Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
9/26/1995 - Regular (2)
O~ ROAN ~' ~. 1838 WORKING DOCUMENT -MAY BE REVISED ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ianwr ff nr r~ ecia Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regalar meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. PRIOR TO THIS AFTERNOON'S SESSION THE BOARD 4`F SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A TOINT MEETING WITH THE VINTON TOWN COUNCIL AT 12:30 P.M. ON THE FOURTH FLOOR OF THE ADMINISTRATION CENTER 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 /east 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 3:03 P.M. 2. Invocation: The Reverend John Havvn St. Mark's Lutheran Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ® Recyded Paper ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS FM ADDED ITEM E-5 RESOLUTION REGARDING URBAN PARTNERSHIP COI~~VIITTEE RECOMMVVIENDATIONS. PMM REMOVED ITEM T-2 (LESLIE WELL LOT) BECAUSE PETITIONER WITHDREW OFFER, AND ADDED ITEM T 4, OFFER TO PURCHASE ALGOMA WELL LOT AND EXEC. SESSION ITEM 2.1-344 A (11 APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation for over 24 years of service R-92695-1 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE RESO URC MR. BOWERS WAS PRESENT TO ACCEPT D. OI.D BUSINESS to Frederick W. "Billy"! Bower to Roanoke County. 1. Adoption of a resolution in support of Bent Mountain Road (Route 221) as current Primary Six Year Construction the Commonwealth's Transportation Hodge, County Administrator) (CON SEPTEMBER 12, 19951 improvements to outlined in the Plan adopted by Board. (Elmer TINUED FROM R-92695-2 FM MOTION TO ADOPT RESO SUPPORTING IMPROVEMENTS ONLY IN THE EXISTING ALIGNMENT AND THAT NO ADDITIONAL CORRIDORS WILL BE STUDIED AYES-BI~T,HCN,FM NAYS-EGK,LBE 2. Debarment of Wavne Engineering Company from consideration for award of future contracts. (William Rand, General Services Director) 2 A-9295 3 BLJ MOTION TO DEBAR WAYNE ENGINEERING COMPANY URC E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to accept Family Preservation Act monies and make application for a grant to be administered by the Community Policy and Management Team. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) A-92695-4 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS AND APPLY FOR GRANT URC 2. Request to approve the plan for the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act to be submitted on behalf of Roanoke County for administration by the Community Policy and Management Team. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) A-92695-5 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE PLAN AND ACCEPT $237,920 OF VTCCA FUNDS URC 3. Request to approve the grant for CORTRAN. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) A-92695-6 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE ALTERNATE #2 _ PORTION OF THE GRANT FOR CORTRAN AND THE RED LINE SERVICE IN NORTH COUNTY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE BLUE LINE ROUTE IN SW COUNTY. STAFF TO REPORT BACK IN MAY 96 WITH RIDERSHIP DATA. URC 4. Request to enter into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for Development and Administration of the Hanging Rock Battlefield and 3 Railway Preservation ISTEA Project. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) R-92695-7 BI.J MOTION TO APPROVE ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT AND APPOINTMENT TWG AS GRANT COORDINATOR URC 5. Resolution Regarding the Urban Partnership's Report of the Research and Issues Development Committee (Elmer C. Hodge) R-92695-8 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE RESO AYES-LBE,HCN.FM NAYS-BIT ABSTAIN-EGK BOARD CONSENSUS THAT LBE WILL ATTEND MEETING IN RICHMOND WITH ECH AND WILL REPRESENT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC I~IEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AND SET PUBLIC HEARING AND 2ND READING FOR OCTOBER 24 1995 URC 1. Ordinance to rezone 38.22 acres from R-1, single family to PRD, planned residential development to construct residential homes, located at Mountain View Road and 4 Laurel Glen Lane, north of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wolf Creek Inc. 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory apartment, located at 5757 Grandin Road Extension, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jane Allison Parker. 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a fast food and drive-in restaurant, located in Oak Grove Plaza Shopping Center, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of McDonald's Corporation. 4. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a private kennel, located at 4613 Bonsack Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Donna Etzler. 5. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a cornenience store with a fast food restaurant, located at the intersection of Williamson Road and Summer View Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jones & Jones Associates. I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance adopting a new chapter of the Roanoke County Code, Chapter 20.1 "Storm Water Management," and imposing a Storm Water Management fee to fund a Storm Water Management Program for Roanoke County. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) HCN WI1'fIDREW ORIGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE #2 IN STAFF RECOA~IlVIENDATION. RCN MOTION TO TAKE NO ACTION ON ORDINANCE AND STAFF DIRECTED TO DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO INCORPORATE ALT. #2 IN STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD REPORT WHICH UTILIZES PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT 5 ORDINANCE TO FUND SPECIFIC PROTECTS. AYES-BI;T,EGK,HCN,FM NAYS-LBE BL.T REQUESTED PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUE BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN 1. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. 0-92695-9 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE ORD URC 2. Ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate to be surplus and accepting offers for sale of same, namely the Leslie well lot. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) DELETED FROM AGENDA - OFFER TO PURCHASE WAS WITHDRAWN 3. Ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate to be surplus and accepting offers for sale of same, namely the Wheeler well lot. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 0-92695-10 FM MOTION TO APPROVE ORD ACCEPTING OFFER FROM LINDEN L. CARR FOR $13,525. URC 4. Ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate to be surplus and accepting offers for sale of same, namely the Algoma well lot. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 0-92695-11 FM MOTION TO APPROVE ORD. ACCEPTING OFFER OF . LARRY Ordinance authorizing quitclaim and release of a water and sanitary sewer easement within boundaries of Monet Drive, and located between Lot 1 of the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, and Tract 1, property of Strauss Construction Corporation. (Arnold Covey, Engineering & Inspections Director) 6 LYONS FOR $16,300 AND ORD LANGUAGE IN PARR, 5 IMPROVED PER LBE'S REQUEST. URC IC APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board DELETE APPOINTMENT UNTIL BOARD IS REORGANIZED 2. Grievance Panel HCN NOMINATED CECIL HILL TO ANOTHER TWO YEAR PERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 27 1997. 3. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission 4. Industrial Development Authority DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 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 WII,L BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WII,L BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-92695-12 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT RESO URC 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Industrial Development Authority. A-92695-12.a 7 2. Approval of a Raffle Permit for the Virginia Junior Miss Scholarship Program. A-92695-12.b 3. Resolution in support of Catawba Hospital's application to operate a class Enon-emergency patient Transport Van. R-92695-12.c M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Nickens advised he had received a number of letters from parents at Cave Spring Tunior High School regarding the Board vote to approve bonds to air condition the school. He wanted the record to shay that he was not present at the September 12 Board meeting and did not vote on this issue. Supervisor Tohnson: (1) Also advised that he received some very emotional letters regarding this issue but would not respond, and felt that the issue rs not over. (2) Announced that the Hanover Direct opening was successful• that the intersection at Old Hollins Road should be lent mix covered by the end of October and that the stop lights at Old Hollins Road and Hollins College should be installed within 18 20 days. Supervisor Kohinke advised he would not rely to the CS.THS letters because of the stall time and expense in responding. His position is the same as the stand he took at the September 12 meeting. Supervisor Eddy: (1) Advised he will respond to the letters b_v forwarding a copy of his September newsletter which outlines his position. 12) Announced he attended the Southwest Schools Steering Committee meeting and was pleased with the work of the consultant which will be presented on October 9 at Cave Spring High School. (3) Advised he was opposed to the request from RCEA to shay a 20 minute video. BLJ advised he supported the request because it was about funding disparities. ECH advised the video was only 10 minutes and the whole resentation would take_ approximately 20 minutes. (3) Asked about a memo he sent regarding a request from a developer to put in sidewalks which VDOT discourages. ECH advised he had written to VDOT. (5) Asked about a 8 recent memo he sent on curbside recycling and asked if there would be emphasis placed on this issue since the value of recycled materials has increased. ECH will check and report back. (~ Asked if PMM was still working on the Brookwood well lot issue. PMM responded affirmative. N. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND CO1~RViUNICATIONS NONE O. REPORTS BI.~T MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE - UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Proclamations signed by the Chairman 5. Bond Project Status Report 6. Report from VDOT on additions to the Secondary System in August 1995. 7. Statement of Expenditures and Revenues as of 8/31/95. 8. Accounts Paid -August 1995. P. WORK SESSION 1. Vehicle Replacement Policy POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER 10 1995 Q. EXECUI'l[VE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (3) Discussion of the use of property for 9 public purpose, Salem Bank and Trust, 2.1-344 A (1) appointment of personnel; and 2.1-344 A (7) Potential Litigation. LBE MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:10 P.M. URC R CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-92695-13 BI;T MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AND ADOPT CERTIFICATION RESO AT 7:06 P.M. - URC EVENING SESSION S. PROC:IAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Ronald S. Edwards 22 years of service to Roanoke County. for over R-92695-14 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE RESO URC MR EDWARDS WAS PRESENT 2. Presentation of plaque to the County of Roanoke for their contribution to the Commonwealth Games. (Peter Lampman, President, Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc.) MR LAMPMAN WAS PRESENT AND REPORTED ON THE SUCCESS OF THE COMMONWEALTH GAMES. HE PRESENTED T-SHIRTS AND PLAOUE TO THE BOARD. T. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing and resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement relocating the boundary lines between the City of Salem and County of Roanoke. (Paul M. Mahoney, 10 County Attorney) R-92695-15 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE RESO URC U. