The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/1/2009 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda December 1, 2009 Ù±±¼ ¿º¬»®²±±² ¿²¼ ©»´½±³» ¬± ±«® ³»»¬·²¹ º±® Ü»½»³¾»® ïô îððçò Î»¹«´¿® ³»»¬·²¹ ¿®» ¸»´¼ ±² ¬¸» »½±²¼ Ì«»¼¿§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» º±«®¬¸ Ì«»¼¿§ ¿¬ íæðð °ò³ò Ð«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ¿®» ¸»´¼ ¿¬ éæðð °ò³ò ±² ¬¸» º±«®¬¸ Ì«»¼¿§ ±º »¿½¸ ³±²¬¸ò Ü»ª·¿¬·±² º®±³ ¬¸· ½¸»¼«´» ©·´´ ¾» ¿²²±«²½»¼ò Ì¸» ³»»¬·²¹ ¿®» ¾®±¿¼½¿¬ ´·ª» ±² ÎÊÌÊô Ý¸¿²²»´ íô ¿²¼ ©·´´ ¾» ®»¾®±¿¼½¿¬ ±² Ì¸«®¼¿§ ¿¬ éæðð °ò³ò ¿²¼ ±² Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ¿¬ ìæðð °ò³ò Ñ«® ³»»¬·²¹ ¿®» ²±© ½´±»¼ó½¿°¬·±²»¼ô ± ·¬ · ·³°±®¬¿²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¿²§±²» ¿¼¼®»·²¹ ¬¸» Þ±¿®¼ °»¿µ ¼·®»½¬´§ ·²¬± ¬¸» ³·½®±°¸±²» ¿¬ ¬¸» °±¼·«³ò ×²¼·ª·¼«¿´ ©¸± ®»¯«·®» ¿·¬¿²½» ±® °»½·¿´ ¿®®¿²¹»³»²¬ ¬± °¿®¬·½·°¿¬» ·² ±® ¿¬¬»²¼ Þ±¿®¼ ±º Í«°»®ª·±® ³»»¬·²¹ ¸±«´¼ ½±²¬¿½¬ ¬¸» Ý´»®µ ¬± ¬¸» Þ±¿®¼ ¿¬ øëìð÷ ééîóîððë ¿¬ ´»¿¬ ìè ¸±«® ·² ¿¼ª¿²½»ò É» ®»°»½¬º«´´§ ®»¯«»¬ ¿´´ »´»½¬®±²·½ ¼»ª·½» ¾» ¬«®²»¼ ±ºº ±® ·´»²½»¼ò Ì¸¿²µ §±«ò (3:00 p.m.) ßò ÑÐÛÒ×ÒÙ ÝÛÎÛÓÑÒ×ÛÍ ïò Î±´´ Ý¿´´ îò ×²ª±½¿¬·±²æ Î»ª»®»²¼ Ó§®±² ß¬µ·²±² Ð»²² Ú±®»¬ É»´»§¿² Ý¸«®½¸ íò Ð´»¼¹» ±º ß´´»¹·¿²½» ¬± ¬¸» Ë²·¬»¼ Í¬¿¬» Ú´¿¹ Þò ÎÛÏËÛÍÌÍ ÌÑ ÐÑÍÌÐÑÒÛô ßÜÜ ÌÑ ÑÎ ÝØßÒÙÛ ÌØÛ ÑÎÜÛÎ ÑÚ ßÙÛÒÜß ×ÌÛÓÍ Ýò ÐÎÑÝÔßÓßÌ×ÑÒÍô ÎÛÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍô ÎÛÝÑÙÒ×Ì×ÑÒÍ ßÒÜ ßÉßÎÜÍ ïò Ð ËòÍò Ý»²« Þ«®»¿« ¬± ¸»´° »²«®» ¿ º«´´ ¿²¼ ¿½½«®¿¬» ½±«²¬ ·² îðïð øÌ»®»¿ Ø¿´´ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ð«¾´·½ ×²º±®³¿¬·±²å Ò·½±´» Ð»²¼´»¬±²ô Ð´¿²²»® ××å Ô·²¼¿ Û¼©¿®¼óÉ¸·¬»ô Ð¿®¬²»®¸·° Í°»½·¿´·¬ô ËòÍò Ý»²« Þ«®»¿«÷ îò Ð®»»²¬¿¬·±² ±º Ê·®¹·²·¿ ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º Ý±«²¬·» øÊßÝ±÷ Ð´¿¬·²«³ Ù± Ù®»»² Ê·®¹·²·¿ ß©¿®¼ øÔ¿®®§ Ô¿²¼ô Ê·®¹·²·¿ ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º Ý±«²¬·»å ß²²» Ó¿®·» Ù®»»²ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ù»²»®¿´ Í»®ª·½»÷ Ð¿¹» ï ±º ì íò Ð®»»²¬¿¬·±² ±º Ê·®¹·²·¿ ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º Ý±«²¬·» øÊßÝ±÷ ß½¸·»ª»³»²¬ ß©¿®¼ º±® ×²º±®³¿¬·±² Ì»½¸²±´±¹§ øÔ¿®®§ Ô¿²¼ô Ê·®¹·²·¿ ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º Ý±«²¬·»å Þ·´´ Ù®»»ª»ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ý±³³«²·½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ×²º±®³¿¬·±² Ì»½¸²±´±¹§÷ ìò Î»±´«¬·±² »¨°®»·²¹ ¬¸» ¿°°®»½·¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Þ±¿®¼ ±º Í«°»®ª·±® ±º Î±¿²±µ» Ý±«²¬§ ¬± Ü±²²¿ Î·¹²»§ô Ô»¿¼ Ý±³³«²·½¿¬·±² Ñºº·½»®ô «°±² ¸»® ®»¬·®»³»²¬ ¿º¬»® ³±®» ¬¸¿² ¬¸·®¬§ §»¿® ±º »®ª·½» Üò ÒÛÉ ÞËÍ×ÒÛÍÍ ïò ß¼±°¬·±² ±º ¿ ´·¬ ±º ·²¬»®¬¿¬» ¿²¼ °®·³¿®§ ®±¿¼ °®±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ®»±´«¬·±² ¬± ¾» ÷ °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ º±® ¬¸» º·½¿´ §»¿® îðïðóîðïë Í·¨óÇ»¿® ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ Ð®±¹®¿³ øß®²±´¼ Ý±ª»§ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ îò Î»¯«»¬ ¬± ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» üêçôððð ±º ¿³¾«´¿²½» ¬®¿²°±®¬ º»» ½±´´»½¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ú·®» ¿²¼ Î»½«» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ º±® °¿®¬ó¬·³» ¬¿ºº·²¹ ±º ¿² ¿³¾«´¿²½» ¿¬ Î»¿¼ Ó±«²¬¿·² ¬¿¬·±² øÎ·½¸¿®¼ Ûò Þ«®½¸ Ö®òô Ú·®» ¿²¼ Î»½«» Ý¸·»º÷ íò Î»¯«»¬ ¬± ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» üéëôððð ¬± ¬¸» Ò±®¬¸ Ý±«²¬§ Ú·®» Í¬¿¬·±² Ð®±¶»½¬ øÎ·½¸¿®¼ Ûò Þ«®½¸ Ö®òô Ú·®» ¿²¼ Î»½«» Ý¸·»º÷ ìò Î»¯«»¬ ¬± ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» º«²¼ ·² ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º üêêôíìð ¬± ¬¸» Ù»²»®¿´ Î»´·»º Ð®±¹®¿³ ·² ¬¸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Í±½·¿´ Í»®ª·½» øÜ®ò Þ»¬¬§ Ó½Ý®¿®§ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Í±½·¿´ Í»®ª·½»å Þ®»²¬ Î±¾»®¬±²ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ¿²¼ Þ«¼¹»¬÷ Ûò Ú×ÎÍÌ ÎÛßÜ×ÒÙ ÑÚ ÑÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛÍ ïò Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿«¬¸±®·¦·²¹ ½±²ª»§¿²½» ±º ¿² »¿»³»²¬ ¬± ß°°¿´¿½¸·¿² Ð±©»® Ý±³°¿²§ º±® »´»½¬®·½ »®ª·½» ¿½®± °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Þ±¿®¼ ±º Í«°»®ª·±® Í±«¬¸ Ý±«²¬§ Ô·¾®¿®§ øÖ±»°¸ Þò Ñ¾»²¸¿·²ô Í»²·±® ß·¬¿²¬ Ý±«²¬§ ß¬¬±®²»§÷ îò Ñ®¼·² »¿»³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» É»¬»®² Ê·®¹·²·¿ É¿¬»® ß«¬¸±®·¬§ ¬± ¾» ´±½¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¿ °«¾´·½ ®·¹¸¬ó±ºó©¿§ µ²±©² ¿ É»¬©¿®¼ Ô¿µ» Ü®·ª»ô ¿·¼ ®·¹¸¬ó±ºó©¿§ ¸¿ª·²¹ ¾»»² ¼»¼·½¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Þ±¿®¼ ±º Í«°»®ª·±®ô Ý¿¬¿©¾¿ Ó¿¹·¬»®·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ øÖ±»°¸ Þò Ñ¾»²¸¿·²ô Í»²·±® ß·¬¿²¬ Ý±«²¬§ ß¬¬±®²»§÷ Úò ßÐÐÑ×ÒÌÓÛÒÌÍ ïò Þ´«» Î·¼¹» Þ»¸¿ª·±®¿´ Ø»¿´¬¸½¿®» îò Ô·¾®¿®§ Þ±¿®¼ ø¿°°±·²¬»¼ ¾§ Ü·¬®·½¬÷ Ð¿¹» î ±º ì íò Ð¿®µô Î»½®»¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ì±«®·³ ß¼ª·±®§ Þ±¿®¼ ø¿°°±·²¬»¼ ¾§ Ü·¬®·½¬÷ ìò Î±¿²±µ» Ý±«²¬§ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ø¿°°±·²¬»¼ ¾§ Ü·¬®·½¬÷ Ùò ÝÑÒÍÛÒÌ ßÙÛÒÜß ßÔÔ ÓßÌÌÛÎÍ Ô×ÍÌÛÜ ËÒÜÛÎ ÌØÛ ÝÑÒÍÛÒÌ ßÙÛÒÜß ßÎÛ ÝÑÒÍ×ÜÛÎÛÜ ÞÇ ÌØÛ ÞÑßÎÜ ÌÑ ÞÛ ÎÑËÌ×ÒÛ ßÒÜ É×ÔÔ ÞÛ ÛÒßÝÌÛÜ ÞÇ ÑÒÛ ÎÛÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒ ×Ò ÌØÛ ÚÑÎÓ ÑÎ ÚÑÎÓÍ Ô×ÍÌÛÜ ÞÛÔÑÉò ×Ú Ü×ÍÝËÍÍ×ÑÒ ×Í ÜÛÍ×ÎÛÜô ÌØßÌ ×ÌÛÓ É×ÔÔ ÞÛ ÎÛÓÑÊÛÜ ÚÎÑÓ ÌØÛ ÝÑÒÍÛÒÌ ßÙÛÒÜß ßÒÜ É×ÔÔ ÞÛ ÝÑÒÍ×ÜÛÎÛÜ ÍÛÐßÎßÌÛÔÇò ïò ß°°®±ª¿´ ±º ³·²«¬» ß°®·´ îèô îððç îò Î»¯«»¬ ¬± ¿½½»°¬ ¿²¼ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» üïêèôëïëòëê ¬± ¾» «»¼ º±® ¬¸» °«®½¸¿» ±º ®»°´¿½»³»²¬ ½±³°±²»²¬ º±® ¬¸» ×Ð ¬»´»°¸±²» §¬»³ º±® ¬¸» Í½¸±±´ Þ±¿®¼ íò Î»¯«»¬ ¬± ¿½½»°¬ ¿²¼ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» üïéôððð º®±³ ¬¸» Ø±´´·² Ê±´«²¬»»® Ú·®» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ìò Î¿¬·º·½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ½±²º·®³¿¬·±² ±º ¿°°±·²¬³»²¬ ¬± ½±³³·¬¬»»ô ½±³³··±² ¿²¼ ¾±¿®¼ ëò Î»±´«¬·±² ®»¯«»¬·²¹ ¿½½»°¬¿²½» ±º Õ»²¬³»®» Ý·®½´» ·²¬± ¬¸» Ê·®¹·²·¿ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Í»½±²¼¿®§ Î±¿¼ Í§¬»³ Øò ÎÛÏËÛÍÌÍ ÚÑÎ ÉÑÎÕ ÍÛÍÍ×ÑÒÍ ×ò ÎÛÏËÛÍÌÍ ÚÑÎ ÐËÞÔ×Ý ØÛßÎ×ÒÙÍ Öò Ý×Ì×ÆÛÒÍù ÝÑÓÓÛÒÌÍ ßÒÜ ÝÑÓÓËÒ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ Õò ÎÛÐÑÎÌÍ ïò Ù»²»®¿´ Ú«²¼ Ë²¿°°®±°®·¿¬»¼ Þ¿´¿²½» îò Ý¿°·¬¿´ Î»»®ª» íò Î»»®ª» º±® Þ±¿®¼ Ý±²¬·²¹»²½§ Ð¿¹» í ±º ì Ôò ÎÛÐÑÎÌÍ ßÒÜ ×ÒÏË×Î×ÛÍ ÑÚ ÞÑßÎÜ ÓÛÓÞÛÎÍ ïò Î·½¸¿®¼ Ýò Ú´±®¿ îò Ö±»°¸ Ðò Ó½Ò¿³¿®¿ íò Ý¸¿®´±¬¬» ßò Ó±±®» ìò ëò Ó·½¸¿»´ Éò ß´¬·¦»® Óò ÝÔÑÍÛÜ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÙ ïò Í»½¬·±² îòîòíéïïòßòïô °»®±²²»´ô ²¿³»´§ ¼·½«·±² ½±²½»®²·²¹ ¿°°±·²¬³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Û½±²±³·½ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ß«¬¸±®·¬§ô Ù®·»ª¿²½» Ð¿²»´ô Î±¿²±µ» Ê¿´´»§ Î»±«®½» ß«¬¸±®·¬§ ¿²¼ É»¬»®² Ê·®¹·²·¿ Î»¹·±²¿´ Ö¿·´ ß«¬¸±®·¬§ Òò ÉÑÎÕ ÍÛÍÍ×ÑÒ ïò É±®µ »·±² ±² ¬¸» ²»© Í±«¬¸ Ý±«²¬§ Ô·¾®¿®§ øÜ·¿²» Ø§¿¬¬ô ß·¬¿²¬ Ý±«²¬§ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬±®å Ü·¿²¿ Î±¿°»°»ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ô·¾®¿®§ Í»®ª·½»÷ îò Ö±·²¬ ©±®µ »·±² ±² ¬¸» Ú»¿·¾·´·¬§ Í¬«¼§ º±® Î±¿²±µ» Ý±«²¬§ ¿²¼ Ì±©² ±º Ê·²¬±² Û³»®¹»²½§ Ý±³³«²·½¿¬·±² Ý»²¬»® Ó»®¹»® øÛ´¿·²» Ý¿®ª»®ô Ý¸·»º ×²º±®³¿¬·±² Ñºº·½»®å Î»¾»½½¿ Ñ©»²ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ú·²¿²½»å Þ¿®®§ Ì¸±³°±²ô Ê·²¬±² Ì±©² Ú·²¿²½» Ü·®»½¬±®å Ý¸®· Ô¿©®»²½»ô Ê·²¬±² Ì±©² Ó¿²¿¹»®÷ íò ®»¯«»¬ ø¹±´º ½¿®¬ ½®±·²¹÷ øÐ¿«´ Ó¿¸±²»§ô Ý±«²¬§ ß¬¬±®²»§÷ Ñò ÝÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÎÛÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒ Ðò ßÜÖÑËÎÒÓÛÒÌ Ð¿¹» ì ±º ì AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2009 PROCLAMATION DECLARING ROANOKE COUNTY’S COMMITMENT TO PARTNER WITH THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU TO HELP ENSURE A FULL AND ACCURATE COUNT IN 2010 WHEREAS, an accurate census count is vital to our community and residents’ well-being by helping planners determine where to locate schools, day-care centers, roads and public transportation, hospitals and other facilities; and WHEREAS, the census count is used to make decisions concerning business growth and housing needs; and WHEREAS, more than $300 billion per year in federal and state funding is allocated to states and communities based on census data; and WHEREAS, census data ensure fair Congressional representation by determining how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils and voting districts; and WHEREAS, the 2010 Census creates jobs that stimulate economic growth and increase employment opportunities in our community; and WHEREAS, the information collected by the census is protected by law and remains confidential for 72 years; and WHEREAS, as a 2010 Census partner, we will support the goals and ideals for the 2010 Census, disseminate 2010 Census information to encourage those in our community to participate, encourage people in Roanoke County, Virginia to place an emphasis on the 2010 Census and support census takers as they help our community Page 1 of 1 complete an accurate count. THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia do proclaim that Roanoke County is committed to partnering with the U.S. Census Bureau to help ensure a full and accurate count in 2010. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2009 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO DONNA RIGNEY, ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Donna Rigney was employed by Roanoke County on April 20, 1985, as a Communications Officer; and WHEREAS, Ms. Rigney retired from the Roanoke County CommIT Department as a Lead Communication Officer on December 1, 2009, after thirty years of service; and WHEREAS, Ms. Rigney, through her hard work and dedicated efforts, performed a crucial role in the support of the Roanoke County Sheriff’s Department, the Roanoke County Police Department and the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department by serving as the Lead Communication Officer; and WHEREAS, Ms. Rigney was instrumental in fulfilling the mission of the emergency 911 center to support and provide for the safety of the citizens of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Rigney faithfully performed her duties and upheld the highest standards and traditions of her profession; and WHEREAS, Ms. Rigney, 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 expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of DONNA RIGNEY Roanoke County to for more than thirty years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON DECEMBER 1, 2009 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) CONTINUE FUNDING PROJECTS CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 VDOT SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR INCLUSION INTO THE FISCAL YEARS 2010-2015 SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Six-Year Improvement Program is the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s plan for identifying funds anticipated to be available for highway and other forms of transportation construction; and WHEREAS, this program is updated annually to assist in the allocation of federal and state funds for interstate and primary roads; and WHEREAS, this program is undergoing a mid-year revision in response to reduced transportation revenue estimates. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: That the following projects identified as included in the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program are recommended for continuance of funding for the planning and construction of said projects. Interstate 73 – In a letter dated June 3, 2001, the Board of Supervisors encouraged VDOT to work closely with the impacted citizens to address their concerns and mitigate any negative impacts to them. This is in addition to resolution 120500-2 passed December 5, 2000, reaffirming the Board’s support for Interstate 73. Interstate 81 –Roanoke County continues to support VDOT’s proposed plan to widen Interstate 81 from its present four lanes. We look forward to continuing our partnership with VDOT to develop regional cooperation for stormwater detention facilities, potential utility crossings and other design issues that could impact Roanoke County’s future. Page 1 of 1 Route 11/460 (West Main Street) – From: Salem City limit, To: 0.10 mi west Route 830, Technology Dr. – Roanoke County continues to support the ongoing design for improvements in this important commercial and residential development area. Improvements will provide an increase in the level of service, bringing it up to standards required for the expected growth. Design and right-of-way acquisition are complete and construction is underway. Route 221 (Bent Mountain Road) – From: Rte 735, Coleman Road, To: Route 688, Cotton Hill Rd. – This project had been removed from the Six-Year Improvement Program but was reinstated in fiscal year 2005- 2006. The residential development that has occurred and expected to occur within this area will place additional demands on the road system that is currently providing an inadequate level of service. In addition, the Roanoke County School Board plans to construct a school at the Poage Farm, further increasing the need for project construction. Currently, no construction funds are allocated. Bridge Replacement Route 116 (Jae Valley Road) – Over Back Creek - This bridge replacement project has been included in the SYIP for several years and has previous funding as well as funds allocated through fiscal year 2015. Bridge Replacement on Route 221 (Bent Mountain Road) – Over Martins Creek – This bridge replacement project has been added to the SYIP and has funds allocated through fiscal year 2015. Bridge Replacement on Route 220 (Franklin Road) – Over Back Creek – This bridge replacement project has been added to the SYIP and has funds allocated through fiscal year 2015. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2009 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS – SOUTH COUNTY LIBRARY WHEREAS, Roanoke County is in the process of constructing a South County Library Building located on Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) requires a right-of-way and easement for underground transmission lines on the County’s property in order to relocate the electric service to accommodate the construction on the site as shown on the plat entitled “Proposed Right-of-Way on the Property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County” dated November 3, 2009; and WHEREAS, the proposed right-of-way will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County. 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 December 1, 2009, and a second reading and public hearing as held on December 15, 2009. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, 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 APCO for the relocation of electrical service in connection with the construction of Roanoke County’s South County Page 1 of 1 Library Building. 3. That donation to APCO of an easement and right-of-way for underground transmission lines and related improvements, within the 15’ easement area designated on the above-mentioned map, on the County’s property (Tax Map No. 97.05-01-26.00) to relocate the electric service in connection with the construction of the South County Library Building is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the County Administrator, or any assistant 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. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2009 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 50’ SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION EASEMENT TO THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS WESTWARD LAKE DRIVE, SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY HAVING BEEN DEDICATED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) requires an easement for an underground sanitary sewer extension within the right-of-way known as Westward Lake Drive, platted as “Center Hill Drive”, to provide sewer service to the area, and specifically to a residence located on Tax Map #054.02-05-51.00, all as shown on the plat entitled “WESTWARD LAKE DRIVE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION, LAYOUT, GRADING & ESC PLAN” Sheet No. C-2, (Exhibit A) dated 9/25/08; and WHEREAS, Westward Lake Drive/Center Hill Drive was dedicated to Roanoke County for public use in Plat Book 3, page 87, in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office; and WHEREAS, the portion of Westward Lake Drive/Center Hill Drive where this sanitary sewer easement will be located has not been accepted into the state Secondary Road System and therefore remains a “paper street” under the ownership and control of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the proposed easement will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County. 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 Page 1 of 1 Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 1, 2009, and a second reading and public hearing was held on December 15, 2009. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to WVWA for the provision of sanitary sewer service. 