The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/27/1994 - Regular~ ao~N ~ ~. .~ ~.II~SxCII~tP ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 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. 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 (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 3:00 P.M. 2. Invocation: Rev. John Hartwig Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS ECH (1) REQUESTED D.2 BE DEFERRED GUANO ~ RAGTIME O ( A ADDED EXE. SESSION 5 TO DIS PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY LBE DELETED EXE. SESSION (4) DISCUSSION OF A PERSONAL MATTER NOT RELATED TO PUBLIC BUSINESS FM ADDED ROA. REG. AIRPORT COMII~IISSION APPOINTMENT HCN ADVISED THAT HE WOULD BE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE EVENTING SESSION C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation Upon the Retirement of Tina C. Greene, Social Services Department. R-92794-1 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC MS. GREENE WAS PRESENT AND RECEIVED $100 SAVINGS BOND 2. Resolution of Appreciation Upon the Retirement of William E. Poole, Sheriff's Office. R-92794-2 FM MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC MR. POOLE WAS PRESENT AND RECEIVED $100 SAVINGS BOND 3. Resolution of Appreciation Upon the Retirement of Gloria T. Lovelace, Sheriff's Office. R-92794-3 B T MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC MS. LOVELACE WAS PRESENT AND RECEIVED $100 SAVINGS BOND 4. Proclamation Declaring October as Crime Prevention Month in Roanoke County. HCN MOTION TO ADOPT PROC URC CHIEF CEASE AND TOM KINCAID FROM POLICE DEPT ACCEPTED D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution Authorizing an Application to the Virginia Public School Authority with respect to Sale of $10,100,000 School Bonds. (Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance) R-92794-4 BL.T MOTION TO ADOPT RESO AYES: BLT, EGK, FM, HCN NAYS: LBE 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Congressman Boucher for His Efforts in Securing a $150,000 Grant for Valley TechPark. (Timothy Gubala, Director of Economic Development) ITEM DEFERRED E. CITIZENS REQUEST 1. Request from Walter Campbell for Funds to Repair Melinda Lane. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) 3 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF REC011~IlVIENDATION HCN WITHDREW MOTION TO ALLOW BRIAN CAMPBELL TO SPEAK FM MOTION TO APPROVE PAYMENT BY COi7NTY OF 75% AND CAMPBELL 25% OF COSTS FOR REPAIR NOT TO EXCEED 3,400 AYES: FMS HCN, LBE NAYS: BL.T! EGK F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for Board of Supervisors Planning Retreat. BOARD CONSENSUS TO SCHEDULE PL,~INNING RETREAT SOMETIME AFTER TAN, 1995 CLERK TO POLL BOARD FOR DATES AND TIME 2. Request for Work Session for Stormwater Detention Ponds. BOARD CONSENSUS TO SET WS FOR 10/11/94 AND THAT A PRELINIINARY DRAFT OF ORDINANCE BE PRESENTED G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC 1~ARINGS NONE H, REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA B MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING AND SET PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR 10/25/94 AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM #2 URC 1. Ordinance to Rezone Approximately 9.33 Acres from I-1 Conditional to I-1 to Remove Conditions, Located off of Challenger Avenue Approximately 1,000 Feet, Northeast of the Roanoke City line, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc. 2. Ordinance to Rezone 1.790 Acres from R-2C, R-1 and C-2 to C-2 and Obtain a Special Use Permit to Operate a Convenience Store with Fast Food, Located at the Intersection of Washington Avenue and Feather Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Shanks Associates P.C. I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending Ordinance 51193-7 and Sections 18- 156.2 and 18.156.3 of the Roanoke County Code Concerning the Procedure to Enforce the Prohibited Discharge of Stormwater, Surface Water, Groundwater, Roof Runoff or Subsurface Drainage into the Public Sanitary Sewer System, by Establishing Certain Categories of Violations for Purpose of Enforcement. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) HCN MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND READING & PH - 10/25/94 URC 2. Ordinance Amending the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance by Enacting the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) HCN MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND READING & PH - 10/25/94 URC FENTON CHILDRESS~ REAL ESTATE MGR; KROGER CO. MID- 5 ATLANTIC DIV ADVISED OF CONCERNS RELATED TO THE WHSE & DISTRIBUTION CENTER BOARD DIRECTED THAT X11 STAFF ADDRESS MR. CHILDRESS' CONCERNS BEFORE 2ND READING (2) EFFECTIVE DATE BE TAN 1995 ~3) ORD BE PUBLICIZED 3. Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance of a 4.41 Acre Parcel of Real Estate Known as Ogden Community Center Located at 2932 Ogden Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) FM MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND READING & PH - 10/11/94 URC FRED CORBETT 5511 STEARNES AVE SPOKE FOR CAVE SPRING NATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE, AND REQUESTED THAT BALLFIELDS BE REPLACED STAFF DIRECTED TO CONTACT MR CORBETT ABOUT BALLFIELDS 4. Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of a Permanent Drainage Easement from Roderic Moore and Donna P. Grayson for the Pinkard Court Road and Drainage Improvement Project. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) FM MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND READING - 10/11/94 URC 5. Ordinance Authorizing Quit-Claim and Release of Sanitary Sewer Easement within Boundaries of Fox Ridge Road and Located between Lots 2 and 22 of Hunting Hills, Section 23. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) FM MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING 6 2ND READING - 10/11/94 URC d. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 21-16, Returns of Article II. Taxes on Tangible Personal Property of Chapter 21, Taxation of the Roanoke County Code to Provide an Alternative Method of Filing Returns for Motor Vehicles. (Wayne Compton, Commissioner of the Revenue) 0-92794-6 B ~T MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 2. Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance of an Easement to Appalachian Power Company for Electric Service Extending Across Darrell Shell Memorial Park. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 0-92794-7 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board LBE NOMINATED TOSEPH M. ViJLGAN AS ALTERNATE FOR ONE YEAR TERM EXPIRING 8/31/95 2. Roanoke Regional Airport Commission FM NOMINATED A CITIZEN, ARTHUR M. WHITTAKER TO REPLACE HIM WITH TERM EXPIRING 2/10/95, AND REQUESTED THAT A PRESS RELEASE BE PREPARED L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WII.L BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-92794-8 FM MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC 1. Approval of Minutes for August 23, 1994, and September 12, 1994. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Grievance Panel. A-92794-8.a 3. Request for Acceptance of 0.12 Miles of College View Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-92794-8.b 4. Resolution to the Virginia Department of Education Requesting Certain Changes to the Regulations Concerning Literary Loan Fund Applications. R-92794-8.c 5. Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. A-92794-8.d 6. Approval of Raffle Permit from Junior Miss Local Organization, Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festival. A-92794-8.e s M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Nickens• (1) Asked that staff contact VDOT about snow removal damage to Howell Property on Indian Rock Road. (2) _Questioned PMM about memo from Treasurer concerning sale of delinquent real estate. Consensus of Board for staff to move ahead. (3) Complimented Toe Obenshain on successful negotiation with Booth and Salem Communications. Supervisor Tohnson: (1~ComPlimented staff on appearance of RCAC foyer. Asked that staff look again at having volunteer or employee placed in area to help citizens. ~2) Pleased with ioint meeting with Botetourt Counter BOS at Read Mt Fire Station on 9/26/94 and learned that volume and patrons have significantly, increased at the Blue Ridge Library. ~3) Advised that he and HCN spoke as private individuals at public hearing on Parole reform last evening. Supervisor Eddy: X11 Advised that the Grand Opening of Teen Center at Brambleton was well attended. (2ZAdvised that EGK will attend the VACo Conference at The Homestead and Board needs to designate voting delegate. ~2., Advised that drop box has been placed at public entrance. BL.T MOTION TO DESIGNATE EGK AS ROANOKE COUNTY VOTING DELEGATE AT VACO CONFERENCE, NOV 1994 URC N. CITIZENS' COA~IlI~NTS AND COINIlVIUNICATIONS NONE O. REPORTS B T MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM 6 AND ITEM 8 UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Proclamation Signed by Chairman 5. Bond Project Status Report 6. Impact of the Cat Ordinance 7. Automated Fuel-Fleet Management Systems 8. Request for Information on Crime Statistics in Roanoke County BRIEFINGS BY CHIEF CEASE CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER TOM KINCAID~ AND CHARLIE TONES, COORDINATOR FOR BUSINESS WATCH PROGRAM, P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (3) Acquisition of Real Property for Public Purpose, Cave Spring High School; (3) For Consultation with Legal Counsel to Discuss Potential Litigation Concerning Enforcement of Admissions Tax; ~~~++ -- ~T + Deft a +~ D,~~-~~~~u~~-~~~~• (6) Investing of Public Funds Where the Financial Interest of the County May be Affected, Receipt of Financial Audits and Dispersing of County Funds to Volunteer Fire and Rescue Departments; and (7) To Discuss a Legal Matter with Respect to Consideration of Regional Sewage Treatment Contract and (5) To Discuss Location of a Prospective Business or Industry. BL.T MOTION AT 5:20 P.M. URC 10 Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-92794-9 BL.T MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AND ADOPT CERTIFICATION RESO AT 7:05 P.M. URC WITH HCN ABSENT EVENING SESSION R. PUBLIC F[EARINGS NONE S. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 22-82. "Rates and Fees" of Chapter 22 "Water" Article II. "Water Systems", Division 2. "County Water System" of the Roanoke County Code to Provide for Changes in the Utility Billing Fees, Charges, Deposits, and Procedures for Water and Sewer Service. (Paul Grice, Assistant Finance Director) 0-92794-10 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC WITH HCN ABSENT 2. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Ordinance 81490-6 Authorizing Adjustments to the Fee Structure for Services for Parks and Recreation Activities. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks and Recreation) 0-92794-11 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AYES: BL.T, EGK, FM, NAYS: LBE 11 ABSENT: HCN 3. Ordinance to Rezone .409 acre from AV Conditional to C- 2 to Allow Retail Uses, Located at 5449 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Kingery Bros. Associates. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 0-92794-12 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AYES: BL,T! EGK, FM, NAYS: LBE ABSENT: HCN 4. Ordinance to Rezone Approximately Ten Acres from R-3 Conditional to C-1 to Construct an Office Complex, Located at the Intersection of Airport Road and Dent Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corporation. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 0-92794-13 B T MOTION TO ADOPT ORD WITH PROFFERED CONDITION ADDED LIMITING ACCESS TO ONE POINT ON AIRPORT ROAD AND ONE POINT ON DENT ROAD URC WITH HCN ABSENT 5. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct and Operate an Electric Substation, Located on Kirk Lane, off Cotton Hill Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Appalachian Power Company. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 0-92794-14 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD WITH TWO CONDITIONS ADDED AS 12 SUGGESTED BY LBE: ~1) EXISTING TREES ON SITE BE RETAINED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE (21 SUBSTATION DESIGNED BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE URC WITH HCN ABSENT 6. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct a Building for Religious Assembly Including Classrooms, Office and Recreational Facilities, Located on Northridge Lane, Approximately 700 Feet Northwest of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of North Valley Seventh-Day Adventist Church. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 0-92794-15 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC WITH HCN ABSENT B T REQUESTED THAT NAMES ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS BE UPDATED WHEN POSSIBLE 7. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct a Fast Food Restaurant at the Intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Tacoma, Inc. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 0-92794-16 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AYES: EGK, FM, LBE ABSTAIN: BL.T ABSENT: HCN 8. Ordinance Amending the Text of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to Include a Planned Commercial Development District and a Planned Industrial Development District. (Terry Harrington, Planning & 13 Zoning Director) 0-92794-17 LBE MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AFTER INSERTING IN SEC. 30-57-5 (H1 AND SEC. 30 63 6 ~G): "AND AFTER HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING"_ URC WITH HCN ABSENT 9. Ordinance Vacating Portions of Public Utility Easements located in Waterford, Section 5, as Recorded in Plat Book 16, Page 21, in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections) 0-92794-18 BL.T MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC WITH HCN ABSENT PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 10. Ordinance Vacating and of Right-of--Way Known Eastern Side of Misty Petition of Corpre, Inc. Inspections Director) Closing an Unimproved Portion as Creek Circle, Along the Forest Subdivision, Upon the (Arnold Covey, Engineering & FM MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 10/11/94 URC WITH HCN ABSENT T. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Bid Protest for Water Line Materials by American Cast Iron Pipe Company. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 14 A-92794-19 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOA~IlI~NDATION AND DENY PROTEST URC WITH HCN ABSENT PRESENTATIONS FROM: (1) ED NATT, COUNSEL FOR ACIPCO; ~2) GARY PEARS. COUNSEL FOR U. S. PIPE, AND CHARLES TURNER; 13) TOY LEE PRICE, COUNSEL FOR GRIFFIN PIPE PRODUCTS U. CITIZENS CONIlVIENTS FOLLOWING CITIZENS ADVISED THAT NORFOLK SOUTHERN HAS NOT COMPLETED THE FENCING OF THE TRASH TRAIN RAIL SPUR BARRICADES NOT ERECTED AND SIGNS NOT POSTED WILLIAM CARTER, 4435 CORDELL DR DENNIS VANDERGRIFT, 2982 LOCHAVEN DR, REP. 4-WHEEL PROPERTY STAFF DIRECTED TO CONTACT TORN HUBBARD, RVRA, ABOUT THESE CONCERNS V. ADJOURNMENT BLJ MOTION TO ADTOURN AT 9:30 P M. UW WITH HCN ABSENT 15 ~ ROAN ~,~ ~. . ~ ~.II~XY[xY~t.E ROANOKE COLJN'I'Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 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. 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 (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: Rev. John Hartwig Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS i C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation Upon the Retirement of Tina C. Greene, Social Services Department. 2. Resolution of Appreciation Upon the Retirement of William E. Poole, Sheriff s Office. 3. Resolution of Appreciation Upon the Retirement of Gloria T. Lovelace, Sheriff s Office. 4. Proclamation Declaring October as Crime Prevention Month in Roanoke County. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution Authorizing an Application to the Virginia Public School Authority with respect to Sale of $10,100,000 School Bonds. (Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance) 2 Resolution of Appreciation to Congressman Boucher for His Efforts in Securing a $150,000 Grant for Valley TechPark. (Timothy Gubala, Director of Economic Development) E. CITIZENS REQUEST 1. Request from Walter Campbell for Funds to Repair Melinda Lane. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS a 1. Request for Board of Supervisors Planning Retreat. 2. Request for Work Session for Stormwater Detention Ponds. G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC ~[EARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance to Rezone Approximately 9.33 Acres from I-1 Conditional to I-1 to Remove Conditions, Located off of Challenger Avenue Approximately 1,000 Feet, Northeast of the Roanoke City line, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc. 2. Ordinance to Rezone 1.790 Acres from R-2C, R-1 and C-2 to C-2 and Obtain a Special Use Permit to Operate a Convenience Store with Fast Food, Located at the Intersection of Washington Avenue and Feather Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Shanks Associates P.C. I. FIItST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending Ordinance 51193-7 and Sections 18- 156.2 and 18.156.3 of the Roanoke County Code Concerning the Procedure to Enforce the Prohibited Discharge of Stormwater, Surface Water, Groundwater, Roof Runoff or Subsurface Drainage into the Public Sanitary Sewer System, by Establishing Certain Categories of Violations for Purpose of Enforcement. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 3 2. Ordinance Amending the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance by Enacting the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 3. Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance of a 4.41 Acre Parcel of Real Estate Known as Ogden Community Center Located at 2932 Ogden Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 4. Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of a Permanent Drainage Easement from Roderic Moore and Donna P. Grayson for the Pinkard Court Road and Drainage Improvement Project. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 5. Ordinance Authorizing Quit-Claim and Release of Sanitary Sewer Easement within Boundaries of Fox Ridge Road and Located between Lots 2 and 22 of Hunting Hills, Section 23. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 21-16, Returns of Article II. Taxes on Tangible Personal Property of Chapter 21, Taxation of the Roanoke County Code to Provide an Alternative Method of Filing Returns for Motor Vehicles. (Wayne Compton, Commissioner of the Revenue) 2. Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance of an Easement to Appalachian Power Company for Electric Service Extending Across Darrell Shell Memorial Park. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 4 L. 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 WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of Minutes for August 23, 1994, and September 12, 1994. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Grievance Panel. 3. Request for Acceptance of 0.12 Miles of College View Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Resolution to the Virginia Department of Education Requesting Certain Changes to the Regulations Concerning Literary Loan Fund Applications. 5. Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. 6. Approval of Raffle Permit from Junior Miss Local Organization, Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festival. M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS N. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 5 O. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Proclamation Signed by Chairman 5. Bond Project Status Report 6. Impact of the Cat Ordinance 7. Automated Fuel-Fleet Management Systems 8. Request for Information on Crime Statistics in Roanoke County P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (3) Acquisition of Real Property for Public Purpose, Cave Spring High School; (3) For Consultation with Legal Counsel to Discuss Potential Litigation Concerning Enforcement of Admissions Tax; (4) Discussion of a Personal Matter Not Related to Public Business; (6) Investing of Public Funds Where the Financial Interest of the County May be Affected, Receipt of Financial Audits and Dispersing of County Funds to Volunteer Fire and Rescue Departments; and (7) To Discuss a Legal Matter with Respect to Consideration of Regional Sewage Treatment Contract. Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION EVENING SESSION 6 R. PUBLIC HEARINGS S. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 22-82. "Rates and Fees" of Chapter 22 "Water" Article II. "Water Systems", Division 2. "County Water System" of the Roanoke County Code to Provide for Changes in the Utility Billing Fees, Charges, Deposits, and Procedures for Water and Sewer Service. (Paul Grice, Assistant Finance Director) 2. Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Ordinance 81490-6 Authorizing Adjustments to the Fee Structure for Services for Parks and Recreation Activities. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks and Recreation) 3. Ordinance to Rezone .409 acre from AV Conditional to C- 2 to Allow Retail Uses, Located at 5449 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Kingery Bros. Associates. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 4. Ordinance to Rezone Approximately Ten Acres from R-3 Conditional to C-1 to Construct an Office Complex, Located at the Intersection of Airport Road and Dent Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corporation. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 5. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct and Operate an Electric Substation, Located on Kirk Lane, off Cotton Hill Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Appalachian Power Company. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 6. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct a Building for Religious Assembly Including Classrooms, Office and Recreational Facilities, Located on Northridge Lane, Approximately 700 Feet Northwest of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of North Valley Seventh-Day Adventist Church. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) T. U. 7. Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct a Fast Food Restaurant at the Intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Tacoma, Inc. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 8. Ordinance Amending the Text of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to Include a Planned Commercial Development District and a Planned Industrial Development District. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 9. Ordinance Vacating Portions of Public Utility Easements located in Waterford, Section 5, as Recorded in Plat Book 16, Page 21, in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections) 10. Ordinance Vacating and of Right-of--Way Known Eastern Side of Misty Petition of Corpre, Inc. Inspections Director) Closing an Unimproved Portion as Creek Circle, Along the Forest Subdivision, Upon the (Arnold Covey, Engineering & OTHER BUSINESS 1. Bid Protest for Water Line Materials by American Cast Iron Pipe Company. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) ADJOUR1vMENT s ~ \. C'- ~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLUTION 92794-1 OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF TINA C. GREENS, SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene was first employed in January, 1975, as an Eligibility Worker with the Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene has also served as a Senior Eligibility Worker in the Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to TINA C. GREENS for over nineteen years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: / tom/ ~ i V ~~~ v Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources C-I AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF TINA C. GREENE, SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene was first employed in January, 1975, as an Eligibility Worker with the Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene has also served as a Senior Eligibility Worker in the Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to TINA C. GREENE for over nineteen years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLUTION 92794-2 OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF WILLIAM E. POOLE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE WHEREAS, William E. Poole was first employed in December, 1979, as a Deputy Sheriff-Corrections Officer in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, William E. Poole has also served as a Deputy Sheriff-Corrections Division Transportation in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, William E. Poole, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to WILLIAM E. POOLE for over fourteen years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: C~ Brenda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources C-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF WILLIAM E. POOLE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE WHEREAS, William E. Poole was first employed in December, 1979, as a Deputy Sheriff-Corrections Officer in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, William E. Poole has also served as a Deputy Sheriff-Corrections Division Transportation in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, William E. Poole, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to WILLIAM E. POOLE for over fourteen years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. ..- -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLUTION 92794-3 OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF GLORIA T. LOVELACE, SHERIFF~B OFFICE WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace was first employed in April, 1984, as a Corrections Division Cook in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace has also served as a Deputy Sheriff-Corrections Officer in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to GLORIA T. LOVELACE for over ten years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~i Brenda J. Hol on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources G3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF GLORIA T. LOVELACE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace was first employed in April, 1984, as a Corrections Division Cook in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace has also served as a Deputy Sheriff-Corrections Officer in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to GLORIA T. LOVELACE for over ten years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. C-y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER AS CRIME PREVENTION MONTH IN THE COUNTY OF ROANORE WHEREAS, crime prevention is everyone's business and depends on active cooperation among all elements of the community; and WHEREAS, in this era of escalating fear throughout the nation because of violence, citizens must be made aware of what they can do to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, and their communities; and WHEREAS, the financial loss, personal injury, and community deterioration resulting from crime are intolerable and need to be addressed by the whole community; and WHEREAS, effective crime prevention programs excel because of partnerships among law enforcement, other government agencies, and individuals as they help to rebuild a sense of communal responsibility and shared pride; and WHEREAS, youth-oriented prevention programs promote positive alternatives for young people and encourage youth to make significant contributions to their communities; and WHEREAS, all citizens should become more aware of violence, drug, and other crime prevention efforts within the community to take action themselves and to nurture a safe, caring environment for future generations. NOW, THEREFORE, WE,the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim October 1994 as CRIME PREVENTION MONTH in Roanoke County; and c-~ FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors calls upon all citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, and businesses to increase their participation in our community's crime prevention efforts to more tightly weave the fabric of the community and strengthen community spirit. __ 1 .~ .., ~°. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLUTION 92794-4 AUTHORI7~ING AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA PIIBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF $10,100,000 SCHOOL BONDS WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Board and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia ("County") have determined that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue general obligation bonds of the County in an amount not to exceed $10,100,000 ("Bond") to finance certain capital improvements for public school purposes ("Projects") and to sell the Bonds to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA"); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The County Administrator is authorized and directed to submit an application to the VPSA in order to sell the Bonds to the VPSA at the Spring 1995 bond sale. 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Deanna Gordon, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools ACTION NO. _1 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Approval to Apply to the Virginia Public School Authority for the Spring 1995 Bond Sale. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ,~.r-~'"'-''`~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On September 13, 1994, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors expressed their support to apply to the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for a bond sale in the spring of 1995 in the amount of $10,100,000. Attachment A contains the specifics of this bond sale. This will complete the remaining immediate needs in the School Capital Program which the Board favored and includes $1, 500,000 for architectural and engineering work on a new Cave Spring High School. This will allow the Schools to hire an architect and begin the process of community meetings and discussions in preparation for a later VPSA sale or bond referendum. The School Board adopted the attached resolution at a special meeting on September 22, 1994 requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve application to the VPSA for the Spring 1995 bond sale in the amount of $10,100,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Annual debt service on this bond sale will be approximately $916,000 per year. The first debt payment will not be due until the 1995-96 budget year. Funds will be included in the 1995-96 budget to cover this debt service. In addition, the County has several properties that are currently being marketed for sale as well as other potential properties that could be marketed in the near future. The Board could designate the proceeds from the sale of these properties to reduce the capital needed for borrowing on these projects or to pay the debt service for several years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing an application to the VPSA in the amount of $10,100,00,0 for the Spring 1995 bond sale. m:\finance\common\board\9-27-94.wpd Respectfully submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approv by, ~ ~ I ~~r `% /1' Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () ~dY - - - Received () Johnson - - - Referred () Kohinke - - - To () Minnix - - - Nickens - - - m:\finance\common\board\9-27-94.wpd Q C N t U f0 Q N C N °oa L M V ~' ~ C N 7 > O O` U a a~ E ~c - c ~ as ~ ~ U i O O t f) ~ A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N I~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 CO M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~p O~ppCfl00000000000000000 +-' O N N N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Mr-~ ~~NMO~M~M~~~-OO~Otn ~ N M N r r ~~ M ~ C t0 ~ O O J O ~~ N - N ~ ~ LL J ~O Q O ~ ~ a_ >~ C f0 ~ O ~ J ~ ~~ N = ~ ~ ++ lt_ .J C ~ R1 ~ O ~ J ~ ~ C ~ 'C ~ O J ~ ~ O ~ ~ O - ~ U ~ ~~~ a~ QU ~~ a °' ~ c .` 0 Q ~ ~ ~. _ ~ f0 LL O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ M ~ N ~ O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 000 00 000 ° ° ° o o ~ n o n ~ rS O O In l!') 0 0 0 0 0 O O N I~ 0 0 0 0 0 O O CO M 0 0 0 0 0 Olnopc000000 O N N N O N 0 0 0 M ~ ~ ~ ~ N M O O O O O O O r W Q ~ ~ co +N. C U O O ~ '~ O UE~ Ws > rn ~Lc~ o L > C ~ 2 m ~, L ~ ~ ~ (n > c 32 ° m Q rn ~ .°-~ ~ Eo 0 m a~ o~ a~ ~ ~ c °~ E a~i ~ ~~~~ m= ~ °- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v~ EW m > m c ~' i a i a o ' o , a i o v> c ~ c. w E'c c W c N o~ vii cn (~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ > > ~ m ~ N N U ~ U > ~ ~ t L ~ ~~ U a~ a~ ~ i `m op ~ °o a~ E ~.r..; a3i ~ a~i ~ o o ~ o > W' ('~ Q ~ Q m ~' (7 C~ U > U lL LL Z x ~ H ~ Z (A (n 0~ O O O O O lf') N O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O o ~ ~M\ ~ V ~ s.. N O N \° o ~ ~ O CO ~ V ti 0 N o ~ ~M1 O V O O ~ ~ O N O o ~ ~M1 O V ~ >, ~ O N o M ~n cfl co cfl ~ ~ 0 N o O ~ ~ CO ~ ~\ O V O N >+ O N a~ U_ m .Z ~ a~ a~ U ~ ~ ~ (6 o ~ ~ c ~ ~. c ~ ~ Q Z ~-i Y N a_ U 2 U rn 0 N O -~ FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY MEETING IN SPECIAL SESSION AT 8 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1994 IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA. RESOLUTION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF SCHOOL BONDS TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY. WHEREAS, The Roanoke County School Board and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") have determined that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue general obligation bonds of the County in an amount not to exceed $10,100,000 to finance certain capital improvements for public school purposes ("Bonds") and to sell the Bonds to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA"): NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: 1. The County School Board requests pursuant to Section 15.1-227.41 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Code") that the Board of Supervisors of the County issue the Bonds and submit an application to the VPSA in order to sell the Bonds to the VPSA at the Spring 1995 VPSA bond sale and the Superintendent of Schools or such officer as she may designate is authorized to submit such documentation as may be required by VPSA. The School Board consents pursuant to Section 15.1-227.39B of the Code and Article VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution of Virginia to the issuance and sale of the Bonds to the VPSA. 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. Moved by Charlsie S. Pafford and duly seconded, the foregoing Resolution was adopted on the following recorded vote: AYES: Maurice L. Mitchell, Charlsie S. Pafford, Jerry L. Canada, Frank E. Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbara B. Chewning TESTE: ~- Clerk ~_i RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF $10,100,000 SCHOOL BONDS. WHEREAS, The Roanoke County School Board and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") have determined that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue general obligation bonds of the County in an amount not to exceed $10,100,000 ("Bonds") to finance certain capital improvements for public school purposes ("Projects") and to sell the Bonds to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA"); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The County Administrator is authorized and directed to submit an application to the VPSA in order to sell the Bonds to the VPSA at the Spring 1995 bond sale. 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. m:~finance~common~board~9-27-94.res Item No . ~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution expressing appreciation to Congressman Boucher for his efforts in securing a $150,000 grant for Valley TechPark COIINTY ADMINISTRATOR' 8 COMMENTS: ~f'e~ (~' ~m ~~J`~~ ~~c~-o~- -may t..~~s.~~f~ ~ /.~c ~Z•/~ " / C ~ ~~ E%ECIITIVE SIIMMARY: Attached is a resolution recognizing the efforts of Congressman Rick Boucher on Roanoke County's behalf. The $150,000 that Congressman Boucher secured for Valley TechPark will be earmarked for grading, signage, lighting, and landscaping. We are very appreciative of the Congressman's efforts. Valley Techpark - Update County Bond Budget Expended Remaining Land acquisition $76,000 $75,957.04 $42.96 Road $271,000 $210,000.00 $61,000 Water/sewer $352,800 $356,068.50 ($3,268.50) Engineering $48,500 $44,234.96 $4,265.04 Other 7 000 $7,453.75 $(453.752 Total County Bond $755,300 $693,714.25 $61,585.75 Water Fund Distribution system 85 000 $67,021.97 X4,155.06 Total water fund $85,000 $67,021.97 $4,155.06 VDOT Fund Road $450,000 -0- $450,000 Intersection Insp. 60 000 -0- 60 000 Total VDOT Fund $510,000 -0- $510,000 TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT $1350,300 $760,736,22 $575,741.71 ,~.a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the attached resolution expressing appreciation to Congressman Boucher be approved by the Board. Respec lly submitted: ,..v Brian T. Duncan, Asst. Director Economic Development Approved: CS~ /~ (~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens r ~ '-' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLIITION OF APPRECIATION TO CONGRESSMAN BOUCHER FOR SECURING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT FOR VALLEY TECHPARR WHEREAS, Rick Boucher has served the Ninth District of Virginia in the United States Congress since 1982 and has represented western Roanoke County since 1992, and WHEREAS, Congressman Boucher has been involved in economic development throughout the Ninth District, and has established the Showcase Southwest Virginia program, wherein potential employers are introduced to communities and their industrial facilities, and WHEREAS, this program was instrumental in the location of two major employers within the Ninth District, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County is in the process of constructing the first phase of Valley TechPark, a publicly owned industrial park strategically located to create jobs for the residents of both the Roanoke and New River Valleys, as well as to provide a link between Virginia Tech and the Roanoke Valley, and WHEREAS, Congressman Boucher has been involved in securing funds for industrial park development throughout the Ninth District, and recently obtained $150,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of completing Phase I of the Valley TechPark improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation to CONGRESSMAN RICK BOUCHER for his efforts in securing these funds as well as for his efforts to showcase Roanoke County to potential expanding and relocating technologically based companies. i. ..~ ACTION NO. A-92794-5 ITEM NUMBER ~ ' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Request from Walter Campbell for Funds to Repair Melinda Lane COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' 8 COMMENTS : ~ 4~ , '~ ~K ~~'~' ~.,•- SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a letter from Walter E. Campbell requesting that Roanoke County make repairs to Melinda Lane. Staff has visited the site on several occasions and discussed the damage with Mr. Campbell. This is a one lane private lane serving six families. It was initially paved approximately 14 years. Since that time it was patched by the County in 1991 when damage occurred from rear loader refuse trucks traveling on the lane. Staff discontinued taking the rear loader on Melinda Lane in 1991. Since that time, we have collected Mr. Campbell's refuse with a pickup truck and took the refuse to the larger refuse vehicle on another road. Other residents took their refuse to the rear loader. Staff has reviewed this request and does not feel that the County should pay the entire portion because of the driveway has been used for many years by the families living there. It has also not been the practice of the County to pay for repairs of this type. Otherwise, we would be repaving roads in subdivisions such as Bridlewood. Because of the circumstances involved, however, the County has offered to pay one-third of the cost up to $1,000 toward repaving of the driveway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board authorize payment of one-third of the cost up to $1,000, with the funds appropriated from the insurance reserves. Submitted by ....~ Robert Jern' an Risk Manage Approved by: ~o-~~ Elmer C. Ho County Administrator A ~~ i ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by• H. Odell Minnix No Yes Abs Denied ( ) motion to approve payment by Eddy ~_ Received ( ) County of 75~ and Campbell 25~ Johnson x Referred ( ) of costs for repair, not to Kohinke x To ( ) exceed $3 ,400 Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Robert Jernigan, Risk Manager Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance f Walter E. Campbell 6188 Melinda Lane Roanoke, Va. 24065 September 15, 1994 Mr. Gardner W. Smith, Director Roanoke County General Services 1216 Kessler Mill Rd. Salem, Va. 24153 Dear Mr. Smith, E-I BACKGROUND -After Roanoke County discontinued backyard service, garbage trucks started picking up on Melinda Lane. After the service started in 1982, there was deterioration of the road surface. At my request, the County had a contractor to come out to spot-patch the road in 1985. I was told that they would be back to finish the repair but they never came back. COMPLAINT -Melinda Lane has deteriorated over the years partially due to the garbage trucks and because the repair was never completed. There are six families living on this road and it is our opinion that with my tax dollars supporting the County, that I should get repairs to the road. To date, I have talked to ten or more employees of the County and of the State with no help being received. I am a retired citizen on Social Security and I am seeking the support of the County government to fix this road. REQUEST -Request that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors take action to repair Melinda Lane and bring it up to the standard to stop the deterioration. Estimates obtained to repair the road have been turned over to Mr. Minnix. I am personally prepared to appear before the Board on September 27, 1994. Sincerely, Gz~-'~`J ~%~ Walter E. Campbell WIIlillllllllililllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllll~lllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllliilillllllliillllllllllllillllilllllillll~ll ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~- ~ ~ ~ _ APPE CE REQUEST ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS _ 1,GPUBLIC HEARING _ c SUBJECT: law.. ~, t~1~e~~ ~ _ dd``-- c ._ 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 __ FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED c BELOW: _~ _, _ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment = whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will i = 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 c do otherwise. c ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. the Chairman be entertained b _ Questions of clarification ma . y y _ ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized = speaker and audience members is not allowed. _ ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments = with the clerk. c ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK _ - - - _ _ - _ ~r . ~ err 1 A _ ~ _ A miillllllllllliillllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~ 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: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Request for a Board of Supervisors Planning Retreat COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: I have scheduled a staff retreat for late October. This will be a two-day overnight planning session at the Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center. We intend to concentrate on long-range plans, visioning for the County, department organizational structure and major projects. It has been several years since we have had a Board retreat similar to the one we are planning for staff . I would like to schedule such a retreat with the Board of Supervisors either before or after our staff retreat. If this is acceptable, I will ask Board Clerk Mary Allen to get some suggested dates from each of you and we can begin to formulate plans for a Board planning retreat. rn~-~/ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens 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: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Work Session on Stormwater Detention Ponds COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On July 26, 1994, the Board of Supervisors held a work session on consideration of County maintenance of Stormwater detention ponds. At that time, staff was asked to continue to monitor the situation and assess federal and state regulations. Staff was also requested to schedule another work session for further discussion of this issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors schedule a work session to discuss Stormwater Detention Ponds on October 11, 1994. ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens 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: September 27, 1994 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 October 25, 1994. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1) An ordinance to rezone approximately 9.33 acres from I-1 conditional to I-1 to remove conditions, located off of Challenger Avenue approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Roanoke City line, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Davis H. Elliot Company Inc. 2) An ordinance to rezone 1.790 acres from R-2C, R-1 and C-2 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a convenience store with fast food, located at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Feather Road, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Shanks Associates P.C. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERR~S OFFICE. ~i-~ 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 October 25, 1994. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1 through 2, 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, ~~ " 1. . Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Minnix Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Vote No Yes Abs 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 For staff use only ~ ~' dat Div • /) / received app is tio~ PC/BZ dat' placards issued: BOS dat Case Number: ~~ ,,,Y fD Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ® REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE OVARIANCE Applicant's name: Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc. Phone: 992-2865 Address: P-0. Box 12707, Roanoke, VA 24027 Zip Code: 24027 Owner's name: Gt~,~ ~lct-~- ~ rsc~ ~ % ~ Same As Above) ~~, ; ~ ~~ ~~ ?, ~„ a ~ 3 f~_3~ ~,~, Phone: Address: Ed Irz ~~ r'~. -1 ~~~-• Zip Code: Location of property: Tax Map Number: 50.01-1-2 . 2 Challenger Avenue off of Route 460E Magisterial District: Hollins Community Planning Area: Bonsack Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: I-1 ~ ~ 9.331± acres Existing Land Use: Vacan sq.ft. . . Proposed Zoning: I -1 . For sra,Y use on/y Proposed Land Use: Any use per I-1 zoning 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 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 NO X . .............................:................................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: Variance of Section(s) 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 as v ws v X Consultation 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan X Application fee X Application Metes and bounds description A ~~ Proffers, if applicable X Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the know/edge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: ~ ~ ~ S Q. ~~- r ~~~ For Staff Use On/y: Case Number Applicant _ Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc. 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. This rezoning would eliminate unnecessary restrictions on the land which now discourage economic development activities which in turn provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base. Roanoke County saw fit to zone the property I-1 with the 1992 zoning ordinance. By removing the proffers which were the result of a prior rezoning, compliance with the current I-1 district will be enhanced. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The. property was zoned I-1 in 1992 when the county.'adopted~the new: zoning ordinance. The rezoning of the property to M-2 was done prior to the 1992 zoning ordinance and the proffers are now unnecessary because the new I-1 ordinance addresses these requirements. 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 property is currently restricted by proffers which_;are now obsolete. Removing the proffers will have minimal effect, if any, on adjoining properties and surrounding area and will cause the property to appeal to a far greater number of qualified I-1 users. ROAHOZCE COQNTY UTILITY DEPARTMBNT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date 8/23/94 Name of Applicant Davis H. Elliot Co., Inc. phone 992-2865 Address of Applicant P.O. Box 12707, Roanoke, VA 24027 Name of Developer N/A Phone Address of Developer N/A N-~ Name of Design Engineer N/A Phone Address of -Design Engineer N/A Quinn Thomas, Woltz & Associates, Inc. Name of Contact Person 23 Franklin Road, Roanoke, VA 24011--(342-3560) Name of Proposed Development Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) No development planned at this time Location of proposed development (FURNISH COPY OF MAP AND PLPNIMETRIC NUIVIDER) Challenger Avenue off of Route 460E Size of proposed development in acres: ~ 9.331+- Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum N/A feet MSL. Maximum N/A f eet 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. Signature of Applicant ~~~~ ~ ~VOLTZ ~~~ _ ~~ ~ ASSOCIATES - ilvc. BROKERS & AUC'I]ONEERS August 24, 1994 Mr. Terry Herrington Director,. Roanoke Co. Planning Dept. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Herrington: Enclosed is an application for rezoning of the 9.331± acre parcel owned by Davis Elliot Co., Inc. and located off Route 460 East in Roanoke County. Also enclosed is their check covering the application fee in the amount of $1,140. Our overall objective in this rezoning action is not to change the zoning but merely to remove the Proffers and Conditions which we believe to be obsolete or irrelevant now that the property is listed with us for sale to another potential buyer. Also, recent changes in the I-1 zoning meet the intent of these Proffers and Conditions. If any further information is required or you have any questions, please contact me immediately. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours ~ %~~ Quinn Thomas QT:rck Enc 23 Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 • (703) 342-3560 • Fax (703) 342-3741 Toll Free -1-800-551-3588 ~ ~_- _~. ~O V~ '~ Y C ~~+ ~• ~ Pub Q~ ` qr ~` .~ `.~ P V~' ~ e "0106%`~p"; '0 4!s Reee Mm. ~ I ~ STEVVAR7` THE O•erioe. ••o~e I KNOE a a ma..a+w a .. ~~~ ~ .1900 • c'ryy ~ ~ VICINITY MAP ~_ro ~iC 4 O.V.VFYdT/ON__ _. _ .... ~}-I 0 _ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNII~'G r~~ MAP ~ ~ I ' - - - - - - - -- -• . - ~' AND ZONING 50. D! -- /- 2.2 ~e,. COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. SW P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 - (703) 772-2068 FAX (7031772-2030 For staff use only H date reeejy' received by: application ZA date: placards issued: B OS date: // Csse Number: %/y/~/~ _ I •::i::::::::::::i~::i:i:i:i:i:i :s:::i::::::•i:::::;:i::•:•::•. . .:: . ....:.:...:.•.;.:.•.•:•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::iii:::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::: ••~ . isi'ieeEi:EliiisisiEi:~:iE::isE°E~iE?ei~:isi:::i~iiiiE:e:ii:iii:E:E~::E:c:c:i:E~E:E:E:i:ei:i:i _. Check type of application filed (check all that apply): - C~ REZONING C~ SPECIAL USE OVARIANCE Applicant's name: Shanks Associates, P.C. Phone:(7.03) 343- Address: 313. Luck Avenue Lip Code: Roanoke VA 4 Owner's name: Gerald W. Fairchild W.E. Cundiff Co.,Inc. Phone: Address: 1313 Washington AVe. 109 Polland St Zip Code: Vinton VA 2417• 70 ~ 4 - ii_ Location of property: Tax Map Number6l : 14 -4 -4 .3 ;Portion o f 61 .18 -,,;;~ ;,R~iite; _~2.4 @ Feather Road Magisterial District: Vinton , : ~ • ~ Community Planning Area: Sizeof.parc~el~.s).:::: Existing Zoning: R-2C & R-1 (Rezoning) & C-2 (Special Use) ` ~ ' c . 7_ 9_ 0 ~ _:T a res Existing Land Use: V a c a n t --~''r='' ~sq:ft. *Rezoning 1.79.0 ~Ac•res i=isi:i i::i iia:~iii:::i ~~::~:~:~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:•:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:. .•:. _. f :~t.:•i•:.i'i°iie~EiiE~iiiipiEg~EeE'•ieiii~:-E•'i~iiiii'•iii~ i~i•'E3iEiiiE;E;i;iEEgi;iiEiiei~i ••!~ 1. .:. . ' Proposed Zoning: C-2 ~.Fo~.sraffuse o~ty- Proposed Land lase: Convenience store with gas pumps fast UsnType: , 'f d oo , and garden center. ..................... . .... . .. 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 I-S REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO X i.i;;,;,;,,,,,,,, ;;,:. ..:. •_•, • Ii ii i li e' E i a:; i s i i is E E: E i?; i:;:; e:: E = i? E e is ?: f : E i E: e:;: i i? is E E E E: S : :: i ;; i e; :::_:::. ~:.... . :_. .._. •• _ _• . . • • • •• Variance_bf .Section(s) of the Roanoke CountyZoning Ordinance in order to:. N/A ,; Is the application- complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT EE ACCEPTED IF !,~1`f OF THESE ITEMS ARE. MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. wr v ti ., ... ' .. ~ as 'v ~ ws v X Consultation X 8 1/2" x 11' concept plan X Application fee X Application X ~?~~ Metes and bounds description N/ y•f Proffers, if applicable X Justification N/n ~~~~~ Water and sewer application X Adjoining property ov~ners /hereby certify that ! ain either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the know/edge and consent of the owner. 731 65 2-2s Owner's Signature: r ~...~ Foi Staff Use On/y: 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. T 's project furthers the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance by providing a itional acreage to facilitate development of an existing commercial pr petty. The additional acreage provides sufficient area to grade the site in a manner which will provide convenience of access and allow commercial en rances to be as far away as practical from the intersection of Feather Road an Route 24. This additional acreage affords a grading plan which will avoid pl cing walls adjacent to the floodplain, resulting in a more attractive de elopment. There are no historic buildings on the sire. The project will en outage economic development by providing employment opportunities and en ancing the tax base. The project is not located near any airports and will no encroach into the Wolf Creek Floodwav. ' Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Th s project conforms to the general guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan for tr nsition areas by enhancing the quality of Highway frontage development. Si nage and landscaping will be provided in accordance with the County ~or finances, resulting in an estheticall is a vacant tract ve etated with low ly1nleasing site. The sire presently an buffering will begprovided, both alonggadjoiningbvacant residentialening pr perties, and road frontages. Minimal commercial entrances along adjacent ro ds are being proposed. Lighting will be directed away from adjoining pr perties. The best use for this property is retail development, which is co sistent with nearby uses. 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. Th s project will have a tremendous impact on the property as well as the ne ghborhood, by the. orderly development of a vacant tract of commercial real es ate along Route 24. The development is~consistent in use with other de elopment along Route 24. All of the adjoining properties are undeveloped. Pu lic utilities such as water and sewer are available and the applicant is wo king closely with the Town of Vinton for these services. Surrounding roads ar adequate and fire and rescue services are available. 31 3 Luck Avenue 0 ENGINEERS Roanoke, Virginia 2401 6 0 SURVEYORS C7O3) 343-6685 0 PLANNERS C7O3) 345-1 51 9 (Fax) .Municipal Services • Commercial 6 Residential Site Development • Boundary, Topographic & Loan Surveys • Water Systems • As-Built and Downtown Surveys August 26, 1994 RE: Tax Parcel No. 61.14 -4 -4.3 an d a portion of 61.18-2-25 Foodette Con vertience Store Job No. 793022 ~~ r- ~ Mr. Terrence L. Harrington Director of Planning ~' County of Roanoke ~` * 5204 Bernard Drive, Suite~22C t~ Roanoke, Virginia 24018 i ~ ~ ' i a` ~' ~~~~ 2 6 ~~~~ Dear Mr. Harrington Please find enclosed a completed application for tezonzng and special use for the referenced site. Also enclosed are checks to>`alling $1089, 8 1/2" x 11" conceit plan, metes and bounds legal descriptions, ' s c~ a list of adjoining property owners. The water and sewer application and proffers are not applicable. Please advise once your staff has completed its review. Should you have any questions, please contact either Fred Shanks, III or myself at 343-6685. Cordially, W. Michael Wool wine c: Mr. Jerry Fairchild - ~ NVId ld.f.11d30N00 aid '~~ 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 4 3 H! Allrs7edatl inwrnv.asa ~Y1C11/ ~l'WiAY,KY/7 cM sb~~r~d-sdoc~tbns-sb~~~rr~~~- od s~~ra~ssd s~+r~s w ir. II~ a .~~ _ ~~ s, o _ ~ /q ~t •. ,._-._ .....__ to ~o ~- }' a YY 3aV ~Ji~~ a `~7 s o ; ~~ ;~~ .~ ~~ ~ s ;a~~ xaa~ t ~ s h ~ ~ 1 b tf 1 i ` ~ .-.i; °~ ~^ . ~ .~ :> T :, ~o a z. ~t 3#~; i= ~.;, .a ~:ii= !4 tip?. ~! i .~ iii .' °y. bZ ~ " N / \ pia 1 ~-° g„b- ~~° i?a? =oa ~._ 2 ~, ~ .r,,, , .~ ~ " ~ ~~ -_ . ~~ ,~ F+->- a NORTH 44.1 `~ / 44.! •ya• I.o ~,c~S u ~_ G `Lim •.~ /1.9! 4 '~ ps ~; : Jb '~ 1.lO is 22 ufhl! / r w - , Z.3 JV J~) W w ~ 3 41 -~ ~ 24 23 ~ w + w 26 ~ f 4s•2 i~ri are. 261 ~• / 44 ~ w. s / * ~• ~ ~ ~ y. ~~. ~-. -~ ~-Wesn~e9t~n ~~ w . -- 24 c \//~_/~ p0 6113 -1 ~ po, C 4 \ CRS 4.1 \ 607ic IliAt a]4 ~~ >, ~ ~~ O / P 6~8.2- / ~' b r~~• a,,,, ~ s ~ i'^,1 ~ ~` n.r d Mew.. ~~ ~ 7 _ N rio ~+b-rn f•roo ' e~~ .4` J ~ f • IOC / r r / :' '+,, • ! , ~ U~ ' Q ~ :u ,. ~~ - ._/ ~ a /''~ ~~ zz nm... / -~~'~. Q - ~ •~*t DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIl\rG ~T/T/o~~~~>~; ' SHA^/KS ~SSOC/~IT~S, P.C, . " Arm zornrrc 7d x M<W # : ~ /. i•~ •- ~- ~. 3 0.•~ P/o b /. /B -1- 25" „~ i~£4cJc5T ~EZo,c~g R/ Q.,nr~ 1~2c ro C2 ~~ S PEG/.~ t U5~ PE~?Mi TS ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of an Ordinance Revising Section 18 of the Roanoke County Code Pertaining to Stormwater Inflow and Infiltration from Private Property COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ;~~ _~r ~ ~''~.~.X BACKGROUND• Section 18 of the Roanoke County Code provides for enforcing the elimination of Stormwater inflow and infiltration from private property. The code bases surcharges for non-compliance on the amount of Stormwater that could enter the sanitary sewer system. Although this method is excellent in principal, the staff has found it difficult to place realistic numbers on these flows. On August 23, 1994 a work session was held to review these concerns. As a result of the work session, a revision to the ordinance is proposed which places defects and penalties in categories rather than flow quantities. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Following is a chart summarizing the proposed categories including the definition and penalty. ~~ 0 I Direct connections Six months to (inflow) to the sewer of repair. If not sump pumps (including repaired, $100 overflows), holes in per month until floor drains, downspouts, repaired. foundation drains, and other direct sources of inflow (including but not limited to visible evidence of ground/surface water entering drains thru doors or cracks in floors and walls as noted during field inspections by the Roanoke County Utility Department II Leaking or sheared Six months to lateral and any other repair. If not sources of infiltration repaired, $50 as noted during field per month until inspections by the repaired. Roanoke County Utility Department. III Potential or minor defects Voluntary repair. that do not adversely County reserves affect the sanitary sewer right to continue system at the present to monitor defects. time Customer to be notified if condition changes. Attached is a copy of the proposed ordinance as amended. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the proposed changes to the ordinance be adopted following second reading. ~y SUBMITTED BY: Gary Ro rtson, P.E. Utility Director Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION APPROVED: ~~~~' l ~ ~ Elmer C. H dge County Administrator VOTE _ No Eddy _ Johnson _ Kohinke _ Minnix _ Nickens Yes Abs T-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 51193-7 AND SECTIONS 18- 156.2 AND 18.156.3 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITED DISCHARGE OF STORMWATER, SURFACE WATER, GROUNDWATER, ROOF RUNOFF OR SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM, BY ESTABLISHING CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF VIOLATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, had previously adopted a procedure to enforce the prohibited discharge of stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, or subsurface drainage into the public sanitary sewer system by Ordinance No. 51193-7 and it is now necessary to make certain amendments to that Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994; and the second reading was held on October 25, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following sections of Chapter 18, "Sewers and sewage disposal" be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 18-156.2. Determination by Utility Director. (a) The Utility Director, or his designee, shall be vested with the authority and responsibility to enforce the provisions of this ordinance and to make determinations with respect to the actual or potential illegal or improper discharge, inflow or infiltration of stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff or subsurface drainage into the public sanitary sewer system. 1 ,~. (b) A determination with respect to an actual or potential illegal or improper discharge, inflow or infiltration of stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff or subsurface drainage into the public sanitary sewer system from the property of a sewer user or any other person shall be based upon the following categories• S,1_)_ Category I defects are defined as direct connections (inflow) to the public sewer of sump mumps (including overflows) holes in floor drains, downspouts foundation drains, and other direct sources of inflow (including but not limited to visible evidence of ground/surface water entering drains through doors or cracks in floors and walls) as noted during field inspections by the Roanoke County Utility Department. 2 ~~ ~ Category II defects are defined as leaking or sheared laterals or any other sources of infiltration as noted during field inspections by the Roanoke CountY,Utility Department. j31 Category III defects are considered to be potential or minor defects that do not adversely affect the sanitary sewer system at the present time. (c) The Utility Director, or his designee, shall provide written notice by certified mail to the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person of any violation of this ordinance or of Section 18-156 of this Code. This notice shall describe the nature of the violation, t-~~~~~~~i-e~-or-~e--ae~~-o= the corrective measures necessary to achieve compliance, the time period for compliance, the amount of the monthly surcharge until corrected, and the appeal process. Sec. 18-156.3. Surcharge; disconnection (a) For structures or property with actual or potential d 1 S Cha rg e , i ~ ' ' } ~' ' vzz-v~xrr~rey'1-Qe~ r' "" " e~-~6~ e-i Fi e3£ ces sir considered to be a Category I defect, 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 3 -~F~-'~ 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 X99 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. (b) For structures or property with actual or potential discharge iT.~~ra~i-e~-r-i ~r~~e,r-Q~~r~ i~re~-~e-~~es s~ra~t-l~s g~~e~r-dam-1~•~~te~e-fir s~-rba~e~i~r ^l•-*~^~, considered to be a Category II defect, 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, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system. If corrective measures to eliminate the actual or potential illegal or improper discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary 4 ~~ 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 X99 50 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 considered to be a Category III defect, the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person shall be notified of the results of the inspection Repairs of these defects will be considered voluntary at this time. Properties with Category III defects will continue to be monitored and if the Utility Director, or his designee determine that the condition changes, the responsib~ale peyr,~s.,on sha~lyl, be so notified. i-~!`=~~a~re~r e~;r CI'e"~L~'~N ~TCQ-~-~7~~e'J J GTl'CCl~~~e~':7-~ , v .. gel-e~~-d~~i~te-ire--p}tb3~~s~-rte-s e~e~-s~sr~~~~-ewe= use~~pre~~e~-ex' -tH =- - -"i "--- =~., ., i "- - - - ,.~..., , ,.,.. , } ,., } ~ } F -... ~ l i } i ~Orr~i~ cv-evrr-~c-~ic-Tr~-e~a-~--6~i~i~E}~^crati~Yb~l-~i-eTV "' 5 T- ii ~ ~ ~ rrr ~~t6~t- -6i~ i r 6irii } 9 } t, •• r e6~3aizrr~ cA- ~ , r 5 E 3i ~ n c r c r ~ z ~ '~z~ ~. ~~a~e~~-e~e ~ e eg T~ ; ~ ~ --~ ~s ~ e~a , ~e~ e~ r, .. ~ ~,.a ~~ e~~e.~~e- ~ -, -re--sn - e~~ . ~. r n z Q ~ ~~n , -e- ~~e~- i-tr-6 ee-- ~-8-~~~'~-~ } ~- a ~o~~s~ro~~ e~re e e-o e~ ; ~e~-~~re~e~~ ~ ~ ~ e , ~t- ~~ ~} .. F c ~ " -e~ e~e~ee-ge~s - ~ i., +- , ~ i, e~s era-~te~r a y~tr~e ,-.~ , g , -..,,.. , ,. a.., a .., a pei~6 ~ GV1llN1G LTr~ISie , ~ ' , } ~ - ~e ~ F I..l 1T7r2'e~l~-e1 r T ~ i , t. 1 e"31 1 iT GtC~a ~r r~ =' i., a , ~01~ ,-. ~ , V ~ +- ,. , ~ . ~ ., .. ~ „ ++~+ ~ i.. „ er~tTcr Te e z__rc~--v- v~r ~ ~ Y ~~ ~ ~-~-P- ~ 4 G 4011 e e~ ~e~~e~e~ree e-~ ~e ee se ~ ~ - ~ se -~e - a-~-s e;~ s aT. ^ ^ e=--e~e -e-~e~ e ~ a~~~t ~ ~ L r J Zlti Vll {..~11V 4+ M 1 1 r 1 ~ f c ci ~ - •~~r -= ±~ ' ~-~ a~~m~T ^ ~-~1~~ 6i~ -i~ --6~ I3 re -6i~- ~t ~- e 5 , ~ .- - ~ ~ - i ~Y i-~€-=-~~a~reT,-e~-i-r~~l-e~i-rte-tie--p~h~e-saw-se~t~ sl =~^~ .~r~? ~'=ee . 1-°o-~,n~'--~e-~t~e~-~e-Eet~t~s~ra-a; i~-r `=- _ =r "'-- ~,.... se-,_re~ use= , }~l~A'pe-1~`~y`6'6~3e-~Ai~9t-~3~ _ _- -.....,.... ~ -.., ,. ,.,_ __ - _ __ '? month 7 v ^ti~rrsh ~ r~t~-i 3'3 e-r~ee~ ~e-t^~~p~~e~e~~~e~~e~e-~-e~~e~-e= - _ ~ r "--- =~., .. t-li e Vie; , .. ~ 1. _.~, ~ 11 t~r~ ~t~-t-lie-~~t~~a~ scw~^ .. ~ , .. s-~Ta sir-i~tee-fie ~~ie~~e , ~--~seei~e^c~t-~ie e~rs~e~cz z=eni~re ^~^ r l~_ . __.. e____ e 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. codesser.927 7 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: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance Amending the Roanoke County Zoning Ordi- nance by Enacting the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~~ ~,~~ ~''%'I2~t"~ ~4 ~ ffs,! -^C~.rL 1 fJ~ BACKGROUND• Attached is a copy of the proposed Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District, prepared in ordinance form by the County Attorney's Office. The proposed District closely follows the model overlay district which was extensively reviewed by both public and private interests. The proposal before you was also subject to two community meetings prior to a unanimous recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission at the meeting on August 2. As presented in your work session on September 13, the proposed Overlay District is part of a larger regional effort to provide greater protection of the Roanoke River as a critical water resource. The primary orientation of the District is to avoid further degradation of water quality in relationship to future land uses within the river corridor area. In drafting these provisions particular attention was given to minimizing the fiscal impact on the County as well as the costs imposed on the development communi- ty, and integrating the district with existing federal, state and local ordinances, guidelines and reference materials. Since the Commission's public hearing, staff has met with residents and representatives of key businesses in the area affected and discussed specific problems that the proposed provisions may pose now or in the future. As a result of these discussions, staff would recommend that the changes to the text described below be considered for the reasons stated. 1. Expansion of Existina Auto/Truck Repair Facilities The basic intent of the District is to modify the uses permitted in the river corridor area in the future, not to necessarily hamper existing facilities that are already within the area. One specific facility, Kroger's Distribution Center, includes a truck service and repair facility for company trucks. Other similar establishments exist within the proposed overlay _- a 2 district. As the district is proposed these uses could be continued but never expanded or enlarged. Therefore, staff suggests that an exception be included in the listing of prohibited uses which would allow existing Minor and Major Automobile repair (which includes trucks) to be expanded, subject to approval under the waiver procedures in Section 30- 75-6. 2. Replacement of Existing Underground Storage Tanks In a similar vein as Item # 1 above, a number of establishments presently have underground storage tanks within the overlay district. Some of these locations physically do not have the land area to install above-ground tanks should they need to be replaced. The prohibition also serves as a disincentive to replace existing "substandard" tanks. To address this, staff suggests that replacement tanks be permitted under the waiver procedure as long as they meet the new Virginia Underground Storage Tank Regulations. If there is concurrence with the above modifications, staff will prepare a revised ordinance reflecting those changes. In addition, there may be additional suggestions which arise through the public review and hearing process which warrant further revisions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. Approval of the First Reading with the above two modifi- cations and scheduling of the Second Reading and Public Hearing for October 25, 1994. Respectfully submitted, Approved, ~' Jon han Hartley Ass st. Director, Planning and Zoning ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs I-a. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BY ENACTING THE ROANOKE RIVER CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance is scheduled for September 27, 1994; the second reading and public hearing is scheduled for October 25, 1994; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The following be added to the listing of districts established by the zoning ordinance at the bottom of the listing of Special Purpose Districts. SEC. 3a6 ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS (A) The following are established as Roanoke County zoning districts: Special Purpose Districts RRCO Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District 2. The following definitions would be added to the definitions section in alphabetical order. SEC.3a28 DEFINITIONS (C) BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - A practice or combination of practices that is determined by the appropriate state agencies to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. 1 ...-. "' LAND DISTURBING ACTNITY -Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into State waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land. Activities exempted under the definition of a land disturbing activity in the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance shall likewise be exempted from the requirements of Section 30-75. SHORELINE -The shoreline shall be the boundary line between a body of water and the land. This line shall consist of the sloping margin of, or the ground bordering, a stream and serving to confine the water to the natural channel during the normal course of flow. It is best marked where a distinct channel has been eroded to the valley floor or where there is a cessation of land vegetation. VEGETATIVE BUFFER -Perennial vegetation established or left undisturbed adjacent to the shoreline of a watercourse intended to filter out sediment and other nonpoint source pollutants from runoff before it reaches a watercourse. 2 ..F+' O~ 3. The new Conservation Overlay District would be inserted into the zoning ordinance as Section 30-75 as follows: SEC. 30-75 RRCO ROANOKE RIVER CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 30-75-1 Purpose (A) The intent of this section is to establish a Conservation Overlay District along the Roanoke River. The purpose is to recognize and designate the river corridor as a cultural and recreational resource, critical floodway, water source and important natural habitat worthy of coordinated conservation efforts and to take those measures necessary to protect this resource. This is consistent with the 1985 Comprehensive Plan as amended in December 1990 to incorporate the analysis, conclusions and recommendations of the Roanoke River Corridor Study dated August 1990. It is the premise of these provisions that certain specific land uses pose a danger to this water resource and should be avoided. In addition, through careful planning and design, clearing and grading activities or similar activities that disturb or destroy site vegetation can be minimized, with the goal that the natural vegetation, features and qualities of sites and properties along the Roanoke River corridor will be retained to the maximum extent possible. Finally, through implementation of additional erosion and sediment control practices, the maintenance and installation of buffer strips of natural vegetation, and use of Best Management Practices, the impacts of excessive soil loss and adverse effects of non-point source pollutants on the water quality of the Roanoke River can be minimized. 3 Sec. 30-75-2 Creation of Overlay S-a (A) The requirements of this Section shall be considered an overlay to the underlying zoning district designations as shown on the Official Zoning Map. As overlay regulations, this Section shall be supplemental to the underlying zoning district requirements contained in Article III of this ordinance. (B) The Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District shall consist of all lands located 750 feet landward from the 100 year flood plain of the Roanoke River, as established in Section 30-74-4 of this ordinance, and all lands located 750 feet landward of the shoreline of the North Fork of the Roanoke River to its intersection with State Route 697 (Sandy Ridge Road). Sec. 30-75-3 Applicability and Administration (A) Except as exempted or waived below in Section 30-75-6, these requirements shall apply to any grading, clearing, building, drainage activities, or other development or use of any parcel within the Conservation Overlay District. (B) Within the Conservation Overlay District any land disturbing activity exceeding 2,500 square feet shall comply with the requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of the County of Roanoke, unless exempted or waived in accordance with Section 30-75-6 below. 4 J r ~` (C) This district shall be administered through the Site Plan Review process required under Section 30-90 of this ordinance. Land disturbing activity not subject to Site Plan Review shall be administered through existing zoning permit processes in conjunction with the requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance requirements. (D) Nothing in the district shall in any way affect full compliance with the requirements of the Floodplain Overlay District contained in Section 30-74. Sec. 30-75-4 Permitted Uses and Use Restrictions (A) The uses permitted in the Conservation Overlay District shall be governed by the underlying zoning district in which the property is located as shown on the official zoning maps, except as otherwise prohibited below. (B) The following uses shall be prohibited within the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District: 1. Resource Extraction; 2. Commercial Feedlots; 3. Drilling for oil or gas; 4. Sanitary landfill; 5 za 5. Construction debris landfill; 6. Minor or major automobile repair services; 7. Scrap and salvage services; 8. Underground storage of any chemical or petroleum products for commercial or industrial purposes; and 9. The application, depositing, spreading or spraying of any hazardous or toxic chemical and/or biological materials or substances, except applications of such pesticides and/or herbicides as may be required under emergency situations and as permitted by the Administrator upon an affirmative recommendation by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service; 10. Land application of sewage sludge or effluent and associated activities, and/or reclamation of sewage and industrial wastes. This prohibition shall not pertain to approved Waste Water Treatment Plants. Sec. 30-75-5 Development Regulations (A) Setbacks -Except as otherwise provided in this section, no building or structure, nor any fences and/or walls, other than those determined to be necessary by the Administrator, shall be constructed: 6 S ~ 1. In the 100 year floodplain, OR 2. within 100 feet of the shoreline of the Roanoke River, whichever is less. (B) Vegetative Buffers - 1. General Provisions: a. A 100-foot vegetative buffer area shall be retained and maintained if present or established and maintained where it does not exist. This buffer area shall minimize the adverse effects of land use activities on the Roanoke River and aquatic life by retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering non-point source pollution from runoff. b. In lieu of the 100 foot buffer area, an alternative buffer area may be employed, if approved by the Administrator. The reduced buffer areas may either: i. Consist of a combination of buffer area not less than 50 feet in width, and appropriate Best Management Practices located landward of the buffer area, OR ii. if the lot was existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance and does not contain sufficient depth to provide the required buffer strip, 7 ~" ~, the buffer strip may be reduced to 50% of the available lot depth if Best Management Practices are utilized. c. Whenever the applicant proposes to reduce the 100 foot vegetative buffer area, the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall show how the proposed reduction, in combination with Best Management Practices, achieves at least the equivalent water quality protection, pollutant removal, and water resource conservation effect of a 100-foot buffer area. d. The required vegetated buffer area shall be located adjacent to and landward of the Roanoke River shoreline. e. Within the required buffer area, no vegetation may be cleared or otherwise significantly disturbed, no grading or excavation work may be performed, and no structures, fill, paving, or other materials may be placed except as shown on the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. f. Run off from new development shall be directed towards areas covered with vegetation for surface infiltration catch basins, avoiding channeling and preventing concentrated flows of surface water. Piped storm sewers may be permitted only where other methods are determined to be infeasible by the Administrator. 