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a convenience store and gasoline outlet, located at the corner of Plantation and Hershberger Roads, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Workman Oil Co. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) (CO ~ FROM AUGUST 22, 1995. PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED AN INDEFINITE CONTINUANCEI PMM ADVISED THAT PETITIONER CAN REQUEST CONTINUANCE FOR 1-YEAR FROM HEARING OF THE PLA1vNING CONIlVIISSION. BI;T REQUESTED THAT ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED AT COUNTY EXPENSE WHEN THE REQUEST OF BROUGHT BACK. 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cave Spring United Methodist Church. (Terry Harrington, Planning and Zoning Director) 0-92695-16 FM MOTION TO APPROVE ORD WITH LBE SUGGESTED CONDITION THAT CHURCH CONSTRUCT A GATE AROUND THE LOOP ROAD TO DISCOURAGE TRESPASSERS. URC 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of 11 Helene Mawyer. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 22, 1995 AT THE REOUEST OF THE PETITIONEF~ 0-92695-17 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE ORD WITH CONDITION C WORDING AS INCLUDED IN TERRY H. MEMO OF 9/25/95 AYES-BI~T,LBE,HCN,FM NAYS-EGK 4. Ordinance amending and reenacting Ordinance 82592-12, to amend the floodplain provisions and maps of the Zoning Ordinance to conform with FEMA requirements, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Jon Hartley, Planning and Zoning Assistant Director) 0-92695-18 BI{T MOTION TO APPROVE ORD URC THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC F[EARINGS HAVE BEEN CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 12. 1995 AT THE REQUEST OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1. Ordinance to rezone approximately 1 acre from R-2 to C-1 to adjust the zoning boundary to conform to the east property line, located on the east side of Starkey Road adjacent to Hunting Hills Country Club, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County (Old Heritage). 2. Ordinance to rezone 22.59 acres from I-1C and C-1 to C-2 to increase commercially zoned frontage, located on the southeast side of Route 460 at the intersection with Carson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority. (F&W). 3. Ordinance to rezone a 2 acre portion of a 174.56 acre 12 parcel from R-1 to I-2 to include this property within the industrial park boundaries, located on the north side of Valley TechPark, adjacent to entrance road and Route 11/460, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County. 4. Ordinance to rezone a portion of a 34.04 acre parcel from C-1 to I-2 to include this property within the industrial zoning area for expansion of Valley TechPark, located on the north side of Valley TechPark between the southern property line and Hope Branch Creek, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County (Helen Cox Richards). V. CITIZEN CONIIVIENTS AND COINIlVILTNICATIONS NONE W. ADJOi;fRN1VIENT BI;T MOTION TO ADTOURN AT 7.50 P M. - UW 13 ~ AOAN ,~. F 2 A 1 38 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ,~ff~~,~ Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. PRIOR TO THIS AFTERNOON'S SESSION, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A TOINT MEETING WITH THE VINTON TOWN COUNCIL AT 12:30 P.M. ON THE FOURTH FLOOR OF THE ADMINISTRATION CENTER. 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 -east 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend John Hawn St. Mark's Lutheran Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS 1 ® Recycled Paper C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Frederick W. "Billy" Bawer for over 24 years of service to Roanoke County. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. Adoption of a resolution in support of improvements to Bent Mountain Road (Route 221) as outlined in the current Primary Six Year Construction Plan adopted by the Commonwealth's Transportation Board. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 1995) 2. Debarment of Wayne Engineering Company from consideration for award of future contracts. (William Rand, General Services Director) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to accept Family Preservation Act monies and make application for a grant to be administered by the Community Policy and Management Team. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) 2. Request to approve the plan for the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act to be submitted on behalf of Roanoke County for administration by the Community Policy and Management Team. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) 3. Request to approve the grant for CORTRAN. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) 4. Request to enter into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for Development and 2 Administration of the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation ISTEA Project. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIItST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance to rezone 38.22 acres from R-1, single family to PRD, planned residential development to construct residential homes, located at Mountain View Road and Laurel Glen Lane, north of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wolf Creek Inc. 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory apartment, located at 5757 Grandin Road Extension, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jane Allison Parker. 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a fast food and drive-in restaurant, located in Oak Grove Plaza Shopping Center, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of McDonald's Corporation. 4. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a private kennel, located at 4613 Bonsack Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Donna Etzler. 5. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a convenience store with a fast food restaurant, located at the intersection of Williamson Road and Summer View Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jones & Jones Associates. 3 I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance adopting a new chapter of the Roanoke County Code, Chapter 20.1 "Storm Water Management," and imposing a Storm Water Management fee to fund a Storm Water Management Program for Roanoke County. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing quitclaim and release of a water and sanitary sewer easement within boundaries of Monet Drive, and located between Lot 1 of the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, and Tract 1, property of Strauss Construction Corporation. (Arnold Covey, Engineering & Inspections Director) 2. Ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate to be surplus and accepting offers for sale of same, namely the Leslie well lot. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 3. Ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate to be surplus and accepting offers for sale of same, namely the Wheeler well lot. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Grievance Panel 3. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission 4. Industrial Development Authority L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA 4 ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Industrial Development Authority. 2. Approval of a Raffle Permit for the Virginia Junior Miss Scholarship Program. 3. Resolution in support of Catawba Hospital's application to operate a class Enon-emergency patient Transport Van. M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS N. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND C011~IlVIUNICATIONS O. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Proclamations signed by the Chairman 5. Bond Project Status Report 6. Report from VDOT on additions. to the Secondary System in August 1995. 7. Statement of Expenditures and Revenues as of 8/31/95. 8. Accounts Paid -August 1995. 5 P. WORK SESSION 1. Vehicle Replacement Policy Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (3) Discussion of the use of property for public purpose, Salem Bank and Trust. R CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION EVENING SESSION S. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Ronald S. Edwards for over 22 years of service to Roanoke County. 2. Presentation of plaque to the County of Roanoke for their contribution to the Commonwealth Games. (Peter Lampman, President, Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc.) T. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing and resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement relocating the boundary lines between the City of Salem and County of Roanoke. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) U. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a convenience store and gasoline outlet, located at the corner of Plantation and Hershberger Roads, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Workman Oil Co. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 22, 1995. PETITIONER 6 HAS REQUESTED AN INDEFINITE CONTINUANCE 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cave Spring United Methodist Church. (Terry Harrington, Planning and Zoning Director) 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Helene Mawyer. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 22, 1995 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER 4. Ordinance amending and reenacting Ordinance 82592-12, to amend the floodplain provisions and maps of the Zoning Ordinance to conform with FEMA requirements, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Jon Hartley, Planning and Zoning Assistant Director) THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE BEEN CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 12, 1995 AT THE REQUEST OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1. Ordinance to rezone approximately 1 acre from R-2 to C-1 to adjust the zoning boundary to conform to the east property line, located on the east side of Starkey Road adjacent to Hunting Hills Country Club, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County (Old Heritage). 2. Ordinance to rezone 22.59 acres from I-1C and C-1 to C-2 to increase commercially zoned frontage, located on the southeast side of Route 460 at the intersection with 7 Carson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority (F&V~. 3. Ordinance to rezone a 2 acre portion of a 174.56 acre parcel from R-1 to I-2 to include this property within the industrial park boundaries, located on the north side of Valley TechPark, adjacent to entrance road and Route 11/460, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County. 4. Ordinance to rezone a portion of a 34.04 acre parcel from C-1 to I-2 to include this property within the industrial zoning area for expansion of Valley TechPark, located on the north side of Valley TechPark between the southern property line and Hope Branch Creek, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County (Helen Cox Richards). V. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMIJhTICATIONS W. ADJOURNMENT 8 . ! ti '°. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO FREDERICK W. "BILLY" BOWER FOR OVER 24 YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Frederick W. "Billy" Bower was first employed in September, 1970, with the Roanoke County Public Service Authority; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower has also served as a Maintenance Mechanic, Motor Equipment Operator II, and Courier; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower always went above and beyond his job requirements as a Courier to provide the highest quality of customer service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower volunteered to assist with the Commodity Distribution Program sponsored by the Department of Social Services; portrayed Roanoke County's Santa Claus during the 1992 Christmas season; and was nominated on numerous occasions to the Extra Mile Club; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower, 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, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to FREDERICK W. "BILLY" BOWER for over 24 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. s .