3. That donation to WVWA of an 50’ easement for an underground sanitary sewer extension and related improvements, within the easement area designated on the above-mentioned map, on the County’s property known as Westward Lake Drive, platted as “Center Hill Drive”, to provide sanitary sewer service to the area is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant 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. Page 2 of 2 G 1-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2009 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM G - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for December 1, 2009 designated as Item G - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – April 28, 2009 2. Request to accept and appropriate $168,515.56 to be used for the purchase of replacement components for the IP telephone system for the School Board 3. Request to accept and appropriate $17,000 from the Hollins Volunteer Fire Department 4. Ratification and confirmation of appointments to committees, commissions and boards 5. Resolution requesting acceptance of Kentmere Circle into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary Road System 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. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2009 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF KENTMERE CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROADS SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM-4.3, 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 representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way as described and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ×ÒÌÛÎÑÚÚ×ÝÛ ÓÛÓÑÎßÒÜËÓ ÌÑæ ÞÑßÎÜ ÑÚ ÍËÐÛÎÊ×ÍÑÎÍô ÝÔßÇ ÙÑÑÜÓßÒ ÚÎÑÓæ Ü×ßÒÛ ØÇßÌÌ ÍËÞÖÛÝÌæ ßÜÜ×Ì×ÑÒßÔ ÍËÍÌß×ÒßÞÔÛ ÜÛÍ×ÙÒ ÚÛßÌËÎÛÍ ÚÑÎ ÌØÛ ÍÑËÌØ ÝÑËÒÌÇ Ô×ÞÎßÎÇ ÜßÌÛæ ÑÝÌÑÞÛÎ çô îððç ÝÝæùüïîiùîïïøññùôüïüëîêüíøíø ß¬ ¬¸» ß«¹«¬ îëô îððç Þ±¿®¼ ±º Í«°»®ª·±® ©±®µ »·±²ô Ý¸¿®´±¬¬» Ó±±®» ®»¯«»¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ©» º±´´±© «° ±² ¬¸®»» ·¬»³ ¬± ½±²·¼»® º±® ¬¸» Í±«¬¸ Ý±«²¬§ ´·¾®¿®§ò Ì¸»» ¿®» ±«¬´·²»¼ ¾»´±©ô ¿´±²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬·³·²¹ô ½±¬ ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²ò × °»²¬ ³¿²§ ¸±«® ¬¿´µ·²¹ ¬± ª»²¼±®ô ½±²¬®¿½¬±®ô ¿®½¸·¬»½¬ ¿²¼ »²¹·²»»® ¬®§·²¹ ¬± ¹¿¬¸»® ³§ ±©² ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸»» °®±¼«½¬ô ± ¬¸¿¬ × ½±«´¼ ¹·ª» §±« ¿ ¸±°»º«´´§ ²±²ó¾·¿»¼ ±°·²·±²ò Ð´»¿» ´»¬ ³» µ²±© ·º §±« ²»»¼ ¿²§ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ô ±® ·º §±« ©·¸ ¬± °®±½»»¼ ±² ¿²§ ±º ¬¸»» ·¬»³ò ×òÎÛÝÇÝÔ×ÒÙ ÑÚ ÝÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÓßÌÛÎ×ßÔÍ Þ¿½µ¹®±«²¼æ Ì¸» ®»½§½´·²¹ ±º ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ³¿¬»®·¿´ ©¿ ²±¬ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¾·¼ ¼±½«³»²¬ º±® ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò Ø±©»ª»®ô ·¬ ½¿² ¾» ¿¼¼»¼ ª»®§ ·³°´§ ¿¬ ¬¸· ¬·³»ò Ì¸» ½±²¬®¿½¬±® ½±«´¼ ¿¼¼ º·ª» »°¿®¿¬» ¼«³°¬»® ¬± ½±´´»½¬ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹æ Ý±²½®»¬» É±±¼ °®±¼«½¬ Ù§°«³ Ü®§©¿´´ °®±¼«½¬ Ó»¬¿´ °®±¼«½¬ ß´´ ±¬¸»® ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¼»¾®· Ý±¬æ Ì¸» ½±²¬®¿½¬±® ¸¿ °®±ª·¼»¼ « ©·¬¸ ¿ ¾·²¼·²¹ ¯«±¬» ±º üïîôéìîòðð ¬± ¿½½±«²¬ º±® ¬¸» ½±¬ ±º ¬¸» »¨¬®¿ ¼«³°¬»®ô ¬¸» »¨¬®¿ ¼«³°¬»® °«´´ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½±¬ ±º ¬¸» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¼«³° º»»ò Ì·³» Ü»´¿§æ Ò±²» Î»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²æ ×º ¬¸» Þ±¿®¼ · ·²¬»®»¬»¼ ·² ®»½§½´·²¹ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ³¿¬»®·¿´ô ¬¸· ½¿² ¾» ¿½½±³°´·¸»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ ³·²·³«³ ·³°¿½¬ ±² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¾«¼¹»¬ô ¿²¼ ½±«´¼ ¾» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ ¿²§ ¼»´¿§ ¬± ¬¸» ½¸»¼«´»ò ××òÐÛÎÊ×ÑËÍ ÐßÊÛÓÛÒÌ Þ¿½µ¹®±«²¼æ Å×² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ³§ ®»»¿®½¸ô × ³»¬ ©·¬¸ ß¿®±² Ô±²¹ ±º Ð®±Ý±²½®»¬» ¬± ¼·½« ¬¸» °®±¼«½¬òÃ Ð»®ª·±« °¿ª»³»²¬ ½¿°¬«®» ¬±®³©¿¬»® ¿²¼ ¿´´±© ·¬ ¬± »»° ·²¬± ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼ô ¬¸« ®»¼«½·²¹ ¬¸» ¬±®³©¿¬»® ®«²±ººò Ì¸» ³±¬ »ºº»½¬·ª» «» ±º °»®ª·±« °¿ª»³»²¬ · ±² ¿²¼§ ±·´ô ± ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ©¿¬»® ½¿² ¼®¿·² ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ¿²¼ò ×² ±«® ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ô ·¬ ©±«´¼ ¾» ±² ½´¿§ ±·´ô ¿²¼ ¼·®»½¬´§ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± ¿ ©»¬´¿²¼ ¿®»¿ò É¸·´» ·¬ · «¿¾´» ·² ¬¸· »¬¬·²¹ô ·¬ ®»¯«·®» ¿ ³±®» »¨°»²·ª» «¾ó´·²·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¿½¬ ´·µ» ¿ Ú®»²½¸ ¼®¿·²ò ßº¬»® ¬¿´µ·²¹ ¬± ±«® ½±²¬®¿½¬±®ô ¿®½¸·¬»½¬ô ¿²¼ »²¹·²»»®ô ©» ¿´´ ¿¹®»» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ · ²±¬ ¿ ¹±±¼ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² º±® °»®ª·±« °¿ª»³»²¬ò Þ»½¿«» ±º ¬¸» ½´¿§ ±·´ô ©» ©±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¬± °®»°¿®» ´¿§»® ±º ¹®¿ª»´ ¾»²»¿¬¸ ¬¸» °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬ º±® ¬¸» ©¿¬»® ¬± ¼®¿·² ¬¸®±«¹¸ô ©·¬¸ ¿ «¾ó´·²»® ¿¬ ¬¸» ¾±¬¬±³ò Ì¸» ®¿·²©¿¬»® ©±«´¼ º·´¬»® ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ¹®¿ª»´ ¿²¼ ¬¸»² º´±© ±ºº ¬¸» «¾ó´·²»® ·²¬± ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼ò Ì¸» ´¿§»® ±º ¹®¿ª»´ ©±«´¼ ¾» ·¦»¼ ¬± ¿ ¼»°¬¸ ¬¸¿¬ ©±«´¼ ®»¬¿·² ¿ ¸·¹¸ ª±´«³» ±º ®¿·² º±® ¬¸» ¿®»¿ò ×º ·¬ ®¿·²»¼ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ¬¸» ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¿³±«²¬ô ¬¸»®» ©±«´¼ ²±¬ ¾» ¿²§©¸»®» º±® ¬¸» ©¿¬»® ¬± ¹± ¿²¼ ·¬ ©±«´¼ °±±´ «° ±² ¬¸» °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬ò ß²±¬¸»® ½±²½»®² · ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬ · ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± ¿²¼ ¸·¹¸»® ·² »´»ª¿¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¾¿»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ´·¾®¿®§ò ×º ¬¸»®» · ¿ ´¿®¹» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ©¿¬»® ¿½½«³«´¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¼®¿·²¿¹» ¹®¿ª»´ ·¬ ½±«´¼ ½¿«» ©¿¬»® °®±¾´»³ º±® ¬¸» ¾¿»³»²¬ò Ð»®ª·±« °¿ª»³»²¬ ©±«´¼ ¾» ¿ °±·¾·´·¬§ º±® ¬¸» ¾¿½µ ¼®·ª»©¿§ ¬± ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹å ¸±©»ª»® ¬¸» ¼»·¹² ¿´®»¿¼§ ·²½´«¼» ¬«®º °¿ª»® ·² ¬¸· ¿®»¿ô ©¸·½¸ ±ºº»® ¬¸» ¿³» ¾»²»º·¬ò Î»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²æ É·¬¸ ¬¸»» ½±²½»®²ô × ¼± ²±¬ ¾»´·»ª» °»®ª·±« °¿ª»³»²¬ · ¿ ¹±±¼ ½¸±·½» º±® ¬¸» °«¾´·½ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ô ¿¬ ¿²§ ½±¬ò ×××òÎß×ÒÉßÌÛÎ ÎÛÌÛÒÌ×ÑÒ ÍÇÍÌÛÓ Þ¿½µ¹®±«²¼æ Å× ³»¬ ©·¬¸ Ü¿ª·¼ Ý®¿©º±®¼ ±º Î¿·²©¿¬»® Ø¿®ª»¬·²¹ Í±´«¬·±² ¬± ¼·½« ¬¸» §¬»³òÃ î ß ®¿·²©¿¬»® ®»¬»²¬·±² §¬»³ ½¿°¬«®» ¬¸» ®¿·²©¿¬»® ±² ¬¸» ®±±º ±º ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ¬±®» ·¬ ·² ¿² «²¼»®¹®±«²¼ ¬¿²µ ¬± ¾» ®»«»¼ º±® ª¿®·±« ¬¸·²¹ô «½¸ ¿ ·®®·¹¿¬·±²ô ´¿«²¼®§ô ¿²¼ º´«¸·²¹ ±º ¬±·´»¬ò Í·²½» ¬¸» ´·¾®¿®§ ·¬» ·²½±®°±®¿¬» «¬¿·²¿¾´» ´¿²¼½¿°·²¹ô ¬¸» ±²´§ «» º±® ¬¸· ·¬» ©±«´¼ ¾» ¬± º´«¸ ¬¸» ¬±·´»¬ò Ì¸» §¬»³ ©±«´¼ «» ¬¸» ®¿·²©¿¬»® ©¸»² ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¿²¼ ¬¸» »¨·¬·²¹ ©¿¬»® ±«®½» ©¸»² ®¿·²©¿¬»® · ²±¬ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»ò Ì¸· ®¿·²©¿¬»® ¬»½¸²±´±¹§ · ª»®§ ²»©ò ×¬ · °®·³¿®·´§ ¾»·²¹ «»¼ º±® ·®®·¹¿¬·±² °«®°±»ò Ì¸» ´·¾®¿®§ ¼±» ²±¬ ¿°°»¿® ¬± ¾» ¿ ¹±±¼ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸· °®±¼«½¬ º±® »ª»®¿´ ®»¿±²æ ïòÌ¸»®» · ²±¬ ¿ ´±¬ ±º ¹®¿§ ©¿¬»® ¹»²»®¿¬»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» º¿½·´·¬§ò Ì¸» ®«²±ºº º®±³ ¬¸» ®±±º · ¬¸» ±²´§ ª·¿¾´» ±«®½»ò É» ©·´´ ²±¬ ¸¿ª» ¹®¿§ ©¿¬»® ¹»²»®¿¬»¼ ¾§ ¸±©»®ô ´¿«²¼®§ º¿½·´·¬·»ô ±® µ·¬½¸»² ± ·¬ ©±«´¼ ¾» ²»½»¿®§ ¬± «°°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» ®¿·²©¿¬»® ¬±®¿¹» ©·¬¸ ©¿¬»® º®±³ ÉÊÉßò îò×² ±®¼»® ¬± «» ¹®¿§ ©¿¬»® ·² ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¬± º´«¸ ¬¸» ¬±·´»¬ô ©» ©±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¬± ËØÙØÊÔÖÏÉÕØÍÑÈÐÛÔÏÖÉÎÔÏÚÑÈÙØÙÈÍÑÔÚÜÉØÍÑÈÐÛÔÏÖÊÄÊÉØÐÊnÎÏØ×ÎËÉÕØÚÎÈÏÉÄ ©¿¬»® ¿²¼ ±²» º±® ¬¸» ¹®¿§ ©¿¬»®ó ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿ ²»© »¬ ±º °«³° ¿²¼ ¾¿½µº´±© ¼»ª·½»ò Ì¸· · ®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ ±«® Ý±«²¬§ Þ«·´¼·²¹ ½±¼»ò íòÍ·²½» ¬¸· ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ®»¯«·®» »´»½¬®·½¿´ ½±²¬®±´ º±® ¬¸» ¹®¿§ ©¿¬»® ¬±®¿¹» ¬¿²µ ¿²¼ °«³°·²¹ §¬»³ô ©» ©±«´¼ ²±¬ ¾» ¿¾´» ¬± º´«¸ ¬¸» ¬±·´»¬ ©¸»² ¬¸» °±©»® · ±«¬ò ×¬ ©±«´¼ ¾» ²»½»¿®§ ¬± ·²¬¿´´ ¿ ¾¿½µ«° ¹»²»®¿¬±®ò ìòß´´ ¬¸» «°°±®¬·²¹ ³»½¸¿²·½¿´ §¬»³ ©·´´ ®»¯«·®» ±²¹±·²¹ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½»ô ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬¸» ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ½±¬ º±® ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ò ëòÉ» ¼± ²±¬ ¸¿ª» ¿ ²»»¼ ¬± ·®®·¹¿¬» ¬¸» ´¿²¼½¿°·²¹ò É» ¸¿ª» «»¼ «¬¿·²¿¾´» °´¿²¬·²¹ ·² ¬¸» ¼»·¹² ¬¸¿¬ ©·´´ ²±¬ ®»¯«·®» ©¿¬»®·²¹ò êòÌ¸· · ®»´¿¬·ª»´§ ²»© ¬»½¸²±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ²± ³»³¾»® ±º ±«® ¬»¿³ ø½±²¬®¿½¬±®ô ¿®½¸·¬»½¬ô ¿²¼ »²¹·²»»®÷ ¸¿ª» »¨°»®·»²½» ·² ©±®µ·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸»» §¬»³ò Ý±¬æ Þ¿»¼ ±² ¬¸» ®»¿±² ½·¬»¼ ¿¾±ª»ô ·¬ ©¿ ª»®§ ¼·ºº·½«´¬ ¬± »ª»² ½±³» «° ©·¬¸ ¿ °®·½» º±® ¬¸· ¾«¬ ·¬ · »¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬± ½±¬ ¿®±«²¼ üïëðôððð º±® ¬¸» ®¿·²©¿¬»® °®±¼«½¬ô ¬¸» ßúÛ ½±¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ½±¬ò ×¬ · »¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ´·¾®¿®§ ©·´´ «» ¿®±«²¼ çôïðð ¹¿´´±² ±º ©¿¬»® °»® ³±²¬¸ ¬± º´«¸ ¬¸» ¬±·´»¬ò ß¬ ¿ ½±¬ ±º üîòçð °»® ïôððð ¹¿´´±²ô ©» ©±«´¼ ¿ª» üíïêòêè ±² ©¿¬»® ¿²²«¿´´§ò Ì¸· ©±«´¼ ®»«´¬ ·² ¿ °¿§¾¿½µ °»®·±¼ ±º ìéí §»¿®ò Ì·³» Ü»´¿§æ Í·²½» ¬¸· ¬§°» ±º ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ©±«´¼ ®»¯«·®» ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ®»¼»·¹² ±º ¬¸» °´«³¾·²¹ §¬»³ô ¿²¼ ·²ª±´ª» §¬»³ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿®½¸·¬»½¬ ¿²¼ ½±²¬®¿½¬±® ¸¿ª» ²±¬ «»¼ ¾»º±®»ô ·¬ ½±«´¼ ª»®§ ©»´´ ½¿«» ¿ ¼»´¿§ ·² ¬¸» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² °»®·±¼ º±® ¬¸» ´·¾®¿®§ò í Î»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²æ Þ¿»¼ «°±² ¬¸» ¿¾±ª» ®»»¿®½¸ô × ¼± ²±¬ ¾»´·»ª» ¬¸» ®¿·²©¿¬»® ®»¬»²¬·±² ©±«´¼ ¾» ¿ ¹±±¼ ½¸±·½» º±® ¬¸· °®±¶»½¬ò ×ÊòßÜÜ×Ì×ÑÒßÔ ÒÑÌÛ ß ©» ¸¿ª» °®»ª·±«´§ ³»²¬·±²»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Þ±¿®¼ô ¬¸» ¬·³» ¬± ·²½±®°±®¿¬» ·¼»¿ ¿²¼ «¬¿·²¿¾´» º»¿¬«®» ·²¬± ¿ ¾«·´¼·²¹ · ¾»¬ ¼±²» ¿¬ ¬¸» ¾»¹·²²·²¹ ±º ¬¸» ¼»·¹² °®±½»ò Í±³» °®±¼«½¬ ¿®» ¹±±¼ ·¼»¿ô ¾«¬ ³¿§ ²±¬ ©±®µ ±² »ª»®§ °®±¶»½¬ò ß Î±¿²±µ» Ý±«²¬§ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ì»¿³ ¸¿ ¾»»² »¬¿¾´·¸»¼ ¿²¼ · ½«®®»²¬´§ ³»»¬·²¹ ¬± ¼»ª»´±° ¹«·¼»´·²» º±® º«¬«®» ¾«·´¼·²¹ °®±¶»½¬ò Ñ²» ±º ¬¸» ¹±¿´ ±º ¬¸» ¬»¿³ · ¬± ¼»ª»´±° ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® «¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§ ·«» ±² Ý±«²¬§ ¾«·´¼·²¹ò Ûª»² ¬¸±«¹¸ ¬¸» Í±«¬¸ Ý±«²¬§ Ô·¾®¿®§ ¼±» ²±¬ »»³ ¬± ¾» ¿ ¹±±¼ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² º±® °»®ª·±« °¿ª»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ®¿·²©¿¬»® ®»¬»²¬·±² §¬»³ô ©» ¿®» ²±© ³±®» º¿³·´·¿® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»» °®±¼«½¬ô ¿²¼ ©» ¼± »» ±³» °±¬»²¬·¿´ «» º±® ¬¸»³ ±² º«¬«®» °®±¶»½¬ò ì 651 August 24, 2004 O-082404-10 he conceptual plan provided by the petitioner Ms. Scheid stated that t shows the layout of the golf course covering approximately 250 acres with the remaining 112 acres being reserved for future residential development. The course will span both sides of Pitzer Road and utilize a pedestrian/golf cart crossing of the road. The conceptual plan depicts the future residential development in three separate areas of the site: the northwest corner, the southwest corner, and the southeast corner on the east side of Saul Lane. The proposal is for an 18-hole golf course, a club house and a maintenance facility. The type of golf course (private equity, private membership, or public)has not yet been determined by the petitioner. Ms. Scheid stated that the club house could range in size from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet depending on the type of course built. For instance, a public daily fee - course would call for a club house towards the smaller end of the size range it would likely have a small pro shop, a small snack bar, an eating and gathering area and an outdoor pavilion area. On the other hand, a private course would necessitate a club house towards the upper end of the size range. This type of club house would provide member services such as locker rooms, shower facilities, golf bag storage areas and would have a more complete dining facility. In either case, the club house would typically operate the same daily hours as the golf course and the food service facility would be primarily for patrons of the golf course. The design of the club house will be architecturally compatible with the rural nature of the 652 August 24, 2004 proposed site and the exterior will primarily be constructed of stone, brick and wood. Ms. Scheid advised that it is the petitioner's intent that the club house be an attractive attribute to the golf course and appear to belong on the site. She noted that golf cart storage will be indoors. Ms. Scheid reported that as stated earlier, the golf course is proposed to be constructed on both sides of Pitzer Road and a golf cart crossing of Pitzer Road is shown on the conceptual plan.VDOT will review the request for this crossing and determine any necessary safety features. The petitioner has stated that typically those features include marked pedestrian cross walks, caution signs and/or "slow golf cart crossing" signs. A maintenance facility will be required for the operation of the golf course. Ms. Scheid advised that the location of the maintenance facility is being changed as a result of citizen input at the Planning Commission meeting. The facility needs road access and will have parking for approximately 15 employees. The building will range in size from 5,000 to 12,000 square feet and will be single story. It will consist of equipment storage, repair shop, storage of chemicals, fertilizer and grass seed. Approximately three tractor trailers will off-load at this location per year. The design of this facility will be integrated and blended into the site and the building facade will be appropriate for the rural location. The petitioner has stated that he will use primarily organic chemicals on the course and all chemicals will be within the guidelines of the U. S. Environmental Protection EXHIBIT 2 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Ð®»»²¬æ Óò Ó¿®¬¸¿ Ø±±µ»® Ó®ò Í¬»ª» ß¦¿® Ó®ò Î±¼²»§ Ó½Ò»·´ Ó®ò Ù¿®§ Ö¿®®»´´ Ó®ò ß´ Ì¸±³¿±² Óò Ö¿²»¬ Í½¸»·¼ô Í»½®»¬¿®§ Ó®ò Ü¿ª·¼ Ø±´´¿¼¿§ Ó®ò Ì·³ Þ»¿®¼ Óò Í«¿² Ý¿®¬»®ô Î»½±®¼·²¹ Í»½®»¬¿®§ WORK SESSION: Í»·±² ±°»²»¼ ¿¬ ìæðð °ò³ò ¾§ Óò Ø±±µ»®ò Approval of Agenda Ó®ò Ó½Ò»·´ ³±ª»¼ ¬± ¿°°®±ª» ¬¸» ¿¹»²¼¿ ¿ ¿³»²¼»¼ò Ó±¬·±² °¿»¼ ëóðò Approval of Minutes Ó®ò Ì¸±³¿±² ³±ª»¼ ¬± ¿°°®±ª» ¬¸» Ö«´§ ïçô îððë ÐÝÉÍ ³·²«¬» ¿ ¿³»²¼»¼ò Ó±¬·±² °¿»¼ ëóðò Ó®ò ß¦¿® ³±ª»¼ ¬± ¿°°®±ª» ¬¸» ß«¹«¬ ïêô îððë ÐÝÐØ ³·²«¬»ò Ó±¬·±² °¿»¼ ëóðò Approval of Consent Agenda Ó®ò Ö¿®®»´´ ³±ª»¼ ¬± ¿°°®±ª» ¬¸» Ñ½¬±¾»® ìô îððë Ý±²»²¬ ß¹»²¼¿ò Ó±¬·±² °¿»¼ ëóðò Spot Blight Abatement Ó®ò Ø±´´¿¼¿§ ¬¿¬»¼ Ó®ò Ö±»´ Þ¿µ»®ô Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ý±³³··±²»®ô ¸¿ ®»¯«»¬»¼ ¿ ½±²¬·²«¿²½» ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ·²«®» ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ · º«´´§ ·² ½±³°´·¿²½»ò Ì¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ³»³¾»® ¿¹®»»¼ ¬± ½±²¬·²«» ¬¸» ®»¯«»¬ «²¬·´ Ñ½¬±¾»® ìô îððëò Ó®ò Ø±´´¿¼¿§ ¿²¼ Óò Í½¸»·¼ ¼·½«»¼ °®±¹®» ¾»·²¹ ³¿¼» ±² ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ò Comments Ó®ò ß¦¿® ¿µ»¼ ¬¿ºº º±® ¿ ¾®·»º «°¼¿¬» ±² ½¸¿²¹» ¬± ¬¸» Ô»¬»® Ù»±®¹» ®»¯«»¬ò Ó®ò Ø±´´¿¼¿§ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿ ¾®·»º ¸·¬±®§ ¿²¼ »¨°´¿·²»¼ °®±°±»¼ ½¸¿²¹» ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ÐÎÜ ®»¯«»¬ò Ó®ò Ó½Ò»·´ ·²¯«·®»¼ ¿¾±«¬ ¬¸» ¼»º·²·¬·±² ¿²¼ °»®³·¬¬»¼ «» ±º ¿ ÐÎÜò Ó®ò Ø±´´¿¼¿§ ¿²¼ Óò Í½¸»·¼ »¨°´¿·²»¼ò Site Viewing Ì¸» ³»»¬·²¹ ©¿ ¿¼¶±«®²»¼ º±® ·¬» ª·»©·²¹ ¿¬ ìæíë °ò³ò 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Óò Ø±±µ»® ½¿´´»¼ ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ ¬± ±®¼»® ¿¬ éæðð °ò³ò Ó®ò Ö¿®®»´´ ¹¿ª» ¬¸» ·²ª±½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ´»¼ ¬¸» °´»¼¹» ±º ¿´´»¹·¿²½»ò 1. Ì¸» °»¬·¬·±² ±º Ô»¬»® Ù»±®¹» ¬± ®»¦±²» íéëõ ¿½®» º®±³ ßÎÝÍô ß¹®·½«´¬«®¿´ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ©·¬¸ ½±²¼·¬·±² ¿²¼ ¿ °»½·¿´ «» °»®³·¬ ¿²¼ ßÎÍô ß¹®·½«´¬«®¿´ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ©·¬¸ °»½·¿´ «» °»®³·¬ ¬± Ð´¿²²»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ò Ì¸» °®±°»®¬§ · ´±½¿¬»¼ ¿¬ íêèé Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ô Ê·²¬±² Ó¿¹·¬»®·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ò Ì¸» °«®°±» ±º ¬¸» Ð´¿²²»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ °»¬·¬·±² · ¬± ¼»ª»´±° ¿ ¹±´º ½±«®» ®»±®¬ ¿²¼ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ½±³³«²·¬§ ©·¬¸ ±¬¸»® «» °»® Í»½¬·±² íðóìéó î Þ «½¸ ¿ ¿ ½´«¾¸±«»ô ®»¬¿«®¿²¬ ¿²¼ ±ª»®²·¹¸¬ ½±¬¬¿¹» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ¬± ¼»ª»´±° ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ±º èç ·²¹´» º¿³·´§ ®»·¼»²½» ±² íéëõ ¿½®» º±® ¿ ¼»²·¬§ ±º òîì ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ °»® ¿½®»ò Ó®ò Ü¿ª·¼ Ø±´´¿¼¿§ô Î±¿²±µ» Ý±«²¬§ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ô °®»»²¬»¼ ¬¸» ¬¿ºº ®»°±®¬ò Ó®ò Ô»¬»® Ù»±®¹» °±µ» ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸» ®»¯«»¬ò