1. Separate heating and air conditioning-ventilation to outside 2. Utilized for aerobics D. Locker rooms: 1. Male and female facilities with locker rooms and showers 2. Physical education offices 3. Male and female reatrooma 4. Laundry rooms/male and female or accessible to both 5. Adequate number of lockers III. Interscholastic Competition Area A. Basketball court: 1. Collegiate court 2. Wood playing floor 3. Movable goals 4. Press box 5. Score table/wired 6. Scoreboards/multipurpose 7. Some permanent bleachers 8. Some movable bleachers 9. 3000 - 4000 seats 10. Sound system with adequate consideration to acoustics 11. Officials' locker rooms, showers, reatrooma B. Indoor track: 1. 200 meter distance 2. Minimum 4 lanes at 42" width 3. 6-lane straight away 4. Pole vault area 5. High jump area 6. Long jump area 7. Shot put area IV. Teaching and Recreation Practice Areas A. Synthetic floors B. Sports to be included: 1. Volleyball 2. Basketball 3. Tennis (cage) 4. Track 5. Soccer 6. Baseball (cage) 7. Softball (cage) 8. Golf (cage) 9. Badminton 10. Deck tennis 1l . Shuffleboard 12. F'ouraquare 13. Ping-pong 14. Archery ~ p \ \ \ ~_ ~ \~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~. 4 P N \ i { 1 1 I!!I~U~I I~~~I!~ • ,\ .\ ~~.,\ ,~ ~\ ,\ ~\ .~ ~ ~ ~ 11~~ 11 1 ~ n~~ \ \\. ' 0 tv ~ ; a ~ o ', ~ , _ . ~ ~,~ ~\ ~ ,~ ~_ X10 ~ r ~ , ~ ~•. ~~ H 4 ~' ~ 0 W ~~~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ } ~. i ~ Fie ~~ °~ o ~~F r ~ ~, r Z r r rn cb ~ 1 ti,m ~ \ ~' i , ~ n r ~ hZ ~~o ~ ~~ ~ a~ ro~~ F r v °-~' a• ~o ,~ o . :~- ~ ~~`. 4 ~. ...~ ....r __ I _~_ .. . _ D PETI 7'I QN NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ADDRESS PHONE N0, PETI TI aN NQRTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board Board of Supervisors to include in and Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facilit for use Parks and Recreation as well as Scho y by of functions, '- 8i S NAME ADDRESS PHONE N 0, PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ADDRESS PHONE N0, ~~ ~ . 6 3 ~~ ~ ~~ a .~ '~~~ .._;~ a ~'..~ l.~~K'r~:,~ Sri.€f %~~ ~,M ;~..;E ,. ~ , 1 -_ ~. ` ~ ~ ~ s e J7~. 3 - z~ '~ ~,.~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ a J~,_ ~~~~ ~7~~ m~Kir-n~~ Ss~. l ~w~e~~R~ ~ ~ ~~~-g~7~ ~ " ~.'12~b .s ~~ ,c ~,~ ~~ - c~i 3 PR ~2s / ~ ~ ~~~ l ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' SL ~~~~ f~k.~ro~s ~ -~r ` ~ ~ 2-1~ 9 3 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ l ~~~o / ~-C,at.~' ~ ;`~ n ~~~~ ~ ~'G~ u/~ 1..~~ ..2' ~G~f~ - ~ ~- ~ :- ~~ `~3,5~ PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ADDRESS ~_ PHONE N0, 3~2 s~ zg ~~ 2 - ~''(~.~ a -~~~. s~ z -c~77v r, ~ ~~.' ~~~ ~ s~ ~ ~.~~ 7 U ~~ /4~ 3Cod ~ ~o o ~ .3i,~t;~~y~(~ ..3 ~ ~ . << i~'y C> ~~~_ ~~ ~ ~~ o ~ t7 n / 1 ~ PET I Z' I QN NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ADDRESS PHONE N0, M1 C ~ ~~.~ , r,cs+~u~~.c ~ ~o~,~~ r ~~~ „~a~d ~fo~ixv- a ~ ~~ -~ 9 70 ~e- ~f ~4~r~ ~-~ ~~ a r ~.~ a ~ 3 -a7R<p ~ r ~~ ^ '=~~' ~ /~ ! ti~~l Z' , ) ~C/ f~ ~~( rte- `fi ~I ~-, .~ J~/ ~ > '~ /~-C-~G ~ /~~ ~,, ~ ~ '~ 7 !77 ~;~, 3/ z- ~ r ~ ~ z-t~t 31 ~ ~, a ~ a ~~:s ~ ~?~-~ z~ts~ ~' ~ r, , -._. - _, - ~- C~,~ ELI/,1C_.~~-c'i) )~-,~ c t/ - ~ ~~ ~.c ~~;t'~~ .-.. rig ~,,~":.. ~. ~i < ~ ~f~ ~~u~~ %l " .~~ ~~~ tu~ << ~ /~ G ~ (~ C' ~ ~ PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions. NAME ADDRESS punN~ non 7 ., ~ d ~-rvr~t,~ ll,. /--1~/.[~1-vi~%t~ 5~~~2 /l~ O r.S P: inn crr+ .~,/ .5~6 Z ~ ~> 9 ''~' 9 ~~? ~t l.~w~S ~j, .S(Zn NV'1S0/~~+t~ flip 5(: :L-c E~ ~ 3 PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ADDRESS PHONE N0, yaw- ~ S I S 'L /U~//r,/S~.wr-~--~•.~t~~~ e ;+~~~ S (/~ ~. ° Q /c (1~i C! ~ cft~ ~-o"fih'1 i c ~ ,fJ C/ ~ Cp ~~ ~~ ,~litc,~+~-c,css ~o-C~~:~-rd~C f` .5~~ 3 G~y a p~ ~ ~ a.T L l~/~'' .5"G Z - Z `~5 ~7 l L~ yea ~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~- 7rs~.~ --~-~.y5y ~~ r ~ i ~ tia ~lQ~ C7 L C`~ ~ c-r1 ~'~lr rli~ `~. '.-~- .°Y,~J ai- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !Il ~~ ~ S._ ~ _ ,l l ~ }. ,_ ~~~,~ Irv ~ ~~~r ~r ~ ~ ,~~~, _~~,~ ~~ ~~~ ~G.,2 d Gad PETITION N~RTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions. e:h~uc~ 5~1 ~-e~~~ ~7 `~'7-/ -~- -JsV • C~ u~Yd/cJ~~ ~.~ i~ ~~1~ Fi' C~ ,e ~~ ~ A 0. ~ ~ S ~l ~D a Gt CG~C~I~ ~~G~ /~ i ~ 1 ~~ 1 ~(Z ~3a~' ~,~ ~Q~ __ ,,~~~~ -r ..3 ~ % .L e_ /_` /G NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. PET I T I CAN NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, N~M~' An~RFSs PHONE No, 5~ ~~~ ~~ 53 PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ADDRESS PHONE N0, PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ~j~ 7 ^~ f ~_5'°~ ADDRESS PHONE N0, PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ~-~ ADDRESS PHONE N0, ~~3 L ~ s ~l _I.3 yr ~(~35. ~~-3..~3~ ~~ ~ 5 ~~.-~r~,r- s ~ d Flo ~ °(r~~7~`~ -$'~~ 9 ~~s i ~",~c ~~ f'~, -S`~ ~-P~~' fG G4~~ ~ °~Aw' ~~ 3~~,~ ~a~o -~ ~ 3 0 ~ ~~ ,r ~ ~; ~ c~ : ~ . __ s~~t~ ~C , ~ , C~ r:~ ~. ~ i [~ n I .., ~ ~ . 'l 1 i i ~ .; ,..ate 1~~ -~1-~ .3~ (~ r ~1 ~ ~C~~~U , ~~Z ~1~~~ ~~ ~`~ -, , ~ Gt, f ~, r~c, . ~ a 2 ' Z ,~S-u~5 ~~-~3a _~, z ~ f~ ~~ ,~~~~~ PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ADDRESS ~. M !~~ n n~, r C~53 ~~ d . z ~~ PHONE 3~~ N0, c~ ~ ~~ ~,-~ .~. ~ 1 I '7 0~, zo.,~ a ~Q~~... ~ ~ U ~ ~ 5 c; ~ ~-~ v2 3 ~~y~' ~~-~~~. ~ ~~~ u~t ~ 3 ~- ~~i3 fi,3 L ~ ~-~ ~ f °l `f ~ ~ ~6~F - - ~/~~ 4 3 - x'4-6 -,~ PET I T I ON NORTH S I DE FIELD HOtJS E We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ~ ADDRESS IS ~~~C~~~ C PHONE N0. ~ ~"~3- ~~fc~~ ~ <t i t ~ ~ ~~ s3 ~ ~, P .~,y,. ~',~.e,~ ,~ . 3 ~ L- ~ s~ ~ v ~~ n ~~~~ l~%?~- C - S 3 - o~~i y ,~-! ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ l J ~~ G'' ,~ ~~, ~ ~3 S~ ~ _ 3~ _~I 5 0 'f .~ ` ~, r: da~7C' ~~. ~l u1y ~..r„~St r.~6~,-s ~ :~,.~mm ~~ ~:;,n1... V Q s'~f t y- ~ f 11,~ PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions. NAME ADDRESS PHONE N0. ., .~ . PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions. NAME ADDRESS Dunu~ un PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions, NAME ADDRESS punN~ Nn C ~~ f 3 ~D lln~~ Qom- ~~ 3 - a ~ 3 ~ I~e~ ~~--~-Q 13 ~f y ~?c~ t ~-~ Cc'.,.~ SG 3 - a i 3 7 ~ • ,,~ Sao ~.lubhbus~ ~Q ~~ 3~6- ~o~f3 ~. ,, ,~ ,.-~ t ~, ~ ,~ ~ ~ t .. ~z~~~ PETITION NORTHSIDE FIELD HOUSE We the undersigned petition the Roanoke County School Board and Board of Supervisors to include in Roanoke County's Capital Improvement Program anew Field House/Athletic Facility for use by Parks and Recreation as well as School functions. NAME Ji a ADDRESS .~ nirnam xTn ~~ __ 1` ,~ „... - > ~' ~j~~ _ ~ ~ L t { ~ i c .. ~- v ~..- * e. n.-.. rl ~ C i ,~ , Er^~~'~ ~ ~ / ~r ft f :t.~~tR~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 ` r' ~ /- f 54F ~ . ~ .; .~ ,, ~ 1 is ~ J' .; .~ ~ ;~ _ ~~? -- ,-. _. .-. _ _~ ~ , ^~, - ~- - ~, f '' JP. r° ~- ~, , .~.~~..~ ! ~~./)1~i°° {~~~+~ ~bC-~4-f (`S6 ~~. V- il~ C/L4'iI? ~6 t! "~..7 ~ - ~ ~i ) . "t ~~"' ~~II ~~ ~ r j ~, C f ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 RESOLUTION 102693-11 CERTIFYING EBECIITIVE 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 Nickens to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None cc: File Executive Session A COPY TESTE: CtJ Brenda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors WESTERN VIRGINIA FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY AND OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL E~:AMINER The Virginia Division of Forensic Science, Department of General Services, provides forensic scaience laboratory services for all law enforcement agencies, Commonwealth Attorneys and Medical Examiners 7'he Western Laboratory facility provides services to the entire well as to a~+ state agency eonductin cnmtnal ]ustrce system of We Commonwealth as of ballets and tiro g ~~ tnvesUgah°ns- Examples of the services are identification comparison of paint~fromo ~ mobile accidents and id ne tifiecation off poi isonsnan tithe Drint identifipdon, NA profiling. The Department of Health, Virginia Medial F~raminer Division, provides scientific medico-legal investigation of all violent, suspicious, unnatural and unattended deaths in the Comoro Pathologist perform autopsies, formulate diagnoses and opinions, and a ~~- Forensic their ~. PPS in legal Proceedings concerning The combination Western Virginia Forensic Science Laboratory and Olfiice of the Chief Medical Examiner, will occupy a 55,600 square foot, two story building, located on a 23 acre site oB Peters Creek Road on land donated by Roanoke County. The site is located behind the County's Public Safety building and near Interstate 581. The main entrance and Medical F~aminer's Facility will be on the first floor, with the Forensic Science Laboratory occupying the second. Both offices work closely with law enforcement agencies and the location will be convenient for access from We 34 county area which the facility will serve. THE HONORABLE LA u'RENCE DOUGLAS WILDER GOVERNOR COMMOINWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INVITE YOU TO ATTEND THE GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONIES FOR THE WESTERN VIRGINIA LABORATORY OF THE DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE AND THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26 4:00 P.M. 6600 NOR7NSIDE HIGH SCHOOL ROAD RECEPTION FOLLOWING THE CEREMONY RSVP 70~7T2-2006 /'S"~ ~ `" W ~ ~ .o b U ~ ^' 3 O }' •v rv, ,cam CL. •~ c~ ~ •c~d U '~ gyp., ~ ~ ~!', •-" ~„~ ,~ ~ ~--~ Q Q 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ O '`~ ,~ w O v ° O p., a ~ a ~ ~ W U PQ :~ ~ a F" .~ ~ a A ~ Iwo ~ ,~.S~,o ~,~ao U,a~ o ~-U ~ ~~1~~ ~°~c~~ a~ ~ O ~ ',~ ~ p" o a o °o'UA o `n o 0 '° o o ~~ U C7 U o U U a A A ~ H ~'~'~~ Q°,ti x'08 'S~ ~ ~ ° ~ i'~ y$'~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~• a S ~ o oA ~ w .~ $ a .. A .~ o Q'Qpa d~eob c6~@~ 3~°~~~~~~~ U ~ b ~ ~ y ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0,, •~ '~ ° ~ .d ~ ~e~ Col ~ ,~ •~ ~~ °" C~~~ °~ ~ ,o ;d ;v ~w o ~ a o hS~ ~ q J z x W ~ fx z o E~ ~ W L7 W o~ w U V .O 0 U 0 x .~ v~, .o a .~ c x 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE 102693-6 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .886 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON STARREY ROAD APPRO%IMATELY 150 FEET SOUTH OF INTERSECTION WITH WOODS CROSSING DRIVE (TA% MAP NO. 87.19-3-34) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3 WIT$ CONDITIONB IIPON THE APPLICATION OF HOBART FAMILY TRUST WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993, and the second reading and public hearing was held October 26, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; 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 .886 acre, as described herein, and located on Starkey Road approximately 150 feet south of its intersection with Woods Crossing Drive, (Tax Map Number 87.19-3-34) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Office District, to the zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District to construct multi-family dwelling units. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Hobart Family Trust. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: r (1) The number of driveway entrances from the property to Starkey Road will be limited to not more than two and established at such location as may be approved by VDOT. (2) The trees within four (4) feet of the property line on the northerly side of the property will not be disturbed by development of the project. 4 . That said real estate is more fully described as follows BEGINNING at a point at the southwest corner of the property of Warren S. Trail (Deed Book 1180, page 699) said point being on the easterly right-of-way of Starkey Road (Virginia Route 904); thence S. 65° 55' 00" E. 149.22 feet; thence S. 24 ° 05' 00" W. 257.00 feet; thence N. 65° 55' 00" W. 150.00 feet; thence N. 23° 03' 30" E. 52.04 feet; thence N. 24° 29' 30" E. 200.00 feet; thence N. 27° 21' 14" E. 4.97 feet to the place of beginning. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. lton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney s-~ Q NORTH ~, _ __ 4 / /~. / ~ .. >>. JiJJ / \ / / 3 \ /~ \ '/hL / too ac ~~ r;t 'e ° ~ \ J~9 / ' r S~~ J ~~ / ~ ~~ ~ ~,~10 ~_ / J 32 ~ q ~J / .t s / ^ ~ \ 2 \ c / \ o, , SJns \ \ \ '\ , ' r ` \ ~ ~'J \ S \ 'pr 'J•cs \ 3 ~'Oj ',~ JJ~O 33 i~ 10.2 T SC e 39: 1 / 40 . i :a .~c _i\ b~ h / \ SSr/ 1 12.. ~ 7Q27'rR~ 1 2 ~5 :.c 35 ~ y s - ' 7 /z .z~ ,~~a;tp j'~~9 `o/ J-t~ . ^ / ~00 ~5 , 4 /~~ t ~ ~ s 2a.~i / 9 m/ ~ 0~ 36 0 ''t,i ~ , o ~ ~~~6 ~ ~ i 6~' 27 •' ter' s ~ 1r O `- _ WoOS's CrOSS.rq C:nc h ~ b 33\ °° a29. /' ~'' 'y, ^• See MoD 8719 h \ ~:1 • t .9 ', Insert ~ .1" ~ ~ \ nr .:-~tllQ'~ •e• • 1,•,30' e \ ~"31"x•67° ..as~'•.a * '?~oz '•/. \ .ne '~~, H C,° ~ ~ .r,L~ y r, • . 3 / f40 ~Od; ~ 3 2 `~ vTbrr ~ • • 71 {i ~ J~~ j ~ rs off( y~ ~ y '.2630 4v., - +, 1• ti ~ ~, `o 2 s. ~ / •, ,/x'76 \ 6y~ -~ r~6S ¢ 7 / \ q2 O yt/ t~ •73 _ • r ~ ~i ss.. r ~ 'S h r 69/6 • ~ ~ ~°~. yD IItt 126 ac •35 ; Z n/ - 1.26 ac ~ 9'' ~^r Mop :.,.:: (/ 12 .~13 sass , ~r ~~ 31 •~,C 3 t •rOUr/ • •, :~ ~t ~ jt' h~~ 38 ' ~ \Ccnrro/ ?oara/ C.'fr,rcn ~ ~ s ~ 2! 7 ~'= G ec~bh // ~ ./ ~ r 209•• //~~ t ~ ham. / 3670 ~'~ % s ~ w t s FJ 'r/• 17 \ / ~ 'r 1 ,~~ t ~ / 39 O V / 'rs" Run l ° sseo 0 _ 1 `6 _. ~ J `~ vc S9~Or Q I_ Rv _ _ DEP.~RZMEN'I' OF PLANNING pETIT10NER: HOBART FAMILY TRUST ~' AND ZONING TAX MAP NUMBER(S): 87.19 - 3 - 34 :~ REQUEST: REZONE C-1 TO R-3 't,t S PETITIONER: HOBART FAMILY TRUST CASE NUMBER: 26-10/93 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 1993 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 26, 1993 A. REQUEST Perition of Hobart Family Trust to rezone .886 acre from C-1 to R-3 to construct multi- family dwelling units located on Starkey Road approximately 150 feet south of intersection with Woods Crossing Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS David Trail and Cheryl Philpott expressed concern with the number of driveways onto Starkey Road, additional noise and the removal of trees from the site. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission wanted to know if there is sufficient acreage for the duplexes. Staff responded that the acreage indicated on the submitted survey is inadequate for four duplex buildings. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) The number of driveway entrances from the property to Starkey Road will be limited to not more than two and established at such location as may be approved by VDOT. 2) The trees within four feet of the property line on the northerly side of the property will not be disturbed by development of the project. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomason, Robinson, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. with proffered conditions. The G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map Staff Report _ Other ~ ~ ~~~ Terrance H 'ngto ecretary Roanoke ounty Planning Commission S- ~ STAFF REPORT PART I B. DESCRIPTION ,~ _~ This is a petition of the Hobart Family Trust to rezone .886 acre from C-1 to R-3 to construct multifamily dwelling units located on Starkey Road approximately 150 feet south of its intersection with Woods Crossing Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Two family dwellings are allowed by right in the AV, R-2, R-3, R-4, and C-1 zoning districts. In all cases, duplex dwelling units ar str bleln R-3,sduplexaotsgmust conta'n although the standards differ from district to d a minimum of 10,000 square feet each. An approved subdivision plat must be on record prior to issuance of building permits. VDOT entrance permits are required before the issuance of building permits. VDOT has commented that one entrance is preferred over multiple driveways on Starkey Road. A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~omprehens~ve ra~antn~x ~#~. subYect s>~aas. ~~ne;::::;:.::::;::: 2 -. a PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDfi10NS Location: The petitioner's site is situated on the east side of Starkey Road south of its intersection with Arthur Street near the entrance to the Woods Crossing townhome community. The site is in the Cave Spring Community Planning Area and urban services are available. TopographyNegetation: The generally flat subject property is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The VA Department of Forestry reports that selected deciduous trees (specifically large oak, cherry and hackberry and small ash trees) mainly along the rear property line, should be retained and protected during and after development. Surrounding Neighborhood: The petitioner's property and that adjacent to the north are zoned C-1. To the east, south and west across Starkey Road, R-3 zoning is in place. Existing single-family dwellings adjoin the subject site on the north and south. Subject property adjoins Woods Crossing common open space on the east. A vacant field lies west across Starkey Road. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture: Unknown; no concept plan submitted. Maximum allowable height in R-3 is 45 feet. Access: Individual unit entrances are permitted for two-family dwellings; however, each two unit driveway can and should share a driveway unless a safer one-entrance design can be employed similar to reverse frontage. Fire and Rescue capability is within the established service standard with a travel time not exceeding four minutes. Sight distance is adequate excluding backing movements into Starkey Road. Traffic Generation: Each duplex unit may generate up to 10 trips per day. 1988 ADT on the segment of Starkey Road between Arthur Street and Buck Mountain Road was 4,736 vehicles. In 1987, four accidents were reported on the same stretch of road. Amenities: See topography/vegetation for VA Department of Forestry recommendation. Utilities: Developer will be required to connect to public water and sewer. ~-/ 3 C. CONFORMANCE WffH COUNTY COMPREHENSNE PLAN The subject site is designated Core by the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. This designation limits middle to high density residential development (minimum 6.8 units per acre in this case) in Core areas. High density single family attached residential proposals are consistent with Core policies which encourage the creation of mixed use urban development and the infill of developable land where retail development is not feasible. Two family dwelling development is not specifically mentioned by Core policies. D. CONFORMANCE WfTH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD The petitioner's request complies with the zoning ordinance and accompanying standards. Although duplex development has not occurred in the immediate vicinity, townhouses and apartments have been constructed nearby at a much higher density. The only potentially detrimental impact appears to be the number of new entrances onto Starkey Road. Site plan review will be required if proffers are accepted as part of this request. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The petitioner's request to construct two-family residential dwellings is generally consistent with the Core designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. However, the possible six to eight driveways connecting to Starkey Road create a very dangerous traffic situation. Staff recommends that the petitioner proffer to access the entire 0.886 acre tract by a single entrance from Starkey Road. Cross- easements can be established on the parking areas of the four units allowing each unit legal access from the common entrance. Also staff recommends that the petitioner proffer to retain and protect large white oak, chestnut oak, black cherry and hackberry trees along the rear property line. These trees are significant resources that should be retained. PREPARED BY: TIM BEARD DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1993 OCT-11-1993 09 35 OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON 774 0961 P.002i002 VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY 0.8b6 Acre, Part of Lots 5, b, and 7, ) Section 3, Southern Pine, Stazkey Road, ) within the Cave Spring Magisterial District } Tax Map No. 87.19-3-34 ) F~OFFER OF CONDITIONS TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.1-491.2:1 ~ ~.q. of the Code of Virginia and Section 30-15, ~ ~, of the Code of Roanoke County, the property owner, the Hobart Family Trust, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of Iand: 1. That the number of driveway entrances from the prope to be Starkey Road will be limited to not more than two (2) established at such location as may be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways; and 2. That the trees within four (4) feet of the property line on the northerly side of the property will not disturbed by development of the project. Respectfully submitted, HOBART FAMILY TRUST . ~lrr c6~a~.~ ~r~~-- Trustee O6TERKOUOT, FERGl160N~ NA>i7, AHERan d AeEE ATTORNEYS-AT-~Aw ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ~~016.1694 pmffer.itl.h ~7 COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. SW P.0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 1703) 772-2068 FAX 1703} 772-2030 Fnr sfa/f use only date eive : i~ received by: application fee: PClBZ dpi ~' placards issuod: 80S da e• ~ ~. Ceee Number: ~ jj~ .-~ !•C./ ,•I •.. i•t•%•,•...,;.. ;.i.;.-. •. •. • .....:.... :...:.:.:.: •: •:.. ;.,.;;,;t;:;I;l; t;l;l:t; t; I;I i!; t; ~: ;ti tllttitit:l;I;1;1:i1!i!:!:!I!il:I it l!:!:!!!:!i!!!:!:!:4 1!t;t; l!1;1;!:!:; .t.;.;. t. t.1.;.,.:. i•i•:.:.1.1•I.I..t•i:t:I:%: %::;:.. ,•i,.,.,•,;, ;,• i;l;~ ,.}. .i...i.isisisi:;:;:i:i:;.i:i:i:l.i:t:t.itttsi:!: !i, ,i •:is•:l:is•:i:i:l:t:t:i:i•i•t•..t t . •: i~iiiii=i%i!i:iii:iiiiii • • :•: : i i iiiiii!!iiii ii !iii ' .t :•:.:.I.:.:.:.:.1.:.:•: :.i.t...:.•. •.• i ; :i: ; i ! ! ,:.. ..I •: E >t•s•:•:.:.t•:.:.1•t.. i~~' i = ;.t.•.•.:• :.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:•:•:•:•:. 1.1...1.7 7.t•1•t•t•t.t•7•i!i•1.1.7•t•t•1•i•t•t•:•t:t:: ::i• ••%l:t•1~t-1.1.1:1•rl.l.l.t•t.nt.t•t.nt•t.l.rt:t•e. t;1;1;I;1; t: . t . ••~'i;~: is _ i~: ia~ij? ~(?sip;ii!i;i;iiiji!i!i!i%ii!i:iii' iii: i!piii:!:i Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ® REZONING O SPECIAL USE VARIANCE Applicant's name: HOBART FAMILY TRUST, C/0 L. MICHAEL GRACIK, TRUSTEDhone: 804-747-000 KEITER, STEPHENS, HURST, GARY & SHREAVES Zip Code: Address: CPA , P. 0. BOX 32066, RICHMOND,VIRGINIA 23294-2006 Owner's name: HOBART FAMILY TRUST, C/0 L. MICAHEL GRACIK, TRUSTEE Phone: 804-747-000 Address: CPA, KEITER, STEPHENS, HURST, GARY & SHREAVES Zip Code: P. 0. BOX 32066, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23294-2006 Location of property: Tax Map Number: 87 ,19-3-34 .886 acre -Part of Lots 5, 6, blagisterial District: Cave Spring Southern Pine Section 3 and 7 , , , Starkey Road Community Planning Area: Cave Spring Size of parcel {s): Existing Zoning: C-1 .886 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped ' sq.ft. ••.i.:.t•:•i•t •i•:•1.1.1•I.1•t-1•t•l.l:til: :l:tltlt lt't:lit:I{ :1'1:~::1'1:1:~'t t:!;==!%:'!t!•: t:; l;t;!!!i~ !•1;1.1;711.1i1;:t!i!:Ii!'%:!:!'!•lt11111.1 •t•1 •1 t-1•I.1.1•t•I.1.1.1 •. t•1 t•t t 1•I•t :;1•I t;ttt;I;l•:;t;l;i;t:t;:;t;:;I; t;lll;t;:;t;t;:i:;: i:;t;i;?.:.. ,•I•.• ,•1•. .•1•.•.:I:!•. 1; .•:7 t t •t•'•t''`:'t•:•I •: :S:t!•tl::!:!t:i%i::!i!I%: •.!.i•i•: ••S•: ;.=.j.i !..,;...!.;.' ••!r.. .i.,. ,:j;,;,;,;,;,,,,,,,;,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•.•:•:•:•:•:•:;••:;I:i:ii: i::ti%:i:•:•: ti•i;: •:~ .i... .t . •it.,.,.,.,•i ~ i•i.•:,.t.I. t~ ,i i ,1,•, ,. .t. ;i;~• . i.t.. ... •j •.j:, • 2j=,5,., i...;.•. 77... . { :!tit 7jit.;.ii:•i • • • : : I; t!Ii J! : • •• i ii !i } : i lt:t • t l l i • i i tit t'• . ;I t; • ti ! ; ! :! !;! ! ! i; i i! i: i j i ! •= li!!t!1!T!{!iIs!:ii!i:{J Proposed Zoning: R-3 ~r srefr us. only Proposed Land Use: Core - Two family dwelling units use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES X NO IF NO, A VARIANCE 1S REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Typel YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this requestl YES NO X :•{ , ::1:~::kt t;i;t;l;i;:;f•i;/;tip l:I•::lita:ja:l;!:! 1a~j!!!;!~ t !:: %::!!t tl~ %taf4ili!'!'!!t;l;l;l;l;!!i1N1;1 :•I•: :%t%i~: :t%t%: .i: •it'% •7 Iiltttl•i%i%i%i~l ::i t , '~t%I' :~i~: %Itl•I.7 I• •1%ISIt1:i~t 1 1 7 •1• •1.1 1•t:l%1:1 t•I~1 'I• t•i• 1 7 t•:•t!t%i:'.%i•:::i:':itetttt''.tf:!%i%i•I.1 i. t. ,•!•. . .t.. .:.t : .;i:.;i••f l.i.i. •: •:itC%:=t: iii 1 t t i 1 i !'•'•:•i•:•:•S •:•:•: f•: •••S':•:':•:':'i'S':':' j:'tlt:tj.... ,1 :i i:':':i:.li:...•iii..i:.: :!i; ''':iii': :i:.::! l.,. :•t•.•..I.:.S•1....•:.:.i.I•t !ra ! tlil;!!laa:':4l:l;kl:!:! !' .! e ! NQ i:i !'i i N i ' l t l ! i •i ' ' ' ai ; Elifilijj: ° ' i t • ! ! ! ! ; iii iiii,iaa;, ~:~sltlt!.! :l;! ,:lit;l . t p p q i iti:l:! ; 9 p i ! i ei iiiti%i l -i :$i l i t Ei±.!.,. ..+.1,...I..,:...s ~.!..• ..!•. :.i..,..... . ! . l ,I•. :,iii• ii !%. .!i!;lii Variance of Section{s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: N/A Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT Eat ,ac;ctr i to Ir K!v r yr THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. !vs v ws v ^~ v X Consultation 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan Application fee X Application X >c Metes and bl~unds description Proffers, if applicable X Justification X Water and sewer application X Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's spent or contract purchaser end am acting with the know/edpe and consent of the owner. ~ C ~~ r--- Owner's Signature: E S- For Sra/J Use Only: Case Number Applicant The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance {Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The property was originally zoned R-3 under the County's former Zoning Ordinance. In the Comprehensive Rezoning the property was zoned to C-1. Earlier this year, the County rezoned adjoining parcels from C-1 to R-3 pursuant to the request of Mr. Hobart. See the enclosed letter of February 19, 1993. Apparently this parcel was overlooked and remained C-1. The applicant seeks to rezone the subject property from C-1 to R-3 in order for it to comply with the former and the existing zoning on the adjoining properties. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, The project will conform to the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan under the Core Designation. The Core Designation would allow development of two family units on the property. Therefore, the rezoning would conform to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan by allowing the property to be used for a permitted use under the Core District. No site plan is submitted since it is the applicant's contention that this property should have remained R-3 under the terms of the new Zoning Ordinance and that the failure to rezone it from C-1 to R-3 at the same time as the other properties of Mr. Hobart were rezoned is an oversight. Therefore, it was not felt that a site development plan was necessary. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. The proposed rezoning request would have a minimal impact on the adjoining properties. By construction of two family dwelling units on the property, the use of the property would be similar to uses on surrounding properties. The impact on water/sewer, roads and school sytems would be minimal. _. . h' . ~' ~5 5: ~~ A, .~ ~~ ~~. ~ s~' ~~ r~ A P~' ~ ~ S i; i Y r ~:~: o~ • ~~ ~~ {,:~~, .'% , ,•i• ~ •' ~l K • 4' • ~~K 555 LZLJ NN ~ w ~ •Q i ~ ~ _ ~ C7 W Q ~ H y ' Y ~ ~ ~ fa w ~ H z LL J Y ~ ' '' ~C _ _J p CG i ~' ~ 8 ~ z w m ~ V s.. ~ W ~ ~ I ~ v Y- ~ . W z I-1 ~: ~ N o ~ m !+~p Y'7 •!~ '~ i W 1 d 1 ' .7 1 ~•• N ' 1' ~ is to ?~ n: N J ~ ~ N y~ 1.' ~ Q = Q N 6 Q ~ ~ O Q ~s ~ a Q N w ~ ~ V ~ .° a W CI ~G~~ `4 ~ 'a ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ `~ 1 O ~ ~ v i - ~ .-~ o '~ OD Y! ~ v ~~ jf ~ fYjY gF/ •:ta 9th '4!O ~ gr~donp 'Y 9b~r~d 9h~00~0 'Y bn~7IM ~ ro ~Y1~0}1/ M nob ASS rS°l h' -" ~ F ~ ' i •N ~ ~ O~ ~ I - i h , ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ .~ I s ~, ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ . ' ' ~ i ~ ! ~~N •~~~ ~ i t=.' ~~• OZ 0 0 ~+`~ 0 ~1 ` ~ ~ ~ ~• ~g ~~ t~i I ~p \Z. N ~ ~ O ~ ~„ a• Q ~ ~'*~ N ~ i O E V k1 • ill E~ p ~ ~ y .~ N 4 ~ ~ '. ~;r. ,~ ~ ~ ~' ~ •~ 1 • ~ i l~ ~ •wM.' • 1 ,•' iV ~' 1 Z I .ZZ 6>s~~ - ~~ a ~ 66~'9d osa 's~ •o N QC 7/b'b+~ sd ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 a nnn ht. •n nn wvnnv au t T C7QOb4bA4 ~ rr : at CR/bi i~0 °' / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,' TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .886 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON STARKEY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET SOUTH OF INTERSECTION WITH WOODS CROSSING DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 87.19-3-34) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF HOBART FAMILY TRUST WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993, and the second reading and public hearing was held October 26, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; 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 .886 acre, as described herein, and located on Starkey Road approximately 150 feet south of its intersection with Woods Crossing Drive, (Tax Map Number 87.19-3-34) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Office District, to the zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District to construct multi-family dwelling units. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Hobart Family Trust. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the ~-1 following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: (1) The number of driveway entrances from the property to Starkey Road will be limited to not more than two and established at such location as may be approved by VDOT. (2) The trees within four (4) feet of the property line on the northerly side of the property will not be disturbed by development of the project. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the southwest corner of the property of Warren S. Trail (Deed Book 1180, page 699) said point being on the easterly right-of-way of Starkey Road (Virginia Route 904); thence S. 65° 55' 00" E. 149.22 feet; thence S. 24 ° 05' 00" W. 257.00 feet; thence N. 65° 55' 00" W. 150.00 feet; thence N. 23° 03' 30" E. 52.04 feet; thence N. 24° 29' 30" E. 200.00 feet; thence N. 27° 21' 14" E. 4.97 feet to the place of beginning. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. c:\wp5]\agenda\zoning\hobart ~Ililllllllllllllllllllllllillilllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllillilllllllllliillllllllllll _ ~IIIIIIII _ ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. -~ _ _ _ _ = APPE CE REQUEST _ - _ ~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS _, SUBJECT: I would like the Chairman of the Board of Su ervis = p ors to recognize me during the = __ meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. __ WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, 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 speakin on an issue, c and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ofgthe Board to = do otherwise. _ -_ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their oint of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the C airman. _ ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized 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. __ __ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP c c SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK _. i = NAME ; ~'. ; ~, ~ ` ~i .it ! ' y, ~ ;~ ~; . _ ~.. ADDRESS r = PHONE '~` <- ~ JV/ _, ~ ~. Illllllllllllillllllilllllilllillllililliilillllllllllillilllllllllllllllllllillllilillllillilllllllllllllilllilllllllllllllltll~ s ~, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE 102693-7 GRANTING A SPECIAL IISE PERMIT TO DOIIGLAS C. AND DOROTHY 8. FORBES TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT LOCATED AT 1845 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ON A PORTION OF A 3.312-ACRE PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE (TA% MAP NO. 61.01-1-2.2), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Douglas C. and Dorothy S. Forbes have filed a petition to construct an accessory apartment located at 1845 Mountain View Road on a portion of a 3.312-acre parcel of real estate (Tax Map No. 61.01-1-2.2) in the Vinton Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on September 28, 1993; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on October 26, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to construct an accessory apartment located at 1845 Mountain View Road on a portion of a 3.312-acre parcel of real estate (Tax Map No. 61.01-1-2.2) in the Vinton Magisterial District is substan- tially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. That the Board hereby grants a Special Use Permit to Douglas C. and Dorothy S. Forbes to construct an accessory apartment located at 1845 Mountain View Road on a portion of a 3.312-acre parcel of real estate (Tax Map No. 61.01-1-2.2) in the Vinton Magisterial District. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. olton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney . ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ - .' ~ ~ ~ V 6~ r ' NUOOLIL !° 1 f _ t:EN. c s __ ~~~'- o s I ,7 . d fna.o• STONER ~ ACRES ~... 4 r'~ 4r0. 6. ~ o 6 ~ ~~ o°r n ~ At - R MJ~ ~~ooLL~~ ~ ~ V~NN TOw iv ~sw. AVEN ~ ~ ~ L~ ~ ~( ~,. ~ 3 \`-4'= ° ri+rrcl . ~~p~~ INTON ~ T '~ ` +'+'S- ~ 0 a '' ~ 0 l ~M.Y GO~t c '~ ' - tl ~ ~ ~ • •..-~':,iil00 °t ~~" ':C IESTNUT 1 ` ti My Wn y~Y ?' 4l ~ ° . . '.: MCIUNTAIN 4 :~ ' °~ =~,:~~° _ ~ VICINITY-. .MAP-- .~~,~_~ , .~ s-.2 Q NORTH 12 14.77 Ac(DI t 1.95 Aa-(C) O •s 6=. /s~s ~'s ,•;' O ', L .5 1 ~ ro, .~ ~ 8 : , 9 ~. t~4 -3 e'SJO ~ 10 t i /EOi ~ ~, ,, •II , 13 lac. /eee " ''' a 72r Ib_ '~ ~ ~ 13.09 Act0) ,t6 ~~ i ~' C.i~c ,. 1. IOiIJ 10.19 Ac.(C) e. /e , ~~, I~r ~„~ .14 Rt. lo9z^ `n, ' s~. I ;' .12• Y O /aas e , Ses Mop 61.06 Tsrr /Moo I' • loo' /00 si 0, ~ G ~ ~ Mounts r _ , R/ /09~ , ~h~ T0~ 0~'P ( .19 Ac ~/ ~ ~{ ~~ ~~~~/y ITOe I.I ~ IOAc 2.SOAc(D) \ 3.20 Ac. (C ) i - I ~1,U~' ,~'~OCE ( ~°~ ~~y 15 tooa~ (o) 0.88 Ac (C1 14 16.29 Ac F4 I = je~o ' C ~ ,... RpO ~ Y~~ ws~ ~``alSMa 1~0~~ I• 2 5.70 ti 3 12.06 Ac. ns~ ~ j9~ r z om Ft 651 / lyll 1 \ SOAc \<I I. I 10004c ,~o~ I P/0 61.01-I-2 I•• 200' I I ~ . ~(n " DEPARZMENT OF PLANNING ---- ------- -- --_ --.-_--- -- - PETITIONER: DOUGLAS C & DOROTHY S. FORBES " AND ZONING TAX MAP NUMBER(S): 61.01 - t - 2.2 REQUEST: SPECIAL USE PERMIT -ACCESSORY APARTMENT u _. ~~ PETITIONER: DOUGLAS & DOROTHY FORBES CASE NUMBER: 27-10/93 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 1993 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 26, 1993 A. REQUEST Petition of Douglas & Dorothy Forbes for a Special Use Permit to construct an accessory apartment located at 1845 Mountain View Road, Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission inquired about the design of the apartment. Mr. Forbes stated that the apartment has been designed so that it can be converted to a two-car garage when it is no longer needed by his mother. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Robinson moved to recommend approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomason, Robinson, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terra ce Ha 'ngton, S tary Roanoke ounty Platuung Commission " ~, STAFF REPORT PART I Petition: Douglas and Dorothy Forbes File No.: 27-10/93 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicants, Douglas and Dorothy Forbes, are requesting to add an accessory apartment onto their residence located at 1845 Mountain View Road in the Vinton Magisterial District. While the property is adjacent to an important historic house, no impacts are anticipated on this resource, or on any of the County services which serve the site. B. DESCRIPTION The applicants, Douglas and Dorothy Forbes, are requesting a special use permit to construct an addition to their residence at 1845 Mountain View Road to create an accessory apartment. The property, which is zoned R-1, contains 3.3 acres. The addition would be attached to the residence by a breeze-way at the southeast corner of the house and will contain 672 square feet. According to the applicants, this unit is intended for family members. ~ `~ C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS In the R-1 district, an accessory apartment is allowed only upon obtaining a special use permit from the Board of Supervisors. In addition, a number of use and design standards must be met which address the location and size of the unit, location of entry-ways, provisions for parking, and confirmation of adequate sewage disposal. Occupancy by only a family member is not required. The intent in allowing accessory apartments under the new zoning ordinance is to provide an opportunity for creating small rental units and create greater flexibility for home owners with changing economic conditions and family structure, while insuring certain design standards intended to protect surrounding properties are met. In the R-1 district, the special use permit is required in order to formally consider the appropriateness for such a unit at a specific location. A building permit and plot plan will be required. This project is exempt from site plan review and approval requirements. +"'~ ..~i PART I I A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Characteristics The property in question is located in an open field with gently rolling topography. The site drains to the north away from Mountain View Road. Surrounding Neighborhood The surrounding area is currently characterized by scattered and more rural densities of residential development. However, this general area is rapidly changing to a more suburban area with substantial residential development underway. Historic Resources Immediately east of the property is Boxmont, a large brick Colonial Revival residence. This house has a number of unique features including a large portico (porch) with doric columns and a palladian window in the pediment (porch gable). Due to its size, degree or ornamentation, and period of construction, this structure is fairly unique in the County. For these reasons, Boxmont was recommended for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places in Historical Architecture Reconnaissance Survey Report Roanoke County. Virginia prepared in April 1992. Access and Traffic The existing residence and proposed accessory apartment would be served by a private paved drive which hay :adequate sight distance along Mountain View Road. In 1986 the volume of traffic on Mountain View Road was 369 average daily trips (ADT). B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout The proposed accessory apartment will be attached to the west side of the existing residence with the entry-way located behind the existing garage out of public view. Additional parking will be provided along the west side of the new addition. Although schematic elevations have been provided the specific architectural style has not been described. The existing structure however is of a modern classical style. Public Facilities and Services The proposed site is served by public sewer and water from the Town of Vinton. Fire and Rescue would be provided by the Vinton Fire and Rescue Stations. No appreciable impacts are anticipated by this proposal. Petition: Douglas Forbes 2 File No.: 27-10/93 ~- C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject site is located in the Development land use category on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The proposal is consistent with the policies and guidelines contained in the Plan for the Development category. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The accessory apartment proposed will have little to no impact on adjoining or surrounding property owners and will have no noticeable impact on public services. Also, while this proposal is directly adjacent to Boxmont, an important historic resource, this request will have no greater impact than has already occurred with the construction of the existing residence by the Forbes. No conditions are suggested in conjunction with this request. PREPARED BY: Jon Hartley DATE PREPARED: September 30, 1993 Petition: Douglas Forbes 3 File No.: 27-10/93 COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. SW P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 ~.,r staff rrca nnly ~" date rece~~ : received by: k ~ applicatign, free: date: Q3 PC/BZ` ~ placards iss d: .9 BOS d ~e: Z G Case Number:~~~, f/f Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ^ REZONING ®SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name:-Dd~~~''~SG ~'D°'e°T'yys' Fo.eBEs Phone: 3`~`1'-78~~ Address: /~4~.s~°u~"T.9~X/ ~~'tti ~D• Zip Code: z~ / ~ Vi~t/T-o.v 1~i9. Owner's name: Phone: S/9~~' Zip Code: Address: Location of property: ~ Tax Map Number: g/, ~/- f - 2. 2 / ~4-S~oiv>.rl~,~l ~/dw .~v. ` ~~~ `,+,~, Magisterial District: fj/ f NTa/~ ~ ~ Community Planning Area: ~~ /~/ 7'a/V Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: ~'' ~ 3. ~~ Z acres Existing Land Use: S/~~ ~'q"~~~s' sq.ft. Proposed Zoning: For staff use only Proposed Land Use: ~GGC.Ssde-°y/ /9i°'`~•~T~'1~'~~ Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES NO I-F N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES ~ NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) Nl/~1- of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v ws v / Consultation / 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan / Application fee / Application / :~: Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable / Justification :~,. Water and sewer application Y Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. i Owner's Signature: - .: For Staff Use Only: Case Number Applicant a ~ ES ~ The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. 1,~/~ ,QB6 ~'t~4.v,V^~UCi To /94D~9 SI1/ALG ~ Dc.eG`I Tc G~f iNbEP~ND~N~'b ~ MME Tv Pti'oV/DC i4 5P~4GE Fog /'NY c.G $F „2E.4D/G% .~} dA/G/9/~G~ ~vT /4 r TNc 5~9 wl~ 7-i ~+-rE {,~,•,rEl~ E rfEG.n w ~ Gf~A~~~ T"/~6'd`~/GNBcaffec,D JVO.2 Tt~C: %y~ 5 A~ a ~ T"/ e A A2 NG ,dao TH~~ T/-/f1 •`' A siir/G G E FAr-r/ ~ Y 17WEc, c~ n- G D vT e-v~.eD AP £r i} ~ 'ease explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke l,ounry .omprehensive Plan. / s ,9D.7iT~o~ ..cl i~c, 13,r ~c s /4 ~, c~otrF/GUIP~~1'-/G ~ 19,~D GocA7ie~/ Ty ,~,jEEr •~~ ~ ~ Q v i,2c •hE.vTS J~EG/`/6b t,u 3 0 ^ ~Z^1 Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. ~t/o.vE' :\`. f- ~ - •. Rp AO V,EW l N1~V~Sarc.C. RTE' ~°S Tov/N °/' V H~ ~ V A • ~ "I3~ 1 S ~Oy 1= -- 01 R o N ~RppRA ToN P ~,NE T6 0~0. \-18.x9 Q N W L Y I ~0 ~ o ~ ~ C d ~- ~ Q 3g ~ Q ~ 0.Q ~. J J Piu ..Alm ARC= 121.11' ' I~ l~i ,r, ~Q?' w Z J W '~~ ~ IQ' J '~~ W ~ J tlf W ~I V I 0 J W ` ' ~ \`'~ ~_ 1 3 N r V N d 3'CONC. w~~v- 1 ~1.7 C 44.1' G...R. n/o.i845 f HA ctc ~ ~/L+y~ l Cr'•i- r .. _ SID80 p..JEI.IING o , ~ow~. MlOOO P.6T to DECK . , , F-- NSW A~n~-r ~0~1 24~ 3.3 ~ 2 Ac.Ft>/S Tv.,c 1Jo. ~I.o1-1-2.2 '! Z~ ± LEUAL REFER~t3CE T4X N v ~ 61.01- 1 - 2.2. i W 'A" AUG.= 12"~~ 10" RAO. • SSO.60' TAU.• Co0.80' CIaO._ UZ9.3036 E 120.b~o c~EE r,t6W 1=,A.,ENIENT GorIVE~/EO To A.PGo. 0.8.1349 pG.Z21 50~ w~oE fJ 34' 37' Zo•' E 9.38' I , a~ WO uj1N N ; ~ 0 ~~ ~ I d>~rr~ J 0 0 ~ N o ~ K ~ Y as ddm K a , ~ 7 t7 a o I r g ~! f~ E ~ 1~~~ ~~ N ~/ ~ °~ I '/r ~'~ L PROPOSEl7 gTO>:e~.twATER ` MA>,.IAm EMEIJT /^N AREA . r o ?i~0 S ~'~? ~S ~ 43.02 ~°ti~ / ~' N m ~ / ~. -~ '~ / / 1 / ~ / ' / ~~/~~ u F4' 23' 09" E 30.52' N n OLD ~-- S84.31'34'W 310.00' ~--~tp°i 1JOTE: THE SUBJECT ri.ea' ~P~peaT~c Oc~/ ~ plzoPesLt^c IS LOCATED to >=1_000 tuSURA/.1CE 201.1E GQ~STOKE PRavo6Eo "C" AS t7ESl6i.1ATE0 FSC pgRT~.]ERS\-11P 20' SAUITAR`C TFiE SEC2ETAGZY OF p.g,t280 PG.S-t3~ SEWER - HOUSIUG A1.10 URSAIJ , EAaEME1J T DeVEt_OPMEIJT. Tax U0.61.O1-t-'L S~IRVEY FOR. DOUGLAS C. 8c DOROTHY S. F'oRgES ~,,'""~` IACx C. IESS ~~~EY ~tT1fICATE Ma. 1070 ~~ ~~ ~~ LANO `~~ OF A 3.312. ACRE TtZSaCT , SURVEY FOR pOUGt_AS C, 8c OOROT4~~( S• FORBES ~ SITUATE OU frl0\11JTAtU V\EW ROAO CVA• SEC. RTE. 651 ) ROAI-lOt<E COU\-1TY ~ VIRG11~1tA scA~E: \"°~o' JU>JE ~O ,1992_ BY : JACK U . BEES CERTtFtEt7 I~.Ut7 SURVEYOR ,. ~ •a99 ~~F ~ 51 on vim rra° ~ f 4?< ~ ; '. ~ (/ Erl ~ ~ ::. ,y ~y ~.,~ s ~ I - ° LL ~ ~ ir:oa I STONEBR a ~rysTaw.. ACRES ~a ~i. /Y auooni CCN. °G i i d/ ~ f{ w'~ V 6 ~ 8 CO °o~' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ R. °f \ .-- i "~~ ~r ,,'E : - .^ .r yl 4y~~ '~ ~' ~ . ,o 1 q ~ d~ ~ 5 INGG OV o~T ~~J~'~ IN. ~/. rrs~ r J~: r .~. , ~iv, TOw 9: "+r `e~yNN AV EN gyNk~ a ~° ~ ~ R o - ~ 7 ~ nwAri.~ INTON a ~ ~ +i rLr~ ~`9+.~ jliyy~ t `' R.i. ~ "~¢ Ul.tr ~~ ~ ' r ~MAV core ~ ~ f F < r' 1~ ~ ? ~ yti ~G~'rri f 4 i No0 0 t~~ oR ,.C.~E57NUT ~ ° ::~UNTAIN Ro ;ter„ R, ~ _ V i C I N I T Y ~ M A P-._ ° ° ~NE~TN~T ~ - - .~ s-,2 Q I~ NORTH Ap DEPAR~MEN'T OF PLANNING PETITIONER: DOUGLAS C & DOROTHY S. FORBES AND ZONING TAX MAP NUMBER(S): 61.01 - 1 - 2.2 ~ •. REQUEST: SPECIAL USE PERMIT -ACCESSORY APARTMENT u, ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO DOIIGLAS C. AND DOROTHY 8. FORBES TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT LOCATED AT 1845 MOUN- TAIN VIEW ROAD ON A PORTION OF A 3.312-ACRE PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 61.01-1- 2.2), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Douglas C. and Dorothy S. Forbes have filed a petition to construct an accessory apartment located at 1845 Mountain View Road on a portion of a 3.312-acre parcel of real estate (Tax Map No. 61.01-1-2.2) in the Vinton Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on September 28, 1993; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on October 26, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to construct an accessory apartment located at 1845 Mountain View Road on a portion of a 3.312-acre parcel of real estate (Tax Map No. 61.01-1-2.2) in the Vinton Magisterial District is substan- tially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 1 "" ~j 2. That the Board hereby grants a Special Use Permit to Douglas C. and Dorothy S. Forbes to construct an accessory apartment located at 1845 Mountain View Road on a portion of a 3.312-acre parcel of real estate (Tax Map No. 61.01-1-2.2) in the Vinton Magisterial District. c:\wp51\agenda\zoning\forbes 2 `~~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE 102693-8 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.6504 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 3505 BRAMBLETON AVENUE (A PORTION OF TAB MAP NO. 77.09-4-36) IN THE TQINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 8-2- C-1, UNCONDITIONAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF FLOYD T. CRITCHER WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993, and the second reading and public hearing was held October 26, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; 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 0.6504 acre, as described herein, and located at 3505 Brambleton Avenue, (a portion of Tax Map Number 77.09-4-36) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, Conditional, General Commercial District, to the zoning classification of ~ C-1, Unconditional, GGI~1~-(c`elEi~etai ^' ^}"" ^}, Office District, zA cei~3z'i=a~~~n 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Floyd T. Critcher. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Brambleton Avenue, said point being the most westerly end of the cut-back line between the westerly right-of- way line of Pinevale Road and the northerly right-of-way line of Brambleton Avenue; thence S. 60° 25' 00" W. a distance of 151.13 feet to a point; thence N. 28 ° 24' 20" W. a distance of 163.77 feet to a point; thence N. 60° 25' 00" E. a distance of 173.50 feet to a point, said point being on the westerly right-of-way line of Pinevale Road; thence S. 29° 25' 20" E. a distance of 138.62 feet to a point; thence S. 15° 41' 00" W. a distance of 35.68 feet to the Point of Beginning. 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. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to concer with the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning to C-2, and to rezone the property to C-1 Unconditional, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Qs-3 NORTH ~- F4rlrop. » L/f • ..••. I ..•.~ I,r. t~ ~ ~' SRI. 161} ~~ v J ,.1f I J z l3rf~ Si ~ ~ \ l.f( JtM ~ , ~ YIO~ \ YJr • - - I 2 3 Yb. -~.,- ~ . ~ I t ° - ,o- Jru I wu" 12 3 LY,Wy ~ fire _ .I: 6 f I ~..• _ , . ~ soa I •29.1 Yf• •:/ ~ 1`°°r ~ - 22 ~~ 2, _ ] 28 ~ I l ~ ~I JI Y~ YJf •' - JUr ~~ O Y°r I IJOI I ~ Ybr • 6 32 ~ YA .' um T - 8 uof 3, 36 JOST Jr ti r ~• IB~1 I YOf 23 • r • S Y.l f I , J. Y.J ~ ~Jr.J ~• •• •F,Y/. I •• Y.f m . - 26 3 I 27 r :I' 20 , = w Y., x.r >t 9 w .. 23 . J . 2 9 I 22 3 . `- - - ~- - - ` 0 4 ~ D 3 aJ • a.r Yr/ _ - ~ Yn ~ 23 sl/, I Yrr f ~~ "' ~ ~ I! >. y I:' O 21 9 I Yrr Jaf ' JO. 8V ` 1tf0 '~ I LO 2~ w21 M1 P, \•, \ •II , • , • - i I I - - Y,04 / ' •YI/ - Y . is S r .III I ~ / YJ! 21 p. Dp9 4 JN 20 art, a yy~ ~ ° ,a r 23 J • ' 12 c • uJr J : :•.. p - \\ , \61 3 - I ~ I ~ ' ...i2uJ. _ I;Af~ u,r ~ . 13 22 *•• • III ~. ~\ fi\~/ YrJ ~ It • ' ~ JDr t Eaa '. ..a[• 2 / ~ X21 E 13 - I f ~ ~. ...s / t 3 ' N - /I3 - ~ 3 J 22 ~ ~ ~ JY/ ` / - }_ Yu ~ 3T \ ' a ~ ~ ^Y,/ ~ O B c ~,•• J ~N 1 I Yr ICOf< J le -'+Jp / L. -- 'i5 YD I Jm ,.ftf 14 2I~ IT ¢ Dn O~W f~a. R _ 3 Jvr ~ ~ Rnrrau .. .. .. .. ~ ~ ., Jf//. Jf°f I ... 1e.• .. arors I 0\° ^' y ~ rtoea ~ ~ 19 - ~ 7at ly f I lDr ' Jw I ` . ~ 20 ~ _ ~ K DN nor O ~>ra faff Jfa \ J,O d5°~ ~ 2z ~' i f ?. . ,ro ' 31 . 32 Jfef .~1c ~ Iy . Dn v 2• - ze 27 2B ~ ~ I.oo •e J3 " • ~ ` .ua. ~ a f I »f, I - xis 1~ \ G° f a ~~ t O s 'suJ 100 ~ ~ 1, ~ JDr . ~ \ / Jr 2 .\ ' 11N ~ J~ JJiw • 3T IJ / 3 • IS I s ~ 3 / ~,,,, t I - Iz - -,n ,t:~z ~ _, ~T 99 \ n ~++~~ ' w ' z• \ Y.r a • afo• .' e , ,.., „• V v. . .2 "• / / ~ .. 2, . ~. fA ~ e • • Lis z ~ ` ~~ °! ~ ,.,f PO• II JJ.N . ~ 6 - \\ ,\ ~ ~a /~ ~_ .9 ~ y\\ - Jar . » s9 i /~ \ ,i frif .. B O'. 3T' \ fi Noy `~E .. lrH.~ • / ~~ .. ~ 1 J a D ,~ ~\°~V, : I! \ 2 '~•,.+ \~P,2 ~ \I°r\ ,. ~~f 61 ~ ~ • \ ~°t . J.f3_ s,\ 1" DEPARZi~NT OF PLANNING PETITIONER: FLOYD T. CRITCHER _ ~_ ~ TAX MAP NUMBER(S): 77.09 - 4 - 36 AND ZONING REQUEST: REZONE C-2 CONDITIONAL TO C-2 NO CONDITIONS `_ luf -- - S-.3 PETITIONER FLOYD T. CRITCHER CASE NUMBER 28-10/93 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 1993 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 26, 1993 A. REQUEST Petition of Floyd T. Critcher to rezone 0.6504 acre from C-2 conditional to C-2 to construct an automobile parts retail store located at 3505 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Barbara Green, representing the Berwick Heights Neighborhood Association, expressed the following concerns: increased traffic; the large parking lot will generate more runoff which will worsen flooding of lawns along Pinevale Road (photos of flooding were submitted). She presented a petition of opposition signed by residents of Berwick Heights. Evelyn Gunter, a resident, stated that the proposed site serves as a major entrance into the Berwick Heights neighborhood. She said that most of the residents would support office use but not an intensive retail business such as Auto Zone. It is unfortunate that the original zoning reversion clause allowing the property to be used for office is not considered enforceable by the County. Brian Hyler submitted pictures of the neighborhood which included areas along Brambleton Avenue. He said this is a pristine neighborhood and he would not like to see it change. Weldon Myers whose property adjoins the site expressed concern with the long hours of operation and tractor trailers unloading any time day or night. Also, Auto Zone will lower the value of our property. He asked the Commission for assurance that no business will ever be located at the rear of the lot; no part of Pinevale should be subjected to retail use. Joe Marks pointed out that the terrain leading up to Berwick Heights acts as a buffer between all the other C-1, C-2 properties. The proposal would offer no buffer from the neighborhood. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to Commission questions and concerns, Keith Rastorfer with Lumsden Associates, commented as follows: the site plan has been reconfigured so that the Pinevale entrance has been eliminated--all traffic entering and leaving the site will be by Brambleton Avenue; business hours will probably be seven days a week, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; delivery trucks will maneuver on site; deliveries will be made once a week and normally before store opening (between 6 and 9 in the morning); the location of storage and refuse areas is unknown; a building this size will require some grading which would probably come closer to the Brambleton elevation; site plan review will check us on all exterior lighting. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. ' ~ "" .:.3 E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt's commented with regard to neighborhood concerns: 1) he is not concerned with increased flooding because the proposed Auto Zone will require stormwater retention; 2) he does not think proposal will significantly increase traffic on Pinevale; 3) the site is located on Brambleton Avenue which is a commercial area. However, he recognized that this is an entrance into a neighborhood, and certain C-2 types of property do not mitigate the transition into this neighborhood. He said that because of this, he will not be supporting any zoning that does not address this situation. Mr. Thomason moved to recommend denial of the request and commented that he does not support any zoning that will add traffic on Pinevale Road. Also, he believes there is a drainage problem and adding an asphalt surface will increase water runoff. He said that the intended use of the property is inconsistent with the Transition category of the Comprehensive Plan and is not compatible with the location. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Witt NAYS: Robinson ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other ` ,. ,; - ~~ Terrance rrington ecretary Roano County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT ~~ PART I B. DESCRIPTION This is the petition of Floyd T. Critcher to rezone approximately 0.6504 acres from C-2 conditional to C-2 with no conditions. The site is located at 3505 Brambleton Ave. in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The existing structure is currently vacant. Although no use has been proffered, the owner, owner's agents, and a representative of a retail auto parts store have met with the neighborhood to discuss a proposal for the site. The site was rezoned in 1979 from R-1 to B-2 with the following conditions: (1) The intended use of the property shall be the retail sale and display of home interior decorations and accessories. (2) In the event that the intended use as set out in condition number (1) ceases to be operated, and upon application for the occupancy of any other use, the zoning classification of the property shall convert to Office and Residential district B-1. [In the opinions of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney, this "reversion clause" is not an enforceable proffer. The use of reversion clauses violates basic procedural requirements of the State Code that require proper notfication and legal advertisement prior to the time that a zoning map is amended by the Board of Supervisors.] The site was recently subdivided into two lots: the front lot was drawn at the limits of the existing commercial zoning and the rear lot facing Pinevale was the portion of the site zoned R-1 Single- family Residential. The petitioner's request includes only the front lot. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The C-2 zoning district permits by right a variety of commercial uses including offices, day care centers, new car dealerships, automobile repair services (minor), automobile rental, automobile parts/supply, restaurants, retail sales, veterinary hospitals/clinics, gasoline stations, recycling centers and stations, broadcasting towers, and commercial indoor/outdoor sports, recreation, and entertainment. In addition, uses permitted by special use permit include homes for adults, religious assembly, used car dealerships, automobile repair services (major), convenience store, fast food restaurant, mini-warehouses, and custom manufacturing. Site Plan Review will be required in order to ensure that the site complies with all County development regulations. Commercial entrance permit will be required by VDOT. A sampling manhole will be required by Roanoke County Utility Dept. A. EXECUTNE SUMMARY PART II A ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS +~ "" Topography and Ve etq__ation -The site is fairly level, rising gently from the road frontages, with residential-type landscaping and some mature trees. Existing Physical Development -There is an existing structure on the site, built in 1930 as a single-family dwelling. The site was not included in the Roanoke County historic survey. Access -The current entrance to the site is off of Pinevale Road and ends in a small parking area to the side of the structure. Surrounding Neighborhood -The neighborhood to the rear of the site is single-family residential. Across Pinevale is a brick office building (Brambleton Corporate Center). Adjacent to the site on Brambleton is a automobile tube/minor service shop (Magic Lube site). The remainder of the Brambleton Ave frontage is developed with office type uses (magazine publisher, chiropractor, office park), personal service uses (dog grooming, laundry), and freestanding retail uses, including a garden center, restaurants, and a hardware store. Large undeveloped commercial tracts still exist in the area. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout -The petitioner has submitted a concept plan for the site based upon the potential user (retail auto parts). However, with C-2 zoning and no conditions, the ultimate development of the site can vary widely. The zoning ordinance requires a 25'-35' wide buffer yard against the R-1 zoning to the rear. On this site, though, the required buffer yard exceeds 10 percent of the total site area and thus may be reduced to no more than 10% of the area 'rf additional plantings or screening are installed. Also, the zoning ordinance limits the access off of state primary roads (Brambleton Ave.) to one access point per 500 linear feet of frontage (per site). The concept plan submitted violates this standard, showing two entrances on Brambleton. Discussions with the proposed user indicate that the auto parts store will need two entrances for circulation of delivery trucks. This may necessitate an entrance on Pinevale Rd. VDOT does not like to see commercial entrances on residential roads such as Pinevale, but cannot prohibit the entrance if site distances are met. Architecture - No renderings were submitted by petitioner. At the neighborhood meeting, the prospective user offered photos of the chain's typical auto parts stores. These were similar to other commercial strip retail stores: block walls, flat roof. Potential architectural styles of the development vary as widely as the potential uses. Traffic Generation -The C-2 district permits a variety of uses with varying trip generation rates. For example, the ffE Trip Generation manual estimates the following average trip ends per weekday based on a 5000 square foot building: Day Care Center 335 Specialty Retail 205 Quality Restaurant 480 (460 Saturday) Hardware/Paint Store 255 (415 Saturday) General Merchandise Retail 200 The petitioner's potential user projects an annual average of 210 customers per day for an average of 420 trip ends per day, weekdays being less, weekends being higher. The 1990 traffic count for Brambleton Ave., from Route 419 to the Roanoke City line was 23,775 vehicles per day. The highest trip generation represents only a 2 percent increase in the daily traffic count for Brambleton Ave., provided all customers traveled via Brambleton Ave. Depending on the use of the site, the most significant impact of traffic generation could be on Pinevale Rd. This road goes through from Brambleton Ave. to Garst Mill Rd., ending directly across from the entrance to Sans Souci apartments. One of the high traffic generators, such as a restaurant or the auto parts store, will likely pull traffic through the residential neighborhood when motorists use Pinevale as a more direct route to the facility and to avoid the stop light at Brambleton Ave. and Garst Mill Rd. 1986 traffic counts for Pinevale Rd. averaged 1289 vehicles per day over the length of the road. This number includes the traffic for the Brambleton Corporate Center. (There has been no residential growth off of the road since that time. Increases in the traffic count since then would most likely represent increased through traffic.) ff only 25% of the customers enter or leave the store via Pinevale Rd., that represents an 8.5% increase in the average daily traffic count for Pinevale Rd. -- and more than 10% increase on some sections of the road. Amenities -This site anchors one of two main entrances into a residential subdivision. Many potential uses of the site will require extensive pavement and building coverage, and will eliminate most, if not all, of the existing plantings and mature trees. The C-2 district permits a maximum lot coverage of 90 percent. Except for the bufferyard, the 5% interior parking lot plantings, and the 6' wide planting strips adjacent to the rights-of-way, the remainder of the site can be covered with pavement or building. While the ultimate development of the site may not depart from the norm of development -along Brambleton Ave., it very likely will radically alter the appearance of the entry into the subdivision. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSNE PLAN The 1985 Comprehensive Plan has placed this area in a Transition designation. The Transition category designates highway frontage strips to serve as buffers between high intensity development and low intensity development (residential). Transition encourages office and institutional uses, retail uses to a limited degree ('rf clustered, or within a planned shopping center), multi-family residential and parks. Free-standing retail uses, such as the retail auto parts sales, are not encouraged in the transition category. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The petitioner's request is not consistent with the uses encouraged in the Transition land use category. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that freestanding retail uses have low compatibility in transition areas. Traffic generated by the site may not impact the current traffic on Brambleton Avenue, but may significantly increase the traffic through the adjacent residential neighborhood. The zoning ordinance will limit the number of entrances on Brambleton Ave to one, so future development plans may include an entrance on the residential street, Pinevale Rd. Staff feels this will encourage traffic to travel via Pinevale Rd., negatively impacting the residential neighborhood. PREPARED BY: LYNN DONIHE DATE: October 5, 1993 S r AUG .~ 8 1993 3t Zl~ s~t ~r~b~~ ~~ t~ ~q usf 19 ~ ~-- . ~~ar f ~'~ ~t~e ~ `~e bard ~ S t~e ~ v ~ sm~s ~ ~, S o.,nn vU r ~~ n -~ ~ eSS m ~~'lcn rr~ ~~ ~- Y , `~-~ 11) ~ n d.sor }~Crcc sP , ~ Y~ ~ ~. ~~- `~ s ~i'-o~-~ r w~ ~ c~.~.v.~-f.o~e dl i ~ s~s~ ~ , b c~.~ ~ ~ a v~e_ Y~esQ r v 4~t~~ts t 1 (3-~o-u~' t~rLa~" ~S t~ ~ h GI..Q. l~~ o~n~ n'~" cam, ~) c~ ~ ~ U ~U r ~~ ~ s wlu~h a~~~ ~- i~n~. ~~ ,~ ~ Y sue, t~ ~, w~ d b-~ ~ r~s~-~ ~~- ~ dQ.v d a P 4~' ~~ o~ ~ `~ ~ an d w ~u'c~ -~~t-~s ~ a.n~ b ~-frn ~ o~v i n `~.Q Year ~ `~ ~r~~ ~ n ~'ite.e~ as it ~rr~en~: ~S ~ s t,c~aul d ~xav i cL.e a bu P.,-- b.e-}u~eQ~n `~-~-~- ea~rx~ rcio..~- d.:e~Q. n~rtt_ e.~r, ~{ ~ r~ S ~ ~~~'~ are ~ , ~ 1- S~u~ d ~}-~ BPS I~~CSl-~ ~Ya~r,n `~L~ ~-us ~Yam.~ ~¢ T~ C,a~nr i'do~ ~ a.n d rn a~n~ s~ ~ "~~s ~'d..QJrt. ~~ 1 o~C c~ `~~ a..riea , ~l~C ~ r' C~S~~~ra~z'~1, ~~ sl~ n ce-f ~-~- , _o J J W Q 0 '~ ~~ ,`/ .~.. \~ -, ~ V /. O ~ - ; ~~ W \ ~~ -J ~~ Q - \\ LL '\1 O ~~~ ~ . ~~~ _...._ .___ .._.. . ~~ S 3 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ __ ~~ ~~ y -`\ ,V \/ ,~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~~-~ ~~k ~~ ,`}J ~ n 5-3 ~~ ~~ ~a~~~~ ~ ~ o Q ~~~~~~ _ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ _ -- - ~~~~~~ ~~ o ~ ~~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ September 20, 1993 3516 ' Pinevale Rcad _ ._. "-= ~i~ Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke County Planning Commis Sion ~ -`"' " -'~• -- ~-~-v•'- ; .' Braxableton Ave. Roanoke, Virginia Dear Sirs: As adjoining land o,mers of the 41'_ndscr Houss property on Brambleton, we a'~re very concerned about the proposal being considered at the October 5th meeting. We would like to draw to your attention the following factcrs: 1. The corner property is a gateway into cur Cornmurity. Homes on Pir_e- vale are selling now for X99,000 and up. We have r,:any professional people with children living in the area. This as you know, is not a run down community. We sxpect a business of some type howevar not a busy retail. Jiffy Lube is alre~ dy a problem. Noise such as jack- hammers, racing motors, ar_d magnified telephone rings *_;,ake our sum- mers anything but serene. 2. Pinevale already has a water problem. Driveways and lawns __ flood even with a nice gentle shower. tv'_rs . Kern whose lawn is al;aays flooded can tell you more about treat. 3. Traffic -Everyone knows we already are dealing with +.oo much traffic for our narrow._street. Roanoke County Index showy traffic count on' Pinevale being a low of 3400 and a high of 3825. With Auto Zones numbers of 220 customers a day making a round trip of 400, we would assume that at least half of those cars will take Garet Mill to Pine- vale. Traffic in and out of the apartments at the end of the street on Garet Mill and employees going in and out of the office conplex on Brambletor., make our street so busy that we can not walk our dogs, take walks, use bicycles, etc. 4. Property value -Auto Zone intends to be oper. from 9:00 A•14i• to 9:OOP.id. DAILY ;; Auto Zone will be built out of cinder block. Auto Zona will have a minimun of 41 parking p7a~ces at the front and side. This type of building and business will certainly not be an asset to us in any wa~'• We are all concerned what the outcome will be to our own property. There are other factors that are important, howevar I am coveri-~g only the four. Please consider these as you ondeavor to do your best in t he sit- uation before you. Trle trust that you will protect us from the problems which we forsee should the Auto Zcne be allowed to purchase the property. 'ncer/~ yours, s/~}~_ /, 9` vC J. Weldon and l~farion Myers '"" ~' September '~8, 1'3'8 3"~8 Lawndale F;d. S.W. F;c~anoke, Virginia 2~#t?18 Auto Zane jL)jI_) Poplar Avenue Department 40~#~> Memphis, TN ~81U1 Re: Property at the corner of Brambletan and Pinevale Rd. Dear Sir: I am writting in reference to your proposed purchase of land on the earner of Brambleton and Pinevale Rd. My brother and I live three houses from this carver. I moved into this house when I was four years old, same forty-six years agcy. I lave this neighborhood and as you can imagine I've seen many changes in this time. I have been very disappt~inted in the Bramblet~~n F:~!ad area, ie...ugly buildings, unsightly billboards, and increased traffic. This property has beautiful old trees, and a lovely old ant~bell~ home. What a shame to_loose-this beauty. There is another reason I hope to persuade you not to purchase this land because my brother is`physicaly_h~ndicapped and has impaired vision. He has what is called t~innel vision where objects look very.. small. Due to this poor vision-Jimmy dies not drive and has tc~ walk to catch the bus far his transportation. If Auto Zane were to build, there would be an interance on Pinevale with tractor trailer trucks entering and increased traffic due to retail sales. This could be a life threating to him. There are other commercial properties on E~rambleton already zoned C-~ that I hope you will consider. We w~ mould love to have yc~u in the Roanoke Val ley, .just at any Wither location that would better suit our needs as well as yours. I have grave concerns about this purchase-and I hope you will help me. Sincerely, rl / .~ : ~:L-.rY G- LJ~~~~-mot/ Barbara F'. Thomas Jimmy Parrish Barwick Heights Neighborhood Association /bt .. Page F'.S. Needless t•• say this pure=hase ~_~~uld de~_rease the value ~~f my h~~me. Please help me F:eep my neighborh~~:~d in tacF:. i=i Mrs. Evie i~unter Burwi~_F:: Heights NeigFib~~rh~~od Assc~tiation ~. ~; Mr. D~~nald F:. Witt .~ i:hairman !~f F'laninq C:~~mmissi~~n '~ 4 - Flanninq_ ~:ammis=it~n i -- ,, ~ . Board of Supervise ors z " °~~ y{ .. t William H. Sloan 3768 Tomley Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 989-7363 October 1, 1993 Mr. Al G. Thomason 6388 Christie Lane Roanoke, Va 24018 Dear Mr. Witt, I am a property owner in the ~ Berwick Heights subdivision in SW Roanoke County and am concerned with the recent subdivision and rezoning request on the lot formerly known as the Windsor House. The property was rezoned in '1979::~from`'°R=l E to'B=:~ -conditional that it would be limited to interior design sales in the existing house. This 1979 rezoning included a proffer that if the interior design business failed to open or ceased to operate that the ~property.~would {revert to ~a B=1";zoning... Apparently -the=current~opinion~ of the?zorung.jdistrict:.for ,,the :property;'is ; C-2 conditional upon the interior ..,. design business because on October 5 you will be conducting a hearing on the rezoning from kC-2 :conditional to straights C=2. I am disturbed -that the zoning district for the property is not C-1 as .:was -proffered Fins-1979. I am _,... ... .: _ `alsozdisturbedthat~;~a`subdivision Chas-;;occurred on ;this•-propertylbased-'upon ~:'~lus mcontested- zoning . It is important to recall the fact that in 1979 a straight B-2 zoning was attempted and was denied . Only upon the proffering of the conditions which should now be in force was the R-1 to B-2 rezoning approved . I abelieve that the .1979 •proffering meets ~tlie ~ conditions. of limits as rstated: in=Va .Code 15.'1-491:2: ° ~I : believe ~ that the -County -has°-no -legal choice 'other, than to -defend -the 1979 zoning decision in it's :whole. "One of the values of the proffer system is that accepted proffers become a part of the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance. Thus, the jurisdiction will enforce the restriction if it is violated. this, of course will save a private citizen or organization considerable time and money in enforcement actions." Zoning and land Use law in Virginia 1990 , W .Todd Benson , T . C .Williams School of Law . Our neighborhood is one that has been classified by the county's comprehensive plan as having a future land use of both Neighborhood Conservation and Transition.-zones . The preliminary site plan for .this r property, if rezoning is successful, shows an Auto Zone Store being developed. This use is particularly incompatible with both the Neighborhood Conservation and Transition zones. This incompatibility centers around the fact that the intersection of Pinevale and Brambleton Avenue is a key entrance to the neighborhood . It is only this property which separates the general commercial district along Brambleton from our R-1, well established , maturely. landscaped homesite~. I recognize the economic benefit of a corner lot on Brambleton Avenue both to Mr. Critcher and to the .county through sales tax revenue. I -.believe_:~however--that the C-1 zoning which should now be, in_ ,place ,is in _thebest,:public interest. A C-2 zoning of this property would aggravate public health and welfare issues. which are currently in need of attention. There is currently a bad traffic ;cut-through :situatipa~ on~Einevale.which :invades our neighborhood with :non-local Y_traffic.endangering >the ?safety of ;our. children There is currently a overloaded •drainage_ system _ which _ causes regular ,flooding .of `~ residential -lots. Pinevale road at both ends is .congested .due to .the non- .... _____ _____.___ - local :traffic, causing safety concerns at both Garst Mill and Brambleton Avenue intersections. The commercial traffic along Brambleton, which include large truck deliveries. at~all ;times ~of~;the :night, encroaches upon the peaceful enjoyment in the neighborhood. This area already has it's share-,of->,low,:wage~~ervice~:retail~jobS, and a lack of balancing professional service jobs. The harmonious and attractive nature of our neighborhood is currently being adversiy affected by these factors, and if this property is rezoned to a C-2 district, will only worsen these conditions. I believe that it its neither an unreasonable nor arbitrary decision for the property to be utilized as a C-1 district.. The owner would still enjoy large economic benefit and the county would benefit by the attraction of the professional services jobs. More important, one must consider the site specifically. TY~is site .is beside and-.across from .four professional office buildings, which are currently functioning as a brief barrier to the commercial sprawl on Brambleton avenue while entering our neighborhood conservation area. What a nice way to compliment this positive development by continuing the long term professional office space needs of the county's economy. How disruptive it would be to permit more commercial retail sprawl in the middle of this very positive and aesthetically pleasing area? The availability of C-2 district property must also be considered . Currently the entire strip of Brambleton, -with the exception of this key property, is zoned C-2. There are many vacant lots available for development. C-2 is not in short supply. While the area is designated as Transition and Neighborhood Conservation, essentially all of the area is currently C-2. If the County has a desire to follow the comprehensive plan, this property lends itself as the only opportunity to vary from the C-2 zoning and to allow for a more compatible long term development as envisioned in the plan . Certainly the area has already been zoned with a ",,,~ bias more towards a Core designation than that of Neighborhood Conservation or Transition . It is one final point which I would like to raise concerning this rezoning request. That has to do with the specifics of use and the concept plan which has been submitted for an Auto Zone. There are no provisions or space for screening=refuse-storage and loading from view, Since the buffer shown is the type 'D' minimum required, there has been no consideration of the 20' in elevation change.across this lot. Maximum permissible slope of the buffer is.:2:1 and this has not been considered. There is not an adequate amount of parking lot interior landscaping (5%) allowed for. The required 6':plantingstrip between -the public ROW and -parking area is marginal and 'has . caused a compromised traffic flow in the shown parking area. There has been no allowance shown for._a -storm water detention basin . Driveway entrances on Brambleton should have been limited to one. In short, the facility prorosed in the concert elan has pushed the limits of C-2 standards to":the roint where it is questionable if they :can all be met. There is current--C-2 property ..available less -than 1000' from this property which has the area needed for a facility of this size. Mr. Critcher, the developer, has not met with the Berwick Heights Homeowners Association, to understand or to work with our neighborhood in resolving incompatibilities. This is unfortunate . These are the reasons with which I ask you to support the denial of this rezoning request, and also to clear up the understanding that the proffered conditions in 1979 leave this property with a C-i district zoning. Sincerely `; ~ ;; Hank Sloan -~ October 4, 7.993 rfr. Donald R. Witt, Chairman and Hembers of the Planning Commission County of Roanoke P.O. Sox 29$00 Roanoke, Va 24018 Deas Hr. W'itts SUB~NCT: Critcher Rezoning ' 2505 Brambletom Avenue, S.W. Tax Number.77.O9--0~-36 As an owner of a commercial _ office building at .thee intersection of P3nevale Road and Brambleton Avenue, I am strongly apposed to the rezoning of the above property to C-2. This property is presently zoned conditionally for an interior..desigz~ business or an office. This is a reasonable use for the property. and is much more in keeping with the other office and residential uses in the area. Brambleton Avenue has an abundance of other retail operations and vacant land rahich could. use improvement. This portion of Brasbleton is one of the few places along the corridor that has been maintained well and is attractive to investors. I urge you to deny the rezoning request for.the unconditional C-2 zoning and support the County's Comprehensive Plan which encourages planned office development in this area. z have chosen to invest in this area ag have other business persons and residents. It is important that our property values De protected and that Brambleton Avenue not become another Williamson Road in appearance. Sincerely, ~~~ ~~~e~ Dan P. peaty cc: T,ee B. Eddy, Windsor Hills Distxict, Board of Supervisors REALTOR' 1818 Electric Road, S.W. Roanoke, Virg(nia 24418 Phone (703) 989-x601 Fax p03) TT2.0872 0 ;o,."