~ -~ On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: -L~'L'.G-L-2~~-~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, 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 26, 1995 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO FREDERICR W. ~'BILLY'~ BOWER FOR OVER 24 YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Frederick W. "Billy" Bower was first employed in September, 1970, with the Roanoke County Public Service Authority; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower has also served as a Maintenance Mechanic, Motor Equipment, Operator II, and Courier; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower always went above and beyond his job requirements as a Courier to provide the highest quality of customer service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower volunteered to assist with the Commodity Distribution Program sponsored by the Department of Social Services; portrayed Roanoke County's Santa Claus during the 1992 Christmas season; and was nominated on numerous occasions to the Extra Mile Club; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower, 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, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to FREDERICR W. 'BILLY" BOWER for over 24 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. / ..s ' s ~ I 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-2 EXPRESSING APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S PROJECT ROUTE 221, BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a public hearing on March 24 and 25, 1995 for the purposes of discussing the proposed corridors to State Route 221 project; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on September 12, 1995 for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on the proposed corridors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve and support the proposed improvements to State Route 221 but request the existing alignment to remain the general corridor for future improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution and request that no additional corridors will be studied, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisors Kohinke, Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a resolution in support of improvements to Bent Mountain Road (Route 221) as outlined in the current Primary Six Year Construction Plan adopted by the Commonwealth's Transportation Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACRGROUND: At the September 12, 1995 Board of Supervisors meeting, a public hearing was held to provide an opportunity for citizen comment on the proposed corridors being considered for road improvements to Route 221. An overview of the alternatives was presented, maps were available, and representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation were present to answer questions. Twenty-nine citizens spoke in support of or opposition to the proposed corridors. Two resolutions were offered to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. One expressed support for the Virginia Department of Transportation's recommendation that two corridors be studied. The other resolution supported improvements limited to the existing alignment of Route 221. Following citizen comments, the public hearing was closed and Supervisor Minnix moved to support improvements only in the existing alignment, and that no additional corridors will be studied. The motion ended in a tie vote, with Supervisor Nickens absent. Since there was a tie vote with a members absent, the Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-540, states "..in any case in which there shall be a tie vote on any question when all members are not present, the question shall be passed by till the next meeting, when it shall again be voted upon even though all members are not present..." 1 . -. ~-i SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Supervisor Nickens has been provided with the video tape of the meeting as well as the Board Report presented to the Board of Supervisors. He will have access to the same information that was presented at the September 12 meeting, so there will be no need for additional public comment. At this meeting, the Board of Supervisors are only being asked to make a decision on which corridor they support. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors resolve the tie vote on the pending motion made by Supervisor Minnix at the September 12 meeting. ,, r ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens ~ ~ f V ~i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS PROJECT ROUTE 221, BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a public hearing on March 24 and 25, 1995 for the purposes of discussing the proposed corridors to State Route 221 project; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on September 12, 1995 for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on the proposed corridors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve and support the proposed improvements to State Route 221 but request the existing alignment to remain the general corridor for future improvements; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ' t ' .~ ~ _ Y ~..T AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S PROJECT ROUTE 221, BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a public hearing on March 24 and 25, 1995 for the purposes of discussing the proposed corridors to State Route 221 project; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on September 12, 1995 for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on the proposed corridors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve and support the corridors selected by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. R"` / r ~ , ... s AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-2 EXPRESSING APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S PROJECT ROUTE 221, BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a ~` ~ "f public hearing on -~iarc~-24 and 25, 1995 for the purposes of discussing the proposed corridors to State Route 221 project; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on September 12, 1995 for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on the proposed corridors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does. hereby approve and support the proposed improvements to State Route 221 but request the existing alignment to remain the general corridor for future improvements; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisors Kohinke, Eddy A COPY TESTE: ~. ~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ~'~ ~~ I / b. CC: File Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation A-92695-3 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Debarment of Wayne Engineering Corporation from consideration for award of future contracts. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~/, /~x*~, L~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This action is to debar Wayne Engineering Corporation ("Wayne") from consideration for the award of future contracts, and in particular, contracts for the acquisition of "One-Arm Bandit" garbage trucks. This matter was originally scheduled for June 13, 1995, and was postposed to June 27, 1995, at the request of the attorney for Wayne Engineering. This matter was heard on June 27, 1995, and Wayne's attorney, Mr. William H. Fralin, Jr., addressed the Board with respect to Wayne's opposition to this debarment proceeding. The Board directed staff to meet with Wayne's representatives in an attempt to resolve this dispute. These negotiations have failed to achieve a satisfactory resolution to this dispute. problems with these vehicles. Roanoke County had purchased 3 garbage trucks from Wayne Engineering Corporation in 1994, and funds for the purchase of another garbage truck are included in the proposed 1995-96 budget. The County has had numerous mechanical, warranty and environmental Article III of Chapter 17, "Procurement" of the Roanoke County Code provides for the debarment of prospective contractors for cause by the Board of Supervisors, after consulting with the County Attorney, and after reasonable notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard. The grounds for debarment are the unsatisfactory performance of Wayne Engineering's vehicles, and the failure of Wayne Engineering Corporation. to reimburse the County for the damages caused by its defective equipment. These provisions in the County Code are authorized by Section 1 ~_ 2, 11-46.1 of the Code of Virginia. The debarment shall not be for a period of more than three (3) years. In accordance with the procedures in the County Code the County Attorney has provided Wayne Engineering Corporation with notice of this proposed debarment action and advised it of its opportunity to be heard on this matter. Section 17-106 of the County Code lists the causes or grounds for debarment. Staff is recommending debarment based upon the following provisions: (4) b. A recent record of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more contracts; provided that failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor shall not be considered a basis for debarment. (5) Any other cause the board of supervisors determines to be so serious and compelling as to affect responsibility as a county contractor, ... The County is experiencing major stress damage ("cracks") in the frames of all three of the garbage trucks purchased from Wayne. All will require extensive repair work to reinforce the supporting frames of the truck bodies. All three vehicles have experienced problems with the roller operation of the trailer trays. The rollers have come out of alignment. and bent the trays. All three units have experienced structural cracks in the grabber assemblies of the lifting unit. The two stage hydraulic pumps have been replaced at least once on each vehicle, and this pump has been replaced twice on one of the vehicles. The packing cylinders have had to be replaced on all three vehicles, and replaced twice on one vehicle. The hydraulic systems have been a recurring problem on all three vehicles, resulting in numerous blown hoses and hydraulic fluid spills. For example, on June 23, 1994, as a result of a defective connection design, a hydraulic line on one of the garbage trucks came loose and approximately 45 gallons of hydraulic fluid 2 ~,~ were released onto Greenway Drive. Over the summer the County worked with the affected citizens and property owners, hired Environmental Directions Inc. ("EDI") to assist the County in developing a remediation plan suitable to both the citizens and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and conducted remediation activities. The total cost of the clean-up activities was $43,011.67. Wayne was regularly apprised in writing (on June 29, July 20, and August 5) of the actions taken by the County during the summer, and copies of EDI's report was given to Wayne. Since the County had similar problems with the other garbage trucks purchased from Wayne, staff inquired of Wayne the cause and solution for this problem. Wayne's authorized representative for warranty repairs advised the County Garage that the pump manifold on the vehicles should be replaced with barbed fittings and to double clamp the hydraulic hoses to prevent future reoccurrences. This work was performed immediately the June 23, 1994 spill. On October 19, 1994 the County billed Wayne for its contribution to the reimbursement of these expenses. In January, 1995 Wayne replied that it "has no express or implied legal responsibility requiring us to burden any financial responsibility pertaining to this spill." The County Attorney is currently preparing appropriate legal pleadings to be filed in the near future to seek a judicial resolution of this dispute. Staff has tracked downtime for the Wayne vehicles since October, 1994. The downtime for all three Wayne vehicles