Ø» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿² «°¼¿¬» ¬¿¬·²¹ ¬¸» °´¿² · ¾»·²¹ ®»ª·»¼ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ¿¬¬®¿½¬ ¿² ·²ª»¬³»²¬ ¹®±«°ò Ø» ¬¿¬»¼ îéð ±«¬ó±ºó¬±©² ³»³¾»®¸·° ¿²¼ ëð ´±½¿´ ³»³¾»®¸·° ©·´´ ¾» ±ºº»®»¼ º±® ¬¸» ¹±´º ½±«®»ò Ø» ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸» Ó¬ò Ð´»¿¿²¬ Ý·ª·½ Ô»¿¹«» ³»³¾»® ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¹±±¼ °¿®¬²»®ò Ø» »¨°´¿·²»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ±ª»®²·¹¸¬ ´±¼¹·²¹ · ²»»¼»¼ º±® ¬¸· ¬§°» ±º ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·²½» ³±¬ °»±°´» ©·´´ ¾» ½±³·²¹ º®±³ ±«¬·¼» ±º ¬¸· ¿®»¿ò Ø» ¼»½®·¾»¼ ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿ ®«¬·½ ·² ¬§´»ò Ø» ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸»§ ¸¿ª» °¿®¬²»®»¼ ©·¬¸ Þ¿´¦»® ú ß±½·¿¬» º±® ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò Ó®ò Ó½Ò»·´ ·²¯«·®»¼ ¿¾±«¬ º«¬«®» ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ¬± Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ò Ó®ò Ù»±®¹» ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸»§ ¼± ²±¬ °´¿² ¬± ³¿µ» ¿²§ ³¿¶±® ½¸¿²¹» ¬± ¬¸» ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»§ ¸±°» ¬± ¾» ¿¾´» ¬± ¬«²²»´ «²¼»® ¬¸» ®±¿¼ º±® ¹±´º ½¿®¬ °¿¿¹»ò Ø» ²±¬»¼ ¬¸» ¬®¿ºº·½ ¿²¿´§· ©¿ ½®»¿¬»¼ «·²¹ ·²º±®³¿¬·±² º±® ¿ °«¾´·½ ½±«®»ò Ó®ò Ì¸±³¿±² ·²¯«·®»¼ ¿¾±«¬ ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º °»±°´» ª··¬·²¹ ¬¸» ½±«®» »¿½¸ ¼¿§ò Ó®ò Ù»±®¹» ®»ª·»©»¼ ¬¸» ¿ª»®¿¹» ²«³¾»® ±º ª··¬±® ·² ®»¹¿®¼ ¬± ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬»¼ ³»³¾»®¸·°ò Ø» ¼·½«»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ½±®°±®¿¬» ¼«» ©·´´ «°°±®¬ ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô ²±¬ ¼¿§ó¬±ó¼¿§ ¹®»»² º»»ò Ø» ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸· ¬§°» ±º ¹±´º ½±«®» ¼±» ²±¬ ®»´§ ±² ´±½¿´ ³»³¾»®¸·°ò Ó®ò Ö¿®®»´´ ·²¯«·®»¼ ¿¾±«¬ ©»¿¬¸»® ®»¬®·½¬·±²ò Ó®ò Ù»±®¹» ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸»§ ³¿§ ½´±» ¬¸» º¿½·´·¬§ º±® ¿ ³±²¬¸ ±® ¬©± ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ©·²¬»® ³±²¬¸ò Óò Ñ²¿ Û¿®´§ô ííèé Ó¬ò Ð´»¿¿²¬ Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ô °±µ» ±² ¾»¸¿´º ±º ¬¸» Ó¬ò Ð´»¿¿²¬ Ý·ª·½ Ô»¿¹«»ò Í¸» ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸» ³»³¾»® ±º ¬¸» ½·ª·½ ´»¿¹«» ¿®» ·² º¿ª±® ±º ¬¸» °»¬·¬·±²ò Í¸» ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸· · ³¿®¬ ¹®±©¬¸ º±® ±«® ¿®»¿ò Ó®ò ß¦¿® ²±¬»¼ ¬¸» Ó¬ò Ð´»¿¿²¬ Ý·ª·½ Ô»¿¹«» «°°±®¬ ¬¸» °»¬·¬·±²ò Ø» ¿´± ¬¿¬»¼ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ëðû ±º ¬¸» ´¿²¼ ©·´´ ®»³¿·² ±°»² °¿½»ò Ø» ¬¸»² ³¿¼» ¬¸» ³±¬·±² ¬± ®»½±³³»²¼ ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º ¬¸» ®»¯«»¬æ ßÇÛÍæ Ø±±µ»®ô ß¦¿®ô Ó½Ò»·´ô Ö¿®®»´´ô Ì¸±³¿±² ÒßÇÍæ Ò±²» ßÞÍÛÒÌæ Ò±²» 2 FINAL ORDERS ïò Ì¸» °»¬·¬·±² ±º Ý¿ª»²» Ð®±°»®¬·»ô ÔÔÝ ¬± ®»¦±²» òïëê ¿½®» º®±³ Îóíô Ó»¼·«³ Ü»²·¬§ Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ ¬± Ýóïô Ñºº·½» Ü·¬®·½¬ º±® ¬¸» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ¿ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ ·² ½±²¶«²½¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¿² ±ºº·½»ô ´±½¿¬»¼ ¿¬ was approved by the ëêðì Í¬¿®µ»§ Î±¿¼ô Ý¿ª» Í°®·²¹ Ó¿¹·¬»®·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on August 23, 2005. îò Ì¸» °»¬·¬·±² ±º Ê··±² Þ«·´¼»®ô ÔÔÝ ¬± ±¾¬¿·² ¿ Í°»½·¿´ Ë» Ð»®³·¬ ¬± ±°»®¿¬» ¿ ½±²ª»²·»²½» ¬±®» ±² ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ïòç ¿½®»ô ´±½¿¬»¼ ¿¬ êðìì was approved by the Ð»¬»® Ý®»»µ Î±¿¼ô Ø±´´·² Ó¿¹·¬»®·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on August 23, 2005. Citizen Comments Ò±²»ò Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Ò±²»ò Ì¸»®» ¾»·²¹ ²± ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¾«·²»ô ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ ©¿ ¿¼¶±«®²»¼ ¿¬ éæíï °ò³ò Î»°»½¬º«´´§ Í«¾³·¬¬»¼ô ß°°®±ª»¼æ Í»½®»¬¿®§ô Î±¿²±µ» Ý±«²¬§ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² 3 PETITIONER: Lester George CASE NUMBER: 17-9/2005 Planning Commission Hearing Date: September 6, 2005 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: September 27, 2005 A. REQUEST Ì¸» °»¬·¬·±² ±º Ô»¬»® Ù»±®¹» ¬± ®»¦±²» íéëõ ¿½®» º®±³ ßÎÝÍô ß¹®·½«´¬«®¿´ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ©·¬¸ ½±²¼·¬·±² ¿²¼ ¿ °»½·¿´ «» °»®³·¬ ¿²¼ ßÎÍô ß¹®·½«´¬«®¿´ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ©·¬¸ °»½·¿´ «» °»®³·¬ ¬± Ð´¿²²»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ò Ì¸» °®±°»®¬§ · ´±½¿¬»¼ ¿¬ íêèé Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ô Ê·²¬±² Ó¿¹·¬»®·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ò Ì¸» °«®°±» ±º ¬¸» Ð´¿²²»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ °»¬·¬·±² · ¬± ¼»ª»´±° ¿ ¹±´º ½±«®» ®»±®¬ ¿²¼ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ½±³³«²·¬§ ©·¬¸ ±¬¸»® «» °»® Í»½¬·±² íðóìéóî Þ «½¸ ¿ ¿ ½´«¾¸±«»ô ®»¬¿«®¿²¬ ¿²¼ ±ª»®²·¹¸¬ ½±¬¬¿¹» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ¬± ¼»ª»´±° ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ±º èç ·²¹´» º¿³·´§ ®»·¼»²½» ±² íéëõ ¿½®» º±® ¿ ¼»²·¬§ ±º òîì ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ °»® ¿½®»ò B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Óò Ñ²¿ Û¿®´§ô ®»°®»»²¬·²¹ ¬¸» Ó±«²¬ Ð´»¿¿²¬ Ý·ª·½ Ô»¿¹«»ô °±µ» ·² º¿ª±® ±º ¬¸» °»¬·¬·±²ô ½·¬·²¹ ½®»¿¬·±² ±º ¶±¾ô ²»© ¬¿¨ ®»ª»²«» ¿²¼ ³·²·³«³ ¼·®«°¬·±² ¬± ¬¸» ½±³³«²·¬§ò C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ó®ò Ü¿ª·¼ Ø±´´¿¼¿§ °®»»²¬»¼ ¬¸» ¬¿ºº ®»°±®¬ò Ó®ò Ô»¬»® Ù»±®¹» °®»»²¬»¼ ¸· ¾«·²» °´¿² ¿²¼ ¼»½®·¾»¼ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò Ó®ò Ó½Ò»·´ ¿µ»¼ ·º ¿²§ ®»½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ · °´¿²²»¼ô ±¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ®»¯«·®»¼ »²¬®¿²½»ò Ó®ò Ù»±®¹» ®»°±²¼»¼ ²±²» ©¿ °´¿²²»¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»§ ©¿²¬»¼ ¬± µ»»° ¬¸» ®«®¿´ ½¸¿®¿½¬»® ±º ¬¸» ®±¿¼ò Ó®ò Ì¸±³¿±² ¿²¼ Ó®ò Ö¿®®»´´ ¿µ»¼ ¯«»¬·±² ¿¾±«¬ ³»³¾»®¸·° ¿²¼ ©¸»¬¸»® ¬¸» ´±¼¹·²¹ ©±«´¼ ¾» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ·º ¬¸» ¹±´º ½±«®» · ½´±»¼ò Ó®ò Ù»±®¹» ®»°±²¼»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¸» °´¿² º±® îéð ²¿¬·±²¿´ ³»³¾»® ¿²¼ ëð ´±½¿´ ³»³¾»®ò ß´±ô Ó®ò Ù»±®¹» ¿·¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·º ¬¸» ¹±´º ½±«®» · ½´±»¼ ¸» · «²«®» ¿¬ ¬¸· ¬·³» ·º ¬¸» ´±¼¹·²¹ ©±«´¼ ¾» ½´±»¼ ¿ ©»´´ô ¿²¼ ·² ¿²§ »ª»²¬ô ¬¸» ´±¼¹·²¹ ©±«´¼ ¾» º±® ³»³¾»® ¿²¼ ¬¸»·® ¹«»¬ ±²´§ò D. CONDITIONS Í»» ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ÐÎÜ ®»¦±²·²¹ °»¬·¬·±² ³¿¬»®·¿´ E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ó®ò ß¦¿® ³¿¼» ¬¸» ³±¬·±² ¬± ®»½±³³»²¼ ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º ¬¸» ®»¯«»¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ÐÎÜ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ¼¿¬»¼ ß«¹«¬ ïéô îððë ¿²¼ ®»ª·»¼ ß«¹«¬ ïçô îððë ¿ °®±ºº»®»¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²ò Ó±¬·±² ½¿®®·»¼ ëóðò F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: Concept Plan Vicinity Map Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Lester George Request:Rezone 375 + acres from ARCS and ARS to PRD Location: 3687 Pitzer Road Magisterial District: Vinton Proffered/Suggested See attached PRD rezoning petition materials Conditions: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to rezone 375 + acres from ARCS and ARS to PRD. In August, 2004, the Board of Supervisors rezoned 115 acres of the property from AG3 Agricultural Rural Preserve District to AR Agricultural Residential District with conditions, and also granted a Special Use Permit on the entire property for development of a golf course. The condition placed on the 115 acres was that the residential density would be no greater that that allowed in the AG3 zoning district, one house per three acres, unless a subsequent rezoning to PRD Planned Residential Development is approved. Since that time, plans for the Fountain Head Golf Resort have been refined and revised. As a result, the developer is a requesting to rezone the property from ARCS (AR with conditions and special use permit) and ARS (AR with special use permit) to PRD. The following two changes in the development plans necessitated the zoning amendment. 