2. Performance Criteria: 8 ~~ a. In order to maintain the functional value of the buffer area, indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. b. Removal of vegetation within the required buffer area will be allowed only in accordance with the following provisions: Trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide limited sight lines and vistas, provided that where removed, they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion and filtering non-point source pollution from runoff. ii. Dead, diseased, or dying trees may be removed and silvicultural thinning may be conducted based upon the best available technical advice of a professional forester. c. All exposed areas within the required buffer area shall be revegetated with appropriate riparian, erosion controlling plant material. Riparian vegetation is plant material which naturally occurs along the river and is suited to the microclimate within the community. d. With the approval of the Administrator in consultation with the Department of Engineering and Inspections, riprap or other manmade materials may be used in conjunction with vegetation to stabilize riverbanks only where it is y J ~~ shown that vegetation alone will not stabilize the bank. e. Access paths shall be constructed and surfaced so as to effectively control erosion. (C) Agricultural Buffer Area Requirements - 1. On land in agricultural use, a 100-foot vegetative buffer area shall be retained and maintained if present or established and maintained where it does not exist. 2. Agricultural lands in hayland or pasture land uses shall be deemed to comply with buffer area requirements as long as that portion of the hayland or pasture land within the 100-foot buffer is managed in accordance with the Best Management Practices Handbook for Agriculture. 3. The agricultural buffer area may be reduced as follows: a. to a minimum width of fifty (50) feet when Best Management Practices which meet specifications of the Best Management Practices Handbook for Agriculture are applied on the adjacent land, provided that the combination of the reduced buffer area and Best Management Practices achieve water quality protection, pollutant removal, and water resource conservation at least the equivalent of the 100-foot buffer area; OR 10 1 a b. to a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet when a soil and water quality conservation plan, as approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District, has been implemented on the adjacent land, provided that the combined buffer area and Best Management Practices achieve water quality protection at least the equivalent of that provided by the 100-foot buffer in the opinion of the Soil and Water Conservation District Board. Such plan shall be based on the Best Management Practices Handbook for Agriculture and accomplish water quality protection consistent with this ordinance. 4. The agricultural buffer area shall be managed to prevent channeling or concentrated flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. 5. The Best Management Practices Handbook for Agriculture is intended to provide a list of options for meeting buffer area requirements. Without preference to a given practice, a selected Best Management Practice or combination of practices may be used to achieve the equivalent of the 100-foot buffer. Sec. 30-75-6 Exemptions and Waivers (A) Exemptions - The following development activities are exempt from the requirements of the Conservation Overlay District: 11 v 1. Any land disturbing activity under 2,500 square feet in area; or 2. any maintenance, alteration, use or improvement to an existing structure not changing or affecting quality, rate, volume or location of surface water discharge, or involving the destruction of sensitive natural resources as determined by the Administrator; or 3. emergency removal of debris resulting from floods or other natural disasters, as deemed appropriate by the Director of Engineering and Inspections; or 4. silvicultural operations that adhere to water quality protection procedures prescribed by the Department of Forestry in its "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations." (B) Waivers - A waiver of the requirements of the ordinance for installation of remedial lot stabilization, public roads, water dependent structures, utilities, rail lines, water wells, passive recreation, historic preservation, archaeological activities and other public activities as approved by the Administrator may be obtained by submitting an application on forms supplied by the Administrator and shall contain the following information: 1. the name, address and telephone number of the developer and owner; 12 T-a 2. a description and a drawing of the proposed development; 3. the location of the development; and 4. any other information required by the Administrator that is reasonably necessary to evaluate the proposed development. The Administrator may grant a waiver if the application demonstrates that: 1. Any required permits, except those to which this waiver specifically applies, shall have been issued; 2. sufficient and reasonable proof is submitted that the intended use will not deteriorate water quality; 3. the intended use does not conflict with nearby planned or approved uses; and 4. any land disturbance exceeding an area of 2,500 square feet shall comply with all County erosion and sediment control requirements. 4. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after code.riverove.lay 13 ~ 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. - APPE CE REQUEST - s PUBLIC HEARING ~ ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~~ r1Gf~~~~~ i ~N~:~ ~c_~y ~ ~~=~(`c1~t'~~~~i r`~ ~N~~'"~,~ ~~, ~ ~-~r^~f~-~~. 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 ^ 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 of~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. c s ^ 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 c with 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 c - - mlllilllllllllllilllllllillllilllllllllllllllllllllliilllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllililllllll~ i County of Roanoke Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum TO: Members, Board of Supervisors FROM: Jon Hartley DATE: September 27, 1994 RE: Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District T Attached are two maps which are taken from the Roanoke River Corridor Study completed in 1990 which show the agricultural and public lands (excluding Explore) along the river corridor. In addition, since preparing the materials for the Board's agenda, a few questions have been raised regarding the proposed Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District. The descriptions below have been prepared to address those questions. Rational for the Overly District Boundary The preparers of the model discussed at length the most appropriate reference point and distance for the proposed Overlay District. It was felt that the 100 year flood plain was more reflective of the area that influences water quality of the river than the shoreline, given the varied terrain along the river corridor. It is also a specific reference line that it legislatively set (through adoption or amendment of the FEMA maps) and regularly used by the County in the permitting process. In contrast the shoreline is subject to the powers of nature, is always changing, and is not mapped in a fashion that facilitates administration of provisions such as those proposed in the overlay district. The floodplain boundary was therefore viewed as a more manageable reference for the overlay district. The exception to this is the North Fork of the Roanoke River, where no 100 year floodplain has been designated. In this case the shoreline is the only reference point available. The 750 foot distance proposed for the County coincides with the distance recommended in the model ordinance being considered regionally. In developing the model, examples from other jurisdictions were evaluated, with distances from the reference point varying from 50 feet to 1,000 feet. The appropriate distance is a question of how broad a sphere of influence on the river should be subject to the overlay provisions. The Planning Commission selected the 750 foot boundary. Provisions Dealing with Agricultural Uses As indicated in the work session on September 13, the provisions for agricultural uses and the agricultural buffer areas will in practice only apply to new agricultural uses established. The general framework of the zoning ordinance grandfathers from regulation any existing use or activity. The primary reason for retaining the provisions is that a number of new horticultural and greenhouse related agricultural uses have been established in recent years which require structures that should be subject to the overlay provisions. It has been suggested that the agricultural activities regulated be expanded to include a prohibition on pasturing or allowing direct access by livestock to the river. Beyond the enforcement issues raised above on existing uses, the staff has attempted to clearly focus on existing permit and plan reviews as the method for administering these provisions. No permits or County approval is otherwise required for most non- structural agricultural improvements or practices. To otherwise administer and enforce the proposed ordinance would be beyond the capabilities of the present staff. Relationship of Overlay District to Countv's Weed Ordinance The proposed overlay district and the County's "Weed Ordinance" should, in the opinion of staff, not conflict with one another. The buffer yards proposed in the overlay district are a required improvement with a specific "public" purpose. The primary criteria for addressing weeds is to address what is classified as a public nuisance. Finally, it has been suggested that a more specific reference be added as to where to obtain copies of Best Management Practices Handbooks. This will be added to the next draft along with other revisions discussed during the First Reading of the proposed amendments. ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ . x ~~ cn o -~ rn~~ c~zz ;oc~ ~~ omr- z ~ ~~ r~oo C zC --~ Cn -< ~ =a~s __m 9N~im n ~-+~ ~ni> rc e~> onzm oz. ~- 3z -max z m 9 m A 2 n x om n s~ P A <i RO qp ~ ~ mz Cp Nor p?F A ~ F ` ~ Kai ~ C~ , m Nt , ti t Ty z D < CJ) D e A ' ° Rl L7 C D I'l T ~ m i m N fTl 7J @ (7 r Z ~ (-i 23>__~__ ~ "' m ~ p=0 < o A m p D tT ~ ~ l7 z] C C-7 -~ Z y ' szo m fTl r \ \ < -; U7 C ~ ox~ irn> ~ g c m z U ~ 3 C i ~ °:. c m - r AOT <GlA Cn \ ~ D ~ ~ Cll < O Z oo' ~ m 3 O C U D ~7 CO - ~ o °i z 1N o ~ m r ~ (A - ~ ~, / °° ; ~ r~ m ~ A n m m i F ~ Y Y ~ ~ c O m ' I ~ I ~ m > < Z f! - A Z o m T oz m ° ~ >- x z r 3~ . > > A 0 o m I I O c m o m m n i y N m O 0 K y A p r ~ °> =z ,t __ Jc°~ ~~°m l ` \ x m ay m m K ` 1 Rp~NpK r~o~,~,~•~,~_~ eEDFpRp a Lr O i C2 pp~N i m ° I ~r <_ ~ - T A ° / I ~ ° -'J ~. 9 >..A ^.N1m ~1J~ -nom ,~.ra oazm oz< 3- 3- ~ a, hro9er) MID-ATLANTIC REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT To: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors From: FENTON CHILDERS Date: September 27, 1994 Subject: Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District (RRCO) My name is Fenton Childers. I am the Real Estate Manager for the Mid-Atlantic Division of The Kroger Co. Kroger's address is P. 0. Box 14002, Roanoke, Virginia 24038. I am here representing The Kroger Co. regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments for the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District. Roanoke is home of The Kroger Co.'s Mid-Atlantic Division. The Mid-Atlantic Division operates 118 stores in a six state area. A vital part of Mid-Atlantic's operations is its warehouse and distribution center. Kroger's warehouse and distribution center are located in Roanoke County and are in the proposed Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District . The majority of the warehouse and distribution center is located within the 750 foot protection area which extends from the 100 year flood plain boundary outlined in the RRCO. Kroger's warehouse and distribution center have been located in Roanoke County since 1957. Kroger owns approximately acres on which this center is located. Over ~~ acres have been improved with buildings. Kroger operates a dry grocery warehouse, produce center, meat plant, and frozen food warehouse in this location. This warehouse and distribution center services Mid-Atlantic's 118 stores. This center ships over 15 million pounds of groceries per week. Kroger's trucks based in this center drive 7.5 million miles per year. This distribution center and warehouse employ over 400 people. The Kroger Co. is committed to a clean environment~pM and good water quality for the Roanoke River. Kroger's commitment to a clean environment needs to be combined with its continued operations of its distribution and warehouse center. There are two specific uses which would be prohibited under the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments for the RRCO which affect Kroger's current operations. According to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Kroger's underground storage tanks (USTs) and repair shop, which service the fleet, would be prohibited in the 750 foot protection area. These two uses are vital to Kroger's continued operation of its distribution center. I am here today to register The Kroger Co.'s concern to these two proposed prohibited uses as related to Kroger's property located in Roanoke County. Kroger's Mid-Atlantic Division is growing rapidly with the construction of new stores. Kroger's warehouse and distribution center must be able to meet the future needs of our new stores. Kroger can not predict when it may need to make changes to its repair shop or fueling facility. Flexibility in these two areas needs to be maintained in this highly competitive business. The USTs and the repair shop will require upgrading and/or replacement in the future. The RRCO would limit Kroger's rights to initiate such upgrades as needed. Even with Kroger's rights to operate its fueling facility and repair shop under the "grandfathering" provisions enacted with the new Zoning Ordinance, the smallest of modifications or changes to these facilities would be prohibited. Under the RRCO, changes in these areas would require a variance of the new Zoning Ordinance. This variance may involve extensive procedural requirements and ultimately could be rejected by the County. This uncertainty of obtaining a future variance makes future business decisions both more difficult and expensive. This uncertainty jeopardizes Kroger's continued flexibility in operation of its warehouse and distribution center. Again, Kroger is committed to a clean environment and good water quality for the Roanoke River. Kroger has always made every effort to comply with all federal, state and local environmental requirements. The additional RRCO regulations, in addition to state and local regulations; as they relate to Kroger's facilities, create a hardship for the continued and future operations of this vital part of Mid-Atlantic's operations. The Kroger Co. requests that special provisions be enacted to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to its warehouse and distribution center located in Roanoke County and the RRCO to protect Kroger's current as well as future operations, modifications, and possible relocations of its fueling facility and repair shop. a ACTION NO. M4 ITEM NO. "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 4.41-ACRE PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 77.15-1-11) KNOWN AS THE OGDEN COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATED AT 2932 OGDEN ROAD IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : G~~"''"~ ~ ~`~ . ~~~ ~ ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the first reading of a proposed ordinance to authorize the conveyance of a 4.41-acre parcel of real estate (Tax Map No. 77.15-1-11) located at 2932 Ogden Road. BACKGROUND' The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, previously declared this property to be surplus and available for sale to the public on January 26, 1993. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County has advertised this property for sale, has been actively marketing this property, and is in the process of receiving bids. The legal advertisement established a deadline for the receipt of bids to be October 7, 1994. The second reading and public hearing on the sale of this property is scheduled for October 11, 1994. FISCAL IMPACT' Funds received from the sale of this property will be deposited into the Capital Projects Fund. .. , °" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Board's concurrence with the marketing process for this property. Adoption of ordinance accepting a bid is scheduled for the Board's meeting on October 11, 1994. Respectfully submitted, D. Willey erty Manager Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs realest.ogdensal z- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE AN A 4.41- ACRE PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 77.15- 1-11) KNOWN AS THE OGDEN COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATED AT 2932 OGDEN ROAD IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 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 September 27, 1994; and a second reading was held on October 11 1994, concerning the sale and disposition of a 4.41-acre parcel of real estate known as the Ogden Community Center, Tax Map No. 77.15-1-11; and 3. That an offer having been received for said property, the offer of for to purchase this property is hereby accepted; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the Capital Projects Fund; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. c:\wp51\agenda\realesta\ogden.ord ~ 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~1 _ _ _ _ _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ ~ APPE CE REQUEST _ _ PUBLIC HEARING 'ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS __ SUBJECT: ~d ~l f/~ ~J~ ~~ ~, ~~~~ ~~ -_ 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 tir~ie limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. c ^ Spe~~ker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Que3tions 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. c ^ 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 ~'RINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c s ~ ® s r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ _ ~ = NAME ~~'~ ~ .~ _ .~~'~r c _ ADDRESS ~.5'/'~ ~'~~~~/~~ ~ -_ - PHONE ~~~~ ,~'~/~' 11~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~ 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: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM RODERIC L. MOORE AND DONNA P. GRAYSON FOR THE PINKARD COURT ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUNIIKARY This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize acquisition of a permanent drainage easement (0.032 Ac.) from Roderic L. Moore and Donna P. Grayson for the Pinkard Court Road and Drainage Improvement Project. BACKGROUND: In approximately 1984, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors added the Pinkard Court Project to the Rural Addition Priority List. In order for the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve Pinkard Avenue and Valley Avenue for acceptance into the state secondary system, it is necessary to make certain road and drainage improvements within the Pinkard Court Subdivision. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Leroy J. Anderson is the current owner of Lots 1 and 2, Section 2, Pinkard Court, abutting Valley Avenue and Meadow View Road, and designated upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 87.08-1-38. In connection with the drainage improvements for Pinkard Avenue, acquisition of a drainage easement across this property is required. The proposed drainage easement, varying in width from 15.01 feet to 15.08 feet, and consisting of a total area of 0.032 Ac., is shown on a plat dated October 21, 1992, made by the Roanoke County Engineering Department, a copy of which is attached hereto. Based upon an appraisal of the proposed acquisition prepared by Earl G. Robertson, MAI, SRA, the estimated fair market value of the easement is $398.00. z- ~ In attempting to negotiate the purchase of the above-described easement, staff determined that the property is to be sold in the near future to Roderic L. Moore and Donna P. Grayson. Staff has negotiated with Mr. Moore and Ms. Grayson, and upon acquiring the property, they have agreed to sell the easement to the County for the sum of $900.00. Upon consideration of the anticipated purchase price to be paid for the property by Mr. Moore and Ms. Grayson, which would not have been taken into consideration on the appraisal, this amount is not unreasonable for acquisition of the easement. FISCAL IMPACTS• There is currently $1,700 in the account for Repairs to Rural Addition Roads and the purchase price for this easement would be paid from the available funds in this account. ALTERNATIVES• Alternative #1: Authorize acquisition of the proposed drainage easement from Roderic L. Moore and Donna P. Grayson for the Pinkard Court Road and Drainage Improvement Project for the sum of $900.00. Alternative #2: Delete Pinkard Court roads from the Rural Addition List, due to costs and concerns involved with the necessary acquisitions. Alternative #3: Decline to accept Roderic L. Moore's and Donna P. Grayson's offer to sell for $900.00, and direct staff to initiate eminent domain proceedings against the current or subsequent property owner(s). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance in accordance with Alternative #l. Respectfully submitted, V ck a L. Hu a Assistant County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY. P~NVE ~ P~~E~( ~~°E. N66 ~9 ~ ~ 21 PROPOSED ~4 ~ ~ DR INAGE EASEMENT O~ (0.032 Ac.) ~ ~~ ~L ~~ ~ ~. O 0~,, O 00 e F REMAINING PROPERTY OF LEROY J. ANDERSON P.B. 1 PG. 363 ~~ ~~~~ Y LOT 2 LOT 1 ih~0 TAX MAP No.87.08-1-39 g9 LOT 3 2k O~ 'O O~ N60 ~~ ~( gyp. ~~ P TAX MAP N0._ 87.08-1-38 _ SCALE: 1 "=20' PLAT SHOWING PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY LEROY J. ANDERSON PREPARED BY.• ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: 10-21-92 REIAEW: 09-0&-94 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM RODERIC L. MOORE AND DONNA P. GRAYSON FOR THE PINKARD COURT ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, in connection with the Pinkard Court Road and Drainage Improvement Project, it is necessary to acquire a permanent drainage easement upon, over, under and across property currently owned by Leroy J. Anderson and to be purchased by Roderic L. Moore and Donna P. Grayson, and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 87.08-1-38; and, WHEREAS, the location of the easement, varying in width from 15.01 feet to 15.08 feet, and consisting of a total area of 0.032 Ac., is shown and designated upon a plat dated October 21, 1992, made by the Roanoke County Engineering Department; and, WHEREAS, staff has negotiated the purchase of said easement from Roderic L. Moore and Donna P. Grayson for the sum of $900.00; 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 September 27, 1994; and the second reading was held on October 11, 1994. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to acquire from Roderic L. Moore and Donna P. Grayson a permanent drainage easement, as shown on the plat dated October 21, 1992, -~ made by the Roanoke County Engineering Department, for an amount not to exceed $900.00. 2. That the purchase price shall be paid from the available funds in the account for Repairs to Rural Addition Roads. 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. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on the date of its adoption. .• 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: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF FOX RIDGE ROAD AND LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 22 OF HUNTING HILLS, SECTION 23 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUNIlKARY: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize quit-claim and release of the sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Fox Ridge Road and located between Lots 2 and 22 of Hunting Hills, Section 23, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to certain conditions. In May of 1987, Old Heritage Corporation dedicated an off-site sanitary sewer easement to the County of Roanoke for public use. Said easement is shown and designated as "NEW 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT" upon the 'Plat of Section No. 21, Hunting Hills,' recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 10, Page 146, a partial copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Hunting Hills Country Club, Inc., subsequently subdivided the adjoining property by 'Plat Showing Section No. 23, Hunting Hills', of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 12, Page 8, a partial copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The off- site sanitary sewer easement described above lies within Section 23 and is beneath Fox Ridge Road between Lots 2 and 22. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In order for Fox Ridge Road (State Route 1420) to be accepted into the state secondary road system, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that the right-of-way be free and Z=-~ clear of any third party rights or encumbrances. The quit-claim and release of the subject portion of the sanitary sewer easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia would be subject to VDOT issuing a permit for such facilities and the condition that the facilities located within the 50-foot right-of-way, between Lots 2 and 22 of Hunting Hills, Section 23, may continue to occupy the street or highway in the existing condition and location. The release would be for so long as the subject section of Fox Ridge Road is used as part of the public street or highway system; however, said easement would not be vacated by the Board and would revert to the County in the event of abandonment of the street or highway. FISCAL IMPACTS' None ALTERNATIVES' (1) Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for quit-claim and release of the sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Fox Ridge Road and located between Lots 2 and 22 of Hunting Hills, Section 23, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to certain conditions. (2) Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance, which would result in Fox Ridge Road remaining a private road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance as provided in Alternative #1. Respectfully submitted, V'ck' L. Huf n Assistant Cou y Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix EXHIBIT A LEGEND ~°~ ~ ~ M. B . L . DENOTES MINIMUM EiJILD. ~v LINE ~ Z ~ D.E. DENOTES DFAINAGE EASEI o ~ ~ S.S.E. DENOTES SANITARY SEWE: (~~ 6 ~ Z , ~ EASEMENT c ~ ~ P . U . E . DENOTES PUBLIC UTILIT' O~ F9`~~ ~ ~i EASEMENT /6 ~s ~s6 '9C~c '¢p~, d/ lJ ~~41 ~0~ -., E/~~~~ ~~~- STATE OF VIRGINIA ~~ ~ / ~ ~ \\ ~ CITY/CO NTY OF ROAN \ a'b/ \ \S6 ~~~ ~ ~~S ~ ~ I • ~ ~. ~ 4 \ FOR E AFORESAID C ,•sT6, 3~ ~~~ I ~ Ob• ~ THAT GC~RDON C. WILL 9- ~ ~ `~ •~ DENT & .SECRETARY, F v, q9s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ATION WHOSE NAMES F ~, ~~y 'o~,. ~ 4~ ING DATED r \ !~ S(o~Ol~s4"'I'Yi' ~ ~ APPEARED BEFORE E ~ AND ACKNOWLEDGED TF. ~ Zoo. SZ' h~~ ~ ; \,;~ ~ , ~. 8 39' MY COMMISSION n" 6 \ ! / o 00 \~ I ~ m ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ '~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~~' 39o J ~ 1 22 ~e 8~~, ~ (99.11' °s'- ~ -`- 582° 01 ~q „E ~ \ /6B 23-, ~1 Q \ Y ~ \~-, N~ y Z~ --' . ~ `~~- s ~\ \ .J t0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 22 ~. ~GOGIf 3, ~iEGlION,* ZO ~ ~~(- S~``~4 "HUNT/NU H/GG5 ~ `C~ p ~. ~ ~ PG. 317 ~' ~ `~o,~- gG OG. C I ON r~Q~ ~~q / f~L ~P- 2. IRON PINS HAVE C ~D BY BEEN SET AT ALL ~ ~ f ~TION CORNERS.. P•C.'S )ED AND p,T,~S. 2LAT. ~ ' EXHIBIT B ...~G~ ~87.Z0-3-S "'87.Z0- 3-7 'a?.ZO-3-8 4 6 P~6o~x t, 5~crroN ar xc oc~ ~ g EC7/a~N Zv 3 N!!Nr/k6 Nic c ti NUAIT1rtl6 NILLS P.13. !d Pb. /46 F~30rnr Pp}.9 PG. 317 S~Be ~ O4o NERrTA ~Q"2, .. ' D. ~i. 756 4 .b5~ hQ ZZ. ~' 2 fy33/, ~Y'`, ~,6 '" 8Z Z, 1~ ~y,Gd 4s 4 ! 5. ' ~ ~ g3~~, ~a~~B46kr_~i / !.08x08'55"~ -- 55A.~ •87.20-Z-ZO cv o r _~ t4d52 Z /~ 0, ZO D l n; 3b, 86'1 ~' +v ~ Z/. F/' 4l~7 '1 ~U 0 ~, ~ 1 ~ 30'/~~.~. ~ ~ h ab ti~ ~ o \~ ^~ ~-Z JQ 6 - i -h ~tie~ ^~ aOq 3 "` Q r 3q 114 d -75.86' row f 9 ,,. `to ,~ 'c_~ ~~' m~ ~ ~~ N N .~ ~a. 'r.5rcve~ Fox ` c-! C ~8 07"k!-- ` 30 ~3 ~~ ~ Mfr ~ ... _ , i ROAM , ~~ - SO ~ ti _. G-3,3 "Q/~ ~~ ~Q ~ ~vE y ~' ~_ ~ o ~~ ;~ ~ Z3 P o Z? ~~~ ~ , ~ N 3d, 874 d ~ D Z3, ~'1Z,~ ~ ~~Z ~ hQ~~~ y AGOG\Z -- m _J ~n, ~ ~, ~GTlON ~` 2 1 ~ Rg~ ro F4. !a~ ~ _ _~~~• "b~~a~b`~~~ 1~ ~NT!/JG N!L G 5 ~ `~` ~ h~ p~.p~aP ~ N ~ _ ~n\ aP~' 0~'p ~ 1 1 ~ ~+ .:~~ .=r Sj~ '3j y «; ~ ZZ /6 ., ~" 239.48' w \87-Zo-Z-z ~ ~ qti y.02°P/'GO"~.-- ~ ;~ l~ h. ~ ,~ 2J ~'~ ~' ~" o° tN ~'~ ~ 0 1 4Q, 639 ~ ~ Q ~P G_ ~_~_ 5.3~i 4x5.37' I o ~ 9 off' ZO ~ ti~.co~ y OZ°Ot'oo"E.-~- I ~' ~ o °^a Zp 33E ~ r = ~ ~ ~D ~ O ~ ~~~ ~ y o ~ Q ~ m Q°.~ ' ~ 58,475 tG ,~~ ~. n m I - r 4°t9 44' "' ~ %'~ /Sr~I.E. 5. OZ° 0x'00"E. _-._ ~ ~ ~ ~__~ I ~ I w ~ Q ~O ~/ U ~ ~ m o l f f~ cs .~ b f~a ~ ~ ~~ 59,IZ3 ~ ~ ~o w ~ ~ !41.67' I ~ 4Z~ 02~ + c 1~ ~ I r '~~ r m i` ~~ v•8 ~ JV.OZ'Z~00'~v r - (Q4.13' -Kl~•40 GO'~"yo Rlw~©X G•18n~c~y.02'ao•oo"E.-- H, ~' o V, W N I ~ a o 0 o c~ J 0 o A' .Y ~ ~ !r7 1 ~' 4 ~ W ~ Z9, Z?A ~ ,\ ~ ~ 33 B~8 ~ "- R' 33 ' ~ ' ~ Zp' ' 9 ~~ ~7Ca~fl_ n 55.E_ 4"~ -- N. 02'9 ~~ 1} H i ~, ~~~ a; <<~ ~~ ~I °v 0 ~p4` `• y1 D (1. ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~`~ E o ~ m iS ~91G •. ry o~'< ' ~G ~ ~~\ `~ °- psi p 'o m ~~ ~ -Ss E~ s 0 m ~~F ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF FOB RIDGE ROAD AND LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 22 OF HUNTING HILLS, SECTION 23 WHEREAS, in order for Fox Ridge Road (State Route 1420) to be accepted into the state secondary road system, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that the right-of-way be free and clear of any third party rights or encumbrances; and, WHEREAS, VDOT has requested quit-claim and release of an existing sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Fox Ridge Road and located between Lots 2 and 22 of Hunting Hills, Section 23, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, it will serve the interests of the public to have Fox Ridge Road accepted into the state secondary road system and the release, subject to the issuance of a permit and other conditions, will not interfere with other public services. 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 27, 1994; and a second reading was held on October 11, 1994; and, 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be released are hereby made available for other public uses by ys conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia for acceptance of Fox Ridge Road into the state secondary road system by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 3. That quit-claim and release of the sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Fox Ridge Road and located between Lots 2 and 22 of Hunting Hills, Section 23, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, is hereby authorized subject to the following conditions: a. VDOT issuance of a permit for the sanitary sewer lines or facilities. b. The facilities located within the 50-foot right-of- way, between Lots 2 and 22 of Hunting Hills, Section 23, may continue to occupy the street or highway in the existing condition and location. c. The release would be for so long as the subject section of Fox Ridge Road is used as part of the public street or highway system. 4 . That the subject easement is not vacated hereby and shall revert to the County in the event of abandonment of the street or highway. 5. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. ,-r- J __. `~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE 92794-6 AMENDING AND REENACTING SEC. 21-16. RETURNS OF ARTICLE II. TAXES ON TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION OF THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF FILING RETURNS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES. WHEREAS, Sec. 21-16. Returns. of the Roanoke County Code requires that a personal property return form be filed with the Commissioner of the Revenue before February 1 of each year for every motor vehicle, trailer or boat having a situs within the county on January 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the 1994 session of the General Assembly of Virginia has enacted a new § 58.1-3518.1 of the Code of Virginia to permit the governing body of any locality to adopt by ordinance an alternative method for the assessment and taxation of most motor vehicles based upon a previous personal property tax return filed by the owner or owners of such vehicle; and WHEREAS, the adoption of such an alternative method of filing returns for motor vehicles will both provide greater service to the citizens of the County of Roanoke by eliminating thousands of unnecessary personal property tax returns as well as free the employees of the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue to focus on more essential and productive matters. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance took place on September 13, 1994; the second reading took place on September 27, 1994. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke as follows: 1. That Sec. 21-16. Returns. of Article II. Taxes on Tangible Personal Property of Chapter 21, TAXATION, is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-16. Returns. (a) Returns for tangible personal property, (except tangible personal property on motor vehicles, trailers and boats) tangible personal property employed in a trade or business and machinery and tools taxes shall be filed with the commissioner of the revenue on or before February 1 of the year for which the tax is to be assessed. Any person who shall fail to file such a return on or before February 1 of the year for which the tax is to be assessed shall, in addition to the tax to be paid, be assessed a penalty of ten (10) percent of the tax due. ::::::~~'le ::..: t~ ::.: .....::::............::............................................................................................................................................:.....::.::::.::::::::::::::::::::::.::::.~:::::::::::::: k~ ::.::::: .:::::. ~::: ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ~::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ~::. ~:::.::::::::::.::::::::::.::::::::::. ~:::::::.:::::..:....:............................................ .::..........::.............::..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . >~<~ -(-b-} Returns of tangible personal property on ~te~~ ;-eh~c~'-es, ~Y~ ~' ~~~s, boats and motors, and mobile homes with a situs 2 ;:.;:.;:.;;;:.;:.;::.;::.;:.:.:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;: ............................................................................... 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after October 1, 1994. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Circuit Court G. O. Clemens, Judge, Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge Roy B. Willett, Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge Richard C. Pattisall, Judge Steven A. McGraw, Clerk J Domestic Relations District Court Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge Philip Trompeter, Judge John B. Ferguson, Judge Joseph P. Bounds, Judge Ruth P. Bates, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court John L. Apostolou, Judge George W. Harris, Judge William Broadhurst, Judge Vincent Lilley, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney R. Wayne Compton, Com of Revenue Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betry Perry Main Library John H. Cease, Police Chief Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Asst Adm Diane D. Hyatt, Dir, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Dir, Eng & Insp Terrance L. Harrington, Dir, Plan & Zon Gary Robertson, Dir, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services Don C. Myers, Asst Adm Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer 4 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment and reenactment of Sec. 21-16. Returns of Article II. TAXES ON TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF Chapter 21, TAXATION of the Roanoke County Code to provide an alternative method of filing returns for motor vehicles. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ .'fit BACKGROUND• The 1994 session of the General Assembly enacted a new section 58.1-3518.1 of the Code of Virginia to provide legal authority for the Commissioner of the Revenue to assess and tax motor vehicles based upon tax returns for the previous year. Under current state law and county ordinance every motor vehicle owner is required to file a return with the Commissioner's Office regardless of whether there has been any change in the vehicle's status or significant change in its value. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The proposed amendment to Sec. 21-16 of the county code will permit the Commissioner to assess personal property tax on motor vehicles based upon a previously filed personal property tax return. Therefore, the vehicle's owner will ordinarily not be required to file such a tax return by January 30th of each year, and the Commissioner's Office will be saved the expense of mailing out approximately 60,000 returns and processing them upon their return. A motor vehicle owner will be required to file a return within thirty (30) days in the following situations: 1. Each time a motor vehicle is acquired which will have a Roanoke County situs and for which no personal property tax return has been filed; J f 2. A change in the name or address of the person or persons owning a motor vehicle taxable by Roanoke County; 3. A change in the situs of a personal motor vehicle; 4. Any other change affecting the assessment or levy of the personal property tax on a motor vehicle for which a tax return has been filed previously. FISCAL IMPACT• The Commissioner's Office will save approximately $22,000 in direct costs related to printing and mailing the estimated 60,000 two-part filing forms sent to county vehicle owners. That office will save approximately 300 hours of personnel time involved in mailing and processing the returned filing forms. County citizens will save an aggregate of approximately $15,000 in postage costs in returning these forms to the Commissioner's Office. Roanoke County currently collects, on average, $65,000 per year in late filing penalties from personal property taxpayers. While the county may experience a direct revenue loss of between $40,000 to $45,000, the indirect savings in terms of improved productivity and customer service in the Commissioner's Office should off-set this loss. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of this amendment. Respectfully submitted, .,~.. . Wayne Compton Commis ner of he Revenue Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Yes Abs ...~... ,~;~ " AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SEC. 21-16. RETURNS OF ARTICLE II. TAXES ON TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION OF THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF FILING RETURNS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES. WHEREAS, Bec. 21-16. Returns. of the Roanoke County Code requires that a personal property return form be filed with the Commissioner of the Revenue before February 1 of each year for every motor vehicle, trailer or boat having a situs within the county on January 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the 1994 session of the General Assembly of Virginia has enacted a new § 58.1-3518.1 of the Code of Virginia to permit the governing body of any locality to adopt by ordinance an alternative method for the assessment and taxation of most motor vehicles based upon a previous personal property tax return filed by the owner or owners of such vehicle; and WHEREAS, the adoption of such an alternative method of filing returns for motor vehicles will both provide greater service to the citizens of the County of Roanoke by eliminating thousands of unnecessary personal property tax returns as well as free the employees of the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue to focus on more essential and productive matters. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance took place on September 13, 1994; the second reading took place on September 27, 1994. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke as follows: ......r .~ N J 1. That Sec. 21-16. Returns. of Article II. Taxes on Tancxible Personal Property of Chapter 21, TAXATION, is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-16. Returns. (a) Returns for tangible personal property, (except tangible ~~ -(~-}- Returns of tangible personal property on mete-r boats and motors, and mobile homes with a situs within the county on January 1 shall be filed with the commissioner of the revenue on or before February 1 ~<'e~t~~~y~, ~ -s ~Qt~~@-~@-P~A~3S~ti'li~e~t'fe'rl#~ sir-ar-ytd~~-e~-..~~~ ~ --czzs-.r'iZz-.r-arr~-~@a~L-9 -mac _ L ' i+-~ rar-~ir@--E`EhzsstT-v~~-~ i -ia~.sz~9-Tl~~-e- 2 Si vea- `_ -LS e~AA }'- ' - a '' Any per$on who shall ., --~ a~~~~~= fail to file such return on or before the date due of the year for which the tax is assessed shall, in addition to the tax to be paid, be assessed a penalty of ten (10) percent of the tax due. .::::::::::.~:::::::.:::.~ ::::::.:::::::::<:.:~:::::._:::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::.::~::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::.:.:::::... ~~~..:::::a~:..~~~~s~a~...~teb~~::cl:e~: ~.;;;;;;~~t~3~~~::.::.::~~~Z1:::.:.:.;ate:.;.::::.f~~.:ed;;:.;;;~tith:3 .. .::::::....:........_:.>:.;:.;:.:...:.:::.:::...:::.;:.:.::..:.;;:.:.;:.; .: ..................................::..... ...... t~.::::: ~~3.~~.:::.::::::~:~:.::.::.:da...s:::.:.o~:.~:.~.t~~ :::::::::.::::::::::::::::.:::::::::.:::::::.:::::::::::.y.:::::::::::.:::::::::e::::~o~.lc~wa~:~,::::: events::::::fc.r::::th~t::.::..: ::>::.. ;:;;::.:.:., . . ......................................:::::::.: ~.: _::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;5f.::::.::.;.:.:::.:.::.:: r:::::::::::::::. ~. ~::::::::::::::::: 8ar.::: ~~r.:: T~~h.a, cab. :....,: :::::::::.::::.;.: <;:;.;:>;»::»::>:<:>~:<;;e~~,n~e:><?p~::_::h~ name:;::<~.r..:.<::::::a..d~res.$ of .th±a.:.. .±~rs .: ......... ......... p.::::::::::;OA;::: C <:::i::i::;::;::is:;:~:;::>:::::::::::::::::i:~ .:..::::::::::::..:::::::::::::::::::::::~:.;:.: ;;:.;::.;;:.;:.;:.::;.;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::u~;:.::.:;o~.~:::: ~M~.::::: ta~ab~~+a::::::.:~rs.onal: p~a~> ~~ 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after October 1, 1994. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE 92794-7 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE E7CTENDING ACROSS DARRELL SHELL MEMORIAL PARR OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) has requested an easement for extension of underground lines across property owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and leased by the School Board of Roanoke County, located along Virginia Route No. 1723 (Commonwealth Drive) and known as the Darrell Shell Memorial Park; and, WHEREAS, APCO requires the easement in order to provide more reliable service to the businesses and residences in the immediate area; and, WHEREAS, the proposed easement will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of Roanoke. 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 13, 1994; and a second reading was held on September 27, 1994. 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. 3. That donation of an easement, fifteen feet (15') in width, for an underground line(s) along the property lines of the property known as Darrell Shell Memorial Park, as shown on APCO Drawing No. R-3048, dated May 6, 1994, to Appalachian Power Company is hereby authorized, subject to the following conditions: (a) Appalachian's facilities shall be placed a minimum of five feet (5') away from any County water line, facility, or related improvements. (b) Appalachian agrees to restore and repair any damage to the County's property which may be caused by the construction, operation, or maintenance of said easement, including but not limited to restoration of the jogging/walking track to its former condition, and replacement of stone and railroad ties with material equal to or exceeding what is currently in place. (c) Appalachian agrees to accommodate use of the walking/jogging track, to the extent possible, during any phase of construction, reconstruction or maintenance of the easement. 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 2 A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Ruth Wade, Clerk, Roanoke County School Board Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney 3 ~~ h PO I ~0 p~~ V o°~ 's- P ~~ ~J ~R~ ~~~ ~' ~- .. ~~ RT. 6/3 DARRELL SHELL MEMORIAL PARK PENN FOREST ELEMENTARY ~~ tcl. ,. ~5' ~~ 0 ~~ Q ~~ 'Z ~ Q p~ v ~' EXIST 1 NG POLE 3 49 -1086 DATE REVISION APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY ROANOKE VIRGINIA R(lOn1~1GlC t11~/ICIr'1A1 T O, n ncono~er~.rr PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ON PROPERTY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY sw.~wM •~ G.O. P oA~s 5 - 6 - 94 •~- •• J. B.A. III •~~• I''- 200' COUNTY OF ROANOKE , VA. CAVE SPRING MAC. DIST. ,M«, _ u _ •»•~• T.D. 665000 MAP 348C3,349A1 DRAWING Nn. R - 304.8 GTD a938Fi600l12~B9 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: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE EXTENDING ACROSS DARRELL SHELL MEMORIAL PARK OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ ~~/,fin ,~(~ti'~vt-a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the second reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize donation of an easement to Appalachian Power Company (APCO) for extension of an underground line along the property line of Darrell Shell Memorial Park (Tax Map No. 87.18-3-2.1). BACKGROUND• Darrell Shell Memorial Supervisors of Roanoke County, the School Board of Roanoke through April 30, 2032, to u playground purposes as part Educational Program. Appalac approval of this easement fro Park is owned by the Board of Virginia. The property is leased to County, Virginia, from May 1, 1982, se the premises for recreational and of the Penn Forest Elementary School hian Power Company is also requesting m the Roanoke County School Board. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Appalachian Power Company has requested an underground easement, fifteen feet (15') in width, along the western, northern, and a portion of the eastern property lines of Darrell Shell Memorial Park as shown on the attached copy of APCO Drawing No. R-3048, dated May 6, 1994. The easement is required in order to provide more reliable service to customers in the immediate area, including those in Southwest Industrial Park. Roanoke County staff has checked the proposed easement and determined that it does not interfere with the County's use of the property, subject to the following conditions, which have been incorporated into the proposed easement agreement: (a) Appalachian's facilities shall be placed a minimum of five feet (5') away from any County water line, facility, or related improvements. (b) Appalachian agrees to restore and repair any damage to the County' s property which may be caused by the construction, operation, or maintenance of said easement, including but not limited to restoration of the jogging/walking track to its former condition, and replacement of stone and railroad ties with material equal to or exceeding what is currently in place. (c) Appalachian agrees to accommodate use of the walking/jogging track, to the extent possible, during any phase of construction, reconstruction or maintenance of the easement. FISCAL IMPACTS• Consideration for the proposed easement is the sum of $1.00. ALTERNATIVES: (1) Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for donation of the underground easement as shown on APCO Drawing No. R-3048, dated May 6, 1994, to Appalachian Power Company. (2) Decline to authorize donation of the easement and request from APCO the fair market value as consideration for the purchase of the easement. (3) Decline to authorize donation or conveyance of the easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance as provided in Alternative #l. Respectfully submitted, ,. V ck a L. Huff Assistant Cou Attorney f Action Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs i. h ~• PO I ~0 P~~ V o°~ 's' ~~P ~~ ~R~ ~~~ ~' '~~ ~R"~~ 6/3 DARRELL SHELL MEMORIAL PARK PENN FOREST ELEMENTARY ~~ z .~ ~~ v ~5' ~~~.:..- ~.: /~ o :: o EXISTING ~~~. POLE 3 49 - 1086 ~~ 0 ~~ Q ~~ Q ~~ V h' DATE REVISION APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY ROANOKE VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION T. & D. DEPARMENT PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ON PROPERTY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY owwwM ~r G,O, P owrc 5 - 6 - 94 •r- •r J. B.A. IIl •c~c I''- 200' COUNTY OF ROANOKE ~ VA. CAVE SPRING MAG. DIST. sMCC~ cs ,~~ sNCC~s T. D. 66 5000 MAP 34803 ,349A I oRAWIr~ Nc~. R - 3048 GTO 4938Fi600i 1209 v~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AIITHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE EBTENDING ACROSS DARRELL SHELL MEMORIAL PARR OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) has requested an easement for extension of underground lines across property owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and leased by the School Board of Roanoke County, located along Virginia Route No. 1723 (Commonwealth Drive) and known as the Darrell Shell Memorial Park; and, WHEREAS, APCO requires the easement in order to provide more reliable service to the businesses and residences in the immediate area; and, WHEREAS, the proposed easement will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of Roanoke. 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 13, 1994; and a second reading was held on September 27, 1994. 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 -~-o~. available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power Company for the provision of electrical service. 3. That donation of an easement, fifteen feet (15') in width, for an underground line(s) along the property lines of the property known as Darrell Shell Memorial Park, as shown on APCO Drawing No. R-3048, dated May 6, 1994, to Appalachian Power Company is hereby authorized, subject to the following conditions: (a) Appalachian's facilities shall be placed a minimum of five feet (5') away from any County water line, facility, or related improvements. (b) Appalachian agrees to restore and repair any damage to the County's property which may be caused by the construction, operation, or maintenance of said easement, including but not limited to restoration of the jogging/walking track to its former condition, and replacement of stone and railroad ties with material equal to or exceeding what is currently in place. (c) Appalachian agrees to accommodate use of the walking/jogging track, to the extent possible, during any phase of construction, reconstruction or maintenance of the easement. 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 2 ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER !~ "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION' 1. Community Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Mrs. Chris Pickard, Alternate, expired on August 31, 1994. Mrs. Pickard accepted appointment as a regular Board member. Supervisor Eddy advises that he would like to nominate Joseph M. Vulgan to serve as alternate on the Community Corrections Resources Board. Dr. Gordon and Jim Phipps, Program Administrator, suggested that the person appointed have an education background, and they concur that Mr. Vulgan is an excellent choice. Mr. Vulgan has indicated his willingness to accept the appointment. SUBMITTED BY: ~1~,~.. Brenda J. olton Deputy Clerk to the Board Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Yes Abs ~~f AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY CENTER ON TUESDAY,T TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27D,~I1994 RATION RESOLUTION 92794-8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September 27, 1994 designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes for August 23, 1994, and September 12, 1994. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Grievance Panel. 3. Request for Acceptance of 0.12 Miles of College View Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Resolution to the Virginia Department of Education Requesting Certain Changes to the Regulations Concerning Literary Loan Fund Applications. 5. Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. 6. Approval of Raffle Permit from Junior Miss Local Organization, Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festival. 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 Minnix to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol n, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Deanna Gordon, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools August 23, 1994 ~~~_ Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 August 23, 1994 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August, 1994. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Eddy called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee B. Eddy, Vice Chairman Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Harry C. Nickens 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 Philip Motley, Grandin Road Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was Au ust 23 1994 recited by all present. IN RE: REQIIESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Eddy advised that the resolution of support for the TaeKwondo National Tournament would be placed on the Consent Agenda as Item 13. Mr. Hodge added an Executive Session item, Discussion of acquisition of real estate for the Department of Social Services; and an ordinance authorizing lease of additional space for use by Department of Social Services. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLIITIONB, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation upon the Retirement of Leonard J. Wade. R-82394-1 Chairman Eddy presented Mr. Wade with the resolution and a $100 Savings Bond. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLIITION 82394-1 OF APPRECIATION IIPON THE RETIREMENT OF LEONARD J. WADE, ROANORE COIINTY POLICE DEPARTME107' WHEREAS, Leonard J. Wade was first employed in February of 1974 as a Deputy Sheriff; and has also served as a August 23, 1994 ~~~ Police Officer-Lieutenant; and WHEREAS, Leonard J. Wade, while employed with the County, served with distinction on the Roanoke County Transportation and Safety Commission; and WHEREAS, Leonard J. Wade was for several years the commanding officer of the Auxiliary Law Enforcement Unit under both the Sheriff's Department and the Police Department; and WHEREAS, Leonard J. Wade, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to LEONARD J. WADE for over twenty years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None ?. Presentation from Virginia Amateur snorts to Roanoke County. Executive Director Peter Lampman presented t-shirts and ~(~ August 23,1994 a plaque to the Board Members and thanked them for their support of the 1994 Commonwealth Games. He also reported on the success of the events. IN RE: NEW BIISINE88 ~, Reyuest for Aovroval of a Surplus Procerty Policv. (John Willev. Property Manacer) A-82394-2 Mr. Willey advised that several months ago the Board directed staff to review the current policy for disposing of surplus real estate and examine possible alternatives. He offered three alternatives: (1) disposition by public auction which was tried in 1983 with less than satisfactory results; (2) utilization of private sector realtors using either a single company or an open listing available to all real estate firms, both of which would require fees and commissions; and (3) in- house representation which would save fees and allow the County to control the number of properties exposed to the market at a given time. Mr. Willey recommended continuation of in-house representation and presented proposed procedures. He advised that there is an estimated 200 well lots that will be available after the reservoir and transmission lines are complete. Following discussion, Supervisor Nickens moved to approve alternative #3. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: August 23, 1994 S~7 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None Mr. Willey was directed to bring back an official policy for adoption at the September 13, 1994 meeting. 2. Recommendation__on Chances to the IItility Billinc Procedures. (Paul Grice. Assistant Finance Director) A-82394-3 Mr. Grice advised that a team has been reviewing the current procedures, and made several recommendations for changes to the Utility Billing ordinance. They are: (1) an initial fee of $25.00 when service is started for residential and commercial accounts; (2) no deposit would be charged when residential service is started, however, a deposit would be charged to restore service after being disconnected for non-payment and a second deposit would be charged to restore service the second time a customer is disconnected. The deposits would be the amount of the customer's most recent quarterly bill; (3) customers who have service disconnected will be required to pay a fee of $20.00 to cover the cost for disconnecting service and a reconnection fee of $20.00 to cover the cost to reconnect. The team did not recommend refunding currently held deposits. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the staff recommendation but withdrew his motion to allow time for ~~Q August 23, 1994 discussion. Mr. trice advised that the recommendations will be incorporated into the ordinance and brought back for first and second reading. Following discussion, Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: Supervisor Johnson, Kohinke 3. Reyuest for Extension of Water Line to Serve Hanover Direct. (Timothy Gubala, Economic Development Director) A-82394-4 This item would authorize an additional $30,000 from the Economic Development Fund to extend utility lines to Hanover Direct, an increase from $230,000 to $260,000. Hanover~s investment will also be increased from $12,000,000 to $13,500,000. There was no discussion. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve funding of $30,000 from the Economic Development Fund. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: - None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Eddy 4s, Rectlest for Additional Funds for Buahdale Road _(Arnold Covev, Director of Encinearinc & August 23, 1994 ~~iq Inspections) A-82394-5 Mr. Covey reported that additional funding of $10,000 is needed to complete the Bushdale Road project. These funds will pay for additional electrical poles ($6,000) and relocation of a well that is located too close to the roadway ($3,200) Supervisor Nickens moved to approve $10,000 from the Board Contingency Fund. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: REQIIESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Revuest for Work Session on September 13. 1994 on the Roanoke River Corridor Overla District a d Advisorv Board Supervisor Nickens moved to set the work session for September 13, 1994. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None Mr. Harrington was directed to notify the affected property owners who attended the Planning Commission public meeting. IN REi REQIIEST FOR PIIBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first readings of the following ordinances and set the public hearings for September 27, 1994, after discussion of Items 2, 3, and 5. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 1. ordinance to rezone .409 acre from AV Cond tonal to C-2 to Allow Retail IIses Located at 5419 Franklin Road. Cave spring Magisterial District. upon the Petition of Ringerv Bros. Associates. ?. Ordinance to Rezone Approximately Ten Acres from R-3 Conditional to C-1 to Construct an O e Complex, Located at the Intersection of Ai Road and Dent Road, Hollins Magisterial Distr upon the Petition of Friendship Manor Apartme t village Corporation. 3. An Ordinance Authorizing a Special IIse Permit to Construct and Operate an Electric substation. Located on Rirk Lane. off Cotton Hill Road. Cave Spring Magisterial District. upon the Petition o Appalachian Poorer Companv. 4. Ordinance Authorizing a Special IIse Permit to Construct a Building for Religious Assemb n Including classrooms, office and Recreationai Facilities Located on Northrid e Approximately 700 Feet Northwest of Peters Cree Road, Catawba Magisterial District, IIpon the Petition of North valley Seventh-Day Adventist Chu= 5. Ordinance Amendin the Text of the Roanoke Cou t ZA?17T1n ~lr~iw~wws t- ~__~__~_ -_ _ Development District. - August 23, 1994 ~ ~ IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Authorizin the Donation of an IIndivided Interest in a Portion of the Roanoke Re na Landfill to the IInited States of America National Park service Blue Rid a Parkwa S t Vircinia~s Explore Park. (Joyce Aauch. Ec Development Specialist) Richard Burrows, Explore Park, presented the request, advising that the proposed ordinance would authorize the execution of a deed donating an easement of the unfilled portion of the old landfill for construction of a parkway spur, with the remainder of the landfill dedicated for park, recreation and open space purposes under a memorandum of understanding with the landfill owners and National Park Service. The Ordinance further states that Roanoke City, Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton are responsible for any hazardous substances that may be present on the land. Supervisor Eddy advised that he felt that the ordinance was not descriptive enough and needed to be more detailed. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for September 13, 1994. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None Supervisor Eddy will meet with Mr. Mahoney to refine 572 August 23, 1994 the ordinance. 2. Ordinance Authorizinc Conveyance of an Easement to Appalachian Power Company for Electric Service Eztendinc Across a Portion of a Well Lot in LaBellevue. (Joseph Obenshain. Sr. Assistant Count Attorne There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for September 13, 1994. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 3. Ordinance authorizinc the Accuisition o! a Permanent Drainace Easement from the heir o! Bernard i. Payne for the Pinkard Court Road and Drainace improvement Proiect. (Joseph Obenshain Sr. Assistant County Attornev~ There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this ordinance. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for September 13, 1994. The motion carried by_ the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None ~s ordinance Autheri~~„~, the AoQUUisitien o! a _ August 23, 1994 ~~ Permanent Access and Environmental Clean-u Easement from Appalachian Power Company In Connection with the Dixie Caverns Landfill 8 e. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this ordinance. Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for September 13, 1994. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 5. Ordinance and Resolution in Connection w Im rovements to Renworth Road and Valleyoointe Parkwa Jose h Obenshain Sr. Assistant Cou Attorney) a. Ordinance Authorizinc Donation of 0.518 Acre of Land to the Commonwealth of yircin a fn Connection with Imflrovements to and Acceptance of Renworth Road and Vallevnointe Parkway into the VDOT Secondary syst_ em. There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this ordinance. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and set the sQCOnd reading for September 13, 1994. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None b. Resolution RecTUestincT VDOT to add Link A - 0.12Mile of Renworth Road to the secondary System and to Abandon Link B - 0 10 mile of Renworth Road. R-82394-6 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLIITION 82394-6 REQIIESTING VDOT TO ADD LINK A - 0.12 MILE OF RENWORTH ROAD TO THE VDOT SECONDARY SYSTEM AND TO ABANDON LINK B - 0.10 MILE OF RENWORTH ROAD WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, Virginia, has constructed and the Virginia Department of Transportation has approved, Kenworth Road on a new alignment under Project 1947- 080-242,0501, and WHEREAS, the project sketch, attached and incorporated herein as a part of this resolution, defines adjustments required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of that construction, and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as served by those portions of old road identified in the project sketch to be abandoned, which portions no longer serve a public need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Link A - 0.12 mile to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, for which section the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby guarantees the right of way to be clear and _ __ August 23, 1994 ~~~ unrestricted, including any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby abandons Link B - 0.10 mile from the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1- 155 of the Code of Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, requests that Link A be accordingly renumbered as part of the secondary system of state highways, and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, orders that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board Ms. Allen was directed to contact Jim Phipps at the Community Corrections Resource Board for a possible nominee. ?. Grievance Panel Supervisor Nickens advised that he would contact Vincent Reynolds to determine if he would like to serve another term. 3. Industrial Development Authority Supervisor Eddy nominated Ronald Martin to serve another four-year term which will expire September 26, 1998. Supervisor Johnson nominated J. Carson Quarles to serve ~rJ~ August 23, 1994 another four-year term which will expire September 26, 1998. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the Consent Agenda with Item 13 added. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLIITION 82394-7 APPROVING AND CONCIIRRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED A8 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 August 23, 1994, 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 12, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of July 12 and July 26, 1994 Minutes 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Social Services Advisory Board and the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. .3. Acceptance of Water Facilities Serving Barrens Road. 4. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Advanced Auto/Perimeter East. 5. Approval of a Raffle Permit and One-Time Bingo Game from the Penn Forest Elementary School P.T.A. - August 23, 1994 ~7r' 6. Resolution of Support for Construction of a National D-Day Memorial in the Roanoke Valley. 7. Request for Acceptance of Mallard Lane Estates into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 8. Resolution Extending Time for Review of Basic Cable Rate Filings by Boothe American Company d/b/a Salem Cable TV. 9. Resolution for Extension of Time for Review of Basic Cable Rate Filings by Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. 10. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Webber Subdivision. 11. Request from the School Board for Appropriation to the School Grant Fund for the Tech Prep Consortium. 12. Approval of Raffle Permit from the Cave Sprinq Elementary School P.T.A. 13. Resolution Recognizing the TaeKwonDo America National Tournament to be Held in Roanoke County on September 24, 1994. 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 resolution with Item 13 added, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None REBOLIITION 82394-7.e OF SIIPPORT FOR THE CONBTRIICTION OF A NATIONAL D-DAY MEMORIAL TO BE LOCATED IN THE ROA~TOICE VALLEY ~''JR August 23, 1994 WHEREAS, the 50th anniversary of the June 6, 1944 Normandy Invasion known as D-Day was recently recognized in the United States and throughout Europe, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley holds the distinction of having had a major contingent involved in the D-Day invasion, and WHEREAS, there is a need to honor in an appropriate manner the brave men and women from the allied nations who participated in the invasion, and WHEREAS, a memorial honoring the events, people and allied nations related to Omaha Beach and the 116th Infantry would be an attraction in the Roanoke Valley and contribute to the overall economy, and WHEREAS, potential sites throughout the Roanoke Valley for the D-Day Memorial were studied and reviewed in 1990, and WHEREAS, a highly visible site has been identified that would provide access for public viewing of the memorial. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, supports the siting of a National D-Day Memorial, and encourages the completion of this important project. -On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None August 23, 1994 ~r'9 RESOLIITION 82394-7.f REQIIESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MALLARD LANE ESTATES INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Bob L. Johnson Seconded By: Not Required Yeas: Subervisors Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Ed-~ Nays: None RESOLIITION 82394-~.c7 REQIIESTING EBTENSION OF TIME FOR REDIEW OF BASIC CABLE RATE FILINGS BY BOOTHE AMERICAN COMPANY D/B/A SALEM CABLE TV WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke's "Certification of Franchising Authority to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates . .," F.C.C. Form 328, was filed with the Federal Communication Commission on October 12, 1993, and on October 26, 1993, this Board adopted Ordinance 102693-4 establishing "Procedures and Standards for the Regulation of Cable Television Rates .'~; and WHEREAS, by certified letter dated November 1, 1993, received on November 2, 1993, Boothe American Co. d/b/a Salem Cable TV was formally notified of the receipt by the F.C.C. of the County's Form 328 and the Board's adoption of the aforesaid Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 1994, the County of Roanoke received completed F.C.C. Forms 1200, 1205 and 1220 from Boothe American Company d/b/a Salem Cable TV as required for regulation and approval of basic cable service rates which Forms will be forwarded to the offices of Moss & Barnett, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for their audit, review and report to this Board on the reasonableness of Salem Cable TV's rate request; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1994, the City Council of the City of Salem, Virginia adopted 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 and has previously submitted an F.C.C. Form 328 in order to be certified to regulate basic cable service rates within its jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, the F.C.C.'s "Report and Order on Rate August 23, 1994 ~Q~ Regulation" authorizes a franchising authority to extend for up to 90 days, or 150 days in the case of a "cost of service" rate justification filing, the effective date of proposed basic cable service rates to permit the authority to make a final determination on the information submitted by the cable operator. To toll the effective date of the proposed rates, the franchising authority must issue a brief order or resolution explaining that it needs additional time to review the proposed rates; and WHEREAS, notice must be provided to the cable operator within 30 days of receipt of their Forms 1200 and 1220 of this 90 day and 150 day extension and the County Attorney's Office mailed to Boothe American Company d/b/a as Salem Cable TV on August 17, 1994, by certified mail, return receipt requested, such a letter of notification. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, as follows: 1. That the initial 3 0 day period f or the review of the proposed basic cable service rates of Boothe American Company d/b/a Salem Cable TV as set forth in the F.C.C. Forms 1200 and 1205 received by the County of Roanoke on July 20, 1994, is hereby extended for 90 additional days in order to obtain and review additional information from Boothe American Company as to the justification for its rate request. This action is being taken to ensure that the proposed rate is within the reasonableness standard established by the Federal Communications Commission in its "Report and Order on Rate Regulation." 2. That the initial 30 day period for the review of the proposed basic cable service rates of Boothe American Company d/b/a Salem Cable TV as set forth in the F.C.C. Form 1220 received by the County of Roanoke on July 20, 1994, is hereby extended for 150 additional ~R'Z August 23, 1994 days in order to obtain and review additional information from Boothe American Company as to the justification for its rate request. This action is being taken to ensure that the proposed rate is within the reasonableness standard established by the Federal Communications Commission in its "Report and Order on Rate Regulation." 3. That the letter of notice mailed to Boothe American Company from the Office of the County Attorney on August 17, 1994, is hereby ratified and affirmed by this Board as authorized by this Board of Supervisors, as the franchising authority for cable operators in Roanoke County, as tolling the effective date for the basic cable service rates submitted on July 20, 1994, for an additional 90 and 150 days, respectively. If no action be taken by this Board within this additional time period, the proposed rates will go into effect, subject to subsequent refund orders. This resolution shall be effective from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RE80LIITION 82394-7.h REQIIESTING EBTENSION OF TIME FOR REVIEW OF BASIC CABLE RATE FILINGS BY COB CABLE ROANORE, INC. WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke's "Certification of Franchising Authority to Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates . .," F.C.C. Form 328, was filed with the Federal Communication Commission on October 12, 1993, and on October 26, 1993, this Board adopted Ordinance 102693-4 establishing "Procedures and Standards for the Regulation of Cable Television Rates ."; August 23, 1994 ~R~ and WHEREAS, by certified letter dated November 1, 1993, received on November 2, 1993, Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. was formally notified of the receipt by the F.C.C. of the County's Form 328 and the Board's adoption of the aforesaid Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 1994, the County of Roanoke received completed F.C.C. Forms 1200, "Setting Maximum Initial Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services", 1205 "Equipment Form" and 1215 "A La Carte Channel Offerings" from Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. as required for regulation and approval of basic cable service rates. These forms will be forwarded to the offices of Moss & Barnett, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for their audit, review and report to this Board on the reasonableness of Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc.'s rate request; and WHEREAS, the F.C.C.'s "Report and Order on Rate Regulation" authorizes a franchising authority to extend for up to 90 days the effective date of proposed basic cable service rates to permit the authority to make a final determination on the information submitted by the cable operator. To toll the effective date of the proposed rates, the franchising authority must issue a brief order or resolution explaining that it needs additional time to review the proposed rates; and WHEREAS, notice must be provided to the cable operator within 30 days of receipt of their Form 1200 of this 90 day extension. S~ja August 23, 1994 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, as follows: 1. That the initial 30 day period for the review of the proposed basic cable service rates of Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., as set forth in the F.C.C. Forms 1200, 1205 and 1215 received by the County of Roanoke on August 12, 1994, is hereby extended for 90 additional days in order to adequately review these rates with the assistance of outside legal counsel and, if necessary, to obtain additional information from Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. as to the justification for its rate request. This action is being taken to ensure that the proposed rate is within the reasonableness standard established by the Federal Communications Commission in its "Report and Order on Rate Regulation." 2. That the County Attorney is authorized, on behalf of this Board of Supervisors as the franchising authority for cable operators in the County of Roanoke, to give notice by letter to Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. that the effective date for approval of the basic cable service rates to become effective July 14, 1994 is extended for an additional 90 days. If no action be taken by this Board within this additional time period, the proposed rates will go into effect, subject to subsequent refund orders. 3. This resolution shall be effective from the date of its adoption. on motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQIIIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERB Supervisor Nickens • (1) He asked about the study of the viewshed for the Blue Ridge Parkway. Mr. Hodge encouraged the Board Members to attend a meeting and hear landscape August 23, 1994 ~R~ architect Carlton Abbott who has been hired by the Parkway. (2) He asked about the agenda for the joint meetings with other Roanoke Valley governing bodies. Mr. Hodge responded that some of the meetings will be limited to informal discussions and others may include discussion on specific issues. Supervisor Johnson• (1) He suggested that the joint meetings include a "laundry list" for discussion at future meetings with the valley governing bodies. (2) He asked staff to schedule a community meeting with the residents of Chester Drive to include County staff and Virginia Department of Transportation staff to discuss timelines, etc. for road improvements. (3) He asked about Valleypointe. Mr. Hodge responded that this would be discussed in Executive Session. Supervisor Kohinke• (1) He advised that he attended the Local Government Officials Conference (LGOC) on August 14 to August 16, 1994, and felt that it was very productive and useful. (2) He advised that Supervisor Minnix and he are on the cooperation subcommittee of the New Century Council. Supervisor Eddv• (1) He announced that he felt that the brochure for solid waste was well done. (2) He advised that Supervisor Kohinke will attend the Blacksburg seminar on the new Institute of Government. (3) He asked for a status report on enforcement of the new cat ordinance and on the number of cat licenses that have been sold. Mr. Hodge will bring this information to the September 13, 1994 meeting. (4) He asked CQ~ August 23, 1994 about the year-end budget surplus. Mr. Hodge advised that the figures will be available in 30 to 45 days. IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMIINICATION3 Rov Lochner 6050 Poaae Vallev Road, spoke about crime and burglaries that have not yet been solved. He asked for a monthly status report for fire and police activities. Chairman Eddy asked that Mr. Hodge provide a status report at an upcoming meeting. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Johnson moved to receive and file the following reports after discussion of Item 5. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 1. General Fund IInaoDronriated Balance ?. Capital Fund Unan~ro~riated Balance 3. Board ContinQ encv Fund 4. Account Paid - July 1994 5. Bond Proiect Status Report 6. Fire and Rescue Department ReactionjResoonse Timas - June 1994, July 1994. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS is Work Session on Private SSE/R Procram laarv Robertson, IItility Director) August 23, 1994 CQr~ Mr. Robertson reported that in September 1993 the Sewer Ordinance in the County Code was amended to allow for enforcing the elimination of stormwater inflow and infiltration from private property. The code based surcharges for non-compliance on the amount of stormwater that could enter the sanitary sewer system, and it was difficult to place realistic numbers of the flows. The Utility staff is recommending that the surcharge be based on a category of defect rather than flow. Category I would include sump pumps discharging to the sewer, holes in floor drains, and downspouts, and would be the most serious. Category II would be infiltration into the sewer system such as leaking, and Category III would be minor defects which do not adversely effect the sewer system. In response to a question from Supervisor Minnix, Mr. Robertson advised that when a cutoff is shut, they leave a hanger on the door to let citizens know when they close the system, but may have to let them know when it is reopened. It was the consensus of the Board to go forward with the recommended changes to the ordinance. Mr. Robertson will bring the ordinance back for a first reading on September 27, 1994, and second reading on October 11, 1994. IN RES ERECIITIVE SESSION At 5:25 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1- C Q 4 August 23, 1994 344 A (3) To Consider the Disposition of Real Property, Namely, a Well Lot and property known as Ogden Center; acquisition of real estate for Social Service, and potential litigation, i.e. enforcement of admissions tax. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF ERECIITIVE SESSION R-82394-8 At 7:05 p.m., Supervisor Johnson returned to open session and moved to adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLIITION 82394-8 CERTIFYING ERECIITIVE MEETING WA8 HELD IN CONFORMITY AITH 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. August 23, 1994 ~R9 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 Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: PIIBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance to Rezone 2.0 Acres from I-2 to - to Operate a Garden Center Located at 4925 St Road. Cave Sorina Mavisterial District. IIoon the Petition of John A. Hall. Ter Harr Planninc & Zoning Director) 0-82394-9 Mr. Harrington advised that the site had been difficult to market for industrial use due to the small size of the tract. G~I1 August 23, 1994 The Planning Commission recommended approval. There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this request. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None ORDINANCE 82304-9 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 4925 STARREY ROAD (TA% MAP NO. 87.11-3-4) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I- 2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF JOHN A. HALL WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 26, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing were held August 23, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 2, 1994; 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, as described herein, and located at 4925 Starkey Road, (Tax Map Number 87.11-3-4) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I- 2, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of C-2, August 23, 1994 ~(~~ General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of John A. Hall. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Virginia Secondary Highway Route No. 904 (formerly Virginia Highway Route No. 419) 205.15 feet in a northwesterly direction from the northwest corner of the intersection of the said Route 904 and Virginia Secondary Highway Route No. 753; thence leaving the westerly side of Route 904 and with the line of the Andrews-Pitzer-Butler Fuel Oil Corporation, S. 84 deg. 46' W. 316.84 feet to an iron pin corner; thence continuing with the Andrews-Pitzer-Butler Fuel Oil Corporation property, S. 12 deg. O1' W. 75.4 feet to a point on Virginia Secondary Highway Route 753; thence with the same, N. 83 deg. 25' W. 72.7 feet to an iron pin on the east right-of-way line of the Norfolk & Western Railway Company's right-of-way; thence with the same, the following three courses and distances, N. 12 deg. O1' E. 75.0 feet, N. 8 deg. 40' E. 199.0 feet N. 7 deg. 40 E. 166.95 feet to a corner; thence N. 84 deq. 46~ E. 294.29 feet to a point in the westerly right-of-way line of the said Route 904; thence with the same, the following five courses and distances, S. 1 deg. 00' E. 35.96 feet; S. 13 deg. 41' E. 79.0 feet; N. 84 deg. 46' E. 4.5 feet; S. 15 deg. 02' E. 32.55 feet to a concrete highway monument; S. 16 deg. 49' E. 100.00 feet to the place of beginning, and containing 2.00 acres, more or less. 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 Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: ~Q') August 23, 1994 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 2. An ordinance to Amend the Text of the Roanoke County Zoninc Ordinance to Allow Replacement Only of Individually Sited single Wide Manufactured (Mobile) Homes Throughout Roanoke County with a Newer Single Wide Mobile Home. (Terry Harrington. Planning & Zoninc Director 0-823940-10 Mr Harrington reported that in 1986 the County adopted new manufactured home regulations which prohibited the installation of single-wide manufactured homes on individual lots. Those that currently exist are considered nonconforming uses and may not be replaced with another single-wide unit. Mr. Harrington advised that the proposed amendment is the result of a request from a property owner who wishes to replace a unit which is experiencing electrical and leakage problems with a newer single-wide unit. Mr. Harrington advised that the Planning Commission recommended amending the ordinance to allow replacement of single-wide manufactured units. The Planning Commission was concerned with the timing issue and location of a replacement unit. They recommended that a unit must be replaced within four months and should be placed as close as possible to the existing location. August 23, 1994 ~9~_ In response to a question, Mr. Harrington advised that mobile home owners could be notified of this change by the Commissioner of the Revenue when personal property taxes are filed. Supervisor Kohinke moved to adopt the ordinance with the changes recommended by Supervisor Eddy. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None Staff was directed to notify the owners of single-wide mobile homes of the changes to the ordinance. ORDINANCE 82394-10 AMENDING THE ROANORE COIINTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT ONLY OF INDIVIDIIALLY-SITED SINGLE-WIDE MANUFACTIIRED HOMES THROIIGHOIIT ROANORE COIINTY WITH A NEWER SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 26, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing were held August 23, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 2, 1994; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has determined that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice support this amendment to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke ~()a August 23, 1994 County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 30, (Appendix A of the Code) "Zoning Ordinance" of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: SEC. 30-23-2 Nonconforming Uses of Buildings, Structures, or Land. (H) Notwithstanding (A) through (G) above, a nonconforming Class B or Class C manufactured home existing on an individual lot of record that has served as an active dwelling for at least six months may be replaced with a Class A or Class B manufactured home provided: (1) The replacement home is installed on the lot within four months of the removal of the home to be replaced, and; (2) The replacement home is installed in approximately the same location on the lot, and is installed to comply with the district setback regulations for principal structures, and; - (3) The installation of the replacement home complies with the Use and Design standards for manufactured homes contained in Section 30-82-9 (L) b., and c.. August 23, 1994 S95 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: PIIBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearinc for Citizen Comment on the FY 1995- 99 Capital improvements Program. (Brent Robertson, Budget Manacer) a. Comments on the County CIP There were no citizens present to speak on this issue. b. Comments on the School CIP Mr. Hodge thanked School Superintendent Dr. Deanna Gordon and her staff for their work on the School Board CIP. He advised that the Board of Supervisors would need to decide at this meeting whether to go forward with a bond referendum. Dr. Gordon and Marty Robison, Executive Assistant, described how the CIP was developed and advised that the CIP included $50 million in school capital needs. The following citizens spoke in support of a $30 ~(~(~ August 23, 1994 Million Bond Referendum which would include funding for a new Cave Spring High School and upgrades and capital improvements to other schools. 1. Robert Bostian, 5029 Sugar Loaf Mountain Road, asked what would happen to the current high school if a new one is built. 2. Babette Cribbs, 5045 Burnham Road, President of the Roanoke County Council of PTA's. 3. Glenn E. Prather, 7244 Back Cree Road. 4. Michael D. Morris, 4225 Arlington Hills Drive 5. Terri Langford, 5940 Merriman Road 6. Jim McAden, 5771 Grandin Road Extension 7. Peter Nevin, 1920 Cantle Lane 8. Tom Leggette, 6413 Hidden Valley Drive 9. David Paxton, 5332 Cromwell Park Dr. Gordon responded to Mr. Bostian's question that the current high school would probably become a middle school. IN RE: CITIZENS COMMENTS AND COMMONICATIONS 1. Robert Bostian, 5029 Sugarloaf Mountain Road, spoke about speeding on Sugarloaf Mountain Road. He had previously complained about the speeding and apologized to staff, stating that he conducted his own radar test and the speeding was not as bad as he thought. He requested that the police continue to drive through this area during the peak traffic periods. August 23, 1994 7 2. Randall Hancock _ 3344 Absalom Smith Road, expressed concern about (1) construction going on at Whispering Pines Park and residents not being informed; (2) problems with traffic, speeding and trash from those using the ballfields at the park; and (3) asked why there was not going to be more playground equipment for children. Chairman Eddy asked that the staff check on the playground equipment. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Eddy declared a five minute recess at 8:15 p.m. N RE: WORK SESSION Chairman Eddy reconvened the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Chairman Thomas of the School Board reconvened their meeting from August il, 1994. 1. Work Session with the School Board on School Capital Improvement Prociram (CIP). (Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent) Mr. Hodge reported that staff has prepared various resolutions, a $10.2 million or a $30 million bond referendum which includes a new high school. He advised taxes would have to be increased for either referendum. School Board Chairman Frank Thomas advised that they ~QQ August 23, 1994 had prepared three plans: (1) improvements with no bond referendum; (2) a $10.2 million referendum which includes improvements to schools, major renovations, and a Northside gym/auditorium; and (3) a $30 million referendum which includes the above improvements plus a new high school. Finance Director Diane Hyatt advised that the Board of Supervisors approved a VPSA fall 1994 bond for $726,375. They have also approved Literary Loans in the amount of $2.5 million for Spring 1995 and Fall 1996. Staff will combine the debt schedules for the schools and the County and there will be available funds to cover the debt for these bonds. If the Board approves a $10.2 million bond referendum, it will require a 2 cent real estate tax increase and funds from the cellular phone tax. In response to questions, the School Board members advised that they were in agreement in their support for a $30 million bond referendum. Following extended discussions, Supervisors Johnson and Kohinke advised that they supported a $30 million bond referendum to included a new Cave Spring High School. Supervisor Eddy, Minnix and Nickens advised that they were not ready at this time to support a $30 million bond referendum. IN REs NEW BII8INE88 ]~ Annroval o! Bond Resolutions August 23, 1994 ,~(~(~ prepare the necessary resolution to place on the 1994 fall ballot a $30.15 million bond referendum. The motion was defeated the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke NAYS: Supervisor Minnix, Nickens, Eddy Supervisor Johnson moved that the County Attorney prepare the necessary resolution to place on the 1994 fall ballot a $10.2 million bond referendum. The motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke NAYS: Supervisors Minnix, Nickens, Eddy Supervisor Nickens asked that Mr. Hodge work with Dr. Gordon to determine what might be placed on the spring Literary Loans and Virginia Public School Association (VSPA) loans, and to provide the possible funding sources, including increased personal property taxes. The School Board adopted a resolution for $2.2 million in VPSA loans by unanimous voice vote and also approved an additional $1 million for technology. R-82394-11 Supervisor Johnson moved to approve fall VPSA loans for $2.2 million and an additional $1 million earmarked for technology. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLUTION 82394-11 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF $3,200,000 SCHOOL BONDS WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Board has determined that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue general obligation bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") in the amount not to exceed $3,200,000 ("Bonds") to finance certain capital improvements for public school purposes ("Projects") and to sell the bonds to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA"), and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County has previously determined it is advisable to contract a debt and issue general obligation bonds of the County in an amount not to exceed $726,375 to finance certain Projects and to sell the bonds to the VPSA, and WHEREAS, the Board now desires to increase the amount of the debt and issue general obligation bonds of the County in an amount not to exceed $3,200,000 to finance certain Projects and to sell the bonds to the VPSA; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The County Administrator is authorized and directed to submit an application to the VPSA in order to sell the bonds to the VPSA at the Fall 1994 VPSA bond sale. 2. The Board adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. The Board 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 projects from the proceeds of its debt or other financings. The maximum amount of debt or other financing expected to be issued for the Projects is $3,200,000. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately. - August 23, 1994 ~n~ 2. Resolution Adoytinc the County FY 1995-99 Capital improvements Program. (Brent Robertson, Budget Manacerf R-82394-12 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy RESOLIITION 82394-12 ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR FY 1995-99 FOR ROANORE COIINTY WHEREAS, the County Administration has developed a capital improvements program to be used as a management and budget tool to assist County staff and the Board of Supervisors in addressing the capital needs of our community; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has held several work sessions with County staff on this capital improvements program; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the adoption of this capital improvements program was held on August 23, 1994 to secure the comments of the citizens after publication of notice as required by law. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County capital improvements program for ~jn'Z August 23, 1994 FY 1995-99 is hereby adopted and approved. 2. That this capital improvements program shall not be considered a portion of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy 3. Resolution Adootina the FY 1995-99 School Capital Improvements Program. (Brent Robertson, Budcet Manager) R-82394-13 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy RESOLIITION 82394-13 ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR FY 1995-99 FOR ROANORE COIINTY SCHOOLS WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Administration has developed a capital improvements program to be used as a management and budget tool to assist school staff and the School Board in addressing the capital needs of our school system; and WHEREAS, the School Board has held several work sessions with school staff and the Board of Supervisors on this capital improvements program; and August 23, 1994 WHEREAS, a public hearing on the adoption of this capital improvements program was held on August 23, 1994 to secure the comments of the citizens after publication of notice as required by law. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County capital improvements program for Roanoke County Schools for FY 1995-99 is hereby adopted and approved. 2. That this capital improvements program shall not be considered a portion of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy 4. Ordinance Authorizinc Execution of a Lease Acreement for Additional Space for IIse by the Department of social services. (John Chambliaa. Assistant County Administratorf 0-82394-14 Mr. Chambliss reported that the Department of Social Services has received from the state the ADAPT computer system. The computer system will be located on the third and fourth floors and additional space will be needed for mediation services ~j(~4, August 23, 1994 and clerical functions. The County has received a proposal from the current owner of the Salem Bank and Trust Building to lease 720 square feet at a rate of $9.10 per square foot. Mr. Chambliss requested that the Board adopt the ordinance and waive second reading because of the emergency nature of the request. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance and waive the second reading. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None ORDINANCE 82394-14 AIITHORIZING THE EBECIITION OF A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR IISE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FROM TRANSSOIITHERN BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the execution of a lease agreement for additional space in the Salem Bank and Trust Building for use by the Department of Social Services was held on August 23, 1994. Due to the temporary and emergency nature of this request, the second reading on this matter was waived. 2. That it is in the County~s best interests to lease this property from TransSouthern in order to facilitate the installation of the ADAPT computer system for the Department of August 23, 1994 ~~ 5 Social Services for a period of four (4) months for the rental sum of Five Hundred Forty-Six Dollars ($546) per month, beginning September 1, 1994 and expiring December 31, 1994. 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon a form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to waive second reading and to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: ADJOIIRNMENT At 10:25 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn to Monday, September 12, 1994, at 12:00 Noon for the purpose of a joint meeting with the Roanoke City Council to be held at the Roanoke valley Resource Authority Office. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. Submitted by, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Approved by, Lee B. Eddy, Chairman ~ll~ August 23, 1994 This page left intentionally blank September 12,1994 607 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Offices, 1020 Hollins Road, this being an adjourned meeting from August 23, 1994 for the purposes of a joint meeting with the Roanoke City Council. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Eddy called the meeting to order at 12:45 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee B. Eddy, Vice Chairman Edward G. Kohinke, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; Anne Marie Green, Community Relations, Diane Hyatt, Finance Director, OTHERS PRESENT: Members of Roanoke City Council (Councilman Mac McCadden absent); Members of Roanoke City staff IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Mayor David Bowers, :7 ~(~Q September 12, 1994 followed by a luncheon. IN RE: REMARKS 1. Lee B. Eddv, Chair, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Chairman Eddy explained that the Board of Supervisors requested the joint meeting to get to know the new council members. He advised that they were also planning to meet with Salem City Council, Vinton Town Council and the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors. 2~ David A. Bowers Ma or Roanoke Cit Counci Mayor Bowers thanked the Board for the invitation. He suggested that both governing bodies needed to communicate more often, and that Roanoke City would like to host the next meeting. IN RE: DISCII38ION OF SIIGGESTED AGENDA ITEMS AND ESTABLIBffiKENT OF ADDITIONAL ITEMS Supervisor Nickens advised that Roanoke County is preparing a document describing joint efforts between various Roanoke Valley governing bodies. He suggested that it be discussed at the next joint meeting. County Administrator Elmer Hodge and-City Manager Bob Herbert will review the document prior to the next meeting. Mr. Hodge and Mr. Herbert updated both governing bodies on the regionalization study organized by Delegate Richard September 12, 1994 ~tn~_ Cranwell. They reported that consultants Towers Perrin will begin work with the group in October. 1. Ridceline Protection There was consensus that both localities need to be more proactive in protecting both the mountains and historical properties. Councilman John Parrott suggested that both planning staffs schedule a meeting to review land that could be protected from overdevelopment. 2. Affordable Housing Roanoke City council members expressed concern that there is little affordable housing in the County resulting in the City having to meet the needs of most of the low-income families in the Roanoke Valley. Supervisor Nickens suggested that property adjacent to Pinkard Court which was donated by the County to TAP could be used by Habitat for Humanity to build affordable housing. Supervisor Johnson also suggested surplus well lots that will be available after Spring Hollow Reservoir comes on line. 3. EB~anded Public Transportation Mayor Bowers reported that the City had expanded the daily hours of Valley Metro bus services. There was a discussion on the expense involved in providing public transportation and there was no consensus on solutions. 4. 8epace Treatment Plant Chairman Eddy announced that the Board of Supervisors will discuss the Sewage Treatment Contract at their September 13 executive session. 5. Roanoke Regional Airport Commission Membership The Board of Supervisors congratulated the City Council on appointing a citizen to serve on the commission and advised they would also be appointing a citizen in the near future. IN RE: OTHER POTENTIAL JOINT EFFORTS Both governing bodies suggested potential issues or projects that could be developed or supported jointly. Council member John Edwards suggested the following: improved access to Smith Mountain Lake, an indoor fieldhouse, and encouraging the Roanoke Valley as a retirement mecca. Mayor Bowers advised that the City will hold a bond referendum that will include $2.3 million for tourism. He requested that the Board of Supervisors express support for their request to the General Assembly for funding of the State Transportation Museum. Supervisor Johnson suggested that both localities investigate: the possibility of jointly purchasing land for economic development purposes, possibly in an adjacent county. Supervisor Eddy felt that both localities should encourage protection of the Blue Ridge Parkway because it was an important asset to the Roanoke Valley. IN RE: NEST JOINT MEETING e September 12,1994 611 It was the consensus of both the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke City Council to schedule joint meetings on a quarterly basis. Roanoke City Clerk Mary Parker and Roanoke County Clerk Mary Allen were directed to schedule a date for the next meeting. County Administrator Elmer Hodge and City Manager Bob Herbert were directed to determine issues for discussion at the meeting. Roanoke City will serve as the host. IN RE: ADJOIIRNMENT At 1:50 P.M., Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. Submitted by: Approved by: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Lee B. Eddy, Chairman September 12, 1994 This page left intentionally blank ACTION NO. A-92794-8.a ITEM NUMBER ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and Grievance Panel. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nominations were made by at the September 13, 1994 meeting. 1. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals Supervisor Eddy nominated Richard Williams to another four- year term. His term will expire October 21, 1998. 2. Grievance Panel Supervisor Eddy nominated Henry H. Wise to another three-year term, as an alternate member. His term will expire October 21, 1997. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that these appointments be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Brenda J. Holton Elmer C. Hodge Deputy Clerk to the Board County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals File Grievance Panel File ~, '~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1994, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLIITION 92794-8.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF COLLEGE VIEW COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: H. Odell Minnix Seconded By: Not Required Yeas: Supervisors Johnson Kohinke Minnix, Nickens, Eddy Nays: None A Copy Teste: Brenda J. Hol on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 92794-8.b requesting acceptance of College View Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary Road System adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by a unanimous recorded vote on Tuesday, September 27, 1994. Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 43 -J °'. ' 7azs _. _. - 7971 : 3 a 8 si - _•. ° s 797J iez ^ ~e •` i0 4 . X966 - 4 ' ~ ~ eo3' • "~' '•~ • T ' .., 1917 ~ ° ..z % _ 1961 iaj6 ~ i5 4 i 7939 5 t .~ I I ~ j ~• -= \ 407830 ~ 12 / /' 1895 r \~ J 79+~ ~• 39 /A, 38 ~_~ ~ i3 aa ~ ~ _ \~ \ 7792 ~. '/ ~' 1691 • ;~ \\ / 37 /^ 77e~ a° ~ 32 C`OQ' ~77y3 18~ p i4 . \ 36 Z 33 ' 7879 ~ _ ' 7776 -. ;e.._s )7BJ _ 31 - ~~ %#.~ ~~ ~ 779 7 . 7a71 ~1 - - .. _ .._ -' . _... 9 777 _ _ 7711 ~.. .: ~ " .._ 7709... , PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1} College View C ourt from end of cul-de-sac (south of Hollins Court Rt. No. 2010 to end of cul-de-sac (north of Hollins Court) . LENGTH: (1) 0 .12 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 30 FEET SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 26 FEET SERVICE: (1) 4 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF COLLEGE VIEW COURT INTO THE ENGINEERING & VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 3 ~ - `o U c m E t U N Q 3 s 2 a c 0 v a a t O r Q M1 1i N /C/~ lip O Z ~_ H Q m 0 E 2 h c d 7 y ^C O a ~' 2 b a 0 m _[T [O a s U 0 E C Q .y .~ O m E Z M .--~ >_ N ~ a Q a v; > ~ ''' p2o U O n w J m C C a ~ U N O N O O Opp Z H W. o z ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~o v 3 '~ d ~ ~ ~_ m O a Gi d a d b a N ~ d m 4 a m 4 a bl O a i c Q a a C m r VI U U EN N ~ N m Q H m ~ ~ mmy O ~ m ~ a ym ^ ~ ci O a ai O a ai a d c o ~' Q ° ~ 0 ~ Q a ~ o ~ ¢ m ~ 0 ~i ¢ 10 ~ o ~ Q ~ ~ ` o ~ ° ~ o ~i ° v ~ ~ LL r a LL r a u. r a ~ r a LL r a u . r a LL r a axi t a 7 Ol g 3 m p 2 c Z Wz g Z i LL O 2 r Y LL Q U L-3 A i 5 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~~ °~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of 0.12 miles of College View Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~~~`~~ ~/~~i~--C~ r ~jJ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Boone, Boone & Loeb Incorporated, the developer, of Hollins Court Subdivision, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.12 miles of College View Court. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT• No County funding is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept 0.12 miles of College View Court into the Secondary Road System. L s U ITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ~ j' , Arnold Covey, Directo Elmer C. Hodg of Engineering & Insp ctions County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: ACTION Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs o, - :a ~43 !- 7825 797 3 p 8 Sl , ` ,, /1 ~ 79n tgz ',/ 6 4' 7966 q ~ 7 ~- ~~~~ / - `'s - / ' 7981 ~ 7gj8 ~' ai 7938 5 S / _ ' 1~c~G 7845 " 6 ~s 7810 _ /" 40 7gS~ `^ \ '.. 10 1 7811 g ems,. ~,,,~~• \ 0;I ,PO` II , 7809 i 2 '' tBgS ,?~ 15 3 p .:: \ 39 7g42 / is `38 ~ i3 A/^ \~ ~ ~\ 7797 ~.• _ 7Bg7 ~3 /., ~ ~ 32 •, ~` / 37 ~ , ~~oap ~)ly3 1B~ of is 36 V~.z 33' 7ej9 7778 B f = , ~ - ~ .. / 7881 !~ i6 _ .... ~ ~1 \/ 77691` 7777 ~~787/ 77/I - 7708.... . PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) College View Court from end of cul-de-sac (south of Hollins Court Rt. No. 2010 to end of cul-de-sac (north of Hollins Court) . LENGTH: (1) RIGHT OF WAY: (1) ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) SURFACE WIDTH: (1) SERVICE: (1) 0.12 MILES 50 FEET 30 FEET 26 FEET 4 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF COLLEGE VIEW COURT INTO THE ENGINEERING & VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - SECONDARY SYSTEM - INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 3 L..-~~ The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, in regular meeting on the 27th day of September, 1994, adopted the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 (a) , fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Moved By: Seconded Yeas: Nays: Vote By: A Copy Teste: Mary Allen, Board Cler 4 a c m t U Q m E 2 c d c O N .' 7 0 d E Z m ~_ N ~ N O ~ a v; > i ~ i N O h w J m C C ~ ~ N O N O O ~7 O Q ~ ~~~1 [~ V ~y O ~ 2 ~ H I ~x~ ~ ~~~ ~ w o U 3 ~i _~ m ~ a ui rn a ui rn a ui ~ a ci m d ui ~ a iti m a i c 'a v` a c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =u; ~ p p pp yy A O ~ fn m ro N N ~ 01 O m O d O d O ° d ~ 01 N ~ o r- a CL ro a ~ ~ o f- a U U ¢ itl a ~ LL o ~ a U d ¢ m a ~ ~ o ~ ~ {~ N Q 'tl a ~ ~ o r a ~7 N Q itl a ~ ~ o r- a ft m a ~ LL o ~ a CL '~ 'a o y .% ' ~ w 7 '~ p~~j 4~' // L rn C U_ 3 m 'Q ro Z .- N (7 V N ~ ~ d Z N 2 6 LL Z Q F+ U LL W L~-3 a h .. ,, ___ __ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 RESOLUTION 92794-8.C TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REQUESTING CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING LITERARY LOAN FUND APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the School Board for Roanoke County have reviewed the capital needs of the citizens of Roanoke County, and in particular, the educational needs of the children of the county, and have adopted a Capital Improvements Program to address these needs; and, WHEREAS, the County has embarked upon an extensive program of school capital improvements, including both renovation of existing facilities, as well as new construction; and, WHEREAS, the Department of Education is considering certain changes with respect to the regulations governing literary loan applications in order to provide increased funding to local school divisions for school construction. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That the Commonwealth of Virginia, through its elected officers and appointed officials, must allocate greater funding to the Literary Fund; and authorize an increase in annual expenditures from this Fund for school construction purposes. 2. That proceeds from the Literary Fund must not be diverted for purposes other than school construction. 3. That the regulations governing the Literary Fund be amended to increase the amount available for a project from $2.5 Million to $5 Million. r f ' 4. That the regulations governing the Literary Fund be amended to increase the total amount available to a local school division be increased from its current limit of $20 Million. 5. That the regulations governing the Literary Fund be amended to expedite the review, approval and disbursement of monies to local school divisions and local governments, thereby reducing the inordinate delays in the actual receipt of money from the Literary Fund. 6. That the clerk to the Board of Supervisors is hereby directed to mail a certified copy of this Resolution to the Department of Education, members of the General Assembly representing the Roanoke Valley, and the Clerk to the School Board for Roanoke County. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Kathryn S. Kitchen, Division Chief, VA Dept of Education Ruth Wade, Clerk, Roanoke County School Board Roanoke Valley Legislators I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 927924-8.c requesting certain changes to the regulations concerning literary loan fund applications adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by a unanimous recorded vote on Tuesday, September 27, 1994. Brenda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ACTION NO. L- ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of Resolution Regarding Literary Loans Y ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Q~~"r""~ f ~~ COUNT SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Department of Education is considering changes to regulations about literary loan applications that would provide more money to local school divisions for school construction. A public hearing is scheduled on September 29, 1994 in Richmond, Virginia. In anticipation of this public hearing, the School Board has sent the attached letter to the Virginia Department of Education expressing their support for more money for the Literary Loan Program, an increase in the amount of loan applicable to any one project, an increase in the overall $20,000,000 cap, and refrain from transferring any money from the Literary Fund for other state projects. A resolution is attached for consideration by the County Board of Supervisors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution which will be faxed to Richmond, Virginia for their information prior to the September 29, 1994 public hearing. Respectfully submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Approved by, . ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy - - - Johnson - - - Kohinke - - - Minnix - - - Nickens - - - m:\finance\common\board\9-27-94.a September 22, 1994 ACTION NO. A-92794-8. d ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~~ ~~~~~~`'~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION• Roanoke County applied for a Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. The Commission will match up to $5,000, any donation the County makes to qualified art organizations in the valley. In the FY 1994-95 Budget, The Board of Supervisors approved an appropriation of $3,000 for the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge, $8,500 for Mill Mountain Theatre and $7,500 for the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra. Staff therefore, applied for the maximum grant allocation of $5,000. Roanoke County was awarded $2,910 for FY 1994-95. This amount is less than the maximum due to the budget cuts suffered by State agencies over the last several years. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff recommends dividing the $2,910 grant evenly between the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge, Mill Mountain Theatre and the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra. Combined with the County's appropriation, the following amounts would be available to the organizations referred to above: County VCA Organization Appropriation Grant Total Arts Council $ 3,000 $ 970 $ 3 970 Mill Mountain Theatre 8,500 970 , 9 470 Roanoke Symphony 7,500 970 , 8,470 $ 19,000 $ 2,910 $21,910 STAFF RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $2,910 to be distributed as indicated above. Respectfully submitted, W. Brent Robertson Budget Manager ~^~ Approve by, / ~ ~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ~) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy _ x _ Received O Johnson _ x _ Referred O Kohinke _ x _ TO O Minnix _ _~ _ Nickens x cc: File W. Brent Robertson, Budget Manager ACTION NO. A-92794-8.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: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Approval of a Raffle Permit from the Junior Miss Local Organization, Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festival COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Junior Miss Local Organization, Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festival, has requested a permit to hold a raffle in Roanoke County on November 8, 1994, and has submitted an application. This application has been reviewed with the Commissioner of Revenue and he recommends that it be approved. The application is on file in the Clerk's Office. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit be approved. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ~~ Brenda J. olton Elmer C. Hodge Deputy Clerk County Administrator ------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: u n~aAii Minnix No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x Minnix x To ( ) Nickens x cc: File Bingo/Raffle Permit File FFLE PERMIT APPLI CA TI DN ~ _ ~, RA Application is hereby made for a raffle game permit. This application is made subject to all County and State laws, rules, ordinances, and regulations now in force, or that may be enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the undersigned applicant and officers of the organization and which shall be deemed a condition under which this permit is issued. Raffle games are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. se of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 et. se of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to granting a raffle permit. The Board has sixty days from the filing of an application to grant or deny the permit. The Board may deny, suspend, or revoke the permit of any organization found not to be in strict compliance with county and state law. Name of organization Junior "Miss Locals- Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festival Mailing Address Route 2, Box 192 city, state, zip code Vinton, Va. 24179 When was the organization founded? Purpose and Type of organization Scholarship program - to provide high school senior girls with scholarship for college Has the organizat~.i~on been in existence in Roanoke County for two continuous years? YES X NO Is the organization non-profit? YES X NO Is the organization exempt under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? YES X NO Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption Letter. (If applicable) Does your organization understand that any organization found in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle ordinance or Section 18.2- 340.10 et. se of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is subject to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? yes Does your organization understand that it must maintain and file complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to Raffle games and that such records are subject to audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue? yes COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COMIVIISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 1 Officers of the Organization: President: Kathy Wheeler - Chairman Phone: 890-.3299 1 J_ L.-1G' Address: gt. 2, bax 19~., Vinton, Va. 24179 Vice President: Bootie ~thewning-Co-Chairman Phone: 342-4171 Address: 888 Colbourne Ave., Vinton, Va. 24179 Secretary Vickie Daulton - Co-Chairman phone: 389-1107 34$ Pennsylvania Ave., Salem, Va. 24153 Address: Treasurer: Linda Waybright - Co-Chairman phone• 18 Missimer Land, Vinton, Va. Address: 3 24179 890-3569 Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle operations: Name: Kathy Wheeler Home Address Rt. 2, Box 192, Vinton, Va. 24179 Phone 890-3299 Bus Phone same Member responsible for filing financial report required by the code if your organization ceases to exist: Name: Kathy Wheeler Home Address Rt. 2, Box 1g2, Vinton, Va. 24179 Phone 890-3299 Bus Phone same Does your organization understand that it will be required to furnish a complete list of its membership upon the request of the Commissioner of the Revenue? yes Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke? X IF ALL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIItGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COMMISSIONER OF 7'HE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 3 r„ . Does your organization understand that it is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person or firm, association, organization (other than another qualifi artnershiat or corsoration § 18.2-340.13 of the Code of Virginia), p P~ P of any classification whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing, or conducting Raffles ? yes .. DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES: Article Description Fair Market Value ? night stay at Myrtle Beach $$50.00-X900.00 accommadations for 4 Carribean Resort DATE OF RAFFLE Drawing - November 8, 1994 ld starting October 10, 1994 If this application is for an ANNUAL RAFFLE PERMIT, list below all dates raffles will be held. Specific location where Raffle drawing is to be conducted? William Byrd High School NOTE: This permit shall be valid only for the above location. Any organization tfdldinq a-permit to conduct bingo games or raffles shall use twelve and one-half percent (12.5) of its gross receipts from all bingo games or raffles for those lawful religious, charitable, community or educational purposes for which the organization is specifically chartered or organized. (County Code §4-101) State specifically how the proceeds from Raffle(s) will be used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds. Use estimated amounts if necessary. Raffle will be sold by candidates and members of the Junior Miss Organization. All proceeds will go into the Scholarship fund for the 1995 Junior Miss Locals - Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, Vinton, and Bedford County. The entire scholarship fund will be divided evenly to the candidates of these 1oca~s ( each local will be liven the same amount of scholarship money - projected disbursement is $750.00 with the winner receiving $500 and each division winner receiving X50. Tf more money is disbursed, then the division winners will receive more money.) COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 CONIlVHSSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 NOTARIZATION THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS: I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set forth in §18.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and beliefs. All questions have been answered. I further swear that I have read and understand the attached copies of Sec. 18.2-340.1 et. se of the Code of Virginia and Section 4-86 et. se of the Roanoke County Code. Signed by: Title e Address Subscribed and sworn before me, this ~_day of+~,Tt-19~1~ in the Count /City of Bedford , Virginia. ~ ~,~ My commission expires: Notary Public NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED ~S- 3l 19~ The above application, having been found in due form, is approved and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of this calendar year. ~.. ~ Date Commis Toner the Revenue The above application is not approved. Date ,.. Commissioner of the Revenue COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VHtGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COMIVHSSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 L-b ~,/ o . 4 Url County of Roanoke, Virginia General Fund Unappropriated Balance Beginning. Balance at July 1, 1994 (Unaudited) Balance at September 27, 1994 Amount 4 646 328 of General Fund Expenditures 5.4% 4 646 328 Submitted By Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 5.4% 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 ($85,659,037). m:\finance\common\board\general.95 ~-a County of Roanoke, Virginia Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance Beginning Balance at July 1, 1994 (Unaudited) Submittedy by ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance m:\finance\common\board\capita1.95 r~' County of Roanoke, Virginia Reserve for Board Contingency June 28, 1994 August 23, 1994 September 13, 1994 Original 1994-1995 Budget Dixie Caverns Landfill Additional funds for Bushdale Road Contribution to Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway Balance as of September 27, 1994 $90,000 (50,000) (10,000) (1,000) $29,000 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance m:\ffinance\common\board\continge.95 PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 22, 1994, AS AMER/CAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S DAY WHEREAS, approximately 54 million working women are integrally involved in determining the directfons in which the private and public sectors of this country will move; and WHEREAS, these enterprising women hold active, responsible positions on ail levels of business, and will play an increasingly powertul role in the American work force; and WHEREAS, the American Business Women's Association, a national educational association of employed women, believes that the enormous effects of today's dynamic, concerned businesswomen deserve recognition -- not only the more than 90,000 members of the Association, but all working women; and WHEREAS, women have made an important contribution to building the strength and greatness of the Unites States and all evidence indicates that the American businesswoman will continue her significant contribution to the progress of our nation; and WHEREAS, IN SALUTE to the 54 million American businesswomen for their contributions to the private and public sectors of this country 1 , , Lee B. Eddy, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim September 22, 1994 in , Roanoke, Virginia, as AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S DAY IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to be affixed, this 13th day of September, 1994. ~~ f, ~~,~ Lee B. Eddy, Chairman ATTEST: Mary H. A /en, Clerk ACTION NO. 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: September 27, 1994 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) , a time line for the projected/actual activity of the various work components (Attachment B) and a listing of projects that have been completed (Attachment C). 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, Approved by, ~~~~~ ~ /John M. Chambl ss, 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 ~~~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment A September 27, 1994 1992 BOND REFERENDUM PROJECTS PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY Phase I interior construction was completed on August 15. Phase II will be completed on September 2, except for the final installation of automated systems wiring. The punch list walk-through for Phases I and II is scheduled for September 7. Exterior masonry work is completed except for the application of the final coatings for the fens, which is scheduled for completion in early September. The main parking area has been paved, and striping will be completed by September 9. Delays by the shelving manufacturer have resulted in a change in the furniture installation date. Shelving for Phase I and II will be installed September 7 - 9, and library operations will be moved to these areas starting on the afternoon of September 10. The move will be completed by September 13, and operations will resume in the new area of the library at 9 AM on September 14. The later arrival date for furnishings will cause a delay in the construction schedule for Phase III. The renovation of the Phase III area is scheduled for substantial completion by October 21. DIXIE CAVERNS LANDFILL CLOSEOUT Implementation plan will be initiated in October, 1994. DRAINAGE PROJECTS Sierra Drive/Fenwick Drive: Mattern & Craig will be designing the early warning system. Plans are expected from Mattern & Craig by September 14, 1994. We expect to go out for bids and award the construction contract in October. Green Valley: Plans have been returned by the Virginia Department of Transportation with minor modifications. Plans will be sent out to receive bids. Mason Creek: We have received permission from the property owners to access their land. Heavy rains from tropical storms have delayed construction. PARKS AND RECREATION Starker Park: It is complete except for utilities. The County Utility Department has agreed to run this line which will save some money. Staff will also be bidding a new 35 car space parking lot. This bid should be out by early October. Y~.,~,,,.~. d U 0 a 0 ~Q ~ ~ o ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ o, ;; ~ ~ ~ w ~ya1 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~" ~ p a i . C~ ,c~ .k ~ ~v, y O 3 a o O y ... ;~ y C C ~ .~ ~ •~ ti ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ o >' ai k iy bA ~ ro .[ a~ ~ ~ ~ p P. ~ ~ ~ w° ,~, o _ c~ Q p. b 3 .d A o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o b ~ C ' ~ v ~ °"' ~ y N ~ vi ~ w ' ' o ~o ~ a ~' ~ b o b O~ G d ° .~ ~ c° ro Q~ ~ ~ I/I Q O N ~ ~M-1, 1 ~ v, 1--1 Vl ~ a O 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ W ~ ~ C G ,~ w LL w ,~ ~ >, O p o b o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ro z ww ~ ao ~ P~ ~' N ~ ~~ o ~ a . ~o~~~ 'J,~ W N u ~ ;~ > w N ~ a a 0 ~ ~ z VjO;~ ~w o U ~ o ~~ ~=~°b x H °~ ~' ~ ~~ o w ~ °' ~ o ~~ ° 0 a a vWi p '° on ~ ~ 3 ,a,'~ o ~ ~ ~ c 0 ~ N ~ ~ .7 ;$i °~ ~` ~ • Q :: ~ T ' a ~ A y ~ O ~, ': W Y = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A .5 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ v O ~ ~ A '~ 3 W b o E a A .a W `a a. ~ ~ ° $ w ~ z ] F" z ~ F" o o~ ~ N " ' p p ~ d a d Q a ~ i ~ o~ 3 W O ° d y ~ ~ o ~ ~ p u 'O ~ ~i ~ y ~ p~~ 3 ~ O~ +~ p0 ~ O o ° ~~~C "~•3 3 a 01 ~ o ~ ~ ~w•5 c .~,,. ~ ~ ~ ~ z .~ ~ .~ ~ ~ N '_' ~ H ~ `" ~ a v ~c o ~ i ° ~ ~~~~~~ ~ a a ~ ~ ° ' o o ~ b~~~ ~ +~ ~ U F, ~ c ~ `° a Q, V] U ::pa;~ a-5 N F A U ~ U ,,/ ~ I•iy ~ N a .~ a~~i 0 `J ~ ~4 d ~ -~ w a U A Q ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~, 'r? .r a~ ~ rn W ~~ ~ ~ x W O U d '~ o b o ~ o N 6R a ., z ., '^ a d rn o~ w w ., w Q o z ~ F U O ~, w c~ w > ~ Q ~ ] w a Q A z a ~ Q z a Q w z a ~ w z a a w z a Q w z a a ~ z ~ z ~ z F z F z ~ Q F ~ ¢ aa, d a ¢ a ~ a ¢ a Q a Q N C ~ ~ z o ~" w ~ ~ a ~ x U ~ z O ~ O w a H z~ O ~ ~" ~ U a ~ U ~ U z vwi O V O F. z ~ ~~ O a W A H ~ H v w . a ~ O , F ~ a Q ~ ¢ ~ v i a ~~~ p 0 U O C b :~ A 3 a, v~ .~ O U C ' A C-~ U ~ .--i ~j ~ N a~~ ~~~ O~~ Qi C~ ~a/~ !~1 U A FBI F U a `~ F--i A A o ~ 0 ~ ~ a> W a~ WI ~ 0 U U 0 b~ ~o ~ 69 ra ~-. z ti a a ~ Q ~, w w Q ., W A O ~ z H °~ U O a W F ~ ~ A "' ~ [ Q W W W .a .a .a .a ~ z ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z z H F d a d '"~ Q a Q a a . O z w z a W ° z ~ c., ~ O Q U F, ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~. ~ Q o 0 pa Q U F w a~ p O U .~ C .~ O U N w U C O ~d .d w td 3 b b A w 0 0 on 0 U N a d 3 .. a v p .~ U 0 b v a a~ ti a ti .~ 3 T T. '7 G .~ on .y N b .~ U ~" ~ 0 U M p -5 ~~~ F A U ~ rn ~/ .--i I•iy ~ N a~~ N ~M ~ ~ M Q ~ W t~ a z w U O a rW V A 0 °•-' °o A N o O ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ a~ W a~ W O U U 0 ~o b~ ~~ ~I ~ .a z ti - ~ v ~ d o` W w W Q 0 z H °` U O ~ W C7 Q F r 7 ~ W Q Q z Q z Q ¢ z z ¢ F ~ Q ~ z F a ~ ¢ Q d "~ d a ¢ a d a Q a a . a . O Q z o z N a x z v~ F E"' U ¢ O E -' z F O ~ ~ d 3 w Q 0 0 ~ FO ~ U F b ~"~ '~ U H h ~ ~ O cE ~ ~ O ~ ~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~ w a i ~ ~~ a~ ro A p ~ 3 a N ~ a b ~ g :d G p ~ ~ o ~ ~ '" 3ab ti ' ° w w °3b o U ~ ~ 3 0 ~ cu' ~b G a o ~ o ;3 '+ ~ '~ C ~ O y. w p 4 Y ~ ~ S Oo ~ .3 ~'~ V' ~ ~ d4 ~ p ~~ : o . .. ~ .. ~~ti~° ~ ~~~~ aa,aaa ~ x O U o_S E~ A F U ~ rn ~/ M.ry ~ N a~; ~ ~ ~ ~4 d v~ U z 0 d i E'~ U ti O a W C7 d a A Q 0 Y Q~ H b iC W O b~ ~~ ~o ca ~ 0 0 0 rl W O U U a ., z ti ~ n-4 Q ~ Q ~ -1 /-v W w z ., U W Q o z F °` U 0 ~, w d H S ~ ~ Q 7 ~ Q Q Q a z z ~ z ~ z H 0 d '~ d "a Q a Q a . a . 4 ~ ~ z N x ~ O ~ Q ~ U j x U F ~ '" 3 H a 0 0 .~ c 0 b b 0 'a a .~ x a 0 a .~ U 0 ti 3 0 0 c. 0 w .y .~ b a~ F~ .~ Z ~ a O U r~-5 A U ~ rn ~ N a~~ a~~i O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q O ., a> b a~i x W U U O a W a A 0 O ,b o ~~ aai ~, 0 0 0 W 0 U U .a ti z ., Q a '^ d rn W w ., W Q o ~ z F ~ O rn W a W 7 i ~ a Q N Q ~ w .a w .a w .a a w a w -~ Q z Q z Q z ~ z d z Q ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ z F "a Q a ¢ a Q a d a ~ a d o ., G ~ A ~ ~ w ~, ~ w W U z O U F ' x O O U O ~ A A ~. ~ ~ a ~ ~ w ~ v ~ ~ ~ a ~: U b 'C c 0 c 0 W b ~ 'd .~ N °N 0 ~ U ~~ ~_ .~ ro ~ °' a G U cad a ~O zA ~-+ N O U -S F-+ A U ~ O~ ~/ ~ 1•~I ~ N a~~ A~ O ~~ rr~^^ VI A o °~ 0 ~ ~ L/~ .~ w I+I W U Ud' 1~1 A N U W h a w z x A z C F C 7 ~ ~ ~ C ~ E C a~ ., z ., d '^ a d rn a W w z ti w A o z ~ F U 0 ~~ d w Q w ~~, i A z d a a d F. ~ d w z d ~ a a d H ~ d Q z d a a a d F-~ ~ d w z d a a -~ d F-~ ~ d Q z d .a a, -~ d F ~ d w z d a a -~ d E- ~ d Q z d a w ~ d F-' ~ d w z d ,~ a. '~ d F" ~ d A A ° > °" ' v ~ ~ W W U ~ ~ W F W ~ z ~ ~ ~ o H a a z z H O O ~ ~ ~ ] y a ~ Q A ~ N h ~ f ,u ~ W "' W d y y L [~ Q A /-v ('-5 w d ~./ ~ o~ aj ~ N a N Q ~ C~. Q ~ a x W E-~ z w ~W ~/ W H ., z ., A ° ~ ° o ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ a W d a~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ 0 ~ U W d w ., U W Q ~ O z F ~` U O C E c c C G t E O ,., o O ,~ O ~ M ~ 69 o~ W c7 Q W i ~ ~ A ~ ~ 3 ~ w .a d w z a d w a z d w z -~ d w z a d Q z ~ d w z '~ d d E'" d E" d F" d E" d F" d E" d F" a'~. ~ a'~. d a d a`a. Q a d a Q a d ~ ~ ~ y F z W Ca ~ ~ a C7 z ~ x ~. ~ U ti U ti Q a 0 O a~ z a~ F Z a p , V1 ~ A U .a ~ W ¢~ O ~ ~ W N d a W ~ d as C7 Wa' > Paz WO xv O H Q v , 0 O b 0 a 0 a w o' rn D-5 H d A U a M N A 0 +-+ ~ ~ N rn ~ ~ b ~ a~i ~ vs w H a z 0 E"'~ UWW A4 A x x a ~ ~o v~ ~ ~ o ~o v . ~ ~ ~ N ~ a~i ~~' + ~ . y j a ., z ti Q a ~ rn d ~, w w z d ., U W A ~ ~ 0 z F ~ U O a W ~' d ::;:: ;: :~::: : <: : <~~~ <;:: :::::: >: : :: : : Q s ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ s ~ W ~ a ~ ~ ~ N ~ N c n I i LO cn I I ~ ~ ~ z ' z ~ z z z `a d `a ¢ a ¢ a Q ' a d a . a . s 3 a a x x '" a, Q z F a . ~ H ¢ d C7 C7 ~' ~ z ¢ ~ ~ W W W a Q z ~ z F ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ F r 0 N 0 N N O N 0 N 7 0 0 Nv 0 a w O U ~~.]y I~-~ Q d U Q 0 Q -S W d~ A H U ~ ~/ .--i I•~I ~ N a~~ ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ F °a a z 0 F Wd A4 WU P4 d x 04 d a N Q O ~ N o~ C ~ a~ ~ WI 0 0 ~o b~ ~I a ` :::.:> `•`•`•'~`s ti ~ >z~` z .:::.:: ' ~ ~, ~C ~, .~,EE E~, ~ r y ''~''~ ~cd }' a "' d rn Q a W w z Q ti W Q ':': z ~~`' ~~ >' U • :>: ~: F ~ S ~ 8 0 ~ 8 ~ ~ M ~, N pa N m ] ~ ~ ~ z ~ z z z z w d a d a d a Q a ~, ~ a U ~ ' d a O a a ~' ~ .ate. z a p ~ i ~ Q W ~ U ~ a~ ~ zo z H ~ W o ¢ ~ z H~ o ~ .. 0 N O R O N N R 0 ^, 0 a 0 W 0 U d r.~ w c F ~ Z ~ ti O U r, ~-J A 'n N N O~ ~ ~p O O '~ :b ~ ri ~ 6g 7 0 ~ ~ ~ w vi E" ~ 'r a ~ w a z H 0 0 ~a UWW A4 d d a a -N ~ W w d a Q a 0 E"'i ° o ~ o ~ ~ o~ 'b ~ 0 o M I•rl ~ N W a ~ a p. U ~ O ~ ~ a :.::., .::.;:; ~>' ~ d »~:: ~ :>:~>: ~ ~„ ''~•isF:: d i;,>.:;: ~::i:: ~ ~ w ~: z d .:::,:, `: ., :t .:::;:; >> w A :::::> o . ~< a .,... ~ ,, .:::::Ci .:::: w ~ :::;:: :: :::>::w'a::: :#:::: A O ~ p ~ ~ ~ O a ";, ~ N r7 ~ fV .-, ~ M ~ •--~ M ~ M V1 ] ~ ~ z ~ z d ~ F, z d F z d F" z d E, d F. w d a'~. d a d a Q a Q o~ H w ~ ~ a z o~~~ ~ z w ~~~U w~ C4a d H w ~~~ z H o ~ w A oz Q ¢~aw w ~o w ~ ~ .a v d z a c7 a d C~ a 5 ~ ¢ c~7 ' ~ H oa a a 8 V1 Q N ,--i (~-5 w A U ~ O~ ~/~ ~ i•rl ~ N a~~ O ~ ~ ~ d ~ C/~ N U a Ad' O ~4 0 ~o ~o 0 ~ 0 0 ~ v~ r. d w a w 0 U U d' [~^] U A a a 0 7~ O q «~ O CQ4 'dl O Q ~ ~ U sH F a a .a •~- .-, z ., a ~ ~, w w Q ., w Q o z ~' U O rn W d W A H F H ~ Q d Q d ¢ d z a d a a a F U W U F Q ~ ~ ~ F ~ ti H ~W Q A 3a w~ a ¢a ,~ Ha a A O A ~ ~ V O 0 U G N p 7 L' U N .O a a .~ a Q a G p 'C v~ Q ~, O U M .--~ ~ V ..' DA W d E-~ U a A 0 .~ i°o ~o ~~ b ~ a ~ a~ ~ x w x a x U LW l~ W °o ~ ~~ rn ~~ ° •-~ I 69 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ., z a ., ' a ^ Q rn w w z U W Q ~ O z ~ F U O O~ W ~ :`•# d :::: W Q w z ~ ¢ H d ~ a a ~ ~ O F E., O ~, ~ a Qz H ~ O O d w 0 U U d z d' A x a 0 z ~a °o U F O a W O U v 0 U 0 A ~" 0 U d p 3 c b ~ ro ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .rj U y C U N . '0 3 a~ ~; 3 a ~ ~ o~ co ~w ~° o[ ~ ,o ~~ ~~ Q ~~ ~~ o~ ~ 3 C ~ o U E-F ° O Q ~ p 0 a ca 3 U O a a b a ~- 5 W F U a 0 ~; N c~ ^'' Q O O ~y ... ~ b4 N 'b W U x c~ H-1 x x W A W O W x Ua a 0 yo ~~ o b4 (~ ~ N N ~ .~ d v~ a ., z ., d '^ a a Q ~, w w Q ., U W Q o z ~" U O ~, a W c~ a w -- A o 0 0 0 LQ r N r N H F Q Q d a a A z ~ a Q w F - O W x a o 0 v ~W Z a U Ud' ~". A a x x U a O 0 0 U F a a BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment C September 27, 1994 BOND PROJECTS COMPLETED DRAINAGE: Mt. Vernon Heights PARKS AND RECREATION: Walrond Park Soccer Field Northside Realign Fields Bonsack Park Picnic Shelter Vinyard Park I Light Soccer Field Byrd School -Light Baseball Field Starkey Park - 1 Baseball Field Starkey Park - 2 Baseball Fields Facility Repairs -Walrond Office Infield Surface Materials for Baseball Fields ~-S Walrond Park 2 Baseball Fields Bonsack Park Ball Field Bonsack Park Playground Equipment Vinyard Park I Parking Green Hill Park - 2 Picnic Shelters Starkey Park -Light 1 Field Facility Repairs -Craig Avenue Center Career Center -Replace Lights FIRE HYDRANTS: All fire hydrants have been installed. ACTION NO. (^ ITEM NUMBER ~ ~`~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Report on the Impact of the Cat Ordinance COIINTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: On April 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors adopted a cat ordinance which went into effect on July 1, 1994. At that time, the Community Services Division was created under the Police Department and the Animal Control Division was abolished. At the August 23rd meeting, the Board requested a report on enforcement of the ordinance and the number of cat licenses that had been sold in the County. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: According to County Treasurer Alfred Anderson, approximately 1,000 cat licenses were sold from July 1 to August 31, 1994. From July 1 through August 31, 1994, Community Service officers have picked up 64 cats due to the new ordinance. These were all the product of complaints made by citizens wanting cats picked up and taken to the SPCA as allowed by the ordinance because citizens stated that the cats were doing property damage. Unfortunately, the ordinance has become an instrument for the public to use to solve neighborhood disputes or remove stray cats. For the total number of animals that were trapped and taken to the SPCA between June 26 to August 25, 1994, Roanoke County has paid at least $1,962 in boarding fees. This includes 86 dogs, 64 cats and 3 other animals. The SPCA is required by County ordinance to hold the cats seven days if unclaimed by their owners. If the cat is wearing a collar, the state ordinance requires that the SPCA must house the cat for ten days. Police Department staff believe that the majority of cats trapped in Roanoke County are stray cats or owned by people who will not pay the boarding fee, either because they do not have the cat licensed, or don't want to pay to have the cat returned. Prior to July 1, 1994, no cats were boarded at the responsibility of the County. Currently the budgeted amount for the SPCA is $18,000 for all b-b housed animals. If there is an increase in the number of animals picked up as a result of the cat ordinance, it may be necessary to increase the payment to the SPCA. Staff will continue to monitor the level of calls in the community services division of the Police Department and the funds remaining in the SPCA account. If the calls result in increased expenses, it may be necessary to bring back a request for additional funds. It is anticipated that the level of animal control calls may decrease somewhat next year. Many of the stray cats will have been caught and euthanized, and there will not be the same level of publicity surrounding the ordinance. ~f , ~ ~ Elmer C. Ho ge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens a 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: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Status Report on Automated Fuel-Fleet Management Systems COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Facilities Management Team received proposals for both systems in early May. Committees were established to evaluate and negotiate the responses. Due to the interaction of the two systems and the poor condition of the fuel system, we decided to award this proposal first and bring it "on-line" before purchasing software for the fleet management system. The fuel system was purchased from Fuel Master and has been installed and is functioning well. The committee has narrowed down the responses for the fleet management system to two vendors. We are scheduled to interview and/or negotiate with these two vendors on September 29, 1994. The projected schedule is: 10/3/94 Order equipment and software 11/12/94 Receive equipment 11/28/94 Install equipment 12/9/94 Bring system "up" 3/1/95 System fully functional In addition to ordering the software, staff will need to order the computers and related equipment as well as the T-1 telephone line to connect Garage 1 and 2 to the Administration Center. Once the system is up, extensive data entry work will need to be performed in order to make the system function. When the systems are in place, they will be administered by the Fleet Manager and the Vehicle Advisory Committee. The County MIS Department will provide support for the feet management system and has been involved in the selection process. .~ ~~- 7 ~~ Elmer C. odge County Administrator Approved ( ) Motion byCTION VOTE Denied ( ) No Yes Abs Received ( ) Eddy Referred ( ) Johnson To ( ) Kohinke Minnix Nickens ACTION N°• ITEM N~BER RS OF R C~ TER ARD OF SuAEI~INISTRp'TION ETING OFE R COKE CONY A REGU~RA HELD AT TK ~ 1994 ime Statistics in CONY - vIRGINI Septemper 2 - of orn`ation on Cr MEETING UATE~ gequeke Coup Y ITEM: Roam AGE~A OMMENTg: TOR-g C t R°Y STS' ideas A~MINI t res ce of Cody meeting•- s ° at his and asKed visors lari s tistics SACRGRO~ . Board of Su aerabout °n rc ime a B°ard . t the p'uguoke 3t° tstedBinf s pr se ted t° th un Y L° 5 Hess sp • se i f rmati°n wa e 1993 Ro r m nts ich Whether thi TION~ a copy ° of the requ report 0 and y OF IZ1F0~' ation - i ~ • Oneof an an Be weer 3 ~raries - gtiMM~ our info al gepor cation ates. Dols, li atelY ed for Y east Annu is publi earance r d to sch unf°rtunCopie Attach Departm CALEA and cl tribute der'Y• olds' 199 police tation by atistics d and dis lice Ac all househ o The credi ime st lishe ens Fo t° the aq obey. ac odes cr were pub Citi2 1 them al m°n le in Oct in o ~ c°pi ues and 1 ble tO B°ar Dula be avallap e 5 f °cus ear 4-vic leag not avai d to the t sh pag 3 Y funds weredistrib'~a~nual rep°r of the Yeathe pas saults h wo loe Department s for eacpo gla i onstant ntihad too ho d W~ F 4 recaps csa its a ea f airlY ice Depart the Nei also a Bu at Fage enies - ave remai and the F 8 describe There i`'teers - Witt lurglariesin frequen area• Fa suc°essf tiZen V°has worKeties i B ncreased tin this been very under Ci Jones commune m°rera f°whi am ha des~lebJones• anafo h r business to m < Wat h • mate r by ue AS oclatl°n e of crlm ~r ~ ar a coordi on Aven by typ violent we shout ~ Bramblet rates the 7.1Y Cl CountY• the clearrnresourc Vora le. not realis peeause 9 sh°ws ost °f ou e very f t that is category locate rE Fag centrate m rates ar crime buclearance need t° alhas a re con clearance of every lowest and the e County to and a our clearance our deuce oanok ce ra for laries itaining evicalls• Re clearan of burgltY in ob violen than averag dif f icu ossiblY higher t ow ~r ime r ate i a 1 officers per capita that is only half the national average. In addition to the Police De preparation of a Quarterl partment Annual Report scheduled for Y Performance Re ort. we have begun throu h P October and will P The first report is g Se tember. All include performance information includin departments will indicators g Public Safety. be Providing this Monthly Uniform Crime Reports shown in the Annual Re ort which contain the same information Criminal Justice P are submitted available from DCJS u vices. These to the Department pon request. are Public reports and are The Police Department has with the citizens and the been ver media. We must be carefun~ information protect the rights of victims and we are under investigation, must not however, to Commonwealths I am Jeopardize cases that staff to Attorney, representativesrrange a session with the discuss this issue further. from the relations program several Chief Cease media and the representatives in Years ago. He involved Hume ousPublic doing so, media If there is additional information that let me know. you wish to have, please ~~,;~ ~' ~:.. ~,~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator Approved ACTION ---------------------------------- Denied ~ ~ Motion by: VOTE Received ( ~ No Referred ( j Eddy Yes Abs To ~ ~ Johnson - Kohinke _ Minnix _ - - Nickens DISTRICT ONE -AUGUST 1994 EVENT RD DATE TIME CODE SUSP SUBJECT 0112 SUSP SUBJECT 0112 082794 2102 70 082994 0904 70 SUSP SUBJECT 0113 SUSP SUBJECT 0113 THEFT OF VEH 0113 081294 2232 70 083094 2315 70 080494 0908 70 LOCATION BELLE HAVEN RD /LOCH HAVEN DR LOCH HAVEN DR /LOCH HAVEN LAKE GREEN RIDGE BAPTIST GREEN RIDGE RD DIPLOMAT DR PROWLER 0114 082194 0048 70 LOBLOLLY DR PROWLER 0114 083194 0243 70 WOOD HAVEN RD RESI BREAKIN 0114 081294 1810 73 WIPLEDALE AV SUSP CIRC 0114 081894 1502 70 PETERS CREEK RD ORANGE MARKET SUSP CIRC 0114 081894 1015 70 THIRLANE RD MOTEL 6 SUSP CIRC 0114 081594 1408 71 PETERS CREEK RD SOUTHVIEW SUSP SUBJECT 0114 080694 0412 70 NORTH SPRING DR /NORTH LAKE DR SUSP SUBJECT 0114 080294 1447 70 MASON PARK DR /NORTH LAKE DR SUSP VEHICLE 0114 082294 2122 70 NORTH LAKE DR SUSP VEHICLE ~b114 082094 1848 70 HEATHER HILL DR THEFT FR VEH 0114 082594 1135 71 HEATHER HILL DR THEFT FR VEH 0114 083094 1313 70 NORTHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL THEFT FR VEH 0114 080994 0639 73 SUMMER DR THEFT OF VEH 0114 082694 1722 73 PETERS CREEK RD SOUTHVIEW THEFT PROP 0114 082594 1636 73 ORANGE MARKET PETERS CREEK RD THEFT PROP 0114 082594 2307 73 WIPLEDALE AV THEFT PROP 0114 081194 1252 71 ROBIN LYNN RD VANDL PROP 0114 081894 1358 73 SOUTHVIEW PETERS CREEK RD VANDL PROP 0114 080394 0625 73 NORTHRIDGE LN VANDL PROP 0114 080694 2048 70 NORTH SPRING DR VANDL VEH 0114 082594 1126 70 SWEETFERN DR VANDL PROP 0114 080694 0201 70 NORTH SPRING DR SUSP CIRC 0119 082294 1624 70 TWIN FORKS DR SUSP VEHICLE 0119 082194 2249 70 PETERS CREEK RD GETTY MART THEFT FR VEH 0119 080994 1209 73 WOOD HAVEN RD THEFT OF DOG 0119 080694 1855 71 PETERS CREEK RD VANDL PROP 0119 082294 2253 73 SNOWBERRY CR PROWLER 0120 081194 0006 70 INDIAN RD RESI B&E 0120 082394 1949 70 NOVER AV SUSP CIRC 0120 082694 2225 71 STARMOUNT AV SUSP CIRC 0120 080694 2148 73 FIRST TEAM HYUNDAI SUSP CIRC 0120 080394 1807 70 LOMAN DR SUSP CIRC 0120 080794 1849 70 FIRST TEAM HYUNDAI SUSP SUBJECT 0120 081594 2103 70 FIRST TEAM HYUNDAI SUSP SUBJECT 0120 082194 0131 70 ENON DR SUSP VEHICLE 0120 081594 2358 70 WALROND BLKJEEP 2 OCCUPANTS THEFT FR VEH 0120 081194 1625 73 FIRST TEAM HYUNDAI THEFT FR VEH 0120 080494 1841 73 BARRENS VILLAGE LN VANDL PROP 0120 080694 1315 73 STARMOUNT AV VANDL PROP 0120 080294 1611 73 TINKERDALE RD oa DISTRICT TWO -AUGUST 1994 EVENT RD DATE TIME CODE LOCATION BUST BREAKIN 0204 080494 0845 71 HOLLINS OFFICE PLAZA PROWLER 0204 080394 1641 71 HOLLINS OFFICE PLAZA PROWLER 0204 082794 0354 70 PLANTATION RD SUSP CIRC 0204 081594 2224 70 PLANTATION RD SUSP VEHICLE 0204 082894 1306 70 FIRST UNION BK OFFIC SUSP VEHICLE 0204 080594 1749 70 FIRST UNION BK OFFIC PLANTATION RD VANDL PROP 0204 082694 1956 70 MARSON RD / LULA AV THEFT PROP 0205 081894 1757 70 CAREFREE LN RESI BREAKIN 0206 080194 1349 71 HEARTHSTONE RD RESI B&E 0206 081094 0506 70 RAYMOND AV RESI B&E 0206 082194 0255 70 THORNROSE RD SUSP CIRC 0206 081194 2156 70 ANCHOR DR SUSP CIRC 0206 080494 2259 70 ARBYS WILLIAMSON RD SUSP SUBJECT ~0206 080494 1505 70 ARBYS WILLIAMSON RD SUSP SUBJECT 0206 081094 1107 71 ANCHOR DR / THORNROSE RD SUSP SUBJECT 0206 082394 1705 71 HILLTOP LANE WILLIAMSON RD THEFT FR VEH 0206 082994 1613 73 WILLIAMSON RD ROBBERY 0207 081994 0541 73 PLANTATION RD PLANTATION MARKET SUSP CIRC 0207 082394 1219 70 WILLIAMSON RD HAPPY STORES SUSP CIRC 0207 080894 0222 70 WEBB MOTORS WILLIAMSON RD SUSP CIRC 0207 081394 1658 71 BROOKSIDE NORTH TOWN SUSP SUBJECT 0207 080494 1108 70 KROGER WILLIAMSON RD SUSP SUBJECT 0207 080594 1946 70 HEILIG MEYERS FURNIT SUSP SUBJECT 0207 080894 0935 70 SUPER X - WILLIAMSON SUSP SUBJECT 0207 082594 0552 70 GREENWAY DR SUSP SUBJECT 0207 082894 0015 70 NW CREDIT UNION WILLIAMSON RD SUSP SUBJECT 0207 082094 1419 70 WILLIAMSON RD SUSP SUBJECT 0207 081894 1921 70 GREENWAY DR SUSP SUBJECT 0207 082394 2300 70 OLYMPIA INN WILLIAMSON RD SUSP VEHICLE 0207 082294 0436 70 PLANTATION RD PLANTATION MARKET THEFT FR VEH 0207 081794 0919 73 WILLIAMSON RD WHEELS INC THEFT OF CAT 0207 080594 1419 70 WILLIAMSON RD WHEELS INC THEFT OF VEH 0207 081094 1212 73 BROOKSIDE SHOPPING C THEFT 0207 080894 0055 73 PLANTATION MARKET THEFT PROP 0207 081094 1401 73 N & W CREDIT UNION WILLIAMSON RD VANDL PROP 0207 082094 1108 73 GREENWAY DR VANDL PROP 0207 082694 1122 70 GREENWAY DR VANDL VEH 0207 082794 1212 70 BROOKSIDE GOLF COURS BUST BREAKIN 0208 082994 0854 73 HOLLOW CREEK SWIM CLUB SUSP CIRC 0208 082194 0821 70 JOHN RICHARDSON RD SUSP VEHICLE 0208 080294 0117 70 HOLLINS RD /PLANTATION RD DISTRICT THREE -AUGUST 1994 EVENT RD DATE TIME CODE LOCATION THEFT PROP 0301 082694 2206 71 ROME DR BUSI BREAKIN 0302 080794 2347 70 CHALLENGER AV / CLOVERDALE RD BUSI BREAKIN 0302 080894 0726 73 HUNTRIDGE RD SUSP CIRC 0303 082394 1638 70 WEST RURITAN RD SUSP SUBJECT 0303 080694 2235 70 COACHMAN DR SUSP VEHICLE 0303 082694 2212 70 FAST BREAK MART CHALLENGER AV SUSP VEHICLE 0303 082994 2022 70 COACHMAN DR SUSP VEHICLE 0303 081994 1746 70 SUMMIT RIDGE RD /COACHMAN CR THEFT OF VEH 0303 080494 0822 73 BLK CHALLENGER AV THEFT PROP 0303 080294 2345 71 CHALLENGER AV FASTBREAK FOOD VANDL PROP 0303 083094 1211 70 WEST RURITAN RD SUSP CIRC 0306 081194 1018 70 LAUREL HILL DR SUSP CIRC ~ X0306 080294 1930 70 TULIP LN SUSP SUBJECT 0306 082694 2316 70 LAUREL HILL DR THEFT FR VEH 0306 081394 1120 73 LAUREL HILL DR THEFT PROP 0306 080294 1147 73 LAUREL HILL DR VANDL PROP 0306 082594 0807 70 STONEBRIDGE DR VANDL PROP 0306 082994 2244 70 BLUE RIDGE MANOR LAUREL HILL DR VANDL VEH 0306 080394 1916 70 TERRY DR VANDL VEH 0306 081494 1045 70 LAUREL HILL DR VANDL VEH 0306 081394 1111 70 STONEACRES DR VANDL VEH 0306 082694 2005 70 LAUREL HILL DR VANDL PROP 0306 081394 0023 70 STONEBRIDGE PARK #1 SWAN DR BUST BREAKIN 0307 083094 0549 73 HARDY RD LANCER MART SUSP CIRC 0307 082794 2211 70 CAMERON DR SUSP CIRC 0307 080494 0350 71 FOOD LION WASHINGTON AV SUSP SUBJECT 0307 082094 1014 70 WASHINGTON AV /FEATHER RD SUSP SUBJECT 0307 082794 0507 70 LANCER MART HARDY RD SUSP SUBJECT 0307 082094 1133 70 WHOLESALE MOTORS SUSP VEHICLE 0307 081794 2239 70 CROFTON DR / MCGEORGE DR THEFT PROP 0307 083194 1654 70 MISSIMER LN VANDL PROP 0307 082594 0350 70 WASHINGTON AV /BLUE RIDGE PW VANDL PROP 0307 080494 0752 70 FEATHER RD VANDL VEH 0307 080694 1138 70 FOOD LION WASHINGTON AV VANDL VEH 0307 082994 1217 70 WILLIAM BYRD SCHOOL VANDL VEH 0307 082594 0807 71 MISSIMER LN SUSP VEHICLE 0308 082494 0436 70 MONTGOMERY VILLAGE FINNEY DR THEFT PROP 0308 083094 1912 73 PEMBROOK DR THEFT PROP 0308 080794 1414 73 FINNEY DR VANDL PROP 0308 081494 0735 71 CRANWELL DR DISTRICT FOUR -AUGUST 1994 EVENT RD DATE TIME CODE LOCATION BUSI BREAKIN 0401 080594 1920 73 ROCK GARDEN LN REST B&E RESI B&E 0401 082594 1305 73 CROSSBOW CR SUSP CIRC 0401 0401 082194 1242 70 ROCK GARDEN LN SUSP VEHICLE 0401 080594 1857 080894 1915 70 UPLAND GAME RD THEFT PROP 0401 082694 1857 70 73 KINGS CHASE DR QUAIL VALLEYAPARTME VANDL VEH 0401 081994 2317 71 CROSSBOW CR /HUNTING HILLS DR SUSP CIRC 0402 081194 1909 70 PINKARD ST SUSP VEHICLE 0403 082994 2149 70 HEMLOCK AV SUSP CIRC SUSP SUBJEC 0404 T 0404 080994 2112 70 COUNTRY STORE STARKEY RD THEFT FR VEH 0404 083094 081094 0356 1301 70 STARKEY RD THEFT FR VEH 0404 081194 1418 70 CRESCENT HEIGHTS AUT , 73 CRESCENT HEIGHTS AUT THEFT FR VEH THEFT OF VEH 0405 082294 1443 71 SOUTH INDIAN GRAVE RD 0405 081094 1739 70 MARIGOLD CR SUSP SUBJECT 0408 THEFT FR VEH 082794 1956 70 MORNING DOVE RD / WOODTHRUSH DR THEFT PROP 0408 0408 081794 0741 73 TREE SWALLOW RD VANDL PROP 0408 080694 081094 1213 1952 73 71 KELLY LN VANDL PROP 0408 082294 1802 71 BOBOLINK LN TANGLEWOOD DR VANDL VEH 0408 080394 2340 71 BOBOLINK LN SUSP CIRC SUSP CIRC 0409 081494 1957 70 ELECTRIC RD SUSP CIRC 0409 0409 080494 0108 70 ELECTRIC RD T J MAXX SUSP SUBJECT 0409 082194 0212 70 EZN FOOD MART ELECTRIC RD SUSP SUBJECT 0409 081094 2104 70 FIRESTONE TANGLEWOOD SUSP SUBJECT 0409 081194 0037 70 BRENDLES ELECTRIC RD THEFT FR VEH 0409 080794 081994 2245 1340 70 ELECTRIC RD EXXON THEFT FR VEH 0409 082094 2335 70 73 ELM PARK RETIREMENT THEFT FR VEH 0409 082194 0000 71 ELECTRIC RD ELECTRIC RD THEFT FR VEH THEFT FR VEH 0409 080994 2114 73 ELECTRIC RD T J MAXX THEFT FR VEH 0409 0409 081294 082594 1606 0817 73 ELECTRIC RD THEFT PROP 0409 080894 0252 73 COPPER CROFT APARTMENT THEFT PROP 0409 082394 0825 73 73 ELECTRIC RD EXXON THEFT PROP 0409 080994 1309 ELECTRIC RD GRAND PAVILION THEFT PROP 0409 080994 1308 73 OLDEN RD @AUDIOTRONICS THEFT PROP 0409 080894 1557 73 OLDEN RD CAUDIOTRONICS THEFT PROP 0409 081194 1847 70 TANGLEWOOD MALL ELECTRIC RD VANDL VEH 0409 081494 0223 70 73 FIRESTONE TANGLEWOOD VANDL VEH V 0409 081894 1050 71 ELECTRIC RD T J MAXX GRAND PAVILION ELECTRIC RD ANDL VEH 0409 082694 1610 71 JC PENNEYS ELECTRIC RD DISTRICT FIVE -AUGUST 1994 EVENT RD DATE TIME CODE LOCATION RESI B&E 0501 082494 0203 70 BOWER RD REST B&E 0501 080294 2237 73 GARST MILL RD SUSP CIRC 0501 080494 1258 70 OVERBROOK DR SUSP SUBJEC T 0501 082594 2151 70 STEELE RD /VAUXHALL RD SUSP SUBJEC T 0501 082494 0110 70 NORMANDY LN THEFT FR VEH 0501 081394 1705 71 BOWER RD THEFT FR VEH 0501 081194 1837 73 HYDE PARK DR THEFT FR VEH 0501 081794 1811 71 SOUTHWICK CR THEFT FR VEH 0501 080994 0901 73 HYDE PARK DR THEFT FR VEH 0501 080994 1907 73 BOWER RD THEFT FR VEH 0501 080194 1048 73 GARST MILL RD THEFT 0501 080794 0444 70 NORMANDY LN THEFT 0501 080494 0440 70 CAVE SPRING CORNERS THEFT PROP 0501 081094 0938 73 ELECTRIC RD THEFT PROP 0501 ' 080994 0937 73 NORMANDY LN THEFT PROP ' 0501 080994 1715 73 THAMES DR VANDL PROP 0501 081694 0849 71 HYDE PARK DR VANDL PROP 0501 081194 1202 73 ROANOKE ORTHOPEDIC CENTER VANDL PROP 0501 080794 1924 71 CRESTHILL DR VANDL VEH 0501 080994 0728 70 GARST MILL RD VANDL VEH 0501 081794 0655 70 NORMANDY LN VANDL VEH 0501 081194 1431 71 HILLS BRAMBLETON AV VANDL VEH 0501 080294 1220 71 CRESTHILL DR SUSP CIRC 0502 080894 0305 70 BRAMBLETON DRUG BRAMBLETON SUSP CIRC 0502 080694 0506 70 BRAMBLETON CHIROPRACTIC SUSP CIRC 0502 081194 2317 70 PIZZA HUT RESTAURANT BRAMBLETON SUSP SUBJECT 0502 080294 1613 70 BRAMBLETON AV SUSP SUBJECT 0502 080694 1652 70 PIZZA HUT RESTAURANT BRAMBLETON THEFT FR VEH 0502 080894 0811 73 TAMARACK TR THEFT PROP 0502 082094 1157 71 BRAMBLETON MALL OFFICE VANDL PROP 0502 081394 1617 71 BRAMBLETON MALL OFFI VANDL VEH 0502 080894 1909 73 BRAMBLETON FAMILY PH BRAMBLETON VANDL PROP 0502 081594 0243 70 TAMARACK TR VANDL PROP 0502 082594 1625 73 BRAMBLETON AV CORNER SHOP SUSP SUBJECT 0503 081994 1501 70 TIMBERLANE AV SUSP SUBJECT 0503 080194 2105 70 VIEW AV SUSP VEHICLE 0503 083094 2212 70 VIEW AV THEFT OF VEH 0503 080794 0259 73 MARTINELL AV VANDL PROP 0503 080894 0843 71 VALLEY FORGE AV VANDL PROP 0503 080594 1500 70 BRANDYWINE AV VANDL PROP 0503 080294 1558 70 VIEW AV PROWLER 0504 081894 2138 70 CIRCLE BROOK DR SUSP VEHICLE 0504 082194 0142 70 HONEYWOOD LN DISTRICT SIX -AUGUST 1994 EVENT RD DATE TIME CODE LOCATION RESI B&E 0601 081794 2348 70 APPLE BLOSSOM LN VANDL PROP 0601 080794 2332 70 TALLWOOD DR RESI B&E 0602 082794 0100 70 HATHAWAY DR SUSP CIRC 0602 082794 0125 70 HATHAWAY DR SUSP SUBJECT 0602 081494 2240 70 ELECTRIC RD / GRANDIN ROAD EX SUSP VEHICLE 0602 082794 2356 70 CAL SPAS ELECTRIC RD THEFT FR VEH 0602 081094 0419 73 POMMEL DR THEFT FR VEH 0602 081194 1014 71 WHIPPLETREE DR THEFT PROP 0602 081094 1320 70 BURNHAM RD VANDL PROP 0602 080294 1811 70 MOUNT LAUREL RD VANDL PROP 0602 081694 0915 73 ELECTRIC RD FIRST UNION RESI B&E 0603 080594 0308 70 COTTON HILL RD VANDL PROP 0603 082694 1032 70 CHRISTIE LN VANDL PROP `'0603 081794 0159 70 LANDVIEW DR VANDL PROP 0603 081394 0932 70 SOUTH ROSELAWN RD SUSP CIRC 0604 082494 1019 70 MERRIMAN RD SUSP CIRC 0604 082194 0342 70 MERRIMAN RD SUSP CIRC 0604 081794 1452 70 COTTONHILL RD PROWLER 0605 080194 2158 76 PENN FOREST BL PROWLER 0605 082694 2355 70 SNOW OWL DR SUSP SUBJECT 0605 080294 0920 70 HAZEL DR SUSP SUBJECT 0605 080594 0849 70 SPRINGLAWN AV /MERRIMAN RD SUSP SUBJECT 0605 080594 2219 70 CAVE SPRING ELEMENTARY SUSP SUBJECT 0605 081394 1344 71 PENN FOREST BL SUSP VEHICLE 0605 080294 1414 70 MERRIMAN RD / RANCHCREST DR SUSP VEHICLE 0605 082494 1320 70 GLENMONT DR SUSP VEHICLE 0605 081694 1440 70 BALSAM DR THEFT FR VEH 0605 080994 1113 71 SUNNY SIDE DR THEFT FR VEH 0605 080294 0730 71 PAMLICO DR THEFT OF VEH 0605 082894 1133 70 PAMLICO DR VANDL PROP 0605 080794 1402 70 KINGSWOOD DR SUSP CIRC 0606 080494 0319 70 BRAMBLETON SUSP SUBJECT 0606 080694 1934 70 CAVE SPRING JUNIOR HIGH THEFT FR VEH 0606 081394 1424 73 WESTBRIAR CT THEFT PROP 0606 080394 0955 70 PLEASANT HILL DR PROWLER 0607 082194 2227 71 LAKELAND DR RESI B&E 0607 081194 0232 70 RASMONT RD SUSP CIRC 0607 082394 1131 70 CASTLE ROCK RD SUSP SUBJECT 0607 081994 0611 70 BRAMBLETON AV SUSP SUBJECT 0607 082594 0033 71 BRAMBLETON AV HILLS DISTRICT SEVEN -AUGUST 1994 EVENT RD DATE TIME CODE LOCATION SUSP CIRC 0701 082094 1245 70 WILDWOOD RD VANDL PROP 0701 082994 1758 70 RICHLAND HILLS DR SUSP CIRC 0702 080794 0307 70 SKYVIEW RD HOLIDAY INN SALEM SUSP VEHICLE 0702 082594 2230 76 SKYVIEW RD HOLIDAY INN SALEM THEFT FR VEH 0702 083094 1223 73 THOMPSON MEMORIAL THEFT PROP 0702 081294 1323 73 SKYVIEW RD PROWLER 0703 080694 0023 70 ALLEGHANY DR SUSP CIRC 0703 081094 1524 71 EMMETT LN THEFT PROP 0703 080594 1950 71 SILVER LEAF DR THEFT PROP 0703 080494 1824 73 TYLER RD VANDL PROP 0703 080194 1454 70 ALLEGHANY DR PROWLER 0704 ' 080494 2318 70 LITTLE BEAR RD PROWLER ~ 0704 082094 0155 70 DAUGHERTY RD REST B&E 0704 082494 0252 70 DAUGHERTY RD SUSP CIRC 0704 081994 1102 70 STYPES BRANCH RD SUSP CIRC 0704 081794 2038 71 STYPES BRANCH RD SUSP CIRC 0704 080594 0012 70 DAUGHERTY RD SUSP VEHICLE 0706 080894 2144 70 GOSPEL BAPTIST CHURCH SUSP VEHICLE 0708 082094 2215 70 WEST RIVER RD THEFT FR VEH 0708 080194 1004 73 WEST RIVER RD THEFT OF VEH 0708 082094 0456 70 DRY HOLLOW RD SUSP CIRC 0709 082494 1547 70 YALE DR SUSP SUBJECT 0709 081394 1146 70 POOR MOUNTAIN RD SUSP VEHICLE 0709 082394 0636 70 BARLEY DR THEFT PROP THEFT PROP 0709 082894 1054 73 QUICKETTE FOOD MARKET 0709 080594 0826 73 QUICKETTE FOOD MARKE WEST MAIN SUSP SUBJECT 0710 081394 0138 70 STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS SUSP SUBJECT 0710 081394 0141 70 STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS THEFT OF VEH THEFT PROP 0710 081394 1028 70 JAMES RIVER EQUIPMENT THEFT PROP 0710 0710 081294 080594 1615 1852 73 WEST MAIN ST 73 GLENVAR MINUTE MART THEFT FR VEH 0711 080394 1608 73 DUIGUIDS LN VANDL PROP 0711 080194 1200 71 GREEN HILL PARK PARKSIDE RD RESI B&E 0712 082294 2216 70 KINGSMILL DR RESI B&E 0712 080194 2158 70 KINGSMILL DR VANDL PROP 0712 080194 1915 71 STONE MILL DR VANDL PROP 0712 082494 1129 73 POWELL DR 11 July 1.994 THE ``COUNTY OBSERVER Newsletter of the Roanoke County Crime Prevention Unit COMMUNITY POLICING Fourth of a Ten Part Series The Community Policing Officer's broad role demands continuous, sustained contact with the law- abiding people in the community so that together they can explore creative new solutions to local concerns involving crime, fear of crime, disorder, and decay with private citizens serving as unpaid volunteers. As full-fledged law enforcement officers, CPO's respond to calls for service and make arrests, but they also go beyond this narrow focus to develop and monitor broad- based, long term initiatives that can involve community residents in efforts to improve the overall quality of life in the area over time. As the community's ombudsman, CPO's also link individuals and groups in the community to the public and private agencies that offer help. One of ten community policing principles reprinted from Community Policing - A Contemporary Perspective by Robert Trojanowicz and Bonnie Bucqueroux. §§§§§ POLICE NUMBERS Emergency 911 Non-Emergency 561-8036 Crime Prevention 561-8062 Crime Analysis 561-8062 Tanglewood Office 772-2110 BURGLAR ARRESTED Roanoke County Detective Hogan obtained several arrest warrants for burglaries which occurred in district three. The same suspect was charged by Detective Sturgill with a burglary in the Catawba area of district seven. Alert employees of a Foodlion in Roanoke County identified a stolen check the suspect tried to cash. They stalled him long enough for Officer Jackson to arrive and arrest him on the previously mentioned warrants and the forgery and uttering charges at the Foodlion. The suspect was transported to the Roanoke County/Salem Jail. C7?1MF____~_ ~., ssoo When you call Crime Line and provide information on any crime in the Valley you become eligible for a cash reward and can remain anonymous. Report suspicious activity in your community. You could provide information clearing a burglary in your neighborhood! Do not wait on information from the police. Always make a note of suspicious activity and where appropriate, call the police. * * There are no deadlines for submissions to this newsletter. Mail your requests to the Crime Prevention Unit at 3568 Peters Creek Road, Roanoke Virginia 24019, or FAX them to 561-8143. \ Pkf. ~'E~ TAKE A BITE 0l1T DF ~~ijlVlE NIGHT OUT National Night Out, America's night out against crime, is Tuesday, August 2, 1994 from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. C'.;~ ~`` ~~ ,,s Gire NeigAboilwod:Crine & Drupsµ ;A GOING ~4Y PARTYe •-~ - Planning should be well under way for your neighborhood walk, contest, cookout, porch light vigil or other activity. This program is an excellent way to get new people involved in your neighborhood watch group and rejuvenate the ones who have been around a while! Mt. Vernon Forest will have a McGruff coloring contest. The winners for each age group, as judged by Chief Cease and a panel of coloring experts, will be announced at their picnic. Mt. Pleasant will have a live band on Ellington Street. The Roanoke Valley Ramblers will be performing from 7:00 p.m. until they get tired. Lochhaven Drive will be having a get together at Valley Word Ministries. Their will be food and drink for all! cont.... .!3 August 1994 T^ ^ ~ w w i rit-t~UUNTY 0!BSERVER Newsletter of the Roanoke,County,Crime Prevention Unit MALL OFFICE OPEN The Roanoke County Police sub- station at Tanglewood Mall is open. The office hours are part time, and could change to meet departmental and citizen needs. The telephone number at the Mall is 772-21 10. You can still call the number at the Peters Creek Office. Calls will be transferred to Tanglewood if no one is working in the Crime Prevention Office at the Police Department. Scheduled hours are Monday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The office may be staffed at other times depending on personnel availability and volunteers. Due to previously scheduled vacation, the office will not be open Tuesday August 2~ or Thursday August 4m. Information available includes how to join or form a watch group and the location and types of incidents which occur in the County. Interested in volunteering at the Mall? We are working out the details of how our watch group coordinators and other interested people can help out with informing the public about the Department. POLICE NUMBERS Emergency 91 1 Non-Emergency 561-8036 Crime Prevention 561-8062 Crime Analysis 561-8062 Tanglewood Office 772-2110 COMMUNITY POLICING Fifth of a Ten Part Series Community Policing implies a new contract between the police and the citizens it serves, one that offers the hope of overcoming widespread apathy, at the same time it restrains any impulse to vigilantism. This new relationship, based on mutual trust, also suggests that the police serve as a catalyst, challenging people to accept their share of the responsibility for the overall quality of life in the community. The shift to Community Policing also means a slower response time for non-emergency calls, and that the citizens themselves will be asked to handle more of their minor concerns. In exchange this will free the department to work with people on developing long- term solutions for pressing community concerns. One of ten community policing principles reprinted from Community Policing - A Contemporary Perspective by Robert Trojanowicz and Bonnie Bucqueroux. §§§§§ DISTRICT ONE BURGLARS INTERRUPTED BY NEIGHBOR The north county homeowner waved at the two youths on bicycles as he left his home early one evening in July. He didn't recognize them and they were a block from his house. cont.... TAKE A BITE OOT OF ~RjME burglars.... Perhaps they were visiting friends. What the victim didn't realize was the two were looking for an opportunity. Several minutes later they knocked on a door across from the victim's house. They told the owner they were looking for a friend. They only knew his first name. When they left his house the owner observed them go to the victim's home. Knowing they were not home, he went to investigate. The suspect's again told him they were looking for a friend, and left on their bikes. Investigation by the neighbor revealed a broken window to the residence. The County Police were called. The district officers had suspects, and were able to identify the two juveniles responsible for the burglary. The case has been cleared. No property was stolen from the home. CITIZEN ACADEMY SIGN-UP BEGINS Enrollment for Class 94-B of the Citizen Police Academy began August 1, 1994. The session will begin on Tuesday September 20, 1994 and run for ten consecutive Tuesdays through November 22, 1994. The class is from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Public Safety Center on Peters Creek Road. There is no fee. If you have already notified us of your desire to attend, there is no need to call. THE COUNTY September 1994 OBSERVER ...Newsletter of'the Roanoke County Crime Prevention .Unit CRIME PREVENTION MONTH "We have two laudable, but distinct traditions in the United States: one symbolized by the individual standing proud and alone, the other by barn raising, a stirring collective effort to get a massive job done. Crimes greatest deterrent is not a loose collection of me's, but a vital community whose residents think first of we." Jack Calhoun, Executive Director, NCPC Sponsored by the Crime Prevention Coalition in October, Crime Prevention Month celebrates community spirit and partnerships. It challenges people to take individual and collective action to prevent crime and build communities that nurture and protect their residences. The theme for this year is Working Together To Stop the Violence. What can your watch group do to foster broader community spirit and participation in crime prevention programs? Activities at Tanglewood Mall include vehicle displays, fingerprinting, and educational programs such as personal and home security. Look for details in the October issue of The Countv Observer, the Roanoke Times and World News, and on television news. We are planning several projects in support of Crime Prevention Month. Your community is what cont.... Crime Prevention Month is all about. We are encouraging each neighborhood to organize a community project to get to know their neighbors better. A community clean-up day on Saturday, October 1, 1994 is an excellent way to get everyone out to support your watch group. Here's how to get started: 1 . Get a volunteer (you may have to "volunteer" someone!) to head up this project. 