°" „~ COMMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION 10/5/93 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, I am a professional land use planner and a resident of the Berwick Heights Neighborhood at 3805 Pinevale Road. I grew up in this neighborhood, moved back approximately seven years ago and constructed a new house. The neighborhood's protection and future growth is of utmost concern to me. It is important to recognize the past zoning activity of this property and others on Brambleton Avenue. With the growth toward Route 221, Brambleton Avenue has become a commercial corridor. We residents have seen dramatic changes in the surrounding neighborhoods and along Brambleton over the past twenty years. Unfortunately, much of the development that has occurred should have been more carefully thought out. Roanoke County needs quality investment, it does not need another Williamson Road. The property that is before you tonight for rezoning is one of the most attractive commercial properties on Brambleton Avenue and serves as a major entrance into the Berwick Heights Neighborhood. There is no doubt that the property should be used in a commercial manner. The issue is to what degree it should be used for business. Most of the residents in attendance here this evening would support office use of the property, and didand did su~ort such a use in 1979 when thissuch a use in 1979 when this property was conditionally rezoned for office and an interior design business (requiring a C-2 zoning). It is unfortunate that the original zoning reversion clause allowing the property to be used for office is not considered enforceable by the County. Perhaps this would have saved a lot of time and effort for everyone. Office use of this property is not only reasonable, but is also consistent with adjacent land uses across Pinevale Road and Brambleton Avenue, r'` namely the Brambleton Corporate Center Office Building and the Leisure Publishing Offices. In addition, there are other small offices nearby. These uses have been good neighbors for Berwick Heights and have helped us to maintain our property values. This well designed office development has also helped maintain their property values and made this portion of Brambleton Avenue an attractive business location. We want to maintain the area and encourage similar business development. We do not feel that development of the subject property by Auto Zone or any other intensive retail business is in the best interest of our neighborhood nor is it in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan for this area. Our neighborhood is designated as Neighborhood Conservation while the frontage on Brambleton Avenue is designated as Transition. As your staff has pointed out, planned office development is encouraged in this area. Land Use policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage preventing commercial sprawl along the highway, reserving frontage strips for planned office facilities, and encouraging good quality development with attractive signage, conservation of site features, landscaping, and sufficient buffering and screening of adjacent residential uses. Similarly, Neighborhood Conservation policies encourage protecting residential neighborhoods from disruptive impacts of land use changes, maintaining open space and grounds in residential neighborhoods, and avoiding development that has a significantly different density, size, height, or scale from adjacent development. There is one further point that I wish to make that is very relevant to this matter. There is already vacant land available on Brambleton Avenue that is already zoned C-2 that is larger and much more accommodating for this kind of use. One tract in particular is just a few lots down, namely the Ferguson property. In addition, there are many ~-3 properties which could certainly be redeveloped for the proposed use, thereby enhancing some of the eyesores on Brambleton Avenue. Certainly, before additional land is rezoned, we should make a major effort to facilitate development of land already zoned for retail commercial use. Therefore, on behalf of many of my neighbors, we respectfully request that you support the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and deny the subject rezoning request. j~~ .j/.r.~ ~y ~~s~~~ ~ ~c/p~k. ~rei~ i~i~, Cam'/7c~s~ie ~'~~n~ / ~ //!~ /1'l~i KZ-I /~/GJ ~ls ~ft-o ,, G~/~ C~'D ~t/D ~ GrJi's`'l 7~ ~o~~T~pllt~slr`f-/. Evelyn S. Gunter ~s~~~ w~~~ r~ ~s ~ ~~ ~i/ ~/~ ©,~ ~ o~~~s . 7~v ~Li,~ ~ o ~ /Dr.-c S ,~ 6vi /~ ~4~ o mar/ ~t~'~ Dvzs , ~~ ~ // / / > ~y~DftJ ~dsG~ ~!~ ~~~ ~ t~-DOGC il/~/G~~j ~D/~-~ G!// ~~ /~ Tv~T/iu~ d~~~ US ~ O~/ ~~~ i~Diro v " ,,,~ 3503 Pinevale Rd., SW Roanoke, VA 24018 October 9, 1993 Mr. Lee B. Eddy 2211 Pommel Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 In re: Petition for Rezoning Windsor House Property Dear Mr. Eddy: I am writing to express my hope that you will vote, and encourage the other members of the Board of Supervisors to vote, to support the Planning Commission's recommendation that the petition of Mr. Critcher to rezone the Windsor House property on Brambleton Avenue be denied. As you are aware, the proposed new owner will be Autozone, an after-market auto parts store which has admitted it will be open for business from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. .seven days a week. I own the house directly behind the property in question and believe that allowing a retail commercial occupant such as Autozone would seriously devalue my property. I also believe that the increased traffic generated on Pinevale Rd. would be a safety hazard to neighborhood children. At the Planning Commission hearing on the 5th, the petitioner made no proffers, offered only the vaguest idea of how the property would look, and in general answered the Commission's questions very evasively. No one in our neighborhood is very comfortable with the way this petition has been presented to date and we are very skeptical of any "assurances" which may be forthcoming from the petitioner at the Board meeting on the 26th. The Comprehensive Plan for this property contemplates a transitional use, for which an office building would be ideal. The property lies at the entrance to Berwick Heights and a retail commercial use, especially one such as Autozone, would certainly detract greatly from our neighborhood. I hope you will support me and my neighbors and uphold the Planning Commission's ruling. Sincerely, `~hacs~C.Pnac~.e~ C~ --c9 Grace Chandler Curd .~ o~ RoAI~O~.c~ r 2 L7 r i a ~~C~~~2.~ 1838 ~~~~~ ~~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY ATTORNEY ~ -12 October 1993 Mr. Hank Sloan: 3768 Tomley Drive, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Sloan: ~.~ .r ~ JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L HUFFMAN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY My office received your letter dated October 1, 1993, on October 5, 1993, unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to review it until October 6, 1993. I apologize for not responding to you in time for the Planning Commission's meeting on the evening of October 5. I am unable to provide you and your neighborhood organization with a legal opinion concerning the validity of reversion clauses. As County Attorney my legal and ethical responsibility is to provide professional legal services to the Board of Supervisors and to Roanoke County. The County and the Board are my clients. Neither you, nor your organization are my clients. I will confirm our earlier telephone conversation, during which I explained to you my position with respect to the enforceability of reversion clauses. It is my position that good zoning practice would not support the use or applicability of a reverter condition in a conditional rezoning action by a local governing body in the Commonwealth of Virginia. If a reverter condition were effective, then the practical effect of the reverter condition would be to rezone property without satisfying the procedural requirements for a rezoning under State law, i.e. the notice and public hearuzg procedural requirements as required by Section 15.1=431 of the State Code. Such action would raise serious concerns as to procedural and substantive due process rights of all parties. There are two further legal objections to giving effect to reverter conditions. First, a reverter condition does not appear to satisfy the statutory limitations of Section 15.1- 491.2 upon the types or kinds of conditions that may be proffered by the landowner and accepted by a local governing body. Next, the automatic application of a reverter condition could constitute a surrender of governmental functions or powers. In effect, the rezoning of property would be accomplished not by governmental action, i.e. legislative action by the board of supervisors, but by private action. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2007 ® Recyded Paper Page Two 12 October 1993 ..~."~ Likewise I would reject the assertion that the initial rezoning is now invalid, if one of the "conditions" is subsequently deemed invalid. Generally courts have severed an illegal, invalid or unconstitutional provision from a legislative enactment in order to allow the substance of a legislative action to remain intact. To use a cliche', a court is unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a .court can find a way to retain the substance of a legislative action while severing the offending clause or portion thereof, it will do so. Constitutional concerns regarding the separation of powers act as a brake upon wholesale judicial repeal or finding of complete invalidity of legislative actions. This principle of severability is often applied by the courts to issues of statutory construction. The law is continually evolving. The courts often reinterpret historic principles and apply them to new situations. This judicial activity is particularly found in the fields of criminal law and individual rights and liberties. The courts will attempt to graft these new or reinterpreted principles onto existing statutes or laws. Only in rare circumstances will a court repeal an entire body of law or course of legislative conduct. In some of these situations the court may act "prospectively" only, not retroactively. For these reasons, as well as other legal concerns, I can only speculate what a court might do with such a case. To avoid such speculation, and the uncertainty speculation breeds, I have routinely advised my clients not to accept reversionary proffers of conditions. In those situations where reversionary proffers were previously accepted, I have counseled my clients that such proffers are most probably unenforceable. Finally in this instance the question of the validity of the reversionary condition is irrelevant to the ultimate decision in this matter. Assuming for the moment that the reversionary condition were effective, and that the property's zoning classification were C-1 (the successor to B-1 under the new zoning ordinance), or even if the property were any other zoning classification, the owner of that property would still have the right. to seek a rezoning to C-2. The landowner always has the due process right to follow the required statutory procedures to rezone his or her property, or to request the amendment- of a previously accepted proffered condition. I apologize for the length of this response. I hope that it has. answered the substance of your inquiry. Very truly yours, PMM/spb 'T1. '~J Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ,.~~ A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE,~,UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. n 1 -c.~c.~ ~ ~ 39 ~ n e ~n-(.~, c~ ~ ~~ 2. 3a 57 a~c.~ 3. ~ ~! 3 z. ~ ~ ,~i~ ~ 5. ~ 3o~J ~ CI 6. ~, ~2 ~ ~ ~--1 { 7. ' ~~ 1 . Q~ Q~e G . 8. C, _ Z03 OQ / c~ s. - ~.o da R o 11. ~ < S S (~-~~~~'~C 12. , Z 13. ~ ~ ~ o 15. _~ ~~5~ !~ 1~ S,LlJ 16. ~ ~ - 17. 1s 3~~~ ~SW~ 20. ~' `~' A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 1. (~ ~?D~ ~ o.~ c~, 2. 5~ ~ 3~ / ~MU~~ ~3 4. /~ 5. 3Z.~ 6 ~~~~~ 7 (~ g'. .:~Cc~ 8. .S~ - 9. '~ .3~ t~ r ~~ ~ ~.,. 10. ' ,v,1 ~ a~~ 11 ~ ,3 ~ a~ 12. ` ti ~2.~1 ~~ -~~~ 13 ~ ~ } ~.Z~ ~, ~ ~ 14 ~ Z-3 ~ ce. ~li~ ~ .~ Z i s. ~ 3 z sv as . 17. n-~-a ~- ~ 2-~ / Ni; -S R. 18. ~ ~ Z`~ d-8 ~ ii G 19. ~ ~ Zv tl, 20. ~ ~ ~ c ~ 7~~ ~ JSG~ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). ,~ 21 ~ ~ 30~0l~ . ~ G~i~ l ~S ~-!f 22. ~ ~ ,~-~,- ~ 3 si ~ 23.~ 24. '~ 25. ~ ~~ ~ / ~ J~.J f~cii. L~ ~ -'~. r ~/.~7 i r2 ~ ~ ~~/ u J~~~... 2s. 7. ~ <3 a ~~ 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. _ 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. ./ A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH ~... CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN--~ OR OFFICi=. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND T UR PRO ERTY INVEOSTMENT IN TDHE NIEIGH ORHOOD IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING O AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 1 ~`~l ue ~ 3`i 3 ~ -vw.~.v ~-.7' . ~ 2. s .. , 3. .3 7~ ~ ~- ~w 4. ~ 5. • atil5 ~-- 6 .e~.~ .~~ 3 7~ 7 I g' ~ ~1/ .S • 4~ s. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 10. 3 ~a 11 Q ~ ~ 3 ~y 12. ~, ~. 1~ 2 ~~ 13. ~ ~ -3~ d l~ ~ ~`~ i 14. ~ ti/~:.R Z o '~ /-~ S 15. (/I - is. ~ ~'10~ l~h~ S ~'`~' 17. .. , r /~ ~~ ~ • 5 i s. ~ ~ %~ ~ _ S~ 20 - 3?// WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). °s 21. ~ ~17 ~~~3t'Yl 1~3r ~~. 22. „~ 7/ 23. ,. G a ~ -+ - ~~ 24. ,~ ~ U ~~~~ i ~9 U 26.~ ~l(7 ~ - 3 29. 30. pp ` ~ib . ~ Q.~t l' a , (~~ .~c~vV . ~ a~~ f ' 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. . 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. -~ A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH,; ~,, CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2. ~~ ---~dl S~,n cc,~. , 3 a o,3 L.av r~c1e le I~l 3. ~ ~3/~ ~~ ~~ 4. a ~)ee~- w ,~ 14 ~ 5. 6. ;, ~ ~ ~ 7. Q ~~ C~~/ iN (°L ~ ~~Jv~ 8. -- , 9. ~/ /' ~ ~ 10.E 11 ~ - 12. ~` ~ ~D ~ ~~,~lti,a 13. ~ ZFLC-TWA r w 14. , ~ p(~1 ' " IJCZ ~' ~ 15. ~ ~~ 3 ~.<.`~ 1s. 3G 3 ~ ~,'//~ nano/l v~ 2 1,~~ 17. ~j~ L L~ J i ~ ~ ~~c. ' /~ l/~ d ~:~ ~ ~ i 18. `! 19. 20. ,. ~3 w ~ ~g Q ~ n . `~/ ~ r ,_ ~~~ ~~i~ ~ /~ U~ y ~~ ~l~ ~ " . ~ ~' . j., s .... ~n~G -rNF UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). ~~ REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANO AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE OSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE ,~ PROP EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDC HEAR NG S SCHEDULEDOFOR OCT.15L 700 PM ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBL WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A .KEY ENTRANCE INTO THMAINTENANCE OF TS RESIDENBORHOOD~C O R BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING O EGRITI( OF OUR NEIGH ORHOOD.NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE IN n . ,.,; c 2. 3 Z3 L .~ ~ 5~,. 3. ~,~.~ 3.31 ~~ . ~ ~ 4. 3aa8 ~. ~ ~S: ~ . 5 ~ L ~~Qn -~--l~Q~ ~ ~J ,3aa~ ~~~ ~,/ 7. x~ $. ~- t ~ 3a i ~ ,~~,v~ ~~ sup 9. `' 1 ~lf ~ ~. ! ` J t It ~1 ~ t ~ 1 ~ 11. /T/ ..~,~-1C 3 aa3 L~~ - ~ ~s~J. ~ ` 12. ,~,,~ ~ .j2Z3 ~ l~l~nr~~-Q2 D'~" 15. r ~ , .~ ~ N ~/ O.,' v 16 C' `~~ 17. ~, ,~ C ~ i~-~t~1~v~~~ ~ J 1 ~~ -~ 1 J L~ c,• c~ ~/ 19. ~. 3ai 3 ~ ~ .S• ~ 20. ~~ A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN ~'"°' ~, OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE ~"` PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. a 3. a~ l ~ .~%J'~~e/ 4. d ~~ 5. Q. ~~`~ it~~'~~ s. ,,/^ 7. .~a~ ~~~ ~~~ [~ ~ $. 9. ;6 1 „~ ,' z.~a 11. .~~~ 0 ~ 12. ~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~v 13. / ~ ~ ,, 3 3v 14 - .3 ~~'.~ ~rt,c~c, 'C.~2 15. > c .~ ~ s ~" ~- c fit- , 17. ~.,~,~.-~ , `, - ~~ ~J~.9.~- 1 ~ 6 ~. 19. 3~~ ~• S~ 20. _--- _ _ _. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). ~, P 22 o ~G 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50, ~~ A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONEDES DEIMOLISH NG THE ~• PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLU EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ~~L~-'1/nom ~~-- ~'/S_ ~~' 1. ~~%v~~ 3a3 v o~n ~ ~~r 2. ~ ~~ 2 3 ( ( ~ ~ Z 3. .~rr~ 3 2,,~ ,~-~ ~~ 4. Lied , ~ ~ ~ /~r m ~ SCE 2S~/ 5 G ~I 6. ~ ~ . Gl1 ~ 7. G~li?-~ ~. s 7 ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~r.~., ~ D 8. ~.~., . ~°. ,, d ,, 9. 'r2~' ~ 1 a ~ 3~'0.~ ~~c~-/~ ~C o~ 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. c,,. cuff use only .Proposed Zoning: C-2,~ .General Commercial District (uncondit Jtuse only USe Type: Proposed Land Use: Retail Sales, Automobile -Parts/Supply Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and froritage requirements of the requested district? YES x ~ NO ~ IF NO, A VARIANCE 1S REQUIRED FIRST. NO Does-the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES __ x_____ --- IF.~NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. ~ NO ~_ If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES ~_ -- Variance of Section(s) N/A of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPL1CATfON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws w ~s ~ ws v Application fee x Consultation x 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan licable x Metes and bounds description G.~ Proffers, if app Application Adjoining property owners Justification x '",~~~.~t Water and sewer application x / hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owne~~ Owner s Signature. '` Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-31) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The subject property was rezoned to Business District B-2 (Conditional) in 1979, allowing the conversion of a single family detached dwelling for retail purposes. However, use of the property was restricted to the retail sales and display of home interior decorations. This restriction has severely limited the marketability of the property and has placed an undue hardship upon the applicant. The request for rezoning is consistent with the restrictions placed on surrounding commercial properties along Brambleton Avenue. The proposed use of the site is consistent with the recommendations setforth in the Transition Land Use Category and thereby serves the general purpose of implementing the Comprehensive Plan of Roanoke County. The nature of the proposed commercial activity is such that it is intended to serve the needs of several neighborhoods or large segments of the County's population, thereby, requiring the location of a major arterial thoroughfare. The project will meet all site development regulations ensuring compatibility with adjoining land uses. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed commercial activity is one not normally located in core locations or within major shopping centers and will have no impact upon the vitality of prime retail areas. The project is located in an area where orderly land development is encouraged. In addition, it will meet all applicable requirements of the site development regulations; thereby, insuring controlled development and adequate lot frontage necessary to provide safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic. The project will enhance the quality of highway frontage with respect to minimum signage, landscaped areas and a prominent building facade. In addition, the project will meet or exceed all screening and buffering requirements to minimize land use disturbances to adjacent properties. Please describe the impact(s) of the. request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire/rescue. The request will have no impact upon water and sewer facilities, both of which are available at the site, and fire/rescue service. Because of the non-residential nature of the proposed use, the request will have no impact on school or park/recreational facilities. Brambleton Avenue has been developed as a major arterial thoroughfare designed to carry high traffic volumes and associated turning movements. The increase of traffic generated by the proposed project will have minimal effect on existing roads. Although presently vacant, the property has been used for commercial purposes in the past. Therefore, the proposed development will have minimal impact on the property. Required screening and buffering will be provided along the northerly boundary of the project to minimize the impact on the adjoining residentially zoned property. Because the property to the west is currently zoned C-2, it will not be impacted by the proposed project . ROANOZCE COIINTY DTILZTY DEPARTMENT . ~~ . APPLICATION FOR WATER `OR ~ SEWER SERVICE ~TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date August 18, 1993 Name_ of Applicant Floyd Critcher Phone 981-1319 Address of Applicant- 6955 Mt. Chestnut Road, Roanoke, Va 24018. Name of Developer Same as above ~ Phone Address of Developer Name of Design EngineerLumsden Associates, P•~hone 774-4411 Address of Design Engineer P•~• Box 20669 Roanoke, VA 24018 Name of Contact Person Keith Ras+'~rfPr Name of Proposed Development AutoZone type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) 5400± s.f. retail store (automobile parts/supply) Location of proposed development (Furnish copy of map) 3505 Brambleton Avenue Size of proposed development in acres: 0.6504 Acres Give minimum and maximum eleva~tfon .(.IIs.e. USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewe~~~service'connection1112u1d be located: Minimum 110.2 feet MSL. Maximum feet MSL Is this application for a development. that will be a part or section of a larger future development? x No _ Yes If yes, provide map of entire area if available. Si ~ .ire of Aflolicant -- _ ._ tc~i~C' G _ `~ ~ >. ~ \' 1 J ~~ ~ X CN D yO N 1~ ~ -. * , \~ . ~ S i ~~ ~ ~~o ~ ~_ ~~ „~ti ~ . ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ o_ o N _. a p V -% ~ 7' _ . 2a ~ O x ~ W ~ ~ N ~ N / ~~~ O~ o > ~57 i ~. S 7 ~.~.: ~` ' '',a ~ %~ ~ i i~ ~ ~ ~ ,o ~ ~ ~... J. N. \ ,~0\ ,~9 V ~ ~.. D• ~- ~ t COQ tfl, ~ ~ j v a' ~ i G \ \/ /~ / ••~~ 61~ ~ J// ~r _ 67 . ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ /' ~ - O \ Q i °.~ ~ w~ ° - C~ .J ;+ X _ .. x~ o .o . Wr ~ 'i ~ N ~ < ~ ~ 1 '~ ~ w ... N _ ~ q A O 6 ~ 0 ~ ~ - ~ ~ -~ ~~ SO '-•"-~' 29~ LA E R E .. ~._ "' -~ X t i ~ ~ n N v ~ W i f ~ ~i"c ~ N ~ ~%~•. ~ ~ °, ~ o. o ~ o ` 3 9 ,~ 0 -r 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~>r qo ~.,. ,y C~ ~ ^ N~ e~~--- - --~ _ .! X w, r--'1 I I m ~ - QC ,~ ~O ~ 'O j ~ .o9S \ ' o~~/~ ~Fo I'= ~ ~~ F ~ ~ ~"~ ~~ n1 \ A Z O - I!1 \ \ ~ '~ cC 0 U \ ///c~rl~ \ \ ~` ., cJ \ 6 ' \ \ 3 ~ \~ 'Zdf.lED I~-I ~ a g \ \ v~G,AN 1-- \ ~ z \ \ ~~ \ ~ ~ .,moo ~\ ~ ~\ '~N ~~ Co sx~r CJJ l ULa\ \ \ ~ \ ~ K• \ ~ ~ lJ 100"1500 E - I'13,'=~ /~l~ /~ / // / / ---~ a~t:~ Y.~,D os p,ESZ't7. BY GP,DI~il~t1G6 /11111~~/1111L~~C//iii ~~, ~ ~7 ~ \\ Q r- \ oI~E ~ov>Y \ \ \ 9 W _ i i V _ ~ ~ ~ ~ i Two 6TG>3'( 41FUCf. ~ " " ~ I Q Z LC o r ~,~ - _ r-- ~ o a 8~ L 3 - ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 10 ( ~ ~ ~ 20~ n i II ~_- _ - 28.2 ICI n,~5o4A~• I ~ ~ / I Q /~/JR~' ~ ~f \~ ' /) lk - ~ - ~\~ ~~ • / Q ~ i ~ S Coo"LSG~'I...l' 151 ~~o~' 6cJST Iti' Wa.7EP~ Otis'-~ SIG.uT as1s+~,1~7 I~T,aI-tcL ttsTC.~.lGE- G6L1E~Al- UorEs I .~ Tic Psi-RGE1~ -t -l .v9 -v a - 3co 1.) TOPbGP,r~PUlc DFTP T~,Eni Fri-~c~rt ~ +~ PL~+..u11 uc..~ Gl ~"TF ~T r-~aci I.1Ca . ~.) I.~,TIa-I of o~-~T~ u-riu-r i cUi-~E~TIO~ Uuv,~x~-1~ AT T~++s TI r-IE. BRAMBLETON AVENUE ~PNo c. ILrATIO~-+ ~45T ~.LI•Swv,. Go~c~~-r ~~,,o.r., At.~.To Zo~-~E I~FtEP~,E.[7 ~oFi F~Y~ T' GF~1'TGHEt~, ~4sT Imo, r~i 3 QS-3 NORTN ~~ DEPAR'TT~IVT OF PLANNII~TG PETITIONER: FLOYD T. CRITCHER Z _ ~ TAX MAP NUMBER(S): 77.09 - 4 - 36 AND ZONING REQUEST: REZONE C-2 CONDITIONAL TO C-2 NO CONDITIONS +_ ~ - .. ~~,~ _ , . -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.6504 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 3505 BRAMBLETON AVENUE (A PORTION OF TAX MAP NO. 77.09-4-36) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, UNCONDITIONAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF FLOYD T. CRITCHER WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993, and the second reading and public hearing was held October 26, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; 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 0.6504 acre, as described herein, and located at 3505 Brambleton Avenue, (a portion of Tax Map Number 77.09-4-36) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, Conditional, General Commercial District, to the zoning classification of C-2, Unconditional, General Commercial District, to construct an automobile parts retail store. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Floyd T. Critcher. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly right-of-way line ~s "°, i of Brambleton Avenue, said point being the most westerly end of the cut-back line between the westerly right-of- way line of Pinevale Road and the northerly right-of-way line of Brambleton Avenue; thence S. 60° 25' 00" W. a distance of 151.13 feet to a point; thence N. 28 ° 24' 20" W. a distance of 163.77 feet to a point; thence N. 60° 25' 00" E. a distance of 173.50 feet to a point, said point being on the westerly right-of-way line of Pinevale Road; thence S. 29° 25' 20" E. a distance of 138.62 feet to a point; thence S. 15° 41' 00" W. a distance of 35.68 feet to the Point of Beginning. 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. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. c:\wp51 \agenda\zoning\critcher ~~i~~~~~iiiiii~iiiiiiii~~~i~~~~~~~i~~ii~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~i~~iiii~iiii~~i~~i~i~~~~~~~~i~i~~ii~~iii~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~i~iii~i e _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ n ,., AGENDA ITEM NO`~~ ~-~ APPE CE REQUEST =_ _ _ _ _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS -~.- SUBJECT: ~ 3 -' C~/e~T ~/ ~ JQ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to reco nine me Burin the g g meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED __ BELOW: ^ Each s Baker will be iven between three to five mi ute to p g , n s comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will c = decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, = and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of~the Board to = __ do otherwise. _ __ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. _ ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized __ 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 = vnth the clerk. _ __ _ c ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c - _ fi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~ i ~~~ ~tllllllillllllllllllllllillllllliillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllilllllllllllllilllllllillllllillllllllillllllllllfll - - _ _ - - _ ~ _ _ _ _ - _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. S -3 - __ _ - - _ _ APPE CE REQUEST - _ _ _ _ - ~UBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~ - 3 ('A ~ .~-~~/ ~~_ ~,t~-t~. ~~~ __ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the __ meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. __ WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, 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 speakin on an issue, c and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority o~the Board to do otherwise. _ - ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. - Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. _ c = - ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized c speaker and audience members is not allowed. _ ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _ - ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments vnth the clerk. - ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP = = SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. _ _ = PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK _ _ _ _ _ - - NAME ~ ~ , L~r t ~ 1 ~ s ~ ~.. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ; ~- ~ ~- _ _ __ ADDRESS ~.~ 1 ~ c~ ~- c~w~ ~ ! ~ ~~--~.,. ,~---J ,~ _ -_ _ - = PHONE C~ ~ ~j ._ ~ ~ ~ c~~ fililiiiiilliililllllililiillilllilliilllilillllllllillllllliililliliiliillllilliliillllllllliillll111111111111111111111111111111~11 Wlllllllllillllllllllilllllllllllllllllllililililllllllilllllilllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllilllillllillllllllillliilillllll~ _ _ - .~ ~ - _ _ _ _ ~3 - _ ~ _ - - AGENDA ITEM NO. --~ ° APPE CE REQUEST _PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMII~NTS = - - - - - _ SUBJECT: _ ~ 3 G~ ~ ~-~.. ~ ~,~° - - - _ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. =_ WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: c c - ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment c c whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, = and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority otgthe Board to __ do otherwise. = = - ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. - - ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized __ 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 vnth the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP v SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c - - _ __ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - = - - - ~ - - - - NAME - = ~-''I = - - - ~ ADDRESS ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~~~' - -_ - - PHONE `~ B' ~~ ~ ~ 7 0~ minif~tl~nmtnlmnlimmmf~littiltn11111111111111111111 ~1'~ ~iiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ _ _#~ _~ - _ ~ - _ - AGENDA ITEM N "-~ _ - _ - ' APPE CE REQUEST -_ _ _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS CO1VIII~NTS __ _ _ _ _ SUBJECT: s ~ ~ ~ r~ ~,~,.-~ _ _ I woald like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: c ^ Each s esker will be iven between three to five minutes to comment whethe P speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will - decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority o~the Board to -_ do otherwise. - c ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _ ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments - with the clerk. __ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c --~Ililllllillllllllillllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllillllllllll~ _ _ - -~ _ _ _ - _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. `~ `" APPE CE REQUEST _ __ '~ PUBLIC HEARING "~~"~`~~~'?"E CITIZENS COMMENTS -~ ---> SUBJECT: ~ ~-~z r~ ,= ~~ - Z L ~-t: ~ ` 2 , ~~~ r~~~31_~. ~~ ,~ __ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. = WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED = BELOW: ^ Each s Baker will be iven between three to five minutes to comment c whethe P speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will = decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, = and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of~the Board to do otherwise. __ _ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized __ speaker and audience members is not allowed. __ c ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments -_ vnth the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP = SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c -_ T LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c _ PLEASE PRIN _ _. mliillllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllliilllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllill~ W 111111111131111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~- /1,~6 ` -_ AGENDA ITEM NO. `~ _ - _ - - APPE CE REQUEST _ - _ - _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMII~NTS SUBJECT: o~ ~ - (~t~/~T~ f7 C' -_ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, 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 c decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority o~the Board to __ do otherwise. _ __ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized __ 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. - ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGALIVIZED GROUP _ SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. __ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK Wlillllillllllllllllillillll lllilllllilllilil IIIIIIIIIiII llllllllillilillll IIII I IIiIIIlillilllllilllllllllliillilllil lI IIIIIIIII~ _ _~ ? -y = AGENDA ITEM NO. ' -~ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPE CE REQUEST __ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMIVIENTS = SUBJECT: ~ 3 L r ~-~. ~~- _ c = I world like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS = FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: - i ~ - ~ _ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment c _ -whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, _ $nd will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority otgthe Board to = c do otherwise. _ -, - _ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. _ Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. 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 times. =_ ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments = with the clerk. __ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP c = SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c _ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK - _. ~~v _ NAME -- _ _ _ ADDRESS ~~(~~ TC~1 ~ ~ `( 1~ ~ PHONE 'j ~ ~~ ~ ~ (~~ __ 1111111111111111111 Wlillllllllilllllllllllllllllllllillllllillllillllllilillllllllillllllllllllllilllllllilllllllllillllilllllllllllllllllllllllill~ _ _ _ _ _ _~~ _ _ c AGENDA ITEM NO. -`3 - APPE CE REQUEST /PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMII~NTS __ SUBJECT: S ~ ~~-~-~ ter--' -_ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. __ WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS c FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED __ BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment c whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will c 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. . _ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized 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 __ with the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGALNTLED GROUP e SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK -_ ;- NAME _ ~'~~r _ __ __ ADDRESS ~ ~ ' !~ f '~S~ ~ `)' c ~~ -_ PHONE ,~~~'%~;~~' `f' n itlflilllltillt 11111111111111111111 ~Illllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllilllillllllfllllllilllilllllllllllilllllllilllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllltillll _ _ _ _ -_ - . __ _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ ~~ ~ c - _ _ _ _ _ _ - APPE CE REQUEST - _ _ __ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS __ J = c SUBJECT: '" Z ,~ .. `~ '?~ - - - I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the = c meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. _ - = WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS c FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED = BELOW: c 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 speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority o~the Board to __ do otherwise. _ _ - _ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. __ Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. 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 times. _ c - ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments - - vnth the clerk. - ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. - - -_ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK - - - - - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ - - - - mllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllliltllililllii111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~ t~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~i~i~iii _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ c AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ c __ APPE CE REQUEST =_ "PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS -_ SUB CT: __ JE C~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS c 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. _ ~, _. ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized __ 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 _ vnth the clerk. _ __ __ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING O1V BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. -_ _ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK fi~~~~~~t~~t~~~~~~~tt~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i11 • A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDSOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT 26, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED BUSINESS OWNERS, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. BRAMBLETON AVENUE IS PRIMARILY OFFICE IN THIS AREA AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS ATTRACTIVE OFFICE CHARACTER IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY IN`JEST~,IENT RND THOSE OF RESIDENTS IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPERTY WAS CONDITIONALLY ZONED FOR OFFICE IN 1979 AND SHOULD REMAIN OFFICE. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ •---~~ l~ r~ 3. ~~ /~,. ~3s /.3 ~ ~~~, ./ /~ <~,~ ~~ 4. A~a ~ ~ i ,> ~' ~, 'f ~ ~~ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. TFIE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICAL TO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. .. r ~. 2. ,~ - ,3 z ~ ~ ..,-. ~ ~' Ste. 3. ~ ~j.~l ~ ( mss"(,`; . 4. 3aa8 Q-~ ~ ~: ~ . ,p 5 ~ L U ~;I~~, ..3 a a ~ G~au-~..~Q~ ~ ~.J d . i tt.-r~-K2... ~ e, ~7 ~- G~ ~ '''~ ~~!~--~`~~ ~ /CSC ~t.~'~ •- 7. xtZ~'G ~,. ~ " // it // ~, ., _ .. ..., ~` 9 ,, , ~ ..- 1 .. ` 32,i ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ,~ x 16.L~ ~ ~ ~`~~ ~r ~~ ~' ' ~ 17 C ~ ',ti'~~r~~ ~1G~ ~ ~' ~' ~ ~ . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~,~-~ _~' .~ a L~ ~.. 19. ~. •3~~ 3 ~f$ fz-d , S • A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REGIUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICAL TO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 1 ~~._ ~C.~tl.~v~-' ^~ ~ ~ r -~~ V ~~~ ~7 ,I r n~~~-~.~ ~ cJ . `~~t- 2. ~ ~? ~ ~ -y ~~Uz ~> 7 ~/C~C.~Ci~ 3. ~ ~l ,~~ '-~ ,~ ~. ~. s. , ~ C. ~~'~ C'q ~~~ ~~. J r ~ ~ ,- ~ ~ 11. `~ ~ c-~ ~L-z ~.~ ~.~ ~-~_ ? S J l S- _ ~ ~~c. ~~ ~-,~--- 12. ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~- ?C~ 13. ~ ~ ~ o ~' 1 ~ ~( ~,~~.~ ~ ~ cJ ~ C~.~~fZ~_ 15. ,. ~~.c,~~-e.o~- ~ ~l S~ !~-v...~~~~ ~. 5 Ct~ 16. ~ - Q 17. ,f 20. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REGIUEST (CONTINUED). 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICAL TO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 2. ~ ~ ~d' 3~ / r~~~~4~ ~° ~ d C~r~tLN~ 4. L. ~ ~~ 6. - __ ~ ~ ~ -~~! ~ - -~~' ~ ~~ , ' } ~ 9. ' c_-c_. .t,~._,~ .~~ ~ ,, ~~ r ~~ 1 10. J V' ~~ 11 e .3 '~ - ~ _ ~'.~- ~ r ~ ~ ~' ~ ~-- 16. ~ _ 3 z 5~ aEs 17. ~..... ~ . ~ ~ , ,vim- ~ ~.d .. 18. ~ ~° ~.-`~ ~.3 ~ N G , 19. ~ Z~ l~ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). 21 ~ 3~v~.~ ~ v~'~< ~ ~S G~ , 22. - - ~y" ~ ~ , ~r ~S ~-.~.. ~ ~- 23. ~ M 24. '' n ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ,~, ~ 1.0, . /' . 25. ~ = 1 ~ l~~-~. Z c~ ~ ~ ~~--~~ ~c ~~~ , 2s. , ``-~ 3~y~ j~ -y,~ ~ s~~ 7. 3 O~ ~~ i _, ~ ~- .r^ ' ~ - > i;~ 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PRCPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY !S ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICAL TO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). 21 ~ ~ ~ 4~~ ~ 1~ ~3t'Yl ~ L~'~L~7'1 ~~. 22. ,4..c~s~.~1.~ ~.f ~~ : .`~ ~ i ~ i D.{cV1~l.F . ~~W ,~ 3 - ,, - 30. ~ 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 1. . (Qr- r~ ~l/~c ~~~~~ 31E%.3 ~~~~~~ t Rck 2. ~ ',, I Sr~,nc~. ~ 3 ~ d 3 L~ .~~al~e 3. ~ ~~ I ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~~ ~" 1~.> ;v ~ l~ 5. 7. ~ ~ ~ v i N ~ ,~ --{ 1~.1J ~ ~ 8. - , 9. ~ ~ ~/ / ' ~ ~ 11: ~..e:,~ ~~~ 5~ 14. ~ ,~ ~ P~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15. `~2 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~.1~(1~~-- 16. 3 G 3 ~ ~ ~ ' /f~ ~ i ~li f~~ Z ~r C~a.' c~ / f /e 18. t i ~ ~ 19. C_~ ~ ~ ~ r~ , ~, ; 20. ~~ « ,~ ~ ~ ~'. ~Gc~ ~vi~. d ~~' vi y I~ ~1~ (I ' ~ ~" WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). /1 21 ~{ _ ~ °~c~c~ o _ - 22. ~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ yv-c ) ~ ~ _ 23. ~. ~,,, .~ 24. ~ w a ~~~- 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 5. O, ~5,~`.~ 1G2~ 6. ~ _ ~ .a~~`1~ 1 /~~ ~i~~a~~~ 7. ~i Lt~ ~ , ,~, -~ 8.~ ~ ,~ ~~ 1 ~, ~ y ._ , 11. r ~~ rW ~ b --~ ` ~~ 12. ~ i e ~4 13. - ~~ _ s ?~c~ ~J ~'~ ~~~~-~ ~~ 15. ~ ~~ ~'/ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~L ~~~ ,_,, ~ ._~ / / .~ -z~_~~...~~~z~ ~~~ 17. 1 6~ 19. _ ~ , ,• ---~ ~ , ~ -~ . < c~ • ~ ~ 1 20. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). 21. L, ~ ~~ ` I_r~C.U~«- .~lr~ ! ~? -~ ' ~~', my . 22 ~ --~ - . 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. I' A REQUEST HAS BEEN FILED WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND PINEVALE ROAD (WINDOR HOUSE) TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FOR AN AUTO PARTS BUSINESS (AUTO ZONE). THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-2 WITH CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO INTERIOR DESIGN OR OFFICE. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY INCLUDES DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING HOUSE, REMOVING ALL TREES ON THE FRONT, AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING. THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCT. 5, 7:00 PM. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS A KEY ENTRANCE INTO THE BERWICK HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS CRITICALTO PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ~~ r > -~ 4.~~~~ y~~ 4if ~~ / r~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~Wi ~~~ ~. 5. _ ~ ~ ,1 ` ~t,c,~~~Sj~ ~ 6. ~ .,' ~ ~ s~ ,~ ~ ~'U ~~~ 8. ~ ~i ~- 9. ~"' i. 'r2~ ~ 10. ~, w ~~~G,-5.~ ~i~r~.'~Se~ c~ ~ Ol 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THIS REZONING REQUEST (CONTINUED). 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. S -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE 102693-9 AMENDING PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING OF A 2.066-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE (PART OF TAB MAP NO. 27.06-4-6) LOCATED APPROBIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF CARVIN STREET AND WALROND DRIVE IN THE SOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C- 2, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, CONDITIONAL (MODIFICATION TO PROFFERED CONDITIONS) UPON THE APPLICATION OF RICHARD W. SLOAN WHEREAS, this property was rezoned to C-2, Conditional, General Commercial District, with proffered conditions in 1984; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; and WHEREAS, the .first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993; and the second reading and public hearing were held on October 26, 1993; 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 2.066 acres, as described herein, and located approximately 200 feet north of Carvin Street and Walrond Drive in the Hollins Magisterial District is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, Conditional with proffered conditions, to the zoning classification of C-2, Conditional with amended proffered conditions, to construct a hotel/restaurant. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Richard W. Sloan. 1 3. That the owners voluntarily proffered in writing the following amendments to the conditions approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1984, which the Board of Supervisors hereby amends as follows: (1) There shall be no street entrances from the proper- ty onto Garvin Street e~c~ep~-as ~e~-]9y~~'~= 6i~~-6 ea-~go~e-~~te~-taz .,.a ~ .. .., a ., a .... {-~-j- T-ate-~e-s~~-~Nr^ e- f ~-j-~~d~g ~~~an~s~~dc~e~szg-a~}e3~~tg-g~e~e~t 3~~~e~te~-€e~s i~gl e-€m=-~~?~es-~de~~ra'_ _- - --- - ~r *. as ~e~~ed--by-S~a~e-eel-e eel gt~~~rre~~ a-r-a== gees-~~ee~les e~-a~.~~ease~ab-~~eq~e~e pre~r~--acc~s~-€e= i~!s~~~~e~-~~~ixte~~~ =f e~ ig~e~rt-~~es a-~d-s-~~~~e . { ~} ~-I'~121 c-i: '-rr=~ c--~iirii-i-~r~vitsTl~eziriiicccri-e ei~ts en-ci~ai- ~~b._ 7-~ ~~~yP'1~; ~ ,,.a _ ~ fib. ~L,,., n~,...~ ., C~r~~..,. ...a F, i e~-:rrt~i t~ie~e~e~g n..~: ~.:... ~} ~'~ic ir •,,caic~c~6~--~tC~te-~1~6$Rts~.'r~cs~iiTi~rv~-~c~cc^""cc^a -' {~} T-he-p~e~~i-i~-rte~b e ~ e~€e~b•= ~ =' ' = -- - '" D'' ,~ {t~~-P~~r~-~-r~~d-g~~Le~-a~~ge e3~e e~ts~~g ~3 d~ee- Yta~; gel~i`~iag~e~~ S~ Development of the property shall be in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects dated August 20, 1993, except for minor variations as may be required during the site plan review and approval by Roanoke Countv. ~1 The maximum building height shall not exceed the lessor of two stories or 45 feet. X41 TyUe D-2 screening and buffering shall be as shown on the above proffered concept plan, except at the dumpster location where Type D-1 provisions will be used. Berms shall be utilized within the screening area to enhance and compliment the plantings. Berms shall be sculpted to various heights with an average height of four feet and no height less than two feet. The average shall be based on the total linear distance of the berm using the elevation of the Garvin Street property line as the reference elevation. The berm and the screening and buffer- ing provided along Garvin Street will be installed in conjunction with the development of the hotel shown on the concept plan. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin on the westerly side of Planta- tion Road (Va. Sec. Rt. 115) corner to property of Edgar A. Cuddy, Jr., et ux. (formerly Hollins Investors, Inc.); thence with the line of Plantation Road, S. 19° 00' E. 35.93 feet to an iron pin set; thence still with the line of Plantation Road, S. 71° 00' W. 10.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence still with the same, S. 19° 00' E. 130.84 feet to an iron pin; thence leaving Plantation Road and with the property of Atkisson Enterprises Limited, S. 61° 22' 20" W. 198.73 feet to an iron pin set, corner to Lot 10, Section 1, Walrond Court; thence with the common line of Lots 1 and 2 and of Lot 10, S. 19° 00' E. 100.00 feet to an iron pin set, corner to Lot 9; thence with the line of Lot 9, S. 71° 00' W. 300.00 feet to an iron pin set on the easterly side of Garvin Street; thence with the same, N. 19° 00' W. 300.00 feet to an old pipe, corner to Lot 13; thence with the line of Lots 13 and 7, N. 71° 00' E., passing the southeasterly corner of Lot 13 at 300 feet, in al 505.93 feet to the Place of Beginning and being part of Lots 2 through 6 and all of Lots 10 through 12, Section 1, Walrond Court, as shown by plat prepared by James F. MacTire, CPE, dated July 18, 1945, of record in 3 the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 2, page 178. 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 Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: l Brenda J. lton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 4 i ~ ~~ O C~0 \S~\ ~ DAY INM ^ O ~ ~' Si ~~` AIR RT ~ J~~ ZP.P R H ~~~ ~ 0 1 i +~.• BU ESN!) ~!%~, P°f a. wALORON t~~~r ~ ~.~ oo ~~~ lP CT ~ ~~5 Aprt''t~ N~Ea 9',f~ ~, 90 ~, oR. rp~, (q .Q P CRAFT ~ I.T. Is.T o HAL``~E'N'~ ~7 OPT. ~F d ~- ~ ptP~ G. P 49 ~~ -- ~ ~- - - - E ~ EcOP ar '~0 tr N oR ~- - ~- ~- - - -• --- V 1 C I N I T Y -MAP --_~„p~ .;xo`-~,a:.~~O ~-. _ DEPAR'IMEIVT OF PZ~ANNINGG PETITIONER RICHARD W. SLOAN AND ZON~i TAX MAP NUMBER(S): P(O 27.06 - 4 - 6 REQUEST: REZONE C-2 CONDITIONAL TO C-2 CONDITIONAL PETITIONER RICHARD SLOAN CASE NUMBER: 29-10/93 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 1993 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 26, 1993 A. REQUEST Petition of Richard W. Sloan to amend conditions on 2.066 acres to construct a hotel/restaurant located approximately 200 feet north of Carvin Street and Walrond Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Karen Switzer expressed the following concerns: need to maintain the residential character of Carvin Street; prevent a domino effect of more development in the area; safety and security of personal property. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission requested staff to cite the former proffered conditions that are to be repealed. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) There shall be no street entrances from the property onto Carvin Street. 2) Development of the property shall be in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects dated August 20, 1993, except for minor variations as may be required during the site plan review and approval by Roanoke County. 3) The maximum building height shall not exceed the lessor of two stories or 45 feet. 4) Type D-2 screening and buffering shall be as shown on the above proffered concept plan, except at the dumpster location where Type D-1 provisions will be used. Berms shall be utilized within the screening area to enhance and compliment the plantings. Berms shall be sculpted to various heights with an average height of four feet and no height less than two feet. The average shall be based on the total linear distance of the berm using the elevation of the Carvin Street property line as the reference elevation. The berm and the screening and buffering provided along Carvin Street will be installed in conjunction with the development of the hotel shown on the concept plan. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomason, Robinson, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other ~/, Terrance rringto ,Secretary Roanok County anning Commission STAFF REPORT PART I A. EXECUTNE SUMMARY A.....::P::~ ::.....................................:.......n..................................__.......................... B. DESCRIPTION This is a petition of Richard W. Sloan to amend conditions on 2.066 acres to construct ahotel/restaurant located approximately 200 feet north of Carvin Street and Walrond Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Hotels and general restaurants (minimum 2,000 gross. square foot establishment) are allowed by right only in the C-2 zoning district. The C-2 district also allows a wide variety of retail and commercial uses by right, and allow with a special use permit those uses generally viewed as potentially having a high impact on adjoining uses. There are no specific use and design standards for either hotels or restaurants in the C-2 district. However, the full range of screening and buffering, parking, exterior lighting, signage and other ordinance requirements are applicable to both proposed uses. With the new ordinance, many of the items previously proffered are no longer necessary. A VDOT commercial entrance permit will be required. Site plan review and approval will be required. 2 PART II ~ ... ~~ A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDfiIONS Location: The petitioner's site is situated on the east side of Carvin Street 200 feet north of its intersection with Walrond Drive. The site is in the Peters Creek Community Planning Area and most urban services are available (see utilities). To~ographyNegetation: The subject property is undeveloped, grassed and very sparsely wooded with deciduous trees and slopes very gently downhill toward Plantation Road. Surrounding Neighborhood: The petitioner's property and adjacent parcels to the south are zoned C-2. The parcels to the west across Carvin Street are zoned C-1 and R-1. To the north R-1 zoning is in place. Existing single family residences border the subject site on the north. To the east lies the vacant remainder of the petitioner's site (presently unconditioned and not part of this request but a portion of the overall project) and a vacant office/warehouse complex. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture: The applicant proposes to construct atwo-story hotel .containing 50 rental units and 23,000 total square feet and aone-story, 200- seat restaurant at slightly less than 5,000 square feet. The hotel is proposed to the rear of the restaurant with ample parking proposed in front of each building. No proffers have been proposed which ,would restrict site development to the concept plan submitted including general layout, building height, or size of buildings. Access: A VDOT commercial entrance permit is required. Petitioner has proffered that no street entrances into the subject property will be constructed from Carvin Street unless required by state or local codes. Since this condition, as written, leaves the final determination to an entity outside the control of the County, this condition should be modified to eliminate the "unless required" phrase. The concept plan indicates one entrance from Plantation Road which will require a right turn lane and taper per VDOT (not shown).. The project includes travel aisles per ordinance and a loop pattern at the rear in front of the proposed hotel. Traffic Generation: The proposal could generate upwards of 1,200 to 1,400 trip ends per day including approximately 800 trips for the hotel and roughly 400- 600 trips due to the restaurant. The 1990 ADT on this section of Plantation Road was 13,640 vehicles. In 1987, five accidents were reported on Plantation Road between Walrond Drive and Friendship Lane. Parking/Screening and Buffering: The concept plan indicates a total of 135 parking spaces accessed by 20-foot wide travel aisles throughout. The 35- foot wide buffer yard with earth mounds and plantings is not required per ordinance (see staff conclusions) along the western property line but is needed to buffer the proposed uses from less intensive uses west of Carvin Street. The landscaping shown along the northern border with R-1 zoned property is required as is interior landscaping. 