1) The plans now show a maximum of 89 residential lots on the perimeter of the proposed golf course. All of the lots are proposed at minimum 1 acre in size. Twenty nine of the proposed lots would be in an area currently limited, through the ARCS conditional zoning, to 3-acre minimum lot size. 2) The developer proposes overnight lodging in guest cottages and within the clubhouse and possibly in a training facility. This use is not permitted in the current zoning district, but may be permitted through the PRD district. The site is designated Rural Village in the 2005 Roanoke County Community Plan. In anticipation of the proposed golf course and development pressures on the Saul Farm, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors amended the Community Plan, Future Land Use Map in March 2005, and changed the designation of the Saul Farm from Rural Preserve to Rural Village. The Rural Village designation is for areas where limited development activity has historically occurred and where suburban and urban development patterns are discouraged. Rural housing is encouraged on lots averaging one acre. Rural parks and outdoor recreation that are designed to preserve the rural landscape are also encouraged. The proposed project conforms with the policies and guidelines of the Roanoke County Community Plan. The PRD district is intended to allow greater flexibility than is generally possible under conventional zoning district regulations. The requested zoning district allows all the uses proposed for the golf resort, and is preferred for such a development in order to encourage ingenuity, imagination and high quality design. 1 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Per Section 30-47-5 (B) of the zoning ordinance, any application to rezone land to the PRD designation shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-14. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval is required for all entrance permits, including any golf cart crossing of Pitzer Road. Virginia Department of Health approval is required for all private well and septic system permits. Roanoke County site development review will be required. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background – The property known as the Saul Farm is 375+ acres on both sides of Pitzer Road. Currently the farm is leased for hay production and cattle pasture. In the past, the Pitzer Dairy and then the Saul Dairy operated at the farm. Four large barns, one with a brick double silo, and four small sheds still exist in the area that was the dairy. Several of these structures have fallen into significant disrepair. In August, 2004, the Board of Supervisors rezoned 115 acres of the farm from AG3 to AR with conditions, and also granted a Special Use Permit on the entire farm for development of a golf course. The condition placed on the 115 acres was that the residential density would be no greater than that allowed in the AG3 zoning district, one house per three acres, unless a subsequent rezoning to PRD is approved. Topography/Vegetation – The land is divided by Pitzer Road. The rolling terrain on each side of Pitzer Road slopes down to creeks. Horseshoe Branch drains the northern portion of the property. An unnamed creek drains the southern portion of the property. Both creeks flow to Back Creek. Much of the property is open hayfields and pasture. Some areas around the southern creek, as well as areas along the northern and eastern property lines, contain mature woodlands. Surrounding Neighborhood – Properties to the north are zoned AG3 and AR, and are mostly undeveloped wooded tracts, with a few single family homes. Properties to the east, along Pitzer Road are zoned AR and contain single family homes on 1 to 3-acre tracts. A large wooded tract also adjoins to the east. To the south, the properties are zoned AG3, AG1 and AR, and contain single family homes on larger acreage tracts. Adjoining properties to the west are zoned AG3 and AR, and contain single family homes on larger acreage tracts. Pitzer Road crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway approximately 750 feet from the northwest property boundary. In 2004, when the golf course petition was considered by the Board of Supervisors, parkway staff stated that the golf course would not be visible from the parkway and therefore they have no visual impact concerns with the proposed golf course. They have also stated that they would like the opportunity to review any proposed housing on the site to ensure that the scenic quality of this view area is not compromised. This information was gathered from the previous staff report and staff has not received comments from the parkway as of the time of this report. 2 3.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture – The concept plan for the proposed Fountain Head Golf Resort shows an 18-hole golf course resort with clubhouse and overnight cottages, and 89 single-family residential home lots. The residential lots would generally surround the golf course, except for the southern portion of the site where the course extends to the property lines. The lots are proposed as minimum 1 acre, with 90 feet of road frontage, and would otherwise be developed per the site development standards for the AR zoning district. The proposed section of homes on the western side of the site contains 29 lots. This section lies within the portion of the property currently restricted to 3-acre minimum size lots. The other sections of proposed residential lots lie within areas where 1-acre minimum size lots are required. On both sides of Pitzer Road, an 18-hole golf course is proposed. The developer proposes to take advantage of the existing rolling terrain and open fields and pastures in the design and construction of the course. In addition, the rezoning application states that a majority of wetlands areas will be preserved and these areas will be incorporated into the golf course design. The front nine holes would be on the northern side of Pitzer Road. The back nine holes would be across Pitzer Road, and would finish at the clubhouse. The clubhouse and associated facilities are proposed to be located in the vicinity of the existing barns. The clubhouse would include a full service restaurant, locker rooms, pro shop, and possibly overnight lodging accommodations. In addition, overnight lodging would be offered in guest cottages and possibly also in a training facility. The guest cottages would be 2 to 4- bedroom, one-story rustic structures built at various locations within the golf course. The petitioner proposes a maximum of 60 total bedrooms, either in the clubhouse, training facility and/or guest cottages. A maintenance facility is shown on the concept plan across Pitzer Road and to the north of the clubhouse area. A driveway from Pitzer Road is also shown to serve the maintenance facility. The golf course and associated improvements will occupy approximately 210 acres of the site. Including the golf course, at least 50% of the site will remain as open space. The PRD zoning district requires at least 15% of the gross area of the project to be common open space and/or recreational area. Architectural design of the clubhouse and associated structures and the guest cottages would be a “rustic traditional style”, per the petition. The applicant’s consultant is currently working on conceptual building elevations to be made available at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings. Exterior construction materials of all buildings, including the single family homes, would be synthetic wood, wood, brick and/or stone. The homes are proposed at a minimum size of 2,000 square feet. According to the petition, architectural review board would be established to review house plans and elevations prior to construction. With 89 homes proposed on 375+ acres, the residential development density of the project would be .24 units per acre. Access/Traffic Circulation – Four new streets are proposed to serve the residential development surrounding the golf course. Three of these streets would connect to Pitzer Road and one would connect to Saul Lane. The petitioner has stated that the streets would either be publicly or privately maintained, but would be designed and constructed to VDOT standards. Access to the clubhouse would be via a new commercial entrance from Pitzer Road. With the exception of one possible driveway entrance, access to the cottages would be via internal driveways and cart paths. 