2. Have block captains call and sign people up to meet at a designated spot. 3. Meet and make a sweep through the community picking up trash and meeting neighbors. 4. In the process, solicit input on making the neighborhood safer: -street lights out; -signs in need of repair; -zoning violations; -speeding problems; 5. Plan to spruce up the area around your neighborhood watch signs by planting shrubs, etc. We expect the same quality news coverage as with Night Out in August. Call and let us know the time and exact meeting location. We'll notify the media! * * There are no deadlines for submissions to this newsletter. Mail your requests to the Crime Prevention Unit at 3568 Peters Creek Road, Roanoke Virginia 24019, or FAX them to 561-8143. :, z, ~, TAKE R BITE OUT OF ~RilV~E CITIZEN ACADEMY CLASS 94-6 Class 94-B of the Citizen Police Academy is full. The class starts on Tuesday September 20, and runs for ten consecutive Tuesdays through November 22, 1994. Among the participants will be Wildwood Road and Georgetown Park neighborhood watch members, WROV FM radio personalities Sam Giles and "Howie", and business and civic members from around the county. We have tentative arrangements for this session to include a S.W.A.T. capabilities demonstration during the firing range portion of the Academy. There are other surprises related to the Academy in the planning stages. We'll keep you posted. Are you a Citizen Academy Alumni? Would you like to see that advanced class you may have heard mentioned which would only be open to graduates of the "rookie" course? If so, write down your thoughts on the subject; course content, length, etc. and mail them to me. Class 95-A will commence in the Spring. Call now to reserve your seat! POLICE NUMBERS Emergency 911 Non-Emergency 561-8036 Crime Prevention 561-8062 Crime Analysis 561-8062 Tanglewood Office 772-2110 T~Q~ o~ ~I• ~~~N o~ ~o n ~ O O O O O O o 'a G~ O O O O O O O ~ G7 Q ~ ~ ^ 7 `~ ,_~ `~ ~Q• ~~ `Q" ~.. ~ O `~ ~~ ~~: `~ ~~ ACT ~,. "'t O ~ M1 ~' b ~ n ~ r» cu -~ ~ -v ~ cv ~ y o ~ ~ ~ c~ cu c~ C7 c~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ y O ~ _ ~1 Uj O~ c.n ~ ~ W 0. N ~ ~. ~ ' fy J ~p a\ Ch '~ ~ `< w ~' N fD '-'r ~ ~ V] i i i -t i i ""= i i ~ C~ ~ /~~ ,..~ i /ice O i ~J /ice (~ i "L~ ~ n• ~ ~ ~/ CAD '"' ~ CAD ~ '"' ~ '""' ~ ~ ...iy ~ ~ ` , ~ ~ ` , v, ~ ~ l ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ r• O O ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ,.o o ~ ~ r. y ~ ~ < o ~ ~ ~ o <' o ~ ~ d ~ ~ O '~7 ~ 7r ~ ~ (~ '~ :n C fro "*' ~' ~ n ~ v, ~ ~p .p ~~+ ~ C,7 O O O ~ .~• ~ O O O O O O ~~ ~ O O O O O ~ O O CD '"~ CD CD N fD ~ ~ ry CD ~ CD •*, N ^+ CD CD CD y ~I N UQ CD A~ N ~"~ CD C1 CD ~ a o ~ ~' ~ .n ~ ~ o ~ ~ o' c, o ~ o ~ c, ~ o~ ~ ~ -~ ~ o ~~ ~ ,~ '~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ rD ¢ cu -, cu ~ cv o cu ~ ~ ~ d Q O W ~ N ~ .r ^ . ~ ' ~ ~ ?' ~ O ~ ~•-~ w N ~ ~ ' ~ O~ to ~ .p O w ~' N o v ~ ~ cn C~ f' ~ `~ _• ~a ~ n oroo ~ c ~ Y ~ ~ ~ area' "v ~ o o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 ~ o a ~ y ~~ a -, ~ o' ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ voa a G CD ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~s ~ c ~ ~' o' :-~ c ~ t~on,~ C ~a.ooo~c~o~ooo~ O a.o~Q-o~.7'~'n~o°~~'°'°~~,~ s ~' ~ co .~ ~ era o `° co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ c, . co ~ ~ o ~ O ~J r~~n..-~ ~ co,~da-~~~~_o~o O ~co~~co~~o`°~o~•rt.N ~o d n'o•t:s~~~O.~co`0o .~ "O~'a~a.rt~ °o~ •~ ~.-^wC7 ~ ~w o o ~ ~ ~ n-- ~~o ~ ° qua CJ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o o ~_ ~ ~' C d co ~ ~c `~ ~ `~ ~ ~ c ~' M co `~ ~ p ~ cA ~ S co c ~ ci.. ~? C a ~ ^s ~ ~ O ~• C rt p rt ~ C O ~ `C r-* n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O n O '~ C' rt ~ ~ A~ to ~ ~ i ~'• ~ ~ in' Z O ~; in ~ O p c~i~ ~ co '"~"~' O ~' ~ ~ '~ cn0 n n ~••.~ c~ ~ ~ L (A O O SL ~ ~ ~ rr n •-t d n r-r > ~ O ~ ~ ~ Ali vii ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~• ~ in' `O ~ ~ O ~, co ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~. r d n ~ ~ n C~ ~ ~ c~ r• ~ c~i~ ~m n ~' O p ~ ~• ~. ~ ~ ~ ?' 'O O 0 p~ ~ d T ~ r~-r ~ (0 (0 Q? ~ ~ (0 ~ "t. iC ~ t'~ (0 ..S O Qj --r, ~ r+~-r ~ ,-~ ~' XJ (0 ~' ,-~ N n Q- r~-r O ~ 0.. O ~ Ai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~' fy rr cn ?' (0 O ~ (0 (0 ~' r ~ n (0 ~"• ^*~ tla ~ (0 '-~ ~ ,-r O (0 cn 'ZS p~ ~ ~-- •~_ ~ ~ ~ ?- -t ty _ (0 ~. r~-r '~ ~ O cp' '~ ~ ~ ~ Q" ~ ~ a O '~ 0..O rr ~ Q.. -+, ~ O r-r ~ ~ O ~ C ~ Q.' ~ O '~ (~ r..i j Q.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O '~ O ~' p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. a ~ ~ ~ 0..O ~ (p ~ ~ ~ p (n O Q- ~ n ~ `C O C ~ •-s ~ ~ ~ 7' ~ ~ ~ C) p~ ~ to ~ ~ c0 ..._. 0.. } ~ ~. ~ O a (0 ~ ~ n• '-~ p cn• ~ n' '~ ~ O „~ 0.. ~, ~Q' ~' ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ pi `C3 ~C ~ ~ ~ f!a ~ O ~ t'~ •+, n ~ ~ ~ n ~ cA ~ O ~ ~' cn C C Q- '~ '~ `L ~ C ~. c~`n n O ~• c.. ~ f '~ ~' c`~o _~' '~_ vii ~ O A? C ~ <n a N ~• co n• ,~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ¢ n `L c0 ~ ~ O O ~ C ~ O ~ ~ cn ~ '~ ~- ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~' (fa O coo ~ ~ coo ~ ~ co ,~ ~ ~' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~. ~• o ~ ,~ o o ~ w ~ ~ Q- ,rt co co ~; ~ ~ ~ coo o ~' ~ p ~ ~ o is ~ ~ ~ ~ Cr'f co ~ ~• ~ ~ ,~ c a. `~ coo ~ ,~ ~• ~ ¢ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~D. coo ~ ~ n; ~• ~ a ~ o ~ C ~ ~• ¢' ~ o o ~ ~• o ~ ~' ~' ~_° ~ ~. ° ~ ~• ~. a. '~ a. °' ~• ~ c~ co `~ ~- ~ coo N `' ¢: `~ ~- c`o ~ `~ o `~ o ~ co c co ~. ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ a. o c ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ co :-~ ~ c R1 _ ~. '~ ~" (7 ?' n O ~ ~• ~ `` 0.. ~ '~ d0.. (7 ,-,- Q~ O '~ ~ ~ ?' ~ W fA (n C7 (0 ~ C ..t iv f0 O ~ '"~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ,-+ ,--r ~' 'L5 fA ,...r O ~p ~ cn cn ~ (0 Q-n-~ Q.. ~ ~ O ~ ~. ~ ~ (n• ~ '~ cn can (n f0 (0 ~ ~i ~ (0 ~? '.~"'r (~D ~ (0 "~ ~ co ~ O to coo O H O ~ ~ ~, O n 0 O ~. ~ c ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ c ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ ~ _ (0 -,-~ Ty C~ ~~ o 0 0 ~ °- ~, ~ ~ ar~~, 0..i, `Z c~cA ~~ n'o ~0~`0o~•rt~ 6'~~~•~w~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ co ~ ~ cn cn cn ~ n ~ .~ ~ ~ cn O ~' ~ N ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ (0 ,..r C1. ~ ~ ~ 00 .p .p N ~ O ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'' "° ~'• coo i? ~' ~ Y ~~~ ~ NWT ~ p- rt (0 O ~ ~ ~ O co C• ~, (ta cn O ~ ~' ~ ~ O /I- ~/ T )lyonseups( n ~_ ~• rF N• ^, W '^ ~,..5 pKr. ,~•( O ~\./ O ~ ~"F~ /~ ~cCV ^ ~\V (~,~, ~ n iv w a cn m O O O O O ~ O O O O O O ~-t r-r rt ~• f7 n ~ '~ ~ r~-r V ~ ~ '~ r-r ~ ~ C O ' l~ ~ (0 ~ A) (p ~' n to ~ ~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~°' ~ ~ coo ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ o v~' ~"~ ~'c-ov`C ~ °'~ ~ o .~ ~ ° ~• ,~ w ~ o co o ~ ~ O o• c,~o ~ ~ o ova co .~• ,~ ~ ~ ~ '~ c~ ~'• ~ ~ ~. ~• '~ ¢• ~• p ~ ° ~ t~ ~ ~ ° ~ coo ~. ~ o a ~ ° ~ ~ Q- ~ ~ ~.. ~_ ~' _~ a. Q. ~-* O rr cn co co ~ O n ~ O x' co ~• ~' ~ ~ '7 ~-+ n co ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~' co co o/ ~ O ~ ~ ,Y O ~-+ ~ O a N ~ ,-s co va '~ ~ O ~ ~ "~ ~ -~ ~ n ~ ~ ~p ~ ?' n O ~ O ~' p ,.•~ 6' `C3 '~ O ~• co co ~ S ~ ~ n (0 ~ ~ C' r~-r ~ .~~. n ~ ~ ~ ~ n rr (0 ~ r7] f7 (pp n `~ ~ ~ ~ (0 tC ~ ~ ~j r-r ~ K. ~- (p ~~-r ~ ~ (0 ~, ~. (~0 O (0 ~. ~ ...j Q ~ a ~ V-r n (0 ~ r-r .-r ~ ~ ~ cno can ~ O n ~ co cn O to ~- `C N v~i ~ ~G ~ cCL cno ~ ~!' in• ~~ ~ ~ c0 c0 ~ O ~ ~ ~, ~ ~' ~ O S ~' Q: f0 f0 ~ (~ N ~G (0 r rr p„~~.~, ~~ (A p O d 0 ~ ,~ pi cn ~ ~ ~ ~ .K ~ (o ' i O' (A ~ O rt '~ O •~ ~ O ~ 0 3 " ~ `~ ° ~ o ~ ~ a t~,~•~~~~~o ~ s o... `~ ~• ~' ~ 'c '~ ~ coo c~`o ~ a. s ~ f0 ~ ~•~•~~ ~S~ i (~O (0 ¢' ~ O A~• (~ (0 ~ (0 s ~ ~ c ¢' ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ a ~ K ~ w a. co o ~• ~ > cod °~~~~'~^o ~ ~ ~ ~ `~• ~ ~ o c~ ~ co n. ~" ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ n Q_ . ~p rt _~ to A~ C (0 O (0 n (0 .S ~ '~ '~ r ~ 11~II ~ ~ x ~ ~ 11---yy ~~1 ~~_y ~ G D ~ ~ n 000000~.~~.~ ~, co' p cNO cp •' O ~ to ?' co ~ ~ ~ c• ~ co co co ~ ~ '~ (0 ~ ~ n ~ p N co ~ O~ O (n co •~, °' ~ ~- •-s O coo O ~' ~ ~ co ~ ~' O cn ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~~+' C ~ ~ o ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ co ~ ' K ~ coo Q.. ~ il. C o o ~ a. ~- ~ ~ ~ a.cn ~c ~ ~ ~ ~,' S ,~ ~' co 0 ~~~ ~o ~ o0o m d ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ rn rt ~C Q1 ~. ~ Al ~ r~-r ~• lit z M r A co ~ O O ~ ~ ~ '~* ~ O ~ ~ ,~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~°° or d or ~~ °~~ r-r f0 (D Vii ~•~~ ,,,• .,- ~ ~ ~ 'O p F-+ C'rl ~~o~~~ -,, ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ O r-r ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ¢ co ~ r-r O _ .-r ~ `~ ~• ~ ~ ~ co ~ o ~ c ~ `0 a/ ~. ~. ~ O co 0 c"o ~ co ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ c Y~ ~' M~ a. co coo ° ~' ~ ~ ~~~• ~ c~i~ ~ (0 '' -*~ O ca '~ ~: ~ ~. o ~ 0 0 ~~~~~~~ c ~ ~ p co ~ c~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ . (0 p (~0 Lv ~ (D x N ~-t .~~~ ~~ ~~~ x~~ ~m• x' ~, (0 ~ t0 fA ~ ~, ~ ua ._~~~o' o m ~~~~~~~ n RJ Y co ~ ~ ~• p ~~~•~~ O~ Q. ~' a'i. ~' Ai ~ co ~ O O ~ ~ ~a-c0''O C i..n ~ ~ ~~~ o~,~~~00 ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 0 orxN~~nZ ~ ~ ~~~~ n C• ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n (' V ~ o rn.~ ~ ~ ~ C~~~a ~~ a. ~ ~ o ~• ~ ~o~~~n~ ~' ~~~~~ z ~ ~ ~ O ~ ffa '~ oo ~' ~~~ dC ~ O.. O `t~ ~c ~p to O ~ ~ ~ as -~ p ' r-r . O ~ O .~ ~ ~ co N ~`° ~~ ~ " m ;°~c ° ~ • y 7 i-s ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOi$T~TION CENTER AT A REGULAR ME HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMI COUNTY, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ON TUESDAY, RESOLUTION 927__ 9 CERTIFYIN OF ~VIRGIIA MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on this date pursuant to Virginia has convened an executive meeting rovisions an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the p of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and of Virginia WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code fires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke requ was conducted in County, Virginia, that such executive meeting conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of rvisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to Supe the best of each members knowledge: ted from exemp 1, Only public business matters lawfully en meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the °p lies, and executive meeting which this certification resolution app 2, only such public business matters as were identified were heard, discussed in the motion convening the executive meeting r considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, 0 Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Resolution, the following recorded vote: and carried by AYES• Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTE• ~ Deputy Clerk Brenda J. Ho togoard of Supervisors Roanoke County cc: File Executive Session File ~~ _w ~~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SNTYRADMINISTRATIONO CENTER TY, AT VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANgEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ON TUESDAY, ORDINp,NCE 927 10 AME~ING AND REENACTINGOISEC~pTER222 82, et 3e ., "RATES AND FEES", et sDIVISION 2. "CONY "WATER", ARTICLE II. "WATER SYSTEMS", WATER SYSTEM", OF THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE TO PRDOEPOSITSR, CHANGES IN THE UTILITY BILLING FEES, CHARGES, AND PROCEDURES FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE IN THE COUNTY OF ROp,IdORE . Virginia, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, es in the utility billing fees, has determined that certain Chang har es, deposits, and procedures for water and sewer service in c g in order to accurately reflect the County of Roanoke are necessary the services, particularly for disconnection the cost of providing and reconnection fees; to require security deposits from seriously delinquent customers in amounts that are equitable to all customers and adequately protect the County's interest; and to clarify an s ecif procedures for utility service billing and collection of P y unpaid bills; and, ursuant WHEREAS, the provisions of this ordinance are adopted p and Chapter 9, to the authority found in §§ 32.1-167, et se ., Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended)• ublished WHEREAS, legal notice of these amendments has been p in a newspaper of general circulation within Roanoke County on 1994, and September 20, 1994; and, September 13, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994. BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1, That Division 2. Count WaRoanoke Countyr Code is .hereby Chapter 22 WATER, of the SVS_ teims, amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 22-82. Rates and fees. e th er ' cellaneous charges . In addition to sal_ a of W ~t.....,~.............~::, in char es ;:::><:<;<:;<::«::<:::<::«::«;,:.::.;::::.::::;;:.;::::~.<.,.:.:::;~ •:~:;.~:>::>:». ~...:: :.<::>::>:>::>:::;~~: follow:.:.::::9:.;;:.;:.;:.>:.::::>::>»» ~ ;:: :..:..:::.. .. . : .:...:.::::.:...:.:..::::.. ~~ customer .. :ts:inn[!s!~~'S(~<z:>::1~1~~`,1.xlz:::.~t.::~.;.:i .................. of meter $10.00 a, Re-check reading (No charge if original reading was in error) b, Investigation/verification of leakage in customer's line $20.00 test $25.00 c, Meter accuracy (No charge if meter fails accuracy test) '~;~t~'r ~ Deposits. ......... ........ e osits, -}- ~ a a w "~ ;:.;; (1) 'ra<~;;~~>~>::::;::,:;; :::.:.:::.:::..:::.::::.. shall be imposed~~; ~~ ..:::.:..:......... , F ~~s when request for service is made:: `~~ _ , ..~ v.... j 2 e.• Reset meter if pulled due to non-payment ~~~ $25.00 ~ Special request to da s e nttinue or $10 00 service for other than non p y~- 5~- BS debosit shall ~e ';•''<i:S:::.,..,>.<.:.:.IY~'t:,•~...#.::::>:::.`~'"';`+,:~'~+:~a.~a:,:.::.: ,kA~::i::;::.Y:::ii:':::;::::~::ir::::; ~` #~. :' ,-. :::::;:::.:i::ii::i:::::::;::.:>:.>:.»:.::::::::.. ... ...........:::: ~:::::.>:.>:.:::.::..:;:::;r:::::is~i:%?5:'Sirs:: '~: :::t~~::?'.;. `:::'~`: `':"' ~:.:.~:::.::.'~.isS::i:::::%i::i::::i::';::::;:::~:::ii::i::::i ............ : ::::>?:::::::::::j;:c::;:'' ~'. {~ r::::::;::::::::::i;:::a:::%::;:::> ::::.:::......... ... ::::::::::::::.... :~; ~ ~;; ~ ~ ~;.V e~ a.. ~.: i :::::::::.:::.:::.; r;:.:::::::::::.......... . 4 (~.) The deposits discontinuance. 1, 6-26-84; Ord. No. (Code 1971, § 20.1-27; Ord. No. 84-108, § § 1, 8-12-86; Ord. 62486-147, §§ 1, 2, 6-24-86; Ord. No. 81286-169, 10_13-87; Ord. No. 121686-259, § 1, 12-16-86; Ord. No. 1013871 'S-25-93) No. 62591-7, § 1, 6-25-91; Ord. No. 52593-9, § Cross reference(s)--Schedule of charges for wastewatof 18-168; adjust to utility charges for filling disposal, § 18_168(d). swimming pool, § Sec. 22-83. Inspection and reading of meters; bills; refunds. :.::::..:..::..... director shal l cause drt~:.:::;:>::>::>:.::::>;;:;;;:::.;:.> ::.::.::::::.:....:... ~ y , ~, ±---~ st once every.:::t~iree.,..(3.}:.::mont...:s....,,T;..;;.,.: The inspected and read atwae~ ~^M_ ~Q~ ~,e~l~~.ri~la~ ~~~;.c~.~<<~~~ ....:.::.:.:..... . .. , ..... . .............~,, ,._...~~~ ~ ,.~.,r (Code 1971, § 20.1-28) Sec. 22-84. Calculation of charges--Generally. All water passing through a meter shall be charged esoor whether or not used; provided, where leaks occur in water pip and the owner, agent or tenant shall have metered services, re airs, the director may rebate the promptly made all necessary p bill amount in excess of double the amount bills shall bee det rmi ed by for the premises. Such average monthly six (6) months. averaging monthly bills for the preceding (Code 1971, § 20.1-29) Sec. 22-85. Same--When meter fails. 5 In the event a water meter fails to register properly for any supply cause, and the consumeme of suchlfailure ofuthe meteretoaregbetthe of water during the ti the consumer shall be bi f Water consumed on his premises of or the average monthly amount o eriod, as determined by preceding six (6) months or a longer p director. (Code 1971, § 20.1-30) Sec. 22-86. IInpaid bills. 6 Sec. 22-87. When water may be turned off. for the The water shall be tustem orf whenn anerecognized cross protection of the water sy connection is discovered ands in tructions.tion is not taken in accordance with the director (Code 1971, § 20.1-33) 2, That the provisions of this Ordinance shall be effective on and from October 1, 1994. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Supervisors Johnson, None Supervisor Nickens Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Circuit Court G. O. Clemens, Judge, Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge Roy B. Willett, Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge Richard C. PattisaClerkudge Steven A. McGraw, Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court 7 Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge Philip Trompeter, Judge John B. Ferguson, Judge Joseph P. Bounds, Judge Ruth P. Bates, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District CoJud e John L. Apostolou, g George W. Harris, JuJud e William Broadhurst, g Vincent Lilley, Judge Clerk Theresa A. Childress, Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library Police Chief John H. Cease, S,W,, Rke 24016 Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul E. Grice, Assistant Director, Fina&cInspections O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Zoning Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services Don C. Myers, AssistTreasurery Administrator Alfred C. Anderson, R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue 8 ACTION NO. 1 ITEM NUMBER=- REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORISIOFRARO IONO~N OERNTY, AT A VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADM MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 A ITEM: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Change the Utility Billings Rates and AGEND Procedures for Water and Sewer Service. ['(~iJNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENT h closure on this item at this meeting so es ~ would like to do so because that I hope we can reac implement the revisions. if there is a way to retain connection e ~ osits are better than e actual costs of servicing the specific acc han es ~or hand/ ng dep passed on throng represents th ro osed c g general rates to the remaining customers. Thep P in the past, but could be simplified if we had more time to make additional changes o what we had ort the tem which is outdated. lam not aware ofwou d prefert/l a/ m %ling tousupp ulUp e the computer sys deposits. Even though the changes are not as extensive as ns of the team with the hope that we can make more comprehensive changes at a later recommendat~o date. R On September 13, 1994, the Board of Supervisord'secolmments and suggestions at SAC' ordinance on Utility Billing rates sented for a secondaread n ~C E•a that meeting, an ordinance is pre MARY OF INFORMATION: The following list reflects the changes to the ordinance and SUM procedural changes staff recommends. 1, Disconnection Fee for Non-Payment - a $20 fee to n~ v A $20 fee to ove~ oat fo greconnect ng 2. Reconnec rowho has beeen disoconnectedlfor refusal to pay. a custome collect a de osit from residential customers 3. Limit Number of Deposits for Non-Payment -Only P for the first and second disconnection. This amount sh auld p Limit the number of deposits potential loss of two billing cycles (i.e., six months of u g ) collected from commercial customers for disconnection to six. This is consistent with the period covered by residential deposits. Chan e Amount of Deposits Collected from Residential Custo rterl bill S1This wouldeffect 4. g deposit amount would be the amount of that individual s last qu y a customers usage and be more equitable to all customers. Refunding Deposits -The team recommends a) calculating w de do st amounts atcurrent ratesf 5. individuals for first and second disconnections under theldl ffterence to the customers bill during and b) if the current amounts are higher, app y g the next billing cycle. m:\finance\common\board\9-27-94.b S- ~ FISCAL IMPACT: ($2,500) Additional cost of printing new forms 3 500 Cost of Refunding excess deposits ($6,000) Total FF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the sdate of Oc obe ~1,t1994tached STA ordinance and approval of administrative procedures with an effective Respectfully submitted, ;'sl ~' ____.1~ ~-'~ i Paul . Grice Assistant Director of Finance Approved by, ~~ ~~~ ~` Elmer C . Hodge County Administrator VOTE ACTION No yeS Abs Approved () Motion by: _-- Eddy - - - Denied O Johnson - - - Received O Kohinke - - - Referred () Minnix - - - To () Nickens - - - m:\finance\common\board\9-27-94.b ,;-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOAR E OCOUNTY ADMINISTRATION OCENTER NTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOK ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 22-82, et "RATES AND FEES", et se ., OF CHAPTER 22 "WATER", se ., ~~ ~~ DIVISION 2. "COUNTY WATER ARTICLE II. WATER SYSTEMS , SYSTEM", OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODCH~T GES R EPOSITSR CHANGES IN THE UTILITY BILLING FEES, AND PROCEDURES FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has determined that certain changes in the utility billing fees, charges, deposits, and procedures for water and sewer service in the County of Roanoke are necessary in order to accurately reflect the cost of providing the services, particularly for disconnection and reconnection fees; to require security deposits from seriously delinquent customers in amounts that are equitable to all customers and adequately protect the County's interest; and to clarify and specify procedures for utility service billing and collection of unpaid bills; and, WHEREAS, the provisions of this ordinance are adopted pursuant to the authority found in §§ 32.1-167, et se ., and Chapter 9, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). WHEREAS, legal notice of these amendments has been published in a newspaper of general circulation within Roanoke County on and September 20, 1994; and, September 13, 1994, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994. S-i BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1, That Division 2. County Water Svstem of Article II. Water Svs~s, Chapter 22 WATER, of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: b, Investigation/vorooication of leakage in customer's line $2 $25.00 c, Meter accuracy test (No charge if meter fails accuracy test) Special request to discontinue or turn-on service Zo.oo for other than non-payment $ 2 Reset meter if pulled due to non-payment - $25.00 s. ~ .:: :r::: ::.::..:.:... ime '~~~:::: f a i.l ed 2 If any utility customer at any t ..,,, .:,.. :.: ... :::.:.:.:...:..::..........:.:....:........ t , to kee his account current, resultirig~`'~iri~...~';i~t P discontinuance of service, that customer shall pay an acCditional deposit ~,,, ,.~, F ~" dPnosit shall 3 ................ .............................. .... ~`~~~~<~ ~:t~ ;::.;:. :<; ; f ... : ......... : :~#;:::::~'~k:i:i.~.r'~,.~,.~~'/.,~ir ~:~kk::::i::i::i::i::i:::'`::i::::i ~::i ~:::~:~:i ::.............. ::r:::::i:::»:.»:.::a:>;> ::::::::::::............. ~~~}} ~t }~~y ~y a. y~ tiJ ~.?v~::tie..'~:..# A1:k?.ri_r,:::.; ~k:~,L~::ri::i::i:::::::::i:::::isi>:.::.s:a:.>::.> : ......................... ............ ~. +.. a ~.. .. ... :.::.::::::............ ............. ............. :.::::::::::.::•:.::: ~;.;::.:::<:::~;::~r:::is~:::55i;:?i`:::::± V ±r:';:::`<::::2:f:%;:':'`:;:;':>.:22~ ~:~~~. ~~.: ~' 4.~ ....:::::::i: ~.~::::.>:.:>:.::~:; 4 S-I (~~) The deposits discontinuance § 20.1-27; Ord. No. 84-108, § 1, 6-26-84; Ord. No. (Code 1971, 1 8-12-86; Ord. 62486-147, §§ 1, 2, 6-24-86; Ord. No. 81286-169, § X10-13-87; Ord. No. 121686-259, § 1, 12-16-86; Ord. No. 1013871 '5-25-93) No. 62591-7, § 1, 6-25-91; Ord. No. 52593-9, § Cross reference(s)--Schedule of charges for wastewater 18-168; adjust to utility charges for filling of disposal, § swimming pool, § 18-168(d). Sec. 22-83. Inspection and reading of meters; bills; refunds. The director shall cause inspected and read at_least^once (Code 1971, § 20.1-28) 5 ,"' 8ec. 22-84. Calculation of charges--Generally. All water passing through a meter shall be charged esoor whether or not used; provided, where aeent or u Lena t t shal 1 have metered services, and the owner, g promptly made all necessary repairs, the director may rebate the amount in excess of double themonthlt bills shall b e a t rmi edlby for the premises. Such average y six (6) months. averaging monthly bills for the preceding (Code 1971, § 20.1-29) Sec. 22-85. Same--When meter fails. In the event a water meter fails to register properly for any cause, and the consumer haf suchlfailure ofuthe meteretoaregistery of water during the time o the consumer shall be bill w ter consumed on his premises of or the average monthly amount of preceding six (6) months or a longer period, as determined by the director. (Code 1971, § 20.1-30) Sec. 22_g6.` Unpaid bills. ~~.,~ ~_ 6 (Code 1971, § 20.1-31) 5- Sec. 22-87. When water may be turned off. The water shall be turned off when necessary for the protection of the water and scorrectiveh act on riso not taken oin connection is discover accordance with the director's instructions. (Code 1971, § 20.1-32) Sec. 22-88. Connector's responsibility when moving from premises. (Code 1971, § 20.1-33) 2. That the provisions of this Ordinance shall be effective on and from October 1, 1994. 7 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIlilllllllllilllllllllililillllllliillllllllllllllllllllllllli ~i _ - _ - AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ _ - - - s _ _ _ CE REC2UEST _ _ _ APSE _ - ~ - ~ - CITIZENS COMMENTS '- ~ ' . ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING =- c - ... - - ._ ~~ - SUBJECT: ~- ' ` G __ an of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the I would like the Chairm comment. meeting on the above matter so that I may DRESS "' LED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL' GIVE MY G RELINES LISTED __ WHEN CAL FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE BELOW: will be iven between three to five minutes to comment The Chairman will ^ wh t ec speaking as an is oin~the number of c tizens~speakio gthe Board to decide the ttme limit base f and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the ma~ori ,, = do otherwise. -" resentation of their point of view only. ~= ^ Speaker will be limited to a p the Chairman. Questions of clarification may be entertained by ust be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized ^ All comments m . - speaker and audience members is not allowed. - s Bakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _, ^ Both p e re nested to leave any written statements and/or comments ^ Speakers ar q with the clerk. ORGANIZED GROUP ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKIN CLERK A~ p~~ IT ON FROM THE GROUP = SHALL FILE WITH THE "" ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO ~pjZESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK - _ - ~_ __ _-- - NAME .~, `- ,~,~ `"~''`'~-r'~, - ,. ;. - ADDRESS = PHONE =_ -_ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 mlllllillillllllllllllllillllllllllililllll l l r`" ~ • ~ -~ , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD O U1~Y A MINISTRATION CENTER ON ~ VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANSKETEMBER 27, 1994 TUESDAY, ORDINANCE 927 1 SENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE 81490-6 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN INCREASES IN FEES FOR SERVICES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 81490-6 imposing certain fees for parks and recreation activities; and WHEREAS, in July 13, 1993, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and the Board of Supervisors met in a work session to discuss inequities and inconsistencies in this ordinance and to discuss recommendations to improve the fee structure, including the recovery of a greater portion of indirect costs, particularly in the area of adult athletics; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 1994, both the Commission and the Board concurred in certain staff recommendations to establish a new fee policy and directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on September 13, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing on 1994. this ordinance was held on September 27, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1, That the Director of the Roanoke County Department of Parks and Recreation is hereby authorized to establish fees for parks and recreation services, programs, and activities, subject to 1 the approval of the County Administrator, and subject to the following standards: a) Definitions: Indirect costs include the general fund appropriation for ~~~ "~'~~~ ~~~ recreation each of the cost centers associated with the ~t° a~,ea .;# based on the previous fiscal year budget't, ........... .. _ _ L L ... VSO -~ i .~ _r~e~ Direct costs relate to the specific costs of instructors, ?:}:;: ~4'Y:{i:::i':i':.':i:ii::i"~'':::; ~':iri} ~~~i:rii::i ~'iiFi:::i ~>i::i::i}+:~ :::»::»:>•,::>;::>.».:::;~<:~~::»: and associated supplies, ~~~::>::>::>:::~»;;;:.; :.:::.::.::::::::::::..:....:... ~ta,.~~,~.a::~;~ ~, ............::::::::,::::::::::::::........::::::::::::::::.;.....::::....:::.:.......:..:::::::::.:.... :.:::....:::::::;:................. ...... :.;.::.; ::::.:::::::::::.:::.: ~ F ......:........................................ ............................................................. } v 1 ... ............:::::::::::.>::~>:•>:<•>:~::;~>:::;:;a::ti';:::>::;::::~i:'k~5:~:i::~f':~f::%2>}~:':~:R::~':'•:;%F:;:''~;~xy:~::::':~'::: fTl ::: •:::: r .:...... ...... ............... b) Standards: The standards, which were approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, are as follows: .... .. LL :.::.:.............::J.-- 2 ::i:>:::::;.;::;r.::`:::;::;:::5:}~;;:%;:::i::s:;,:µ;::::::.,::.3?::::y::~:i: ''.:#;:::t.:~: ..q::i7i: ~' ~~1:~:11;:: !~: ~'..~!iI::Y:i,.~r.,~'~~,',.Q,r,.~V~::~::::~R'i,',AA+''~'k.'.'!r~,,:~;^;.::2Y ::::::.:::.::>::::::: ~.1~t~ ..................... ......... .......... `E:~tk~?~Cfii~SY: ~; mss- ~ That the effective date of this ordinance and or the imposition of the fees and charges authorized herein shall be carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Eddy ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Pete Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 4 cc: File Circuit Court G. O. Clemens, Judge, Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge Roy B. Willett, Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge Diane McQ. Strickland, g Richard C. Pattisall, Judge Steven A. McGraw, Clerk Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge Philip Trompeter, Judge John B. Ferguson, Judge Joseph P. Bounds, Judge Ruth P. Bates, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court John L. Apostolou, Judge George W. Harris, Judge William Broadhurst, Judge Vincent Lilley, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library John H. Cease, Police Chief S.W. Rke 24016 Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, , Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer 5 ACTION NO . ~- ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THEO~BOKP,ERDCOUNTYUADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE R MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Ordinance 81490-6 AGENDA ITEM: Authorizing Amendments to the Fee Structure for Parks & Recreation Activities OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: //~~ ~ Gt BACKGROUND• In July of 1993, the Board of Supervisors and the Parks and •Recreation Advisory Commission had a work session to address staff concerns with the existing Fee Ordinance. The ordinance, adopted in July ° olic0 for each lof theleightsdifferent established a separate fee p Y recreation program sections: Existing Fee Ordinance Section Administrative Regis. Fee Indirect Cost Recovery Direct Cost Reco~ COMMUNITY ED LEISURE ARTS OUTDOOR ED SENIOR CITIZENS SPECIAL EVENTS THERAPEUTICS ADULT ATHLETICS YOUTH ATHLETICS 5.00/PERSON 5.00/PERSON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 25~ 25~ $0 $0 40~ $0 $O $0 100 100 100 100 00 20$ 100 $0 This policy generated an inconsistent and inequitwhat section structure whereby program prices were driven by hilosophical offered the program, as opposed to the original Staff concerns approach of a demographic or age b for the closure of the Leisure increased as they began planning S-- ~. The consolidation of programs to one site Brambleton Center. ortunity to integrate provided the recreation division est whileo si gnif icantly reducing and expand programs for all ag costs. Implementing an intergenerational program with an open enrollment policy, requires an equitable and consistent pricing structure. The existing ordinance does not allow that flolicllthat At the July, 1993 worksession, staff presented a new p Y recommended: •eliminating the specific calculation for indirect cost •using a $l0 per participant ($50 per adult team) registration fee in recognition of the indirect costs incurred by the County fee ( card) for teens •implementing a $5 per person membership and senior citizens and eliminating their need to pay the registration fee •increasing the share of the direct cost paid by the participants in the therapeutics program from 20=k to 100. The Board of Supervisors acknowledged the staff concernolic hwith ordinance and directed staff to go back and review the pbackya new the new Director and the Advisory Commission and bring recommendation. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The new Director of Pa with staff and the reviewed the fee ordinance, and working closely Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, presented a new fee policy to the Board of Supervisors at a work session on April 12, 1994. The new recommendations inceu olic 1 for each section tl In itslplace that requires a separate fe p Y staff recommended instituting a revenue target for the combined programs of the Recreation division. New and existing program fees would be established based d earlcufee analysis handlsurveyuof direct and indirect cost, an y Y comparable programs in the s including the built in flex bil ty to approach has many advantage control pricing (on a yearly basis) in relation to actual cost, and the opportunity to recover additional indirect costs. In addition, it allows for the development of integrated and intergenerational programs, and most importantly it presents a ricing structure to the general fair, reasonable and simple p public. The recommendatio foil County usanctioned youthk athletic will charge no user fees league activities and that the Senior Citizen and Therapeutic programs will continue to be subsidized. The Parks and Recreation Department also requested that any revenue generated over 100$ of t ass drevenueso would bet used t ~ fund department. These fee cl improvements to existing programs and facioltential sproje is lfor improvements, and equipment. A list of p °'" tom. these funds is attached. The projects listed address seriothe needs of the department. Many involve safety, ongoing fields, or provide much needed protection of park lands or playing improvements to existing programs and facilities. Most have been included in the department CIP for years but the resources have not been available to address them. Allowing the department the flexibility to retain revenue is an innovative way to address many small capital needs, with minimal or no impact on the general fun a made retroactivertoeFY 92 9t3sts This this portion of the policy b will enable the department to access existing fee class revenue so improvements can begin immediately. t ff is authorized to transfer FISCAL IMPACT: Under this policy, s a the excess fee class fund ba ion De artmentssacontrol.o Thecfunds under the Parks and Recreat P will be used by the department for Capital Improvements not directly related to the fm FYP92a93oand $651 745 from FYr93n94y has a balance of $62,182 fro The funds remaining in d to the operation of feelclass programer expenses directly relate STAFF & PARKS & RECREATION oADV Commission and Count Mstaf f Trecommend Parks and Recreation Advis y on Se tember 27, adoption of the ordinance following Second Reading P 1994. submitted, Appr ved by, Respectfully Director Elmer C. Hodge Pete Haislip, County Administrator Parks & Recreation ______ _--------- ---------------------------- VOTE ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Eddy -. - Johnson _. Kohinke Minnix .- Nickens ,_ -. - PROJECT LIST Admin: Upgrade and network computers Automate program registration/reservation system Recreation: Expand Recreation brochure from 8 to 12 pages Replace one wheelchair van Replace one 15 passenger van Scholarships ADA accommodations Replace the in classroom and weight room at Craig Center Camp Roanoke: Land acquisition Engineering assessment Roads, electric, sewage, plumbing Upgrade cabins Repair or replace pool HVAC Parking lot Kitchen upgrades Brambleton: Re-do interior lights & add basketball goals m gym Security system Replace carpet Seal, paint, and light parking lot Paint exterior and interior Improve landscaping Teen Center: Equipment/games Climbing wall Green Hill Park (Special Events Site1: Sound system and stage Restrooms Lighting Water hook-ups Security fencing ~~~ Athletics: Burton Park paving, lighting, restrooms Small shelter at Walrond tennis courts Parks: Playground Brookside Walrond, Gravel/grade renovations & additions: ;, M.A. Banks, Mt. Pleasant, Vinyard. all parking lots New picnic shelters: Garst Mill, Sadler, Vinyard Repair old picnic shelters Trees/landscaping at all parks Replace soccer goals at numerous sites Replace picnic tables at numerous sites Erect traffic control barriers to protect and open areas -all sites Infield soils for ballfields Fence repairs at numerous sites Concrete/stonedust bleacher pads Water lines to ballfield sites Dugouts at various sites Repair restrooms: clearbrook, garst stonebridge Turf renovations at numerous fields ADA Improvements fields mill, ~J - 0~+. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOKEDCOUNTYPADMINISTRATIONACENTER ONTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROAN TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE 8149SERVICESOFORIPARKSRANDNRECREATION ACTIVIS FOR TIES WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 81490-6 imposing certain fees for parks and recreation activities; and WHEREAS, in July 13, 1993, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and the Board of Supervisors met in a work session to discuss inequities and inconsistencies in this ordinance and to discuss recommendations to improve the fee structure, including the recovery of a greater portion of indirect costs, particularly in the area of adult athletics; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 1994, both the Commission and the Board concurred in certain staff recommendations to establish a new fee policy and directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on September 13, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1, That the Director of the Roanoke County Department of Parks and Recreation is hereby authorized to establish fees for parks and recreation services, programs, and activities, subject to 1 the approval of the County Administrator, and subject to the following standards: a) Definitions: Indirect costs include the general fund appropriation for each of the cost centers associated with the sr ~~~1 recreation ~.~~ ez~ based on the previous fiscal year budget:`;::;, ~ ~ cy $-moo, r-F~~- b) Standards• The standards, which were approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, are as follows: 2 s.-~ o ....:..................................................... <::;::;::>::>::»::>::>:;>: outh athletic ]',!+` 'r~~;~;~?~~d y these;.serv~ces'.' _R ;,: and equa.pment Su~p~.us xevenues g~z~?~~a~~d> ~resm the `~:.:~~!:~~.~<::az~d: .~ ~. That the Director shall develop guidelines for the waiver or reduction of fees based upon demonstrable hardship and 3 S-~ inability to pay and shall implement related policies 'ka~±; the fca~'ca~ing 1ama.`t~± .3, 4.:, That the effective date of this ordinance and for the imposition of the fees and charges authorized herein shall be general\p&r.fee 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THEOBAONORD COUNTY RADMINISTRATION CENTER TY, VIRGINIA, HELD ATUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE 92794-12 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .409 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 5449 FRANKLIN ROAD (TA7C MAP NO. 98.02-2-9) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AV, CONDITOIION THE T APPLICATIONG OF RINGERY I BROSF C2 UP ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing were held September 27, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; 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 .409 acre, as described herein, and located at 5449 Franklin Road, (Tax Map Number 98.02-2-9) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of AV, Conditional, Village Center District, to the zoning classification of C2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Ringery Bros. Associates. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNI.N2 a at ntheo northeast hcorner of ethe Route 2 property of John M. Davis; thence with the west line of Route 220 and a curve to the left whose arc distance is 88.01 feet and radius is 1,352.39 feet and chord bearing is N'the true 20' 41" W. 87.99 feet to an iron pin, point of beginning; thence leaving Route 220 and with the division 1 in 49 etW a 161.89 sfeet n and B S. 44 deg. crossing a branch to a point in the east line of the property of Inez Simmons; thence with the said line N. 25 deg. 23' W. 136.27 feet to a point at the division line between Tracts nB" and "C"; thence with said line N. 44 deg. 16' 49" E. 115.83 feet to an iron pin in the west line of Route 220; thence with said line S. 45 deg. 43' 11" E. 68.53 feet to a point of a curve to the right whose arc distance is 59.26 feet and radius is 1,352.39 feet and chord bearing is S. 44 deg. 27' 52" E. 59.25 feet to the true point of beginning and containing .409 acre and known as Tract "B" as shown on a survey of the division of property of Donald F. Taylor, by Jack G. Bess, C.L.S., dated June 21, 1985, a copy of which is attached. 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 Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Eddy ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTE: ~..Y~~ Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File ton, Director, Planning & Zoning Terrance L. Harring & Inspections Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney ~~ 4 NORTN \ \ ~o N `~ \ .\ n a 0 hR ~ 1~ ~~ ///~ .. 1.1 \ - ~ ~ 2 ,,,.i~ / +Qt sr IT.1 '~ a ~ X so,~ : . ~. ~ ~~ w« , ,,, . 1 7.OSAC J 19.1 L22 Ac ue, ~ ~ I•I ~~// ~ I ` x•19 s / 4 4 I ` '•'.~ ~ 3 s 22 I.SOAetDI ~t-' ~ r• a~ 6.33 AC ~ 2 ,c. 'v,, \• ~' ~ L12AcC \ ~ 129Ac g TyA~ ' ~+~ ~ ' 2 04 3 i• J ~ \ s, 9 1.02 Ac IDI ~ 1 ICI ~ 39 '~ 1 ~ S ~~ . ~ c ` e i ~~- ~ ~ 41. ~°' 9 o II 3T.+ w rr • ° a4ss 0 SRO o °v \ r ~ •'' 12 a ~ ~ V • _ L29Ae ~~ ~ ~~ ' ~~~ ~ 74 Ae " 1 ~ . •~ ~ 7 f• • ~ 45 i a~~s , 9.1 `fib 9 s.a 10 ~~ AR 16 42.64 Ac 0 Is 3699 Ae l01 4a7e Ac lGt 17 15 X93 Ac t_`9Ae ji:z t S 34 •aa:. ~1 y 42.• i ~ ~~ ~eair ~i 48 ~ 47 ~ 2.34 Ae L74Ae ~~ ~~ SO ~SI~~ aaD3sl I.COAe ~/ , X331 s ~~ wr~r 4 ' •; i 4 ~ ~ 49 L°~ 2.~pAe }y os 2 1.30 m 3 qii 1.36Ae 4 i! n, .. I. ~ qp 10 ais P- '•• 5 sacs 9 ~+ Isom , ,. ~ ssaa ± 9 sass ' ~ "• 69.4 6 ~ T •~ '' ° `~ 1 6 ~ ~ sass aria , .- • ' ,,,,. ,~ •' A : ~ 69.3 . i " s 592 r . ~ ?) . v ' - • ~ ~^ ~ ~ s 6T ~ T2 = "~ ~ r fi : ..,. .,z • ~~~1 ^ ` ` fas+ • a~ ..~. _ ~"' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ~~T~ r~O.~I~ER.~ Its/~Ili~R~/ ~BRDS . /4 SSOG/A 7FS AND ZONING 7~AJC M~(P •' ~ 9$• 02- ?- 9 •~ ~~UEST~ ~EZO,VF IoM A~/e ~ CZ ore AV S-3 PETITIONER: KINGERY BROS. ASSOCIATES CASE NUMBER: 28-9/94 Planning Commission Hearing Date: September 6, 1994 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: September 27, 1994 A. REQUEST Petition of Kingery Bros. Associates to rezone .409 acre from AV conditional to C-2 to al ow retail uses, located at 5449 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission asked what kind of C-2 uses were being considered. Randy Kingery and Irvin Childress responded as follows: we now have a contract with someone who is interested in opening a carpet shop; another individual has expressed interest in a retail musical equipment store. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt expressed concern that a C-2 designation would set a precedent to allow other C- 2 zoning in an area that is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Village Center. He moved to recommend that the property be rezoned AV without conditions. Ms. Hooker concurred and said that C-2 is not appropriate. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Ross, Thomason, Witt, Hooker NAYS: None ABSENT: Robinson F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: -Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map - Staff Report _. Other C Li~ Terrance Harri ton, Sec ary Roanoke Co ty Planning Commission s3 Case Number: 28-9/94 Applicant: Kingery Bros. Date: September 6, STAFF REPORT Prepared Associates 1994 by: Janet Scheid B. DESCRIPTION arcel from Petitioner proposes to rezone this .409 acre p AV conditional to Gene to ~ rketrthis Agricultural V ur ose of enhancing his ability (C-2) for the p P lot. Both sides of Route 220 are zoned Agricultural Village from Indian Grave Road on the norin sithe oareacrisstpDedominately south. Behind the AV zon g, Agricultural Residential (AR). C_ pppLICABLE REGULATIONS The C-2 District requires a minimum lot area of one acre where public water and sewer are not f theazoning ordinance in Julya a variance from this section o civic The AV District allows a wide variety of residentialsuch as and office use types. Limited commercial uses, antique shops, personal improvement sere other acommercial restaurants are also permitted by right. such as automobile repair, convenience stores and uses, ermit. general restaurants are allowed with a special use p of The C-2 Distric than fthe AV Dist i t rbutl am wider aarray of residential uses ermitted by right and by civic and commercial retail uses are p special use permit. 1 a.~.i"". PART II p,• ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Lo_ ea - Petitioner's -lot is .409 acre with frontage on Franklin Road (Rt. 220)• ~ 5449 Franklin Road, is Petitioner s property, roximately one 2, Loc_ation,- located in the Clearbrook Village Ce Thi property is on the mile south of the Blue Ridge Parkway. south side of Franklin Road. between Route 419 and this site, had a 1993 daily Route 220, a roximately 28,000 vehicles. traffic volume of PP Approximately one-quarter of these vehicles were trucks. g. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1, Use - Petitioner is not proposing a specific use for this site at this time. S ecial Commercial) with a This property was rezoned to B-3 ( P special exception in rental and service business. o At that construction equipment time, the petitioner Pr One of these profferdstl mited the use placed on the property. servicing of of the property to the "sale, rental, construction equipment gross weight of equipment limited to 4,800 pounds". the 1992 comprehensive rezoning this property, along During area, was rezoned to with other properties in the surrounding laced on the property AV. As required by law, the conditions p in 1989, remained with the property. The construction equipment business has since vacated the property and petitioner has lease with the AV zoninglandcthe to market this property for use limiting condition. ..:..~.-.,,~ mot; nn/Access - On-site turning movements are 2. restrictive and on-si roxim ty to Routel220.ed due to the size of this lot and the p Access to this site, coming from the nort from the so th there a turning/deceleration lane. Approaching is a median cut that allows access to this site. ublic water or public sewer available. 3, Public Services - No p Fire and Rescue services are available within acceptab e timeframes. 2 S~ The C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This parcel is situatetes anhareaeofbthe county that functions Village Center designa as a rural activity center. While commercial uses ar encouraged in the Village Center, retail uses are generally limited to those use types that serve the surrounding motorist. For instance, convenience community and the passing ermitted because they are a "convenience" to t e stores are p ublic. Retail neighboring residents and the traveling p establishments that are meanti ° the Village Center.a broader community are not encouraged PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS etitioner's request is inconsistent with the Staff concludes that p intentions of the Village Center thangthelentiref area Aneedslto be not appropriate for this parcel designation. Staff reevaluated in terms of the appropriate zoning ro ert estion the rezoning of this p p Y offers as an alternative sugg rovide the petitioner with to AV without conditions. This woul o erty and also maintain the more flexibility in marketing the p P integrity of the community and the Village Center comprehensive plan designation. 3 COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING °~ For staff use only date re slued' received by: i ,/ 7 /~~ "X(i .. .__!~__. / ['~BZ date: 3738 Brambleton Ave. SW _ . P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 2401 S (7031 772-2068 FAX (7031772-2030 s the a lication complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF I PP THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v ws v / ~/ Application fee Consultation 8 1 i2" x 11 " concept plan `~ :.~ proffers, if applicable Application ~ :::•.:: Metes and bounds description Adjoining property owners h '`~ Water and sewer application Justification /hereby certify that / am either the owner of the properly or the gwner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: S3 T A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OOUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER,NTY, A VIRGINIA, HELD p'TUESDAYOASEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .409 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN 5449 FRANKLIN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 98.02-2-9) THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DIC NDITIONAL,TTO ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AV, THE ZONING F RINGERY BROS. ASSOCIATESN THE APPLICATION O WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing were held September 27, 1994; and, ublic WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a p hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; 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 .409 acre, as described herein, and located at 5449 Franklin Road, (Tax Map Number 98.02-2-9) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning Villa e Center District, to the Conditional, g classification of AV, zoning classification of C2, General Commercial District. 2, That this action is taken upon the application of Ringery Bros. Associates. 3, That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin in the west line of Route 220 at the northeast corner of the property of John M. Davis; thence with the west line of Route 220 and a curve to the left whose arc dista nd cho d bear ng is Nra4ludegs 1,352.39 feet a 20' 41" W. 87.99 feet to an iron pin, the true point of beginning; thence leaving Route 220 and with the division 1 ~n 49~etW e 161.89 sfeet and B S. 44 deg. crossing a branch to a point in the east line of the property of Inez Simmons; thence with the said line N. 25 deg. 23' W. 136.27 feet to a point at the division line between Tracts ~~B" and "C"; thence with said line Nin4indthe 16' 49" E. 115.83 feet to an iron p west line of Route 220; thence with sao ntlof S, 45 deg. 43' 11" E. 68.53 feet to a p a curve to the right whose arc distance is 59.26 feet and radius is 1,352.39 feet and chord bearing is S. 44 deg. 27' 52" E. 59.25 feet to the true point of beginning and containing .409 acre and known as TractroBerty shown on a survey of the division of PC.L.S., of Donald F. Taylor, by Jack G. Bess, dated June 21, 1985, a copy of which is attached. 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. zoning.kingery _ 3 c AGENDA ITEM NO. - APPE CE REQUEST V PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS __ SUBJECT: 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, 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. ~_ ^ 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 - -- - - NAME=~ i YI ~~ ~Z~ -_ ADDRESS ~ S O (o ~ 120 ~P ~ ~~ ~° ~~ ~ ~ ~`Q - PHONE rl ~ ~ - ~ ~~~ m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S-1` AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THEOBAONAI2D COUNTY RADMINISTRATION CENTER, rY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE R SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 TIIESDAY, ORDINANCE g27_ 9_ 4=13 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 10 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND DENT ROAD (PART OF TA% MAP NO. 27.17-4-13) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R3, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASS F C FRIENDSHIPCIMANO R APARTMENT UPVOILLAGE APPLICATION CORPORATION WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing were held September 27, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; 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 ten (10) acres, as described herein, and located at the intersection of Airport Road and Dent Road, (Part of Tax Map Number 27.17-4-13} in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R3, Conditional, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to the zoning classification of C1, Conditional, Office District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Friendship Manor. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: From a highway monument on Airport Road osition #19 on a plat prepared by located as p Friendship Manor Lumsden Associates fooration, 97.51 acres Apartment Village Corp the point of dated 27 February 1979, and being 15 deg. 00' 40~~ W• 180.63 beginning thence N. 57,88 feet; feet; thence N. 14 deg. 57'.20" W. 51' 00" E. approximately 975 thence N. 56 deg. a Swale; thence southerly feet to a drainag a swale following the line of said drainag approximately 800 feet to Dent Road and intersection with position #14 on t08e 0 ovW~ lat; thence N. 45 deg. and referenced p curve "A" 232.70 feet; thence following 69 deg. 57, 35" ~~B~' to position #16% thence S. W, 148.84 feet; thence N. 73 deg. 52' 30" W' thence N. 27 deg. 24' 00" W. 64.78 90.48 feet; the point of beginning, feet to position #19. to survey, and containing, subject approximately 10 acres. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the 4• accepts: _ ~ _ __ ..,,,; rr the Board of Supervisors hereby following That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect 5• arts in (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or p th Y dinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance e- of or Administrator is are, repealed. The Zoning and the same hereby to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in directed zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance with On ed condition (1) added, and carried by the following proffer recorded vote: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy AYES: NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTE: ~ Clerk Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Board of Supervisors Roanoke County cc: File Director, Planning & Zoning Terrance L. Harrington, & Inspections Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 327• Hershberger Road, N.W• ;toanoke, Virginia 24012-1960 703 265-2100 FRIENDSHIP N'IANOR Vrginras Premier Retirement Community September 27, 1994 Mr. Terrance L. Harrington County of Roanoke Department of Planning ~ Zoning Post Office Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Terry: S-y ~~ .~5 ~.9 lx 1> F~ \43r `, ~"` _~ .fie ~i~1Lii\~...' V~J~I`d~i 1~('~. VDOT officials, on our part to acre parcel at petition. Pursuant to our meeting yesterday with please accept this letter as a commitment restrict potential entrances for the + 10 Lakeview which is the subject of a rezoning It is our intention to limit access to one point on Airport oint on Dent Road. Access points, as a site Road and one p the developer's engi- planning issue, will be designed by through their re- neer and reviewed by VDOT and the County rior to spective Entrance Permit and Site Plan revir va 1 of en- construction. Any decisions made via the app trance permits and/or site plans will be the ultimate con- trolling factors for the actual location of access points. The reason we agree with the suggestion of the meeting participants' recommendation is simply to place site plan- context. ning issues in the site planning Commission rightly or wrongly Recognizing that the Planning issue, we are in agreement felt that access was a rezoning to limit access asensite de ~elopment processe to proceedern, thereby allowing th Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, FRIENDSHIP MANOR APARTMENT VILLAGE CORP. Step en Ri e President SR/gf S-~ PETITIONER: FRIENDSHIP MANOR CASE NUMBER: 29-9/94 Planning Commission Hearin g Date: September 2719994 Board of Supervisors g A. REQUEST Petition of Friendship Manor Apartment Vnl o ~ e°COmt lexe locat d at the interse tionrof from R-3 conditional to C-1 to construct a P Airport Road and Dent Road, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission asked about the frontage requirements for ~ wated or both ~ quiret 75 feetf responded as follows: lots served by either public sewer o VDOT prefers an entrance from Carefree Lane. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt expressed concern that conditions have not beets prRossesaid that he bel eveshthe are issues of access to the site that need to be resolved site is suited for commercial use but agreed with Mr. Wittn H oil ally o9erecommend that the request be denied. The motion carved with the follows g AYES: Ross, Thomason, Witt, Hooker NAYS: None ABSENT: Robinson F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: -Concept Plan _. Vicinity Map Staff Report -Other ~- Terrance mngton, cretary Roanok County Planning Commission S-`f STAFF REPORT `~ PREPARED BY: TIM BEARD PETITIONER: 2919 9DSHIP MANOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 CASE NUMBER PART I g. DESCRIPTION his is a etition of Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corp. to rezone approximately T p ten acres from R-3 conditional to C-1 to construct an offi Ma isterial ~ D'strict atThe intersection of Airport Road and Dent Road, Hollins g with future petitioner's request initially involves a 3 e'e ~0 eluding off es and storage. The 10 expansion to approximately 50,000 square f acres involved in the petition comprise the western tip of an overall 61 acre parcel. C, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS General offices are permitted by right in C-1. No specific u {ee ra d e Hof ordinance apply under Article IV, Section d-$o bui d g setbacks, height, coverage, signage, regulations including and not limite and parking will be applied. exterior lighting, screening and buffering, VDOT. Site development plans will A commercial entrance permit will be yequired by ermit. be reviewed and approved by Count staff before issuance of a building p ~,_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ~ 2 PART II A. ANALYSIS OF p(ISTING CONDffION~heast of the Airport Road/Dent Road Loc_; The subject site is situated no ction. The property is in the Peters Creek Community Planning Area and urban mterse services are available. To o ra h e etation: Proposed site is grassed and exhibits isolated, sparse groups p q p vN q slo es moderately uphill from Dent of deciduous and everg eek Road. The property p Road towards Peters C Surroundin Nei hborhood: Existing multifamily residential occupies acreage a g ediatel east of the petitioned 10 acres (all within th s west across A rport Road ~mm Y subject site stand single family ho ~ several vacant parcels and south across Dent stands one single fa e~rt hwithin the Roanoke City limits. Road lies vacant prop y g. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEl/ELOPME o er has initially proposed one pre- Site Layout~Architecture: Conceptually the petit a roximately 30,000 square feet with the engineered metal building containing pp tial to ex and by an additional 20,000 square feet. Th tualr des gn' on thiscs to poten P to be one story tall with a maximum height of 20 feet. Even could be of any design permitted by C-1 regulations. The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission has stated s onts executive d rector has exposed to noise levels of 60 Ldn or more. The Comm hat the site "could be most satisfactorily developed wtou d e rovidel s' good stated t acoustical insulation in the buildingu euowner or tenant lof this area and a happy, working environmental for the fut ~~ compatible neighbor for the airport. in is scheduled for 180 vehicles which accounts fortes toaa'ccommodate the Park g 50,000 square feet. The fe ~t anln theQongsterm, the developer envisions additional first phase (30,000 square ) buildings within the overall 10 acre site. ccess Interior Circulation: VDOT has stated that if toundrAi ~ ort Road trafficrw II A Airport Road is constructed, arnganeu for southbound Airport Road traffic is a high be required and that a left to babilit VDOT prefers that an entrance be constructed fr DentaRoad intersection. pro Y empties onto Dent Road .25 mile east of the Airport Road this stretch of Airport Road would aggravate Additional commercial entrances along atterns will an already troublesome traffic volume situation. Interior ceitheatiAn ort Road or P accommodate two-way traffic througA viable th rd optio gmay be to access both Carefree Lane for external access streets lessening the impact considerably at each point of entry. 3,~ eneration: The 1993 ADT on Airport Road was 15,00 Ten hacc dents hwere Traffic G mile segment between Dent Road and 94 t The 1986 ADT on Dent Road was 5,991 reported between April 1990 and June 19 vehicles on the .55 mile segment between Pendleton Ave; 994 n TAaffic generation us accidents were reported between April 1990 andanu ee project in the 800-830 vehicle trip ends per day 9 Fire & Rescue Utilities: Emergency vehicle travel time is a availab a tolthe s ten The minutes. Both public water and sanitary sewer service ar tilit De artment reports that the existing fire flow availabdle ommercialleuse norefor U y p does not meet County flow req eir end nts onrbuild'ng height and setbacks) generally higher density residential uses (d p g permitted by the existing R-3 zoning. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The etitioner's site is designated Development and surfaceowe~r/fdesignated surface p County's 1985 Comprehensive Plan. That portion bounda at Dent Road. Negative water/flood hazard parallels the southern property ry an additional ± 4 acres impacts from a floodplain/stormwater perspective caused by of impervious surface may be anticipated locally. The Development designation limits office uses with mod araacit ~ 2p watlelryand sewer the following land use determinants: 1) p ma' or street ac ess; and 5) urban sector. availability; 3) environmental capacity; 4) J The determinants generally refer to residential projects but e idedntaal/trans t onaldarea. against other use types when proposed in a predominantly r The significance of major street access and fire flow availability have been previously discussed. p. CONFORMANCE WffH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD with the zoning ordinance and accompanying standards. The proposal can comply Site and building plans, erosion and sediment control, and stormwater management plans must be reviewed and approved. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The applicant's request to construct an office comple re residential lusesowithin an compatibility can be achieved with existing and: futu overall planned community development (see page 39 of theen~arernot a'desPable Office proposals not part of aDevelo ment, designationloof the Roanoke County land use type within the p Comprehensive Plan. ~' ~. For staff use only Proposed Zoning: C -1 Proposed Land Use: Office C omp l e x Foi Staff Use Only Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, andSrREQU1RED FIRSTnts of the requested district? YES X NO __ IF NO, A VARIANCE NO Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES x ._ : ---- IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. NO X If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES ________ -- Variance of Sectionis) .. N.~A 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 Application fee Consultation 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan proffers, if applicable Application .., Metes and bounds description Adjoining property owners ~~Y~, Water and sewer application Justification l hereb certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and Y am acting with the knowledge. and cons~}nt of the owner. Owner's Signature: s~ Fo/ Statf Use Only: Case Number Applicant The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special us a~dr e'neral welfare.d Please answer the foldlowing justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, 9 questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of therZconclass~'~fcation in the zoning ordinance, as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning dist ¢ major The purposes of C-1 zoning are to facilitate C-1 type uses alono or near exis- streets where existing comm~rwheredCVllusesnwould serveras~a logical buf- ting residential developmen li- fer strip between conflicting land uses. The site addressed in this app cation lies between a small, but develoeedonal1Airport.nThgsbresidentialn as Burlington Heights and the Roanoke R g uses and the use of the land area and the adjacent airport are conflicthag conflict. The commercial use for residential purposes would intensify ested by the of the property would achieve the buffer area function suggr oses of the zoning code. Section 30-3 identifies a numbeandithensubsequent development zoning code. The approval of thisertzOORnghe Roanoke County tax rolls, as envisioned would put this prop y two specified whereas it is now exempt, and encourage economic development, ~_ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the ttoanuRC ~~~,~•~ Comprehensive Plan. ~~ g of generalized future The site exists within the Development" cate ory art of the land use. The Developmenastructuresis nowhavailablebaWhilegDevelopment county where public infr the proposed areas are principally etelsladeacent tosthenairportvandpmajor roads sug- site's location immedia Y ~ be preferable to residential uses. gests that commercial office use may This plus proximity to the Transitiocommercialedevelopmentnlocatedsinrthis and Airport Roads, and the existing area .establish some compatibility. Existing residential areas nor¢hasfrehe use of landscaping-and/or privacy fencino site can be protected by quired by the zoning code.. Office uses are deemed to bhemComprehensivepa ible in urban areas with Development designations by plan. Because the proposed use is for less intensive office uses that Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surr~u~~u~~~y area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. r o o s e d .use , and v a c an t 1 and The site will be graded to accommodate the p P lace additional will be converted to office use. The development will pacts to roads, demands on fire/rescue and Water/sewer servicement~ via payment of develop- schools and parks are anticipated. The develop thereb con- ~ment fees and real estate tafe~helenormoustdebtnincurredcby~the County Itributing to the repayment o ro erties to to further develop its water and sewer services. Adjoining P p acted by the north, and to a lesser exttnland toeofficewusesbeThisuimpactmPan be virtue of converting the vacan ,mitigated by employi:rg the buffer yard requirements of the zoning co e. ~' ~' For Staff Use On~y~ Case Number 0 Applicant ~ The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use Per eneeal welfare.d Please anshw r the foldlo~r~in9 justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and g questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary: Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ofdataon in thetzon ng ordinance) as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning distract cla purposes identified in Section 30-3. Otherwise the proposal is not incon- sistent with the remainder of Section 30-3. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. arks, e.g. Valley Pointe, a higher highly developed office/commercial p level of local compatibility can be demonstrated. ro ert itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the p p Y area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including waterlsewer, roads, schools, parkslrecreation, and firelrescue. s~ ROAHO2CE CODNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date 7~`//~1~ ` ' Friendship Manor Phone 265-2100 Name of Applicant Aaartment Village Corp. Address of Applicant 327 iiershberger Road Friendship rianor Apt. Name of Developer Village Corp. or assigns phone Address of Developer Same Name of Design Engineer will be Motley Assoc. phone 344-1212 Address of -Design Engineer 310 1st Street S. W. Name of Contact Person Stephen Rice Name of Proposed Development unnamed Tyne of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) Office uses 30=50,000 sq. ft. Location of proposed development (FURNISH COPY OF MAP AND PLPNI~';E'I'R1C N'U~ER) Corner Airport/.Dent Roads 10 1~ Acres Size of proposed development in acres: Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would beet°MSLed: Minimum_ /ASS feet MSL. Maximum %~ ~j Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger future development? No X Yes if yes, provide map of entire area if available. (pVEzZ) ~~~ ~ ,~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ C~ S'gnature~of Applican t C `~~~ ' ~ ~• r,.. - ~\ ~J ~~~ /~ /, CEO fir-- _ i ~ ~ _ _ ,~_ rj ~ ~ : ^.J = ~ nom' ~.~ ~. ~'~ ~ r~ ~^. ,~%'_' :~/ -~ - ~'~ ~-Gera. ~ t• "-- l11 ; ~ ~ =1• • --" .•. ~_~' ( ~ _ _ ~ ~ _ . S ~ •• !mss ° ~OII127S v ~3~a~ M Burh ~ n ~ . ` o `~/ ~/~'~~t/ }.--r r _~~•~ `~~2J - •.~- '•1095__Sch ~'. •'/~~ - (~ Y- ~~ - ,_ ~ ~ / ~`N ~~_ ~ j • ,.~~, '_ _e~~;` ~-~'- "`~ ~~~> ~~uranerdean' "ho alto ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ` •!, ~\-°o ~ i~': --. e ~~~\ /~ ~ `~ 628 .`. ~ . ' •. ii? ~% Q iY ,, ~~,_ ~~~BM '~. :~Y139` ~: ~ ~ /697 ~- ~ ,~\ ~ _ ~•• r; ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ a .J 3 94 J.' .v1-f ~- t ~ ~ ~-~-~? .%~~ 1\ ~_~ \a~'~Ji~ - ~.~ ° ``~- LSnve-iri'~ • . ~~~~ ~ r~,.~ / i_I \ -"~~~ -.(623 - =~ \ ~. {{ ( 1{ ~ ~ 2;~,p ~ :\ /:~/`-_.~ ~.~ i o ~, \ ~ -~ \ ~ .. ~' T1tIlaS O ~'. ' 6ampgroui+ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ,`>i _ Y/~. ~ `.~ -r- \ ~ ~ ~ W \~~ ~ ~~~ .'. 'V/x ,{ ~ ; /~~\ KoW kAK~~ ~ ~' _, _ 118 ` ~ ~-~ Q J \oy •• ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~~ - l • \~~.~ ~ ~ ®-~ _ ~ _~ lls3R>=GIONAy~{RPORT ~ ~ ~ ~._ _~,..\ "~ .~~` m~t~ W \ _ ~ .; /J •• • ~_ ~ : ~ .~ ~ (WOODRUM FiELD1 ~ ~•~'j< 1t ~ ~ ~ i 1 ~~ _ - Hrg 5 h \ ,.~ - / ~ ~~~ ~~ /\ - flluf Ridg?` ~ ~-+ ~yRO_ •~' ~ b.~ .. r, - i `•/ "~ ~ Memnual``\+ ~ _ - z ` 1~-%" :r rl ~ ``d ~ ~ ~ ' r l% ' ~ Gardens +. ~\ : ;o ~ Q. = ~ o~ C 1 S '~~ ,~., _ \., r ~` _ ;-, ~ _ ~ ~ _~~-fGeme(enl `\- ~P ,` ~~` ~; ,,. X23 ~ ~,_ 1-. ~, ~ ~ ~ ` _\ ~Sch,1,' •9nt } ~ ~ 7 t '~- ~ --- _--.- ~. `i `w"~ a/ ~.a '.•,1~. ~ 1, ~y i ~_ \ ~ - -~ ~'d~~:. ~ ~~pO. ~~ of 1 _. ~' , 1 - ~~ ~ \ ~ _ ShoDDirlg Center ~%`~ 5~~~ a~ ~S• ~,` r ` ~'t~~~ ,\~ ~ ~ ~ _// • ~ ~~ ~ -~ 1 ~~ ~ ~' r ~7J~` \~~~`y ~'~ ~ ~ ~ $_/, 1 Moir lj'~u R .;.' _ ~ S-~f NORTH t ~ ~. •. '.~~1 ~: s . ~...{ • { .° ../~ ,!