has been significant, and if transport is included, two of the Wayne vehicles have been unavailable for use approximately 20% of the time. Apart from the merits of this future litigation, Wayne's refusal to stand behind its vehicles, and to share the burden of remediating the damages caused by its defective equipment is so serious and compelling that this debarment proceeding is justified. Its performance with respect to these vehicles is unsatisfactory. In April, 1995 Wayne entered into a "strategic alliance" to distribute its automated side-loader refuse collection vehicles with the Leach Company. The Leach Company has the exclusive right to distribute and service Wayne's vehicles in North America under the Leach name. These vehicles will continue to be developed and manufactured by Wayne. Therefore this debarment must include Wayne vehicles distributed by Leach. Since the June 27, 1995 hearing on this matter, the County has experienced additional structural design problems with these vehicles. In mid-August certain welds associated with the packing cylinder bracket failed resulting in damage to the front frame and 3 ~• - ~~~, the packing cylinder. Carter Machinery Company, the County with estimates to repair structural approximately $4800.00. This estimate does repair/replacement cost for .the packing cylinder. been completed on all three vehicles, yet Wayne any of these repair costs. Inc. has provided design problems of not include the The repairs have refuses to pay for The debarment of one of the manufacturers of automated side- loader refuse collection vehicles may limit the competitive opportunities for the County under the proposed competitive sealed bidding procedures for purchase of such vehicles in future fiscal years. ALTERNATIVES' The Board may take the following actions, after Wayne has had an opportunity to be heard: 1) Debar Wayne Engineering Corporation (and refuse collection vehicles developed, manufactured and serviced by Wayne Engineering Corporation but distributed by the Leach Company) from consideration for the award of future contracts from Roanoke County for a period of time not to exceed three (3) years; or, 2) Refuse to debar Wayne Engineering Corporation, and permit Wayne to bid if it so desires, in the future on County contracts. It is recommended that the Board debar Wayne Engineering Corporation, and refuse collection vehicles developed, manufactured and serviced by Wayne Engineering Corporation but distributed by the Leach Company, from consideration for the award of future contracts for a period of three (3) years from the date of this action. Reap lly subm' , ------ William Rand Elaine Carver Director, General Services Director, Procurement 4 ~-a Approved by, ^ -r, ;` j` Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Abs Denied ( ) debar Wayne Engineering Eddy X Received ( ) Kohinke X Referred ( ) Johnson X To ( ) Minnix X Nickens X CC: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney William Rand, General Services Director Elaine Carver, Procurement Director 5 x f 1 A-92695-4 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept Family Preservation Act monies and make application for a grant to be administered by the Community Policy and Management Team COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : C~~~,x,e~.~ Q~Z~i i BACKGROUND: In 1993 Congress passed and began implementation of a new federal family preservation and family support services program (FPA) The new legislation requires joint planning between the state and federal governments in the development and implementation of a five-year plan. The plan must provide family-centered, community-based social services to children and families. We must also prepare an initial application detailing the planning process to meet Roanoke County needs. This local plan will become part of a four year state plan describing the involvement of communities in the assessment of their family preservation and family support service needs. The Virginia Department of Social Services will administer this program. The County's Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT)is responsible for coordinating the community assessment process and the submission of the plan for the current fiscal year. CPMT will work with the Mental Health Association in performing the community needs assessment and submitting of the local plan. The plan must be submitted by January 1, 1996 so that the monies will be available for the second half of the federal fiscal year (April 1 through September 30, 1996). Each Virginia locality will receive at least $10,000. The initial amounts estimated for Roanoke County are $22,362 for FY1995-96; $33,645 for FY1996-97; $36,064 for FY1997-98; and $38,483 for FY1998-99. Of these monies, 75% represents the federal share, 15o the state share and loo a local share. We anticipate using other monies of the Comprehensive Services Act for the local match for 1995-96. We also received a $2,000 allocation to be used 1 ,I'~ 4 ~ ~///u ~ 1 ~ ~ L ~/ as a part of the planning process, the development of our community needs assessment and filing our plan with the State. The County's CPMT anticipates that our plan will call for FPA monies to be earmarked for cases considered non-mandated by the Comprehensive Services Act but which meet FPA's program criteria. When using FPA monies, community-based services must be given priority over out of community placements. The use of these monies will be restricted to residents of Roanoke County or the Town of Vinton. FISCAL IMPACT• The CPMT requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the Family Preservation Act Grant allocation of $22,362 for the 1995-96 fiscal year and the $2,000 grant for the planning project. The local match will come from monies already designated for the Comprehensive Services Act and will require no new appropriation of monies for this project. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Accept the Family Preservation Act monies for $22,362 for FY1995-96 and $2,000 for the development of a community needs assessment and program plan. 2. Do not accept the Family Preservation Act monies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The CPMT recommends Alternative #1 to accept the Family Preservation Act monies as outlined above. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ,~~ ~ - ~-~ John M. Chambl ss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator -------------------------------- ACTION ------------ VOTE ------- Approved (X) Motion by: _Harry C. Nickens No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to approve acceptance of funds Eddy X Received ( ) and apply for grant Kohinke X Referred ( ) Johnson X To ( ) Minnix X i N ckens X CC: File John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Betty McCrary, Social Services Director Diane Hyatt, Finance Director t A-92695-5 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~ p~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve the plan for the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act to be submitted on behalf of Roanoke County for administration by the Community Policy and Management Team _ ~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : _M C"it1~~~`2't OJT! ,T,~-f .mss >~'7 ~ }~~ O BACKGROUND. In the past Roanoke County has received approximately $237,000 annually in the form of block grants to assist with operating expenses at Youth Haven II. This money was supplemented by per diem rates established according to State guidelines. During 1994- 95 the per diem rate at Youth Haven II was $42.31. The 1995 Virginia General Assembly implemented the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA). This act eliminated the block grant monies previously received by community-based, residential programs like Youth Haven II. The monies allocated under the VJCCCA formula are based upon juvenile arrest data as reported on the UCR reports compiled by the Virginia State Police. Under this methodology, Roanoke County would be eligible for $97,106 compared to the $237,000 previously received under the block grant method. The VJCCCA formula becomes effective January 1, 1996. During FY95-96, we will receive $118,960 representing one-half year of block grant monies earmarked for Youth Haven II. Also, because of a hold harmless provision, for the current fiscal year only, an additional $118,960 (instead of $48,553) will be given to the County to be administered in accordance with the guidelines of VJCCCA. VJCCCA guidelines cover youth under the jurisdiction of the County's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court who were not previously covered under the Comprehensive Services Act. Some of 1 i ~----- these youth may be eligible to participate in the Youth Haven II program. The Act requires that a plan for use of the VJCCCA monies be prepared by the locality, reviewed by the local Court Service Unit Director and Juvenile Judge and forwarded to the State Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFUS) by October 15, 1995 for approval. The Roanoke County CPMT recommends that the VJCCCA monies be used for the treatment of juveniles previously designated as non-mandated cases under the Comprehensive Services Act who are under the jurisdiction of the J & D Court. The CPMT also recommends that priority be placed for community-based services rather than out of community placements. Because of the reduction in block grant monies for Youth Haven II during the current fiscal year, it may become necessary to increase the per diem cost from $42.31 to $82.21 to recognize the loss of revenue. As a result of this change in funding, staff is currently evaluating the appropriateness of the treatment program of Youth Haven II as compared to other community service needs. A report will be brought back to the Board of Supervisors with the results of our findings. Because the State has not made a determination as to whether or not hold harmless provisions will be in force for the next fiscal year, it is difficult to project all of the financial implications at this time. VJCCCA reporting requirements require us to document the expenditures for the treatment of Roanoke County youth. Monies spent on group home type programs which have benefited youth other than Roanoke County youth cannot be claimed as meeting the service of the target population of this Act. Should all of the VJCCCA monies be applied to Youth Haven II, we will need to identify other funding sources to treat the male population and any other person not appropriate to Youth Haven II. FISCAL IMPACT• Roanoke County is scheduled to receive $237,920 for FY1995-96. Of this amount, $118,960 represents the reduced block grant monies for Youth Haven II. The remaining $118,960 must be applied under VJCCCA guidelines . This Act will have an adverse impact to the operation of Youth Haven II in the form of increased per diem rates or the appropriation of new monies to replace lost block grant monies. 2 ALTERNATIVES• wrr j~ 1. Accept the $237,920 of VJCCCA monies utilizing $118,960 for the cost of operating Youth Haven II. The remaining $118,960 would be administered by the Roanoke County CPMT. The CPMT would limit each use to non-mandated cases that are under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for Roanoke County. This alternative will provide the greatest flexibility in meeting the needs of the youth of Roanoke County. 