3 The one possible entrance for the cottages would be on Pitzer Road, across from and aligned with Saul Lane. To connect the two parts of the golf course, the petitioner would construct either a tunnel crossing under or an on-grade crosswalk over Pitzer Road for golf cart, pedestrian and service vehicle traffic. The petitioner prefers a tunnel crossing. Either design would be subject to VDOT approval. Internal parking and drive aisles, including parking lot landscaping, parking requirements and parking dimensions would be designed and built according to County parking standards. Mr. Ford, Roanoke County Traffic Engineering Manager, has offered the following comments. Current traffic volume on Pitzer Road is 600 vehicle trips per day. The planned project would generate an estimated 1,872 vehicle trips per day, with 135 trips during weekday peak morning peak hours, and 170 trips during weekday evening peak hours. Based on these projected volumes, Mr. Ford has recommended that a traffic impact analysis be provided to the Planning Commission. He has also commented that regardless of whether the proposed subdivision streets are publicly or privately maintained, the streets should meet not only VDOT construction standards but also geometric design standards as well. Mr. Ford also recommended that a tunnel under Pitzer Road would be a preferred option for golf cart and pedestrian crossing. Fire & Rescue/Utilities – Fire and Rescue service would be provided by the Mount Pleasant station. The petitioner’s consultants have stated that a planned pond on the golf course would be available as a water source for fire protection.If the commercial structures require sprinkler systems, then the developer would be required to provide adequate water supply/storage for the system. Public water and sanitary sewer is not available to the site. The application states that no extension of public water or sewer is planned with this project. Approval of all private well and septic systems would be through the Virginia Department of Health. If public water and/or sanitary sewer were requested to serve the proposed resort, or if a private community water or sewer system is installed, then the project would need a review by the Planning Commission for conformance with the Community Plan per section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia. Community Meeting – A regular meeting of the Mount Pleasant Civic League is scheduled for Thursday, September 1. At the meeting, the revised plans for the golf course resort and the new rezoning petition will be discussed. A synopsis of the civic league meeting discussion will be included in staff presentation at the Planning Commission public hearing on September 6. 4.CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated Rural Village in the 2005 Roanoke County Community Plan. In anticipation of the proposed golf course and development pressures on the Saul Farm, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors amended the Community Plan, Future Land Use Map in March 2005, and changed the designation of the Saul Farm from Rural Preserve to Rural Village. The Rural Village designation is for areas where limited development activity has historically occurred and where suburban and urban development patterns are discouraged. Rural housing is encouraged on lots averaging one acre. Rural parks and outdoor recreation that are designed to preserve the rural landscape are also encouraged. The proposed project conforms with the policies and guidelines of the Roanoke County Community Plan. 4 5.STAFF CONCLUSIONS In August, 2004, the Board of Supervisors rezoned 115 acres of the property from AG3 to AR with conditions, and also granted a Special Use Permit on the entire property for development of a golf course. The condition placed on the 115 acres was that the residential density would be no greater that that allowed in the AG3 zoning district, one house per three acres, unless a subsequent rezoning to PRD is approved. Since that time, plans for the Fountain Head Golf Resort have been refined and revised. As a result, the developer is a requesting to rezone 375+ acres from ARCS and ARS to PRD. The following two changes in the development plans necessitated the zoning amendment. 1) The plans now show a maximum of 89 residential lots on the perimeter of the proposed golf course. All of the lots are proposed at minimum 1 acre in size. Twenty nine of the proposed lots would be in an area currently limited, through the ARCS conditional zoning, to 3-acre minimum lot size. 2) The developer proposes overnight lodging in guest cottages and within the clubhouse and possibly in a training facility. This use is not permitted in the current zoning district, but may be permitted through the PRD district. The PRD district is intended to allow greater flexibility than is generally possible under conventional zoning district regulations. The requested zoning district allows all the uses proposed for the golf resort, and is preferred for such a development in order to encourage ingenuity, imagination and high quality design. CASE NUMBER: 17-09/2005 PREPARED BY: David Holladay HEARINGPC: 9/6/05 BOS: 9/27/05 DATES: 5 Í»°¬»³¾»® îéô îððë ïðçí °»¬·¬·±²»® °®±°±» ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ±º êð ¬±¬¿´ ¾»¼®±±³ô »·¬¸»® ·² ¬¸» ½´«¾¸±«»ô ¬®¿·²·²¹ º¿½·´·¬§ ±® ¹«»¬ ½±¬¬¿¹»ò Óò Í½¸»·¼ ¿¼ª·»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¿ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» º¿½·´·¬§ · ¸±©² ±² ¬¸» ½±²½»°¬ °´¿² ¿½®± Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ ¬± ¬¸» ²±®¬¸ ±º ¬¸» ½´«¾¸±«» ¿®»¿ò ß ¼®·ª»©¿§ º®±³ Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ · ¿´± ¸±©² ¬± »®ª» ¬¸» ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» º¿½·´·¬§ò Ì¸» ¹±´º ½±«®» ¿²¼ ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ©·´´ ±½½«°§ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ îïð ¿½®» ±º ¬¸» ·¬» ©¸·½¸ ´»¿ª» ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ëðû ±º ¬¸» ·¬» ¿ ±°»² °¿½»ò Ì¸» ¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´ ¼»·¹² ±º ¬¸» ½´«¾¸±«»ô ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ¬®«½¬«®» ¿²¼ ¹«»¬ ½±¬¬¿¹» ©±«´¼ ¾» ®«¬·½ ±® ¬®¿¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬§´»ò Ì¸» »¨¬»®·±® ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ³¿¬»®·¿´ º±® ¿´´ ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ·²¹´» º¿³·´§ ¸±³»ô ©±«´¼ ¾» §²¬¸»¬·½ ©±±¼ô ©±±¼ô ¾®·½µ ¿²¼ñ±® ¬±²»ò Óò Í½¸»·¼ ¿¼ª·»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»®» ©·´´ ¾» º±«® ²»© ¬®»»¬ °®±°±»¼ ¬± »®ª» ¬¸» ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ «®®±«²¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¹±´º ½±«®»ò Ì¸®»» ±º ¬¸»» ¬®»»¬ ©±«´¼ ½±²²»½¬ ¬± Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ ¿²¼ ±²» ¬± Í¿«´ Ô¿²»ò Ì¸» °»¬·¬·±²»® ¸¿ ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¬®»»¬ ³¿§ ¾» »·¬¸»® °«¾´·½ ±® °®·ª¿¬» ¾«¬ ©±«´¼ ¾» ¼»·¹²»¼ ¿²¼ ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ¬± ÊÜÑÌ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ò Í¸» ¿¼ª·»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¿½½» ¬± ¬¸» ½´«¾¸±«» ©±«´¼ ¾» ª·¿ ¿ ²»© ½±³³»®½·¿´ »²¬®¿²½» º®±³ Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ ©¸·½¸ ©±«´¼ ®»¯«·®» ÊÜÑÌ ¿°°®±ª¿´ò É·¬¸ ¬¸» »¨½»°¬·±² ±º ±²» °±·¾´» ¼®·ª»©¿§ »²¬®¿²½»ô ¿½½» ¬± ¬¸» ½±¬¬¿¹» ©·´´ ¾» ª·¿ ·²¬»®²¿´ ¼®·ª» ¿²¼ ½¿®¬ °¿¬¸ò Ì± ½±²²»½¬ ¬¸» ¬©± °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ¹±´º ½±«®»ô ¬¸» °»¬·¬·±²»® ©±«´¼ ½±²¬®«½¬ »·¬¸»® ¿ ¬«²²»´ ½®±·²¹ «²¼»® Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ ±® ¿² ±²ó¹®¿¼» ½®±·²¹ ±² Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ ¿¬ ¿ ½®±©¿´µò Óò Í½¸»·¼ ¿¼ª·»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» °»¬·¬·±²»® °®»º»® ¬¸» ¬«²²»´ ½®±·²¹ ¾«¬ »·¬¸»® ±º ¬¸»» ¼»·¹² ¬± ½±²²»½¬ ¬¸» ¹±´º ½±«®» ©±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¬± ¾» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ÊÜÑÌò PETITIONER: Fountain Head Land Company, LLC CASE NUMBER: # 12-10/2009 st Board of Supervisors Consent 1 Reading Date: September 22, 2009 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 6, 2009 nd Board of Supervisors Hearing & 2 Reading Date: October 27, 2009 A. REQUEST Ð»¬·¬·±² ±º Ú±«²¬¿·² Ø»¿¼ Ô¿²¼ Ý±³°¿²§ô ÔÔÝô ¬± ¿³»²¼ ¬¸» Ð´¿²²»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ øÐÎÜ÷ Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¿¬ó¹®¿¼» ¹±´º ½¿®¬ ½®±·²¹ ±² Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ º±® Ú±«²¬¿·² Ø»¿¼ Ù±´º Î»±®¬ øÞ¿´´§¸¿½µ÷ ©¸·½¸ ³»¿«®» ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ íéë ¿½®»ô Ê·²¬±² Ó¿¹·¬»®·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ò B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ó®ò Þ¿®®§ Ü®¿°»® ±º Ø±®» Í¸±» Þ»²¼ Î±¿¼ °±µ» ¿¹¿·²¬ ¬¸» °»¬·¬·±² ¼«» ¬± ¿ ¿º»¬§ ·«» ·² ©¸·½¸ ¿ º¿³·´§ ³»³¾»® ´±¬ ¬¸»·® ´·º» ·² ¿ ³±¬±® ª»¸·½´» ¿½½·¼»²¬ ±² ¬¸· ¬®»¬½¸ ±º Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ §»¿® ¾¿½µò Ø» ¬¿¬»¼ ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±® «°°±®¬»¼ ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ ®»¯«»¬ ·² îððë ©·¬¸ ¬¸» «²¼»®¬¿²¼·²¹ ¬¸»®» ©±«´¼ ¾» ¿ ¬«²²»´ ·²¬»¿¼ ±º ¿² ¿¬ó¹®¿¼» ½®±·²¹ò C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ì¸» Ý±³³··±² ¸¿¼ ¼·½«·±² ½±²½»®²·²¹ ¬¸»·® ®»½±´´»½¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¹±´º ½¿®¬ ®»¿±²·²¹ º±® ¬¸» ¿¬ó¹®¿¼» ½®±·²¹ ©¿ ¿ ¬¿ºº ¼»½··±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ ¼·¿¹®»»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ·²¬»®°®»¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» »½±²±³·½ ¼±©²¬«®² ©¿ ³¿µ·²¹ ·¬ «²´·µ»´§ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¹±´º ½±«®» ½±«´¼ ¿ºº±®¼ ¬¸» ¬«²²»´ò Ì¸» Ý±³³··±²»® ¸¿¼ ¿º»¬§ ½±²½»®² ¿¾±«¬ ¬¸» ¹±´º ½¿®¬ ½®±·²¹ ±² ¿ ëë ³°¸ ®«®¿´ ®±¿¼ò D. CONDITIONS ïò Ì¸» ¼»ª»´±°»® ¸»®»¾§ °®±ºº»® «¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ÐÎÜ ®»¦±²·²¹ ¼±½«³»²¬ óïéóðë ¿²¼ Î»ª·»¼ èóïìóðçò îò Ì¸» ¼»ª»´±°»® ¸»®»¾§ °®±ºº»® «¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¹±´º ½¿®¬ ¬¿½¸»¼ ¬± ¬¸· ®»¦±²·²¹ ¼±½«³»²¬ò Ì¸» ¿¬ó¹®¿¼» ¹±´º ½¿®¬ ½®±·²¹ ¸¿´´ ²±¬ »¨¬»²¼ ¾»§±²¼ Ö¿²«¿®§ ïô îðïíô ¿¬ ©¸·½¸ ¬·³» ¿ ¬«²²»´ «²¼»® Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ «¾¶»½¬ ¬± ÊÜÑÌ ¿°°®±ª¿´ò E. COMMISSION ACTION Ó®ò ß¦¿® ³¿¼» ¿ ³±¬·±² ¬± ®»½±³³»²¼ ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º ¬¸» ÐÎÜ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©·¬¸ °®±ºº»®»¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²ò Ì¸» ³±¬·±² ½¿®®·»¼ ìóïò Ð¿¹» ï ±º î F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE Ó®ò Ö¿®®»´´ ¸¿¼ ¿ ¿º»¬§ ½±²½»®² ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¿¬ó¹®¿¼» ½®±·²¹ ±² Ð·¬¦»® Î±¿¼ò G. ATTACHMENTS: X Concept Plan _Vicinity Map X Staff Memo X Exhibit Philip Thompson, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission Ð¿¹» î ±º î Roanoke County Department of Community Development - Planning Services Memo Planning Commission To: John F. Murphy, Zoning Administrator From: 10/6/09 Date: Fountain Head Land Company, LLC Rezoning Re: In 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved the Planned Residential Development (PRD) for the Fountain Head Golf Resort on Pitzer Road in the Mount Pleasant Planning Area. The site is located within the Vinton Magisterial District. This 375 acre development is oriented on both sides of Pitzer Road (State Route 617) and includes an 18- hole golf course, 89 residential lots surrounding the golf course and up to 60 overnight guest accommodations offered through a series of cottages. The golf course is known as the Ballyhack Golf Course and the project is still under construction. The purpose of this rezoning petition is to amend one (1) specific condition within the PRD master plan document. The only item proposed to be amended is the golf cart crossing at Pitzer Road. On Page 8, of the Fountain Head Golf Resort Planned Residential Community PRD Document, dated August 17, 2005, the current language states: “A golf cart/pedestrian crossing will be required on Pitzer Road to access the entire golf course. A tunnel under Pitzer Road is the preferred option at this time. This option is subject to VDOT approval.” The developer is now proposing an “at-grade” crossing and is removing the reference in the text for the tunnel option. Staff advised the developer that an amendment to the PRD master plan is required in order to proceed with the at-grade crossing due to the existing language in the PRD document describing this tunnel option. The proposed language states: “A golf cart/pedestrian crossing will be required on Pitzer Road to access the entire golf course.” A plan sheet titled Ballyhack Golf Course Golf Cart Crossing, dated 8/14/09, prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. provides the details as to the location, markings and signage for the golf cart/pedestrian crossing, subject to VDOT review and approval. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated in a letter dated September 10, 2009, that a city, county or town must “authorize” a golf cart or utility cart crossing prior to being permitted by VDOT. Should the county choose to authorize the golf cart crossing county staff wanted the language in the PRD to be clear that the golf cart crossing would be physically on the pavement and right of way of Pitzer Road instead of indicating the tunnel option currently shown in the PRD document. In addition, the costs of installation and maintenance of the golf cart crossing markings and signage shall not be the responsibility of VDOT. In this case the cost of installation and maintenance of the signage would be transferred to the golf course developer and not the responsibility of the County of Roanoke. Attachments: Staff Memo Amendment Application Exhibit “A” Page 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009 ORDINANCE APPROVING/DENYING THE PETITION OF FOUNTAIN HEAD LAND COMPANY, LLC, TO AMEND THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) MASTER PLAN RELATED TO AT-GRADE GOLF CART CROSSING ON PITZER ROAD FOR FOUNTAIN HEAD GOLF RESORT (BALLYHACK) WHICH MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 375 ACRES, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 22, 2009, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 27, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 6, 2009; 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 proffered conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors on a Planned Residential Development (PRD) known as the Fountain Head Golf Resort containing approximately 375 +/- acres and located on Pitzer Road (Tax Map Numbers 79.04-2-10, 10.1, 10.2, 11, 12, and 79.00-1-1) in the Vinton Magisterial District, are hereby amended as follows: 1. The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the PRD rezoning document titled “Fountain Head Golf Resort, A Planned Residential Community”, Prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. Dated 8-17-05 and Revised 8-14-09. 2. The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the golf cart crossing sketch shown as Exhibit ‘A’ attached to this rezoning document. The at-grade golf cart crossing shall not extend beyond January 1, 2013, at which time a tunnel under Pitzer Road shall be constructed subject to VDOT approval. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Fountain Head Land Company, LLC. 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 10 Í»½ò íðóìéóêò Î»ª··±² ¬± Ú·²¿´ Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿²ò øß÷ Ó¿¶±® ®»ª··±² ¬± ¬¸» º·²¿´ ³¿¬»® °´¿² ¸¿´´ ¾» ®»ª·»©»¼ ¿²¼ ¿°°®±ª»¼ º±´´±©·²¹ ¬¸» °®±½»¼«®» ¿²¼ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ±º Í»½¬·±² íðóìéóëò Ó¿¶±® ®»ª··±² ·²½´«¼»ô ¾«¬ ¿®» ²±¬ ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ½¸¿²¹» «½¸ ¿æ ïò ß²§ ·²½®»¿» ·² ¬¸» ¼»²·¬§ ±º ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬å îò Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ½¸¿²¹» ·² ½·®½«´¿¬·±² ±® ¿½½»å íò Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ½¸¿²¹» ·² ¬¸» ³·¨¬«®» ±º ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ ¬§°» ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬å ìò Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ½¸¿²¹» ·² ¹®¿¼·²¹ ±® «¬·´·¬§ °®±ª··±²å ëò Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ½¸¿²¹» ·² ¬¸» ³·¨¬«®» ±º ´¿²¼ «» ±® ¿² ·²½®»¿» ·² ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ´¿²¼ ¼»ª±¬»¼ ¬± ²±²ó®»·¼»²¬·¿´ °«®°±»å êò Î»¼«½¬·±² ·² ¬¸» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ±°»² °¿½»ô ´¿²¼½¿°·²¹ ±® ¾«ºº»®·²¹å éò Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ½¸¿²¹» ·² ¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´ ±® ·¬» ¼»·¹² º»¿¬«®» ±º ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬å èò ß²§ ±¬¸»® ½¸¿²¹» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® º·²¼ · ¿ ³¿¶±® ¼·ª»®¹»²½» º®±³ ¬¸» ¿°°®±ª»¼ º·²¿´ ³¿¬»® °´¿²ò øÞ÷ ß´´ ±¬¸»® ½¸¿²¹» ·² ¬¸» º·²¿´ ³¿¬»® °´¿² ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ³·²±® ¿³»²¼³»²¬ò Ì¸» ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬±®ô «°±² ®»½»·°¬ ±º ¿ ©®·¬¬»² ®»¯«»¬ ±º ¬¸» ±©²»®ô ³¿§ ¿°°®±ª» «½¸ ³·²±® ¿³»²¼³»²¬ò ïò ×º ¬¸» ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® º¿·´ ¬± ¿½¬ ±² ¿ ®»¯«»¬ º±® ¿ ³·²±® ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ³¿¬»® °´¿² ©·¬¸·² íð ½¿´»²¼¿® ¼¿§ô ·¬ ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿°°®±ª»¼ò îò ß ®»¯«»¬ ©¸·½¸ · ¼·¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬±® ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿ ³¿¶±® ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¸¿´´ ¾» «¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¿°°®±ª¿´ °®±½» ±«¬´·²»¼ ¿¾±ª» º±® «½¸ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ò øÑ®¼ò Ò±ò ðìîîðèóïêô y ïô ìóîîóðè÷ o AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2009 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.