\' 1~ • ~ ~~ ` ~ ., ~~\ `~` `III\` i/ ~ ,143 __ ~ ~~ •~ ``~ ~ `~~ r'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :.m ~ ` ` ` ` /`I , f I ~ a' ~ ` ~ .; .. O4 ~ ~~ t` ~ r _ ~ .p \' ~` \Y _ __ , \ ~I \ 9 1 ~ e G, i 'v ~' ~ ~ ~ .. / _ ` \ \ ~ ,," -., ~, ~. ~ "' \ ~ ' ' ~ ' ' ~ ~3 ~, .JlO \ ~. . ~~ \ ~'. qo ... , ,.-. 9~T/ r/D~t/~R: ~R/FNDStf /~ MA~t/O~ APT Y/~ c. aGE ~" DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 7~A~ Mti ~ ~ ~ 3 ~p/~ - . Arm ZONING ~E~4 UST: ,~EZO~cI~ IoM ~3 c ~'o C l ~,~ S-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARS COUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER~NTY, VIRGINIA, HELD p'TUESDAYO gEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 10 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND DEIN RTHE (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 27.17-4-13) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE To NTHE CLASSIFICATION OF R3, CONDITIONAL, ZONING TION S OF I FRIENDSHIP MANOR UAPARTMENT APPLICA VILLAGE CORPORATION WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing were held September 27, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; 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 ten (10) acres, as described herein, and located at the intersection of Airport Road and Dent Road, (Part of Tax Map Number 27.17-4-13) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R3, Conditional, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to the zoning classification of C1, Office District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Friendship Manor. 3, That said real estate is more fully described as follows: From a highway monument on Airport Road located as position #19 on a plat prepared by s~ Lumsden Associates for. Friend97151 acres Apartment Village Corporation, oint of dated 27 February 1979, and being the p beginning thence N. 15 deg. 00' 40" W. 180.63 feet; thence N. 14 deg. 57' 20" roximately 975 thence N. 56 deg. 51' 00" E. app thence southerly feet to a drainage Swale; following the line of said drainage Swale approximately 800 feet to Dent Road and intersection with position #14 on the above- referenced plat; thence N. 45 deg. 08' 00" W. 232.70 feet; thence following curve "A""and nB" to position #16; thence S. 69 deg. 57' 35" W. 149feetf thence N c27Ndeg3 24 'g.00'?W.364.7i8 90.48 feet to position #19, the point of beginning, and containing, subject to survey, approximately 10 acres. 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. zoning.friendship ?'+~ 1. ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOOAEDCOUNTYP ADMINISTRATION CE ER ONYX VIRGINIA, HELD AT,rTIIESDAY,~SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE 92794-14 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION LOCATED ON RIRR LANE OFF COT2O1 HICAVEOASPRING MAP NOB. 96.01-3-2 AND MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company has filed a petition to construct and operate an electric substation (utility services, major) located on Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road (Tax Map Nos. 96.01-3-2 and 2.1) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 23, 1994; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27, 1994. 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 and operate an electric substation (utility services, major) located on Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road (Tax Map Nos. 96.01-3-2 and 2.1) in the Cave Spring 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 construct said electric substation on 1 Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District subject to the following conditions: (a) The disturbed area will be stabilized with grass and natural vegetation--not riprap. (b) The existing trees on the site will be retained as much as possible. (c) The substation will be designed sensitive to the environment. 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 Minnix to adopt the ordinance with Conditions (b) and (c) as suggested by Supervisor Eddy, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES• Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 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, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 _ DEPARZI~V'T OF PLArII~tIl~G Special Use Permit Request: , ArID ZpK,~ ~• Appalachian Power Company • 'Tx Map # 96.01-3-2, 2.1 G..O. 08/26/94 14:x9 '$`70a 885 2941 pppalae~ian Porter gan~alry PO Box 2021 _._ Roanoke, VA 24022.2121 703 985 230D POiWER /AN Jonathan W. Hartley County of Roanoke Dept. of Planning and Zoning P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 September 26, 1994 SUBJECT: PROPOSED POAGES MILL STATION Dear Jan: This letter confirms our previous conve' would be open to discussions regarding space or greenway easement along Back C utility easements through the excess la ations that Appalachian e granting of an open ~ek and the granting of s of Appalachian. Thank you for your cooperation in this ~roject. Sincerely, -G~ ~ ~. R. A. Bays Right of Way Supervisor C~ ool cjc PETITIONER: APPALACHIAN POWER CO. !~ CASE NUMBER: 30-9/94 +~ Planning Commission Hearin S Datte:. September 2719994 Board of Supervisors Hean g A. REQUEST Petition of Appalachian Power Co. for a Special Use ~ P~ r~ ne° off Cotton Hill Road,tCave electric substation (utility services, major), located on Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission inquired about the extensive grading shown on the site plan, vegetation, the amount of flat area for the base of the substation, and noise. Archie Pugh, engineer for Apco, res onded as follows: the slopes area 2:1 grade; some of the transformers and repa~dr~ and P flat area is needed around the e ista 60t~ le hum (low vo ume) from the transformer, a loud replacement of equipment; ther Y mechanical noise occurs when a breaker operated ~ the selbe auselof theoimpactton the frequently). Mr. Witt said that he was bothered w Mr. Pugh indicated that the views from Back Creek and Route a s 1 not riprap~ andt~ ould~ be left to regenerate natural slopes would be stabilized with gr vegetation. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS The disturbed area will be stabilized with grass and natural vegetation--not riprap. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Ross commended the petitioner on the preparatio ended conditionrkThe motion arried to recommend approval of the petition with the recomm with the following roll call vote: AYES: Ross, Thomason, Witt, Hooker NAYS: None ABSENT: Robinson F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map G. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report -Other - ~-~ ~ ~ Terrance 'ngton, S retary Roanok ounty Planning Commission ~~- STAFF REPORT PART I File No.: 30-9/94 Petition: Appalachian Power Co. A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Appalachian Power Company is proposing to built a new substation in the vicinity of Route 221 and Cotton Hill Road in order to meet the increasing demand for service in the Back Creek area. While the location is ideal for providing electricity to existing and future customers, the site improvements, particularly the cut and fill slopes, will be visible from the existing Route 221 which is otherwise a rather picturesque setting. g. DESCRIPTION Appalachian Power Company (APCO) is requesting a special use permit to construct at new electrical substation on a 19.881 acre site located southwest of the intersection of Cotton Hill Road and Route 221 in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. This substation is proposed to meet the increasing demand for electrical service in the Back Creek area and to alleviate increased demand on the Cave Spring and Bent Mountain substations. The property encompasses the area now served by Kirk Lane, a private Road, and is currently zoned AR, Agricultural Residential. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The proposed substation would be classified as a major utility and is allowed in the AR district (Section 30-34-2) only after approval of a special use permit by the Board of Supervisors (Section 30-19). The Use and Design Standards for this use are contained in Section 30-83-11. As part of the special use permit process the ordinance requires consideration of the justification for the proposed site versus alternative locations available. Other standards include: 1) a 100 foot setback from any existing residence; 2) providing Type E screening and buffering between this and adjoining uses; and, 31 a prohibition on the outdoor storage of materials and equipment. The requirements for lot sizof mated aks and equipment can be mod f ed, buffering, and prohibition on the storage if requested, through the special use permit process. The proposed project is subject to the Site Plan review and approval process. In addition, an entrance permit from VDOT will be required. ~-" ~ PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Characteristics The 19.881 acre site in question consists of two parcels each containing asingle-family residence and $ KV overhead rpowelr Iineeaslswell asnan roughly east to west direction by a 13 rah varies from gently sloping terrain, underground gas transmission line. The topog p Y particularly in the vicinity of the first residence on Kirk Lane, to moderate to severely The property is extensively wooded with sloping terrain elsewhere on the property. the exception of the areas around each residence, small clearings along Back Creek, and along the existing power tine. Access is presently provided by Kirk Lane, a private road which serves only these two properties. The second residence on Kirk Lane, which is proposed for demolition, was included in the reconnaissance survey of potential Historic Resources conducted in 1991 by the County. The structure was described as an early 20th century vernacular two story frame house with a pedimented ouse as dvi b e from Roupter221 hand wh Ielits common throughout the valley. This h location along Back Creek provides a unique setting, it was not identified as potentially eligible for the State Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic Places. Should this project go forward, further documentation and possible relocation of this structure should be considered prior to outright demolition. Surrounding Area The property adjoins Back Creek and Route 221 to the north. One residence sits between the creek and Route 221, with'SCSUreoudndedlby the Church north side of 221. To the east and south the property of Jesus Christ, single family residences and wooded open space, with wooded open space to the west. In the general vicinity of the property is the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Strauss Construction's new development. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Lavout The proposed project consists of constructing a power substation to serve the surrounding Back Creek area• ated 200sfeet south of Ba bk (Creek and 250 measuring 200 by 280 (1.28 acres) loc feet north of the gas transmission line that traverses the property. This will require substantial cut and fill into the slope, creating a 24 foot cut at the rear of the pad and a 38 foot fill in the front. Given the visibility of the existing residence to be removed, the cut and fill slopes will be visible fro a Roe from2 Cotton H tl RoadK~ (See attached also be reconstructed, including the ent concept plan.) The facilities to be constructed on site include the hardware to transfer electricity File No.: 30-9/94 Petition: Appalachian Power Co. 2 ~~~ from the 138 KV line to the local distribution system along with a 20' by 20' control house. All of the equipment placed on site will comply with 45 foot height limitation except fora 65 foot shield pole whe~h For compag son'p 9rposesc t'h s substathon ordinance standards are or can be m would be similar in size to the substation located off 460 east behind the Tweeds site. At this time, APCO is planning to resell the first residence on Kirk Lane once the substation is constructed, which compliewould beereta of d as a buffeafotlthe sta pone submitted. The balance of the prope y but could be sold at a later date. Site Justification According to APCO, the site selected was one of 14 alternative sites considered for the proposed substation. The proposed site was selected due its central location to the load area to be served, its location along the supply source (the 138 KV line traverses the sitel, and nhthaof Isubilily andhdistribut onhl nepene ded to This location would m~nim~ze the e g PP serve the increasing demand for service in the Back Creek area. Other locations considered would require additional supply and distribution lines, increasing the potential for outages and service disruption. The specific location of the graded pad for the substation is based on meeting required separation from the gas line which traverses the site, maintaining resale value of the first residence on Kirk Lane, and achieving a balanced cut and fill in excavating the pad location. Transportation Issues The proposed substation will have little or no effect on the road system since traffic generation would be limited to only service and maintenance traffic. However, the Route 221 corridor is currently being evaluated by VDOT for major improvements which could entail widening the existing alignment or relocating to a new alignment. Since this evaluation is still in the preliminary phases it is impossible to tell whether the propo he soubtht side of Bacdk Creek would croOSSOthe plans. One alignment proposed o subject property to the sontcould wossib y ha pe pontage and al~cesls fhom Ithe new is selected, the substatio p Route 221 alignment. Floodplain The property in question includes potions along Back Creek that are located within the FEMA designated 100 year flood plain. While the substation site is well above the 1,228 foot base flood elevation, portions of the filling indicated on information submitted will be located in the floodplain. Whether the proposed filling would impact the designated floodway will need to be determined during the site plan review and approval process. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property, according to the 1985 Comprehensive Plan, is located in the File No.: 30-9/94 Petition: Appalachian Power Co. 3 ...~ ~ S Rural Village land use category. In rural village areas institutional uses, such as churches and clubs are encouraged avehPganY Howeverblthe plan does ~Iotld rectly objectives contained in the Comprehens mention electrical utilities or substations within the plan. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The land in question, consisting of twoop erdesubst t onrandbthe~drema ndresidrence on the County to accommodate the prop separate lots. This would allow the mu tl meet al aof the oning Idrequaementsafor Any further subdivision of property frontage and lot size as well as the requirements of the subdivision regulations. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The County is very familiar with the growth and development that has and will continue to occur in the Back Creek area given the public investments made in the last ten years. APCO, likewise, is experiencing the pressure of that growth. With this request they have provided sufficient documentation to justify the proposed location on the basis of its central location in the service area. This location would minimize distribution lines and in turn minimize outages. The one concern staff has with this request is that the substation, particularly the grading proposed to establish a level pad, will be visible from the existing R While w1e alaneed alnderely upon e~eceic ty, la it is relocated along a southern route. substation has the appearance of an industrial activity. If approved, this feature will remain as a dominate characteristic of the landscape and land use pattern for years to come. PREPARED BY: Jon Hartley DATE PREPARED: August 31, 1994 File No.: 30-9/94 Petition: Appalachian Power Co. 4 ~~ O ~-~1 C.,i e~f7{{ I/CP Proposed Zoning:Agricultural/Residential Dist.-Spec.Use Permit Reque uSCTyP use on/y Proposed Land Use: E1 ectri c Substation 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. NO Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X - . IF N0, 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: 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 X Consultation 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan ** X Application fee * y ~ Proffers, if applicable X Application X ~~..~<. Metes and bounds description X Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the~~ccno /ed a an copse of the owner. hh Pldt Appa"~aC~t an dPower ~ompany *See Addendum ~eeds and Survey Owner's Signature~Y~ ~-c~J-a~-~-~ Q' ~~-t~ Right o day upe~rv~sor ** Addendum H r Foi Stall Use On/y: Case Number Applicant Appalachian Power Company 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. See Addendum A Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for RoanokenCoofn~eSedentialhdevelopmentahas beenrandVcontgnues It is realized that a mayor porn o to extend into this area. Appalachian's project will be constructed and operated as a compatible land use while providha9acterssary electric service to the area as it becomes increasingly residential in c 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. See Addendum B See Addendum C for Justification of the Proposed Site. Addendum A ~ ~ Appalachian's request for a special use permit to construct and operate an electric substation is consistent with the purposes of Zoning Ordinance Section 30-3 and Section 30-34-1. Appalachian's project will facilitate providing electric service to any customer within the area including existing or future providers of police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, water, sewer, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities, and any other provider of public requirements. The project will not create congestion in the public streets, but will provide necessary services to any public provider that would facilitate the reduction or prevention of congestion. Appalachian's facility will be constructed in such a manner that will be harmonious with the existing community yet able to provide the necessity of electric service to existing and future customers. As this area of Roanoke County continues to undergo development and become increasingly residential in nature, the proposed project will provide necessary electric service. As demonstrated in the attached concept plan, the substation has been designed by location and grading to have as little impact as possible on surrounding properties. Existing vegetation will be supplemented with additional landscaping to insure conformity with Sec. 30-92. Historic buildings or areas will not be encroached upon or destroyed by the proposed project. The one residence to be removed is an older frame farmhouse but it is not listed or designated as a historic building. No lands will be removed from existing agricultural uses and the wooded complexion of surplus Appalachian property, outside the construction limits, will remain. Neither surface nor ground water resources will be impacted by the proposed project. Addendum B ,S'. 5 The construction of Appalachian's proposed station will require the removal of one dwelling, presently under contract to purchase by Appalachian. A second dwelling already purchased by Appalachian should remain intact and may be sold after site development. The attached concept plan shows the properties as impacted by grading. The project will create a favorable impact on the public, and public service providers, by increasing the ability of Appalachian to continue providing reliable electric service to the area. Grading, placement of facilities, existing vegetation and additional landscaping, if required to conform with Sec. 30-92, will screen adjoining properties and surrounding areas from any visual or noise impact. Addendum C Page 1 of 2 ~. ~» Justification for the Location of the Proposed Site The location of Appalachian's proposed substation is in the center of the area to be served by the station. It is the most desirable of fourteen (14) alternatives considered since it allows Appalachian to optimally improve its position in continuing to provide electric services to the area. Many alternatives were a significant distance from the center of the area to be served. They would require considerable lengths of distribution lines to serve customers, thus increasing the customers vulnerability to outages. Additional considerations are the costs of construction and maintenance of these distribution lines. In addition Appalachian needs a station site located near the supply source of the 138 kV line traversing the area. The proposed site became the most viable alternative when the 12.739 acre tract previously owned by Evelyn Kirk became available through the real estate market. Later Appalachian was able to secure a contract to purchase an adjoining tract of 7.142 acres presently owned by Robert and Mary Giles. These two properties provide an excellent location in the center of the load area. The site is traversed by the existing 138 kV transmission line which will not require the acquisition of additional right of way or the construction of additional transmission lines. Addendum C Page 2 of 2 The size of the purchased or contracted tracts allows Appalachian to ,~_ place the substation out of close proximity to existing residences. Station grading, existing and supplemental vegetative screening will create the optimum site that will not be obtrusive to the surrounding area, yet providing an opportunity for Appalachian to improve its ability to effectively serve the community. Addendum F So• Mop 86.19 '' "`""~ . ~ ~ I•• 100 \\~ eo n~ 8~..._~_.\ Moen C \\ 'n _ ~ ~ S, / 9OO ~ Rt 743 .. ~-~- 69'0 ~~ yn7 Roo ` M o00 t 43 /_ ~ 2 ~ 2•I s.9TAe ~ r ~"'~ 1 '9/) / 1.65Ac l01 ~ y / I.92ACC1 2.9EAc ,p! ~ s 6s lW Ae 'lib3AcIQ 1 ~ \\\SP~'L2\ ~ ~. 24.' L4TAe ~M v S w \. aA a2 ~ P o t~P •°~ \ • \ LOOOtl01 R ~ . ~ + ,y •"' ` \ a v ~ 0.69 Ac ICl _ 4 4.90Aet01 ~ ~ a ' 13 a 4.O4AClCl ~\ / . ~ \ \ \3s~y a ~ 4.,, ,~' ~,, 1.62 ~ ~~ \\ \ ~ ,y,~ ,oN LANE i ~ ~ ~ / ~ . / ,v ~ aT9A~ ~ ~NSM~SS ~%~ ~~ • 3.93 Ac 132.-a '~( /~ t3 ~ I.gAe ~ ~~~t ~ yis• t3eACn~, E . ~c / 'R/ L17IkICi~ o~ ~ ~ spa sni / ~~ 33 ~0n /2~1 f~ ~ IA2Ae h~~ • q,\ tlb,~° N°9 'ipMZ ~ 7.IsAC Ro°~ O ,.. ~, 3 34 2.19Ac "' ~' PROPOSED 2'""~ ''~~ ~ POAGES MILL 5- ' •_`,7O ~,~ . 6 ~ . i j STATION \/ ~ ~z ~6 3cID1 ~B /~~' 16 9oACtC) d ~a i" `~ ~.~'. 'V q 3 •I 33 \ M ''~ - ~~ 25.39Ac . 3 ~ ~~ '' ~ _~ b. a• 3 ~ sl ~ - e 10.66Ac As3A ! ' 7 ~ 0 31 `' ~ 6.2 °"' \ ~ ~ 1.58 Ac 29AC \ ~ e i .~ 1p ° ~ -~ \ 3.45'Ac c s~i¢ ~l A``'SS R n~roi _Rop0 (I ~ \ i s •.~ ~~~ i \ 3.32AC ~ r ~ Rpo3•MO'1 N ts<~ ~ ,~ Ate' '~ L23Ae \ F~' t 13 ~-. r la ,~ .., 36S1k e' `i~tlAe / ShtngQ_ ~dfle 19.2 2 ash ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Ro ~~~ • ~ d 1T9~ ' ~ ~e`~`~e 100Aeo 1 / / ///~~ / ~ o~ Rte. 934 j ~ I i IT ~ ~ i pst ' ~ ~ 22 ; s 21 °AS• ~ L02Ac ' / I fft~ ' 29 L62AC I 1 19 400Ac ! 8.33Ac 1 1.93 Ac • '/ ~ i~ie~iCl 23 It~Ac 1 2.COAc ~~~,~o~ ~\a9e 9\`~ _ / 1 4 ~~ n: N N W !- 0 7 k'Dd'IC! g0 s:s = $ o ff M:• ~ w e88 ^Jt r G • ~ w •• Y}i~~ _ a ~ f. . =•~` i s ~G•; s , f~~ 1, ~ w G~ ~OJ p• O ewtJ .~'< . w E ~~ E< ~ Z: B BC ..rY G$~B M v7 Oj1.^ ~ 1.•S'i i r~. ~3rw 3 ~G ...G: M ...C.. G. ~iurp~p J g .e~ Y = ~1,;~oBg ~ .r o~a~:~ w`~`o~~ Y ^ ^•yr oCir ,w•~~ ~ ~~"~G~ ~=~.~~ 8~:~~~ 9 7 ~^r°•~; Gp1 . ;«n.,,. ~~a~=E~ y r.~G.•i~w ~r' F C~ Y .iS=C~i 6 ~, 1 e i < YL4 :. ;to Z ~ ~~ ~ x o ~ .;.i ~a~ u J #eee/~L ~* 1 ~ ~`0 ~ 1(~ i T ttt iiff •t S Q f ,PS ~ ^~R I .fix y e I .. -. ~ \. t , ~ E ~~ -„ -. 1 1 ~(e 1 ~. 1 a+~• 2~Q~~~'Q Ci' ~d) ~EfRI''1 Q ~S]~ 9~~ \I a g S ~ 3 ~dd ~ m ~i ~ m ~ ~ r1 ~ ~ ~ ~ s a y~ ~ 1 ~ $ `a L Sc ~' [ _ ' ~ Q 4 ~i • •- T g pg ~ Ci' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • a r 1 p j. - ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~~~~r ~ • ~ _ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ a: t ~~ 1 _ ~ '\ ~w I. Wb A~ rk11 '1N •+ r~ •a 'f~ +e ~ ,' Tw.i ff tM ~`,_i,~1 • ).00,6i.CO C - . ~s'ozr ' T fO~R . .m ~ W ¢ 11 ~ ~ O 3 ° 1 ,1 tj v It m Q 1 u o t 3 .- ~, ~ G ~r~ `; 1 Nn } a ~ V 1 s 2 N 2 j r[I f ~ 1L W 1 W W ~ ~Rl ~~ ~ No 00 2,w G +1 1 ~ L W fJ Fs L i p ~, O\ Q ~ p 3 O` O~ rte. J }•.. N O ro VF 'Wie Q •~ Nw 1 s ~ m W ~ ~/ T ~ ~ N tON d .. ~~ ~ ~~ ~S 1 W L O W »; Z = ~ s W ~ J S C \ T`$\ O Q Z K 1~ / / \r~ C ~ ^ / w ~ / i ` 1 a m .i e W / ' ~ 'w Nr r O u ~ ~ ~' /I•I-01iJ T1 / a>v•lo~rfa ' . ~ msa ~ n~ -[-Dli/TE f rv v ltf In - -_ of Ta 8 --r-ro'K r nt 10 ['N '00! 70 fow.'7 /f •1Mr7r ~r0111'011 -- y o -•- f-t•ro/rte C t K M'-fni t e ~/ernw f / R 4=~?--!. /nor N t7•y0'0p• • tt NN . A ^' ~' a~ / + - u -~ y ~~ T n ~ A ~ 1 • ' ~ .( s: O K H ~ pP ' ~'~ OI 6 ~ t'' . a ~ • \ 1 J o u „ ~ i : \ \ ?K' t ~ ~ n >MN ~~ Fw n ~`~ PZ ~ O atl ~'~ i \~'d(\ 3 J . i i .L a \N R ~~3 > s^ .v A`~e~`1.1 ~~"~~~•: M Y.i'i ~•r w^ Owe e o r „ • 2GB~~~$GB° ~~e~ Gw.1r•~ ^ O {~ . ~jMr ~~.o; Yw ~sa s°I ~9 x o ~S Zrr ~sf. i.•~r J 3 G • M 5&@~~6 sx~a w J •~BG`yM ~~J~~earGr^ ~~°~a~~~G~~ ~~~ESS~9~9 e ` j ~ ~T. 11 / ~ - ~ ~ ~~ o ~` j ~} 0 14661 t 157•.SO' Y' L 1 I,'\ 1/ 0 •~x o s, •• O ~` 5 ~0 5 abed g wnpuaPPd w X9'0 w ~a ~~ ~ y x ~ x r .. i ~ z ; : & 8 i(~~ii~~{ o s A ~ i: i I_ v i~ d d s L is?a3 SYjo%~5 2 j ~ yi Ai gi ~ 2 1 ] ~wa 1 I O 1 V ~N O Si ~. ~.i =.~,i,; ~ ~ 'i _~' '~:~~" ~ ~~it J Z , ~ e f'=:~'~3 -o m~ Syr c :aW< i'~tl~~f =iu i+<cn ~ ~'j'ii d a 1 Z ~o Z abed `H wnpuaPPd s-.~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD ATTUESDAOY~SEPTEMBER 2ADM1994T~TION CENTER ON ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION LOCATED ON KIRK LANE OFF COTTON HILL ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 96.01- 3-2 AND 2.1) CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company has filed a petition to construct and operate an electric substation (utility services, major) located on Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road (Tax Map Nos. 96.01-3-2 and 2.1) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 23, 1994; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27, 1994. 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 and operate an electric substation (utility services, major) located on Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road (Tax Map Nos. 96.01-3-2 and 2.1) in the Cave Spring 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 construct said electric substation on 1 s-s Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District subject to the following condition: The disturbed area will be stabilized with grass and natural vegetation--not riprap. 3, That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect assage. All ordinances or parts thirty (30) days after its final p of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. c:\wp51\agenda\zoning\apco.sub 2 ...~ AT A REGULAR MEETING O ETROANORE COUNTYp ADMINISTRATION CENTER ONYX VIRGINIA, HELD AT TH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE 92794-15 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO NORTH VALLEY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY INCLIIDING CLASSROOMS, OFFICE, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LOCATED ON NORTHRIDGE LANE APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTHWEST OF PETERS CREEK ROAD (TAX PARCEL 37.14-1-1) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Trustees of the North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church have filed a petition to allow the construction of a building for religious assembly including classrooms, office, and recreational facilities to be located on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 23, 1994; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27, 1994. 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 allow the construction of a building for religious assembly to be located on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan 1 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 Trustees of the North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church to allow the construction of a building for religious assembly to be located on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road in the Catawba Magisterial District, subject to the following conditions: a) Vehicular access Northridge Lane. will be located activities and of This would allow Lane. to the site will be located on No vehicular access to the site off of Craun Lane for church her activities held at the church. a parsonage only to access Craun On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol on, eputy 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 2 s_e PETITIONER: NORTH VALLEY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CASE NUMBER: Planning Commissios Hearin g Date: September 2719994 Board of Supervisor g A. REQUEST Petition of North Valley Seventh-day Adventist oomsc off e a d recreational aril ties, located a building for religious assembly including classr , on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission inquired about day care facilities: Staff responded that a day care use at the site will require a separate Special Use Perm D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Vehicular access to the site will be located on NorthridgeeS as d other acrivit es held a9 the site will be located off of Craun Lane for church activiti church. This would allow a parsonage only to access Craun Lane. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker said that it is a well planned proposal and the phetioetitionwwithgthe suggested the community. She moved to recommend approval of p condition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Ross, Thomason, Witt, Hooker NAYS: None ABSENT: Robinson F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: -Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map Staff Report -Other Terrance Harrn on, ecr ary Roanoke Co Planni g Commission STAFF REPORT PART I Petition: North Valley 7th Day Adventist Case Number: 31-9/94 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by: Lynn Donihe Date: September 6, 1994 This is a request for a Special Use Permit to construct a facility for religious assembly. The property and surrounding areas are zoned R-1 and R-2. Construction is proposed in a predominantly residential/institutional area and no negative impacts are anticipated. The proposed facility is consistent with the Development designation of the Comprehensive Plan. B. DESCRIPTION This is a request to obtain a Special Use Permit in order to construct a facility for Religious Assembly. The 4.347 acre site is located on the westerly side of Northridge Lane, approximately 700 feet from its intersection with Peters Creek Rd., in the Catawba Magisterial District. The petitioner's request is for a facility of approximately 7000 square feet, including a sanctuary with 200 to 250 seats, fellowship hall/auditorium, classrooms, offices, and support facilities. The facility would be used most intensely on Saturday mornings but would be available as a community center seven days a week. No day care is planned at this time. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Religious assembly requires a Special Use Permit in this district. The use and design standards for religious assembly in the R-1 district require additional landscaping when parking areas and outdoor activity areas adjoin residential uses. A commercial entrance permit will be required by VDOT. Site plan review will be required prior to issuing the building permit in order to ensure compliance with County ordinances. 1 ~~°' PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Location -The site is located in the Peters Creek Community Planning Area and urban services are available. Topoaraohv/Vegetation -The petitioner's site slopes upward along the road frontages and is very gently sloping throughout. The site is undeveloped with a mature stand of hardwood trees in the northeast corner of the property. Surrounding Neighborhood -The surrounding area to the west of Northridge Lane is zoned R-1 and the area to the east is zoned R-2. Commercial zoning fronts Peters Creek Road. Two churches adjoin the site, one directly to the south and one directly to the east, directly across Northridge Ln. Further up Northridge Ln. is Northside High and Junior High. The remainder of the area is developed with single-family residential uses, including North Lakes subdivision to the west. Access -The site has road frontageCraun LnNoatsecondary oadcwithin the North Lakes access to Peters Creek Road, and subdivision. g, ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Lavout -The concept plan indicates two main church buildings (a sanctuary and an auditorium/gym) situated on the Northridge Ln. end of the site. No screening or buffering is required by the zoning ordinance along the boundaries of the site, except where parking areas and outdoor recreational areas adjoin residential uses. Access -The petitioner's concept plan shows one entrance to the site, off of Northridge Ln. VDOT recommends that access to the site be limited to the Northridge Ln. frontage since an access off of Craun Lane could encourage "cut through" traffic in an existing single family subdivision. Traffic Generation - 1986 (latest count) ADT for Northridge Ln. was 1038 vehicles. The June 1993 traffic count for Peters Creek Road between Cove Road and I-581 was 21300 vehicles per day. This segment of Peters Creek Road lies entirely in the City of Roanoke. The city's planning department had no comments on the proposed development. The proposed facility holds worship services on Saturday mornings. The ITE Trip Generation manual estimates an average 31.5 trips per 1000 square feet of gross floor area for the primary worship day. Fora 7000 square feet facility, this suggests 220 trip ends on Saturdays. Existing institutional uses in the area peak on Sundays and weekdays. With the estimated trips generated by the use and the existing traffic counts, there should be minimal impact on Peters Creek Road. On Northridge Ln., the trip generation represents a 20% increase in traffic and will have a significant impact on the six residential properties on the street. 2 Amenities -Petitioner plans to retain the existing stand of mature oaks at the northeast corner of the tract. ~ C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is designated Development in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan and borders on Transition area. The plan states that community activity centers, such as churches and schools, are desirable in this designation. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The concept plan generally conforms with County development standards. Dimensions shown on the plan, parking standards, and screening/buffering standards {where required), as well as erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and drainage, can be worked out through the site plan review process. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The applicant's request to construct a facility for religious assembly is generally consistent with the Development designation in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The site also appears to have ample space to comply with the use and design standards of the zoning ordinance. No negative impacts are anticipated. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS Vehicular access to the site will be located on Northridge Ln. No vehicular access to the site will be located off of Craun Ln. 3 For StaN Use Only Proposed Zoning: R-I Use Type: Proposed Laiatedeclassroomu o lice and recreation lofacilitiesrch building with assoc Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, widthNCEdISrREQUIRED FIRSTnts of the requested district? YES yes NO IF NO, A VARIA ~ NO Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type. YES y_ es _. - IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. NO If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES __ .Variance of Section(s) •. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: (not applicable) 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 Application fee Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan I~cable ``"''` Metes and bounds description `< Proffers, if app Application ~~~?~< ro ert owners ~~ Water and sewer application Adjoining p p Y Justification ~~•~~ l hereby certify chat I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent contract purchaser and am acting with the know Ov~iner's Signature: For staff use on/y ~ .~ , For Staff Use Only: Case Number applicant North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church The Planning Commission will study rezoning and spec'fet s andrgeneral welfare.d Please answer the foldlowing justification for the change in terms of public health, sa y, questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. ~~ _ .~,. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section ;~v-.si as wC~~ a~ ~~~~ purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church is a growing community church formed from the former Salem, Virginia church which has met for several years with the Memorial Ave. congregation. It is the desire of the church to re-Theabuildintsoffthisachurchuwill g facility in a developing area of the north county. allow for the expansion of church servbeewell withinnthegallowable lottcoverageunshogld community. The proposed location will blend in an attractive and harmonious way with the sireservinrcand enhancinr theelarge, g have minimal impact on the neighbouring R-1 uses by po riate additional buffer yard mature stand of oak trees on its NW corner, with app p and landscape plantings. Tease explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the noar,vRC ~~~~~~~ comprehensive Plan. The church's proposed location falls on the fringe °hassbeenlrejectedbbyoseve~al in an area designated for urban development. The property developers who attempted to subdhvdevelo mentsasgevidenced bystwonimmedaatelynadjoining This location is ideal for chur p en s ace will benefit churches. The proposed recreational development of the wooded op p the church and its neighbours. The commtions.sThelstron3commitment ofhtheeSeventhVday activities of the neighbourhood assoc re aredness activities Adventist Church to public health and disaster relief and p p will be available locally. The architect has been asked to design an innovative clustering of classroom and office spaces with-open areaways between the main halls. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, ano the suii~u~~u~~~a area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. ro erties The proposed church facility will have a limited impact on the ahiclelevations offer as the existing mature trees, proposed buffer yards aeaktonoSaturdays, while the school natural isolation. Impact to existing roadways will p and neighbouring churches peak on theresidencess•Noisertontheeadjoiningdhousesfshouldlt but far less demanding than multiple lantin s. minimal, buffered by the contours of the land and existing p g ;ti ;i`i~, Q NS~pE lvo``~ o R~ ~'° Q m~~ ~ ~ I z5~ p W ~M U a- O W V) 2 YO O Q U N n Y ~~ ~ tr NORTH ~"ALLE~C' SEVENTH-DAY AD` ENTIST CHURCH ?- ~ J U N ~- o~ 0 g. 1 Z ,d ~.~ C/) n- co ~ W w~ ~ (n ~. '`~ - i a ~ ~ O 0 ~~ Z to E 9 35. ~~ x ~ o p 51 39 ~~ ~ i N W w ~ 5 m z OC U 00 .~ I I ~I tai N I ~- ~ ~ 1 W ~ ~ J n~c~ ~ 3 (L a ~F ~ ~ ~m°D '~ O a ~~ Z Z N I I I 1 I i ~~ ~ ., ~ I .I .- .. :.' 3 ~ c i t ~r O ..•~ N ~ 'c'. ~~ m r) :~ 3 Z .~ W -1 ~.~ Z M ~ Q ~N ~~ i ~ ~. ~ - ~ ~F ~ ~ ~ ~ E N 67"28 54 . 24725~~'SSg .g I ,n. o I ~ 1 ~~ i Z a ~:~. I ~ ^ ~ ~.: W Z w z I ~ `° r ~ E 13 m ~ ~ti~'~ W O I N ~" In ~ ~~ E:;N f ~ c~~, ~ p in ~` ::tr Ito z p ~ E..~ N N N ~ ~:•: ~ ....... .....:BL 98t ~';:~ .~•~ . ... ~ ~ .10,~~.6L S oz w 4 'o~ ~~ I oa Q .r m I N ~ I ci ~' I I -, ~I W I ~ 'cCi~O '~~ I NN I ~ ~'CY~~ ~~ I w m S F= " ~ ~ m F~ I I ~ a' ,r ,~~ ;, c~ y~ N __ ~ I W I Z ~ I v y ~ :'- m d a I I ~ '' °~ N I l .- I w~ a o Z i ~° I to ~ I 241.38 I N 1 ~ c F7'3d'a2• W ~ ~I ~ N ~- Q N7 ~ ~ ~..1..~ z 9I i7 300.7 8• S 67'2854• W M ty, Q ~ ~ o O ~ N ~ N 1-- ~ =~aa _j Y~a7 UMt~ ~Z~o a- Q z o am 0 W ~' (n W ~ ~~,tpp I t ~~r-t~ n. W "~ ~ L1J Z t0 a.~xm Quo T W N_ ~~ n 7 ~ ~F. _ t~~ ~~ ~ 4 1 ~ ~~~ 4~ I Q~ ~r • ti \ ~~-P~/ • ~ .Isoo I CLUB,/ I ~~~ ~..,... ~ 'q?~ ~ ,r bra \ I ~ ~~~~ G Q~k ~' v a k _ ._. •~ I . ~ R pr ;Mae ~~ W ,_ !.'.. ~~ ~ (f~sE F ~- ~ Cw ,;~" „~tal~ • I ~ OKE y~ 1 ~plewUrfiC+K 4 •• /~ $ ~ • ~ ~ f Y CMHRCK ~.' Goo J 'a0?'~' ~ ~ ~ i 2 1 i t~ ~T ,~o° ~,1,\~"S. .','~~ ,~ • r ~ • I K~NcsroN~ a •• - ' ~ ~ J s . },, +~ ~ ~wuo .w ~ 628 RA~HG~, rti , ~ `~ •~ ~v ~ ~ / ~` ~' t SQS / i N T~a,r~t i p'''S~C~ ~. i ~•• > g G~ ~~ i •R .J NOR rMSfpC '~ iR~'!K A,~ ~'. ~ ~~ j ~ Imo; ,NOpp N 7~ Rxi ~wo.K,.s' \[wr[avaffs •4} ~C. 'z' ` Q~' ` - ~ ~. ~ Q.iwt ,. our Gp~4 ~ i. yts 1\ ~ Q `r! ~~ /, ~ CCrrw utclti ~t t ~.>~.:,. ~~ < ~ ,.; \ L - ~elt,<<ER~Rin f f~ on /' W O +t:: X73' 3 1. , .~ 'r• p.- Cf~iT /V.vr , M -Th(R ~7 w i 9 ~MMIR'OR ~ ~ T .vO MLnc ; , i' fA ~'..~sg•;r;,. •a:.tfs ~S .r[4 `4 ~ ~• ~ wi.RCw ~, ~ y(J~lieV I t~e.o _-._~- ~ /~.(K_A.rS t~... ° ~K O• 'r ~ f1Q` ROl~ww t V. ntV~. -. \~ .. • - ~' ti9 a. ~+ ~~ f - ~`~ J~ ~swaca• ':: j ° s'%~r;.:; 1 8 NOK£~. ~ •.. o NpRrH C.lw~~~f n I •O ,-, ,'. p9 9 ~"-`l ti' X 72 ~ MUMKIPAL NT7 SC w w~htb~[E 7L j°~r1..R ~ O ' ~ •...c~ o '~N~ TMi ~ ~~ z ic..~cr: O ), ~~ wt:+C3! • ~ ~•~~ ~ 61^91 •.rr.ft :~~ s ` ~ • ~ cwu ~ ~ `r a '" r' 'ti r N ,Np ,-~}, s ~ ~'~o~ ,~ ie `'b .p~ Wb~p~1 M F r vE ~ ~ ,~ ,~ 'Ili ~ r:~~' v`*~ 9'~. ~ "~ iRC~ !0, ro~•~ar \ R,: GlONAL f An RT a / \Y '„ rasr rrw ~ \ ~ '. rr• A1EM(~tt .t ~ '"- ~~ t vrv.S:OL 9 arr~ !! ~•'f O ~' .• ~ GcT~ ~-J ~ ~z: xiW4Xit:. r. ° J fj., _Q. I~~~ -=~~"7r+orxl ~,, O,c9u,anu,,,\ gip- ... ' ••M--- ~-~~ 't r r.,"d,c ~; 1 •%[~8.:. r ~ ••o ~ ' :::a"i`c °~ff Ql.1T ~ ~ ... I 3 ~ ~ e V ~~~wIOOQ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'fi'[iw~aw ~CGNnUUDa~ : !n w.w v" ~ \. ~i~^ -•• l ( Cc7vEHg~ 7 ~ 1. ~ r~~wq~ f ~ ~ y••:..•. tfAV $ f r Q O 8 ` ft ~ aczr ~ej- GPs w~ ~ ~°oieroN ~ ..a~.erfe'ax 31 Si ~M T'9ff ~ .. ~-157 ..v ~ wV ~ ~ ~ EO OI KR/p to M ` ~~ ~ ~<..'"i. Op v RG w iw . 6U p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Q" ~ ,• q v ~ t.Rw Y L4 V wyrvtA V a~ ~ ~ ~ ~G• 7 ~` ~ wit5or '~ wovwr•~wvuw• ~ `Y ~ •~~ 14,y U~ c~~ ~ ~ ~ w~ Q g H 'lfR ~ R'~ ~ O KJI A(R(S ~ n•. ~ C ~.la y ~' Y\~„'pr ~'~ ~ 'p ~-~ s • :)ra• ~"."' „ NBfRC+eR «±. ~ P ~Q t v:000^ T! ~~ OM'~H ,.:,,'~' ~ ~( ^7tir3~ec..~~~ r • n40 y 'C `~ M' ~~ S:~o ~1 ~! r0 ¢IRt~caO__- t?'+G..'~OOf~ ~p h. ~...~...s.~• ~. Area Map . .. _ . ,. .. -• - - - _ . --~ NORTH VALLEY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH _. ~r '`- •' _.__.___ . _ 1 { ! i I ~;_._~,-~ ~-- gyt~.~7,1.~t- roue ~- I I i jJ i---i- ~ I- j I ' { i __ ' I I I ..-_-- ---j--~ ~ ~~ i I I 1 ~ I I 1 I I , ! I i I I ~ -~~ .___I, -r-- -. _. I 1 , ~ 1 ~ __ __-- . I i ~ ~ f I T f-._• -------- I i + I { [ I I i I I*,.i .'r' ` { 'Is i I .:i• -- ---_------ _-- i ~ 1 1 ,r- ~1 i I j i 1 j I I I I I ~.., :~ I I ~ I f` --~ , ..~ - •-- .-_._. I I I i i 1 I I I I I i I ~ I `~ .ice I ;' ~ ~ { _ _ --- _- -. - I i I \~~ ` I I `I ~!A`~ ~i `~~-~ -,Lr ICI y i -° -~-_- '_' .-^-_'. _.. ~\11V1 ;~•,T.i~ .tiF~4-1~ .,,'~--~_~I i - t 1 1 i i ! I I •`-1~ ~ - ~ ~.._~' j! I; • ~ ~ '•I l• I ~ - I "rte _ _: -- - _.- , .1 4 !. ' V _. , I i { I i {e. 1 I , ~ i.i. ~~.~. .. _..~ I I i f l I - - '~~~'~--- --~- h -- ~-- - ~ 11 :. __ ~ I i ,. _ _.. . --_ _ ~ ~ i __ _._ - \ j I ~ \ I I I I ., i 1 , ' ~ _ ~ ~___ -' -- , J ~ I i T ~ I _- -- - - - 1 , I \ .- I ` i i -.` I _..._~ ._ - _~_i_ . _ ! ~ ~ ; • -r- - --- , -' i 1 I I - I i l ~ 1 ~ ~, ~ .ter;---{ -r--r i I I I ~ i I i --- ---=- ~ I i - --•- ~- l i ii i i I i f f I f y_T~-`_~.~ I -=- ~ I- ~ _- '_ .- I~ I l i i I' I f I j l ~ I 1 -. -. . I i t I I I I I I ` I ~ li jj !ill I II i~ ROApO1CE COUNTY DTILZTY DEPART2~NT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PP.OPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date Ju1v 22 199 l' t North Valley SDA Church Phone s-b 562-0406 890-5579 Name of App scan Address of Applicant c/o Aubrey Kelley, 8325 Brubaker Dr., Roanoke VA 240]9 Name of Developer Phone Address of Developer Phone Name of Design Engineer Address of Design Engineer Nave of Contact Person Aubrey Kelley Name of Proposed Development North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) Religious Assembly; I unit Sactuary, fellowship hall auditorium, classrooms, offices and support facilities. Location of proposed development (FURNISH COPY OF 1~P P~'D PL-DvI`~'1?TC NZ~~=P; west blockfront, Northridge Lane, 700 ft. NW of Peters Creek Road in Roanoke County, VA. Size of proposed development in acres: 4.347 Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connectio214w5u1d beet°MSLed. Minimum 1190 feet MSL. Maximum Zs this application for a development that will be a part or p ~_ No Yes section of a larger future develo went? If yes, provide map of entire area if available. (OVER) Signature of Applicant ~', 1994 ~voT TcaxT INFOP;2i~T.I4~ DATE: July 22, - (please Type) ~'~ ADDRESS: Aubrey Kelley A.pPLI CANT • North Valley S D A C hurcti • 8325 Brubaker Dr, Roanoke VA 2-0;: PHONE: 562-0406 x,90-5579 0~.11,1ER; ELCA Loan Fund ADDRESS: PHONE: ENGINEER: AGENT: PHONE: ARCHITECT: AGENT: PHONE: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: SITE INFORKATI02I DEVELOPMENT NAIL: LOCATION (FURNISH COPY OF IdAP) : TAX MAP NUKBER ; 3 7.14 1 1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Catawba R-1 TOTAL UNITS: 1 TOTAL LOTS: 1 ACREAGE ; 4.34 7 ZONED : ~_ BUILDING AREA f. BUILDING NAME: _ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: g_O.C.A. USE DESCRIPTION x x SEPTIC: Tom of vlxTON SEWER FACILITIES: CO~'I'Y~ ._._---- 2~AY.• 1214.5 fc SEWER SERVICE ELEVATION (Use USGS Elevations) ;W.IN: 1190 ft. TOWN OF VINTON WATER FACILITIES: COUNTY: xx WELL• 1190 f=. ?SAX: 121=•5 WATER SERVICE ELEVATION (Use USGS Elevations) ?SIN: IS BUILDING TO BE SPRINKLED? FLAW REQUIRED' DESCRIPTION OF WORK (Include any Specific Questions) G.P. ~ ~,~.~~ . SIGNA OF APPLICANT FORTH VALLEY SEti'E~TH.-DA~~ All`'~'~1.1S~I\~:HI.~KC; ,\~•,,\`1 ,~.;~ z ~ ~II \ \~r .L~\ NORTHSIDE MiGH ` ~• ~~11 ~ ~ HLlOL 37 AC. \~ , ~l\ •, ~ \\ J I` ~ ~`"~ / `' \ :moo '~. \~ •~ Cl\_ ~ ~ Tc 12 ~ o ~ ~`~ ~ ~,~V e ~~ i y ---- - --L- - . - ~ - - - _ - ,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ o \ sp . ^ ~ ~ cam;, c743 ~ \C~ .~ • ~~ `_ ~~~ _ ~ _ 4 ~ T \ ~ ~'~ e \` / i 3 `Zi 1 ~~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ "d 0 ~ ~~ .:~ -ci-2,o / 1 ~ d' . ' OUTH vIE SCHOOL ' ~ ~ ~ '~ 10.53 AC. e =- .. ~ y .o . r 1 'I' • ` ~ ~~O •:800' ~ \ • _ ~\ \ ~ - ~ ~'7tT-22~/ ~l ~ I ~. Cati 6:tj6 O ,a y .. DSO _ ~ _kL ' ~~- 9s 0 ` - ~ ~ ~- 1. ~cT r - • 3 ~ ,~ rl r. .Oi .ff ' ~~ 3~ -1`0 \ " \\ .._.r_ / - .T ~77 7- ~ . ' ' POti ~ `2 •~ X10 `'•' •0 9 -; / r •I ~^~ n~•ro• 1 O \ ~` ~~ , sM ury o CC7 • / / / T. .~ \ t• _ f'~ . 1. i ~ .~ _~ I•i~ /' 11~~ ~ `c / ~ 5• A / q 6 K ~1~ ~ } ~ • ~~~ A p,V1K C>R K / Zf~!-' CFA .. ... !I,% 5 _ _ Z+ ` g ~ •, ME11p~V~~4K~ _FL`~~Q o Hoa~ uk ~~~'~~ , n ~ THR/fTY ` :•,.<" 1 1 W CUOy1T/ONAL T }1TP P ? ~~ ~ 'P OUTHViCM /NN , <:;; '• Covn+TY, l_.~+1~K~ b ..... ~~ "053~."~~ ~.~ E lT2 Z~1 D0. ~f t/1 ~ MORQ~q n ~r ~ ~ S fYi ~. ~~`~ n , "117 " 5 .^ ^ ~ / ~~' Syr! Sll(~; /'iNG_ O "~~' ~~~.''' ~ -.~ 'Pr. VICINITY MAP ~ .~. .~ NORTH _._ _ „_~_: } men„ear s-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO NORTH VALLEY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY INCLUDING CLASSROOMS, OFFICE, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LOCATED ON NORTHRIDGE LANE APPROX- IMATELY 700 FEET NORTHWEST OF PETERS CREEK ROAD (TAX PARCEL 37.14-1-1) CATAWBA MAGISTERI- AL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Trustees of the North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church have filed a petition to allow the construction of a building for religious assembly including classrooms, office, and recreational facilities to be located on Northridge Lane approxi- mately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 23, 1994; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27, 1994. 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 allow the construction of a building for religious assembly to be located on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan 1 S-b 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 Trustees of the North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church to allow the construction of a building for religious assembly to be located on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road in the Catawba Magisterial District, subject to the following conditions: a) Vehicular access Northridge Lane. will be located o ities and other This would allow Lane. to the site will be located on No vehicular access to the site ff of Craun Lane for church activ- activities held at the church. a parsonage only to access Craun c:\wp51\agenda\zoning\seventh.day 2 illllllllllllllllilllllilllllllllllllllillllllllllllllll IIIlillllilllilllllllllllllllilllllllillllllllllllllilll X111111111111111111 __ ~ _, - AGENDA ITEM NO. "` -_ - CE REQUES -_ E App CITIZENS COMMENTS c ORDINANCE - HEARING '' ~ - r ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC ~ ~ " , ~ ~ ~ ,~ SUBJECT: =_ nize me during the e Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recog _ I would like th comment. DRESS meeting on the above matter so that I may E AND AD LED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIV THE G DELINES LISTED WHEN CAL I AGREE TO ABIDE BY FOR THE RECORD. =_ BELOW: i 'ven between three to five minutes to comment _ ^ Each sp n Individual or representative. The Chairman wi eaker will be gI. s s eakin on an issue, whether speaking as a _. decide the time limit based on the number of citizen _ _ mess instructed by the majority o the Board to and will enforce the rule u do otherwise. "' resentation of their point of view only. ^ S eaker will be limited to a p the Chairman. Questions of clarification may be entertained by ted to the Board. Debate between a recognized ^ All comments ud°ence members is not allowed. ~_ speaker and a keys and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Both spea =_ ed to leave any written statements andlor comments ^ wPth thesclerkrequest _ ORGANIZED GROUP ... F OF AN ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKI E CLERK A~ O~ZATION FROM THE GROUP SHALL FILE WITH TH LOyyING THE INDIVIDUAL TO ~pRESENT THE "' AL TO THE CLERK _ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE r ~_ ~_ ~_ ~-- % ~, NAME ._ .- ADDRESS _ 'p PHONE ~~ ~"~`'' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllll mlllllilllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllll I II I IIIIIIIililll ~./ _. ~ ~ a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF T8E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD ATTUESDAY,~SEPTEMBERY27D,M1994T~TION CENTER ON ORDINANCE 92794-16 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO TACOMA, INC. TO ALLOW T8E CONSTRUC- TION OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT LOCATED AT T8E INTERSECTION OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND WE5TM16, ELAND DRIVE (TAX PARCELS 77.13-4-14, , 17), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Tacoma, Inc. has filed a petition to allow the construction of a fast food restaurant located at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 26, 1994; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27, 1994. 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 allow the construction of a fast food restaurant located at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive in the Cave Spring 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 Tacoma, Inc. to allow the construction of a fast food restaurant located at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland 1 Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, with the following conditions: 1) Access to the property shall be limited to single point of ingress and egress from Westmoreland Drive of a width no greater than 30 feet. Direct access from Brambleton Avenue shall be prohibited. 2) Approval of the special use permit shall be condi- tioned upon the acquisition of the additional property from VDOT shown on the concept plan submitted and dated 7/19/94. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Holton, 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 2 • ~• i~~~i?^`•~p1'. ,. (,z"b .y i':'?~~ 7711(v. ~ Pe=1 f a, \ --- 2~O/Y' (('p~ o= (~,o, ~•o•%_;~.' y`w~q~, ~ ~ CREST L ( ~ y ~ 71 p°` TOSr W+~"f1°NrS c ~4 oS;b7Pt51?P ~•!+~• S ,. 1`, !'~ ry .l. ~e: ~?$/ ~' fd 7- _ ,o F~~'Aj`d•a 419 ~~f Sl :ij `~d .vc..yVd.-1•.c L ~+ •~~a.1.r/ 3•rf ya~°~' j ~ vF9~I v\ ~ .. _~ ~. SM ..~. it c. ~7t ~r=L~:'~, ~, S ~1 Rg~,y~~„¢76~111~~~""'77f a f • ' a' troar..e[ t ` ; ~ n ~ S a- . ~ts,'QS, / ~ ` vl~f7 / c _.,. ~f ~oy ,0•\4rc} \ ~ I co aw [ as , y •' c....'/ r•~`~TS ~,LS.~ /~• 'y ve`~'i ;,,:~' •.. ,.: l • RO ~~,f• i j` Y ~ ~ •' • ~,'r„a,,,, ~~ rARlf.yyr Ty '•. 419 ~ ;gi . ` _~`.. ("\~^~Co~ ~J ~. +' d•. , ~~ w •~... ~ . as y~$/~. ~~rpw °~ •~4~ ](u / ,+.v. _;'~ ~~~ ~, x /: .(~.L5~1..;L\~~a ,q.El~ ;`~, cpsrt£QOCx~FMS~u~aA~l,~ r~ brx~ j CN ,~, `~iy'!! '.°+'r ~`~ ,,.~:' <~v~~ ~ ~~~ ~~, y f~+([+e •. •':J ' ~•~GA[(N~ a~•'~,• NGTOMi 4- ~.1 5~~. ,~~ ° ' {{~~11-~~ ar'`~'} ~iw_y:~ I l-`t- ~,.a~ • .a• ri ter, ~' ~~7c't* a`Cf~4r ~•• `NORI~FI.1MCaiC3•~(IYt S'fi.1eu~~~4? ~~+.•/ J~v. ~~~~ ~y ~~ ,t•*cf (~~~+,~~~PO1 ~• HGT~. a ..I '~ ~ 1 M~R•I~O~~.CVF~' iJ•\ :~. C ~1~0`. .,~^-~/ c,'~aW' : IVYMR!.+yjf~c4•J j ~,;'~` ~ n`v. • r ~ ~..YONw / ~ • ~~~'e• [ .~yyry~,`-~11 ~~:.aD~ tllia n, a`,E?ON MILL E Sl~~~ ~t~~/~ /~ ~,'F .~.•ly ( ~ 11~{rT.W~^ 1 woaarl `~ .A • , H •.•~,T~~. ~a H~i~ :°p ~~_ ~ y I C I N I T Y MAP •``x.•°U ,~,w;,(~'•,,.: ,~ _ ~,,,~ ti ~ ~ ~~ . . D NORTH 5-7 Jg?/ ` 3743 / / \ !~ 16l_nl ~ ~J6/ Jai1 S2 lV' 8 K~ • I . w~e• 373t OOF11 r 91 Ae ~ / 2 .88 Ac ~~ s 6> SI / A C B S 'L 3 '!b Cana' /dnmaASnra (IJ ~~ Jau w • ' °m ~ ~`~ oR.CBS O 3.ttAe 1 >ro„ JpJy 3~Oa / ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.•~ z 33 ~ sao ~~~ 11 a•. " II_12/ Ja.J 6 8 \ •cs.s S - T ~ ~ ~ aca JlOI 2 N > / 12 is T ~ Y03 _VOl _ W ~ - • 6 ,' ~M 1t r .,aai ~Q ^ ~ ~ e,rtr ~ • ~ S p Jzzi ~ ~ ` I _ • •~ / as>'I9 o ~~ II 9 rr r ~ is ~ 1 / rs.uA~ ~m / `~ ~} Wr roe M+ ~ J ,w -. ~ S 6p 59 ° ~ 57 S6 51 ( ~ 'a a y NaLS ( >• ~ 4> ~ 61 re •A;1 la '~' ~ 3311= 19/ ~ ~ Stu a+ 6p p r y ~ ~, Ie O a j~ 6s W I ~ 3+a '"3'oe• ZI ~~~ eu~~e '°, / a Z ~~ 112 yrsi ~ Ib 31@/ ~ ~ a / R~ ~s0 1O ~ . .i a. • \ ~ J , r J100 2 ~~ 46 ~ ' ` ~' ° • i 9p4 ' '° ~ ~ 310 b 25 ~ ~f/i~ a _ ~ ara . 5 s 6 ~ `'~e _ _ ~ 3srt ~ 3i >zsa • / 4 ~. ~ 27 4000 • ha r,rs `iTO~i~ J Sa ~ ,42 '> ~ 4 > ~~ 29 ; b 33K r + 400 ~ ~ 39(6 ~ J • ~ ~ > • ~E 3l00 a . as r ~ ~. 27 134! ~~ s> t ~ / s p J9 b ~ •23 ylll ~ t~U( +m9'pt. 35 ~ N 1 ~ xlol {1 12 4o I Aclcl " / 2i 3.(s/ a .. LSO d< a~a m r 20/ ~ ~ ~ II ~ 3T •b M / 18 J. llSac K) a 4047 _. 3lK2 • O iL w >]M ~ m lee _ w' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIATG Petitioner. Tacoma, Inc. Z ~" AND ZONING Tax Map #: 77.13-4-14, -15, -16, -17 Request: Special Use Permit for Fast Food Restaurant •.,( S-7 PETITIONER: TACOMA, INC. CASE NUMBER: 23-8/94 Planning Commission Hearing Da to : September 2719994 Board of Supervisors Heanng D p A. REQUEST f Tacoma, Inc. for a Special Use Permit to construct ri ae t Cave Spring Magisterial Perition o at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmorelan D , District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION ked if the Special Use Permit is for this particular activity. Staff responded that Don Witt as roe from VDOT, petitioner would have to is correct and that without acqu~in o not ~ k ~ work. figure out how to squeeze everyt g D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS roe shall be limited to a single point of ingress and egress om 1) Access to the p P ~' eater than 30 feet. Direct access from Brambleton Westmoreland Drive of a width no gr Avenue shall be prohibited. on the acquisition of the 2) Approval of the special use pe~lton the conceptlpla esubmitted and dated 7/19/94. additional property from VDOT shown E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) ved to recommend approval of the request with conditions. The motion carne Mr. Witt mo with the following roll call vote: AYES; Ross, Thomason, Witt, Hooker NAYS: None ABSENT: Robinson F, DISSENTING PERSPECI'1~ None. _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map G. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report _ Other ~. ~~ Terrance Ha 'ngton, S retary Roanoke C my Pla 'ng Commission Coun o Roanoke ~~ ~' .f Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum To: Planning Commission FROM: Jon Hartley DATE: August 31, 1994 RE: Request of Tacoma Inc. for a Special Use Permit to construct a Taco Bell fast food restaurant at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive. At your public hearing on August 2 the above item was considered and continued at the request of staff to allow staff time to review the revised concept plan submitted by Tacoma Inc. the night of the meeting. The concern of staff at that time was ability of the revised plan to meet in general terms the zoning requirements for the proposed use given the size and topographic constraints of the property. Attached is a copy of the revised plan submitted by Tacoma Inc. This plan modifies the basic layout by shifting the building to the center of the site, reducing the entrance size from 50 to 30 feet, proposing one way circulation through the majority of the site, increasing stacking spaces for the drive through window, and using angled parking. Based on these modifications, it appears that the proposed layout can comply with the zoning ordinance requirements with only minor adjustments during the site plan approval process. In considering this request, should the Planning Commission be inclined to recommend approval of the requested special use permit, staff requests that the following conditions be attached: 1) Access to the property shall be limited to a single point of ingress and egress from Westmoreland Drive of a width no greater than 30 feet. Direct access from Brambleton Ave. shall be prohibited. 2) Approval of this special use permit shall be conditioned upon the acquisition of the additional property from VDOT shown on the concept plan submitted and dated 7/19/94. Very ~' GF't...' ON`WN Z' ~;wr ~~ y n. n, ~°•~~ ~~ 2 *J ~~ ~, ; '2 J Z W. >. Q N N~ ,v ~W~ ,e. Z:~~, 0~ ; ~.h~ W e i I I I I I~ G ~. ~:• o, , I ~'. I ;~ I~W ~~~ ~7~ep n ~~mo~ `~o o ~~2 r ~! h ~~ ~e~ ~~ Oly 2 ~`~I 4~y~~Z .. ~(,i~I~I~ty e; / ,yepll l`''c}}w~~~~0~~~ 6 tt~ 6 / I \'Q`ryYI~~O` `~O ~/ Ver~io~ C. 2' 3 .", ~~.j' 2fa 2 ~' ~ F°I~e _ ~~'~M` V2 . 6.` "-~y~i--- 3::oo:r~.~s s -- /~~;/ °~ Z ~r,> > T ; `1.:- __ ~ i _- _,... M ~..-~ ~ ~: o'. .. -.~ - ; ~~ •I _ ~ .I~-~ ~ 1`I f ~~ ;i. J '. i ' '~.~ ~- _ :~ 'i %~ ~ :\ ~ ,',,C ,\ 1 ~ ~. 0 1, \ N ~--' ~ _- 1 - ' / .. M o .// .~9 N _~~ ~'~ sr~5~~i~n ~---o~ 3~rba y7 J=:t ~r-7 STAFF REPORT PART I Petition: Tacoma, Inc. File No.: 23-8/94 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tacoma Inc. is requesting a special use permit to construct a Taco Bell fast food restaurant at the intersection of Brambleton Ave. and Westmoreland Drive. The major issue is whether this is an appropriate use of this property given the added congestion likely to be created along this segment of Brambleton Ave. B. DESCRIPTION The applicant, Tacoma, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct a fast food restaurant (Taco Bell) on property located on the northeast corne nofCenterbl The Ave and Westmoreland Drive across from Cave Spring Corners Shopp g property currently consists of four lots, occupied by three houses, with a combined acreage of approximately .66 acres. This request is located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The property in question is currently zoned C-2, General Commercial, which allows a wide variety of office and retail commercial uses. Uses which are viewed as potentially problematic in terms of their specific location, such as fast food restaurants and convenience stores, require a special use permit from the Board of Supervisors. The criteria for approval of a special use permit include conformance with the comprehensive plan, and having a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood, including traffic congestion, drainage, noise, light, etc. In addition to the special use permit, specific requirements exist for the drive through window, along with the standard parking and screening and buffering requirements. Compliance with these and all other County standards will be verified during the Site Plan review and approval process. A commercial entrance permit from VDOT is also required. On July 20, 1994 the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals considered and approved a variance to allow the parking lot and dumpster location to encroach into the required buffer yard. Included were conditions which limit the variance to only the proposed project, require acquisition of the frontage from VDOT as shown on the concept plan, and require more extensive screening and landscaping in the buffer yard. :~,. ~ , ~~ ` r .,_:~ PART I I A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Characteristics The properties in question sit above Brambleton Avenue and contain three single family residences with various accessory buildings. A major retaining wall, currently owned by VDOT, is located along the frontage which was constructed when Brambleton was widened to five lanes. Two of the houses have driveways which penetrates this retaining wall. The property continues to rise to the rear property line. Surrounding Area The surrounding area is dominated by commercial uses, with Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center to the west, and substantial strip commercial development to the north and south along Brambleton. Immediately north of the site is Perdue Cabinets, while to the south is Pizza Hut (Delivery & Pickup only) and Advance Auto. To the east of the property uses are exclusively single family residential. Traffic/Circulation In 1992 there were 20,000 average daily trips (ADT) on Brambleton Ave. in the segment between Route 419 and the City line. The most recent data for Westmoreland Rd. is from 1986 when there were 387 ADT. This figure predates the traffic generated by the Pizza Hut on the south side of Westmoreland Rd. The existing residences on the property would typically generate a total of 30 ADT. Since 1990 there has been one reported accident at the intersection of Brambleton Ave. and Westmoreland Drive. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Characteristics The proposed development, a Taco Bell fast food restaurant, would consist of a building with approximately 1632 square feet, with adrive-through window and associated parking on a .66 acre tract. This site incorporates a strip of land that must be acquired from VDOT. The drive through window would be located adjacent to Brambleton Ave. Parking would be located along the Westmoreland and rear portion of the property. A buffer yard is provided on the eastern portion adjacent to the single family residence. While no information on the architectural style of the buildings proposed have been submitted, Taco Bell normally constructs buildings using a southwest pueblo theme. The proposed site is constrained by the terrain of the property in relationship to the surrounding properties and roads. The building pad would sit approximately 8 feet above the grade of Brambleton Avenue, with an additional 12 foot rise to the northeast corner behind the dumpster pad. While the original concept plan showed more than the minimum number of parking spaces (33 provided versus 28 requiredl, Petition: Tacoma, Inc. 2 File No.: 23-8/94 a revised plan dated 7/19/94 submitted to the BZA eliminate the extra spaces. In addition, the ordinance requires 6 stacking spaces located so as not to conflict with parking spaces, measured from the order (menu) board. Also if 25 or more parking spaces are provided, 5% of the interior area must be landscaped. Finally, the 7/19 plan shows a 1'/Z to 1 slope within the buffer yard while the maximum slope allowed is 2 to 1. None of these requirements are met by the concept plan submitted and will require some degree of redesign prior to approval of the site plan. Access and Traffic Generation The proposed Taco Bell would access only from Westmoreland Drive, with all present driveways from Brambleton permanently closed. The entrance shown on the concept plan would be 50 feet in width, although VDOT has indicated in their comments that a 30 foot entrance would be safer and adequately serve the proposed use. While Westmoreland is predominantly a residential street, it does serve as partial access to the commercial businesses south of this site (Pizza Hut and Advance Auto). According to Trio Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a fast food restaurant, with adrive-through window, of the size proposed would generate on average 1032 trips per day (with minimum and maximum generation rates of 462 and 2,219 ADT respectively). Given the last traffic count on Westmoreland Dr. in 1986 (387 ADT), this represents a substantial increase in traffic at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland. While right turning traffic to and from Westmoreland should pose few problems, left turning traffic will intensify the conflicting turning movements already occurring in the center turning lane along this section of Brambleton Ave. For this reason use of this property for a high traffic generating business, such as a fast food restaurant, may not be the best use of this property from a public safety perspective. Public Services The site in question is presently served by public sewer and water and is in close proximity to Fire and Rescue services. Drainage The property in question will feed into a tributary of Mud Lick Creek. This particular tributary has a history of storm water and flooding problems due to undersized storm sewers under Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center. Storm water management on the site should be expected. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN According to the 1985 Comprehensive Plan, the site in question is located in the Core land use category. The proposed use is consistent with the Plan Policies and map. Petition: Tacoma, Inc. 3 File No.: 23-8/94 5-'1 PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS Special use permits are required for certain high intensity commercial uses such as fast food restaurants so that the Commission can evaluate the land use and transportation impacts of the use. Typically, the main impacts of fast food restaurants are the high volume of traffic and turning movements generated by the use. Brambleton Avenue is particularly susceptible to these types of impacts due to its high traffic volume, multiple unplanned curb cuts, and a flush median that allows unrestricted turning movements. The intersection of Brambleton and Garst Mill typifies the traffic flow and safety problems that are the result of these road design characteristics coupled with multiple fast food and convenience store uses. The development of any commercial use on this property will add traffic and turning movements to this portion of Brambleton, with the resultant impact on Brambleton's level of service. Given the size of this site and its topographic characteristics, most of the by-right uses permitted in the C-2 district would either be infeasible or would generate less traffic than a fast food restaurant. However, through a site design that limits access to the side street, the developers of this proposal have attempted to mitigate the traffic impacts on Brambleton Avenue. The staff believes that the site design proposed, if developed in accord with our zoning regulations, is pr~.ferable to any design that would access to Brambleton Avenue. Suggested Conditions: The following conditions are recommended in the event that approval of this request is contemplated: 11 Access to the property shall be limited to a single point of ingress and egress from Westmoreland Drive of a width no greater than 30 feet. Direct access from Brambleton Ave. shall be prohibited. 2) Approval of this special use permit shall be conditioned upon the acquisition of the additional property shown on the concept plan submitted and dated 7/19/94 from VDOT. PREPARED BY: Jon Hartley DATE PREPARED: July 26, 1994 Petition: Tacoma, Inc. 4 File No.: 23-8/94 .S-`7 COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. SW P.O. Box 29800 ; Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (7031772-2030 Fem. eraff use on/v dada eceiv ~y (6r Gf received b ~,J ~l-`// application fee: Y PC/BZA date: ~acat s ~ued:~~~ BOS date: Case Number: ~ r ~ /~ Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ^ REZONING ®SPECIAL USE & ®VARIANCE Applicant's name: Phone: 703/666-9417 Address: Tacoma, Inc., 209 E. Main Street, Martinsville, VA 24112 Zip Code: Owner's name: Phone: Address: Zip Code: Richard H. & H.W. Perdue _ Location of property: Tax Map Number:7713~,414 77,13-4i5, 77.13-4~6, & , Intersection of Brambleton Avenue & VA k Magisterial District: Cave Spring e, Westmoreland Drive, Roano Community Planning Area: V Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: Commercial - C2 1p1~.f .66 acres Existing Land Use: Retail/Commercial sq.ft. Proposed Zoning: C2 for StaN Use On/y Proposed Land Use: Fast food restaurant 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 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 NO Variance of Section(s) 30.92-4 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Allow dumpster enclosure & paving in 25' buffer area. Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. tvs v ws v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan Application fee Application 'r:..< Metes and bounds description t.~. Proffers, if applicable Justification ~; Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the proper or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with th ow e g n~e»{ gf~h~'1stwn~i ~~ Owner's Signature: For Staff Use On/y: Case Number Applicant TACOMA, INC . S-'7 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. This request does not seek to change in any fashion the basic zoning of these parcels. Rather, it is a request to allow a special use of this tract for a fast food restaurant. This development is consistent with the stated purposes in the transition and core areas Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan for Roanoke County calls for development of core areas contiguous to major arterials in a fashion similar to our plan. This is evidenced in the fact recent developments of Rally's and Burger King in the immediate area were approved by Roanoke County. 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. This development will allow the assemblage of these parcels into one tract with major improvements in both traffic flow as well as screening and buffering. While there is no adverse impact on County utilities, the proposed plan does eliminate two (2) driveway entrances onto Brambleton Avenue. The site is to be graded and appropriate screening and buffering installed at required intervals. This will, no doubt, improve the situation existing at the current C-2 location. OSTERHOl1DT CHARLES M. OSTERHOUDT MSC MAEL 5. FERGUSON EDWARD A. NATT MICHAEL J. AHERON G. STEVEN AGEE MARK O. KIDD ELLEN KUO L,1W OFFICES FERGl1SON. NATT APR OfES510 NAL CORPORATION 1919 ELECTRIC ROAD. S. W. P. O. BOX 200G8 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018 June 24, 1994 Terry Harrington, Director of Planning County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 RE: Tacoma, Inc. Dear Terry: ~~ AHERON £~ AGEE TELEPHONE 703.77a-~ i97 FAX NO. 703.77a•096i Enclosed please find identical applications for a special use permit and a variance which I am filing on behalf of Tacoma, Inc. I am also enclosing Tacoma, Inc.'s check in the amount of $230.00 which represents the filing fee for both of said requests. It is my understanding that the Board of Zoning Appeals will meet on July 20, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. and, if a variance is requested, the Planning Commission would consider the requests for special exception on August 2, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. Should you need anything further, please advise. With best personal regards, I am, Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON & AGEE, P.C. ~~ ~OL4 Edward A. Natt EAN/sse Enclosures pc: Steve Mullens (w/enc.) HCMF Real Estate & Housing Management Corp Colonnade 1 2840 Electric Road, Suite 106 Roanoke, VA 24018 M ' ar _ wl I(, w~TNV r .,.,.._.y~~ i;, 1 ..1~'f 7~~'!~`'Z~S:~N L~ ~ 1 "~~+~/ '"~ ft.. ~ Aa J ° \ °'(~ \ _ ~p?O7/~:~((_f t ~~ CAEST l ~,,~ F~ `J ry r `_ ~~ 8 8 ar-?'~~~~~oP~ $ +a.~.~ h ~. ~`~T\` o~~ sT~ o eicN s 3 ,4,f,~~- ~4 o5~b'aRC.a.4F I ? o. yx +,'~qd~ \ v~.S~ • 4(•,0,~(~+,' ~' ~~ .vc~:M1 ` rnr ? o F~+~ `a•`419 16)7 ~ ~ cl' 1 L 0~:. ~a,: r/ rr Yf'r' } G~. vE9~.T Y ~ 4 ~`' ~. •y. ~ ~~~ ~4 Sh~ ~..r~ 1 i~ C. _~r ~f,L;OJ+~.~ C ~$ ~i0i~~7~ y ,.~'~(y~F_ T ~ \~ .~. 4,'' t+'" : `N I ~° ww° o++:it w ~' ,',; ~PT~ \ ~~~~z ~G~ti~ ~ n3r~ / ~~ ~~i/ r ,t. ~S o ~: \'tr r,~A•. D Ortrrrw~ on ey ~ r ..e MT':E H3 ~$ a~ b -:':. '.': b i-~o....~~ o r~~~yc. •'.419 ~ig~ :. \ t~ir+7 `p~~`~~,y ~, ,:., g~w ii. •~.t ``. any A"+r ~e ~y4°Pi~e~,~ uyu-~..-~t,.A~ °n ~ ~YS~y~+t~-x:09 J '•.0.q r'~ j~ ~ ~ si Qv"." F.1F7~~ NG [s7:1 Lr~ 6621 ~~~ `~.t ~ T }`t' ^' %• `~ ~ ~ ~r o.'' r~lf t f A$T[.E'ROCX FMgu~GZ~~ V~~SR K•cw. ~o~^41 < ~{i61t1,..~.~hK' ~r~'<' \ f,7?~ o~ ~ y rP 'oo"• ~•I '- ~~GRC[N~~}.~Npw~l ( NGTOM/ ~ '` J!~. hG +l ~ C R Of `/ • ~ C `; T-' "1111~ YaYi• 1,,,,,, ~~ + °+s..c~^'°y'D 1`~ ~~~pyi.o~, w ~+.'~ J ~' ~iR~°rfk~'aCa~'/t/•r ~ ~ r•'•. '7d0'TTI~G H~M ~•n~ceviJ~uld~ R sJ'~.+. `/ .r':.\. ~ 9' ~"r ~ pt-rq~ dr'e.YS+~c?i ~ HGTS. a ~I ~ ~ y~ F~O ~",GV~ v ~{~ ~b ~'~. ~ 10. ter, ~"~ ~•, .r`~ r~ ~~V~r ~t c~.+ ~~trr6s `'fctON HIL\ .oww E 519~%`r '~f ;r/~ /~ " 'F ,.~.:~y ~ 110TF~ ~4A. ~ ~' •'~ ~ "'~~ ~ VICINITY MAP ~. • ~ • ~ ~' 1 JyJ/ ~6r_7S1 ft~-761 . 8 6.91 Ae B. 88 Ac t , /,_,:, 3501 W a Z 1 0 z a 0 z 1\ 12 ~ 1.10 aC a~ ` ~- 3743 / / ~ ,tsi1 ~ S2 / C . 3 kR • ~ P'~o. ~ )73) ~R ~' / 2 fi •~I / AC. B. S Z 3 'ib Canry /rdn,:vttrvnrir C Jf,~ w ~ °~ •C'c +o R.CBS 2.40ae IC r s* 4~'fi -° O 3.78 ac lC ~~x 9.1 s s /~\ RC6S~~~i ~ Jn„ _ ~~ ~ = y / 12 of 7 ~ Jtos Vol W `~ fi ,. JtY l~r CSI J91J ~ ~ x 4 ~~ 3 '~' 2 ~ / ~' U ~ r o f _ ~ ~ ~ ! / t! r~19 pC ~ ~ 11 9 n a r e IS.S2ac ~d ~ ~ • ` ~` ~ ~ ' J ~ X00 W y ~ ~ l'~, p J ~ ' N ~ If a ) / ~ ~ : a >b ~' ~ ds ~ 61 ~ ,. n 5C /! aU v ~= 18 a;, ~ .~T fit, ~,. J:,. . :. ~ 3+a ^3~ 21 ~~~ QvQ4a *b ~ ^' y . 33i s1sJ ` ~° s+32 fifi s. JlOp 2 ~~~ ~ 46 ' \ J~'~' ° . ~p1 ~ f~ ` .~ 330 ~ ~ y/// I _ _ _ J1J 45 f 6 .~ ~ ~'0?, 2 c arz ~ o, f ~ s3 3szs • ~ ~ / 4 ~ a 2 ~ ~ ' ~ - 't .~3 .r Q' G7 r,ro srot J „ 29 ; •b 3SK .$ ~ f Mi J ' ,~ ++ loos 3p ~ ~ 39r6 ~ ; ' ~ \ b ~ ~, 41 n ~ ~J N ~ ~ 333 3~= ~~ • ...~ .. n »oo a l f ZI 331e ~ ,, 'A ~ 3 0' r / t ' "~ M 4sb ~ 3rY s~,~v~ ~ ~ fi ~ u ~ J.or 'e i 'a ' J9 b f •Zj 3/ll ay ` ' 103! ' 35 ~+O ~ / as l0) N ~ ~ bOb 1 II ~ LI ~h/ I aGtc) t ~ 3133 ~ o ~/ ~ , ~ II ~ 37 ,~ '° N ~ {8 J~J N L28aeIp ~J/ ,f ~ R~ 10+7 llSac K) 3» N .: ~ ~J 1~ ~ m 1~ _ +" DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIATG Petitioner. Tacoma, Inc. ~~ AND ZONING Tax Map #: 77.13-4-14, -15, -16, -17 Request: Special Use Permit for Fast Food Restaurant . . ..,. NORTH ~' s7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO TACOMA, INC. TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT LOCATED AT THE INTERSEC- TION OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND WESTMORELAND DRIVE (TAX PARCELS 77.13-4-14, 15, 16, 17), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Tacoma, Inc. has filed a petition to allow the construction of a fast food restaurant located at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 26, 1994; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27, 1994. 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 allow the construction of a fast food restaurant located at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive in the Cave Spring 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 Tacoma, Inc. to allow the construction of a fast food restaurant located at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland 1 F> Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, with the following conditions: 1) Access to the property shall be limited to single point of ingress and egress from Westmoreland Drive of a width no greater than 30 feet. Direct access from Brambleton Avenue shall be prohibited. 2) Approval of the special use permit shall be condi- tinned upon the acquisition of the additional property from VDOT shown on the concept plan submitted and dated 7/19/94. zoning\tacoma 2 AGENDA ITEM NOS- APPE CE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS __ \ SUBJE T: ,.S~~C'/A ~ GlS~ ~,Pm~i (l~/',7irYAH~~J _ 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. 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 SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK __ m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ N ~> AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD ATTIIESDAY~SEpTEMBER 27D,M1994TRATION CENTER ON ORDINANCE 92794-17 AMENDING THE TE%T OF THE ROANORE COUNTY ZONTNDISTRICT AND A P ILANNED INDUSTRIAI+DDEVELOPMENT DEVELOPME DISTRICT WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 1994; the second reading and public hearing was held on September 27, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following amendments be made to the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County. ARTICLE III DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 30-57 PCD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Sec. 30-57-1 Purpose (A) The intent of the Planned Commercial Development (PCD) district is to promote the efficient use of commercial land by allowing a range of land uses and densities and the flexible application of development controls. This may be accomplished while also protecting surrounding property, the natural features and scenic beauty of the land. 1 The Planned Commercial Development district is provided in recognition that many commercial, office and residential establishments seek to develop within unified areas, usually under single ownership or control. Because these concentrations of retail, service and office establishments are generally stable and offer unified internal arrangement and development, potentially detrimental design effects can be recognized and addressed during the review of the development. For these reasons, the provisions for the PCD allow greater development latitude. Districts should be proposed and planned for areas that provide for adequate development and expansion space, controlled access points, landscaped parking areas and public utilities. Development of the PCD will take place in general accordance with an approved Master Plan, which may allow for clustering of uses and densities in various areas of the site. Planned Commercial Development districts should be a visual asset to the community. Buildings within the district are to be architecturally similar in style and the relationship among individual establishments should be harmonious. The site should be well landscaped and parking and loading areas are to be screened. Sec. 30-57-2 Permitted Uses 2 (A) All of the residential, civic, office and commercial use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PCD. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than 30~ of the gross square footage of the other use types in the PCD. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the final Master Plan approved pursuant to Section 30-57-6. Other permitted uses are listed below: 1. Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing Recycling Centers and Stations Warehouse & Distribution 2. Miscellaneous Uses Broadcasting Tower Parking Facility Section 30-57-3 Site Development Regulations (A) Each Planned Commercial Development shall be subject to the following site development standards. 1. Minimum district size: 5 acres of contiguous land. 2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front 3 on existing public streets external to the PCD shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public right-of-way. 3. Lots in the PCD district shall comply with the buffer yard requirements of Section 30-92-4 of this ordinance. 