2. Accept the $237,920 of VJCCCA monies and apply all of said monies to Youth Haven II operations. This will allow the per diem rates at Youth Haven II to remain at the $42.31 level for all participants. Under this scenario, Roanoke County must provide other monies to cover the cost of services provided to the male population or for programs used other than Youth Haven II. Roanoke County will not be able to claim the expenses incurred for non-Roanoke County placements at Youth Haven II in the accountability of VJCCCA monies. This may jeopardize the funding amount in future years for Roanoke County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Roanoke County CPMT recommends Alternative #1 as outlined above. Respectfully submitted, Appr ved bye /J~ ~. ohn M. Chambli s, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Lee B. Eddy to No Yes Abs Denied ( ) approve Alternative #1. Eddy X Received ( ) Kohinke X Referred ( ) Johnson X To ( ) Minnix X Nickens X CC: File John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Bev Waldo, Youth Haven II Director Diane Hyatt, Finance Director A-92695-6 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~"~ 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve the grant for CORTRAN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : G~°r ct~~G~"'~~~"""" `" -~ ~' SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation has advised Roanoke County that the operating grant for the CORTRAN Red Line and Blue Line programs has been approved for the federal fiscal year beginning October 1, 1995. With this grant, Roanoke County contracts with Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR) to operate the Red Line service which serves as a feeder system to Valley Metro. In Apri1,1995, the Red Line route was implemented in North County and the additional grant monies are for a proposed Blue Line program to serve Southwest County. If the grant is accepted by Roanoke County, staff will work with RADAR to devise a route which has a rural beginning and interconnects to a Valley Metro point to improve the public transportation system to County residents. The staff of RADAR and Roanoke County are currently promoting the Red Line Service. We will also include a segment on this service during the October Roanoke County Today program. RADAR also provides the CORTRAN system for Roanoke County, which is a demand-based service for the elderly and disabled population of Roanoke County. Attachment A shows the ridership history of this service. FISCAL IMPACT• The cost of the CORTRAN system to Roanoke County for FY1995-96 is $68,406. 1 ~~ The Red Line Service, which would be funded by the above- referenced grant would cost $17,163 - federal; $9,346 - state; and $7,817 - local. Attachment B shows the utilization of the Red Line System from April through August, 1995. The proposed Blue Line Service would cost $26,805 - federal; $15,220 - state; and $8,584 - local. The routing, if approved, will be developed by RADAR and County staff. In the 1995-96 Roanoke County budget, $70,200 has been included for public transportation services. The Department of Rail and Public Transportation has indicated that this funding source for the grant should be stable for the next 18 to 24 months; however, they do not know the long-term impact of the federal dollars. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Accept the grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to continue operating CORTRAN for the elderly and disabled population for Roanoke County, the Red Line System in North County, and at an appropriate time institute the Blue Line Service for Southwest County. This would require an additional appropriation of $14,607 from the general fund unappropriated balance. 2. Accept the portion of the grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to continue operating the CORTRAN service for Roanoke County and the Red Line Service in North County. This alternative would require an additional appropriation of up to $6,023 for the period October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996. 3. Do not accept the Department of Rail and Public Transportation grants and only continue the CORTRAN service to the elderly and disabled population on the same schedule as the service is currently being provided (Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m.). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #2 which accepts the grant monies for the Red Line Program and continues the basic CORTRAN service to the residents of Roanoke County and appropriation of $6,023 from the fund balance of the General Fund of Roanoke County. 2 -3 Respectfully submitted, Approv d by, O-C~ ohn M. Chambl' s, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator ------------- ------------------------------- ACTION ------------- VOTE ------- Approved (X) Motion by: Lee B. Eddy to No Yes Abs Denied ( ) approve Alternative #2 with Eddy X Received ( ) understanding that staff will Kohinke X Referred ( ) look at Blue Line route in SW Johnson X To ( ) County and report back in May Minnix X 96 with ridership data. Nickens X CC: File John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Diane Hyatt, Finance Director 3 ~3 Attachment A CORTRAN COUNTY OF ROANOKE RIDERSHIP ONE-WAY TRIPS Month 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 October 401 519 486 421 441 November 327 496 552 500 412 December 317 370 363 335 370 January 415 419 372 216 340 February 396 468 521 436 272 March 399 477 371 350 315 April 443 441 467 397 338 May 414 392 470 465 392 June 444 433 432 404 307 July 447 431 383 339 341 August 395 432 460 398 403 September 452 441 410 392 ANNUAL 4,850 5,319 5,287 4,653 3,931 °~ Attachment B RED LINE RIDERSHIP APRIL 1995 1 g MAY 1995 55 JUNE 1995 2g JULY 1995 39 AUGUST 1995 44 ~ r ~ E AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-7 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE HANGING ROCK BATTLEFIELD AND RAILWAY PRESERVATION ISTEA PROJECT, AND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HANGING ROCK BATTLEFIELD AND RAILWAY PRESERVATION FOUNDATION AND THE CITY OF SALEM FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GRANT WITH RESPECT TO SAID PROJECT WHEREAS, the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation obtained approval of a competitive Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant request in the amount of $549,300 from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for its Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Project; and, WHEREAS, VDOT requires that a local governing body administer the grant; and, WHEREAS, Both the Foundation and the City of Salem have requested the County of Roanoke to administer this grant on their behalf . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that: 1) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute an agreement on behalf of the County of Roanoke with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, on a form approved by the County Attorney, to administer an Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant in the amount of $549, 300 for the development of the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Project. 2) That this project administration includes the assignment of a project coordinator, project record keeping, fiscal management and overview of preliminary engineering, right-of-way/property acquisition and construction in order to complete this project within two years. 3) The agreement provides that the County will expend these ISTEA grant funds in compliance with all federal and VDOT requirements or the County may be liable for all non-reimbursed expenditures or for all expenditures in excess of the approved grant. 4) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute an agreement on behalf of the County of Roanoke between the County, the City of Salem and the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation for the administration and development of this ISTEA grant, all on a form approved by the County Attorney. 5) That the Director of Economic Development is hereby appointed as project coordinator for the administration of this grant project and these agreements. 6) That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Clerk of the City of Salem and to the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution and appoint Timothy Gubala as Project Coordinator, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Timothy Gubala, Economic Development Director Forest Jones, Salem City Clerk Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation. ~ ~~ Item No. ~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Roanoke County to enter into an Agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the Development and Administration of the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation ISTEA Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: ~~/~. ~~~ ~~ BACKGROUND: The Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation was successful in obtaining approval of a competitive Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficience Act (ISTEA) grant request for $549,300 from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). VDOT has informed the Foundation that a local government (either Roanoke County or the City of Salem) must administer the grant. The Foundation is requesting that Roanoke County administer the grant since the Hanging Rock Battlefield is located in Roanoke County. Roanoke County also has a more direct relationship with VDOT for the maintenance and planning of transportation related projects than the City of Salem does. Project administration would involve the assignment of a project coordinator for overall project record keeping, fiscal management and overview of preliminary engineering, right of way/property acquisition and construction. The project coordinator would work closely with VDOT and the Foundation to complete the project within the two year (October 1995-October 1997) time frame. Staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to complete and execute an agreement with VDOT for the administration and development of the Hanging Rock ISTEA grant. The County Attorney recommends that the County and the Foundation also enter into an agreement for the administration of the ISTEA grant. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds will be released by VDOT on a reimbursable basis. The project coordinator must ensure that expenditures are made in compliance with VDOT and federal guidelines for the ISTEA grant or Roanoke County may be liable for 100% of expenses not reimbursable. t '. ~~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement for the development and administration of the Hanging Rock ISTEA grant on behalf of the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation and City of Salem 2. Appoint the Director of Economic Development as Project Coordinator 3. Authorize the County Administrator to execute other agreements (as necessary) between Roanoke County and the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation for the administration of the ISTEA grant. Respectfully submitted: Timothy W., ubala Director, Economic Development Approved: i E mer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens E-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE HANGING ROCK BATTLEFIELD AND RAILWAY PRESERVATION ISTEA PROJECT, AND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HANGING ROCK BATTLEFIELD AND RAILWAY PRESERVATION FOUNDATION AND THE CITY OF SALEM FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GRANT WITH RESPECT TO SAID PROJECT WHEREAS, the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation obtained approval of a competitive Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant request in the amount of $549,300 from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for its Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Project; and, WHEREAS, VDOT requires that a local governing body administer the grant; and, WHEREAS, Both the Foundation and the City of Salem have requested the County of Roanoke to administer this grant on their behalf. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that: 1) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute an agreement on behalf of the County of Roanoke with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, on a form approved by the County Attorney, to administer an Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant in the amount of $549,300 for the development of the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Project. ' ~ ~~ 2) That this project administration includes the assignment of a project coordinator, project record keeping, fiscal management and overview of preliminary engineering, right-of-way/property acquisition and construction in order to complete this project within two years. 