3 ~~ Utilities/Fire & Rescue: Owner will be required to connect to public water and"""' extend public sewer which is not currently available to this property. Per building codes, the proposed hotel may require installation of an automatic fire suppression system, possibly including a booster pump to ensure that necessary minimum pressure is achieved. Site location is within established service standards regarding fire and rescue travel time. C. CONFORMANCE WfTH COUNTY COMPREHENSNE PLAN The petitioner's site is designated Principal Industrial by the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. This designation encourages supporting retail services within industrial areas. The proposal is consistent with policy I-11 which advocates general retail development where supportive of the area needs. Given the 1984 rezoning which established the site as appropriate for future commercial activities, the proposal represents planned commercial growth within a growing multiple use corridor. D. CONFORMANCE WfrH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD The proposal complies with the zoning ordinance and with specific modifications, accompanying design standards. General retail development is already established near the Plantation Road interchange with I-81 and any potential impacts (noise, exterior lighting) should be manageable. Site plan review will be required. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS 4_ The petitioner's request to amend the proffered conditions to construct and operate a hotel and restaurant is generally consistent with the Principal Industrial designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the owner modify the proffer previously submitted as follows: 1) There shall be no street entrances from the property onto Carvin Street. Staff also recommends the following additional proffers intended to protect adjoining property owners and the Carvin Street neighborhood: 2) Screening and buffering, including the 5 foot earth mound, shall be provided as shown on the concept plan by Hughes Associates dated August 20, 1993 (except for location of dumpsters) with plantings in accordance with Type D2 screening and buffering in Section 30-92 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) The maximum building height shall not exceed the lesser of 2 stories or 35 feet. PREPARED BY: TIM BEARD DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1993 F.01 ~~. ~~ ~ VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE HOARD OF SUPERVYSORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY IN RE: Rezoning of 2.~s6 Acres ) PROFFER OF A,t 7887 Carvins Street, NW ) CONDITIONS from C-2 Conditional, to ) C-2 Conditional } The petitioner, Mr. J. pateX, hereby valuntax~ily proffers to the Baard of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virgin~.a the following conditions to the Zoning request herein above set forth: 1.. There shall be no stx'eet entrances from the property onto Garvin Street. 2. Development of the property shall l~e ir: substantial conformity with the concept plan p epaxed by Hughes Associates Architects dated August~20, 1~~3, except far minor variations as may be req gyred during the site plan review and approval by Roanok County: 3. The maximum building height shall, of exceed the lessor of two stories or 45'-0". ~ . Type D-2 screening and buffering sh 1]. be as shown on the above proffered concept plan, ex ept at the dumpster location where Type p~l provisions wi],1 be used. Beams shall be utilized within t: e»hance and compliment the plants sculpted to various heights with a feet and no height less than z fee be based o» the total linear dicta the elevation of the Carvi» Street reference elevation. ~ screening area to gs. ~ Berms sha11 be average height of A The average shall ce of the berm using property line as the The berm and the screening ar-d buf~ferinq provided along Garvin Street will. be installed in conjunction with the development of the hotel shown onlthe concept plan. These proffers are submitted on the condition that the property l.s rexaned as ~.»dicated; subject to the appr~val of the Baard o Supervisors I --'~ PETITYONER: Post-1t'" brand fsx transmittal memo 7671 # of pages - j 7b ~ ~ n ~~~ Fro /7 l.- Dept. ~ PFfone # ~ -- ~~ ~' Fex # Fax # Kx. J. Patel Property Own Ar COUNTY OF ROAlV•OKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. SW P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 For staff use only date red"eivod: 2t ZO received by: lli application DOn' ~ 7 PC/BZA ~ je U placards issued:.% BOS datg~ L~ Q3 Case Number: ~ ~ _ JO/~~ Check type of application filed (check all that apply}: D REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE ++ --~ Applicant's name: Richard bl. SLoan Phone: 703-992-614 Address: P.O. Box 12327, Roanoke, Virginia Zip Code: 24024-232 Owner's name: _ ~ Phone: Address: Same Zip Code: Location of property: Tax Map Number: ='~ 27.06 -• ~ ~ ,/~~ 7887 Carvi ns Street, PJ. W. Magisterial District: .~0-Cj 1 i~5 Intersection of Plantation Road and l~!aldron Drive, N.ll. Community Planning Area: .4%~Y-~-~~ , ';t~,~~~ Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: C-2 Conditional 2.066 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant sq.ft. Proposed Zoning: C-2 Conditional Proposed Land Use: Hotel/Restuarant For Staff Use On/y Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES X NO (Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: I~ l Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT 8E ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ars v ws v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan Application fee ,:~:< Application -< Metes and bounds description "'~: Proffers, if applicable Justification `fin;; Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent o~the owner. Owner's Signature: ~ /) ~~ (~p~,~ lam,(, _~ ~~, ~~j - Fb~ SraH Use Only: Case Number ~: ~ is i E. ~~...: ~ •..:•`. 'x....: • .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: •:.;.:.:.:.::...:.:.:. pplicant Richard 1~~. SLoan The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The rezoning is necessitated to reriove spe.ci.fi,c res.tricti.ons. and proffers not required by the current zoning regulations and .modifications based on the. proposed developr7ent., Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is currently zoned C-2 Conditional whi~ch~allows hotels and restuarants. The industrial commercial growth of the area will 6e enhanced by the location of this project located near the Hollins 81 exit and First Union Operations Center, ITT and Double Envelope,. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surreundine area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. The project will have little impact on the property or adjoining property or the surrounding area which is a mix of industrial commercial and rural residential. Public services and facilities including water and sewer will have minimal impact or increased usage. There will be no increase impact on schools or parks. Traffic congestion will be ~i nimal due to this Bevel oprient. ROAH02CE COIINTY UTILITY DEPARTMBNT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date 17 August 1993 r Name of Applicant Richard tJ. Sloan !.. ~~ Phone 703-992-6148 Address of Applicant_ P.O. Box 12327, Roanoke, Virginia 24024-2327 Name of Developer Sane as Above Address of Developer Phone Name of Design Engineer Hughes Associates Phone 703-342-4002 rc i ec s Address of Design Engineer p.0. Box 1034, Roanoke, Virginia 24005 t1r. D. Jeffry Parkhill -Hughes Associates~Architects Nave of Contact Person ~1r. Richard bl. Sloan - Oainer Name of Proposed Development Country Kitchen Inn and Restaurant Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) Hotel 50 unit 2 story with attached office and indoor pool. Far~ily style restuarant seating capicity 200 plus or minus. Location of proposed development (FURNISH COPY OF MAP AND PLANIMETRIC MJI~iBER): 7887 Carvins Street, P~.b!. Tax ~1ap 27.06 Size of proposed development in acres: 2.066 Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum 1127 Sewer feet MSL. Maximum 1130 waterfeet MSL Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger future development? _X- No Yes If yes, provide map of entire area if available. (WER) --. .. Signatur Applicant Agent for the Petitioner * ,- > ~ 0.8: ~ / ~'- ~ ~-~' - '~ ;<': ~. .. is 1. ~ • j .\ ~/::o. ,5 _ ~~ _ 7 ; ~ ., i ~.~ / -- - ~ -- .t. , 1 .'~ ~i~ I •,r'i - ~,:• i .. ~: ` ~' :'wr ~~' ~`~ ~ a ~~~;:tp 'mot y ; ~ ~ f ^'" E ~ . ~* ~ .;, ~ rf r,ti l ~'' ;"~ay.L ,s k Y_ F\ ~- J ~~' ... _1• _ _ 1 ~' ~ --r '~~ ~ •t ~~ ~. '.fit` ~ ~ i'f `i! '~ ~ c: Y ~ >c:.~ :~J - r. •. ~\. O yrO... ~ F 1d s <. ~ • . - . ~~~~ !~ . - ~. ~ .~ ~, / ~ t ~ __ _ r- o~ >. ~ '' . o. ~~~ ~ _ ,. ~• Z ,%~ ~ Q _= ~ j ~ :~. \ ~~ .. ; . ,C ~ . ;- ~~. o . _, _ i /'''~ -r ~ }~ , •~- y,•3NV"lydiHSQN.312i.~ .p3SOl Q; - - . ~ r ' ~ ~ ~ ..lll 335 ~ / ~~ - ~~ • ~.~ - {1 ~ - . ~_ .. - ' /~~ O ~ K/ \ ~ Old \ \ ,\ ' .` . . ~ /~ • , , ~~~ d `~ ~. ~ ~ ~Sp~ O Ors ~+~ ~ , ~` ` ; ~ `~` .' ~ .• . 1~ .\ W H ~ ~ ~ ViT{1sM!/~ 'ZYOrlY0a1 l~ aaaa ,..'7. maa~ ~ Ai ~ ,.w ii ~~ v i"si X ~~ ~~ i ~~ s-~ ~ k€ T C3 ~s~ c ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ • ~ ~, (~ • ''• O - ~-- ~ C~o,~~S~Da 1 - - ~ J~~¢P~l~' R H .o .S .• ~~ _ HTS N ~ nv. HOLD Dar INNQ ~~ alrt Rr , ~~.~ ~ r ~ ~~ wALDRON cT ~ 11 VICINITY--MAP--' r, / ~R. ~~'. 1.T.&-7• ~ p~R „ ~71~ n1L~+_. D s-y IJ NORTH 1, _ _....._.. _.. DEPARZMENT OF PLANNII~TG PETITIONER f RICHARD W. SLOAN I AND ZONING TAX MAP NUMBER(S): P!O 27.06 - 4 - 6 r? ~ REQUEST: REZONE C-2 CONDITIONAL TO C-2 CONDITIONAL .,. «. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE AMENDING PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING OF A 2.066-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 27.06-4-6) LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF CARVIN STREET AND WALROND DRIVE IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, CONDI- TIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, CONDITIONAL (MODIFICATION TO PROFFERED CONDITIONS) UPON THE APPLICA- TION OF RICIiARD W. SLOAN WHEREAS, this property was rezoned to C-2, Conditional, General Commercial District, with proffered conditions in 1984; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993; and the second reading and public hearing were held on October 26, 1993; 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 2.066 acres, as described herein, and located approximately 200 feet north of Carvin Street and Walrond Drive in the Hollins Magisterial District is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, Conditional with proffered conditions, to the zoning classification of C-2, Conditional with amended proffered conditions, to construct a hotel/restaurant. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Richard W. Sloan. 1 s~y 3. That the owners voluntarily proffered in writing the following amendments to the conditions approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1984, which the Board of Supervisors hereby amends as follows: (1) There shall be no street entrances from the proper- ty onto Carvin Street e~eep~as-~eq~ed--bu ~t~t= e~eea-age;~ee~-~~e~d~~ . .,a ,.a.... . ~-~ ~~a~es e~dee~s~-aei~g adj-e~~tg-i3~~~~ 313--8~93~e~~ei~9i~i~~e-~~m? 1 v l~esl~ei~~~l t~sc~ P3r_=p#- as~~q~~ed-~a~e ~a~e~3~~e eat-g e~ee~~a-~~~el i p~e~de-a~eees s-€e_ ~ s~ai-~a~i-oi~e~ ~} ^~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ F eq~~^-~n~~~i-mot-tomes a~~s-~3-~a~~~~ . ~f-~ r i ~~ ~^}• ~ ~ j^^ --r~n2r~1 ~^ ^rr7 s.rith the Tlrc~ { 6 } ~e-~ e~-e€ ~e~el-tee ems : ~ ~ ~ , ~ -~ e~e~ctie~ _7 {~'~ ~'e-g~"r =~~~~r~s~-H a ~~~.e~€e~~re ° =-- = _- - "" gem es~re~r--a-~e-e~e~w-i~-a3~-ewed i rr-tie-8-~.'~ ,- atks~ee•s~rst~e; she-~€e~9-e€~b4-t ; .~_ Development of the property shall be in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects dated August 20, 1993, except for minor variations as may be required during the site plan review and approval by Roanoke County. L1 The maximum building height shall not exceed the lessor of two stories or 45 feet. ~_ Type D-2 screening and buffering shall be as shown on the above proffered concept plan, except at the dumpster location where Type D-1 provisions will be used. Berms shall be utilized within the screening area to enhance and compliment the plantings. Berms shall be sculpted to various heights with an averaae height of four feet and no height less than two feet. The average shall be based on the total linear distance of the berm using the elevation of the. Garvin Street property line as the reference elevation. The berm and the screening and buffer- ing provided along Garvin Street will be installed in conjunction with the development of the hotel shown on the concept plan. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin on the westerly side of Planta- tion Road (Va. Sec. Rt. 115) corner to property of Edgar A. Cuddy, Jr. , et ux. (formerly Hollins Investors, Inc.) ; thence with the line of Plantation Road, S. 19° 00' E. 35.93 feet to an iron pin set; thence still with the line of Plantation Road, S. 71° 00' W. 10.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence still with the same, S. 19° 00' E. 130.84 feet to an iron pin; thence leaving Plantation Road and with the property of Atkisson Enterprises Limited, S. 61° 22' 20" W. 198.73 feet to an iron pin set, corner to Lot 10, Section 1, Walrond Court; thence with the common line of Lots 1 and 2 and of Lot 10, S. 19° 00' E. 100.00 feet to an iron pin set, corner to Lot 9; thence with the line of Lot 9, S. 71° 00' W. 300.00 feet to an iron pin set on the easterly side of Garvin Street; thence with the same, N. 19° 00' W. 300.00 feet to an old pipe, corner to Lot 13; thence with the line of Lots 13 and 7, N. 71° 00' E., passing the southeasterly corner of Lot 13 at 300 feet, in al 505.93 feet to the Place of Beginning and being part of Lots 2 through 6 and all of Lots 10 through 12, Section 1, Walrond Court, as shown by plat prepared by James F. MacTire, CPE, dated July 18, 1945, of record in 3 ~~ the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 2, page 178. 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:\wp5]\agenda\zoning\sloan 4 r ~_" ~.` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF TH8 BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TIIESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE 102693-10 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.22 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 5374 MAIN STREET ~TA% MAP NO. 64.01-3-26) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 IIPON THE APPLICATION OF THE ROANORE COIINTY PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993, and the second reading and public hearing was held October 26, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; 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 1.22 acre, as described herein, and located at 5374 Main Street, (Tax Map Number 64.01-3-26) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District in order to expand or replace an existing house located at 5374 W. Main Street. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. 3. 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, r and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H lton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney • I•' v• h, 'K ~~1~ LNG ~ 1136 iNERS• / __ I / ~3' t ~ ea ~~ oa ~~ s 'r ~, r o ~ 7t0 vl RO. . G ~ I GLEN FORE T ~C X 1300 C AO ~~ g,1u 7 ?~ i yP •y ~ iG p - 47 - ~ ~~~ ~ ~ tiT 2 - Q 7 6 /, ~ ar+o ~, LINOSE ' ' '~ ~ 7 tE'N y w p TRACT p ~ D 9? Q~U'aAR I ~~ ~ O ~ x 1552 ` L~- aXIE ~"~ ~• . Y 1 C I N LT Y . ..MAP--~ ~ m / _. . ---- . -- s-~ 0 NORTH ~ ~- Ccrt.r ~~,~~ 9 ~^ S 4.24 Ac / ` 10 1632 Ac LI• t 1 2.03 •s ,o ~ '' ° o,, 14 Lo Ac . ~ IS ~ v oy ~ I ~ • ~ a 399 ac I = 12 ~ n ~~)8 ~~ i '~~ 4 2 to~a~ a izsA<~c) '~+ 1.0 Ac ~ ~ °, z 4.42 Ar: 3.6 Ac / ~esJ ~ ~ , ~ \ 2.7 Ac I 27 20 63At Ming an 4 1 ~ °~ v rs e ~ v p~~~ ~y / . 1.23Ac 27. i ~ o ~F / ° e ., n ~ ~ ,~ + `~f• $ 19.1 1.21 AG / 1.13 Ac 20J 3 / 28 .sue 1.23AC ~ 19 ~"~ - / I.seeco 24 ''. y,?, T2AC(U 1.91 ae aad a ~ / , . I.43AC ° 11 f 29 2I 4 9z x •~~~~' s ~ •~~ ` ; I . I.oactc! 3 Ac(O i ~ g` 8 4.e `fit ~ ,M1f~f / o . , ~,~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ s13' to Ac. = 'S, ,~ C , f' , 7 ' s.~u ,~• l0 zos At •~ o ~~~ 06'i F - / / o 13 9~ Q 3.45 Ac ~~ 233 Ae ~ O ~ \ 3r 37 ~.SOJ 31 /S _ ~ ~ 3 '~ _ . / / / - f , 1 t0. 32 ~ ~ ~ / / 27 \ ~ Q,~ aao, II µ{ 33.1 ~ < ~ / 2.3 Ac ,..~ .23 3 4.06cID1 29 27M AClQ AStT 'I.Q Ac r Bi Mi/I B / L69As ~ i , ~ ~ 6~p ti' w+ - X21 .• 2 q rs K G,.ee v ~ n ~ e f, , / / g 0 ~ • 24 }7°'' T~6 ~ p` 2 37 • ~ . ~ ~ R,. , ~ / g~ 1.024(p \ x'123 Ai10 CQ '' / ~ ,~ JiQt oo //jj////~~ - .. / M 7V 000 ~ " . / ' / / \ / ~ _ DEPAR2T~¢Nr OF PLANNING PETITIONER: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONING TAX MAP NUMBER(S): 64.01 - 3 - 26 ~' REQUEST: REZONE C-2 TO R-1 ~,~ S- PETITIONER: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NUMBER: 30-10/93 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 1993 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 26, 1993 A. REQUEST Petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to rezone 1.22 acres from C-2 to R-1 to expand or replace an existing house, located at 5374 W. Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission asked about access to the property. Andrew Hodge explained that they have a driveway from their property to US 460 which they do not use; instead they use the church driveway to access their property. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker said that the site adjoins Neighborhood Conservation and moved to recommend approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomason, Robinson, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECI'1VE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance Ha gton; Se etary Roanoke ounty Pla ng Commission STAFF REPORT ~" PART I B. DESCRIPTION This is the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to rezone a 1.22 acre parcel from C-2 General Commercial to R-1 Single Family Residential to reflect the existing use of the site. The parcel is located at 5374 West Main Street in the Catawba Magisterial District. The zoning for the site, prior to the comprehensive rezoning in December 1992, was B-1. Historical zoning maps show the B-1 zoning existing at least as far back as 1969. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1930, according to county tax records. The current owners have lived in the house since 1986 and would like to expand or replace the dwelling. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The C-2 zoning district permits a variety of general commercial uses but does not permit single family dwellings by right. The only residential uses permitted by right in the C-2 district are home occupations and home barber/beauty salons; these are included for people living in non- conforming single-family dwellings. Within the County's zoning districts, there are lots, parcels, structures, uses of land and structures, and characteristics of site design which were lawful before the ordinance was adopted, but which are prohibited under the terms of the existing ordinance. These structures, uses, and characteristics are considered nonconformities and are considered inconsistent with the character of the districts in which they occur. Nonconformities are permitted to remain until removed, discontinued, or changed to conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance. tt is the intent of the ordinance that the continuance of nonconformities should not be indefinite, and that the nonconforming uses, structures, or characteristics should gradually be removed. An existing single family dwelling in a C-2 zoning district is considered a nonconforming use. As such, it cannot be expanded or moved, nor can it be reconstructed if it is damaged to the extent that reconstruction costs exceed 50% of the replacement cost of the structure. The R-1 zoning district permits single family dwellings and manufactured homes by right. A. EXECUTNE SUMMARY 2 S -,~'~ PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDft1ONS Topogra~hy and Vegetation -The site rises very steeply from the West Main Street frontage and is covered with residential landscaping and some scrub growth by the street. Existing Physical Development -Existing single family woodframe house. Surrounding Neighborhood -The area along Pleasant Run Drive (behind the site) is predominantly single-family residential, along with one church and some vacant lots. A debris fill site exists on West Main Street, approximately 350 feet east of the house site, and Dixie Caverns Auto Parts is located approximately 1600 feet east of the site. Directly across West Main Street from the site is a motel, restaurant, and ceramics shop. The remainder of the surrounding area along West Main Street, between Dixie Caverns on the west and the Barley Drive area on the east, is single-family and multi-family residential and undeveloped land. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Renovating, expanding, or replacing the existing single-family dwelling should have little or no impact on traffic generation, utilities (sewer is not available), provision of fire and rescue services, or other public facilities. ff approved, though, the request may impact the development of adjoining C-2 zoned properties. The adjacent lots will be required to provide a 25'-35' wide buffer yard and extensive plantings on the side adjoining the R-1 as well as comply with lighting requirements for lots adjoining R-1. Some use types also require additional setbacks for structures or uses when adjoining R-1 zoned properties. C. CONFORMANCE WfTH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located within a Core land use designation. The core areas are centralized locations suited for a mix of high intensity urban uses. Multi-family residential (12-24 units/acre) and single family attached residential such as townhouses and patio homes (6+ units/acre) are encouraged as are individual general retail shops, personal services, office, and institutional uses. Single family detached dwellings are discouraged in the core areas. The extent of the core designation on the south side of West Main St. is the area between Pleasant Run Drive and West Main Street, with the exception of Scenery Court subdivision (neighborhood conservation). On that side of West Main Street, this is the only area of high intensity designation until the Principle Industrial designation close to the intersection of Rt 612 Barley Drive. On the other side of West Main St., the core designation extends from the ceramics shop down to Dixie Cavems, including the interstate interchange area. This area has begun to develop in core-type uses. The remainder of West Main St. frontage in the area is designated development, neighborhood conservation, rural preserve, and rural village. See attached map of future land use. 3 D. CONFORMANCE WfTH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The petitioner's site meets or exceeds the minimum lot sizes and frontage requirements of the R-1 zoning district and would be a conforming lot. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The petitioner's request is compatible with the development standards of the requested district and the current uses of the surrounding properties. The request is not compatible with the Core designation of the Comprehensive Plan since this designation discourages single-family dwellings in ahigh-intensity commercial area. There should be no impacts on neighboring areas in terms of the land use, traffic, or public services and facilities. However, the R-1 zoning of the site could impact the development of the adjoining commercial lots by increasing screening/buffering, lighting, and setback requirements. PREPARED BY: LYNN DONIHE DATE: October 5, 199~i 1985 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION ALL OTHER DESIGNATIONS NOTED ON MAP ~ ~. For staff use only ` ~ a'"~® COUNTY OF ROANOK~ DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. SW P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 . (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 date received: received by: application 1e~ A PC/BZA date: placards issued: BOS date: Case Number: Che k type of application filed (check all that apply): Ll~ REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: Roar-IoKE Cpt~NTy ~~o,,I~lir.Pc, ~MMtSS~or~I Phone: '772-2alno Address: t~0 ~~--~ .2`~~eO, +Z,O6.I~lOK.E, U~. Zip Code:2..~..~ (~ -H-QT]4~ Phone: ~~~' 393to Owner's name: AIJ~~EW F ~ MA21A 1.1, Address: rj37~- WEST MAIIJ S7' ~ S6L~'M f V'~. Zip Code: 2~-f-IS3 Location of property: Tax Map Number: (o ~-r p ~ - 3 - 2 (o Magisterial District: C ~,TAV~f gA Community Planning Area: GLE ~.1~fA ~ Size of parcel (s): L2 acres sq.ft. Existing Zoning: C 2 Existing Land Use: $t-J4~.E- FaMI~y REScaF~1C.t/ Proposed Zoning: ~ ~ Proposed Land Use: S--JG~~.E 1=AM~t~~1 ~~-S((~~^j~ ............................. For staff use or,/y Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES ~_ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. , Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES x NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO _~_ Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: IJ~A Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v nrs v Consultation ~~ 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan a ~ .Application fee Application Metes and bounds description ~ s:~t Proffers, if applicable Justification -~~ :.. .. Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchases and am acting with the know/edge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: ~ "'~ L~ NORTH _ ~"' DEP.l1RTT~NT OF PLANNII~TG PETITIONER: 2 ~ AND ZONING TAX MAP NUMBERlS1: ~a •. REQUEST: ~rn - ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 64.01 -3-26 REZONE C-2 TO R-1 ~-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.22 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 5374 MAIN STREET (TAX MAP NO. 64.01-3-26) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1993, and the second reading and public hearing was held October 26, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 7, 1993; 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 1.22 acre, as described herein, and located at 5374 Main Street, (Tax Map Number 64.01-3-26) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District in order to expand or replace an existing house located at 5374 W. Main Street. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, ~+ "` and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. c:\wp51\agenda\zoning\planning.mm • .y~~.l- ~.,11 ~~ ~~.~ . COU NTY ADMI NISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 October 29, 1993 BOARDOF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL'FUZZY MIN NIX. CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY, VICE-CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE. SR. CATAWBA MAGISTERAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS V INTON MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT V (703) 772-2005 Cox Cable Roanoke P. O. Box 13726 Roanoke, VA 24036 and Salem Cable TV Company P. O. Box 827 Salem, VA 24153 Gentlemen: Attached is a copy of Ordinance No. 102693-4 governing the procedures and standards for the regulation of cable television rates pursuant to the rules of the Federal Communications Commission and the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, October 26, 1993. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board bjh Attachment cc: Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn Ross, Clerk, Town of Vinton Forest Jones, Clerk, City of Salem Attorney Howard Musser, Chairman, Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee of Supervisors ® Recycled paper T~7~ t~I, ~"w ~t ~. ~ 1 ~} . COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 October 26, 1993 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL'FUZZY MINNDt, CHAIRMAN GAVE SPRING MAG~T><FMAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY, VICE-CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIALDISTRKT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTF7tlAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOMINKE, SR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NIGKENS VINTON MAGIST'EF11AL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Mr. Ronald L. Massey 5022 Hunt Ridge Road Roanoke, VA 24012 Dear Mr. Massey: The members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service on the Roanoke County Planning Commission. Allow me to personally thank you for the time you served on this Commission. Citizens responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. Roanoke County is fortunate indeed to have benefitted from your unselfish contribution to our community. As a small token of appreciation, we enclose a Certificate of Appreciation for your service to Roanoke County. Sincerely, j H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors HOM/bj h Enclosure cc: Terrance L. Harrington, Directo Planning & Zoning ®R~~ per, . , ~,~fr~ ~;%~ ;>< (~~ixx~#g .~~ ~.~~x~~~.e P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COU NTY ADM I NISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 October 26, 1993 Mr. William Todd Ross 5411 Golden Court Roanoke, VA 24012 Dear Mr. Ross: (703) 772-2005 I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Planning Commission to complete the unexpired four-year term of Ronald L. Massey. This term will expire on ending December 31, 1995. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Commission. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have the oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has requested that you bring this letter with you. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, ~ ' H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors HOM/bjh Enclosures cc: Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court BOARDOFSUPERVISORS H. ODELL'FUZZY MIN NIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY, VICE-CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT' HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ® Recycled Paper ~A A a r, z C~~a~xxY# ~~ ~~xxY~~.~e a ~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COU NTY ADMI NISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 October 28, 1993 Reverend Rick Elmore Cave Spring Baptist Church 5133 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Rev. Elmore: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL'FUZZY MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY, VICE-CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTiiR1AL DISTiOCT EDWARD G. KOHINKE. SR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, 1 would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, October 26, 1993. 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. Since , /(~~-` ~~y ~~ '~H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman ~,;~w~' ~ v,'~`' Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ~5~ a ~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~,~~ ~] ~ Y ~ Recycled Pacer /~ ~~ V P d.CC•~. ,+ :~~ !A~. :~ ~:~~ COU NTY ADMI NISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 C1.~.~r~xxY# ~~ .~~~~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 October 28, 1993 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL'FUZZY MINNIX. CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGLSTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY, VICE-CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILL MAGISTERAL DISTRICT BOB L JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE. SR. CATAWBA MAGISTERAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL p1.4TPoCT (703) 772-2005 The Honorable David City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear David: A. Bowers, Mayor S. W. I recently received a letter from John Stroud and Joe Vipperman with a resolution asking that a member of the business community from the County and from the City be added to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. I assume that you received a similar request. I have polled the members of the Board and find that they would have no problem with this suggestion. However, the Board requested that I contact you to determine where you and the City Council stand on this matter. Please let me know whether you and Roanoke City Council plan to support this suggestion or if you have any concerns about adding a member of the business community to the Airport Commission. Sinc~ y, ~'~~y H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Roanoke County Board of Cave Spring Magisterial HOM/bjh cc: Board Reading File Elmer Hodge Chairman Supervisors District ® Recycled Paper - ~~ Number: 297921 Posted: 08/30/93 10:52 Type: Regular Message Received: 08/31/93 13:57 Subject: Resolution for 50th anniversary of WWII From: AMG - Anne Marie Green To: MHA - Mary Allen Two WWII veterans visited me concerning a celebration of the 50th anniversary of WWII. They were representing the Veteran's Council of the Roanoke Valley. They are looking for different ways to commemorate the event and we discussed a resolution from the Board. I think it would be good to do it at the Oct. 26 board meeting, since that is the last one before Veteran's Day. PLease let me know if this is ok. Thanks. ECH: RE: Presentation on Northside Field House at Oct. 26 meeting. Diane Hyatt just called me and said that the School Board and Dr. Wilson think that the Northside Field House presentation will be followed by a joint work session of about 45 minutes. She said she thinks that Bob Johnson thinks that also. My understanding was that there would just be a presentation. That is the meeting where we will only have about an hour afternoon meeting before we recess to attend the Forensic groundbreaking. We won't have time for a work session unless we schedule it in the evening after all the public hearings (5 with one controversial). Mary Allen 10/14/93 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COIINTY BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to rezone 1.22 acres from C-2 to R-1 to expand or replace an existing house, located at 5374 W. Main Street, Catawba 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 7, 1993 _ ti~ Mary H. Al en, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, October 12, 1993 Tuesday, October 19, 1993 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Planning Department PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PIIBLICATION TO: ROANORE COIINTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Floyd T. Critcher to rezone 0.6504 acre from C-2 conditional to C-2 to construct an automobile parts retail store located at 3505 Brambleton Avenue, 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 7, 1993 Mary H. Al en, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, October 12, 1993 Tuesday, October 19, 1993 To be paid on delivery by: Floyd Critcher 6955 Mt. Chestnut Road Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 981-1319 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PIIBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COITNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Hobart Family Trust to rezone .886 acre from C-1 to R-3 to construct multi-family dwelling units located on Starkey Road approximately 150 feet south of intersection with Woods Crossing 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 7, 1993 ~~G~-~t-c~Y Mary H. A len, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, October 12, 1993 Tuesday, October 19, 1993 Direct the bill for Hobart Family Trust c/o Edward Natt Osterhoudt Ferguson P.O. Box 20068 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 774-1197 publication to: Natt Aheron & Agee 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, October 26, 1993, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Douglas & Dorothy Forbes for a Special Use Permit to construct an accessory apartment located at 1845 Mountain View Road, Vinton 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 7, 1993 `~')~c.~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, October 12, 1993 Tuesday, October 19, 1993 To be paid on delivery by: Douglas & Dorothy Forbes 1845 Mountain View Road Vinton, VA 24179 (703) 344-7811 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, October 26, 1993, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Richard W. Sloan to amend conditions on 2.066 acres to construct a hotel/restaurant located approximately 200 feet north of Carvin Street and Walrond Drive, 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 7, 1993 ~CZ~t-~~ ~ Q-~-Q.11 i~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, October 12, 1993 Tuesday, October 19, 1993 Direct the bill for publication to: Richard W. Sloan c/o Burger King PO Box 12327 Roanoke, VA 24024-2327 (703) 992-6148 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TOS ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 ~ R AN ,~, ti z~ J a 1 38 COU NTY ADM I NISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 C~~~xx~# ~#' ~~xxr~.C~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 September 8, 1993 Rev. Rick Elmore Cave Spring Baptist Church 5133 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Reverend Elmore: y'f 9-(ol'>fo BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL'FUZZY' MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY, VICE-CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT !.t (703) 772-2005 3~ ,: ~ ,~ ~~0\ The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors begins each board meeting with an invocation given by a minister from the community. We would like to invite you to present the invocation on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, at ~,,:00 p.m. If you are unable to do this, and your church has an associate minister, we would be pleased to extend the invitation to him or her. The board meetings are held the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, in the Community Room. The invocation is always given at 3 p.m. and I am attaching a list of the 1993 meeting dates for your information. If the date requested above is not convenient, please call me at 772-2005. I will be calling you soon to see if this time is acceptable to you or if you would prefer another date. The Board members are aware of how busy your schedule is, and they appreciate your volunteering your time to offer God's blessing at their meetings. Sincerely, ~Z~-~`~i Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ® Recyded Paper /OCTOBER 26 ~/ Presentation on Northside Fieldhouse PH - R1 to C2 Used Auto Dealership - Peters Creek Rd C-1 to R-3 multi-family dwellings - Starkey Rd. C-2 Cond. to C-2 Auto Parts Store, Brambleton Amend-Conditions to construct hotel/ rest. Walrond Drive C-2 to R-1 to replace house, Main Street `~ Reso-50Th Anniversary WWII `~ Attend Forensic Lab Groundbreaking (~ '. William H. Sloan 3768 Tomley Drive , SW Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 989-7363 October 16, 1993 'sir. Lee Eddy 2211 Pommel Drive Roanoke, VA 24108 Dear Mr. Eddy, Thank you for the time today to discuss my concerns with the 3505 Brambleton Avenue rezoning request made by Mr. Critzer. Enclosed you will find copy of letter I sent to Mr. Thomason which describes my concerns. Also attached you will find copy of response from Mr. Paul Mahoney. As we discussed, one of my fundamental concerns is the apparent decision to ignore the proffered conditions on this property. By order of the board on 4/24/79, proffered condition (2) "In the event that the intended use as set out in condition number (1) ceases to be operated , and upon application for the occupancy of any other use, the zoning classification of the property shall convert to Office and Residential District B-1" . By my count the home interior decoration business is closed and another application for occupancy has been received, so why is the property not currently considered C-1 ~ Why has Mr. Critzer been advised that his property is considered to be zoned C-2-conditional throughout the petition for rezoning process? This decision that has been made, that is to change the zoning order without public notice and public hearing, has caused allot of time and effort in my neighborhood to be focused on this rezoning. .At our meetings, I believe that there is a fundamental understanding that a C-1 zoning of the property fits the comprehensive plans long term vision and conserves our neighborhood character. After reviewing as much record as I can, I do believe the intent of the 1979 order was to rezone to B-1 with a special use of retail sale of home interior decorations in the existing house. I believe the recording to be in error, as is evidenced by the fact that the meets and bounds of the rezoning called for in the order are not the same as those called for in the proffer, and neither of these match the recent subdivision of this lot for the purpose of contract sale to Auto Zone or the petitoner's request. As we discussed, I want to work with you to resolve these questions prior to the meeting on October 26. I would like to be informed of any proffering the petitioner has made in this request, prior to the meeting, as well as when is the deadline (if one) for submitting conditions. ~Q I have reviewed Mr. Mahoney's letter and have the following the perspectives for your considerations. I am requesting a response, and will copy this letter to him . I have reviewed the seven statutory limitations in Section 15.1-491.2 upon proffered conditions and find no evidence that these limitations have been violated. Please advise me as to which one was. There has been no surrender of government functions or powers, the board met and ordered these conditions to be followed in 1979. There was public notice and meeting as required in section 15.1-431, and is evidenced by the record of 4/24/79 board meeting. To sever the B-1 portion is indeed "throwing the baby out with the bath water" as according to record of public discussion that was the ultimate goal of the rezoning with a special use and temporary condition of retail sale of home interior decorations. I believe that for whatever reasons, it is fine for Mr. 1-lahoney to advise his clients to not accept proffered reverter conditions, however I do believe that it is the basic fundamental responsibility of local government to stand by it's public contract and defend the actions it has ordered through due process. It is the burden of the developer to challenge proffered conditions, not the burden of the affected public to bring suit in circuit court against an order that it was told would satisfy their concerns. As to the relevancy of this decision on the reversionary condition, I could not disagree more. It is extremely relevant. Mr. Critzer has proceeded upon this basis (that is his property is limited to retail sale of home interior decorations rendering it's market limited) , our neighborhood association has proceeded upon this basis. Public testimony has been given to this affect. I look forward to working with you, William H. Sloan cc: Mr. Paul Mahoney Board of Supervisors, Please copy all William H. Sloan 3768 Tomley Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 989-7363 October 1, 1993 tier. Al G. Thomason 6388 Christie Lane Roanoke, Va 24018 Dear Mr. Witt, I am a property owner in the Berwick Heights subdivision in SW Roanoke County and am concerned with the recent subdivision and rezoning request on the lot formerly known as the Windsor House. The property was rezoned in 1979 from R-1 to B-2 conditional that it would be limited to interior design sales in the existing house. This 1979 rezoning included a proffer that if the interior design business failed to open or ceased to operate that the property would revert to a B-1 zoning. Apparently the current opinion of the zoning district for the property is C-2 conditional upon the interior design business because on October 5 you will be conducting a hearing on the rezoning from C-2 conditional to straight C-2. I am disturbed that the zoning district for the property is not C-1 as was proffered in 1979. I am also disturbed that a subdivision has occurred on this property based upon this contested zoning . It is important to recall the fact that in 1979 a straight B-2 zoning was attempted and was denied. Only upon the proffering of the conditions which should now be in force was the R-1 to B-2 rezoning approved . I believe that the 1979 proffering meets the conditions of limits as stated in Va Code 15.1-491.2. I believe that the County has no legal choice other than to defend the 1979 zoning decision in it's whole. "One of the values of the proffer system is that accepted proffers become a part of the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance. Thus, the jurisdiction will enforce the restriction if it is violated . this, of course will save a private citizen or organization considerable time and money in enforcement actions." Zoning and land Use law in Virginia 1990, W.Todd Benson, T. C. Williams School of Law. Our neighborhood is one that has been classified by the county's comprehensive plan as having a future land use of both Neighborhood Conservation and Transition zones. The preliminary site plan for this property, if rezoning is successful, shows an Auto Zone Store being developed . This use is particularly incompatible with both the Neighborhood Conservation and Transition zones. This incompatibility centers around the fact that the intersection of Pinevale and Brambleton Avenue is a key entrance to the neighborhood . It is only this property which separates the general commercial district along Brambleton from our R-1, well established, maturely landscaped homesites. I recognize the economic benefit of a corner lot on Brambleton Avenue both to Mr. Critcher and to the county through sales tax revenue. I believe however that the C-1 zoning which should now be in place is in the best public interest. A C-2 zoning of this property would aggravate public health and welfare issues which are currently in need of attention. There is currently a bad traffic cut-through situation on Pinevale which invades our neighborhood with non-local traffic endangering the safety of our children. There is currently a overloaded drainage system which causes regular flooding of residential lots. Pinevale road at both ends is congested due to the non- local traffic, causing safety concerns at both Garst Mill and Brambleton Avenue intersections. The commercial traffic along Brambleton, which include large truck deliveries at all times of the night, encroaches upon the peaceful enjoyment in the neighborhood . This area already has it's share of low wage service retail jobs, and a lack of balancing professional service jobs. The harmonious and attractive nature of our neighborhood is currently being adversly affected by these factors, and if this property is rezoned to a C-2 district, will only worsen these conditions. I believe that it its neither an unreasonable nor arbitrary decision for the property to be utilized as a C-I district. The owner would still enjoy large economic benefit and the county would benefit by the attraction of the professional services jobs. More important, one must consider the site specifically. This site is beside and across from four professional office buildings, which are currently functioning as a brief barrier to the commercial sprawl on Brambleton avenue while entering our neighborhood conservation area. What a nice way to compliment this positive development by continuing the long term professional office space needs of the county's economy, How disruptive it would be to permit more commercial retail sprawl in the middle of this very positive and aesthetically pleasing area? The availability of C-2 district property must also be considered. Currently the entire strip of Brambleton, with the exception of this key property, is zoned C-2. There are many vacant lots available for development. C-2 is not in short supply. While the area is designated as Transition and Neighborhood Conservation, essentially all of the area is currently C-2. If the County has a desire to follow the comprehensive plan, this property lends itself as the only opportunity to vary from the C-2 zoning and to allow for a more compatible long term development as envisioned in the plan. Certainly the area has already been zoned with a bias more towards a Core designation than that of Neighborhood Conservation or Transition. It is one final point which I would like to raise concerning this rezoning request. That has to do with the specifics of use and the concept plan which has been submitted for an Auto Zone. There are no provisions or space for screening refuse storage and loading from view. Since the buffer shown is the type 'D' minimum required, there has been no consideration of the 20' in elevation change across this lot. Maximum permissible slope of the buffer is 2:1 and this has not been considered. There is not an adequate amount of parking lot interior landscaping (5%) allowed for. The required 6' planting strip between the public ROW and parking area is marginal and has caused a compromised traffic flow in the shown parking area. There has been no allowance shown for a storm water detention basin. Driveway entrances on Brambleton should have been limited to one. In short, the facility proposed in the concept lap has ushed the limits of C-2 standards to the oint where it is questionable if they can all be met. There is current C-2 property available less than 1000' from this property which has the area needed for a facility of this size. Mr. Critcher, the developer, has not met with 'the Berwick Heights Homeowners Association, to understand or to work with our neighborhood in resolving incompatibilities. This is unfortunate. These are the reasons with which I ask you to support the denial of this rezoning request, and also to clear up the understanding that the proffered conditions in 1979 leave this property with a C-1 district zoning. Sincerely, Hank Sloan AN OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PAUL M. MAHONEY C.OUNTV ATTORNEY JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN 12 October 1993 SENIOR ASSISraNr COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Mr. Hank Sloan: 3768 Tomley Drive, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Sloan: My office received your letter dated October 1, 1993, on October 5, 1993, unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to review it until October 6, 1993. I apologize for not responding to you in time for the Planning Commission's meeting on the evening of October 5. I am unable to provide you and your neighborhood organization with a legal opinion concerning the validity of reversion clauses. As County Attorney my legal and ethical responsibility is to provide professional legal services to the Board of Supervisors and to Roanoke County. The County and the Board are my clients. Neither you, nor your organization are my clients. I will confirm our earlier telephone conversation, during which I explained to you my position with respect to the enforceability of reversion clauses. It is my position that good zoning practice would not support the use or applicability of a reverter condition in a conditional rezoning action by a local governing body in the Commonwealth of Virginia. If a reverter condition were effective, then the practical effect of the reverter condition would be to rezone property without satisfying the procedural requirements for a rezoning under State law, i.e, the notice and public hearing procedural requirements as required by Section 15.1-431 of the State Code. Such action would raise serious concerns as to procedural and substantive due process rights of all parties. There are two further legal objections to giving effect to reverter conditions. First, a reverter condition does not appear to satisfy the statutory limitations of Section 15.1- 491.2 upon the types or kinds of conditions that may be proffered by the landowner and accepted by a local governing body. Next, the automatic application of a reverter condition could constitute a surrender of governmental functions or powers. In effect, the rezoning of property would be accomplished not by governmental action, i.e. legislative action by the board of supervisors, but by private action. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2007 ® Recyded Paper Page Two 12 October 1993 Likewise I would reject the assertion that the initial rezoning is now invalid, if one of the "conditions" is subsequently deemed invalid. Generally courts have severed an illegal, invalid or unconstitutional provision from a legislative enactment in order to allow the substance of a legislative action to remain intact. To use a cliche', a court is unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a court can find a way to retain the substance of a legislative action while severing the offending clause or portion thereof, it will do so. Constitutional concerns regarding the separation of powers act as a brake upon wholesale judicial repeal or finding of complete invalidity of legislative actions. This principle of severability is often applied by the courts to issues of statutory construction. The law is continually evolving. The courts often reinterpret historic principles and apply them to new situations. This judicial activity is particularly found in the fields of criminal law and individual rights and liberties. The courts will attempt to graft these new or reinterpreted principles onto existing statutes or laws. Only in rare circumstances will a court repeal an entire body of law or course of legislative conduct. In some of these situations the court may act "prospectively" only, not retroactively. For these reasons, as well as other legal concerns, I can only speculate what a court might do with such a case. To avoid such speculation, and the uncertainty speculation breeds, I have routinely advised my clients not to accept reversionary proffers of conditions. In those situations where reversionary proffers were previously accepted, I have counseled my clients that such proffers are most probably unenforceable. Finally in this instance the question of the validity of the reversionary condition is irrelevant to the ultimate decision in this matter. Assuming for the moment that the reversionary condition were effective, and that the property's zoning classification were C-1 (the successor to B-1 under the new zoning ordinance), or even if the property were any other zoning classification, the owner of that property would still have the right to seek a rezoning to C-2. The landowner always has the due process right to follow the required statu*_ary procedures to rezone his or her property, .or to request the amendment of a previously accepted proffered condition. I apologize for the length of this response. I hope that it has answered the substance of your inquiry. Very truly yours, Mn . '' 1 Paul M. Mahoney ~ County Attorney PMM/spb e~ William H . Sloan 3768 Tomley Drive, Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 989-7363 October 16, 1993 Mr. Lee Eddy 2211 Pommel Drive Roanoke, VA 24108 Dear Mr. Eddy, ~~ ~c~- -Tc..rt SW Thank you for the time today to discuss my concerns with the 3505 Brambleton Avenue rezoning request made by Mr. Critter. Enclosed you will find copy of letter I sent to Mr. Thomason which describes my concerns. Also attached you will find copy of response from Mr. Paul Mahoney. As we discussed, one of my fundamental concerns is the apparent decision to ignore the proffered conditions on this property. By order of the board on 4/24/79, proffered condition (2) "In the event that the intended use as set out in condition number (1) ceases to be operated , and upon application for the occupancy of any other use, the zoning classification of the property shall convert to Office and Residential District B-1" . By my count the home interior decoration business is closed and another application for occupancy has been received, so why is the property not currently considered C-1 ? Why has Mr. Critter been advised that his property is considered to be zoned C-2-conditional throughout the petition for rezoning process? This decision that has been made, that is to change the zoning order without public notice and public hearing, has caused allot of time and effort in my neighborhood to be focused on this rezoning. At our meetings, I believe that there is a fundamental understanding that a C-1 zoning of the property fits the comprehensive plans long term vision and conserves our neighborhood character. After reviewing as much record as I can, I do believe the intent of the 1979 order was to rezone to B-1 with a special use of retail sale of home interior decorations in the existing house. I believe the recording to be in error, as is evidenced by the fact that the meets and bounds of the rezoning called for in the order are not the same as those called for in the proffer, and neither of these match the recent subdivision of this lot for the purpose of contract sale to Auto Zone or the petitoner's request. As we discussed , I want to work with you to resolve these questions prior to the meeting on October 26. I would like to be informed of any proffering the petitioner has made in this request, prior to the meeting, as well as when is the deadline (if one) for submitting conditions. I have reviewed Mr. Mahoney's letter and have the following the perspectives for your considerations. I am requesting a response, and will copy this letter to him . I have reviewed the seven statutory limitations in Section 15.1-491.2 upon proffered conditions and find no evidence that these limitations have been violated. Please advise me as to which one was. There has been no surrender of government functions or powers, the board met and ordered these conditions to be followed in 1979. There was public notice and meeting as required in section 15.1-431., and is evidenced by the record of 4/24/79 board meeting. To sever the B-1 portion is indeed "throwing the baby out with the bath water" as according to record of public discussion that was the ultimate goal of the rezoning with a special use and temporary condition of retail sale of home interior decorations. I believe that for whatever reasons, it is fine for Mr. Mahoney to advise his clients to not accept proffered reverter conditions, however I do believe that it is the basic fundamental responsibility of local government to stand by it's public contract and defend the actions it has ordered through due process . It is the burden of the developer to challenge proffered conditions, not the burden of the affected public to bring suit in circuit court against an order that it was told would satisfy their concerns. As to the relevancy of this decision on the reversionary condition, I could not disagree more. It is extremely relevant. Mr. Critzer has proceeded upon this basis (that is his property is limited to retail sale of home interior decorations rendering it's market limited), our neighborhood association has proceeded upon this basis. Public testimony has been. given to this affect. I look forward to working with you , William H . Sloan cc: Mr. Paul Mahoney Board of Supervisors, Please copy all William H . Sloan 3768 Tomley Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 989-7363 October 1, 1993 Mr. Al G. Thomason 6388 Christie Lane Roanoke, Va 24018 Dear Mr. Witt, I am a property owner in the Berwick Heights subdivision in SW Roanoke County and am concerned with the recent subdivision and rezoning request on the lot formerly known as the Windsor House. The property was rezoned in 1979 from R-1 to B-2 conditional that it would be limited to interior design sales in the existing house. This 1979 rezoning included a proffer that if the interior design business failed to open or ceased to operate that the property would revert to a B-1 zoning. Apparently the current opinion of the zoning district for the property is C-2 conditional upon the interior design business because on October 5 you will be conducting a hearing on the rezoning from C-2 conditional to straight C-2. I am disturbed that the zoning district for the property is not C-1 as was proffered in 1979. I am also disturbed that a subdivision has occurred on this property based upon this contested zoning . It is important to recall the fact that in 1979 a straight B-2 zoning was attempted and was denied . Only upon the proffering of the conditions which should now be in force was the R-1 to B-2 rezoning approved . I believe that the 1979 proffering meets the conditions of limits as stated in Va Code 15.1-491.2. I believe that the County has no legal choice other than to defend the 1979 zoning decision in it's whole. "One of the values of the proffer system is that accepted proffers become a part of the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance. Thus, the jurisdiction will enforce the restriction if it is violated. this, of course will save a private citizen or organization considerable time and money in enforcement actions. "' Zoning and land Use law in Virginia 1990 , W .Todd Benson, T . C .Williams School of Law . Our neighborhood is one that has been classified by the county's comprehensive plan as having a future land use of both Neighborhood Conservation and Transition zones. The preliminary site plan for this property, if rezoning is successful, shows an Auto Zone Store being developed . This use is particularly incompatible with both the Neighborhood Conservation and Transition zones. This incompatibility centers around the fact that the intersection of Pinevale and Brambleton Avenue is a key entrance to the neighborhood . It is only this property which separates the general commercial district along Brambleton from our R-1, well established , maturely landscaped homesites. I recognize the economic benefit of a corner lot on Brambleton Avenue both to Mr. Critcher and to the county through sales tax. revenue. I believe however that the C-1 zoning which should now be in place is in the best public interest. A C-2 zoning of this property would aggravate public health and welfare issues which are currently in need of attention. There is currently a bad traffic cut-through situation on Pinevale which invades our neighborhood with non-local traffic endangering the safety of our children. There is currently a overloaded drainage system which causes regular flooding of residential lots. Pinevale road at both ends is congested due to the non- local traffic, causing safety concerns at both Garst Mill and Brambleton Avenue intersections. The commercial traffic along Brambleton, which include large truck deliveries at all times of the night, encroaches upon the peaceful enjoyment in the neighborhood . This area already has it's share of low wage service retail jobs, and a lack of balancing professional service jobs. The harmonious and attractive nature of our neighborhood is currently being adversly affected by these factors, and if this property is rezoned to a C-2 district, will only worsen these conditions. I believe that it its neither an unreasonable nor arbitrary decision for the property to be utilized as a C-I district. The owner would still enjoy large economic benefit and the county would benefit by the attraction of the professional services jobs. More important, one must consider the site specifically. This site is beside and across from four professional office buildings, which are currently functioning as a brief barrier to the commercial sprawl on Brambleton avenue while entering our neighborhood conservation area. What a nice way to compliment this positive development by continuing the long term professional office space needs of the county's economy. How disruptive it would be to permit more commercial retail sprawl in the middle of this very positive and aesthetically pleasing area? The availability of C-2 district property must also be considered . Currently the entire strip of Brambleton, with the exception of this key property, is zoned C-2. There are many vacant lots available for development. C-2 is not in short supply. While the area is designated as Transition and Neighborhood Conservation, essentially all of the area is currently C-2. If the County has a desire to follow the comprehensive plan, this property lends itself as the only opportunity to vary from the C-2 zoning and to allow for a more compatible long term development as envisioned in the plan . Certainly the area has already been zoned with a bias more towards a Core designation than that of Neighborhood Conservation or Transition. It is one final point which I would like to raise concerning this rezoning request. That has to do with the specifics of use and the concept plan which has been submitted for an Auto Zone. There are no provisions or space for screening refuse storage and loading from view. Since the buffer shown is the type 'D' minimum required, there has been no consideration of the 20' in elevation change across this lot. Maximum permissible slope of the buffer is 2:i and this has not been considered. There is not an adequate amount of parking lot interior landscaping (5%) allowed for. The required 6' planting strip between the public ROW and parking area is marginal and has caused a compromised traffic flow in the shown parking area. There has been no allowance shown for a storm water detention basin. Driveway entrances on Brambleton should have been limited to one. In short, the facility proposed in the concept plan has Hushed the limits of C-2 standards to the point where it is questionable if they can all be met. There is current C-2 property available less than 1000' from this property which has the area needed for a facility of this size. Mr. Critcher, the developer, has not met with the Berwick Heights Homeowners Association, to understand or to work with our neighborhood in resolving incompatibilities. This is unfortunate. These are the reasons with which I ask you to support the denial of this rezoning request, and also to clear up the understanding that the proffered conditions in 1979 leave this property with a C-1 district zoning. Sincerely, Hank Sloan F~ AN,I.~ ti p ~ O 2 a~ 38 PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY ATTORNEY 12 October 1993 JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Mr. Hank Sloan: 3768 Tomley Drive, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Sloan: My office received your letter dated October 1, 1993, on October 5, 1993, unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to review it until October 6, 1993. I apologize for not responding to you in time for the Planning Commission's meeting on the evening of October 5. I am unable to provide you and your neighborhood organization with a legal opinion concerning the validity of reversion clauses. As County Attorney my legal and ethical responsibility is to provide professional legal services to the Board of Supervisors and to Roanoke County. The County and the Board are my clients. Neither you, nor your organization are my clients. I will confirm our earlier telephone conversation, during which I explained to you my position with respect to the enforceability of reversion clauses. It is my position that good zoning practice would not support the use or applicability of a reverter condition in a conditional rezoning action by a local governing body in the Commonwealth of Virginia. If a reverter condition were effective, then the practical effect of the reverter condition would be to rezone property with.o=,,t sarisfping the procedural requirements for a rezoning under State law, i.e. the notice and public hearing procedural requirements as required by Section 15.1-431 of the State Code. Such action would raise serious concerns as to procedural and substantive due process rights of all parties. There are two further legal objections to giving effect to reverter conditions. First, a reverter condition does not appear to satisfy the statutory limitations of Section 15.1- 491.2 upon the types or kinds of conditions that may be proffered by the landowner and accepted by a local governing body. Next, the automatic application of a reverter condition could constitute a surrender of governmental functions or powers. In effect, the rezoning of property would be accomplished not by governmental action, i.e. legislative action by the board of .supervisors, but by private action. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2007 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ® Recyded Paper Page Two 12 October 1993 Likewise I would reject the assertion that the initial rezoning is now invalid, if one of the "conditions" is subsequently deemed invalid. Generally courts have severed an illegal, invalid or unconstitutional provision from a legislative enactment in order to allow the substance of a legislative action to remain intact. To use a cliche', a court is unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a court can find a way to retain the substance of a legislative action while severing the offending clause or portion thereof, it will do so. Constitutional concerns regarding the separation of powers act as a brake upon wholesale judicial repeal or finding of complete invalidity of legislative actions. This principle of severability is often applied by the courts to issues of statutory construction. The law is continually evolving. The courts often reinterpret historic principles and apply them to new situations. This judicial activity is particularly found in the fields of criminal law and individual rights and liberties. The courts will attempt to graft these new or reinterpreted principles onto existing statutes or laws. Only in rare circumstances will a court repeal an entire body of law or course of legislative conduct. In some of these situations the court may act "prospectively" only, not retroactively. For these reasons, as well as other legal concerns, I can only speculate what a court might do with such a case. To avoid such speculation, and the uncertainty speculation breeds, I have routinely advised my clients not to accept reversionary proffers of conditions. In those situations where reversionary proffers were previously accepted, I have counseled my clients that such proffers are most probably unenforceable. Finally in this instance the question of the validity of the reversionary condition is irrelevant to the ultimate decision in this matter. Assuming for the moment that the reversionary condition were effective, and that the property's zoning classification were C-1 (the successor to B-1 under the new zoning ordinance), or even if the property were any other zoning classification, the owner of that property would still have the right to seek a rezoning to C-2. The landowner always has the due process right to follow the required statu*_o ~ proced•~res t^ rezone him or h.er p_rop~--ty, !fir to request the amendment of a previously accepted proffered condition. I apologize for the length of this response. I hope that it has answered the substance of your inquiry. Very truly yours, ''1. '~1 Paul M. Mahoney ~ County Attorney PMM/spb ~~~~ rc..++ G~~`I'OBER 1F3, 1'?93 Zi~~•ar Chairman of the Board of 5upervi.sors, I am writing to e^press my apc,~.itian L.c., the proposed zoning ChangF> c,f the t~~INLrSOk HOUSE property on Brarnbletc,n Avenue. I have lived at 3234 Oakdale Road far 14 years and lii;e ot.t,er r~:~y.edents of tt",E: Berwick Heights neight,~,rhood, have made many sub~,t-antial improvements to my home ant:] property. ~rheri we purchased our pause, we' were attracted to tt',e quiet residential n~~ighr,arhoad and by the care with which the re.sider,ts lt~ridscaped ~~,nd cared far their property. Neighbors have continued this practice as evidenced by the many lar•y_c additi~..,n~= wt,ir_h are in progress or have recently beeri~.•ampleted. This has truly been a quality neighborhood with AFF~ORUABLE hc,u`-,iny i.n southwest. county. (}ur concerns at~out the change in zoning wr,icr, well allow Aut~~ Zone to des-rapt our neighborhood include,: 1> The. proposed change from C--' with conditions to ~~-2 UDiCOI~DITIt~NAL would allow a business to operate 7 days a week, 12 hc,urs p~~•r day adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Over 44i_~ cars per day, :3unday mornings ilicluded. The buffer to our neighborhood wc,uid disappear. Tt-,ere would be a loss of tY,e residential character of the nei~.{hborhtavd and the green area of the property. Th,e Windsor House is a "'yatewsy to uur neighborhood". 2) Ttie leveling of the lot wc,uld Iieceesitate a large drop with no hilt to shr:lter t_he adjacent property, as the two nearby businesses already nn Brartbletan t";ave done. The addition of asphalt and 41 additional parking spaces will rFinave the =green areas of the property, and contribute to addi.tiorial tarr:, water r~unc~ff on already flaod--prc~ne Pinevali:~ Avenue. 3) Traffic are Pinevale Ave. is already heavy. A protected 1~;)':: ar mart. increase= would be substantial and di~•ruptive. It. would colitr:ibute to the loss i:,f the residential character of the rieighL-~orhoad and negatevely impact propex-t.y values. 4~ 'There are ad~iacent business t~roperticy5 on $rambleton Avenue and an the earners of Br'art1L71E:tOI7 and F~'izievaie those businesses corisest of OFFICE:.. We feel treat it is reasonable. tc• u:;e this property as comm~}rcial, but that gulde?ll.nt_-"5 mint be set to protect ttie integrity of our neighborhood. We understand that a business wii.1 eventually be :located i., I1 that property. An c~ffiee would r"e in compliance with the terms of the "TRANSTTIOPI" designation of the property, which encourages office develupme=nt. The prap~~~.ed change with a high usage business and unconditional terms i:, not consistent with, the i",Ott-rIT~,' ~~OMPF:'EHr-NSIVE PLAN. It i5 our intention to maintain Berwicl; Heights as a sal id, well-care.~~i far neighborhac,d providing affordable t~~ousing and a unique commune±y. 4Je are proud of our n,aighbc~rhood and wish to protect it. We do not grant to mavE towards th~a creation of a Southwest "t~ri 11 eam:~c~n Road`" . Than}c you for your consideration of this important, matter. S Iicerely, i ~ ~' Gam- ~-~~~ £~.~rbara ~ . Green Ray 0. Caap~=r ;, P'~. ,` ~'' ~'. i.. VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY IN RE: Rezoning of 2.066 Acres ) pROFFER OF At 7887 Carvins Street, NW ) CONDITIONS from C-2 Conditional, to ) C-2 Conditional ) The Petitioner, Mr. J. Patel, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the zoning request herein above set forth: 1. There shall be no street eni onto Garvin Street. 2. Development of the property conformity with the concept Associates Architects dated for minor variations as may plan review and approval by trances from the property shall be in substantial plan prepared by Hughes August 20, 1993, except be required during the site Roanoke County. 3. The maximum building height shall not exceed the lessor of two stories or 45'-0". 4. Type D-2 screening and buffering shall be as shown on the above proffered concept plan, except at the dumpster location where Type D-1 provisions will be used. Berms shall be utilized within the screening area to enhance and compliment the plantings. Berms shall be sculpted to various heights with an average height of 4 feet and no height less than 2 feet. The average shall be based on the total linear distance of the berm using the elevation of the Garvin Street property line as the reference elevation. The berm and the screening and buffering provided along Garvin Street will be installed in conjunction with the development of the hotel shown on the concept plan. These proffers are submitted on the conditirovala of hther Boa d of rezoned as indicated; subject to the app Supervisors and the sale of the property to Richard W. Sloan. PETITIONER: J/ Mr. J. Patel Property Owner ,, ~•~ 10/22/93 Mr. Hodge: One final question on donation of $500 to 5PDC for Appalachian Conference. Letter requesting it came from Strickland to Fuzzy. Do you want -Terry tq w to let c an3-~a~-send ~r should it come--€-r you ~~ _ Brenda lalu(t3 ~ . ~~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ i ~~a~s - /~ ~~- .~-~J mot-` ~c r~ -s-r, I-~ 0..m ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~-~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 12, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the Fifth District Planning Commission for Funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission Annual Conference COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SIIMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) will be holding it's annual conference in Roanoke on October 24-28, 1993. Over 600 attendees from the 13 states ARC region are registered to attend. The Fifth District Planning Commission has been working with ARC to ensure the conference is a success. The 5th PDC has advised Chairman Minnix that the conference lacks about $8,000 in support funds. They have contacted Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, and the Town of Vinton for funding assistance, and the City of Salem has contributed $500. In a letter to Chairman Minnix they requested a contribution of $2,000 from Roanoke County. Attached is the letter from 5th PDC Executive Director Wayne Strickland providing further information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Board of Supervisors wishes to contribute to the Appalachian Regional Commission annual conference, $500 could be appropriated from the (~ ~'Z ,~~.~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION VOTE Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens ~ ~ ct ~ b N ~ y a O N ~ '~ H ~ ~ M ~ ~ • c-r ors ° ~ o ~ ~ w ~ o ~* ~ n O O b• N .'7' ~ ~ U. v ~' O 7 • ~. ~ . ~ ~ v („r ~ ~ ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ro `~ m ~' ~ o N ~ ~ ~ a ~ m ~ a ~ ~ ~ N O ~~ ~ ~ K A ~ H ~ fi ~ ~ N. O ~-' ~ ~ a K ~ ~ W ~ N fD ~ ~ OJ fh N h1~ ~ ~ N. ~ ~ ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ Q- O ~ D f.,., ~ ~ ~ N •• ~-' M w W hj O ~ ~ n x W a x 0 O n rt 0 N K N N I-+ lC w N O N O 10/22/93 Mary Allen Talked with Debbie Pitts about reserving P&R van for Oct 26 Board Meeting trip. (She said no one had talked to her about this.) She reserved the new van - said it is beautiful. Will seat 15 but holds 12 comfortably. She also asked Bill Thorne, Assistant Superintendent Special Events, to drive the van. He will be here with van at 3:30 p.m. and will bring them back at 7 p.m. (I also told her that Bill was welcome to attend groundbreaking and "eat supper" off reception. Brenda ~n~3_~ y, _~0'FO lu;11 s 1-;~ TN 38l 01 ~o!-say-4a ~~