4. Lot coverage: a. More than one principal structure may be placed on a lot. b. Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary development plan process but in no case shall exceed 75% 5. Public streets in the PCD district shall be built in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PCD preliminary master plan, the Commission may recommend, and the Board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private street standards, specifications and a proposed maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the preliminary Master Plan. 6. The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of 4 parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use type, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. 7. Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. 8. Utilities shall be placed underground. 9. Arrangement of areas: a. The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs and other uses and developments within the PCD, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final Master Plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. 5 b. Areas designed for future expansion or not intended for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas on the preliminary development plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PCD application. Reserve areas included in the PCD shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. Section 30-57-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Commercial Development district should be designed and developed to be a visual asset to the community of Roanoke County. Since the relationship of the development to the community and the prospects for economic success of the project have much to do with the physical character of the development, these factors shall be considered in reviewing a Planned Commercial District application. For this reason the following site development recommendations are made. (1) The principal entrance into the PCD district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one-hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PCD, should have a landscaped median of 6 sufficient width and planting density to meet the purposes of this district. (2) Parking within the PCD should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. Section 30-57-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PCD district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final Master Plan. Section 30-57-6 Application Process (A) The timeframes outlined in this Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. 7 The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting. (C) Any application to rezone land to the PCD designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final Master Plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. (D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary Master Plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1. A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 8 2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3. A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PCD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific human-made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic resources, natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. 6. The gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PCD. 7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 9 8. A traffic circulation plan, including the location of access drives, parking and loading facilities, pedestrian walks and the relationship to existing and proposed external streets and traffic patterns. General information on the trip generation, ownership, maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9. If a reduction to the number of parking spaces is requested, a justification for this request shall be submitted. Based on adequate justification, the Commission may recommend, and the Board may approve such a reduction. 10. Reserved. 11. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build-out period. 12. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. 10 13. Signage in the proposed PCD shall be in accordance with this ordinance. (E) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the Commission public hearing. (F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary Master Plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission recommendation of approval. (G) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the 11 applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PCD. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PCD district. Section 30-57-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of Section 30-57-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: 1. Any significant increase in the density of the development; 12 2. Substantial change in circulation or access; 3. Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; 5. Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final Master Plan. (B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Section 30-57-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site 13 Development Plans (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PCD that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the Roanoke County Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PCD under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any final site development plan within 60 days of its submittal. 14 (D) No Planned Commercial Development district shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. Section 30-57-9 Failure to Begin Development (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the Planned Commercial Development district within 24 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PCD to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final master plan. Section 30-57-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to ensure compliance with the submitted development schedule. ARTICLE III DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 30-63 PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 15 Sec. 30-63-1 Purpose (A) The Planned Industrial Development (PID) district is established primarily for light and medium industrial uses. Supporting accessory uses and facilities, such as office and commercial establishments, are also permitted. The PID district is intended to be designed with a park-like atmosphere that complements surrounding land uses by means of appropriate siting of buildings, controlled access points, attractive and harmonious architecture, and effective landscape buffering. The district is intended to provide flexibility in design and site lay out, allow latitude in combining different use types within a single development, and provide the developer with incentives to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional planned development. In addition, the intent of the Planned Industrial Development (PID) district is to provide certain industries that are clean and environmentally efficient the opportunity to locate in an area of like industries, in what is generally known as an industrial park, developed under a complete, comprehensive Master Plan. Standards are provided for landscaping, buffering and open space to encourage high technology industries and to ensure a park-like atmosphere. Important in determining the location and size of a PID are the accessibility of the location, the availability of public 16 utilities, public safety services and the suitability of the topography for industrial purposes. Sec. 30-63-2 Permitted Uses (A) All of the residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial and miscellaneous use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PID district. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than 15% of the total gross square footage. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the Final Master Plan approved pursuant to Section 30-63-6. Sec. 30-63-3 Site Development Regulations (A) Each planned industrial development shall be subject to the following site development standards. 1. Minimum district size: 15 acres of contiguous land. 2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front on existing public streets external to the PID shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public right-of-way. 3. Lots in the PID district shall comply with the buffer 17 yard requirements of Section 30-92-4 of this ordinance. 4. Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary master plan process but in no case shall exceed 75~. 5. Streets in the PID district shall be public in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. 6. The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use type, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. 7. Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. 8. Arrangement of areas: 18 a. The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs and other uses and developments within the PID, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final master plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. b. All areas designed for future expansion or not intended for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas in the preliminary master plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PID application. Reserve areas included in the PID shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 9. Accessory structures shall not exceed forty percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. 10. Every structure in the PID shall be a fully enclosed building of permanent construction. Any outside storage area shall be fully screened so that no materials so stored are visible at any lot line or public right-of- 19 way. 11. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with Section 30-94 of this ordinance. 12. Utilities: Utilities shall be underground unless the type of service necessary for normal activities of the industry or business shall prohibit underground installation. Sec. 30-63-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Industrial Development district should be designed and developed as an industrial park with high standards for landscaping, buffering and open space. To ensure a park-like atmosphere the following site development recommendations are made. (i) The principal entrance into the PID district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one-hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PID, should have a landscaped median of sufficient width and planting density to meet the purposes of this district. 20 (2) Parking within the PID should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. (3) Loading areas should be screened from public view and should not be placed in front yards. (4) Fences should not be placed in front yards except as necessary for security purposes. Fencing should be uniform and well kept. Sec. 30-63-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PID district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final master plan. Sec. 30-63-6 Application Process (A) The timeframes outlined in the Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. 21 (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting. (C) Any application to rezone land to the PID designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. (D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 22 1. A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3. A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PID district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific human-made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic resources natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. 6. The gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PID. 23 7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 8. A traffic circulation plan, including the location of access drives, parking and loading facilities, pedestrian walks and the relationship to existing and proposed external streets and traffic patterns. General information on trip generation, vehicle classification, ownership, maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9. Reserved 10. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build-out period. 11. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. (E) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary 24 Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the Commission public hearing. (F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary master plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission recommendation of approval. (G) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. 25 (H) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master or e ov r o a t t ~: ac '<.~~ PP Plan and ~?~l~~<ii?~:>>s~>::::..:.:.°:~°.:''::.:~.::~.~ :::::::::::::::. deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PID. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PID district. Sec. 30-63-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of Section 30-63-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: 1. Any significant increase in the density of the development; 2. Substantial change in circulation or access; 3. Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; 26 5. Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final master plan. (B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Sec. 30-63-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the 27 v PID that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a planned industrial development under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any Final Site Development Plan within 60 days of its submittal. (D) No Planned Industrial Development shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. Sec. 30-63-9 Failure to Beqin Development 28 v (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the planned residential development within 24 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PID to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final Master Plan. Sec. 30-63-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to ensure that the development is in general compliance with the submitted schedule. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1, 1995. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance, and add "after holding a public hearing" to Section 30-57-6 (H) and Section 30-63-6 (H), and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. lton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 29 cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Circuit Court G. O. Clemens, Judge, Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge Roy B. Willett, Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge Richard C. Pattisall, Judge Steven A. McGraw, Clerk Juvenile Domestic Joseph M. Clarke, Philip Trompeter, John B. Ferguson, Joseph P. Bounds, Ruth P. Bates, Cl~ Intake Counsellor Relations District Court II, Judge Judge Judge Judge irk General District Court John L. Apostolou, Judge George W. Harris, Judge William Broadhurst, Judge Vincent Lilley, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry John H. Cease, Police Chief Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue Thomas C. Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Main Library Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, SW, Rke 20416 Roanoke County Code Book 30 1 ACTION NO • ~ ~~r~ ITEM NO. i OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOCE TER BOARD ADMINISTRATION R MEETING OF THE CONY AT A REGULA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA- MEETING DATE' September 27, 1994 Hearing on Prop°sed and public to Add Planned Second Readin the Zoning Ordinance AGENDA ITEM: Districts. Amendments to Industrial Commercial and Planned ~ COMMENTS' Q' /' :;,~.o~"-~'' ` TOR S COUNTY ADMINISTRA ~~~,-C., ~ , the BACKGROUND' roved a scheduloffOthese • Commission app Two ril 1994, the Planning zoning districts. are being of new Planned Industria , In Ap various with more development Commercial and ment community the the Planned rovide the develop romote also districts, order to p These two distriland Awhile proposed in ment options. and industrial in land develop commercial h level of flexibility use of a hig districts incorporate efficient the land developer Both leasing and providing land uses and densities. of aesthetically p re ared combining e the creation ordinances were p p to encourag ments. Draft On August 2, incentives fanned develop on July 19' recommended worksession Commission functional p a Commission the planning and discusstne public hearing, districts. following osed zoning and the approval of the prop Commercial District copies of the Planned Attached are District. planned Industrial STAFF RECOMMENDATION: as follows: the planned Staff recommends ervisors approve Board of Sup Industrial District as 1, That the and Planned Commercial District presented. 5-8 2 Respectfully Submitted, C ` Harring n- AICP Terrance Lf plann~ g and Zoning Director Approved, ..~-sur/ Elmer C• Hodge County Administrator Action Approved ( ) Motion by Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs Ruth September 13 1994 @ 8:55 amounts Wade called about should that can be borrowed your memo to be written from Literar LBE about increasing and someone in support of that y Fund. You said a from schools, change and si letter gned by you, LBE At the School Board they decided that meeting this month SB Chairman would"a letter of su this was discussed and recommendation be sent pp°rt from. the Su of the to Kathy A sc nen. This psrbeingddoneand School Board The SB would on letters also like a letter are better than one, °f support from the BofS. Two MH ;- 1 5-S ARTICLE III DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 30-57 PCD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Sec. 30-57-1 Purpose (A) The intent of the Planned Commercial Development (PCD) district is to promote the efficient use of commercial land by allowing a range of land uses and densities and the flexible application of development controls. This may be accomplished while also protecting surrounding property, the natural features and scenic beauty of the land. The Planned Commercial Development district is provided in recognition that many commercial, office and residential establishments seek to develop within unified areas, usually under single ownership or control. Because these concentrations of retail, service and office establishments are generally stable and offer unified internal arrangement and development, potentially detrimental design effects can be recognized and addressed during the review of the development. For these reasons, the provisions for the PCD allow greater development latitude. Districts should be proposed and planned for areas that provide for adequate development and expansion space, controlled access points, landscaped parking areas and public utilities. Development of the PCD will take place in general accordance with an approved Master Plan, which may allow for clustering of uses and densities in various areas of the site. Planned Commercial Development districts should be a visual asset to the community. Buildings within the district are to be architecturally similar in style and the relationship among individual establishments should be harmonious. The site should be well landscaped and parking and loading areas are to be screened. Sec. 30-57-2 Permitted IIses (A) All of the residential, civic, office and commercial use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PCD. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than 30% of the gross square footage of the other use types in the PCD. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the final Master Plan approved pursuant to Section 30-57-6. Other permitted uses are listed below: 1 1• Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing Recycling Centers and Stations Warehouse & Distribution 2• Miscellaneous Uses Broadcasting Tower Parking Facility Section 30-57-3 Site Development Regulations ~~8 (A) Each Planned Commercial Development shall be subject to the following site development standards. 1. Minimum district size: 5 acres of contiguous land. 2• Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front on existing public streets external to the PCD shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public right-of-way. 3• Lots in the PCD district shall comply with the buffer yard requirements of Section 30-92-4 of this ordinance. 4• Lot coverage: a• More than one principal structure may be placed on a lot. b• Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary development plan process but in no case shall exceed 75% 5. Public streets in the PCD district shall be built in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PCD preliminary master plan, the Commission may recommend, and the Board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private street standards, specifications and a maintenance agreement shall be submitted wpthpothe preliminary Master Plan. 6• The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use tYPe, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. ~- Maximum height of structures:.When adjoining pro ert zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a 2 Residential district is in height over 45 feet. from the portion of the In all other locations increased two feet for each foot This distance shall be measured structure which exceeds 45 feet. the height is unlimited. 8. Utilities shall be placed underground. 9. Arrangement of areas: a. The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs and other uses and developments within the PCD, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final Master Plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. b• Areas designed for future expansion or not intended for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas on the preliminary development plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PCD application. Reserve areas included in the PCD shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. Section 30-57-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Commercial Development district should be designed and developed to be a visual asset to the community of Roanoke County. Since the relationship of the development to the community and the prospects for economic success of the project have much to do with the physical character of the development, these factors shall be considered in reviewing a Planned Commercial District application. For this reason the following site development recommendations are made. (1) The principal entrance into the PCD district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one-hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PCD, should have a landscaped median of sufficient width and planting density to meet the purposes of this district. (2) Parking within the PCD should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. 3 Section 30-57-5 Relationship Regulations 5-8 to Existing Development (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PCD district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final Master Plan. Section 30-57-6 Application Process (A) The timeframes outlined in this Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting. (C) Any application to rezone land to the PCD designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has a final Master Plan, all acce ted PProved the conditions P proffers shall constitute pursuant to Section 30-15. (~) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary Master Plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1• A legal description. and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2• Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3• A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PCD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any 4 ~ ' specific human-made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic resources, natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. 6. The gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PCD. 7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 8. A traffic circulation plan, including the location of access drives, parking and loading facilities, pedestrian walks and the relationship to existing and proposed external streets and traffic patterns. General information on the trip generation, ownership, maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9• If a reduction to the number of parking spaces is requested, a justification for this request shall be submitted. Based on adequate justification, the Commission may recommend, and the Board may approve such a reduction. 10. Reserved. 11. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build-out period. 12. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. 13. signage in the proposed PCD shall be in accordance with this ordinance. (E) The completed rezoning application and su Master Plan materials shall be submittedo to n therePlanning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to 5 ~.: the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the Commission public hearing. (F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary Master Plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission recommendation of approval. (~) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. (K) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master Plan, and act to approve or deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PCD. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PCD district. Section 30-57-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of Section 30-57-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: 1• Any significant increase in the density of the development; 2. Substantial change in circulation or access; 3• Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4• Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; 6 ~x'~ ~•, 5. Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final Master Plan. (B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 2• A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Section 30-57-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PCD that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the Roanoke County Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PCD under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any final site development plan within 60 days of its submittal. (D) No Planned Commercial Development district shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. 7 Section 30-57-9 Failure to Begin Development ~..~ (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the Planned Commercial Development district within 24 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PCD to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final master plan. Section 30-57-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to ensure compliance with the submitted development schedule. 8 ~ ~ ARTICLE III DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 30-63 PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Sec. 30-63-1 Purpose (A) The Planned Industrial Development (PID) district is established primarily for light and medium industrial uses. Supporting accessory uses and facilities, such as office and commercial establishments, are also permitted. The PID district is intended to be designed with a park-like atmosphere that complements surrounding land uses by means of appropriate siting of buildings, controlled access points, attractive and harmonious architecture, and effective landscape buffering. The district is intended to provide flexibility in design and site lay out, allow latitude in combining different use types within a single development, and provide the developer with incentives to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional planned development. In addition, the intent of the Planned Industrial Development (PID) district is to provide certain industries that are clean and environmentally efficient the opportunity to locate in an area of like industries, in what is generally known as an industrial park, developed under a complete, comprehensive Master Plan. Standards are provided for landsca buffering and open space to encourage high technology industries and to ensure a park-like atmosphere. Important in determining the location and size of a PID are the accessibility of the location, the availability of public utilities, public safety services and the suitability of the topography for industrial purposes. Sec. 30-63-2 Permitted Uses (A) All of the residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial and miscellaneous use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PID district. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than 15% of the total gross square footage. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the Final Master Plan approved pursuant to Section 30-63-6. Sec. 30-63-3 Site Development Regulations (A) Each planned industrial development shall be subject to the following site development standards. 1• Minimum district size: 15 acres of contiguous land. 1 ~. ~. 2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front on existing public streets external to the PID shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public right-of-way. 3• Lots in the PID district shall comply with the buffer yard requirements of Section 30-92-4 of this ordinance. 4• Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary master plan process but in no case shall exceed 75%. 5 • Streets in the PID district shall be public in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. 6• The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use tYPe, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. 7• Maximum height of structures: When adjoining pro ert zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. $• Arrangement of areas: a• The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs and other uses and developments within the PID, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final master plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. b• All areas designed for future expansion or not intended for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas in the preliminary master plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PID application. Reserve areas included in the PID shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 2 khyy. ~nf a 9. Accessory structures shall not exceed forty percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. 10. Every structure in the PID shall be a fully enclosed building of permanent construction. Any outside storage area shall be fully screened so that no materials so stored are visible at any lot line or public right-of- way. 11. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with Section 30-94 of this ordinance. 12. Utilities: Utilities shall be underground unless the type of service necessary for normal activities of the industry or business shall prohibit underground installation. Sec. 30-63-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Industrial Development district should be designed and developed as an industrial park with high standards for landscaping, buffering and open space. To ensure a park-like atmosphere the following site development recommendations are made. (1) The principal entrance into the PID district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one-hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PID, should have a landscaped median of sufficient width and planting density to meet the purposes of this district. (2) Parking within the PID should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. (3) Loading areas should be screened from public view and should not be placed in front yards. (4) Fences should not be placed in front yards except as necessary for security purposes. Fencing should be uniform and well kept. Sec. 30-63-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PID district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final master plan. 3 Sec. 30-63-6 Application Process m. (A) The timeframes outlined in the Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the Proposal in advance of this meeting. (C) Any application to rezone land to the PID designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. (D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1• A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2• Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3• A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PID district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific human-made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4• A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic 4 ..... resources,natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. 6• The gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PID. 7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 8• A traffic circulation plan, including the location of access drives, parking and loading facilities, pedestrian walks and the relationship to existing and proposed external streets and traffic patterns. information on trip generation, vehicle classification) ownership, maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9. Reserved 10. 11. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build-out period. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. CD) The completed rezoning application and su Master Plan materials shall be submittedo to n the ePlanning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The be posted with signs indicating the pdates and ltimec of hthe Commission public hearing. (E) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary master plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of 5 Supervisors within this period shall constitute recommendation of approval. +~..,.,~ a Commission (F) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. (G) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master Plan, and act to approve or deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PID. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PID district. Sec. 30-63-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of Section 30-63-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: 1• Any significant increase in the density of the development; 2• Substantial change in circulation or access; 3• Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4• Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; 5• Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6• Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final master plan. CB) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1• If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 6 ~~ 2• A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Sec. 30-63-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PID that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land Develo ment Procedures, available in the Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a planned industrial development under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site develo ment review shall be in compliance with the final Master d Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any Final Site Development Plan within 60 days of its submittal. (D) No Planned Industrial Development shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. Sec. 30-63-9 Failure to Begin Development (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the planned residential development within 24 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PID to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final Master Plan. Sec. 30-63-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to 7 .,, ,, ensure that the development is in general compliance with the submitted schedule. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 1994; the second reading and public hearing was held on September 27, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following amendments be made to the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County. ARTICLE III DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 30-57 PCD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Sec. 30-57-1 Purpose (A) The intent of the Planned Commercial Development (PCD) district is to promote the efficient use of commercial land by allowing a range of land uses and densities and the flexible application of development controls. This may be accomplished while also protecting surrounding property, the natural features and scenic beauty of the land. The Planned Commercial Development district is provided in recognition that many commercial, office and residential 1 L? establishments seek to develop within unified areas, usually under single ownership or control. Because these concentrations of retail, service and office establishments are generally stable and offer unified internal arrangement and development, potentially detrimental design effects can be recognized and addressed during the review of the development. For these reasons, the provisions for the PCD allow greater development latitude. Districts should be proposed and planned for areas that provide for adequate development and expansion space, controlled access points, landscaped parking areas and public utilities. Development of the PCD will take place in general accordance with an approved Master Plan, which may allow for clustering of uses and densities in various areas of the site. Planned Commercial Development districts should be a visual asset to the community. Buildings within the district are to be architecturally similar in style and the relationship among individual establishments should be harmonious. The site should be well landscaped and parking and loading areas are to be screened. Sec. 30-57-2 Permitted Uses (A) All of the residential, civic, office and commercial use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the 2 `~~ of PCD. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than 30% of the gross square footage of the other use types in the PCD. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the final Master Plan approved pursuant to Section 30-57-6. Other permitted uses are listed below: 1. Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing Recycling Centers and Stations Warehouse & Distribution 2• Miscellaneous Uses Broadcasting Tower Parking Facility section 30-57-3 Site Development Regulations (A) Each Planned Commercial Development shall be subject to the following site development standards. 1. Minimum district size: 5 acres of contiguous land. 2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front on existing public streets external to the PCD shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public 3 right-of-way. ~.,~; 3. Lots in the PCD district shall comply with the buffer yard requirements of Section 30-92-4 of this ordinance. 4• Lot coverage: a. More than one principal structure may be placed on a lot. b• Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary development plan process but in no case shall exceed 75% 5• Public streets in the PCD district shall be built in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PCD preliminary master plan, the Commission may recommend, and the Board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private street standards, specifications and a proposed maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the preliminary Master Plan. 6• The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use tYPe, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with 4 "~..,~ . ~. 1 ". consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. 7. Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. 8. Utilities shall be placed underground. 9. Arrangement of areas: a. The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs and other uses and developments within the PCD, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final Master Plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. b. Areas designed for future expansion or not intended 5 ~. _ . A for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas on the preliminary development plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PCD application. Reserve areas included in the PCD shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. Section 30-57-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Commercial Development district should be designed and developed to be a visual asset to the community of Roanoke County. Since the relationship of the development to the community and the prospects for economic success of the project have much to do with the physical character of the development, these factors shall be considered in reviewing a Planned Commercial District application. For this reason the following site development recommendations are made. (1) The principal entrance into the PCD district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one-hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PCD, should have a landscaped median of sufficient width and planting density to meet the 6 purposes of this district. ~~.-~ ^ ~, (2) Parking within the PCD should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. Section 30-57-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PCD district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final Master Plan. Section 30-57-6 Application Process (A) The timeframes outlined in this Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding 7 g,aw ~.e.,;~. of the application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting. (~) Any application to rezone land to the PCD designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final Master Plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. (D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary Master Plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1• A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 8 2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3 • A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PCD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific human-made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4• A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic resources, natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5• The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. 6. The gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PCD. 7• The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 9 ~~, 8. A traffic circulation plan, including the location of access drives, parking and loading facilities, pedestrian walks and the relationship to existing and proposed external streets and traffic patterns. General information on the trip generation, ownership, maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9. If a reduction to the number of parking spaces is requested, a justification for this request shall be submitted. Based on adequate justification, the Commission may recommend, and the Board may approve such a reduction. 10. Reserved. 11. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build-out period. 12. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. 10 ~ ,~ 13. Signage in the proposed PCD shall be in accordance with this ordinance. (E) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the Commission public hearing. (F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary Master Plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission recommendation of approval. (G) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the 11 v,. ' applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. (H) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master Plan, and act to approve or deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PCD. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PCD district. Section 30-57-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of Section 30-57-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: 1• Any significant increase in the density of the development; 12 2. Substantial change in circulation or access; 3. Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; »~..,. ' 5. Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final Master Plan. (B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 2• A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Section 30-57-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site 13 Development Plans (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PCD that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the Roanoke County Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PCD under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any final site development plan within 60 days of its submittal. 14 -; (D) No Planned Commercial Development district shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. Section 30-57-9 Failure to Begin Development (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the Planned Commercial Development district within 24 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PCD to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final master plan. Section 30-57-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to ensure compliance with the submitted development schedule. ARTICLE III DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 30-63 PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 15 ^ # ., Sec. 30-63-1 Purpose (A) The Planned Industrial Development (PID) district is established primarily for light and medium industrial uses. Supporting accessory uses and facilities, such as office and commercial establishments, are also permitted. The PID district is intended to be designed with a park-like atmosphere that complements surrounding land uses by means of appropriate siting of buildings, controlled access points, attractive and harmonious architecture, and effective landscape buffering. The district is intended to provide flexibility in design and site lay out, allow latitude in combining different use types within a single development, and provide the developer with incentives to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional planned development. In addition, the intent of the Planned Industrial Development (PID) district is to provide certain industries that are clean and environmentally efficient the opportunity to locate in an area of like industries, in what is generally known as an industrial park, developed under a complete, comprehensive Master Plan. Standards are provided for landscaping, buffering and open space to encourage high technology industries and to ensure a park-like atmosphere. Important in determining the location and size of a PID are the accessibility of the location, the availability of public 16 ~i,~. ~a., utilities, public safety services and the suitability of the topography for industrial purposes. Sec. 30-63-2 Permitted Uses (A) All of the residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial and miscellaneous use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PID district. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than 150 of the total gross square footage. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the Final Master Plan approved pursuant to Section 30-63-6. Sec. 30-63-3 Site Development Regulations (A) Each planned industrial development shall be subject to the following site development standards. 1. Minimum district size: 15 acres of contiguous land. 2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front on existing public streets external to the PID shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public right-of-way. 3. Lots in the PID district shall comply with the buffer 17 sx yard requirements of Section 30-92-4 of this ordinance. 4. Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary master plan process but in no case shall exceed 75%. 5. Streets in the PID district shall be public in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. 6. The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use type, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. 7. Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. 8. Arrangement of areas: 18 a. The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs and other uses and developments within the PID, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final master plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. b. All areas designed for future expansion or not intended for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas in the preliminary master plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PID application. Reserve areas included in the PID shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 9. Accessory structures shall not exceed forty percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. 10. Every structure in the PID shall be a fully enclosed building of permanent construction. Any outside storage area shall be fully screened so that no materials so stored are visible at any lot line or public right-of- 19 ~~~ way. 11. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with Section 30-94 of this ordinance. 12. Utilities: Utilities shall be underground unless the type of service necessary for normal activities of the industry or business shall prohibit underground installation. Sec. 30-63-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Industrial Development district should be designed and developed as an industrial park with high standards for landscaping, buffering and open space. To ensure a park-like atmosphere the following site development recommendations are made. (1) The principal entrance into the PID district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one-hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PID, should have a landscaped median of sufficient width and planting density to meet the purposes of this district. 20 ~~ (2) Parking within the PID should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. (3) Loading areas should be screened from public view and should not be placed in front yards. (4) Fences should not be placed in front yards except as necessary for security purposes. Fencing should be uniform and well kept. Sec. 30-63-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PID district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final master plan. Sec. 30-63-6 Application Process (A) The timeframes outlined in the Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. 21 (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting. (C) Any application to rezone land to the PID designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. (D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 22 •. ~a"' 1. A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3 . A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PID district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific human-made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic resources natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. 6. The gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PID. 23 7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 8. A traffic circulation plan, including the location of access drives, parking and loading facilities, pedestrian walks and the relationship to existing and proposed external streets and traffic patterns. General information on trip generation, vehicle classification, ownership, maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9. Reserved 10. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build-out period. 11. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. (D) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary 24 S~ Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the Commission public hearing. (E) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary master plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission recommendation of approval. (F) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. 25 '~ (G) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master Plan, and act to approve or deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PID. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PID district. Sec. 30-63-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of Section 30-63-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: 1. Any significant increase in the density of the development; 2. Substantial change in circulation or access; 3. Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; 26 S ~ ~. µ~_... ~~.d .. 5. Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final master plan. (B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Sec. 30-63-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the 27 PID that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building a nd zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a planned industrial development under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any Final Site Development Plan within 60 days of its submittal. (D) No Planned Industrial Development shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. Sec. 30-63-9 Failure to Begin Development 28 ~~ (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the planned residential development within 24 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PID to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final Master Plan. Sec. 30-63-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to ensure that the development is in general compliance with the submitted schedule. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after code.pcd.pid 29 ~. L..J' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOOAEDCOUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ONYX VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROAN TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE 92794-18 VACATING THE FOLLOWING PORTIOTAINFLOTS IN SECTION 5 OF WATERFORDA(PB ON CER 16, PAGE 21) WHEREAS, Strauss Construction Company has requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate the following portions of public utility easements located on certain lots in Section 5 of Waterford in the Hollins Magisterial District as shown in Plat Book 16, at page 21 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 1994; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that portions of the following public utility easements located in Section 5, Waterford in the Hollins Magisterial District of record in Plat Book 16, at page 21, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby are, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended: (1) 150-square feet of a public utility easement located on Lot 1 (Tax Map No. 1 26.16-12-1) and shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated 17 August 1994, and (2) 329-square feet of a public utility easement located on Lots 19 and 20 (Tax Map Nos. 26.16-12-20 and 26.16-12-21) and shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P. C., dated 17 August 1994, and (3) 149-square feet of a public utility easement located on Lot 21 (Tax Map No. 26.16-12-22), and shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P. C., dated 17 August 1994, and, 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 3. That Strauss Contruction Company shall record a certified copy of this ordinance, along with the attached three plats dated 17 August 1994, prepared by Lumsden and Associates, P. C., with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction and in addition, shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated herewith. 4. That as a further condition to the adoption of this ordinance, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, 2 shall be indemnified of and held harmless from and against all claims for damages to any improvements or structures within the old easement area by it, its heirs, succesors, or assigns. 5. That pursuant to § 15.1-485 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Circuit Court Clerk shall write in plain legible letters across the part of the plat vacated, the word "vacated" and also make a reference on the same to the volume and page in which the instrument of vacation is recorded. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H lton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 h ~o. ti ~G~o~ ~ \P.~~y~P~~°' EX. 5' PRIVATE ~O 0' W.L. k S.S.E. ~F~ Q ~ P.B. 16, PG. 21 CHORD = N 41°21~OO~W 43.64 W ARC = 43.67' Z V ~ W ~ 4a Va t, b On v y PORTION OF EX/STWQ - 20' P"U.E TO BE VACATED EX. 20' P.U.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21~ LEGEND P.U.E PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.L & S.S.E. WATERLINE do SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.B. PUT BOOK PORTION OF E~S'T1NG 20' P.U.E TO BE VACATED LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE 1-2 N 35'02'51' W 30.02' CH. 2-3 N 57'3114" E 5.00' 3-4 S 35'02'51" E 29.57' CH. 4-1 S 52'23'05' W 5.00' TOTAL AREA = 149 SQUARE FEET ~ t LoT 20 I S 47'00 00" W 54.06' - 120.01' ^- - ~I TAX X26.16-12-22 r LOT 21 I - EX. 15' UTILITY EASEMENT Z ~ SECTION No. 5 'WATERFORD" ~,~ i6, PG. 21 ~o f EX. 1 STORY ~ ~21CK & FRAME TOWNHOUSE `''- ~ CARPORT -~ v o~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ rn ~ r*'I l;~ o o Ir v ~ ' ~ z I C-1 N 46'30'18' E - I I 20.46' BLACK WALNUT COURT 30' PRIVATE R/W ~\ . e~ LOT 22 " EX. 5' PRIVATE W.L do S.S.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21 - EX. PUBLIC W.L & S.S.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21 NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. 2. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFlT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THIS PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. 3. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VACATING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY. CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C-1 151.03' 39.86' 20.05' I 39.75 N 54'03'58" E 15'07'19" C-2 5.00' 7.92' 5.07' 7.12' S 73'00'00' E 90'4445" C-3 315.00' 96.71' 48.74' 96.33' S 36'25'20' E 17'35'24' C-4 335.00' 30.03' 15.02" 30.02' N 35'02'51" W 05'08'09" C-5 330.00 29.58' 14.80' 29.57' S 35'02'51" E 05'08'09" PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF EXISTING 20' PL'BL1C U 1'1L1T~Y EASE'1V1ElV l TO BE VACATED ~AS,TH Op y ACROSS TAX #26.16-12-22, BEING LOT 21 O~~ g - 18 94 r~`, SECTION No. 5, "WATERFORD" (P.B. 16, PG. 21) ~~ B. LEE 7.= PROPERTY OF ~ HENDERSON, JR. ~$ ~ ~~'~,,,~Qi . STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORP. No. 1480 Z SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: 17 AUGUST 1994 t'!`1'D suR~~°4 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 5 S-y ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Approval to Vacate the Following portions of Public Utility Easements: 150 square feet, located on 329 square feet, located on 21) 149 square feet, located on all are located in Waterford Plat Book 16, Page 21 and District Lot 1 (Tax Map #26.16-12-1) Lots 19 and 20 (Tax Map #26.16-12-20, Lot 21 (Tax Map #26.16-12-22) Section 5, Subdivision as recorded in situated in the Hollins Magisterial COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY• The Petitioner, Strauss Construction Company, the owner of Lots 1, 19, 20 and 21 is requesting the Board of Supervisors to vacate portions of public utility easements, as described above, and as shown on the attached maps, by Ordinance, in order to construct the proposed townhomes in the same conformity as those already constructed. BACKGROUND• The backyards of these lots are at a steep grade and to minimize possible drainage problems the townhomes were shifted forward onto the lots. Once shifted, the townhomes on lots 21 and 1 were constructed in the public utility easement. In order to maintain the same setbacks for the townhomes and conformity, Strauss Construction Company is requesting vacating that portion of public utility easements on lots 19 and 20 so that all townhomes look the same in appearance. ~" County staff and all public utility companies have evaluated the easements and have determined that they have no objections to these areas being vacated. SUNII~lARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County staff is requesting that the above described public utility easements be vacated in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1-482(b), Code of Virginia, 1950, by the adoption of the attached Ordinance. Roanoke County staff and the public utility companies have no objections to this vacation. First reading of the proposed Ordinance was held on September 13, 1994; a public hearing and second reading are scheduled for September 27, 1994. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate portions of the public utility easements located on lots 1, 19, 20, and 21 of Waterford, Section 5, Subdivision and instruct the County Attorney to prepare the necessary Ordinance. S MITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ~`~ / ~~ Arno d Covey, Di ecto Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering & Insp ctions County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred Kohinke To Minnix Nickens pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney VOTE No Yes Abs 2 MFRi~i~N h, OF Ae a~'RFF~~ 0 1s pO,Q~~~y No ?~ s I u ELECTRIC PEDESTAL r` o~ PoRT/OM OF EX/8T6YO ~ P(IBLC 1lTL/TY EA8EA~NT TO BE VACATED w 3 ~, g W ~ ' ~ • ~ ~ Q ~ z ~~ O~ ~~ ~Q y a '""' PoRnoN of EwsnNc 20' P.U.E. TO 8E VACAIID LINE DIREC710N DISTANCE 1-2 S 64'40'00" .W .30.00' 2-3 N 25'20 00 W 5.00' 3-4 N 64'40 00" E .30.00' 4-1 S 25'20'00 E 5.00' TOTAL AREA = 150 S.F. tFGEND P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT RAN RIGHT OF WAY W.L do S.S.E. WATERLINE do SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.B. PLAT BOOK -G- EXISTING GAS LINE S.S.E. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ~ _ ~ EX. 20' S.S.E. LOT 1 ~ P.B. 10, PG. 68 SECTION No. 4 "THE FALLS" ~ P.B. 10, PG. 68 1 55.19' S 42'2000" E 20.91, ~ I '41N I G aa~ o~ "' " rn TAX X26.16-12-1 w m I ,~ LOT 1 is EX. 1 STORY BRICK do FRAME TOWNHOUSE CARPORT ~`' --~- o: °~, PAVE[ a ~_ C-1 _N 2520'00" W 23.22' SCOTCH P/NE LANE 30' PRIVATE R/W PUBLIC W.L ~ S.S.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21 NOTES: 1: THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FlELD SURVEY. 2. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFlT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THIS PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. 3. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VACATING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' PUBLIC U71UTY EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY. PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ~yTH of TO BE VACATED ~~ Yf g.IS-94' +>~ ACROSS TAX #26.16-12-1, BEING LOT 1 B LEE ~ SECTION No. 5, "WATERFORD" (P.B. 16, PG. 21) HENDERSON, JR. a' ''^0 -~ ~ ~~ PROPERTY OF S • 8 TRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORP. l~ SLTR~~4, SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: 17 AUGUST 1994 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 3 - --- !~~ ~ C-1 ~ G ~ A= 2'40'12" R= 285.00 T= 6.64 L= 13.28 BRG. S 26'40'06" E CHD. 13.28 N ~~ C-2 A= 90'00'00" o R= 25.00 °, T= 25.00 ~ L= 39.27 BRG. S 19'40'00" W CHD. 35.36 LOT 2 SECTION No. 5 "WATERFORD" ~+ P.B. 16, PG. 21 w PARKING COMM. 76-1145 ~ '~f , i o~ O. J, m °~a ~6 y y ~' ~ s ~, TAX X26.19-1-14 PROPERTY OF BILLY COOUDGE SLOANE & PECGY MELTON SLOANE D.B. 788, PG. 325 fa~~s a~ N / N 0 0 / o f TRACT 'A' I ^~'- CHORD N 55'31'57" W 2211' ARC ~ 2212' I I ~- p p,RKING PAS . - EX 20' P.U.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21 oT d 0 °o I I k~'~ ,~ 9;19 I I LOT 24 EX. 15'rUT1UTY i EASEMENT I ~ I~ ~ ~ , Ia I I I LOT 23 I I I TAX X26.16-12-21 I '~ LOT 20 1 TAX X26.16-12-20 ~ L07 19 SEC70N No. 5 'WATERFORD' P.B. 16, PG. 21 u co C-3 I I W o I LOT 22 0 Ij~ I IZ - -PORT/0N Of EXJSTDYQ P(IBlJC UTIiTr EA8Ei~71fT TO BE YACHTED LOT 21 4 ~ ~ C-4 ,.....C-5 5 EX. 5' PRIVATE ~ W.L & S.S.E P.B. 16, PC. 21 2 26.51'- C-1 ~ _ S 49'39'42' E 3207' SCOTCH P/HE LAHE Ex w.L ~ ss.E. 30' PRIVATE R/W WIDTH VARIES NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FlELD SURVEY. 2 THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFlT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THIS PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. 3. THIS PUT IS FOR THE SOU: PURPOSE OF VACATING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' PUBUC UTILITY EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY. P.B. 16, PC. 21 LEGEND P.U.E PUBUC UTILITY EASEMENT R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.L & S.S.E WATERLINE k SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P•B• PUT BOOK G EXISTING GAS LINE S.S.E. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C-1 C-2 315.00 356 98 24.43 49 58' 1222 ' 24.43 S 47'26'22 E 04'26'40 C-3 . 376 98 . 27 57 24.83 49.54 S 53'38'26 E 07'57'28 C-4 . 335.00 . 6 37 13.79 3 18 27.56 ' N 51'45'25 W 04'11'25 C-5 330.00 . 6.27' . 3 14' 6.37 N 4907 01 W ' ' 01'05 22 C-6 371.98 27.20' . 13 61 6.27 27 20' S 49 07 01 E ' ' ' 01'05'22 ' " . . S 51 45 25 E 0471 25 B. LEE HENDERSON, J ~N~.w,o~.-~. o`ff' PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE VACATED ACROSS TAX #26.16-12-20 & 21 BEING LOTS 19 & 20, SECTION No. 5 "WATERFORD" (P.B. 16, PG. 21) PROPERTY OF STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORP. SCALE: 1" = 30' DATE: 17 AUGUST 1994 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 4 PatnoN of E~asnNc Pueuc uTwTY EASE>u~r~T TO BE VACATED UNE DIRECTION DISTANCE 1-2 N 51'45 25 W 27.56 CH. 2-3 N 49'39 42 W 32.07' 3-4 N 49'07'01 W 6.37' CH. 4-5 N 41'25 40 E 5.00 5-6 S 49'07'01 E 6.27' CH. 6-7 S 49'39 42 E 32.0 7-8 S 51'45 25 E 27.20 CH. 8-1 S 36'08'53 W 5.00' TOTAL AREA a 329 SQUARE FcET h ~o• Off. ~V~~Q ~~ 0~~~ QV. y~P~~°' EX. 5' PRIVATE-~ \0~~. 0' W.L. k S.S.E. ~F~ Q• P.B. 16, PG. 21 CHORD = N 41°21~OO~W 43.64 ARC = 43.67' Z V ~ o: 2~ 4~ Va ~o v°°~ y PORTION Of EX/STWO - 20' P"U.E TO BE VACATED EX. 20' P.U.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21~ LEGEND P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.L do S.S.E. WATERLINE & SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.B. PLAT BOOK i PORTION OF EXISTING 20' P.U.E. TO BE VACATED LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE 1-2 N 35'02'51" W 30.02' CH. 2-3 N 57'31'14" E 5.00' 3-4 S 35'02'51" E 29.57' CH. 4-1 S 52'23'05" W 5.00' TOTAL AREA = 149 SQUARE FEET I LOT 20 I _- I S 47'00'00' W 54.06' •- ~ 20.01' i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~I I TAX #26.16-12-22 L07 21 4 I ~ ~ EX. 1 STORY cv ~ BRICK & FRAME TOWNHOUSE I ~~ ~ ~~ cv ::':: I CARPORT -Ex. 1s uTIUTY EASEMENT Z SECTION No. 5 1~ WATERFORD" v,~ 16, PG. 21 0 LL0 !f J rn b~ w _ I I ~3 ~ -~ _ ~ ~ ~ o 'v o rn v Ir ,.~ v n ~ ~ _ ~~ I C-1 N 46'30'18" E 20.46' ec~cK w~cNUr couRr 30' PRIVATE R/W LOT 22 EX. 5' PRIVATE W.L do S.S.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21 - EX. PUBUC W.L & S.S.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21 NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FlELD SURVEY. 2. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST. ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THIS PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. 3. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VACATING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY. CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C-1 151.03' 39.86' 20.05' 39.75' N 54'03'58" E 15'07'19" C-2 5.00' 7.92' 5.07' 7.12' S 73'00'00" E 90'44'45' C-3 315.00' 96.71' 48.74' 96.33' S 36'25'20" E 17'35'24' C-4 335.00' 30.03' 15.02' 30.02' N 35'02'51" W 05'08'09" C-5 330.00' 29.58' 14.80' 29.57' S 35'02'51" E 05'08'09" PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF EXISTING 20' P ZJ'BL1C jJ' 11L1T Y EASElVIr,'1V 1 TO BE VACATED ~cyQ~1'Tx OF T,f ACROSS TAX #26.16-12-22, BEING LOT 21 8 _ I a 94 .per SECTION No. 5, "WATERFORD" (P.B. 16, PG. 21) B. LEE ~.~ PROPERTY OF HENDERSON, JR. a ~ An~'~„d,,,4z + STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORP. No. 1480 SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: 17 AUGUST 1994 l~ ~v~a4 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 5 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 5~ S-9 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE VACATING THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON CERTAIN LOTS IN SECTION 5 OF WATERFORD (PB 16, PAGE 21) WHEREAS, Strauss Construction Company has requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate the following portions of public utility easements located on certain lots in Section 5 of Waterford in the Hollins Magisterial District as shown in Plat Book 16, at page 21 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 1994; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that portions of the following public utility easements located in Section 5, Waterford in the Hollins Magisterial District of record in Plat Book 16, at page 21, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby are, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended: (1) 150-square feet of a public utility ease- ment located on Lot 1 (Tax Map No. 26.16- 12-1) and shown on a plat prepared by S-7 Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated 17 August 1994, and (2) 329-square feet of a public utility ease- ment located on Lots 19 and 20 (Tax Map Nos. 26.16-12-20 and 26.16-12-21) and shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden Asso- ciates, P. C., dated 17 August 1994, and (3) 149-square feet of a public utility ease- ment located on Lot 21 (Tax Map No. 26.16-12-22), and shown on a plat pre- pared by Lumsden Associates, P. C., dated 17 August 1994, and, 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 3. That Strauss Contruction Company shall record a certified copy of this ordinance, along with the attached three plats dated 17 August 1994, prepared by Lumsden and Associates, P. C., with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction and in addition, shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated herewith. 4. That as a further condition to the adoption of this ordinance, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, shall be indemnified of and held harmless from and against all claims for damages to any improvements or structures within the old easement area by it, its heirs, succesors, or assigns. S9 5. That pursuant to § 15.1-485 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Circuit Court Clerk shall write in plain legible letters across the part of the plat vacated, the word "vacated" and also make a reference on the same to the volume and page in which the instrument of vacation is recorded. vacation.strauss ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~° AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE VACATING AND CLOSING AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS CREEK CIRCLE ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF MISTY FOREST SUBDIVISION COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance and public hearing on a petition to vacate and close an unimproved portion of right-of-way known as Creek Circle, as shown on the 'Plat Showing Part of Creek Circle to be Vacated for Custom Development Corporation' dated June 15, 1994, a copy of which is attached hereto. BACKGROUND: Creek Circle (Route 938) extends from Whistler Drive (Route 937) in an easterly, then southerly, direction to its intersection with Berry Lane (also Route 938). This major portion of Creek Circle is in the state secondary road system. An additional, smaller portion of Creek Circle extends in a southwesterly direction from the intersection with Berry Lane, as shown on the attached plat. This section of Creek Circle is unimproved, is not in the state secondary road system, and is the subject of this request to vacate. Creek Circle appears to have been created by an unrecorded plat dated March 12, 1959, for Norwood Corporation. It has been shown as a road on the Roanoke County Land Records (Tax Map #95.03) for many years, and thus has been treated for tax purposes as a public road. However, it has not been conveyed to the County or dedicated to public use. Based upon this status, the Petitioner is ~~~ requesting vacation of the unimproved portion of Creek Circle to the extent that any County or public interest may exist. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The initial request for vacation was received from Corpre, Inc., a Virginia corporation, as owner of a tract of land, containing 111.888 acres (as surveyed April 21, 1994), and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map Nos. 95.03-2-17, 95.03-2-18, and 95.03-2-19. On or about September 8, 1994, the property was sold to Custom Development Corporation, a Virginia corporation, the current Petitioner. The subject portion of Creek Circle is bounded on all sides, except to the north at the intersection with Berry Lane, by the Petitioner's property. Custom Development Corporation has filed development plans with the Roanoke County Department of Engineering and Inspections, which include subdivision of a portion of its property into Misty Forest Subdivision, to the east of and including a portion of the undeveloped section of Creek_Circle (if vacated). The unimproved portion of Creek Circle is not required for access by the Petitioner or by the public. County staff has reviewed the request to vacate, and has determined that this section of Creek Circle does not serve the public and does not directly affect any property owners other than the Petitioner. FISCAL IMPACTS: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance to vacate and close, to the extent that any public or County interest may exist, the unimproved portion of right-of-way known as Creek Circle. Respectfully submitted, V ck e L. Huf a Assistant Cou y Attorney +~ Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: ACTION Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs 0 z U - r7 ~~ w a~ z- Q ~ ~w m zO ~v p O ~ N ~ +i O ~ ^. ~ W O ~ ~ ~ ~ r~^ /~ g0 \ Egg 752 ~ ~ 938 ti 221 >o BENT ,~ MOUNTA I N ~' ~Oyo ~ SITE LOCATION MAP \ /ST 4,~ <~~\ ~ ~~ ~R'~F aFR ~~` I N RY\ ~~ < / \ ~ N~C \ U p ~ 9 NOTES : 38 \ \ ~o ~ emu, I) SEE PLAT C.R. MCMURRY \ ~~ Rey ~ ~ m oa DATED MAY 12 1994 FOR "MISTY ~'' FOREST' SUBD IVISION PLAT. D ~ ~ pA VEMENT~ " ~ ° J (, 2) SEE PLAT C.R. MCMURRY DATED APRIL 21 1994 FOR LOTWIO 0 ® -_ PLAT OF 111. 888 ACRES FOR LARRY FENZEL . 1.650 ~ ACRES 3) AREA TO BE VACATED BOUNDED IOLD LOT 8) BY i-7 TO I TOTAL AREA-.254 AC RES ~O~ \0T 8 ,off' TY T ~~ © / ~~N ~ F \/ ~ TAX PARCEL 95.03-2-19 DELTA CURVE ANGLE RADIUS ARC 7-I 78°28'11" 30.00' 41.09 LINE BEARING DISTANCE I-2 N 88°49'16"E 67.08' 2-3 S 20°38'16"W 182.13' 3-4 S 48°27'01"W 111.21' 4-5 N 41°32'59"W 40.00' 5-6 N 48°27'01"E 105.00' 6-7 N 20°38'16'E 114.63' '/, ~f ;co R. irici.iURRY ~, ~a ~ ~_ CERTIi KATE Mo, ~;r, ~~~ i,,, `>~aiav ~`~lV TANGENT CHORD CHORD BEARING 24.50' 37.95' N 18°35'34"W i PLAT SHOWING PART OF CREEK c~tic~E TO BE VACATED FOR LUS-r"Or~ DrY~'~OPMb1J~ C~RPC>(~ATIoN NJINDSOR HILLS DISTRICT-ROANOKE COUNTY-VIK~~NiA SCALE I"-100' JUNE 15. 1994 CHARLES R. MCMURRY-CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR DALEVILLE. VIRGINIA 24083-0097 SID .-1 ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 ORDINANCE VACATING AND CLOSING AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS CREEK CIRCLE ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF MISTY FOREST SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, Custom Development Corporation, the current petitioner, and Corpre, Inc., the initial petitioner, have requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate and close an unimproved portion of right-of-way, forty feet (40') in width, known as Creek Circle, located on the east side of the proposed Misty Forest Subdivision in the Windsor Hills District of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, §15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by §15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on October 11, 1994. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That an unimproved portion of right-of-way known as Creek Circle, as shown on the 'Plat Showing Part of Creek Circle to be Vacated for Custom Development Corporation' dated June 15, 1994, a copy of which is attached hereto, created by an unrecorded plat for Norwood Corporation dated March 12, 1959, shown on the Roanoke County Land Records (Tax Map #95.03), and bounded by property owned by Custom Development Corporation which is designated on the ...~~) ~ Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map Nos. 95.03-2-17, 95.03-2-18, and 95.03-2-19, be, and hereby is, vacated to the extent that any public or County interest may exist, pursuant to Section 15.1- 482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, 2. That the Department of Engineering and Inspections shall record a certified copy of this ordinance, together with a copy of the attached plat, with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, and all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to, publication costs, survey costs and recordation of documents, shall be the responsibility of the current Petitioner, Custom Development Corporation, or its successors or assigns; and, 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. ~,(~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIiII IIIII11111111IIIIIIIIIIiII I III 1111111 Illillilillllllllllilllilllllllllllliilllllll AGENDA ITEM NO. - APPE CE REQUEST ~.~PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS -_ ~_ SUBJECT: y~I r~ PQ,yc~,p ~~"~ u ~J , - G! /lit ~- 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, = and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ofgthe 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. ^ 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. o ^ 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 __ S ~ ~ ~., t, S 6~ ~.A'K o nJ [fy 1 ~ ~ /g~~ ass T~ ~./ iS ~4s ~~,p ~a"A'T ~ ~,r ~ ~ NAME L A~~,~j 1~~~~ r L , p~S. pus ~ ~D~~~! ~p __ ADDRESS 3~i zs S~~G ~ s ~ ~ . - ;' PHONE °l~~`~ v SAS ~.,~ f r.~ -- mlilllllllilllllllillllllllllllllllllilllllilllllilllllllillllllllilllllllllillllllllillllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllillll BID PROTEST DENIED ACTION NO. A-92794-19 ITEM NO. ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Bid Protest: Water Line Materials American Cast Iron Pipe Company COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : .~ ~~ ~"""'" /f ~rvve-dn ~ ~X ~ ~ ~-~1 ~~ µ O ~~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This bid protest is made by American Cast Iron Pipe Company pursuant to Section 17-129 ("Protest of award or decision to award") of the Roanoke County Code, challenging an award of the South Loop Transmission Main Water Line Materials, Bid CP94-107 to Griffin Pipe Products and United States Pipe and Foundry Company. Edward A. Natt, Esq. is local counsel for American Cast Iron Pipe Company. Counsel for the successful bidders are also expected to be present. BACKGROUND' On August 19, 1994, Procurement Services for the County of Roanoke issued an invitation to bid water line materials for the south loop transmission main water line. A pre-bid conference was conducted on August 26, 1994. Bids were received and read on September 1, 1994. Notice of bid award split between Griffin Pipe Products and United States Pipe and Foundry Company was issued September 9, 1994. American Cast Iron Pipe Company ("ACIPCO") protested this award by letter dated September 16, 1994. This bid is for water line materials (approximately 38,000 feet of 24 inch D.I.P, 61,800 feet of 30 inch D.I.P., 24,700 feet of 36 inch D.I.P., an undetermined amount of 18 inch D.I.P., and associated fittings, "D.I.P." means ductile iron pipe) with prices to remain firm through August 31, 1995. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ACIPCO asserts that it is the low bidder, and should therefore be awarded this contract for water line materials. Its bid 1 ,:.