3) The agreement provides that the County will expend these ISTEA grant funds in compliance with all federal and VDOT requirements or the County may be liable for all non-reimbursed expenditures or for all expenditures in excess of the approved grant. 4) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute an agreement on behalf of the County of Roanoke between the County, the City of Salem and the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation for the administration and development of this ISTEA grant, all on a form approved by the County Attorney. 5) That the Director of Economic Development is hereby appointed as project coordinator for the administration of this grant project and these agreements. 6) That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Clerk of the City of Salem and to the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation. G:4ITTORNEY\PMM\HANGROCK. RES `'~ +' ~ ~-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-8 STATING THE OPINION OF THE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 REPORT OF THE RESEARCH AND ISSUES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE URBAN PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, some of the larger units of local governments and the chambers of commerce in Virginia formed the Urban Partnership in 1994, for the purpose of building support for the restoration of Virginia's urban areas and to improve the economic competitiveness of its urban regions, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted to become a full member of the Urban Partnership in June, 1995, and WHEREAS, the Research and Issues Development Committee of the Urban Partnership has prepared a report dated September 1, 1995, that includes recommendations for consideration by the Urban Partnership members and the General Assembly of Virginia, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. That the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia is in agreement with many of the concepts recommended in said report, and 2. That the Board of Supervisors strongly opposes the following recommendations in said report, and urges other members of the Urban Partnership to take a similar position in the interest of developing a consensus that can be submitted for consideration by the 1996 session of the Virginia General Assembly: a. Use of a local option sales tax to benefit localities that achieve a prescribed level of regional cooperation. b. Distribution of incentive funds to localities based upon the "disparity" formula of the Department of Education which uses the concentration and number of children who qualify for free lunch in each locality. Other distribution formulae should be developed. c. Emphasis on reducing disparity of average income between core cities and their suburbs. This appears to be a peripheral issue not directly related to the mission of the Urban Partnership. d. Including the extent to which projects promote "governmental integration" as a factor in the selection of eligible projects for incentive payments. "Governmental Integration" sounds like another term for consolidation. e. Giving the Commission on Local Government the power to "order" granting a City Class A status and setting conditions therefor if a city and county are not able to reach a voluntary agreement on a transition plan. f. Changing the requirements so that a referendum on consolidation will be determined by a majority of the combined voters, and 3. That copies of this resolution be transmitted immediately to the chief elected and appointed officials of each participating member government of the Urban Partnership and the Chair, Co-Chair and Executive Director thereof. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Johnson ABSTAIN: Supervisor Kohinke A COPY TESTE: '~Y~~- .mod , Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Mr. Neal J. Barber, Urban Partnership Robert C. Bob, City Manager, City of Richmond r Charles F. Church, City Manager, City of Lynchburc; Edwin Daley, City Manager, City of Winchester Anton S. Gardner, County Manager, County of Arlington A. Ray Griffin, Jr., City Manager, City of Danville Gary O'Connell, Acting City Manager, City of Charlottesville W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, City of Roanoke William J. Leidinger, County Executive, County of Fairfax Valerie A. Lemmie, City Manager, City of Petersburg Edgar E. Maroney, City Manager, City of Newport News Robert J. O'Neill, Jr., City Manager, City of Hampton James B. Oliver, Jr. City Manager, City of Norfolk Ronald W. Massie, Interim City Manager, City of Portsmouth Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator, County of Chesterfield Earl B. Reynolds, Jr. City Manager, City of Martinsville James K. Spore, City Manager, City of Virginia Beach Clinton H. Strong, City Manager, City of Hopewell The Honorable F. Seward Anderson, Jr., Mayor, City of Danville The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor, City of Roanoke The Honorable Gary W. Chrisman, Mayor, City of Winchester The Honorable Rosalyn R. Dance, Mayor, City of Petersburg The Honorable James L. Eason, Mayor, City of Hampton The Honorable Paul D. Fraim, Mayor, City of Norfolk The Honorable Katherine K. Hanley, Chairman, Fairfax Board of Supervisors The Honorable J. L. McHale, III, Chairman, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor, City of Virginia Beach The Honorable Robert R. Saunders, Jr., Mayor, City of Hopewell The Honorable David J. Toscano, Mayor, City of Charlottesville The Honorable Gloria O. Webb, Mayor, City of Portsmouth The Honorable Mary Margaret Whipple, Chairman, Arlington County Board of Supervisors The Honorable James S. Whitaker, Sr., Mayor, City of Lynchburg The Honorable Leonidas B. Young, Mayor, City of Richmond ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ -- ,~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution Regarding the Urban Partnership's Report of the Research and Issues Development Committee COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Two weeks ago I sent the Board the 25-page report of the Urban Partnership's Research and Issues Development Committee. That committee will make a presentation to the Urban Partnership Board on September 28, 1995 in Richmond, at which time they will finalize the report. The report will then be forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration during their next session. In reviewing the report, I found several issues that concern me and other members of the staff. I have also been in contact with other counties that are members of the Urban Partnership who have the same concerns. I plan to attend the meeting and will support as many of the issues as possible. I would like to take with me Board consensus on those issues which may be a problem to us in the future. They are listed below: Use of local option sales tax to benefit localities that achieve a prescribed level of regional cooperation: We may wish to use the local option sales tax for other purposes. Distribution of incentive funds to localities based upon the disparity formula of the Department of Education: One of the stated purposes of the Urban Partnership is to assist inner city poverty areas. To do so, some disparity formula will have to be devised. I am not sure that the one used by the Department of Education is the best approach. This issue needs to be researched further. Emphasis on reducing disparity of average income between core cities and their suburbs: This is not an issue that is directly related to the Urban Partnership's stated mission. Including projects that promote governmental integration as eligible projects for incentive payments: In the weighing of factors for distribution of funds, there seems to be emphasis given to "governmental integration". This is one of several examples in the report that seem to "heavy hand" the issue of consolidation. If the stated purpose of the Urban Partnership is to assist cities, this report does little for the many cities in the Hampton Roads area, and seems to focus on counties around Richmond and the western part of the state. Other examples include giving the state authority to force counties. to accept cities within their boundaries that revert to Class A status, and the recommendation that referenda on consolidation should be determined by the majority of the combined voters. Attached for your consideration is a resolution stating the Board of Supervisors opposition to certain aspects of the report of the Research and Issues Development Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution. I will be attending the September 28 meeting and will present the resolution expressing our concern regarding those issues outlined above. The chief elected official of each participating locality is also invited. Therefore, Mr. Minnix or another member of the Board should go as well. Respectfully Submitted: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: 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 26, 1995 RESOLUTION STATING THE OPINION OF THE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 REPORT OF THE RESEARCH AND ISSUES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE URBAN PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, some of the larger units of local governments and the chambers of commerce in Virginia formed the Urban Partnership in 1994, for the purpose of building support for the restoration of Virginia's urban areas and to improve the economic competitiveness of its urban regions, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted to become a full member of the Urban Partnership in June, 1995, and WHEREAS, the Research and Issues Development Committee of the Urban Partnership has prepared a report dated September 1, 1995, that includes recommendations for consideration by the Urban Partnership members and the General Assembly of Virginia, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. That the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia is in agreement with many of the concepts recommended in said report, and 2. That the Board of Supervisors strongly opposes the following recommendations in said report, and urges other members of the Urban Partnership to take a similar position in the interest of developing a consensus that can be submitted for consideration by the 1996 session of the Virginia General Assembly: a. Use of a local option sales tax to benefit localities that achieve a prescribed level of regional cooperation. b. Distribution of incentive funds to localities based . f I 4 ~ ~" upon the "disparity" formula of the Department of Education which uses the concentration and number of children who qualify for free lunch in each locality. Other distribution formulae should be developed. c. Emphasis on reducing disparity of average income between core cities and their suburbs. This appears to be a peripheral issue not directly related to the mission of the Urban Partnership. d. Including the extent to which projects promote "governmental integration" as a factor in the selection of eligible projects for incentive payments. "Governmental Integration" sounds like another term for consolidation. e. Giving the Commission on Local Government the power to "order" granting a City Class A status and setting conditions therefor if a city and county are not able to reach a voluntary agreement on a transition plan. f. Changing the requirements so that a referendum on consolidation will be determined by a majority of the combined voters, and 3. That copies of this resolution be transmitted immediately to the chief elected and appointed officials of each participating member government of the Urban Partnership and the Chair, Co-Chair and Executive Director thereof. r 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 26, 1995 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 24, 1995. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1) An ordinance to rezone 38.22 acres from R-1, single family to PRD, planned residential development to construct residential homes, located at Mountain View Road and Laurel Glen Lane, north of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wolf Creek Inc. 2) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory apartment, located at 5757 Grandin Road Extension, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jane Allison Parker. 3) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a fast food and drive-in restaurant, located in Oak Grove Plaza Shopping Center, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of McDonald's Corporation. 4) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a private kennel, located at 4613 Bonsack Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Donna Etzler. /~/_s 5) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a convenience store with a fast food restaurant, located at the intersection of Williamson Road and Summer View Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jones & Jones Associates. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERR~S OFFICE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for October 24, 1995. (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 5, inclusive, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Respectfully submitted, ~. ~- Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by Minnix Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Vote No Yes Abs • . • ~ ~~ 4ND ZONfNC ~ ~ ; M~ Fa= ~ FR1t 1 4 - ~~ tivo! i i~-~vvo rt1.~ t703J 772-2030 an. r~ f~ ~~l47 ' "aa;v.a o ~~ appiirarinn f.r FC18ZA dau: ~Jtrcards ittund: {BOS dat1: ~Caar Nutnbr<r: ~•~` ~~~~ :Yy'r t . . I.1•. r P .•,• 'r. •t• .1 .,•,:. ht•t : -t:'::,'/~•1-1••r ,.,. ,.1 r•: 1 t•r r r.r•i!•,•' ,•M: :p.%: ~!%i.t..:. I.t: ['J:fiiit:•:t:.r. l I.1:R'i•,h.:':it;t:E i":" : i't •:r::di " .•i'!'!'!ii+il;t;:;:•;y!;;:i:i:;:;:;:': .r. I:1 . t E~rtr t . !i!"' t t t., . r.fl!i:•.., tl•'•'i i:l:!!~t:.;;i:i%:%Yv%E ..,.. r . r ' i ! ~. i ! r r ,i. t, ,. r: t rtt...:. t .... .....:.::: • ti. 4 r( . . ! •;,,,..c.r.. !It! ~I !+! rr ! t:+~ !, . r!^ i ~rr~~ ++ ,.,!:. !ii : s:~ ! ::!!:s !!?}littr.,t:tl:t t•!>:~.r E!, , }r!!•!•!rl lli. i.i ! :~~;I•t•t::'=t:: :ri~ rr'.%!'i'l:j:,. . v;1•,-r;%- , ! ! ! ( !~ !!•!:r t !.l:itl~.:!:j:i!i!t!i!?• , } : ::,' !ri ! i• I s I i ! i 1 !• 1' i i i ! +i t i + ~ t l:!tii; r : : i ,( ,! } :, , !? p r~ , ; : :rti ,., ,! ;t ..;. ,~, s lr ;• •:!ikr! h , t •si I la;:~ t + • r:rt:r:,:!~a;i + e!iEE~i!s}r!In!t!s! •;I;!:"}1;1,~^.:s-!~t.r•rr•:%s::!~:'ii~iRiiii!G:!,:r,;,,i. Check type of appRcatlon filed (check ail that apply): ©RQflNING ^ SPECIAL USE !]VARIANCE Applicant's name: Wolf Creek, Inc: , Steve Musselddhi te, President Phone: 9$9-4531 Address: 4346 Starkey Road, S .W. , Roanoke, Virginia Zip Code: 24014 , ~.~~~~• Phone: ~Q Owner s Hama: .-~; -'~~~ -- -,+E~T~~~s~~~e ~ ~ Zp Code: Address: fr~ ~c+ nr ! ovation of property: Tax Map Number. 50.04-3-73 Noun tb i n View Road a t Lau re 1 G I en Magisterial District: Vinton , Lane, East of Vinton Virginia , = Community Planning Area: Vinton 1 Size of parcel (s3: Existing Zoning: R-1 3$•~2-'~ acres Existing Land Use: Vacant sq.f t. - ,' '+~ };}• itifi jf! i + f //~=~itr ,~t! ! t r ! ~,} } t , p I }~ • t ! "•1 t , t I i d ! +t y! •.,r tr qh!, r t ! + r"rki} i • ittl.t-ti! tt y }jl f}tR• t /.t+t.!!t . I ~{•I 7t• ! t...i Ittll:r.Y,t 1 r2-• t} .i 1 Iw ~{+ ! t 1•• {.!~j,[S ' ( { 1 = • ii• ~• tt•t t} t !!i}i It hf i=f!'i t+it i ~.~i((~~ls•{E~ +ttk~~ r!. Tt,=l~~.jj~. ~!" •• ~ •, ' to i' !, •,i •., r ; ' I .I r .k. ! }+Idt}i(!! ' L'~!I r ,+} } E,j}!} _ ~!,l :.t.r.,.r!Irl.}. !}: Proposed Zoning: p Rp ~ - fvr Brat! Wr onty- Proposed Land USE: Residential u:~ Typ.: Does the parse! meat the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the tequestnd dlstrir.2 YES X NO lF NO, A VARIANCE ]S REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parse! moat the minimum criteria for the regttssted Use Type? YES NQ 1F N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. / ~ _ If rezoning request, are conditions being ptofferea vyith this request? YES y NO •!•j•i•i: 1' _ •!• • h•t•t t •t ..•~1 t r • 't'!'+', r !r r• •i'i'''i+i i:i,iry',iriµr}:: •!'CI•' itiM •t r t t pt , . r E i i'+ r i i+ +1r , , ! r pl:j::'•+ • r +r!,!+!:l;:a:t'al tR%r~..E.E.i..:.%. .}s.t.+.l..ittlrlel,I}!} .r{r}}Ii? l.i. ! t,t ,}i}rfrl....l r.r r! I,t}r.r.!~.i..{. i ,C,Irt}r r j!i.t.}.......,.t•.•i,,jjli! , t !'1 t : i! lr! 1-I-} } I J ! . ! ! t ! 1.} i s! 14 ..,• •...r. , I : !• •.,.,t, t t J ~ {I t s '!}!silt! ti!i•"' M{ t• r ri:i• !I! i'i i!!+•! 1 I l{t'f~ Ili 1.! i t !!jI!! rt_rl4i!!+!+!•st~ {?;!}ISy!i;•,r! s;+.i.;+, t•r!+•t•+•r } , !! r fa t r-r ' ! t 1 y ~ ! i ! ~~ ' ! ! ~ " ~ r t . n r t ! ! ! ! i t• ` +i l 1 1 i ! , .• Iv r t s t I Mr•` i :r! ..! rf , i !!lrlrt ? !!!:G:!iia:Irl,.a:r•ijr}t}shl.i.~ GUs.ti,lr•r}j! t}t.ts.t! !4 !s! i i.rli }i{I{i}r~rlr~!..ha.1.t...Fi:fr.;t}:+i}itit:U.Lr.!},.r,ti[it} •!}!.tfa,i Variance vt Section(sl of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: !s the application campletel Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT 8E ACCEPTEt7 IF At'VY OF THESE !TENS ARE MISSING OR 1NCOMPLEi E. tvt v tvs v nn •~ ' ~ Consultation J 8 7 !2" x 11 " concept plan ~• _ Application fee •~ Application J Metes and bounds description ~ Proffers, ifi applicable ~~ Justification %C Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that / am either the own of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am ectinp with the knowledge nd cqn t of the owner. Owner's Signature: Devid P. Ni AS LA, Project Landscape Architect ~' -9 W OLF CREEK bfASTERPLAN & DESIGN GUIDELINES WOLF CREEK CONCEPT Wolf Creek is a 38-acre planned community of residences adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway in Roanoke County, Virginia. The community is proposed as Roanoke County's first Planned Residential Development (PRD) and will offer an alternative to typical subdivision developments which can be designed without regard to the surrounding landscape. Because the design of Wolf Creek is based on a commitment to be a compatible adjacent use to the Blue Ridge Parkway, the design responds by incorporating the community into the surrounding agricultural and residential land use patterns. Vital towns and villages, meadows, fields and farms, and forests compose the cultural landscape of the western Virginia's Blue Ridge Parkway corridor. These four elements are incorporated into the design of Wolf Creek. The massing diagram on the following page illustrates the four land use types at Wolf Creek. Park lands are the front of the property, and are designed to be meadows visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway. Much of this land was determined to be critical viewshed of the Parkway, and the land is proposed to be conveyed to anon-profit trustee for the National Park Service. A second subset of park lands are lands retained by the homeowner's association. These lands include the loop of trails and amenities located in the lowlands and floodplain, with tie-ins to the remainder of the neighborhood. In the center of the land is a residential village which will consist of a main street with larger residences and cluster courts beyond. W olf Creek's pedestrian scale, consistent street frontage patterns, trees, wide sidewalks and landscaped courtyards will follow in the tradition of nearby towns such as Fincastle, and design guidelines require timeless construction tradition that can be found in much older V irginia towns. This village is designed as a scene visible to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Virginia highland towns, such as Meadows of Dan, provide a similar visual experience for the Parkway visitor To the south of the village homes are two groups of deckhomes. Out of primary view of the Blue Ridge Parkway, these are inwardly-focused toward Muse's Dell. The remainder of the site is divided into 37 single family lots which range in size from 1/4 to 1 acre. These are sited in the rear of the field and the woods, in the distant view of the Parkway. They also are designed to be compatible with adjacent lands uses to the north and west. -I- W O L F C R E E K hf A~ T E R P L A N- ~' D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S PROJECT LOCATION Wolf Creek is located in the eastern half of Roanoke County 6~ yards off of the Blue Ridge Parkway motor road, and 1/2 mile north of Virginia Roue 24. The property is one mile east of Vinton, seven miles east of downtown Roanoke and Interstate 581. 1 -3- The site's slightly rolling topography is typical of V irginia's Shenandoah Valley and has influenced the form of many Virginia towns. Nearby Fincastle, Lexington, Bedford all exhibit character based on village patterns which have agricultural foregrounds and are sited on rolling telTain. ~t-1 W OLF CREEK biASTERPLAN ~ DE3IGN GUIDELINES MASTER PLANT Wolf Creek is designed as a series of neighborhoods responding to site conditions of the property. The neighborhoods are Oldtowne, Rockbridge, Cedardale, Beech Grove, Wolf Crest and Wolf Run. Each neighborhood is distinguished by housing type and roadway alignment. Village homes and deckhomes will be built under the supervision of the Developer. VILLAGE HOME NEIGHBORHOODS Oldtowne and Rockbridge are the two village home neighborhoods. Village homes are named for their distinctive placement in an intimate arrangement that draws on the land use patterns of European villages and colonial American development. Modeled after Williamsburg dwellings, substantial houses (1650 to 2150 s.f) of 1-1/2 to 2 stories are placed closely creating courtyards and motorcourts, with large blocks of common open space adjacent. In the case of colonial precedent, the open spaces were grazing and farmlands. In the case of Wolf Creek, these lands are dedicated park lands, wildflower meadows, and creekside walking trails. Each village home owns a small patio and has at least one reserved outdoor parking space very close to the house in a common motorcourt arrangement. Most village homes have attached garages. The garages vary between one- and two-car arrangements. Additional parking areas are provided for visitors. Two-home outdoor spaces are also frequent, programed for shared use between two homes, but owned and maintained by the homeowner's association, which also cares for exterior parking, private streets, sidewalks, other common areas and parklands. DECKHOI<1E NEIGHBORHOODS Cedardale and Beech Grove are the two deckhome neighborhoods. These areas are designed to take advantage of the slopes facing Muse's Dell on the southern property. Deck-homes are accessed in their center floor by a walk from private-street and parking areas. A deck is standard with these homes, lofted above the dell in the rear. Bank-garages are a feature of the deckhome areas. Every deckhome has one space in abank-garage, and an outdoor parking space in front of the garage. Visitor spaces are also provided. Deckhomes are designed to maximize the open land in common open space areas. The entire landscape of the deckhome areas is maintained by the homeowner's association. Cedardale deckhomes are 1600 - 2400 s.f., three stories in height. Beech Grove will feature 2-story deckhomes, 1200 - 1700 s.f. in area. -u- µ- I W O L F CREEK M A S T E R P L A N & D E S I G N GUIDELINE S SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS Wolf Run and Wolf Crest end in cul-de-sacs, creating neighborhoods of single-family houses. In contrast to the village homes and deck homes, which will be constructed under the direction of the developer, buyers may purchase lou in these areas and build their own houses. A set of design guidelines enforced by the Architectural Review Committee, will provide substantial influence and require that design concept and quality is maintained. ACCESS Access to Wolf Run is from Mountain View Road (State Route 651). From Mountain View Road, a two lane boulevard, Wolf Run, becomes the development's main street along which turns can be made onto Cedardale Street and Deer