~ i included a discount subject to certain contingencies with respect to minimum quantities and order dates. It has evaluated the bid prices solely on volume discounts, which apparently are not now contingent on required minimum quantities or shipping or order dates. County Procurement and Utility staff reviewed all of the bids and have evaluated these bids based on realistic estimates of anticipated quantities of both push-on and restrained joint pipe, as well as fittings, in accordance with the bid unit prices received and read on September 1, 1994. This evaluation shows that the split award is the low bid. This evaluation is also based upon the timing of the seven phases of this project, with a deadline for completion of December, 1995 (reference is made to the Board's September 13, 1994 work session on the water projects). It is staff's determination that the County's best interests are served by the split award to Griffin Pipe Company and United States Pipe and Foundry Company. By letter dated September 8, 1994, ACIPCO asserted that its two discount conditions attached to its bid were incorrectly interpreted by the County. These conditions required the County to issue or provide "an order released by 12/31/94" for certain minimum tonnages of various sizes of pipe. Apparently these contingencies are no longer applicable. If these conditions are no longer applicable, then what purpose is served by the unit bid prices in ACIPO's bid? Are the unit prices applicable, with no contingencies, or are the discount prices applicable? The practical effect of ACIPCO's position is to violate both the letter and spirit of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, by allowing negotiations after receipt of sealed bids with respect to conditions contrary to the bid request. Attached for Board review are the following documents: 1) ACIPCO bid, 2) Letter from Gary M. London, Esq. (counsel for ACIPCO) to Paul M. Mahoney dated September 8, 1994, explaining the contingencies of the bid, 3) Spreadsheet analyzing the bids 4) Notice of Bid Award dated September 9, 1994, 5) Letter from Edward A. Natt, Esq. to Elaine Carver dated September 16, 1994, bid protest, 6) Memorandum from Gary L. Robertson to Paul M. Mahoney dated September 9, 1994 (this memorandum was prepared at the request of the County Attorney in anticipation of and 2 ~.~f preparation for possible litigation) ALTERNATIVES' If it is determined by the Board of Supervisors that the decision to award the bid was arbitrary or capricious, then the relief is as follows: If after an award of a bid has been made, but performance of the contract has not yet begun, performance of the contract may be terminated. If the award has been made and performance has begun, the Board may declare the contract void, upon a finding that this action is in the best interest of the public. Where a contract has been declared void, the performing contractor shall be compensated for the cost of performance up to the time of such declaration. In the event of a timely protest, no further action to award the contract will be taken, unless there is a written determination that proceeding without delay is necessary to protect the public interest or unless a bid or offer would expire. The Utility Department has provided a written determination that it is necessary to proceed without delay with this contract to protect the public interest. The timely completion of these water projects is necessary to provide water to the citizens of south County. Bids for the various phases of the construction of the south loop transmission water line are being requested. Delay in the acquisition of the pipe materials will delay these construction contracts, as well as the entire project, and jeopardize the December 1995 deadline for completion of the water projects. If the Board rejects this protest, then ACIPCO may challenge this decision in circuit court. The circuit court shall review this decision, which shall be reversed only if the bidder establishes that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. If ACIPCO seeks an injunction, then the court shall require the posting of reasonable security to protect the County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board consider the arguments of the representatives of ACIPCO in support of its protest, as well as the responses of the successful bidders. Staff is available to respond to the arguments raised, as well as any questions of the Board. Staff further recommends that the Board reject this protest, and authorize staff to proceed with the award of this contract for 3 i~ south loop transmission main water line materials. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Absent Approved (x) Motion by FAward C' Kc~hinkP Eddy x Denied ( ) t~ apircwP Gtaff rPt~~mmPnr3atic~n Johnson x Received ( ) t~ r7Pny Y(~tP4'f anc3 mnvP Kohinke X Referred ~..v~-•~ra Nickens x to Minnix x IiLpipe.rpt cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement Gary Robertson, Director, Utility 4 ~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iii~iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiii~i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~ = AGENDA ITEM NO. ~" = APPE CE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS c SUBJECT: !'' C ~ ~~ ~ t CI ~ y ~~~} 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, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ot~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. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments ^ w-th 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 ~uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ - ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. APPE CE REQUEST '_ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS c SUBJECT: ~- C~ PC~U ~ ~~~ ara~~S 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 __ i3ELOW: ^ 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 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 a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. c ^ INDIVIDUALS 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 -_ ~. I ~ ADVERTISEMENT FOR BID 1) ACIPCO BID SOUTH LOOP TRANSMISSION MAIN WATER UNE MATERIALS BID CP94-107 The County of Roanoke, Virginia is requesting sealed bids for the supply of water line material for the proposed transmission main. The project shall include approximately 38,000 feet of 24 inch D.I.P., 61,800 feet of 30 inch D.I.P., 24,700 feet of 36 inch D.I.P. and an undetermined amount of 18 inch D.I.P. with associated fittings. Sealed bids, in duplicate, will be accepted at and until 3:00 p.m. on September 1, 1994, in the office of Procurement Services, at which time they will be publicly opened and read out loud. Any bidder claiming the right to withdraw their bid shall give notice in writing of this claim of right to withdraw his bid within two business days after the conclusion of the bid opening procedure. A pre-bid meeting will be conducted on August 26, 1994 at 3:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Utility Department office located at 1206 Kessler Mill Road, Salem, Virginia. For further information and to receive bid documents, contact Procurement at the address listed below. Roanoke County solicits participation from minority owned business. Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Dr., S.W. P. 0. Box 29800 Suite 300 G Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2063 Bonnie B. Preas, CPPO, CPPB Assistant Director of Procurement Services B I D F O R M PROJECT: South Loop Transmission Main Water Line Material T~ I In Compliance with your Advertisement for Bids, the undersigned hereby proposes to furnish the materials for the above described project in strict accordance with the contract documents, including all addenda thereto, in consideration of the prices set forth in the Schedule of Prices, and agrees, upon receipt of written notice of an award of the Contract that he will execute the Contract in the form stipulated, in accordance with this bid as accepted at the time the Contract is executed. SCHEDULE OF PRICES 18 INCH WATER LINE MATERIAL UNIT PRICE DELIVERY ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT FIGURES WORDS TIME 1 Class 52 Push-on LF ds~ T~ ;~/ ~/C fla.~5 4 C~'~ 4 weeks 2 Class 53 Push-on LF ~~~~ 'r n ~~Y~ iz Wci.~S ~ cEr-'~ 4 weeks 3 Class 53 LF ~~ 3~ sz''E'"'YN' C ' " ~12 weeks Restrained J ~ '^ § ~ , ~~~ 4 4 5 ° Bend EA ~{(o~ ~ ~p~ Six'Ty (,,ue ~c ~$ weeks 5 22 1/2 ° Bend EA ~~3 0 +~.~ SLOP-~ S~"~i`t~~~ '"8 Sweeks 6 11 1/4° BEnd EA y7~ ~ ~, 8 weeks 7 18" x 18" Tee EA Oa' U 8 weeks 8 18" x 12" Tee EA 00 ~- ~.j.~,vlY~En u ' 8 weeks 9 18" x 8" Tee EA n~ S S, ; ~ ctt~ 8 weeks 10 18" x 6" Tee EA co ~~~ ~ ,,,_~ ,X ~rvp2c'0 rr,Ki7 n;,,~ ~ou. 8 weeks 11 12" MJ Welded EA °~' 12 weeks Outlet ~~J~ .S,x ,v % ~'1 S-~ ~c(c S 12 8" MJ Welded EA o0 sc ~ 12 weeks Outlet y ~ac,Q ,~~~Q ~ 13 6" MJ Welded EA QG 7 ` 12 weeks Outlet j~o i ~siX pOC ~~ 14 Butterfly Valve EA /~ p ~ 12 weeks 15 Plug EA ~ ~• j.~;v ~ weeks 16 MJ Restraint EA 4 weeks Glands with ~n ~ A \ ~ ~ ~~ IV Accessories j 17 Sleeve EA 3fo3 o SDK It~Q~ 8 wfeeks 18 MJ Gland with ~~ ~ cc 3( ~ ~ ~ 2 ~~ S 4 weeks Accessories ~ iX ( t.~~ 5 l1-~r~ , 1 ~--~ SCHEDULE OF PRICES ~ ~A 24 INCH WATER LINE MATERIAL UNIT PRICE DELIVERY ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT FIGURES WORDS TIME S.=rt- -w~ 1 Class 52 Push-on LF ~ivf.Dc1c.4eS~ c'~ 4 weeks 2 Class 53 Push-on LF 37 9Z N,NTI 7rh~5~~ ~1~5 t~ vJu 4 weeks 3 Class 53 LF ~ ~Q'Y ~'`'~ QcU.~3-Q.5 ~ 12 weeks Restrained a 7~oL~.-'3 f ~~ '` ~ ~ y ~ ~~ ~2Li Tfi ~rN L"~~~{~{Z-t ~/ CAL. 4 45 ° Bend EA 83 ~ °~~,~s 8 weeks 5 22 1/2 ° Bend EA ~ ya ~ib~{T ~N~tt~s~ 0 8 weeks 6 11 1/ 4 ° BEnd EA ~{l `- ~~;y~ ' 8 weeks 7 24" x 24" Tee EA CC ~ (~sq~ Ohic `fl~#C.:S SIX N~ ~~ ~N ~a~. S 8 weeks 6C. -" CNC -T7~p~JSQn1~ 0 ~ f{/SV~ 8 24" x 12" Tee EA 1 X33 a.c, 8 weeks cc Ccue `iNa~s4+~D e~:+~ ' fl 9 24" x 8" Tee EA ~ ~L`Q~ a t~S 8 weeks 10 _ 24" x 6" Tee EA I O~jy~` plc ~~~~ £~L~ 8 weeks ~ Q "~ fl.~NCQ~'0 1~+-t~'-15~~ ~ 11 12" MJ Welded EA p - ' 12 weeks Outlet f~3lo o°~c,~S 12 8" MJ Welded EA 12 weeks Out 1 et ~ ~ Q a v-A-A S ~, ac -~{~~ ~~oP~~ Sv~TyS~z 13 6" MJ Welded EA 3~ A o``~S 12 weeks Outlet p 14 Butterfly Valve EA ~l~ N -. ~l 12 weeks - ~'~ h~~ ~£~ 15 Plug EA 3~ nOLL 8 weeks 16 MJ Restraint EA 4 weeks Glands with tJ~ ?JCS ~~~ Accessories 17 Sleeve EA Co ~ S~~ hJC tiwOR..f~ pr1 ~X t~eti~-QS 8 weeks 18 MJ Gland with ~~ ~ "~ ~~ ~-~( 9~t-~,~-5 4 weeks Accessories C~t4-~- SCHEDULE OF PRICES w 30 INCH WATER LINE MATERI~i, ~~ UNIT PRICE DELIVERY ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT FIGURES WORDS TIME 1 Class 52 Push-on LF y~~~ c~1~ ti c~ ~ c1.t.~S ~ ~5, ~~ C~,'3 4 weeks 4f S~. F~~iwo D~L~s 2 Class 53 Push-on LF sod "-' -T~,c; , 4 weeks 3 Class 53 LF ~ ~-~ S"~~ Suc ~~~ ~ 12 weeks ~ Ni NEr4 T.~+c ~~ Restrained 4 45 ° Bend EA O70 ~eus,Q 8 weeks A~ y 00 (v.1c 1't{OUS. OJV~ lf~NO 5 22 1 2 ° Bend EA alc8'~ ~au,4.2S 8 weeks `~ vv ~,.ao ~'~4rJ0 c~NS (~k%N-D29 6 11 1/4 ° BEnd EA x115 Qoc.+~--25 8 weeks o~ ,1.~.~~~~i tws 4r~ 1~ Sin U~:~?x 7 30" x 24" Tee EA 3(~ap pc~L~q-~S 8 weeks f` wc`uo~x~fl SAX, i.lvsap~ 8 30" x 12" Tee EA alo-lo S~~r,1~t Ocrc.4.2s 8 weeks 9 30" x 8" Tee EA a~18 ~~as 8 weeks _'" lwciW~~~+v~Fivo1-~utr0 f9 10 30" x 6" Tee EA oZSQS F~~E LAS 8 weeks 11 12" MJ Welded EA W ~~ S•x ij.~,o2.~~~`t 12 weeks outlet Six ~o~~~-RS 12 8" MJ Welded EA ~ co ~r,.i~ ~;ruOP-~ ~~ 12 weeks Outlet ~~ N tN~ Oo~~S ~ ~ I~-Qf~ ~~Q~ S~x~y 13 6" MJ Welded EA 12 weeks Outlet 3~~ S,x ~~~d5 14 Butterfly Valve EA N~ o , 12 weeks ct `~4 1U~Nt ~/n~AQ-~ N;N~;y 15 Plug EA 0 l~o~~eS 8 weeks 16 MJ Restraint EA 4 weeks Glands with Iv~ ~~ ~ y ~ Accessories 17 Sleeve EA l,~ ~..~~r~r ~.~~~{-T Docc 8 weeks 18 MJ Gland with ~ °~ ~ ~O oNE tk,Np~.tb C'~~1 ~ ~ ~ 4 weeks Accessories o~,~.~-2S ~~ SCHEDULE OF PRICES "'_• 36 INCH WATER LINE MATERIAL ~` ~~ UNIT PRICE DELIVERY ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT FIGURES WORDS TIME ~ 5 ~ K~ ~ x Q„u,aas 2 1 Class 52 Push-on LF (off ,.~ S.~c CcN•3 4 weeks Q~ SEV~+T/ on,E ~~~~ fi 2 Class 53 Push-on LF 71 g N,~Z;^i Fv~2 CeN'S 4 weeks 3 Class 53 LF 5 1 .~ N ~ rJ~"`f ONL l~U-~S 21 12 weeks Restrained ~~ ~C~y ~,N~ CcT-~ ~~' ~f~ jt{oJ5.4N~ ONE I-FVi~flQ~ 4 45 ° Bend EA ~ ~y3 ~ ~ ~. Oo~L,4eS 8 weeks `y ! ~L TYI'bJS~NO "T1~ G (-fv N Q 5 22 1/2 ° Bend EA• 3,aa3 ~~ pouA~ 8 weeks w ~~ T4fo.~s*1r~ ~ 'nom 0 6 11 1/4 ° Bend EA 3,a~8 aw4.Q.S 8 weeks 7 Butterfly Valve EA (~(3 N o ~~D 12 weeks 8 Plug EA c.: ~,y~3 ONE ~{(7/S ~}Nfl ,~ N S~ po~u+-~-S 8 weeks 9 MJ Restraint EA 4 weeks Glands with ~(~ No L~tD Accessories 10 Sleeve EA yL a,`dy3 (w ~f~o;li~-NSJ / f h~ eu,~4R5 8 weeks 11 MJ Gland with ~ a o~ `^'~ ~.'Nflz~ ~ G~J 4 weeks Accessories 1 ~0l_~•4~5 ~+ The Bidder agrees that all unit prices include delivery to site. ADDENDA: Receipt of the following addenda to the Contract Documents are hereby acknowledged: n Addendum Number ~ ~ ~~ Dated /~1 V V 5'(' 3C7, ~ ~ ~ "1' Addendum Number Dated Addendum Number Dated The undersigned agrees, if this Bid is accepted, to pay as liquidated damages the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day to the County of Roanoke for each consecutive calendar day in excess of the stated time required for delivery of material. Roanoke County shall not be obligated to purchase a minimum or any amount of any bid item. Firm f~fYfE~~I~-~ (~7" ~onl l''/PE (gip ~h ~IQT( y By ahf-~) rL 5 Title ~ ~ l~ - sT2 ~ d S ~4-t.ES /1~G ~. Business Address City Q((~atJ~r~- State PA- zip / SZy / AMERICAN DUCTILE IRON PIPE A DIVISION OF AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY ~~ ^ AMERICAN DUCTILE IRON PIPE ^ AMERICAN DUCTILE IRON AND CAST IRON FITTINGS ^ AMERICAN FLOW CONTROL - VALVES AND HYDRANTS P. O. BOX 112520 • PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA 15241-2520 • TEL: 412/221-9620 • FAX: 412/221-9740 September 1, 1994 JOHN E. HAGELSKAtJIP, MANAGE? JOHN A. DODGEN SAMUEL B. RENFRO`N RANDY K. ROBERTS RAY GHILANI TIMOTHY A. RODSKY Gentlemen: ALL SALES ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON REVERSE SIDE OF THIS SHEET ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SOUTH LOOP TRANSMLSSION MAIN WATER LINE MATERIALS BID CP94-107 BID: SEPTEMBER 1,1994 @ 3:00 P.M. We are pleased to submit our proposal covering piping materials we can furnish as listed in the attached bill of material This proposal is our interpretation of items of our manufacture required per engineer's plans and specifications, and is not guaranteed. Prices are f.o.b. our foundry, Birmingham, Alabama and include freight for shipment to Roanoke County, VA at the present published rate of $53.80 per ton for shipment in 40,000 pound truckload lots on passable roads, you to unload. Any excess over truckload lots will move as LTL lots, and the difference in freight charges resulting from change in rate or additions to rate, shipment by other means, shipment in smaller lots, notification charges, or for some other reason, will be for your account. Prices do not include any local, state or federal taxes. Applicable state and local taxes will be added to invoices unless a Tax Exemption Certificate is furnished in a form satisfactory to taxing authorities. Should in the future this project be found to be taxable, American cannot be held responsble for the tax liability. Prices do not include the cost of any outside independent laboratory inspection, if such should be required. American will accept an order for pipe without fittings but will not accept an order for fittings without pipe. Our bid does not include any provisions for storage of material at your site. Standard joint material is included for push on joints. Joint material for MJ joints is not included except in bid items where it is explicitly required. Pipe will be furnished in nominal lengths as shown. Footages required would be adjusted accordingly. At the present time our estimated shipping schedule, after receipt of order is as follows: PER BID DOCUMENTS District Sales OIlices m Atlanta. Birmingham. Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City. Minneapolis. New York, Orlando, Pillsburgrt, and Sacramento I'f......r C.....~_ ._ e........nham A~ii.,~ ~___-- l`. r.. ~.I~nn-e.... ~.. __~ o............ o...._r ~f::. r AMERICAP ~ ' AST IRON PIPE COMPANY/2 The estimated promise dates listed herein are from our receipt of all approved shop drawings/submittals, if required, and your notice to proceed with manufacture. Our bid is based on the following nominal weights per foot of pipe as shown in the American pipe manual's attached pages. These weights meet or exceed all requirements of the current AWWA specifications as referenced in your project specifications. The weights for each relevant pipe type are as follows: 18" CL 52 - 78.81b/ft 18" CL 53 - 84.21b/ft 24" CL 52 - 112.1 lb/ft 24" CL 53 - 119.21b/ft 30" CL 52 - 150.71b/ft 30" CL 53 - 162.6 lb/ft 36" CL 52 - 203.1 lb/ft 36" CL 53 - 221.0 lb/ft Should American receive an order released by 12/31/94 for a minimum of 6000 tons of 30" and/or 36" pipe we offer a unit price discount from the prices on the bid form as follows: 30" CL 52 @ $5.80/FI' 30" CL 53 @ $6.26/FT 36" CL 52 @ $7.82/FI' 36" CL 53 @ $8.52/FI' In addition, if American receives an order released by 12/31/94 for a minimum of 8000 tons of 18" and larger pipe , we offer the following discounts from the prices on the bid form in addition to the discounts shown above: 18" CL 52 @ $4.02/FT 18" CL 53 @ $4.30/FI' ~4" CL 52 @ $5.72/FT 24" CL 53 @ $6.09/FI' These discounts are applicable to push on and restrained joint pipe. All material ordered will require a shipment date. Material must either ship within 30 days of the established shipment date or be invoiced as stored material. This proposal is subject to acceptance by purchase order within sixty days from project bid date listed above. If order is not placed within the sixty day period, proposal is accordingly automatically withdrawn. The opportunity of quoting you is appreciated. Please advise if you need additional information. Yours very truly, AMERICAN CASTDIIZON PIPE COMPANY ~t~ ~~ Jo E. Hagelskamp District Sales Manager JEH/jc -Enclosure ,,. AMERICAN CAST IIZON PIPE COMPANY/3 ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS (LATEST REVISION): DUCTILE IRON PIPE - ANSUAWWA C151/A21.51. FLANGE PIPE - ANSUAWWA C115/A21.15. FITTINGS - ANSUAWWA Cl 10/A21.10 OR C153/A21.53. MJ, FASTITE & FLANGE - ANSUAWWA C111/A21.11. CEMENT LIlVING - ANSUAWWA C104/A21.4. ASPHALTIC COATING -PER APPLICABLE ANSUAWWA PIPE & FTG SPEC. POLYETHYLENE ENCASEMENT - ANSUAWWA C105/A21.5. GROOVED & SHOULDERED TYPE JOINTS - AWWA C606. DIGESTER GAS DUCTILE IRON PIPE & FITTINGS - ANSI A21.52 & A21.14. ANY MATERIAL NOT COVERED BY ABOVE SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARDS. n~ AMERICAN DuCtl~e Iron Fastite Joint and Mechanical Joint Pipe AN51/AWWA C151/A21.51 Table No. 3-13 Weights for Special Classes Weight in Pounds Size Thickness Wall k Thi Fastite Joint Mechanical Joint in. Class c ness in. Per Foot plain End Per Foot Per 20' Per Foot Per 20' inc. Bell Nominal Length inc. Bell Nominal Length 4 51 .26 11.3 11.8 235 12.0 240 52 .29 12.6 13.1 265 13.3 270 53 .32 13.8 14.3 285 14.5 290 54 .35 15.0 15.5 310 15.7 315 55 .38 16.1 16.6 335 16.8 340 56 .41 17.3 17.8 355 18.0 365 6 50 .25 16.0 16.7 335 16.9 340 51 .28 17.8 18.5 370. 18.8 380 52 .31 19.6 20.3 410 20.5 ~ 415 53 .34 21.4 22.1 445 22.3 450 54 .37 23.2 23.9 480 24.1 485 55 .40 25.0 25.7 515 26.0 525 56 .43 26.7 27.4 550 27.6 555 8 50 .27 22.8 23.8 480 24.0 485 51 .30 25.2 26.2 525 26.5 535 52 .33 27.7 28.7 575 28.9 585 53 .36 30.1 31.1 625 31.3 630 54 .39 32.5 33.5 675 33.7 680 55 .42 34.8 35.8 720 36.0 725 56 .45 37.2 38.3 770 38.4 775 10 50 .29 30.1 31.4 630 31.7 640 51 .32 33.2 34.5 695 34.7 700 52 .35 36.2 37.5 755 37.7 760 53 .38 39.2 40.5 815 40.7 820 54 .41 42.1 43.5 875 43.6 880 55 .44 45.1 46.5 935 46.6 940 56 .47 48.0 49.3 990 49.5 1000 12 50 .31 38.4 40.0 805 40.2 810 51 .34 42.0 43.6 875 43.9 885 52 .37 45.6 47.2 950 47.5 960 53 .40 49.2 50.8 1020 51.1 1030 54 .43 52.8 54.3 1090 54.7 1105 55 .46 56.3 57.9 1165 58.2 1175 56 .49 59.9 61.5 1235 61.8 1245 14 50 .33 47.5 50.3 1010 50.4 1015 51 .36 51.7 54.6 1095 54.6 1100 52 .39 55.9 58.7 1175 58.8 1185 53 .42 60.1 62.9 1260 63.0 1270 54 .45 64.2 67.0 1345 67.1 1350 55 .48 68.4 71.3 1430 71.3 1435 56 .51 72.5 75.3 1510 75.4 1515 16 50 .34 55.8 59.0 1180 59.1 1190 51 .37 60.6 63.8 1280 63.9 1285 52 .40 65.4 68.6 • 1375 68.7 1385 53 .43 70.1 73.3 1470 73.5 1480 54 .46 74.9 78.1 1565 78.2 1575 55 .49 79.7 82.9 1660 83.0 1670 56 .52 84.4 87.6 1755 87.7 1765 18 50 .35 64.4 68.0 1365 68.3 1380 51 .38 69.8 73.4 1470 73.7 1490 52 .41 75.2 78.8 1580 79.1 1600 53 .44 80.6 84.2 1690 84.5 1710 54 .47 86.0 89.6 1795 89.9 1815 55 .50 91.3 95.0 1905 95.2 1925 56 .53 96.7 100.3 2010 100.6 2035 3-21 ,~~ AMERICAN DuCti~e Iron Fastite Joint and Mechanical Joint Pipe ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.51 Weights for Special Classes Table No. 3-13-Continued Weight in Pounds Size Thickness Wall Fastite Joint Mechanical Joint in. Class Thickness in. per Foot plain End per Foot Per 20' Per Foot Per 20' inc. Bell Nominal Length inc. Bell Nominal Length 20 50 .36 73.5 77.5 1555 78.1 1580 51 .39 79.5 83.5 1675 84.1 1700 52 .42 85.5 .89.5 1795 90.1 1820 53 .45 91.5 95.5 1915 96.1 1940 54 .48 97.5 101.5 2035 102.1 2065 55 .51 103.4 107.5 2155 108.0 2185 56 .54 109.3 113.3 2270 113.9 2300 24 50 .38 92.9 97.7 1960 98.9 2000 51 .41 100.1 104.9 2100 106.1 2145 52 .44 107.3 112.1 2245 113.3 2290 53 .47 114.4 119.2 2390 120.4 2435 54 .50 121.6 126.4 2535 127.6 2580 55 .53 128.8 133.5 2675 134.8 2725 56 .56 135.9 140.7 2820 141.9 2870 30 50 .39 118.5 126.7 2540 - - 51 .43 130.5 138.7 2780 - - 52 .47 142.5 150.7 3020 - - 53 .51 154.4 162.6 3260 - - 54 .55 166.3 174.5 3495 - - 55 .59 178.2 186.4 3735 - - 56 .63 190.0 198.2 3970 - - 36 50 .43 156.5 167.2 3350 - - 51 .48 174.5 185.2 3710 - - 52 .53 192.4 203.1 4070 - - 53 .58 210.3 221.0 4430 - - 54 .63 228.1 238.8 4785 - - 55 .68 245.9 256.5 5140 - - 56 .73 263.7 274.4 5500 - - 42 50 .47 198.9 213.3 4265 - - 51 .53 224.0 238.4 4770 - - 52 .59 249.1 263.5 5270 - - 53 .65 274.0 288.5 5770 - - 54 .71 298.9 313.3 6265 - - 55 .77 323.7 338.2 6765 - - 56 .83 348.4 362.8 7255 - - 48 50 .51 246.6 264.3 5285 - - 51 .58 280.0 297.7 5955 - - 52 .65 313.4 331.1 6620 - - 53 .72 346.6 364.3 7285 - - 54 .79 379.8 397.5 7950 - - 55 .86 412.9 430.6 8610 - - 56 .93 445.9 463.6 9270 - - 54 50 .57 312.3 334.3 6685 - - 51 .65 355.6 377.5 7550 - - 52 .73 398.8 420.8 8415 - - 53 .81 441.9 463.8 9275 - - 54 .89 484.9 506.8 10135 - - 55 .97 527.7 549.7 10995 - - 56 1.05 570.4 592.3 'i 1845 - - 60' and 64' sizes are not available in Special Classes. 3-22 2) LETTER FROM GARY LONDON ... BURR & FORMAN A JACKSON NOOLC, JR. T. THOMAS COT'INCNAM~ III A PhRYNE~MIP INCLUDINu PROFESSIONAL COROOPATIONSI nOnEFT 6. ~+~ GVCN J. TIMOTHY COYLC PATRICIA POWC1 OU~!cG D. W. COLUCR C. V STfLZEMMULLER J~ GwTRICK LOGAN I MARK H. LAW60N ALLISON L GOWNING ROtiE:AT G. TATf tlCbAGf H. TAYLOR, 111 JEFFREY L BAKCR ERIC D. FRAM J. INiO FDWELL tlAWY M. CORDON RwWL6 ORUGC A SOUTHTRUST TOWER .. SUITE 3004 PAUL R BOLUS GREGORY F. MARLCY L. 7CHNCNT LEE. III SNWEL W. OLIVER, JR. . C, A. PLOWER6, III , DAVID A. ELLIOT7 GARY W. FARRb ALAN P. JVOCC JEFFREY 'a. MILLGR rAUL b. WObOA~L HICHAEL L. HALL 420 NORTH 20TH STREET WILLIwn 5. HEREFORD HOWARD E. DOTARD J. rRCDR1[ 1NGRAH WCMP•fL L LUGS rARKfY J. JORDAN W1LtUM N. HCLDROOK IOVI: N. ANDLII9, JA. DWIGHT L. AtIX~ON, JA. R rr1LL1LS T ALABAMA 35203 BIRMINGHAM JILL v~4DfYEN DEER PA~fU MORSE ARCH DCRG RODCRr O, ROBIN C J. MVN , NANtr L GRTER D• Cr~NISTOPNfR GRSON WILLIAM C. KN16MT JR. JOSEPH G. :TCWAI~Y DAVID D, DGWO, ul CAROL H, CTCWART TELEPHONE (20.~i) 2bl•5000 HARRI J. MAIKAU E HAMPTON McMAODfN, JR. GAR" L, wOWAFO RICHARD C rELLfR JOHN D. CLCMCNT: ROBERT H. RUTHCRFOMp CHR16TOPHCR W~ wfufR COURTNAY L BTALLINGS JOHN F Di OVY+~ JN, GENET, PR~CC FACSIMILE (205) a50-S 100 E. BRITTON MONROp P1K 5. T031 HARK TALIAFCRRO~ JR. H. GRAHAM DCCNC JENNIFER M. DU~OY JOHN W. EVANS DCBORAH P. F15HCR _. JAHES A. TAYLOR, JR. J. ROSS FORMAN, 111 D- FRANK DAMS RICHARD A, FRCC:C GAIL LMNGSTON MILLS MUNT;iVILLC OfPICE' RUS6ELL W. ADAMtl MATTMGMi wARRfN C BORDEN M, p:JRR 11e~e'1»L'I w. BRAND WALTON JOHN C. MORROW a00 M=FIDIAN bTRCET . PETfR H. BURKC JAMfS R. FORMAN IIGPO-ILi~I JOHN T. MOOFESMITM, P,G, NCTOR L. HAY6LIP QUITE :04 OE4ALD P. GILLEEPY wKUAN P. HURRAY, JR, JACK P. STfPHENGON, JR. W. BENJAMIN JOHNSON f. CLAYTON LOWE, JR. HUNTSVILLE. ALA6AMw 07tl01 6• BAATLEY LOFTIN, MI WPINACCI TIMOTHY M R AN JR R SRIC L cw1iLTON K. OLENH PERPY, JA. 1mn1 e5I.OCID • cDW IN O. ROGGR:, . FO M , . JwHE6 $. QAGNAL ROWE OfNT M. MORTON FAGaIMILE 1:0~1 »1•cOa3 r_YfR A. GRAMM+Ii WILLIAM K HURRAY JAMC9 J. ROBINSON 5Uf A. WILL16 :wwUE~ H. BUFR J03CrH W LCT2ER WF:.'TfR'S DIRECT; Of tAUMOCL (205) 458.5203 ~I~ FACSIlVITI.E: (703) 772-2089 ' Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. County Attorney County of Roanoke Post Office Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 2401$-0798 Dear Paul: September $, 1994 This letter is to follow-up our telephone conversation of September 8, 1994, and your request that I clarify a term in American Cast Iron Pipe Company's ("ACIPCO") bid. On September 1, 1994, the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County"), opened sealed bids for the supply of water line material for the South Loop Transmission Water Main Line, bid CP 94-107. Based on the unit prices of the advertised quantities of materials contained in the County's invitation to bid, ACIPCO is the low bidder by a substantial amount. It has come to ACIPCO's attention that a term contained in its bid proposal may have been incorrectly interpreted by the County, and therefore, is unnecessarily causing a delay in J the awarding of the bid to ACIPCO. The term is "an order released by 12/31/94.. ." ,! ACIPCO believes that the County is interpreting that language to mean that a firm order for specific quantities of material must be placed by December 31, 1994, or the County would be 'n default under the terms of ACiPCO's bid alid therefore not eligible for the price discount. This is incorrect. Internally, ACIPCO has several order designations. The term "order release" is the equivalent of the County's term "notice of bid acceptance". "Order release" to ACIPCO means that our bid has been accepted, and the County intends to purchase from ACIFCO the size and quantities of pipe set forth in the invitation to bid, The mere issuance of "order release/notice of bid acceptance" is the sole requirement for the discount to become effective. The "order release/notice of bid acceptance" allows ACIPCO to know within general limits its backlog potential. ACIPCO recognizes that the County may not be in a positioli to place an order for specific quantities by December 31, 1994, and that in fact, the requirements of the project can, and often will, change. The "order release/notice of bid acceptance" carries no 214146. Z'd Nt1Wd0.~ o c1ZIf1B WFJt%c:TT bb. 6~ d3S i BURR & FORMAN Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. September 9, 1994 page Na. 2 2 r obligation that minimum quantities actually be purchased in order for the discount to be available, only that based on current information there is an intent by the County to do so. The term "manufacturing release" is the term ACIPCO uses to signify the actual specific quantities and sizes of pipe to be ordered and manufactured. Therefore, there could be no cause for concern by the County that by issuing an "order release/notice of bid acceptance" to ACIPCO, that should all the materials later not be required for the project, that the County would either (a) be required to buy the original amount of materials in the "order release/notice of bid acceptance", or (b) would forfeit the price discount. In summary, I want to emphasize in this clarification of our term that the County is in no way obligated to give ACIPCO a specific order detailing sizes and quantities of pipe prior to December 31, 1994. To use the County's own terminology to avoid any further confusion, ACIPCO is merely requesting that the "notice of bid acceptance" be placed before the end of the calendar year, which should not cause the County any concern since its own Instructions To Bidders states that the notice of bid acceptance will be given within sixty (60) consecutive calendar days after the bid opening date. (§ ~, q 2}. ACIPCO's bid is based on the advertised quantities contained in the County's invitation to bid. To our lnowledge those quantities were the only quantities known to all bidders at the time of the bid, and are the quantities upon which the bid award must be based. I hope this clarification will clear up any misunderstanding on that ACIPCO, the low bidder, can be expeditiously awarded this discussing this matter with you when you return to your office thi (EDST). Sincerely, Gary M. don /pdh the part of the County so bid, i look forward tv s afternoon at 2:00 p,m. 214146. 3) SPREADSHEET BID TAtlULATION FOR SOUTH LOOP WATER TRANSMISSION LINE PIPE, FITTINGS AND VALVES BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 1. 1994 18-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On $22.23 $23.46 $24.44 $25.07 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On $23.00 $25.03 $26.05 $26.77 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained $37.97 $36.73 $39.05 $33.79 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend $391.60 $558.72 $563.50 $462.00 $578.00 $597.91 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend $391.60 $573.72 $563.50 $473.00 $582.00 $601.82 11-1/4 Degree Bend $391.60 $573.72 $563.50 $473.00 $582.00 $601.82 18"x18"Tee $806.96 $1,123.08 $1,093.50 $902.00 $1,135.00 $1,177.73 18"x12" Tee $644.60 $870.18 $979.00 $704.00 $860.00 $888.80 18"x8" Tee $566.72 $823.26 $772.50 $665.00 $824.00 $852.13 18"x6" Tee $558.36 $802.74 $760.00 $649.00 $805.00 $832.08 12" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 NO BID $979.00 $636.00 NO BID NO BID 8" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,855.69 $772.50 $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,755.65 $760.00 $366.00 NO BID NO BID 18"-Butterfly Valve NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $1,648.00 $2,270.52 18" Plug $195.80 $277.50 $275.50 $209.00 $199.00 $269.37 MJ Restraint Glands $209.13 NO BID $234.48 NO BID $159.00 $135.93 18"Sleeve $362.12 $288.72 $530.00 $363.00 $538.00 $444.40 MJ Gland $75.80 $35.64 $66.70 $36.00 $61.00 $45.55 24-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On $31.62 $33.64 $34.86 $35.68 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On $33.59 $35.55 $36.97 $37.92 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained $54.38 $53.55 $56.97 $48.72 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend $751.96 $996.42 $992.00 $831.00 $1,198.00 $1,238.35 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend $751.96 $1,011.42 $992.00 $842.00 $1,221.00 $1,261.82 11-114 Degree Bend $751.96 $1,018.92 $992.00 $847.00 $1,221.00 $1,261.82 24"x18" Tee $1,382.92 $2,098.38 $1,779.00 $1,689.00 $2,385.00 $2,464.97 24"x12"Tee $1,009.36 $1,390.38 $1,298.00 $1,133.00 $1,576.00 $1,629.46 24"x8"Tee $990.44 $1,350.96 $1,279.00 $1,100.00 $1,583.00 $1,590.35 24"x6" Tee $977.68 $1,330.44 $1,256.00 $1,084.00 $1,515.00 $1,565.91 12" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,295.24 $1,298.00 5636.00 NO BID NO BID 8" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,040.54 $1,279.00 $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $962.39 $1,256.00 $366.00 NO BID NO BID 24"-Butterfly Valve NO BID NO BID NO BID $2,747.00 $3,054.73 24" Plug $361.24 $502.50 $525.00 $385.00 $374.00 $513.82 MJ Restraint Glands $296.53 NO BID $249.00 NO BID $531.00 $198.22 24"Sleeve $573.76 $403.92 $790.00 $556.00 $792.00 $748.48 MJ Gland $98.80 $68.04 $77.00 $50.00 $69.00 $75.55 PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSON VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES & WASTE 30-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On NO BID $43.32 NO BID $48.63 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On NO BID $46.38 NO BID $52.52 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained NO BID $60.54 NO BID $66.92 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend NO BID $1,205.16 NO BID $2,070.00 $2,088.00 $2,157.95 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend NO BID $1,227.16 NO BID $2,100.00 $2,123.00 $2,194.13 11-114 Degree Bend NO BID $1,238.16 NO BID $2,115.00 $2,139.00 $2,194.13 30"x18" Tee NO BID $2,259.12 NO BID $3,600.00 $3,772.00 $3,897.91 30"x12" Tee NO BID ' $1,626.62 NO BID $2,670.00 $2,759.00 $2,851.20 30"x8" Tee NO BID $1,593.70 NO BID $2,618.00 $2,704.00 $2,794.48 30"x6" Tee NO BID $1,579.18 NO BID $2,595.00 $2,680.00 $2,769.55 12" MJ Welded Outlel NO BID $1,191.62 NO BID $636.00 NO BID NO BID 8" MJ Welded Outlet NO BID $957.29 NO BID $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6" MJ Welded Outlet NO BID $704.70 NO BID $366.00 NO BID NO BID 30"- Butterfly Valve NO BID NO BID NO BID $4,390.00 $7,561.05 30" Plug NO BID $726.00 NO BID $990.00 $609.00 $1,020.31 MJ Restraint Glands NO BID NO BID NO BID $638.00 $535.71 30" Sleeve NO BID $506.66 NO BID $1,628.00 $1,582.00 ,. , $1,031.55 MJ Gland NO BID $156.42 NO BID 5180.00 $262.00 $194.44 -_,I PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSGN VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COtdPANY ENTERPRISES & WASTE 36-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On NO BID $58.88 NO BID $66.66 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On NO BID 563.43 NO OID $71.94 NO BID NO BlD Class 53 Restrained NO BID $82.75 NO BID $91.59 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend NO BID 51,789.34 NO BID $3,143.00 $3,239.00 NO BID 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend NO BID $1,833.34 NO BID $3,203.00 $3,308.00 NO BID 11-1/4 Degree Bend NO BID $1,844.34 NO BID $3,218.00 $3,325.00 NO BID 36"- Butterfly Valve NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $6,041.00 $8,673.68 36" Plug NO BID $1,072.50 NO BID $1,463.00 NO BID NO BID MJ Restraint Glands NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID 5859.00 $685.53 36" Sleeve NO BID 5617.84 NO BID 52,243.00 $2,210.00 NO BID PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSON VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES & WASTE PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSON VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES & WASTE _;,,,. 1~ .. O~ POANp,I.~ ti •~ ~ z c~ ~ z J a 1838 4) NOTICE OF BID AWARD PROCUREMENT SERVICES --- --T- . - - ELAINE CARVER DIRECTOR BONNIE B. PREAS, PPB, CPPO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR -~ __ September 9, 1994 NOTICE OF BID/PROPOSAL AWARD BID/PROPOSAL NUMBER: Bid CP94-107 TITLE: Water Line Materials AWARDED TO: Split Award: KAY S. JOHNSTON, CPPB BUYER EVE F. WIRT BUYER Griffin Pipe Products United States Pipe & Foundry Co. 18" pipe 30" pipe 24" pipe 36" pipe and related fittings, and related fittings, exclusive of valves and exclusive of valves and mechanical joint accessories. mechanical joint accessories. The County appreciates your interest by submitting a bid for this project. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Note: this award is based on low bid meeting the bid requirements. Unfortunately, Roanoke County is not able to take advantage of the volume discounts due to the tonnage and time requirements for order release by December 31, 1994. ~~u c a~ ,~ ~/IL Bonnie B. Preas, Assistant Director P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 77?_-2061 FAX: (703) 772-2074 ® Regcled Paper O~ ROANp~~ ~~W G~ l J l ti •A A .. 2 L7 7 2 J ;: a 1838 ~~+~~~ ~+~ -i+~~~~~ PROCUREMENT SERVICES ELAINE CARVER DIRECTOR BONNIE B. PREAS, PPB, CPPO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR September 9, 1994 NOTICE OF BID/PROPOSAL AWARD BID/PROPOSAL NIIMBER: Bid CP94-107 TITLE: Water Line Materials ?1 KAY S. JOHNSTON, CPPB BUYER EVE F. WIRT BUYER AWARDED TO: Split Award: Griffin Pipe Products United States Pipe & Foundry Co. 18" pipe 30" pipe 24" pipe 36" pipe and related fittings, and related fittings, exclusive of valves and exclusive of valves and mechanical joint accessories. mechanical joint accessories. The County appreciates your interest by submitting a bid for this project. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. A contract will follow shortly. us (~~~ .- ~rl-~I n W _ - -- Bonnie B. Preas, Assistant Director P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2061 FAX: (703) 772-2074 ® Recycled Paper 5) LETTER - ED NATT f~.. OSTERHOl1DT, CHARLES H. OSTERHOUOT MICHAEL S. FERGUSON EDWARD A. NATT MICHAEL J. AHERON G. STEVEN AGEE MARK D. KIDD ELLEN KUO LAW OFFICES FERGl1SON. NATT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I~J19 ELECTRIC ROAD. S. W. P. O. BOX 200G8 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2401 8 AHERON £~!~ ~~ ~ e ,ter,;, ~:~:~•r TELEPHO 703.774-I --~~_____....... _..3x.33331~.4faL September 16, 1994 HAND-DELIVERED Elaine Carver Director of Procurement Services County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 RE: Bid Proposal CP94-107 Water Line Materials Dear Ms. Carver: This letter is written pursuant to the provisions of Section 17-129 of the Roanoke County Code, Protest of award or decision to award. Our firm's client American Cast Iron Pipe submitted a proposal for said bid; which proposal was not accepted. It is my client's position that its proposal was the lowest responsible bid for the materials requested and fully met the County's bid specifications. Therefore, my client is of opinion that it should. have been the recipient of the bid award. The successful bid was a split award between Griffin Pipe Products and United States Pipe and Foundry Company. My client would respectfully request that the prior contract award be terminated as set forth"in Section 17-129(B) and that the award of the bid be made to my client. My client is of opinion that it was the lowest responsible bidder meeting the bid requirements and, therefore, is entitled to be the recipient of the bid award. It is my understanding that the Board of Supervisors meets on September 27, 1994, with its initial meeting at 3:00 in the afternoon. We will be available for presentation and discussion of the matter at that time should the Board of Supervisors so desire. ,~Q - p „a EAN/sse pc: Gary London Burr & Forman Suite 3000, Southtrust Tower 420 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 36203 Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON & AGEE, P.C. ~~ ~ ~ ~ o~ Edward A. Natt 6) MEMO -GARY ROBERTSON COUNTY OF ROANOKE ~= =~~- f UTILITY DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Elaine Carver, Director of Procurement Bonnie B. Preas, Assistant Director of Procurement FROM: ary L. Robertson, P.E., Director tility Department DATE: September 9, 1994 SUBJECT: South Loop Transmission Water Line Materials BID CP94-107 Attached for your information are two spreadsheets which evaluate pipe material bids based on pipe types (push-on and restrained joint) and quantities for bids received on September 1st for the South Loop Transmission Main (pipe, fittings and valves). TABLE I: Table I shows subtotals by vendor bids and total material cost for push-on joint pipe only (no fittings) in sizes of 24-inch, 30-inch and 36-inch diameters. Using this evaluation method the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Griffin Pipe Company is the apparent low bidder for 24-inch pipe based on unit prices read during the bid opening. If the "volume discounts" offered by American Pipe Company are accepted, then they would be low bidder by the amount of $45,314.68. 2. U.S. Pipe Company is the apparent low bidder for 30-inch and 36-inch pipe based on unit prices read during the bid opening. If the "volume discounts" offered by American Pipe Company are accepted, then they would be low bidder by the amounts of $30,282.00 and $988.00 for 30-inch and 36-inch pipe, respectively. 3. Total pipe material costs using the unit prices read during the bid opening amount to $4,994,674.76, with Griffin Pipe Company providing 24-inch pipe and U.S. Pipe Company providing the 30-inch and 36-inch pipe. 4. Total pipe material costs taking into account American Pipe Company's "volume discounts" amount to $4,918,090.08 with American Pipe Company supplying all three sizes of pipe. Using this evaluation methodology, the "volume discount" represents a pipe material cost savings of $76,584.68. TABLE II: Table II shows subtotals by vendor bids and total material cost for Class 52 push-on joint pipe including fittings for 24-inch diameter pipe. Table II also evaluates Class 52 push-on joint pipe (85 percent of project totals) and Class 53 restrained joint pipe (15 percent of project totals) MEMORANDUM September 9, 1994 PAGE 2 J ~~ I z including fittings in sizes of 30-inch and 36-inch diameters. Using this evaluation method the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Griffin Pipe Company is the apparent low bidder for 24-inch pipe based on unit prices read during the bid opening. If the "volume discounts" offered by American Pipe Company are accepted, then they would be low bidder by the amount of $42,290.20. 2. U.S. Pipe Company is the apparent low bidder for 30-inch and 36-inch pipe based on unit prices read during the bid opening. Even if the "volume discounts" offered by American Pipe Company are accepted, U.S. Pipe Company is still the low bidder for 30- inch and 36-inch pipe, when fittings are included. 3. Total pipe material costs using the unit prices read during the bid opening amount to $5,424,041.85, with Griffin Pipe Company supplying 24-inch pipe and U.S. Pipe Company supplying 30-inch and 36-inch pipe. 4. Total pipe material costs, if American Pipe Company's "volume discounts" are taken into account, amount to $5,460,644.33 with American Pipe Company supplying 24-inch pipe with fittings and U.S. Pipe Company supplying 30-inch and 36-inch pipe with fittings. These two tables basically represent the positions taken by American Pipe Company (Table I) and Roanoke County (Table II). American Pipe Company is evaluating the bid prices solely on their "volume discounts" , which now (according to American Pipe) are not contingent on required quantities or shipping dates. Table II evaluates pipe and fittings based on realistic estimates of anticipated quantities of both push-on and restrained joint pipe, as well as fittings, for each respective pipe diameter. The Utility Department's analysis of bids received for Bid No. CP94-107 show that the best interests of the County will be served with Griffin Pipe Co. supplying 24-inch diameter pipe with fittings and U.S. Pipe Company supplying 30-inch and 36-inch pipe with fittings. It is therefore our request that the County proceed with ordering of pipe and fittings from Griffin Pipe Company and U.S. Pipe Company in accordance with bid unit prices received and read on September 1, 1994 for the Phase II portion of the projection order to meet our deadline of December 1995 for placing the South Loop on line. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please contact either Bob Benninger or me. TABLE I ~» BID ANALYSIS OF SOUTH LOOP TRANSMISSION MAIN PIPE MATERIALS ,~ ~°~° TOTAL QUANTITY OF 24-INCH PIPE W/O FITTINGS = 27,298 Push-On Pipe = 100% Restrained Joint Pi pe = 0% GRIFFIN PIP E COMPANY AMERICAN PIPE COMPANY AMERICAN M!/ DEDUCT) Class 52 Push-On 27,298 $31.62 $863,162.76 $35.68 $973,992.64 $29.96 $817,848.08 Class 53 Push-On 0 $33.59 $0.00 $37.92 $0.00 $31.83 $0.00 Class 53 Restrained 0 $54.38 $0.00 $48.72 $0.00 $42.63 $0.00 45-Degree Bend 0 $751.96 $0.00 $831.00 $0.00 $831.00 $0.00 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend 0 $751.96 $0.00 $842.00 $0.00 $842.00 $0.00 11-1/4 Degree Bend 0 $751.96 $0.00 $847.00 $0.00 $847.00 $0.00 24"x24" Tee 0 $1,382.92 $0.00 $1,689.00 $0.00 $1,689.00 $0.00 '24"x12" Tee 0 $1,009.36 $0.00 $1,133.00 $0.00 $1,133.00 $0.00 24"x8" Tee 0 $990.44 $0.00 $1,100.00 $0.00 $1,100.00 $0.00 24"x6" Tee 0 $977.68 $0.00 $1,084.00 $0.00 $1,084.00 $0.00 12" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $500.00 $0.00 $636.00 $0.00 $636.00 $0.00 8" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $500.00 $0.00 $459.00 $0.00 $459.00 $0.00 6" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $500.00 $0.00 $366.00 $0.00 $366.00 $0.00 24" Plug 0 $361.24 $0.00 $385.00 $0.00 $385.00 $0.00 24" Sleeve 0 $573.76 $0.00 $556.00 $0.00 $556.00 $0.00 $863,162.76 $973,992.64 $817, 848.08 TOTAL QUANTITY OF 30-INCH PIPE W/O FITTINGS = 61,800 Push-On Pipe = 100% Restrained Joint Pipe = 0% U. S. PIPE COMPANY AMERICAN PI PE COMPANY AMERICAN M// DEDUCT) Class 52 Push-On 61,800 $43.32 $2,677,176.00 $48.63 $3,005,334.00 $42.83 $2,646,894.00 Class 53 Push-On 0 $46.38 $0.00 $52.52 $0.00 $46.26 $0.00 Class 53 Restrained 0 $60.54 $0.00 $66.92 $0.00 $60.66 $0.00 45-Degree Bend 0 $1,205.16 $0.00 $2,070.00 $0.00 $2,070.00 $0.00 22-112 Degree Bend 0 $1,227.16 $0.00 $2,100.00 $0.00 $2,100.00 $0.00 11-1/4 Degree Bend 0 $1,238.16 $0.00 $2,115.00 $0.00 $2,115.00 $0.00 30"x24" Tee 0 $2,259.12 $0.00 $3,600.00 $0.00 $3,600.00 $0.00 '30"x12" Tee 0 $1,626.62 $0.00 $2,670.00 $0.00 $2,670.00 $0.00 30"x8" Tee 0 $1,593.70 $0.00 $2,618.00 $0.00 $2,618.00 $0.00 30"x6" Tee 0 $1,579.18 $0.00 $2,595.00 $0.00 $2,595.00 $0.00 12" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $1,191.62 $0.00 $636.00 $0.00 $636.00 $0.00 8" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $957.29 $0.00 $459.00 $0.00 $459.00 $0.00 6" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $704.70 $0.00 $366.00 $0.00 $366.00 $0.00 30" Plug 0 $726.00 $0.00 $990.00 $0.00 $990.00 $0.00 30"Sleeve 0 $506.66 $0.00 $1,628.00 $0.00 $1,628.00 $0.00 $2,677,176.00 $3, 005,334.00 $2,646, 894.00 TOTAL QUANTITY OF 36-INCH PIPE W/O FITTINGS = 24,700 Push-On Pipe = 100% Restrained Joint Pipe = 0% U. S. PIPE COMPANY AMERICAN P IPE COMPANY AMERICAN (W/ DEDUCT) Class 52 Push-On 24,700 $58.88 $1,454,336.00 $66.66 $1,646,502.00 $58.84 $1,453,348.00 Class 53 Push-On 0 $63.43 $0.00 $71.94 $0.00 $63.42 $0.00 Class 53 Restrained 0 $82.75 $0.00 $91.59 $0.00 $83.07 $0.00 45-Degree Bend 0 $1,789.34 $0.00 $3,143.00 $0.00 $3,143.00 $0.00 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend 0 $1,833.34 $0.00 $3,203.00 $0.00 $3,203.00 $0.00 11-1/4 Degree Bend 0 $1,844.34 $0.00 $3,128.00 $0.00 $3,128.00 $0.00 36" Plug 0 $617.84 $0.00 $1,463.00 $0.00 $1,463.00 $0.00 36" Sleeve 0 $257.58 $0.00 $2,243.00 $0.00 $2,243.00 $0.00 $1,454,336.00 $1,646,502.00 $1,453,348.00 TOTAL PROJECT $4,994,674.76 $5,625,828.64 $4,918,090.08 COST PER OPTION TABLE II BID ANALYSIS OF SOUTH LOOP TRANSMISSION MAIN PIPE MATERIALS ~'~ TOTAL QUANTITY OF 24-INCH PIPE W/ FITTINGS 27,298 Push-On Joint Pipe = 100% Restrained Joint Pipe = 0% GRIFFIN PIPE COMPANY AMERICAN PIPE COMPANY AMERICAN (W/ DEDUCT) Class 52 Push-On 27 298 $31.62 $863,162.76 $35.68 $973,992.64 $29.96 $817,848.08 Class 53 Push-On , 0 $33.59 $0.00 $37.92 $0.00 $31.83 $0.00 Class 53 Restrained 0 $54.38 $0.00 $48.72 $0.00 $42.63 $0.00 45-Degree Bend 25 $751.96 $18,799.00 $831.00 $20,775.00 $831.00 $20,775.00 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend 22 $751.96 $16,543.12 $842.00 $18,524.00 $842.00 $18,524.00 11-1/4 Degree Bend 2 $751.96 $1,503.92 $847.00 $1,694.00 $847.00 $1,694.00 24"x24"Tee 0 $1,382.92 $0.00 S1,689.00 $0.00 $1,689.00 $0.00 24"x12" Tee 1 $1,009.36 $1,009.36 $1,133.00 $1,133.00 $1,133.00 $1,133.00 24"x8"Tee 1 $990.44 $990.44 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 24"x6"Tee 1 $977.68 $977.68 $1,084.00 $1,084.00 $1,084.00 $1,084.00 12" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $500.00 $0.00 $636.00 $0.00 $636.00 $0.00 8" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $500.00 $0.00 5459.00 $0.00 $459.00 $0.00 6" MJ Welded Outlet 11 $500.00 $5,500.00 $366.00 $4,026.00 $366.00 $4,026.00 24" Plug 2 $361.24 $722.48 $385.00 $770.00 $385.00 $770.00 24" Sleeve 2 $573.76 $1,147.52 5556.00 $1,112.00 $556.00 $1,112.00 $910,356.28 $1,024,210.64 $868,066.08 TOTAL QUANTITY OF 30-INCH PIPE W/FITTINGS = 61,800 Push-On Pipe = 85% Restrained Joint Pi pe = 15% U. S. PIPE COMPANY AMERICAN PIPE COMPANY AMERICAN (W/ DEDUCT) Class 52 Push-On 52 530 $43.32 $2,275,599.60 $48.63 $2,554,533.90 $42.83 $2,249,859.90 Class 53 Push-On , 0 $46.38 $0.00 $52.52 $0.00 $46.26 $0.00 Class 53 Restrained 270 9 $60.54 S561,205.80 $66.92 $620,348.40 $60.66 $562,318.20 45-Degree Bend , 25 $1,205.16 $30,129.00 $2,070.00 $51,750.00 $2,070.00 $51,750.00 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend 15 $1,227.16 $18,407.40 S2,100.00 $31,500.00 $2,100.00 $31,500.00 11-1/4 Degree Bend 0 $1,238.16 $0.00 52,115.00 $0.00 $2,115.00 $0.00 30"x24" Tee 0 $2,259.12 50.00 S3,600.00 $0.00 $3,600.00 50.00 30"x12" Tee 0 $1,626.62 $0.00 52,670.00 $0.00 $2,670.00 $0.00 30"x8"Tee 0 $1,593.70 50.00 52,618.00 $0.00 $2,618.00 $0.00 30"x6" Tee 2 $1,579.18 $3,158.36 52,595.00 S5,190.00 $2,595.00 $5,190.00 12" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $1,191.62 $0.00 5636.00 $0.00 $636.00 $0.00 8" MJ Welded Outlet 0 $957.29 $0.00 $459.00 $0.00 $459.00 $0.00 6" MJ Welded Outlet 5 $704.70 $3,523.50 S366.00 $1,830.00 $366.00 $1,830.00 30" Plug 2 $726.00 $1,452.00 S990.00 $1,980.00 $990.00 $1,980.00 30" Sleeve 4 $506.66 $2,026.64 51,628.00 $6,512.00 $1,628.00 $6,512.00 $2,895,502.30 $3,273,644.30 $2,910,940.10 TOTAL QUANTITY OF 36-INCH PIPE W/ FITTINGS = 24,700 Push-On Pipe = 85% Restrained Joint Pi pe = 15% U. S. PIP E COMPANY AMERICAN PIPE COMPANY AMERICAN (W/ DEDUCT) Class 52 Push-On 995 20 $58.88 $1,236,185.60 $66.66 $1,399,526.70 $58.84 $1,235,345.80 Class 53 Push-On Class 53 Restrained , 0 705 3 $63.43 $82.75 $0.00 $306,588.75 $71.94 $91.59 $0.00 $339,340.95 $63.42 $83.07 $0.00 $307,774.35 45-Degree Bend , 25 $1,789.34 $44,733.50 $3,143.00 $78,575.00 $3,143.00 $78,575.00 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend 15 $1,833.34 $27,500.10 $3,203.00 $48,045.00 $3,203.00 $48,045.00 11-1/4 Degree Bend " 0 2 $1,844.34 072 50 $1 $0.00 145 00 $2 $3,218.00 463.00 $1 $0.00 $2,926.00 $3,128.00 $1,463.00 $0.00 $2,926.00 Plug 36 36" Sleeve 4 . , $257.58 . , $1,030.32 , $2,243.00 $8,972.00 $2,243.00 $8,972.00 $1,618,183.27 $1,877,385.65 $1,681,638.15 TOTAL PROJECT $5,424,041.85 $6,175,240:59 $5,460,644.33 COST PER OPTION LAW OFFICES OSTERHOl1DT. FERGl1SON, NATT, AHERON £~ AGEE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CHARLES H. OSTERHOUDT MICHAEL 5. FERGUSON EDWARD A. NATT MICHAEL J. AHERON G, STEVEN AGEE MARK D. KIDD ELLEN KUO I~J19 ELECTRIC ROAD. 5. W. P. O. BOX 200G8 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018 September 22, 1994 Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 RE: Bid Proposal CP94-107 Water Line Material Gentleman: .,~. TELEPHONE 703-774-1197 FAX NO. 703-7 74-0961 This letter is written as a follow-up to my letter of September 16, 1994, in which I filed a bid protest on behalf of my client, American Cast Iron Pipe Company (ACIPCO). At the same time that I filed the bid protest, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request and have since been provided with copies of the County's documentation relative to said bid. Based upon this information, I find it necessary to submit this follow-up letter to explain my client's position relative to the bid proposal. The advertisement for bid submitted by the County indicated that it would receive sealed bids for the proposal on or before September 1, 1994. The advertisement included a projected footage for certain pipe including approximately 38,000 feet of 24" DIP, 61,800 feet of 30" of DIP, 24,700 of 36" DIP and an undetermined amount of 18" DIP. See Exhibit A. Based upon the above advertisement for bid, my client submitted a bid proposal. The County elected not to accept the bid proposal of my client but, rather, accepted a split award to Griffen Pipe Products and United States Pipe and Foundry Co. The County elected not to accept the bid of my client because "Roanoke County is not able to take advantage of the volume discounts due to the tonnage and time requirements for order release by December 31, 1994". (See Notice of Bid/Proposal Award dated September 9 - Exhibit B). The County,. apparently, takes the position that my client's bid did not meet the County bid specifications. My client simply asserts that such is not true and that its bid proposal did meet the County bid requirements. Had the bid of my client been accepted, based upon the tonnage as set out in the County's bid proposal, it is anticipated that Roanoke County. would have saved approximately $93,000.00 under the Contract. Following receipt of bids, the County staff submitted a bid tabulation for South Loop water transmission line. A copy of the T_I same is attached as Exhibit C. ACIPCO does not understand why this submission did not include the discounts offered by it. Prior to the bid, volume discounts were discussed with County staff and my client was advised these discounts would be considered. Had the discounts been considered, my client's bid would clearly have been the low bid. As stated above, the stated reason the County did not accept my client's bid is the fact that it was not able to take advantage of volume discounts for order release by December 31, 1994. However, during the bid process, there was much conversation and communication between my client and the County staff concerning this matter. The County, apparently, felt that ACIPCO was requiring a guaranteed quantity of pipe in a guaranteed time frame of purchase. See the memorandum from Gary Robertson to Bonnie Preas dated September 9, 1994, attached as Exhibit D. Such was not the case. In its bid proposal, follow-up conversations and correspondence, my client made it very clear that if they were to receive notice of bid acceptance based upon the advertisement for bid, their bid would have been low by the approximate $93,000.00. In their bid of September 1, 1994, clarifying the terms of sale, discount prices were set out for all classes of pipe provided an order release was received by December 31, 1994. A copy of the letter from John Hagelskamp setting forth the discount is attached as Exhibit E. If the figures used in this proposal for the discount were considered by the County, it is clear from a review of Exhibit C that ACIPCO's prices would have been lower, yet the County chose to reject the bid because of what it considered to be a contingency. The contingency related to the verbiage "order release." "Order release" was clearly explained prior to the acceptance of the bid by the September 8, 1994, letter addressed to Paul Mahoney, County Attorney for Roanoke County. (See Exhibit F). This letter followed a series of conversations between the County staff and my client. In his letter, Mr. Gary London, counsel for ACIPCO, clearly stated the "term 'order release' is equivalent of the County's term 'notice of bid acceptance'." Therefore, any questions the County had concerning the meaning of "order release" had been fully explained by my client. Order release meant, at that time, and means today, acceptance of the bid proposal. The language of the bid proposal of ACIPCO simply meant that the County had to accept the bid proposal of ACIPCO prior to December 31, 1994. Insofar as the volume discounts are concerned, the discounts would apply if my client received acceptance of a bid proposal for 30" and 36" pipe in an estimated amount of 6,000 tons and a total amount of approximately 8,000 tons for all pipe. What my client was trying to prevent was only receiving a notice of bid acceptance on certain sizes of pipe. However, as set forth in Mr. London's letter of September 8, acceptance of the bid "in no way obligated (the County) to give ACIPCO a specific "manufacturing release" detailing sizes and quantities of pipe prior to December 31, 1994. .~. ACIPCO merely wanted to know that it was the low bidder. The September 1 letter of Mr. Hagelskamp indicated on page 2 that "all material ordered will require a shipment date". This recognizes that shipment of the quantity is clearly not required prior to December 31, 1994. When these factors are considered, it is our position that the County should have considered the discount offered by ACIPCO. The offer of discount was tied only to the fact that the County accept ACIPCO's bid proposal on or before December 31, 1994. The discounts would have applied regardless of the amount of tonnage actually ordered and manufactured provided ACIPCO was the successful bidder and, therefore, received the orders for all of the pipe set forth in the Contract. Had ACIPCO's bid proposal been fully considered, it would have met these requirements and, therefore, resulted in an approximate net savings to Roanoke County of approximately $93,000.00. It is, therefore, requested that the County once again consider the objection to bid protest and award the bid to ACIPCO. Respectfully, ~~..~..9 G n ~- Edward A. Natt EAN/sse Enclosures pc: Gary M. London Burr & Forman Suite 3000, Southtrust Tower 420 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 36208 W. D. Benton Assistant Sales American Ductil P. O. Box 2727 Birmingham, AL Manager e Iron Pipe Division 39202-2727 `~~ EXHIBIT A .. T~ ADVERTISEMENT FOR 1~ID SOtlJ'H La~OP 7rRAl~1SMISSION MAIN WATER LNE MATERlr4L.S BID CP~10T The County of Roanoke, Virginia is requesting sealed bids for the supply of water line mat®rial for tha proposed trannmissiott main. 4`he prod eat shall ~.r~cZude approxin,otoly 38,000 Peet of 24 inch D.I.P., 61,8x0 fast of 30 inch A.I.P., 24,704 foot of 36 inc1~ b.I.P, and ae undetermined amount oP 18 it~dh D.I.P. with assoeiated fiteinga. sealed bide, ;~,gy,g, ~riil be accepted ak and antic 3tGD p m,. see deptembir 1. 1994, in t e o ee of Proeuremet~t servieea, st v1~icA time they +ri11 6e publl.c~, o ensd and read out loud, Any bidder clai~tin~ the right to wiek~draar their b~d s~all give nceiae !n writing o£ tibia claim of ri~-t to Yi.thdrar~ hts bid within tWa busir~eas days after the conclusion of the bid opening procedure. A prs•,bid ~aeacir-= vil'x be conducted an AuguaC 26, 1994 at 3;04 p.m. ae ako Roanoke County Uziliey Department office lo~caeed at 1206 Kessler Mill Road, Salem, Virginia. yon furthex information and to receive bid documents, oontaet proeu;emerit at the address iiseed below. Roanoke Cooney solicits pertieipation from minority owned business. Roanoke County Administration CenLaY 5204 8ext~ard Dr., S.W, p, o, aa~ x9eoa Suite 300 Q aoanok~. YA 24018 c~a~y 7~z•aoes ZO ; d 98~1~~L£OL 'ON Xd~ 1~or-ni• 8. Preas, cPPO, CPPB Assistant Diraote~e of Procurement Ser+r~.aes aM~'1JNd,L-~NNI I~da11QN L5;B0 [iH.L b6-80-d~5 WtiWdO.~ '& ddf1H Wd8z : S0 b6 ~ S ti d3S ..~. i EXHIBIT B O~ PpA Np,Y~ ti 9 2 ~ ~ _ ~ ' a 1838 PROCUREMENT SERVICES - - ELAINE CARVER DIRECTOR _ BONNIE B. PREAS, PPB, CPPO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR -- September 9, 1994 NOTICE OF BID/PROPOSAL AWARD BID/PROPOSAL NUMBER: Bid CP94-107 TITLE: Water Line Materials AWARDED T0: Split Award: EVE F. WIRT BUYER Griffin Pipe Products United States Pipe & Foundry Co. 18" pipe 30" pipe 24" pipe 36" pipe and related fittings, and related fittings, exclusive of valves and exclusive of valves and mechanical joint accessories. mechanical joint accessories. The County appreciates your interest by submitting a bid for this project. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Note: this award is based on low bid meeting the bid requirements. Unfortunately, Roanoke County is not able to take advantage of the volume discounts due to the tonnage and time requirements for order release by December 31, 1994. 9L?l Bonnie B. Preas, Assistant Director P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2061 FAX: (703) 772-2074 _.,,.,, 3 ,~,. 1 KAY S. JOHNSTON, CPPB BUYER ® RecyGed Paper EXHIBIT C BID TAtlULATION FOR SOUTH LOOP WATER TRANSMISSION LINE PIPE. FITTINGS AND VALVES BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSON VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES 8 WASTE 18-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On $22.23 $23.46 $24.44 $25.07 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On $23.00 $25.03 $26.05 $26.77 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained $37.97 $36.73 $39.05 $33.79 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend $391.60 $558.72 5563.50 $462.00 $578.00 $597.91 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend $391.60 $573.72 $563.50 $473.00 $582.00 $601.82 11-1/4 Degree Bend $391.60 $573.72 $563.50 $473.00 $582.00 $601.82 18"x18"Tee $806.96 $1,123.08 $1,093.50 5902.00 $1,135.00 $1,177.73 18"x12" Tee $644.60 $870.18 $979.00 $704.00 $860.00 $888.80 18'k8" Tee $566.72 $823.26 $772.50 5665.00 $824.00 $852.13 18"x6"Tee $558.36 $802.74 $760.00 5649.00 $805.00 $832.08 12" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 NO BID $979.00 $636.00 NO BID NO BID 8" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,855.69 $772.50 $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,755.65 $760.00 $366.00 NO BID NO BID 18"-Butterfly Valve NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID $1,648.00 $2,270.52 18" Plug $195.80 $277.50 $275.50 5209.00 $199.00 $269.37 MJ Restraint Glands $209.13 NO BID $234.48 NO BID $159.00 $135.93 18" Sleeve $362.12 $288.72 $530.00 $363.00 $538.00 $444.40 MJ Gland $75.80 $35.64 $66.70 $36.00 $61.00 545.55 24-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On $31.62 $33.64 $34.86 $35.68 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On $33.59 535.55 $36.97 $37.92 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained $54.38 $53.55 $56.97 548.72 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend $751.96 $996.42 $992.00 $831.00 $1,198.00 $1,238.35 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend $751.96 $1,011.42 $992.00 $842.00 $1,221.00 $1,261.82 11-1/4 Degree Bend $751.96 $1,018.92 $992.00 $847.00 $1,221.00 $1,261.82 24"x18" Tee $1,382.92 $2,098.38 $1,779.00 51,689.00 $2,385.00 $2,464.97 24"x12"Tee $1,009.36 $1,390.38 $1,298.00 $1,133.00 $1,576.00 $1,629.46 24"x8" Tee $990.44 $1,350.96 51,279.00 $1,100.00 $1,583.00 $1,590.35 24"x6" Tee $977.68 $1,330.44 $1,256.00 $1,084.00 $1,515.00 $1,565.91 12" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,295.24 $1,298.00 5636.00 NO BID NO BID 8" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,040.54 $1,279.00 $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6" MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $962.39 $1,256.00 $366.00 NO BID NO BID 24"-Butterfly Valve NO BID NO BID NO BID $2,747.00 $3,054.73 24" Plug $361.24 $502.50 $525.00 $385.00 $374.00 $513.82 MJ Restraint Glands $298.53 NO BID $249.00 NO BID $531.00 $198.22 24" Sleeve $573.76 $403.92 $790.00 $556.00 $792.00 $748.48 MJ Gland $98.80 $68.04 $77.00 $50.00 $69.00 $75.55 30-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On NO BID $43.32 NO BID $48.63 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On NO BID $46.38 NO BID $52.52 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained NO BID $60.54 NO BID $66.92 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend NO BID 51,205.16 NO BID $2,070.00 $2,088.00 $2,157.95 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend NO BID $1,227.16 NO BID $2,100.00 $2,123.00 $2,194.13 11-1/4 Degree Bend NO BID $1,238.16 NO BID $2,115.00 $2,139.00 $2,194.13 30"x18" Tee NO BID $2,259.12 NO BID $3,600.00 $3,772.00 $3,897.91 30"x12" Tee NO 810 ' $1,626.62 NO BID $2,670.00 $2,759.00 $2,851.20 30'k8"Tee NO BID $1,593.70 NO BID 52,618.00 $2,704.00 $2,794.48 30"x6" Tee NO BID $1,579.18 NO BID $2,595.00 $2,680.00 $2,769.55 12" MJ Welded Outlet NO BID $1,191.62 NO BID $636.00 NO BID NO BID 8" MJ Welded Outlet NO BID $957.29 NO BID $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6" MJ Welded Outlet NO BID $704.70 NO BID $366.00 NO BID NO BID 30"-Butterfly Valve NO BID NO BID NO BID $4,390.00 $7,561.05 30" Plug NO BID $726.00 NO BID $990.00 $609.00 $1,020.31 MJ Restraint Glands NO BID NO BID NO BID $638.00 $535.71 30" Sleeve NO BID $506.66 NO BID $1,628.00 $1,582.00 :, . $1,031.55 MJ Gland NO BID $156.42 NO BID $180.00 $262.00 $194.44 36•INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On NO BID $58.88 NO BID $66.66 NO BIO NO BID Class 53 Push-On NO BID $63.43 NO OID 571.94 NO BID NO BlD Class 53 Restrained NO BID $82.75 NO BID $91.59 NO BID NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend NO BID $1,789.34 NO BID $3,143.00 $3,239.00 NO BID 22-112 Degree Bend NO BID $1,833.34 NO BID $3,203.00 8 00 $3,308.00 00 325 $3 NO BID 11-114 Degree Bend NO BID $1,844.34 NO BID NO BID . $3,21 NO BID . , 041.00 $6 $8,673.68 36"- Butterfly Valve " NO BID NO BID NO BID 072 50 $1 NO BID $1,463.00 , NO BID NO 81D Plug 36 MJ Restraint Glands NO BID . , NO BIO NO 81D NO BID $859.00 $685.53 NO BID 36" Sleeve NO BID 5617.84 NO BIO $2,243.00 $2,210.00 PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSON VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES 8 WASTE PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSON VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES & WASTE PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSGN VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES 8 WASTE „ar EXHIBIT D O~ H AN '*F ate. p 2 ~ z v a 1838 C~aix~#~ a~ ~~ttxt~~e UTILITY DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 'j'Q; Bonnie Preas, Assistant Director of Procurement FROM: ry Robertson, Utility Director DATE: S ptember 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Bid CP94-107, Water Line Materials ~~ After a staff review of the bids for the above mentioned project, we would like to make the following recommendations for contract awards: Griffin Pipe Company - All 18 inch and 24 inch water line materials, with the exceptions of no award for butterfly valves or MJ restraint glands. U.S. Pipe Company - All 30 inch and 36 inch water line materials, with the exceptions of no award for butterfly valves or MJ restraint glands. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. - 18 inch, 24 inch, 30 inch, and 36 inch butterfly valves. Virginia Water & Waste Supply Company - 18 inch, 24 inch, 30 inch, and 26 inch MJ restraint glands. We found no discrepancies in any of the bids from the suppliers listed above. We were unable to consider the discount prices given by American Pipe Company due to the conditions placed on the prices regarding guaranteed quantity and time-frame of purchase. We request that a contract be awarded to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. as soon as possible to allow for the longer delivery period required for butterfly valves. Please let us know of your decision. mh 1206 KESSLER MILL ROAD • SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 • (703) 387-6104 ® Prirded on Regded Paper ~.. EXHIBIT E ^`~'r"' ^ AMERICAN DUCTILE IRON PIPE AMERICAN DUCTILE IRON PIPE ^AMERICANDUCTILEIRON AND CAST IRON FITTINGS O ^AMERICAN FLOW CONTROL- A DIVISION OF AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY VALVES AND HYDRANTS P. O. BOX 112520 • PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA S2ePte 2mbet 1~ 1994 sszo • FAX: 412/221-9740 JOHN E. HAGELSKAMP, MANAGER JOHN A. DODGEN SAMUEL B. RENFROW RANDY K. ROBERTS RAY GHILANI TIMOTHY A. RODSKY Gentlemen: ALL SALES ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON REVERSE SIDE OF THIS SHEET ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SOUTH LOOP TRANSMISSION MAIN WATER LINE MATERIALS BID CP94-107 BID: SEPTEMBER 1,1994 @ 3:00 P.M. We are pleased to submit our proposal covering piping materials we can furnish as listed in the attached bill of material. 'This proposal is our interpretation of items of our manufacture required per engineers plans and specifications, and is not guaranteed. Prices are f.o.b. our foundry, Birmingham, Alabama and include freight for shipment to Roanoke County, VA at the present published rate of $53.80 per ton for shipment in 40,000 pound truckload lots on passable roads, you to unload. Any excess over truckload lots will move as LTL lots, and the difference in freight charges resulting from change in rate or additions to rate, shipment by other means, shipment in smaller lots, notification charges, or for some other reason, wdl be for your account. Prices do not include any local, state or federal taxes. Applicable state and local taxes will be added to invoices unless a Tax Exemption Certificate is furnished in a form satisfactory to taxing authorities. Should in the future this project be found to be taxable, American cannot be held responsible for the tax liability. Prices do not include the cost of any outside independent laboratory inspection, if such should be required. American will accept an order for pipe without fittings but will not accept an order for fittings without pipe. Our bid does not include any provisions for storage of material at your site. Standard joint material is included for push on joints. Joint material for MJ joints is not included except in bid items where it is explicitly required. pipe will be furnished in nominal lengths as shown. Footages required would be adjusted accordingly. At the present time our estimated shipping schedule, after receipt of order is as follows: PER BID DOCUMENTS District Sales O//ices in A[lanta, Birmingham, Chicago. Dallas. Kansas City, Minneapolis, New York, Orlando, Pittsburgh, and Sacramento Depot Stocks in Birmingham, Dallas. Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Pompano Beach AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY/2 .. The estimated promise dates listed herein are from our receipt of all approved shop drawings/submittals, if required, and your notice to proceed with manufacture. Our bid is based on the following nominal weights per foot of pipe as shown in the American pipe manual's attached pages. These weights meet or exceed all requirements of the current AWWA specifications as referenced in your project specifications. The weights for each relevant pipe type are as follows: 18" CL 52 - 78.81b/ft 18" CL 53 - 84.21b/ft 24" CL 52 - 112.1 lb/ft 24" CL 53 - 119.21b/ft 30" CL 52 - 150.71b/ft 30" CL 53 - 162.61b/ft 36" CL 52 - 203.1 lb/ft 36" CL 53 - 221.0 lb/ft Should American receive an order released by 12/31/94 for a minimum of 6000 tons of 30" and/or 36" pipe we offer a unit price discount from the prices on the bid form as follows: 30" CL 52 @ $5.80/FT 30" CL 53 @ $6.26/FT 36" CL 52 @ $7.82/FI' 36" CL 53 @ $8.52/FT In addition, if American receives an order released by 12/31/94 for a minimum of 8000 tons of 18" and larger pipe , we offer the following discounts from the prices on the bid form in addition to the discounts shown above: 18" CL 52 @ $4.02/FT 18" CL 53 @ $4.30/FT 24" CL 52 @ $5.72/FT 24" CL 53 @ $6.09/FT These discounts are applicable to push on and restrained joint pipe. All material ordered will require a shipment date. Material must either ship within 30 days of the established shipment date or be invoiced as stored material. This proposal is subject to acceptance by purchase order within sixty days from project bid date listed above. If order is not placed within the sixty day period, proposal is accordingly automatically withdrawn. The opportunity of quoting you is appreciated. Please advise if you need additional information. Yours very truly, AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY ~~ Jo E. Hagelskamp District Sales Manager JEH/jc -Enclosure 7 EXHIBIT F A. JACKSON NOOLG. JR. C.V STEL=ENMULLER ROnERT G. TwTC J, rrtf:0 POWELL {„ TGNNCNT LEE. III SANUCL W. OLNE R, JR ~AVL O. wOODA~L J, rRGtklG '•NEPAM LCJI.S M, AIi DCR9, JR. POGGRT C. RU BrN WILLIAM C. KNIOMT. JR~ JO6EPH G, +T p/A14Y JOHN 0. CLCMCNTB JOIN F DC OLIY+I JN NARK dUA°GRROI JR. JOHN W. EVAhi J. ROSi FORMAN, 111 D. FRANK pAVia A. BRAND WALTON JOHN T. MOORESMITM, ~C wILLlAN F. HURRAY, JR, JACK P. STCPHCNeONr JA. CRIC L CAYILTON 9. QAGNAL ROWS JAMf,,.° J. ROB1NoON J03GMN W. LCTGCR ;. THCMAi CCT-INC~AM, til J. GATRI^K LOGAN ~~OGGE M. SAY _OR, '.~I pAwv M. LOIaDCN CRVCr A. kAWS P A. PLCWERfi, III MGMAEL L. HALL M•~M AC_ _. LUCAS pwtGwT L MuC-ON, JR. J. YVNT~R MrILLIPfi OAvID D. OOWO, Ili CAROL H. DTCwART FOBERi H. FVTMGRrprO GENE T. Pa'GG H. GRAHAM BCCNG DCBORAH P FlSHGR RICHARD A FRGGG (,AIL uVINGWTON MILLI JOHN C.MORROW VICTOR L. HAY6LIP W. BCNJAMIN JOHNSON C. CLAYTON LOwE, JR M. OLCNH PCRPY, JR DENT M. MOFTON 5UC A. wILL16 BURR & FORMAN IA PhgYNEk~MIP 'NCLUDi N,Ii PROFESS 'J~`r •.L CCR ^. PAT'O NSI SUITE 3000, SOUTHTRUST TG',NER 420 NORTH 20TH STREET BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203 TELEPHONE120S12bPS000 RACSIMILE t2asr a8d-5100 MUNT`uVILLe Of R1~E' +00 MEFI DIAN STREET :UITE :o. HUNTSVILLE. ALA6AMA 57001 t~0~1 S51'OCID FAC$1MILE I:O.1 701-cCs3 wR~TfP'S DIRECT: (20S) 458.5203 VIA, FACSIMTI.E• (703) 772-2089 ' Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. County Attorney County of Roanoke Post Office Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 2401$-0798 Iaear Paul: nCn2kT o. w. GvGN J. TIMOTHY COrLG MARTS M. LAW50V JEFFREY T. BAKER PAUL P BOLUS DAVIDA ELLIOTT JAr1r w. FAkRlS w~LLIAM o. HEgiFORO YARKEY D.JORDAN JILL V~40EVCN DEER NANCY L. UFlTER MARRI J. wAI W.LA F. HAMPTON McrAODCN, JR. Ci9 STOPHGq W W~uER C. BRITTON MONRQK JENNIFER M, DL:OY JAMEa A. TAYLOR, .R. RJdfiELL W ADAMS wA.ikfN C. MATTMGw: P CT£R H. BJPKG GCRALD P. GILL.EbPY ~. 5ARTLEY LCFTIN, YI TIMOTHY M. WpINACGI ~OWIN O. ROGGRG r _YER A. GkAMM.Ai ..~.• ~' PATRICrA POWC.L DV aK= D. W. COLLICR AILISCN L CDWNINO ERIC D. cgANZ GREGORY F. HARLCY ALAN P, JUOGG JCFFREY 6. MILLER TOWARD E OOCARD w1_~AM K. HCLBROGK rAMCLA MOR6E ARENDGFC D~ Ca~RuTOPHCR CARTON riARY L. wOWAGD RICHAPO G~ KELLCR COVRTNAY L. 9TALLINGS 71,5 5 TO.ZI BORDEN w, OVRN neve~~eeel JAMES R. FOFMAN (1YP0-~GA-'r JAME6 R. FORMAN, JA. WILLIAM K MURRAv y.MUCL H. BUkR eo eeurea September 8, 1994 This letter is to follow-up our telephone conversation of September 8, 1994, and your request that I clarify a term in Amez~can Cast Iron Pipe Company's ("ACIPCO") bid. On September 1, 1994, the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County"), opened sealed bids for the supply of water line material for the South hoop Transmission Water Main Line, bid CP 94-107. Based on the unit prices of the advertised quantities of materials contained in the County's invitation to bid, ACIPCO is the low bidder by a substantial amount. It has come to ACIPCO's attention that a term contained in its bid proposal may have been incorrectly interpreted by the County, and therefore, is unnecessarily causing a delay in the awarding of the bid to ACIPCO. The term is "an order released by 12/31194. ." ACIPCO believes that the County is interpreting that language to mean that a firm order for specific quantities of material must be placed by December 31, 1994, or the County would be in default under the terms of ACIPCO's bid alid therefore not eligible for the price discount. This is incorrect. Internally, ACIPCO has several order designations. The term "order release" is the equivalent of the County's term "notice of bid acceptance". "Order release" to ACIPCO means that our bid has been accepted, and the County intends to purchase from ACIFCO the size and uantities of pipe set forth in the invitation to bid. The mere issuance of "order release/notice of bid acceptance" is the sole requirement for the discount to become effective. 'T'he "order release/notice of bid acceptance" allows ACIPCO to know within general limits its backlog potential. ACIPCO recognizes that the County may not be in a position to place an order for specific quantities by December 31, 1994, and that in fact, the requirements of the project can, and often will, change. The "order release/notice of bid acceptance" carries no ?,14146, Z . d NN4J~0~ ~ ~'~f13 WNb~ : 7 T b6. E~~T d3S BURR & FORMAN Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. September 9, 1994 Page No. 2 obligation that minimum quantities actually be purchased in order far the discount to be available, only that based on current information there is an intent by the County to do so. The ~~ +~ term manufacturing release is the term ACIPCO uses to signify the actual specific quantities and sizes of pipe to be ordered and manufactured. Therefore, there could be no cause for concern by the County that by issuing an "order release/notice of bid acceptance" to ACIPCO, that should all the materials later not be required for the project, that the County would either (a) be required to buy the original amount of materials in the "order release/notice of bid acceptance", or (b) would forfeit the price discount. In summary, I want to emphasize in this clarification of our term that the County is in no way obligated to give ACIPCO a specific order detailing sizes and quantities of pipe prior to December 31, 1994. To use the County's own terminology to avoid any further confusion, ACIPCO is merely requesting that the "notice of bid acceptance" be placed before the end of the calendar year, which should not cause the County any concern since its own Instructions To Bidders states that the notice of bid acceptance will be given within sixty {60) consecutive calendar days after the bid opening date. (§ X, q 2). ACzPCO's bid is based on the advertised quantities contained in the County's invitation to bid. To our lmowledge those quantities were the only quantities known to all bidders at the time of the bid, and are the quantities upon which the bid award must be based. I hope this clarification will clear up any misunderstanding on the part of the County so that ACIPCO, the low bidder, can be expeditiously awarded this bid, I look forward to discussing this matter with you when you return to your office this afternoon at 2;00 p.m. (BDST). /pdh Sincerely, Gary M, don 214146. ~iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiteiiiiiiiii~iiiviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii - AGENDA ITEM NO. - .~ppE CE REQUEST PUBLIC ~~1~:ARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS - __ SUBJECT: ''~/~~4-S~ I /~~41~ .~2A/,~ S~'`~y~Q- 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 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 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 -_ 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 t~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiti - (~.. = AGENDA ITEM NO. - APPE CE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS - -~^ SUBJECT: l /1 ~ S ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ 4/ ~ /~ ~ ~`wI __ 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 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 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 -_ _ - m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney FROM: Brenda J . Holton ~~ DATE: February 5, 1996 SUBJECT: REVISION OF ORDINANCES rn%VTnUSLY ADOPTED Attached is another page one only for each of the ordinances listed below which were adopted at Board of Supervisors' Meetings on September 27, 1994, May 23, 1995, and November 21, 1995. 1. Ordinance 92794-13 2. Ordinance 52395-17 3. Ordinance 112195-15 The Planning Department has requested that the words "Conditional" be inserted into the titles of these ordinances and paragraphs 1 to more accurately reflect the changes made to the zoning classifications. If anyone needs another copy of the entire ordinance, please let me know. Otherwise, please replace each page one with the attached. Thanks for your help. Attachments LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 1994, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Kingery Bros. Associates to rezone .409 acre from AV conditional to C-2 to allow retail uses, located at 5449 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: September 8, 1994 ,~ 1 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Direct the bill for publication to: Kingery Bros. Associates Attn: Irvin Childress/Randy Kingery 5469 Franklin Road Roanoke, VA 24014 (703) 774-9463 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, September 27, 1994, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corp. to rezone approximately ten acres from R- 3 conditional to C-1 to construct an office complex, located at the intersection of Airport Road and Dent Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: September 8, 1994 ~' Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Direct the bill for publication to: Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corp. Attn: Stephen Rice 327 Hershberger Road Roanoke, VA 24012 (703) 265-2100 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, September 27, 1994, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Appalachian Power Co. for a Special Use Permit to construct and operate an electric substation (utility services, major), located on Kirk Lane, off Cotton Hill Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: September 8, 1994 Mary H. Allen, Clerk• Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Direct the bill for publication to: Appalachian Power Company Attn: R. A. Bays PO Box 2021 Roanoke, VA 24022-2121 (703) 985-2472 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, September 27, 1994, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church for a Special Use Permit to construct a building for religious assembly including classrooms, office and recreational facilities, located on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: September 8, 1994 ~- Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Direct the bill for publication to: North Valley Seventh-day Adventist Church Attn: Aubrey Kelley 8325 Brubaker Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 (703) 562-0406 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, September 27, 1994, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Tacoma, Inc. for a Special Use Permit to construct a fast food restaurant located at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: September 8, 1994 yI'7~- ~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Direct the bill for publication to: Tacoma Inc. 209 E. Main Street Martinsville, VA 24112 (703) 666-9417 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, September 27, 1994, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to receive public comments on amending the text of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to include a Planned Commercial Development District and a Planned Industrial Development District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: September 8, 1994 'J ~~~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Planning Department PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given to ali interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their 7:00 p.m. session on Tuesday, September 27, 1994, in the Board Meeting Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive S. W. on the petition of Strauss Construction Company, requesting approval to vacate the following portions of public utility easements: (1) 150 square feet, located on Lot 1 (Tax Map #26.16-12- 1); (2) 329 square feet, located on Lots 19 and 20 (Tax Map #26.16-12-20, 21); (3) 149 square feet, located on Lot 21 (Tax Map #26.16-12-22); all are located in Waterford, Section 5, Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 16, Page 21, and situated in the Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of the documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the Department of Engineering and Inspections, located at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Given under my hand this 9th day of September, 1994. ~2~f..~. Mary H. Allen, CMC, Clerk to the Board Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PLEASE PUBLISH IN THE ROANOKE TIMES AND WORLD NEWS ON: Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Direct the bill for publication to: Mr. Steve Strauss Strauss Construction Company 5100 Bernard Drive, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their 7:00 p.m. session on Tuesday, September 27, 1994, in the Board Meeting Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W., on the petition of Corpre, Inc., requesting vacation of an unimproved portion of aright-of--way known as Creek Circle (Route 938). A copy of the documents related to this request may be examined in the County Attorney's Office located at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Given under my hand this 9th day of September, 1994. L~~c.J Mary H. Allen, CMC, Clerk to the Board Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PLEASE PUBLISH ON THE FOLLOWING DATES: Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Please send the invoice to: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Boazd of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia at its meeting on September 27, 1994 at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernazd Drive, Roanoke, Virginia during the evening session beginning at 7:00 p. m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE 81490-6 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN INCREASES IN FEES FOR SERVICES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appeaz and be heazd at the time and place aforesaid. ..~4f . Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PLEASE PUBLISH ON THE FOLLOWING DATES Sunday, September 18, 1994 Sunday, September 25, 1994 SEND BILL FOR PUBLICATION TO: Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Boazd Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 RKE BOARD SUPERVISORS TEL:703-7?2-2193 Sep 15'94 8:( ~. Sep 09' ~ Sep 15' Transm i t .~ourna 1 N o. Remote Location Mode Start Time Pages Result Note 001 ROK. CO. UTILITY Norm 09,06:41 00'33 01 DK Tx 002 RV RESOURCE RUTH. Norm 09,06:44 00'35 01 OK Tx ' 003 9-x 3435399 Norm 09,10:41 00'55 01 OK Tx 0 01 KOHINKE Norm 12,10:29 00'43 01 OK Tx 0 02 9-!1-x'804-.x293$534 Norm 12,14:14 01'16 02 OK Tx 0 03 KDHINKE Norm 12,14:25 03'04 05 OK Tx 0 01 9-f1-f804-x`2938534 Norm 13,07:06 01'17 02 OK Tx 00 2 KOHINKE Norm 13,08:00 01'15 02 DK Tx 00 3 9-X7741185 Norm 13,10:31 00'42 01 OK Tx 00 1 9-X375-f 3003 Norm 14,09:31 03'16 05 OK Tx 002 9-X384-8013 Norm 14,14:20 00'42 01 OK Tx 001 99813415 Norm 15,07:42 02'05 01 T.3.1 Tx 0 02 9-f 9813415 Norm 15,07:49 00'44 01 DK Tx 00 3 KOHINKE Norm 15,07:5$ 01'20 02 OK Tx I~ec~ i ~~ .lourna 1 N o. Remote Location. Mode Start Time Pages Result Note 00 1 703-343-5399 Norm 09,00:07 00'51 01 OK 00 2 G3 Norm 09,13:44 01'29 02 OK' 003 VR Assoc of Coun Norm 09,23:31 .00'49 01 OK 001 703 9$9 1905 Norm 12,10:01 00'43 01 DK 002 703 384 8013 Norm 12,17:34 01'22 01 OK 003 703 384 8013 Norm 12,17:42 00'47 01 OK 001 ?033429172 Norm 13,11:16 02'27 04 OK 001 RDK. CO. UTILITY Fine 14,07:34 02'42 04 DK 002 7039897062 Norm 14,10:33 00'55 01 OK 003 . 7039897062 Norm 14,11:05 00'50 01 DK 004 ROA CD CIRCT CT Norm 14,17:49 01'58 03 OK RKE BORRD SUPERVISORS TEL:703-772-2193 Sep 15'94 ~ k. No . Rece i+~er Transmitter Date Time Mode Pages Result Transmit Confirmation Report • 002 • 9-X9813415 • RKE BOARD SUPERVISORS • Sep 15'94 7:50 • 00'44 • Norm • 01 • OK LEGAL NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on September 27, 1994, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, will hold a public hearing and second reading on the following matter, to-wit: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 22-82, et sec ., "RATES AND FEES", et s~ OF CHAPTER 22 "WATER", ARTICLE II. "WATER SYSTEMS", DIVISION 2. "COUNTY WATER SYSTEM", OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGES IN THE UT'II-TTY BII.LING FEES, CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND PROCEDURES FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE. All members of the public interested in this matter may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. Given under my hand this 9th day of September, 1994. C:C.e-~-P.,.~c.J Mary H. Allen, CMC, Clerk to the Board Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PLEASE PUBLISH ON THE FOLLOWING DATES: Tuesday, September 13, 1994 Tuesday, September 20, 1994 Please send the invoice to: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 RV RESOURCE AUTHORITY Fax~1-703-857-5056 Sep 28 '94 16~1~ r."1"" FAX T`RANSIVYI'rTAY.• TO: r,~~ ~+ L7.vipg gam; tt„~~okc County Adm;^ytor FRO1Vi: Caroh~n 'VV~- - - MESSAGE: FAX NUN~ER: -~ ~ 19'~ DATE: nivQ~g4 PAGES: ..~.~..~. Cincludes this sheet) QRIGINALS: WII..L FQLL4W ,_'~" .s- NO In response to your phone message, attached is a letter that John sent to Mr. Kim C~reer- Norfolk Southern, on behalf of Mr. Carter. This issue seems to be between Mr. Carter and meet th made at the time of property settlemcnt• john Norfoik Southern, related to an agree ey talked do Mr. Carter and offered to write a letter to Norfollc Southernn on his behaif. A copy of the letter ,~,~ sent tp ~. Carter. Please iet m~ lmow if you have any more questions or if John or I can be of any fvrthtr help in this matter. Carolyn NOTE: If any of these fax copies are illegible, or if .you do not receive the same number of pages as stated about, please contact us immediately at (703)857 SO50. The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the use of the ou have received this commu'nxcatxon in ~, please notify individual namod about. If y us immediately by ~iephonc. Thank you. ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AYJTHORTTY 1020 ~iollins Road Roanoke, VA 24012 703-857-5050 703-857-5056 Fax RV RESOURCE AUTHORITY 1~ _;/' :~• • `; ~ . ~ „ ~. x Fax ~ 1-703-857-5056 Sep 28 ' 94 16 28 P. 0202 ROAI~O~E GALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORl'Y'X September 21, 1994 Kum Grccr, Manager Environmental Services Norfolk Southern Corporation 110 Franklin Road Roanoke, VA 24042 ' Drar K,im: RE: Smith Gap Spur As part of the constxttction o£ the rail. spur to Snutli Gap S~tion, Norfolk Southcia was to install access controls along the rail to try to stop four-wheel drive vehicla use of the rl¢ht of vray. Recently, Y have received a complaint that there has been access from the rail right of way onto private property adjoining the spur. I would appreciate )tour assistance in sexing that Nurfulk Southern reviews the problem and takes the appropriate action. Mr. William Carter (774-6642) may be able to provide more apexi$c information sn the problem. Please let me lrnow the outcome of your review. Sincerely, John It. Hubbard, P.E. Chief Executive Officer TI~I/mcj cc Vv,tt;nr,+ t,,,artc~r 4435 Cornell Drive Roanoke, VA, 24018 1tYlA Hollins Road Roanoke. Virginia 24012 (703) 857.5050 ~'ox (703) SSf~09G 0~ pOANp~-~ a !` A 2 E, J ? a ,8 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 28 September 1994 Edward A. Natt, Esquire Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron & Agee P. O. BOX 20068 Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: Bid Protest: Water Line Materials American Cast Iron Pipe Company Dear Ed: (703) 772-2005 On September 27, 1994, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, considered the protest filed by your firm on behalf of American Cast Iron Pipe Company. The Board reviewed a report prepared by the County Attorney, heard presentations from you and corporate representatives of American Cast Iron Pipe, from counsel and corporate representatives of Griffin Pipe Products and United States Pipe and Foundry Company, and heard the arguments of counsel. The Board reviewed exhibits submitted by you and County staff. At the conclusion of this hearing, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reject this bid protest and directed County staff to proceed with the contracts for the south loop transmission main water line materials. The Board determined that the bid of American Cast Iron Pipe Company was not the low bid for this project. Very truly yours, Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk PMM/spb (1~a~xxt#g ~~ ~.nr~xxta~P BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR.. VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L JOHNSON HOLUNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ®R~ ~ cc: Joy Lee Price, Esquire Gary C. Pears, Esquire Paul M. Mahoney, Esquire Ms. Elaine B. Carver Mr. Gary Robertson N N tT O O +~ c0 a~ z ~ a~ .,..~ ~ ~ t7' O •~ lf1 U1 N b" O W ~ O N ~ tT ~ W d' ~SaCOO N ~(rrON N1pQ,' +~ ~ ~ •b~ axe ~~o - os~ 'b~~.~ OVA ~ ~ • o a •,~ 3~~~ ?~~~ b U1 O O ~, woaa has 1 ~ W ~ ~ W m ~~ m ~~ _m ~~gN ~' <go ~~mN j N a Z N ~}~ OxO~ ~~ ~xZ W m ~ ~ W m ~ H O W ~ ~ > ~1 ~aY ~+~ 1~. 4.Y W Z py O ~ LL ~ O ~ ~ ~ O U a~ ~ ~-I fd N -rl b O ~ ~ N O cn W ~+ UI N ~d'a' }.r ~ fQ O N O O ~ ~ a+~ ak ~ ~ •~ o ~ U~aa~ ~ W . •.-1 ~ b`~O ~ +~ •~ c~cn~waa Board of Supervisors Clerk's Office ~Couutp of ~R.oacuo~~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 T0~ Gary C. Pears, Esquire Staff Attorney U. S. Pipe and Foundary Co. P. O. Box 10406 Birmingham, AL 35202 Board of Supervisors Clerk's Office ~ouutp of ~.oauo~P P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 T0~ Mr. Andy Dodgen 13817 Shadow Ridge Road Midlothian, VA 23112 O~ AOANp~~ ~ ,~ z z °v a 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 ~.w ,, ,~ C~o~xx~~~ ~~ ~a~xx~~~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 September 30, 1994 Mr. Richard L. Williams 4919 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 LT. 1 l._i ~TTtC • L Dear 2" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY' MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS V INTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, September 27, 1994, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals for another four-year term. Your new term will expire on October 24, 1998. 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 Board. Please telephone Steve d and herhas asked that you bring this let er with oath administere you. State law also provides that any person elected, re-elected, or 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 Conflict 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. Sincerely, Lee B. Eddy, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: Elaine Gall, Building Commissioner Steven A. McGraw, Clerk of Circuit County ® Recyded Paper O~ p,OANp~~ i ~~ z .z ov ~~ 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 ~~ixx~t~ ~~ ~~~xx~~~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 September 30, 1994 Mr. Henry H. Wise 7594 Countrywood Drive, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS L.EE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRCCI- H. ODELL "FUZZY" MIN NIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Dear ]~-~cLi~E The members of the Board r f ee vious sserviceh to the rGrievance sincere appreciation for you p Panel. Citizens so responsies and the r dtime arel indeed Hall too willing to give of themsely scarce. I am pleased to inf19 4Yo the aBoard ofe1Supervisors evoted Tuesday, September 27, ~ unanimously to reappoint you as an alternate member of the Grievance Panel for another three-year term. Your new term will expire on October 21, 1998. State law provides that any person appointed to any public body be furnished Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. on behalf of the Supervisors and County, please accept our sincere thanks willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, elected, re-elected, or a copy of the Freedom of We are also sending you the citizens of Roanoke and appreciation for your Lee B. Eddy, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors LBE/bj h Enclosures cc: D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources ® Recyded Paper o~ pOANp,~~ L ti ~ z ~v a~ 1 38 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 September 30, 1994 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOW NS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Rev. John Hartwig Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 1887 Electric Road, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Reverend Hartwig: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, 1 would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 1994. 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. Sincer ly, Lee B. Eddy, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors C~~~xx~#~ ~~ ~~~xx~o~~P P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 ® Recydsd Paper OF ~OANp'fco ti• Z A ~ ~ J 2 a raaa COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 September 30, 1994 Ms. Kathy Wheeler Route 2, Box 192 Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Ms. Wheeler: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 At their regular meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 1994, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the Junior Miss Local Organization, Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festival for a raffle permit. The raffle will be conducted on November 8, 1994. The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed. You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it be displayed on the premises where the raffle is to be conducted. The State Code provides that raffle and bingo permits be issued on a calendar-year basis and such permits issued will expire on December 31, 1994. This permit, however, is only valid on the date specified in your application. PLEASE READ YOUR APPLICATION CAREFULLY. YOU HAVE AGREED TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND REVOKING OF YOUR PERMIT. YOU MUST FILE A FINANCIAL REPORT BYDECEMBER I OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR. PLEASE SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OR DATES YOUR ORGANIZATIONPLANS TO HOLD BINGO OR RAFFLES. PERMITS EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR, If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 772-2005. Sincerely, v~ Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer ~ .~r~xxr~.~t.e P.O. BOX 29800 ® Recyded Paper ~ooi il9;~g-9~ 1~:~6 $~45 ?5d i~57 tS PIPE E1EC GARY C. PEARS S?nF° n-TORNE:Y Via facsimile #(7031 7'72-? 9 Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. County Attorney County of lzoanoke p, O, Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0795 September 28, 1994 S P 9 1994 U 205.25d.709~ Dear Paul: Thanks again for the support and hospitality extendeh AL YCO sl apA~ ntly~posturing conjunction with the September 27 protest hearing. Althoug for the commencement of suit in Circuit Court, 1 truly do he law is follow ~ other parties should feel apprehensive about the ultimate result, assuming If you would, kindly have forwarded [o me a copl oa enda it `mesot hatowe at UnSt (including a duplication of any audio taping) of that partlc g Pi e may closely review the remarks provided by p`CIPCOI all send nou a check inoadvanee P advise me in advance as to the cost of that duplicatwn Auld I s of forwarding if that is desired. Again, please share our gratitude with your staff and with the members of the Board. ^1 •\ .~` 't ~, ~Y 3300 FIRST AVENUE NbRTH 35222 ppsT OFFICE BOX ~6•~06 BIRMINQMAM. l~~-AgAMA 35202 }}f ~ ~~ '~`y ~4 ~~• ~v ~~ ~.. ~~ J~ GCP7j~' J } ~ •,7N i r~ ~J t tx~issai pND FoU~lDRY CQM~ANY O l1NITED STATE$ PIPE ~ ~~ L ~,v Very truly yours, GaI'y C. eais Staff Attorney OF aOANp~~ f` ~ A 2 ~ V 2 a rsaa COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 September 30, 1994 Ms. Kathryn Kitchen, Division Chief Administrative Support Services Virginia Department of Education P. O. Box 2120 Richmond, VA 23216-2120 Dear Ms. Kitchen: (703) 772-2005 Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 92794-8.c to the Virginia Department of Education requesting certain changes to the regulations concerning literary loan fund applications. This resolution was adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 1994. It would be appreciated if you would include this resolution with the comments made at the Department of Education's public hearing on September 29, 1994. I am advised that written comments will be taken through October 7, 1994. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, G~yy~~~, Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Attachment Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Ruth Wade, Clerk, Roanoke County School Board The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell The Honorable Clifton W. Woodrum The Honorable A. Victor Thomas The Honorable H. Morgan Griffith The Honorable J. Brandon Bell The Honorable Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo (~~~txt#g .v~# ~o~~xxtu~e '. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ,,,,pled Paper d_~._ ______ ~e u late g ons hese items affecting coun- ties were published in the Aug. 8 issue of the Virginia Register of Regulations: • The Department of Education is considering charges to regula- tionsabout literary loan applica- tions that would provide more money to local school divisions for school construction. A public hearing is scheduled at g:30 a.m. on Sept. 29 in Senate Room B of the General Assembly Building in Richmond. Written comments can be submitted through Oct. 7 to: Kathryn Kitchen, Division Chief, Department of Education, James Monroe Building, 101 N. 14th St., Richmond, Va. 23219. The Department of Social Ser- vices is working on changes to the Aid to Families with Depen- dentChildren program. Changes in federal regulations require that, in evaluating in- comeand resources to be counted in the AFDC Program, states must disregard bona fide loans regardless of their source or intended use. The state is ac- CePtingwritten comments on this issue through Oct. 7. Com- to ch ange meets can be sent to: Constance O• Hall, AFDC Program Man- ager, Division of Benefit Pro- grams, Department of Social Ser- vices, 730 E. Broad St., Rich- mond, Va. 23219-1849. The Virginia Department of Taxation says that localities as- sessing interest on delinquent taxes pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-3916 may impose interest at a rate note to exceed 10 per- centfor the first year of delin- quencyand at c rate not to ex- ceed 10 percent or the federal underpayment rate in effect for the applicable quarter, which- ever is greater, for the second and subsequent years of delin- quency. For the third quarter of 1994, the federal underpayment rate is 8 percent. The state Tax Department also says that localities that have pro- vided for refund of erroneously assessed taxes may provide by ordinance that such refund be repaid with interest at a rate that does not exceed the rate im- posed by the locality for delin- quent taxes. Information on u . nits is available he Commission on Local Government recently re- leased areport titled "Dis- cretionary Authorities and Special Districts Available to Local Governments in Virginia: Principal Characteristics." Localities can or- der acopy for $5. The report covers all the special types of governments that localities are authorized to establish, includ- ingservice districts, tmnsporation districts, sanitary districts, airport authorities, jail authorities and elec- tricauthorities. To order a copy of the report, con- tactthe Commission on Local Gov- ernment at (804) 786-6508 or (804) 786-1860 for TDD users. URS is ne member VACo welcomes a new associate member: URS Inc. URS Inc. is an international, multi- disciplinary engineering and archi- tectural consulting firm that was formed in 1951 and is currently ranked as one of the nation's top design companies by ~gineering News Record. The firm is one of the nation's largest professional ser- vices organ1zations ",hose total staff of more than 1,200 includes some of the most distinguished and experienced representatives of the architectural and engineering pro- fessions. URS Consultants has been provid- ing services to municipal, county and state agencies for more than 50 years. As such, the firm is inti- mately familiar with the facilities and infrastructure systems of mu- nicipalities. URS has worked with the federal agencieslind with sev- eral foreign governments and inter- national agencies. ~ The Virginia regional office is lo- cated in Virginia Beach, This office provides the full range of the firm's services through its staff of more than 70 people as well as being able to draw upon the total resources of the fine for specialized ~pertise These are people who leave spent their careers in the fields of: ti'ansportation and traffic engi- neering • environmental engineering • structural • Parks and recreation • architectural • construction and program man- agement • Planning and economic studies For more information, contact H. Leonard Matthews Jr., PE, at (804) 499-4224. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~, ------ --- - O~ ROANp~~ ~. z p ~ ~ ~ a2 1 38 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 September 30, 1994 ~I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Mr. Andy Dodgen American Cast Iron Pipe Company 13817 Shadow Ridge Road Midlothian, VA 23112 Dear Mr. Dodgen: As you requested in our telephone conversation of Wednesday, September 28th, I am enclosing a duplicate tape of the bid protest proceedings at the Board of Supervisors Meeting on September 27th. Since the presentations lasted approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes, two tapes were used and I am enclosing an invoice for $2.00 to cover the cost of the tapes. If you have any questions or need further assistance from the Clerk's Office, please call me at 772-2005. Sincerely, C., ~. Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisor Enclosures cc: Paul Mahoney (~~ixx~t~ ~~ ~ o~xx~o~~te ®Recyded paper O~ ROANp~.F a ~ A z ~ J a2 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 September 30, 1994 ~., ~J BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Gary C. Pears, Esquire Staff Attorney U. S. Pipe and Foundary Co. P. O. Box 10406 Birmingham, AL 35202 Dear Mr. Pears: Mr. Mahoney, County Attorney, passed to me your request for a copy of the minutes, transcript, and/or duplicate tape from the Board of Supervisors Meeting on September 27, 1994, concerning the bid protest of American Cast Iron Pipe Company. The minutes for the September 27th meeting will be presented for Board approval at the October 25th meeting. The minutes are a record of all actions taken and are not verbatim. We will prepare transcripts of meeting upon request and make a charge for this service. I am sending you a duplicate tape of the bid protest proceedings which lasted approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes. Since two tapes had to be used, I am enclosing an invoice for $2.00 to cover costs. If you have any questions or need further assistance from the Clerk's Office, please call me at 772-2005. Sincerely, Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisor Enclosures cc: Paul Mahoney C~o~~txt#~ o~~ ~o~~x~~~e ® Recyded Paper 09-26-1994 06~41PM FROM Ed Kohink= Catawba Sp~sr ED KUHINKE 4913 Bradshaw Road Salcm. Virginia 24IS3 (703)384-8013 ~FAx orz void September 26, 1994 _~ i, , ~~~ c~ To: Elmer Hodge Subject: Four Items for Action on Tuesday, 9/27 Attached: VRS Memo 1. Todd Mitchell's (tepee dweller) 15 days are up on Tuesday, 927, rp' Cia~rde Lye's letter to him. Have someone contact him this morning to let him know if he can stay there. ~~^' 2•,~- Brumfield, 4476 Allegheny Drive, 380-4487 has a ~~ ,U -bbr with two incessantly barking do s. Our ' neigh '0~ ~ she needs to "hize a lawyer...": why can't thiscbethandled with- in the framework o£ the noise ordinance? Have this checked out and call me on this ASAP. ~ ~~,,..~3~. D.B. Burnett, 3035 Bradshaw Road, 384-6028, has a problem R -. with nciglaborc~ rcdirccting Macan Crcek. Havc Butch Workman call ~> him today, ~~~ 4. Attached is a copy of $ VgS nPwsietter. Alice Crotts 362- ~~f ~ 8194, is a county retiree (Social Services) and a constituent. She wants to know if this 3~ retirement increase applies to her, acrd what does slie leave Co clo to get it. Have sun-eurre (Diarrr Hyatt?) call her today. I'd like to be briefed on these items before the meeting aLatLa. OI PetLiculdr iritete~L i, Ms. it's very serious; and, I'm at a Ions asttolwhyaour~policeUCan't take d~ t xur~ Udaeel nn tlta noise urclinance ( T dun' t like 3 t when citizens tell me that they need tv spend money on zegal help for a problem we s~ipposedly addressed with an ordinance). TO Supervisors P.01i03 Post-K" beartd tax transmittal memo 78'Tt #~of ws.s . X39-26-1994 ©6:41PM FROM E~i I;ulrirrkr Cat,autra Sfrv~r• TO SuNrr•~i~ura P.©2.~13 v __. r~ i m A Pu_..,,,.,,,,,, ~~ u,a vrrptntii ReUremeM System fbr,4Ctivta Members land Retirees 9~scli! E~ttlon .~ .LEC~I~U4TIQN ~N ~ .. . , .,.. Aupuet, 1994 ~R~ASES V'RS BrtNEFIT lrl July, a spectal acttSion of the General Assemhl pasetd 5orutte IIil) R'.OQg.1'his Icgialatiun pruvidc.3 a 3 percent increase in the ititirrrnent allowrrr,cr for rr,ost rCtirtcy and cligtLle tnelubrls who w11! retitr an or a#ter October 1, 1444 Thu spocis,l tacos of Marro to Mcmiht.rs artswrrr, some quCStiotlS Coricerct- ing thi4 legfstittton. Q• Who is eligible Ear the incrcast? A~ irligibfe individualz` inelucle~ (1) current and future retirets of state agencies; (2) teachers, admiri- tstrAtnre Arid clerieAl em loyeGs of athoal boards; (3) tlu:ttd cot,siitutiurrAl o~c~g and their ntirPd state funned employees; sad (4) o vivor bCncfits as the result t>f the death of An s~~ibie retiree. Retirees of poklical Subdivi:tans and rtozs_profts- sional rctireq Of school boards such a= n{a ce `"'Wo~ri;°`custa~Att-worlccrr ~d'~lictnl'~l~~rs~- a~ ~igiblc if their employer 1}asses a rerolutian to ptrn+ide the retire:rnrtt Allowance incru~r, Q. How much of firs increase wfll bt; granted? ~• Current rettreas will ~.r a ~ Percent increase ire their r>zoruhIy tetirtmeut allowance, For txarnplt, if your r+etirt;trjtrtt benefit is gl,ppp a rrsonttr, ~ new rtmaunt of tsar bcartfit will bt: Sl,a3t), month. Q. Whirr will I get the hrcreaae? A' ~s'a wilt be c11'cctivc ~7cwber 1, >:I1glble rettre~ and monthly survivor benefit recipients wt1l sCe the incrcpse rcAcctcd i,~ the payment they receive nn IVovCmher i . Q• 1~Vhat it i :m not yet retired? A. When yen, retire, lire Pprmula used lt) calculate your vtt5 benefit will reflect the 3 parent increase, provided you are to art eliglbie group. If you are an employee of a pelitical subdivision, yr ore a non- professionai employer of a School board, your bertc- fit will reflect the 3 }xrCx.,rt itlCr~tsr<, l~rovidtd your employer Peed a rexoluci0tl providing far the incruse. Q. Who is not elfgihlc? A. Tbc Govcmar, lieutenant Governor, Attorney Genera), and members of the GGt7crai As~rnbly ate not cL'gible unless their avers final competedon (highest 3b aonsctwriYc motit~s of saI ~Y) includes Shy based on service to some other covered posi• lion with t1n eligible ranployer. The in xpDlitxi Only to t hat lx~rtian of the rtvcrag re f"t~l~lcome pcnsation that iy based on service in the eligible pr~.titton. •~•1.:).. ... Q. Have political subdivision eraQloyerg ~,~ npa- 5ed of any special r~.quirFments for courting their employees? A. VRS h=t; notlf3ed e!1 politkat subdtviatoni of the necessity to fik x rrsoludort IG prOVlde the fnrr,rstse for rha{r current and futt+u~e retirees qnd is furntshin$ informatiuu to them c:Onctxrting the stc'Idltlonal cost to provide the it,crCasc. School Boards have beta nottflGd that tI~ey t'rrutt file R resolution to the incrcaee for thefrnun- provtdc Professional retirees. Q. ~'ttcu will the t.ncrease be effective for (u~lirir.Al subdivisions retirees whose emplvy~rs pass A rrsolu- tiou ro provide the Increase? A. if VIZS reeefvttz the rasoltitiorr by j„rruary 1,1993, flee 396 benefit iacrer1se rosy be mAde ~tr'oactire to t:'ictohar, 1994. If tl,c rcaolttlion is rec>rived after 09-26-1994 06~42PM FROM Ed Kohinke Catawba Spusr TO Supervisors P.03%03 January I, 19'13, tkts: benei~it irterease will become eficctive with the later of the next retirsrnent payroll pn~GCssed inllowlt]g rcvcipt of the resotuliart, or the t;ffcetivs elate al>scifis;,d it] the resolution. R. l sett sin elected cwcstituuoszal officer and tt]y salary is reunbursed try tltt: state Compcnsntion Board, Atli t cltgiblt; for the i:tcreacc7 A. You will 1]c cligibte far the increase ii you retire f~l-om a posilioit as an elected constitutional officer or as a member of the staf[ of an elected ct~ristitutional officer provided your Mary, in whole or in patrl, is reimbursed by iha state Gompensatian 13aard. rxamplts of conslitutictna) officers include treasttr- cr,, rcrn]t]tissionct'S of rGvcnuc, sltcri[fs, clerks of court, and C:rtmmonwPSltlt'a attorneys. if you hater takr a Futei+inn c~utsidc of the consti• tutittnnl office category witfz a pnlitteal s~thriivicic]n that does not coact the idcreasc, you wit! net tt:ceive the 3 pctr.Gnt it1Cr'coan iri your benefit At retirement. Yuur eligibility far tl]c it]crcasc is dctcrrnitied by your cl3ssificattan with the lest ctnplnycr ynu wurkcd [nr 11T1tIlCdfltttely pfic~t w ~ctirement. Q. l sell a reucetl elected cotlStituttonal af~lcer, Any l eligitale far the increase? A. 1f y4u were an elected eorl3tltutlonal nfficcr or a :rlcmher dI cite staff of ~n clt•ctet! ctmstitulional offlct~r prior to ynrtr rctircu]ent and your s+tltary was reitn- bursctl, in whalF ar to rnrl, by the state Cutttpei]sation Board, you are ~itgible. if yeu rrtit~d in 179 csr later, VRS alrcacly }t~t~ this: infor-t]]tttit~tt in yttiur rccorrl. However, if you rctittid before 19x9, ccrtlficatinn of your pttsitian rt]ay riot 1]c ovailtrbic to VltS. if 7ou retired from n city or county in Virfiinia and your retlretnenl d~3tc was before 1979, you will Find a firm ettc:lased witlt this tnsrtling. This furrrt is needed only if you were *rnployed ac an rlcrled rottstitutlona! O~~iGCr' or' S41't~Gli o!r fh~ St+Ijj Aj All CIICCCd [t?itlrl'tUti0rlQl ~+jficer iunnediately prior to your rr<tirement. if yrnc beliE~ve yeu are aligibl~~ fur tltr tnereatee because you rctircti froth a positic+tt tout ~~•~t: a eon- stttutiona) ct~Citer or member of the staih~>f a corzsti- tutionai c~iticec, you should fill uul this form and mail 11 to your i•utmrr employer. Your former ct]]plnycr will t:r.rttfy your cligtbil'tty seed nxtil the corm to VR5. "1'n avoid ;t tlclay itt rcccivtrtg tl]c incrt~se, it's very in]portarn to tttail thin corm to your former cmpioyer as earl}}~ as es6italc. Plcasc t]otc that this forth is bcin~ mallett oslly to t-ctirtscs of cities and counties in Virginia who retired 1]efnrc 1979, Unless you were employed as an elect- ed euntitirutinrtal officer cu' were a +nembrr of the btaff of an t:lera~d censtituti~nal crfficcr, it is not nea essary for you to fill uut and rellu'n Iris forth. Q. Wht<t happens !f I have already submitted my aphtie1tion [or retircment7 A. tf r~u arc cliKiblc far the t:tercasC acrd your retire- ment elate is privy to Octubcr 1, 7aur chcs:k dated Novt:tttbcr 1 wilt lncltadc tl+t; ittt:~case. It }our effective retirement date is after October 1, the lust tClirctnent check you receive will include thr increase. Q. if I stn on Uircct t)clx-sft, will l receive arty Con- firmation o1' tl,+• increase !n my re.tlrement naymelit~ A. if y~~u arc receiving your V1tS benefit through UirCGt nCpusil, a notier. will hC mallet! in late Octc~bcr to nutify yuu of the inereasr in your rPtire- mcnt I'riyn]cnt. Ytrglnlt- ltctircauctl 5yitcnr l~l~l7 East MAin Street Post Olllcc Sox 1500 RtChmond, Vigtinia 232t)r-2300 aLiCl: t;~t~!rr; t'lc." LLI: F itnVS;N {,r.Iv:. k(1i~I~UK t Ve! to 1{~ (itJLK RAPE U.S. ~DAt3te RICH[YDND, VA P3'13Y P«mit Np. X57 TOTAL P.03.i03 COUNTY OF ROANOKE MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 1994 TO: Board of Supervisors / J FROM: Elmer C. Hodge ~ L County Administrator RE: Exchange Program with Opole, Poland As you know, Roanoke County has been participating in an Exchange Program with the City of Opole, Poland, through the Virginia Local Government Management Association (VLGMA). We have had the opportunity to host several officials from that City, so that they can learn more about democracy at the local level. Additionally, Don Myers was asked to visit Opole last spring, where he had the opportunity to assist them with several projects. The President (Mayor) of Opole and Tony Gardner, the President of VLGMA, have asked that I visit Poland in November as part of this program. They have also asked that Anne Marie Green participate, as they are interested in learning to deal with a free press and involving citizens in local government. My wife will also accompany us. VLGMA and Opole will pay all expenses for Anne Marie and me, while I will be responsible for the cost of taking Sue. If for some reason Sue is unable to go, I would like to invite someone else, perhaps a member of our business community, to travel with us at their own expense. The dates which have been tentatively picked are November 17 -December 3, which would allow us to only miss one Board meeting. Additionally, due to the Thanksgiving holiday, the County offices will be closed for two days during that time. If you have no objection, we will go ahead and confirm the trip with VLGMA and the City of Opole. This is a wonderful opportunity to us to help another local government, and I am flattered that the elected officials of Opole think so highly of Roanoke County and our operations. BID TABULATION FOR SOUTH LOOP WATER TRANSMISSION LINE PIPE, FITTINGS AND VALVES BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 18-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On $22.23 $23.46 $24.44 $25.07 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On $23.00 $25.03 $26.05 $26.77 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained $37.97 $36.73 $39.05 $33.79 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend $391.60 $558.72 $563.50 $462.00 $578.00 $597 91 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend $391.60 $573.72 $563.50 $473.00 $582.00 . $601 82 11-1/4 Degree Bend " " $391.60 $573.72 $563.50 $473.00 $582.00 . $601 82 18 x18 Tee " " $806.96 $1,123.08 $1,093.50 $902.00 $1,135.00 . $1 177 73 18 x12 Tee " $644.60 $870.18 $979.00 $704.00 $860.00 , . $888 80 18 x8" Tee " " $566.72 $823.26 $772.50 $665.00 $824.00 . $852 13 18 x6 Tee " $558.36 $802.74 $760.00 $649.00 $805.00 . $832 08 12 MJ Welded Outlet " $500.00 NO BID $979.00 $636.00 NO BID . NO BID 8 MJ Welded Outlet $500.00 $1,855.69 $772.50 $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6" MJ Welded Outlet " $500.00 $1,755.65 $760.00 $366.00 NO BID NO BID 18 -Butterfly Valve " NO BID NO BID NO BID . NO BID $1,648.00 $2 270 52 18 Plug $195.80 $277.50 $275.50 $209.00 $199.00 , . $269 37 MJ Restraint Glands " $209.13 NO BID $234.48 NO BID $159.00 . $135 93 18 Sleeve $362.12 $288.72 $530.00 $363.00 $538.00 . $444 40 MJ Gland $75.80 $35.64 $66.70 $36.00 $61.00 . $45.55 24-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On $31.62 $33.64 $34.86 $35.68 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On $33.59 $35.55 $36.97 $37.92 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained $54.38 $53.55 $56.97 $48.72 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend $751.96 $996.42 $992.00 $831.00 $1,198.00 $1 238 35 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend $751.96 $1,011.42 $992.00 $842.00 $1,221.00 , . $1 261 82 11-1/4 Degree Bend " " $751.96 $1,018.92 $992.00 $847.00 $1 221.00 , . $1 261 82 24 x18 Tee " " $1,382.92 $2,098.38 $1,779.00 $1,689.00 , $2,385.00 , . $2 464 97 24 x12 Tee " " $1,009.36 $1,390.38 $1,298.00 $1,133.00 $1,576.00 , . $1 629 46 24 x8 Tee " " $990.44 $1,350.96 $1,279.00 $1,100.00 $1 583.00 , . $1 590 35 24 x6 Tee " $977.68 $1,330.44 $1,256.00 $1,084.00 , $1,515.00 , . $1 565 91 12 MJ Welded Outlet " $500.00 $1,295.24 $1,298.00 $636.00 NO BID , . NO BID 8 MJ Welded Outlet " $500.00 $1,040.54 $1,279.00 $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6 MJ Welded Outlet " $500.00 $962.39 $1,256.00 $366.00 NO BID NO BID 24 - Butterfly Valve " NO BID NO BID NO BID $2 747.00 $3 054 73 24 Plug $361.24 $502.50 $525.00 $385.00 , $374 00 , . $513 82 MJ Restraint Glands " $298.53 NO BID $249.00 NO BID . $531.00 . $198 22 24 Sleeve $573.76 $403.92 $790.00 $556.00 $792.00 . $748 48 MJ Gland $98.80 $68.04 $77.00 $50.00 $69.00 . $75.55 30-INCH PIPE Class 52 Push-On NO BID $43.32 NO BID $48.63 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Push-On NO BID $46.38 NO BID $52.52 NO BID NO BID Class 53 Restrained NO BID $60.54 NO BID $66.92 NO BID NO BID 45-Degree Bend NO BID $1,205.16 NO BID $2,070.00 $2,088.00 $2 157 95 22-1/ 2 Degree Bend NO BID $1,227.16 NO BID $2,100.00 $2,123.00 , . $2 194 13 11-1/4 Degree Bend " " NO BID $1,238.16 NO BID $2,115.00 $2,139.00 , . $2 194 13 30 x18 Tee " " NO BID $2,259.12 NO BID $3,600.00 $3,772.00 , . $3 897 91 30 x12 Tee " " NO BID $1,626.62 NO BID $2,670.00 $2,759.00 , . $2 851 20 30 x8 Tee " " NO BID $1,593.70 NO BID $2,618.00 $2 704.00 , . $2 794 48 30 x6 Tee " NO BID $1,579.18 NO BID $2,595.00 , $2,680.00 , . $2 769 55 12 MJ Welded Outlet " NO BID $1,191.62 NO BID $636.00 NO BID , . NO BID 8 MJ Welded Outlet " NO BID $957.29 NO BID $459.00 NO BID NO BID 6 MJ Welded Outlet " NO BID $704.70 NO BID $366.00 NO BID NO BID 30 - Butterfly Valve " NO BID NO BID NO BID $4,390.00 $7 561 05 30 PiUg Vi.~ c•~u of is fii; .~~ti .~!n 4~r.,;'~ ;.r, $609.f'0 , . ~^ !~~.) MJ Restraint Glands " NO BID ~!n BID NO BID $638 00 , . :ii535 1? 30 Sleeve -~~~ RIn aFna as tiro Ri;-, Q, Coo ~~ m.. ,,,. ,.,, . _. ~. _ . __ PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSON VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES & WASTE PIPE COMPANY PIPE COMPANY PIPE COMPANY PIPE COMPANY FERGUSON ENTERPRISES VA WATER & WASTE PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE FERGUSON VA WATER COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY ENTERPRISES & WASTE z. ~ _ ~ .- L. ; .. ~ ~., S..~ y, a- ... ~. ~„ _ µ s' ~~~~ .~+ ~. 'fi=t ~-: c.0 Fzi scr~ ;~_ ~:.,r,,ac:: .. ,;.gin :_:. -- ~J. ~ - I C', 3~}i14 ~~ ~`~i is tii:. ~~. i~ ~ ~ Ev :'~ 2 ~`1: , c~r~ n~~a; Cc~.=~:per 13, ~,..-± • : i:_e sc? der tF`~:r.:_ez': ;~=~=~~=3 • pew Siz' or Madam: . ~.- ;: r. G~ = - 'y L ~ ~iJtl.~. ~'?`~ ::11.5 ;, S ,_.: i ~ C ~ ~ ~:.:;. - _ ~yJT u Qr.l, ... L'X~Sn~ ~.0^ F~:1t=3.w~ -r}'`'~~ iYY- ~,~u ri,V ~ ~ ( ate. ~O ~ ~ s ..;,~~'~" '~"~'~-}-'~'~^'-",~• ti~~J \ v„ r~p~~ ru- ..~ `-``~ `' , ~r,-.a n~r7p L`V_ :ia~ s,..-,:_ -- _ RJ Y 1 yc ` y -I-...,1~L` ~V , ~,'1 'Jr Q~,, •:~-.r-,-~r'a t~',r..~C.'. 1~'e~ ~ +L .+8....` ~ '~ ~,:.. ~ t~ a .. r- .~ri .j arl ~ „°,~;~..~.C:fi ~- f C Q ~ tel. o ~''):~ . Vie` J ` ~`.,J,.v,~. . Cart= y~ut~=ors tat M rA~'err~ ~ to wove =s ~'..~; ---°-'t-..-~ +-us : a-C~;L~2~:~? ~ ~y c.'-~: ~.° rSya ~.? ;,,~.+-_'_f_'~ed a: - , '~:e ~av~ 8xemtat SVDJ `~= ~.rvi.:. VPI".~~~u`~. , ~- ,V j"• .~C- ~:, „ I'6:8~--'~ :~s: a ec-:. ,• ,;z-~cse5, ..r~. =-- , .n ef~ ~ Y"~ ar.^. ~:i.~.~ ~ c'.^.~ ~ ` x.n yogi.. F r + e e!"-~ ~ ~ p r tk,PT'...'=~Z::12.~~.. '~'~$'Iiri~:.~ ,~,~?L"4"1C~- ~~2C;' t.0 !e 712'1 - `..,~ -~. Y be re^c: .;,s sot ~ , .- c^ a:-ae j ; 1 ,.::. met~:oc~. o.~ cperat-on :rss ~ ~ r _ Y~,~ must yt ~a d eYo. u a•J . the cha.-:~° fl ya~~e' exe.~ ~'t s ~atL~ . name and a~d.."ess. - - iY`,~:k you }or y'o~ COOre•~3t10K1. . ~ncereZy ya«rs, ' ~ ~ ~~ _ ~, F, Van fete= Ex~rnpt drgan~.~a~-~-~ - • _ post.~t,,, bland tax UanSt~}~ttaim ito ^76~ MEMORANDUM To: Don Myers, ACA From: Gardner W. Smith, Director General Services / :'~ Date: September 16, 1994 Re: Request for Repair to Melinda Lane by Mr. Walter Campbell Attached is a letter from Mr. Campbell requesting Board approval to repair Melinda Lane. Based on our previous conversation, it is my understanding that with the letter you would take the action to the Board. GWS/pld cc: Mary Allen .~ - ~o ~ ~ ~~~ ~ c~~ 2.1-344 A (6) investing of public funds where the financial interest of the County may affected, receipt of financial audits and dispersing of County funds to volunteer fire and rescue departments. ED KOHINKE ~~ 6913 Bradshaw Road~~~~ /~ " ' ~~~~~~„~ ~ ,! Salem, Virginia 24153 .~ CIS (703) 384-8013 (FAX OR VOICE) CONFIDENTIAL MEMO To: Lee Eddy, Chairman Subject: Request for Executive Session September 22, 1994 I hereby request an Executive Session in conjunction with our September 27th meeting. This is for the purpose of explaining a personal situation to the Board, so I assume that it should be classified as a personnel matter. Also, it should only take 5 - 10 minutes. I would like only the County Administrator and County Attorney to be present for this meeting (in addition to the Board of Supervisors). EGK/bjh cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Elmer Hodge Paul Mahoney Cyr MEMORANDUM TO: Elmer Hodge ~ FROM: Bonnie Preas DATE: September 21, 1994 SUBJECT: Automated Fuel/Fleet Management System it has come to my attention that several people, Mr. Hodge, about the status of the including Board members, have been askin ortunity to advise you of above systems. I wanted to take th ress P Facility and Management Team s prog ro osals for both systems in early May. Committees We received p p were established to evaluate and negotiate thoe recondition of ethe the interaction of the two systems and the p fuel system, we decided to awasoftwarep forosthef fleet nmanagement "on-line" before purchasing system. The fuel system was purchased from Fuel Master and has been installed and is function t mana•ement sy t mt to two vendors.doWe the responses for the fle g are scheduled to interview and/o'ected s hedule ishese two vendors on September 29, 1994. Our p 7 10/03/94 order equipment and software 11/12/94 receive equipment 11/28/94 install equipment 12/09/94 bring system "up" 03/01/95 system fully functional Not only does the software need to be ordered, but we also need to order the computers and r Garae e 1q andm 2tto the Administ ation telephone line to connect g Center . Once the system is up ~ ke then syst m functional k will need to be performed in order to ma lace, they will be administered by the Once the systems are in p Committee. The County MIS Fleet Manager and the Vehicle Advisory Department will provide support for the fleet management system and has been involved in the selection process. I realize this has been a long process and I assure you that all committees involved have been working diligently to bring these systems on line. Please let dseto be a priority ove schedule is suitable or if you feel it nee Thanks! cc: Jim Jones Brent Robertson 439-22-5994 13~OT r©JJG101'4-+ September 8, 1994 MEMO TO: Elmer Hodge County Administrator ROANOICC COUNTY POLICC DCPT. P.D2 FROM: John H. Cease Chief of Pollee SUBJECT: BOARD REPORT ~ IMPACT pF THE GAT ORDINANCE TIVITY Since the induction of the Community ~ervlce Division into the Police Department July 1, 1994, it's capacity has increased both theassdhwthitheiei"tra kreccrd""e1but feel quality and quantity of work. f am very p there are several pertinent statistics which you should be made aware. 1dVe presently have three new Community S 40 hogs in-service t ainingswithtOff ce~ four full-time officers, Two officers received Murphy, 32 hours each of animal controntira hired'of f ce c s a certlfiedQpoi ce officer currently in the Academy. Our most race y and will be training for four weeks with~mbuenrl;g~~+ three of the~our~offlcerstwiil answering community service calls. By pee will be In the be certified in both police na with regard ~o domestio animal cost of calls within the community serving the c~tise county, officer Murphy will complete the Aces adequate staft9g5. Training has been staggered across a one year period to assu 4 A ma or concern aver the pest two months is the citizen interp eT~la~~ regaerdin(~ ordinance which went Into effect July 1, 1894. The following l the ordinance strongly effects the county's resources both physically and financially. From July 1, 1994 through August 31, 1994, Com ~~II the S~oduct of~cornplaints made up B4 cats due to the new ordinance These were P by citizens wanting cats piekod up and taken to tha SPCA as allowed by tha ordinance because the cats are "doing property damage. The ordinance has become an instrument for the publsn to the SPCA they mayhi!noa feuds or remove stray-cats. After these cats are tak ROANOKE COUNTY POLICE DEPT. P. p3 09-22-1981 13=p8 7p356181~3 few instances, be returned to the owners and are subsequently back In the community. Roanoke County pays an officer to initially take a trap to the residence to catch the problem cat ... has paid an afflcer to return to the residence to pick up the cat and take it to the SPCA ~ ~ ~ ~~ ofeoer to eturn to heasa ee ~ ghborhood ae ownor plaks it up ... and may paY # a future date regarding the same cat. The SPCA Is required by County ordinance to hold the cats seven days if unclaimed by their owners. If the cat is wearing a collar, the State code requires the SPCA must hausQ the cat for ten days. It iS believed that the majority of cats trapped In Roanoke County are stray cats or awned by people that will not paY the boarding fee either because they do .not have the cat licensed yr do not want to pay to have the cat returned Each housed cat is Costing the c st to he2Co nty60,00 per cat. Prior to July 1, 1994, no cats were boarded at Roanoke County has paid $1,962 between 6136f94 and 8125/94 in boarding fees. based on the statistical activity tv date, there is a need to evaluate allocate ppo ds for housing domestic anfmais picked up If the de artment cantinuesyto pick up 76 budgeted for housing all domestic animals. P animals per month and using an average daily SPCA rate, the estimated SPCA annual cost Could be as high as 827,360.00. S evsce~~o f cters ereean~ Bring comply ntsa Increase once all four of the Community The attached report indicates that, given the number of calls received, clerical support is mandatory In order to handle cells in a timely manner. To answer these calls, explain the cat ordinance, take Information re cerdia extemeey t me aonsumingfilF ohm reports to g+ve to the Community $erv+Ge off our experience of the past two months, It apdramatic nc asset n surpport necessary Service clerics) support staff to assist with the to handle calls related to cats. I feel a minimum of 20 hours per week would be needed to be of any significant assistance. JHCIcI attachment ROANOFiC COUNTY POLICC DCPT. P•©`r' D9-22-1994 1.:r~D9 r©3aG10143 (in#ormation based on statistics from 7194 & 8184} RpANQKE COUNTY PC~ICE DEPAt~TMENT REGOMMENpATI0N8: Additional The Board needs to review the financial impact of the cat ordinance. funding may be this year to house and euthanize cats. Additional funds may be needed to saver the increased productivity of thee not elloCated the departmen~msy ether domestic animal impoundment. If funds a run out of funds to house enfmals in six to eight months. An alternative to increased funding Is a complete review of thellc~a$ thei Board is intent. that it is not used to merely pick up stray cats, unless that This would, at a minimum, require that the demi sltfnca fcd'eopa~Y destruction be clearly defined and evidence be required before an Ninety-three percent of the cats picked up have been euthaniza~'f`~ nt cost ance is primarily being used to eliminate the county of stray Cats at s g Staff recommends: - ailoCaxe additional funds if necessary for animal housing - review ordinance definitions of property damage - reduce the number of days that sn animal is held before euthanization -define the parameters for setting cat traps and property owner must be willing to sign a formal complaint against cat owner, - increase the initial pick-up fee to 825.00 per animal, The number of oat licenses sold in the Cou fe~.fsopffhc first two months of the new ordinance was unattainable from the Treasu p9-22-199• 13: p9 ip3.riG101-~3 ROANOKC COUNTY POLICC DCPT. P•p'~ BOARD REPORT • REFERENCE COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVI'1"Y Attachment Community Service animal ca1{e~ per month; JULY AUGUST 1. Received through Dispatch: 210 21 ~ 2, Received by secretary: 700 ~$~ 3, Received through CSO plus responses: fi80 702 4. Responses by Police Officers: 60 56 Animals housed at SPCA July & August. 1994: 64 Cats 86 Dags 3 Other (1 rabbitll goats) Note: These calls include the following: - Cat law questions - Animal license information - General Animal roletAd questions - Referrals to Game Warden - Referrals to Exterminators or outside agencies - Cslis referred to other ii.e. VDOT, Treasurer's office, etc.1 - Calls for SPCA - Health Department referrals pF ~pANp~F ~ .A L ti p d Roanoke County 838 °A"°kF Police Department POLICE cOUN~y John H. Cease Chief of Police September 6, 1994 MEMO TO: Elmer Hodge County Administrator FROM: John H. Cease Chief of Police 3568 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Office: 703/561-8071 Fax: 703/561-8114 SUBJECT: BOARD REPORT -REFERENCE THE CATCORDINANCE TIVITY IMPACT OF Since the induction of the Community Service Divisio dditional officersD asawell asJthe 1, 1994, it's capacity has increased both through a uality and quantity of work. I am very pleased with be made aware~rd", but feel q there are several pertinent statistics which you shout We presently have three new Community Service Off in se vice train gg w'rthtOff ce~ four full-time officers. Two officers received 40 hours Murphy, 32 hours each of animal control training to f fcerc s a clert fiedopol ce officer currently in the Academy. Our most recently hired and will be training for four weeks with a uni1994 threetof the go~rfofficersfwill answering community service calls. By December - will be in the be certified in both police training renard t domestic animal cont of calls within the community serving the citizens wit 9 in June, 1995. Training has been county. Officer M crone yelar perioldtto assure adequate staffing. staggered acro A major concern over the past two months is thh folllowingenpformaltion regarding ordinance which went into effect July 1, 1994. T the ordinance strongly effects the county's resources both physically and financially. From July 1, 1994 through August 31, 1994, Communit alSthe prodfuct rofhcompla nts up 150 cats due to the new ordinance. These were made by citizens wanting cats picked up and taken ao ehe SPCA as allowed by the ordinance because the cats are doing property dam g The ordinance has become an instrument for the public t o the SPCA tithe gmayhooa feuds or remove stray cats. After these cats are taken few instances, be returned to the owners and are subsequently back in the Roanoke community. No charges filed ... no problems solved. In the meantime, County has paid an officer to initially take a trap to the residence to catch the problem cat ... has paid an officer to return to the residence to pick up the cat and take it to the SPCA ... has paid the SPCA to board the ahbo hood'at aefuture date ega ding the may pay the officer to return to the same neig same cat. For the total number of cats that were trapped and taken to the SPCA over the past two months, Roanoke County has paid at least 52,160 boarding fees. The SPCA is required by County ordinance to hold the cats seven days if unclaimed by their owners. If the cat is wearing a collar, the State ordinance states the SPCA must house the cat for ten days. It is believed tlea~~a ewilll notypaycthe boarding fee a ther County are stray cats or owned by peop because they do not have the cat licensed or do not want to pay to have the cat returned. Each housed cat is costing thhecresntonsib~it0y oft 60Coupty cat. Prior to July 1, 1994, no cats were boarded at t p Based on the statistics of activity to date, there is an immediate need to reevaluate the amount of allocated funds set aside for the use of housing these domestic animals once they are picked up by our officers. Currently the budgeted amount is 518,000 for all housed animals. If we continue to pick up approximately 75 cats per month and the majority of them are housed at the SPCA for 7 days, the estimated annual cost is 537,800 paid by Roanoke County to the SPCA. This figure does not include any other domestic animals that need to be housed such as dogs, etc. We anticipate this figure to increase significantly once all four of the officers are answering complaints. As you will see from the attached report regarding the number of calls received and the disbursement of those calls, clerical support is mandatory in order to answer calls in a timely manner. To answer these calls, explain the cat ordinance, take information regarding complaints and write and file the reports to give to the Community Service officer is extremely time consuming. From our experience of the past two months, it appears necessary to hire a Community Service clerical support staff to assist with the dramatic increase in support necessary to handle calls related to cats. I feel a minimum of 20 hours per week would be needed to be of any significant assistance. Since the issue of controlling domestic animals in Roanoke County is becoming more prevalent with the new cat ordinance in effect, it is important to discuss these statistics before they are out of control of the budgeted allocation. JHC/cl attachment ROANOKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board needs to review the financial impact of the cat ordinance. Additional funding of approximately 520,000 this year to house and euthanize cats is projected. Additional funds of approximately 510,000 will be needed to cover the increased productivity of the animal control operation for dog and other domestic animal impoundment. If funds are not allocated, the department will run out of funds to house animals in four to five months. It is doubtful that SPCA will allow us to house animals if the bills are not paid. An alternative to increased funding is a complete review of the cat ordinance to insure that it is not used to merely pick up stray cats, unless that was the Board's intent. This would, at a minimum, require that the definition of property destruction be clearly defined and evidence be required before animal incarceration. Ninety-three percent of the cats picked up have been euthanized. The ordinance is primarily being used to eliminate the county of stray cats at significant cost. Staff recommends: - allocate 530,000 additional funds for animal housing - review ordinance definitions of property damage - reduce the number of days that an animal is held before euthanization -define the parameters for setting cat traps and property owner must be willing to sign a formal complaint against cat owner. - Increase the initial pick-up fee to 525.00 per animal. The number of cat licenses sold in the County for the first two months of the new ordinance was unattainable from the Treasurer's office. BOARD REPORT -REFERENCE hOMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITY Attac Community Service animal calls per month: 210 1. Received through Dispatch: 700 2. Received by secretary: 3. Received through CSO plus responses: 680 60 4. Responses by Police Officers: 1,650 TOTAL: 3,300 Total -July/August: Note: These calls include the following: - Cat law questions - Animal license information - General Animal related questions - Referrals to Game Warden - Referrals to Exterminators or outside agencies - Calls referred to other (i.e. VDOT, Treasurer's office, etc.) - Calls for SPCA - Health Department referrals (Information based on statistics from 7/94 & 8/94) 0~ p,OANp,Y~ a ~ ~ p z c~ 1838 ~~~~~ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES MEMORANDUM 1~ - , FROM : ~~~/Yi! Z'LZ'~ ~~" / !? ~ Q ~ ~ DATE: ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ h ~-~- SUBJECT~, Attached be recogn' pm for hey .,.,...,,~ ~~ ,,.,a~~.,~~ ~~~~~ty. eene will ~, at 3:00 Please review the attached resolution and make any necessary corrections and add any additional information you wish to be included. This information should be returned to Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, by Friday, September 23, 1994. Please let me know if you have any questions. c: Mary Allen Post•It`"routing request pad 7864 ROUTING -REQUEST Please ^ READ ^ HANDLE ^ APPROVE ~~' -?lQ ~ (P`~ ~1~-1-i~+L~-- and ~- i L _ r; ,~ ,- t~ ~ ~-11"\ : ~~'~ ~< < FORWARD ^ RETURN ^~ E 'OR DISCARD ~'"~" ~ ` `~'~ ^ REVIEW WITH ME i ~ From V~l'~ ~'' ~ cl~ f, - Date _~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OANOKE COUNTY ADM NISTRATRON C NTER ON September VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE RO 27. 1994. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO Tina C. Greene FOR 19 YEARS AND 5 MONTHS OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene was first employed in January of 1975 as an Eligibility Worker with the Department of Social Services; and also as a Senior Eligibility Worker in the Department of Social Services; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Tina C. Greene for 19 years and 5 months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful and productive retirement. 0~ ROANp~~ ~ ~ y z G) rags ~.J~ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES MEMORANDUM T0: Gerald Holt Sheriff ~,~ ~~ FROM: Melinda i Person '"stmt DATE: September 19, 1994 SUBJECT: Retirement Resolution -William Poole Retirement Resolution -Gloria Lovelace Attached please find resolutions for the retir C eni ed by thle Board of SuperGisors Lovelace. Mr. Poole and Ms. Lovelace will be re g on Tuesday, September 27, 1994 at 3:00 for their service to Roanoke County. Please review the attached resolutions and makeluded eTh s anfo mat on sho dabe any additional information you wish to be inc returned to Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, by Friday, September 23, 1994. Please let me know if you have any questions. c: Mary Allen AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNT OA M NISTRATRON C NTER ON September VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE 27. 1994. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO William Poole FOR 14 YEARS 7 MONTHS OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, William Poole was first employed in December of 1979 as a De ut Sheriff-Corrections Officer in the Sheriff's Department; and also as a Deputy Sheriff- Corrections Division Transportation in the Sheriff's Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to William Poole for 14 years and 7 months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful and productive retirement. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON September 27. 1994. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO Gloria Lovelace FOR 10 YEARS AND 4 MONTHS OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, Gloria Lovelace was first employed in April of 1984 as a Corrections Division Cook in the Sheriff's Department; and also as a Deoutv Sheriff-Corrections Officer in the Sheriff's Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Gloria Lovelace for 10 years and 4 months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful and productive retirement. ~ aoAN ,~ F ~~ ~ ~ z ~ a OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 September 21, 1994 T0: Mr. Elmer Hodge FROM: th Wade The school board on September 8 directed that a letter under the signatures of Mr. Thomas and Dr. Gordon be sent to Kathy Kitchen relative to the Literary Fund. Enclosed is a copy of the letter. With reference to Mr. Eddy's memo to you dated September 6, 1994, it would be appropriate if the two of you would also send a letter to Kathy. In talking with Kathy she indicated the board of education cannot address the amount of principal that is retained in the fund inasmuch as that is a constitutional provision and would require a voter referendum. She did suggest, however, that we strongly urge our legislators to refrain from transferring any money from the Literary Fund for other state projects. Enclosure c: Mr. Frank Thomas Dr. Deanna Gordon Mr. Paul Mahoney ,w, F a ANON F >, L_ T` ~ a? s OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SALEM. VIRGINIA 24153 September 15, 1994 Mrs. Kathryn S. Kitchen, Division Chief Administrative Support Services Virginia Department of Education P. 0. Box 2120 Richmond, Virginia 23216-2120 Dear Mrs. Kitchen: The Roanoke County School Board has directed that we convey its thoughts regarding the Literary Fund and consideration bein to increasing the amount available g given at the state level strongly support raisin Per Project from $2.5 to $5 million, V0e increasing the division cap whichmcurrentlYrise$20 million.illion and, also, For the past several years the Roanoke Count involved in an extensive capital improvements y School System has been construction. Due to the lower interest ratepr the most feasible method not financing these projects is the Literar Fund. and division caps, however, some of our With the current projects have been delayed bPro~ect placed on a waiting list, or we have found it necessary to use other fundin sources. Either option has Y being costs or higher interest ratesoven more costly because of rising construction been adversely affected when Additionally, the instructional projects have been delayed. Program has Considering our current balance of $6.2 million in outstanding Literary Fund loans and immediate plans to expand the capital improvements the posture of the school board to be cost effective, Program' and consideration by the Virginia Board of Education the concern of the Roanoke County School Board that sufficient money be available through the Literar Fund to provide low interest loans to school divisions for capital improvement and construction projects. Increasing the y per project limit to $5 million and increasing the division cap beyond $20 million would being made to provide effective, safe facilities conduc ve to enefit efforts environments for our students. good learning Sincerely, ~/~~ ~~ Frank E. Thomas, Chairman Roanoke County School B and ~~-L~"l Deanna W. Gor~~ p u erintendent FET/DWG:rcw O~ (~OANp~~ ti~ % 2 ` sl ~ ~ J .a2 9 ra3s COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 September 22, 1994 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Rev. John Hartwig Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 1887 Electric Road, S.W, Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Reverend Hartwig: Thank you for agreeing to present the invocation at the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors' Meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 1994, at 3:00 p,m, The Roanoke County Administration Center has moved from Brambleton Avenue to 5204 Bernard Drive, which was the old "Travelers Building", located directly behind Shoney~s off Rt. 419. The Board Meeting room is on the first floor and visitors' parkin is in front of the building, g I appreciate very much your willingness to be with us on September 27th. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 772-2005. Sincerely, C~.o~~x~#g ~# ~v~~txt~~e Brenda J, Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ® Recycled Paper ~NIPORTANT MESSAGE DATE ~ ~ ~f T ~ ~ M TIME~~~P. M. ~ ~ ~ O F _ , ~ ~`-~..~.--ter , PHONE AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION ^ FAX ^ MOBILE AREA CODE NUMBER TIME TO CALL TELEPHONED L~~ PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO 5EE YOU RUSH RETURNED YQUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE C ~ .~ ~[ ~ ~~ /~ v ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ -~_ SIGNED TOPS ~ FORM 3002P LITHD IN U.S.A. OF RoAN~~P ~ pA L ~ A Z ~ ;838 ' a2 Roanoke County °p"°KF Police Department POLICE o°uN~'~ John H. Cease Chief of Police M E M O R A N D U M TO: Elmer Hodge County Administrator FROM: John Cease , Chief of Police DATE: September 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Proclamation - Crime Prevention Month / ~ i,~ L_ -' 3568 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Office: 703/561-8071 Fax: 703/561-8114 Each October the National Crime Prevention Coalition sponsors Crime Prevention Month to celebrate community spirit and community partnerships. Activities are designed to challenge people to take individual and collective action to prevent crime and build communities that nurture and protect their residences. The Roanoke County Police Department is organizing and will particirate in several activities in support of Crime Prevention Morth. A proclamation makes good sense in terms of public relations and education. It also serves as a Lormal commitment by local government to crime prevention. The proclamation attracts attention from the media, and the information disseminated by newspapers, radio and television raises awareness of crime and violence issues. I recommend issuing the proclamation at Tanglewood Mall on Friday, September 30, 1994 at 3:00 p.m. during an opening ceremony for the Police Sub-Station. A recommended proclamation i~ attached. PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER AS CRIME PREVENTION MONTH IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE WHEREAS, crime prevention is everyone's business and depends on active cooperation among all elements of the community; WHEREAS in this era of escalating fear throughout the nation because of violence, , citizens must be made aware of what they can do to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, and their communities; WHEREAS, the financial loss, personal injury, and community deterioration able and need to be addressed by the l t i er o n resulting from crime are whole community. WHEREAS effective crime prevention programs excel because of partnerships , among law enforcement, other government agencies, and individuals as they help to rebuild a sense of communal responsibility and shared pride; WHEREAS youth-oriented prevention programs promote positive alternatives for , young people and encourage youth to make significant contributions to their communities; WHEREAS, all citizens should become more aware of violence, drug, and other crime prevention efforts within the community to take action themselves and to nurture a safe, caring environment for future generations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors do hereby proclaim October 1994 as Crime Prevention Month in Roanoke County and call upon all citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, and businesses to increase their participation in our community's crime prevention efforts to more tightly weave the fabric of the community and strengthen community spirit. r MF.I~IO - 9/6/94 To: Elmer Hodge From: Lee B. Eddy Subject: Literary Loans The attached page from the 9/1/94 issue of VACo's County Connections tells about a public hearing being held by the Va. Department of Education regarding Literary Loans. I think Roanoke County should submit a statement urging more total money for this program, means for a shorter waiting list, and an increase in the amount of a loan applicable to any one project. A statement jointly signed by you or me, and the appropriate representative of our School system would be in order, I think. Perhaps a list of proposed Roanoke County projects should also be included. attach: Page 8 of VACo newsletter dated 9/1/94 copy: Board of Supervisors Reading File Frank Thomas Dr. Deanna Gordon Diane Hyatt (each with copy of newsletter page) Diane Hyatt Director of Finance Please are a statement at Lee dy, me, and a appropriate individual from the School System co d sign for submis 'on at public hearin n September 29. Elmer Hodge 9/13/94 ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ o-~-~ ~l Lo --, 9-~~ -~r~ fi ~ ED KOHINKE V" 6913 Bradshaw Road Salem, Virginia 24153 (703)384-8013 (F,aJC OR VO1L'E~ Septe~nher 15, 1994 To: Lee Eddy, Chairman Subject: ~'ACO Conference, Nov. 13-I5 This is just a reminder that my family and I will attend this conference. Since I've heard nothing about my suggestion that we hold a glanning retreat in conjunction with this event, and since such a decasxon probably should have been made by now, I'll a3sume that we won't have one at that true. -- However, I still thank we should have a pl~'anning retreat "off site" Long before we get into ne~ct year's'•bu~~et._process and the Board campaigns for that year. ~ ---• Also, at some paint we need to pick a voting delegate to the VACO conference. I will attend the entire event, and will be glad to serve in this capacity if no one else has a burning desire to do it. I feel that it's very useful and important for RC to be rEpresented and visible at this conference, so I strongly en- courage other supervisors and staff members to attend all or part of it. GC: Supervisors Elmer Hodge ' Paul Mahoney ~ '~ Marp A11en ~ fr,j~ ~` ~'` 0~?-16-15+94 10 ~ c3AM ~ ~~~ ~- GG , FROM Ed KohinKe Catawba Sp~sr ~~,,oC,l v~.f~~t S l f~ ` f~~f/r ED KOHINKE 6913 Bradshaw Road Salem. Virginia 24]53 (703) 3848013 ~FqX dR V~~~ CONFIDENTI L TO Supervisors P.01 ',~ August 30, 2994 To; Paul Mahoney Subject: Moose Club Admissions Tax We discussed this subject in Executive Session at our 8/23 BOS meeting, hence I made this a confidential memo. zt took a few days for a question to register in my mind: if this is a tax collection problem, shouldn't it be handled by the Commissioner of the Revenue and/or the Treasurer, rather than the BOS? ~,~ I request an update of the acti (~ on taken by your office at our I next regular m®eting. ~---- r ~y EGK/bjh ~f Gr~~'~ ~ ~ cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Elmer xodge ~,~~~ . j~~!'- k~~~-~~c/ Gam--,~T.¢iH cf~r./c-`./~ ~/irq~l S S~s/~ ,~ ,Q't`~" COY ~/G'~'~~ j ~1 ~~i~/= ~~~~' ~~~~~ ~,cCc~ ter- ~ ~ ~. i~r ~r ~~~~~t Gr- ~ ~ TOTAL P.01 9/ 6/94 Tom Kincaid: RE: Proclamation Declaring the Month of October as National Crime Prevention Month As you requested, I am attaching a couple of examples of proclamations. I could not find a previous proclamation about Crime Prevention Month so evidently we haven't done one before. Hope the enclosed will be helpful. You do not have to give us your information typed as in the examples. These are copies of the final legal-size proclamations that we give at the Board Meeting. All we need from you is the information for the proclamation, either typed or written over your sample proclamation. The next Board Meetings are Sept 13, 27 and Oct 11 and 25. We need information for the meeting by the Tuesday before the meeting. If you need anything else, please let me know. Brenda Holton 772-2005 • ,~%~ V cc: Mary Allen SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 Per telephone conversation with Martha Mackey, the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bur~~y'~resent their annual report on September 27, 1994. Mary Allen 6/7/94 2:20 p.m. ~~a~~ y ~1`~~.Y-~. "~1~~ G~~~~,~tc.ec, ~' 9/a-715 Y I/ ~ ~. l~"~(~2a.~ly C~~o ~' { O~ ~tOANp~,~ ti ~ p z ~ ~ a2 ~~~~ 1838 ~L ~I7~XC~'RP P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 ELMER C. HODGE FAX (703) 772-2193 (703) 772-2004 March 21, 1994 Ms. Martha Mackey Executive Director The Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau 114 Market Street Roanoke, VA 24011-1402 Dear Martha: (703) 772-2005 Thank you for your letter of March 16 asking to be placed on a Board of Supervisors agenda to make a presentation. We are currently in the midst of our annual budget process, and most of the Board meetings for the next several months are full with budget work sessions scheduled in addition to our regular meeting items. During our budget process, I can assure you that your request for funds will be given full consideration. I would like to invite you to attend our June 14 meeting at 3:00 p.m. to make your presentation. You might also wish to attend and speak at our budget public hearing, tentatively scheduled for April 26 at 7:00 p.m. I look forward to seeing you on June 14. Please let me know if that date is not convenient for the Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau. Sincerely, . ~ ~. ~ (~riw Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator CC: Board Reading File Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ®Recyaed Paper MFRS%N K' ~F S AB q~R F~no ~s AcR~,N No s 2~ ELECTRIC PEDESTAL PoRTION OF EX/8TUIG - PtIBUC 1/Tl/T)' EASEyENT TO BE VACATED ~~ rn w 3w o 4i> }~ ~ cc I~ ~~ z Q ~~ I 0~ ~~ j y a ...... PORTION OF EXISTING 20' P.U.E. T~0 BE VACATED LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE 1-2 S 64'40'00" .W 30.00' 2-3_ N 25'20 00" W 5.00' 3-4 N 64'40 00" E .30.00' 4-1 S 25'20'00 E 5.00' TOTAL AREA = 150. S.F. LEGEND P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.L do S.S.E. WATERLINE do SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.B. PLAT BOOK -G- EXISTING GAS LINE S.S.E. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOT 1 SECTION No. 4 "THE FALLS" P.B. 10, PG. 68 g 42'2~~ p0" E 20.91 ~ W N I G a ~ ~- o ~ I- ~. 55.19' ~' '- rn TAX X26.16-12-1 ~xcm I~ LOT 1 ,~ EX..1 STORY BRICK do FRAME TOWNHOUSE CARPORT EX. 20' S.S.E. P.B. 10, PG. 68 G ~/ o~ °~l s cn 0 0 LOT 2 C-1 A= 2'40'12" R= 285.00 T= 6.64 L= 13.28 BRG. S 26'40'06" E CHD. 13.28 C-2 A= 90'00'00" R= 25.00 T= 25.00 L= 39.27 BRG. S 19'40'00" W CHD. 35.36 SECTION No. 5 _~ "WATERFORD" ~+ P.B. 16, PG. 21 w I ~ -- ---- __ ~- I ~ PAVED PARKING I a a. C-1 _ - N 25 20'00" W 23.22' SCOTCH P/NE LANE Pueuc w.L ~ s.s.E. 30' PRIVATE R/W P.B. 16, PG. 21 NOTES: 1: THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FlELD SURVEY. 2. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFlT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THIS PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. 3. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VACATING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY. PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT _,tiTx o~ _ TO BE VACATED '~~% i '`o o,~ ~Q~ ~ e c'~o ~~ y Ay0 ~'s c~j TAX X126.19-1-14 PROPERTY OF BIU_Y COOUDGE SLOANE k PEGGY MELTON SLOANE O.B. 788, PG. 325 ~ti~~ ~~ ~~ tk~ 65' N TRACT 'A' CHORD = N 55'31'57' W • 2211' ARC = 22.12' i ~~ PASO Phi EX. 20' P.U.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21 N 0 '1 d 0 0 0 ~, N r. 0 -~ D r TAX X26.16-12-20 LOT 19 a ''i 0 0 0 ~~, I I ~`~~ ~9 I I LOT 24 ~~. EX. 15' UTILITY I EASEMENT r ~ I N ~ ~_ !~ I~ I I I L07 23 I I TAX X26.16-12-21 I -~ LOT 20 BECTON No. 5 WATERFORD" P.B. 16, PG. 21 w C-3 j ;C~fi:::::,: .::::::~ :•.:. I I I o I LOT 22 I1~ I IZ - -PORTION OF EX/STD1la PUBLIC UTaJTY EA8Ei~111T TO BE YACHTED LOT 21 4 ~ ~ C-4 '' "~ EX. 5' PRIVATE ,... C-5 5 W.L k S.S.E ~ P.B. i6, PG. 21 ~'_~ C 2- ___ 26.51- C-1 _"' - ~ ' ~--- S 49'39'42' E " ® 3207' SCOTCH P/HE LANE Ex w L. ~ s.s.E. 30' PRIVATE R/W WIDTH VARIES NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FlELD SURVEY. 2 THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFl7 OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THIS PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. 3. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE SOLF PURPOSE OF VACATING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY. P.B. 16, PG. Zt LEGEND P.U.E PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.L Ec S.S.E WATERLINE do SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.B. PLAT BOOK G EXISTING GAS LINE S.S.E SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING bELTA C-1 315.00 24.43' 12.22 24.43 S 4726'22 E 04'26'40 C-2 356.98 49.58' 24.83' 49.54 S 53'38'26' E 07'57'28 C-3 376.98 27.57 13.79 27.56' N 51'45'25 W 04'11'25 C-4 335.00 6.37' 3.18 6.37' N 49'07'01 W 01'05'22 C-5 330.00' 6.27' 3.14' 6.27 S 49'07'01 E 01'05'22 C-6 371.98 27.20' 13.61 27.20' S 5145'25" E 04'11'25" PORTION OF DaS"itNG PUBLIC UTILITY EASE~IQ~T Tn BF VACATID LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE 1-2 N 51'45 25 W 27.So' CH. 2-3 N 49'39 42 W 32.07 3-4 N 49'07'01 W 6.37' CH. 4-5 N 41'25 40 E 5.00 5-6 S 49'07'01' E 6.27' CH. 6-7 S 49'39 42 E 32.0 7-8 S 51'45 25 E 27.20 CH. 8-1 S 36'08'53 W 5.00' TOTAL AREA 329 SQUARE FEET PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF EXISTING 20' LTx of PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ~~ y ~~~` Q_~Q ~- j~., Tn RF VA('; ATF;T~ EX. 15' UTILITY EASEMENT h ~o• ti ~V~o~ ~ 0~~~ QV. \Q~+y>~~~°' EX. 5' PRIVATE ~O 0' W.L. Ec S.S.E. ~<v``L Q ~ P.B. 16, PG. 21 CHORD = N 41°21~OO~W 43.64' W ARC = 43.67' Z t 3 v ~ 4~ Va ~o O~ v y PORTJOJV Of EXJSTWO 20' P.U. TO BE VACATED EX. 20' P.U.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21~ r~ ~~ P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT R/W RIGHT OF WAY W.L Ec S.S.E. WATERLINE Ec SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.B. PLAT BOOK PORTION OF EXISTING 20' P.U.E. TO BE YACATID LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE 1-2 N 35'02'51" W 30.02' CH. 2-3 N 57'31'14" E 5.00' 3-4 S 35'02'51" E 29.57' CH. 4-1 S 52'23'05" W 5.00' TOTAL AREA = 149 SQUARE FEET BLACK WALNUT COURT 30' PRIVATE R/W - EX. PUBLIC W.L k S.S.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21 NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. 2. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THIS PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. 3. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VACATING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY. CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C-1 151.03' 39.86' 20.05' 39.75' N 54'03'58" E 15'07'19" C-2 5.00' 7.92' 5.07' 7.12' S 73'00'00" E 90'44'45" C-3 315.00' 96.71' 48.74' 96.33' S 36'25'20" E 17'35'24" C-4 335.00' 30.03' 15.02' 30.02' N 35'02'51" W 05'08'09" C-5 330.00' 29.58' 14.80' 29.57' S 35'02'51" E 05'08'09" PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF EXISTING 20' t'tJTFSLl~ jJT T 1LIT~Y L,1~iJL,1ViL,IV 1~ SECTION No. 5 "WATERFORD" P.B. 16, PG. 21 LOT 22 r EX. 5' PRIVATE W.L be S.S.E. P.B. 16, PG. 21