Meadow Street. W olf Run then narrows to two lanes, and Wolf Crest is accessed before Wolf Run ends in a cul-de-sac. A second entrance to a deckhome section of the development is off of Laurel Glen Lane. To ensure the integrity of the above stated design concept, a set of guidelines will direct the design and development of the plan. The W olf Creek Homeowner's Association will ensure that the guidelines are followed in addition to overseeing maintenance of the deveIopment's amenities. MARKET TARGET The mix of housing types, high amenity orientation and preservation of natural resources is intended to bring a variety of residents to the site. In addition to young families, it is anticipated that empty nesters and seniors will become site residents. PARK LANDS A 9.29 acre park featuring a wildflower meadow, mowed and landscaped areas, walking trails and a dry pond (which doubles as a retention area) will provide residents and visitors of Wolf Creek with the opportunity to enjoy the natural beauty of the Valley. The meadow is intended to be donated to anon-profit organization that will be responsible for its Gaze in compliance with National Park Service standards. The maintenance on this parcel will be through the homeowner's association. Trails and a seating area /gazebo are programed. A second group of pazklands include the streamside trails, that lead from the meadow to Muse's Dell and North Dell, with a loop trail for exercise and enjoying the scenery. Amenities along this trail include benches, foot bridges, tree labels, and flower plantings. These trails and parklands will be semi-private, in the care of the homeowner's association. An Open Space Masterplan follows the Wolf Creek Masterplan data on page 20. All park amenities are built by the developer, during Phase I of the project. -16- 1 ~, ~ ~ ~.: .,~ v~ (/1 F~~ -~ r / ~~ _ - -~_ ~ . ~ _ ~.. ~ ~ O . ~ o, `r~ J`/'-~, J~ 1 _ a / ,' ~` ~~: t ~~- ~~ ~~~ :~ o y - ~ -, _ ., . ~, ~~ 1 ~• _: ti . ~ \ o ,~' ./: . ;- /" ,, ~, .' ^~~/ ` , ~, i . ~ ~ d ' . y ~~1" y ~~ ~ tint i •~ , ~ ~ , ~. ~ r .. .~.. / .i ~ i '\ L~ 1 ==I~It_ / r ~/ / ~ i ~ ~ / ~ J . Q \ \ U 1 ri _ .~ ~ ' [[[~~~ ~ b ti's X .~' ,L. ).. mar '~ ~1 /; ___~ a -' c , 1 _ L\\ 1 1 _ _ o ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ Lr~~,' ^ O 'L' Z •r"\ ~``:.-'% ~ ~ -, __.~ Pie O ~ - ~ / yr .- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~, \ ~ ~ ~ O ._ ^ . 7 ~ 1 COC \ ~ ~ .G m - - , P I nry~ -r G t51 ~~00 °' a a '`~~ 2' ~ J ei p . ~ ~o .~ - ~ _ 0 z ~o ~_ ~ ~~ _~_ n ~ ~ µ-i NORTH . r .L(]ZJ I ] J jc . .. ,. IJO lZ<1 Cu ~~ ~~2] I II I 6 :,O 9 ~ </ ~~23 ~ ? zol - t a, ac a 1 ' 22 s 7 n 6 _ ~ ~. G ~ ' y, r Ot ;IIII .la! .al^ •Of. ,±. ~ l••• •~' pt CCl}` r 18 ~ .19.1 20 ~ ^ ~• - 7wm sao./nwms Ali}.; .! •la, .. .a0. ~aL Vol lr• .iaa :l. 7~E 75 'y I ,~ ..' %s~ • c, ;.:'ti fib bi so ' '1 al . .aaa ~ '~,~.'e`7' `A 'ti •n 70 ¢. rti 68• ~t' r .r~ .. ti 69 ~ s ' Grovn ~a . ^ • .}, .4 b . a4p .... .. 61 1 ..~ 61 •.~! . .}: 430 42:.41 ~' c;' v . '+'Ji 62 ~ S~ i57;_ IF • ao 53 f~0 Boa ,Q '. 27• , ~ / ~.` . } ..~ " .. ~ 38 ~~ +~ .rab1 4 59 . + 1 ,'3T ~+ Opp r Z . 11 pti • ~ ~ +., ~ 29 +~ ... y° }o ~• ~: " Y ~ lr ~ • i ~I7, 6',~t' ' ~ ~ +30 33 + .4 r [ ~4 } .. ~a S/~ + u.~ a• !~ • ado. .. ti ~~ .qG ~;. ti3 1 I I \J\ "~' 2 ./ i J~ ~ 33w ~ ~ to a"~ S 1 ~' _- c° ': C °O • 't39 ~ ~ l aru G /33.1 i 3a ~'S ~ '47 ~•~ ~ 9.. • si O I • p .x'40 ~ ~ w " , ~'.°.,~ / ~° ova • ° ~ ~' • ~ 55 ' ~ ,,l ` 3T ~ r a P - , 7 • J~ ~~ 411 • ~ !ra!' .... :a • Y. 4a ~ ~'~ `: a91` S ,6 `fit • [ 3's ~' ST • sit 1 ,.!}. a ~ 42 11.[ - agar ''. •,t .`tl /~ ~ .. all} , [S] } ~~. ~ ,~_ ~• y •~ l~. iv 71 ~ 9 •]j1] SI mss"' ;' 1 : ~ 2 , 70 ~' 3 yss~ ~yJ3$' ~ ~ • r ~• 4 8 ` !/M r s 2.eix ~ 63• ads .. ` r ~ 'L• bile %/ -~ j i/ 743' Glfn _r1 - 4.4 L,ep~s~ ~~ j ' ~ 74 a • 93 [ ~~ 5.12 x asaa' ~~ s al,~ 0 ~~ ' 93 [ •~a` A] ~' +' j 82 r ''a~aO ' ~ ~aa~ r J ~ ' .Ay _ Rt l03S ' ~ i ~ _ 89 ; ` 2 ,, r ~ 77 safiJ,'F it ~y , .] ~y.r t ~l B - l ~~ ~ :! _.:,. .~ Z.Z. 10.10 K. ~~ j 9 .1 LI }.v. g I r C ~ _ 1'f Oac '~ LNG ~ :.]oar. ~ i7 ~ V f~as ~ a,7~ 0 3 fry tsss 12 `\ ~ 130 t.,a s<. Ar }.O a< ~•. IQ P 'P , ! Z - agar A / ' ~ P~ m c 0 s•: I I c 1" { % ar. ~ J __ 7 ~'* DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING .~ /.. WOLF CREEK, INC. So.o4-3-73 R-t TO PRD .~ t• S COUNTY OF ROANOKE t DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. SV/ P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (703} 772-2030 rnlaP~ n~~~nrr ~" 1-24-75 /E ~ 1 For-staff use only ~J'((^ /VT~~ date r~e-Zed: ~~ received by{, applicatigh e- ~Y` O .' PCr~ZA da1:~ 9 - s yy pfaca ds -ssu d: BCS date:G ~- Case Number: 3 -. Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ~ REZONING ~ SPECIAL USE OVARIANCE Applicant's name: J~,dE r//.-5cti ~~~=Esc I Address: 3 / ;?~ F~ ~ f F5 ~ F_ ~~, ; J ,3~ ~ ~' • Phone: ;-'.~~'i,•/ -j%jl Zip Code: , ,;~: Owner's name: J~jP.;~ F/l/Sc'N /~-Ar ~yi Address: ~~/ a r~ ~f_'= :'L'z`'%i ~~~~ /~/ ~~• - ,`C~~~/'.IC'K~ lid - ~k'i /; r Phone: <%~=j~!-/--//// Zip Code: ~; C%~ / J ='; ~ Location of property: _ Tax Map Number: ~~ (, , G' 7 ~ ~- ~~ ~~7~ -~ `~~~'rd'~~ k`r~~l~ ~ X I ``'L~/ vxJ Magisterial District: (iii ! /G`~~ P N! ~ ~,~. Community Planning Area: ~_ ~j , Size of parce~l/ (s): , 1 d acres 4'L~S. ~?5~ sq.ft. Existing Zoning: /~ -! Existing Land Use: ~If ~/~ ~~;,u/ C ~, iJc.~`? CC f//C- :~: Proposed Zoning: ~ - ~ ~ - Proposed Land Use: I~ L G "1N - `~;,, NOrlSf /~S CAS%~S ~ ~. ~ /.1 L ~~ /~,C ! ~rrvT~t-L For Slaty Use On/y Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES ~/ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES ~ NO 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 Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan Application fee Application a~ Metes and bounds description ~.~ Proffers, if applicable Justification ~`~t Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners / hereby certify that / am either the-owner of the property of the owner's agent of contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and co sent of the owner"~ - i // Owner's Signature: ~ ~!// /.~~; -'-i / „~~/C~. _ . 1' 1 . Fir Staf. Use Only: Case Number ~~ Applicant ~,~/~•r /-/.%/~ :~ ~.. t'~f .~ The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine th.e need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and genera( 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. •~,~ >l~/~~c•'S< c/~ r~~ ~~i'~~;rLc= l~'i~ //~'f~Nc4 i,` r G Ur~•~%~ ~ ~' i-•j.•u ., ~~/ p_ .,r~Gl~4./`T`+~ lh~~ ~u ~~%:.'; F~ ~~~1~>F `~•`>, f%~'' ~'~G~l_`;•i-' r=~',~ 1 ~ _ ./ //'/~ ~ ~' 1 : ~ / '- r ~ ~ ~~~,~rt ~ D~ 1,1~~ `.; ~ .rev ~- ~ ,~,~ ~ vt` / i ~( I'.~111 ~ ~ //C T LOC~J ~ ~ty ~ ., , r ~ ~ G ~~ I Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. T~ s ~-/cG's s i''~'~~ 1~~~'~tt ,~ 1.3u~c T ~i ~~~ ~7 ~~,e/..~/~i~.~ ,~i~~'G ~X ~~~/ si'r~l t~,'r ~c. c. C~'C~JrG'~a_ ran ~J 6~- l f a `//~ ~'~'~ / ~ ~~" I C l f~ /I C ~ E' . ' ~ / f/ 1-(~ ~~ /'~(~'li(,~ `T C; ~ S >L1 ~.>~'~ ~rJ /~ L,c;f / C L S,•C C' ~ ~ li / ~ti //~~ 1 l~ 1 / L' ~ , \ L jC_, v 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. ~~` ~%y(~'>'_~ l ~~'~~~. ~ ~tG'l.'S`- ~S'~': ~~ ~i)~-'/~r`7~ /t:/' ~//C~'L ~ Tic`. Caf-'~,'~~~% ~~~~ ~ ~ G= /'„'L ~ ~/.~1: ~~~ ~ L. ;. l C.i ~~'~ l a ~~/_~+'~"'~/~_ i ~LJ ~r~lj f'~ ~ (,,~~ T'r ~ 5 ~' 1 / L S (, S / ~ /~ - l o? C G G G/~C CG.c.' ~ /~/~ C~ ` ,~F c 1 ~ . ' ~~~~/Ft f : /SCC'9a/. J ~j k'r~~i~{T~ w ~cC - `~C ~r,~'~ca~' .~s/' ~(%(,'~~~ ~. f>`~~; ~~~ti' ~f i~-~ti~ -4/Fcc ~~F/c~: ~ 1. QI Y` W ~~!!1 ~ ` NJ / ~..~\ ~l _2 ~ \ ~1 U ~~. -~ f. ~.:+ !~ Fr~~~ = s ;~:.; ' t l ~ • v I` y !1 ~ i ~/' V i~ \ m ,^ ~ ` •fi ~ \ 7~ ~_~ ` ~ry _ ~. • -e ee~i ~~_.•~•_. ~ V ^ ` h ~`~ t cOY7Y oc vo :' - • ° ' V .oi~ Q r . Y ~ . O _ a~:_ c Y ~~ O m C . l- ~ • ~ ~ ~./~=G W ~:'';3 T N~ Q Y 6 C`~ h~aCOV Vti ~' ~ o ~~`~v~~a ~ o` c . a-c. ~i • O ~ J ~ - c p ~ w) O :n :~ i ~ ` . t i o .~.. i - a -o-.- a tYh+~n ~~~ o..ao- s Vr?.~~R e~°o~ps. ~t<V:VV ~.°.os ~c~ V ~ Q ~` }`~~o ~~~ b O` W n ' ti V ; V b ^ ^ ~ O C O w . ~ m ' V l v ' ~ j C ti p p. Oe A • .Nj N O v ~ ~ M1 m ti '~• 1 ~ ~ JW D O ~ ~ p K r ' "~ ~ r ~ p a . w n v g ti p df w r C $ ~ o ~ t m a m O ff O, C V A ~ w ~ ~. ~ V ~ ~ 0 0 d rV. ~ M m ^1 ~ M p ^ QO N o . ,~' ~ V O `O ` 0 w h J r~ eo o- 3 ~+ ~ ~ `L` ~ m '`1 • :~ t ~ ~ ~- . - ` V `_~ C ~~. ~ ~C ~ v / ~ 1 _ ~ ` T ~ i ~ v b ~ '\ 3 L G~ e f t ~ ! ` / ` , ~ Q S ~ V = ~ ~V i ~ \ .. rr . ( t d i~ J~ ` ` e ~~ I ' l ' -a' 1 jF al ' d '_ y1 c, R~ ~J 9C~ iC^ ~ r '~• y e ~ ~ / `^ K tl1 r O - ' ~ ~~ _y 'v ~ J {_. I,.., iii j ~ ; T .. t s/\ 4~~ ~, rJ t ~{ {L / -~~ - 1 : \ fib` I fF ~ ! V ~C f ~ W O ~ ~~].;1 ~~W ~ 2 ' ~ ~ = S O ~ Q 318 ~ \ ~ C(W='-~ /i'p ~ i }' Wi~ouxi~ ~ / ! t / \ a ` v. ? g i'< I ~ •~ ' V ~ ti .. 1 = / • y /~ ~ `,' 1T3 CMY N/O/YYY 9 _ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ r ~~ s~ ~ ~ O ~ y ~..i is~1 -\ ~1 8~ BO/ ~! 677, 1.G-'f ~ ~ _ ~ ~ C' ~e sei~j g~oaa q ~0 4-i4 j gas:=mot ~~g;~; ~ ; ~~; rl ~ la_ `<; ... -~`<33a Z3s.pa a ~ - °S3 - s~{: a4Y ~ la~a~o~ {~;LSD. ~ ~ 7 oj~ ~ ~ Yt _° 1 ~ a •~ { 2 ,. _.._-. ~YB~ ~ ~ V`4U rC ~ C k:J jj ~'~ m R ~: \~ <Qa N 2` v . ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~` _`2 ~.;. ~ ~ 4 ~ y A~ ~ a ~ ~ O ' ~ 3 ~ 0 ~ N~ ~~ v va V o vo u Q~~ ~ " -`v }~. ~ W o ~ Y ~8 W ~ ~ ~ ~ ,\~ CZ Q~i ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ V I : ~ N S$ °Q ~ ~ ~ V Q ~ ~~~ ' ~F~ q< ZW ~~ ~ ~ y ~ r • ~ p~ o 3$~ ~ Lc 2 3 ~ ~ P v ~ ~ m = ? ~W ~ ~ _ ~ 4w ~ _ +?~ ~~ ~ 1?~ ~ -~ ~ ~~ ~ Qft . ~ O -~ O p_ c 2 .,. ~ .. ~ J " I w 1: ".tom...]: 'C~''~ _~"~-+ ~ ~ •;' f.;' Q.~ S G a pc' ~ e ~y' '~-•~ ~-~- Sri' Q ~ ,~~- N~ ~ ~ ~, M ~ ~ .~ti1 ~~ ~ Ap 6~ In \ • ~ O e~ Z O o~~ ~:_.:., =~ ~~'. ~ N -~ cs .::: 630 ~, ~P _ j2w ~lNaO _ .\~Vi .. .;~~pp \~ f ~•W ~::.N ~.: _ .° .r~v;;.a•N -~.. '-~Yl,~,~-~',- ;ate.-- . ~'~ ! ~ z ~ Q v. }. ~ fir- - ~~ • ' ,, • • ~/ p~~` -~-- N =tD'~ ' : - - • - ~y~P' QC? ~~~~~ :9.:~,vcr=y,: ~::.:: ~"(U;. . !~ X47 C9 • ~, ~ ~~~~ ovs:.. d, • mow... -.. ... ~ Opc ~ ~ 1.x~ ~'onra'.~J i ,.. V Q .+r~b .,' - -- ~ . ~,. fir.,. .t. \~~~ • ..... Q FWJ' i ~,`l" ~ ul > ~~~:, ::. 4 W ~_ ~ ~ ..._,. ~:~?;`..; ^.'tn , o ~ r' U1 , uJ1 . ? 4 ? ~ ~ ti.. W O W 0' 0 0 Q ~ ~ ~ ~t 1.56 .P~•_ ~ ~-~ NORTH ~~ ,; ~~ i i I I ~ See Map 76.03 1' 100' i . J See k I' i 1 _ ~' * DEPARTCg]~JT OF PZ.ANNI\G JANE ALLISON PARKER AND ZONING SPECIAL USE PERMIT 66. o4-t->> .n COL,..TY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING : ND ZONING 3738 Brambfeton ,-,v°. S'r'i .. P.O. BOX 2°800 Roanoke, VA 240 i8 -- . (703) 772-2068 .FAX (7031 772-2030- - 7 . ~~ :':~ Check type of application it d lcheck all that ap~iy}: ^ REZONING SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: McDonald' s Corporal i oIl Phone: Address: 2300 Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Drive Zip Ccde: 23510 Norfolk Virginia Owner's name: Tech Line , Incorporated ~ Phone: Address: 1511 King Street Zip Cade: 24153 Salem Virginia Location of property: Oak Grove Tax Map Number: 76.07-4-33 Plaza Shopping Center, D.;agisterial District: Windsor Hills Route 419 Community Planning Area: Size of parcel (s}: Existing Zoning: C-2 General Commerical Dis trict 3 .48 acres Existing Land Use: Retai 1 Sales sq.ft. _ .:N.• :~ r :l .f~• ~~. ~F-r. :•~:~: ~:•:•~:::: ~:::~:••::~::.••::::::.:': ~::':~••~•~:::::: ~:::: Proposed Zoning: C_ 2 Proposed Land Use: Restaurant • drive-in and fast food ~~ weft use oily Use Type: Ooes the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES x NO IF N0, A VARI:.NCE 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 prof;ere~ with this request? YES NO :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order tc: is the application complete? Please check if enc!csed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ~ /~""' l ws v ws v ~ . L Consultation 8 1 /2' x 1 i' concept pla Application fee Application >~ titetes and bounds description ~~`'~ Proffers, if applicable Justification ~~` Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby ce~ri(y that / am either the owner of the p~operry or the owners agent or contract purchatse~ and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Tech Line , ~~orp~ated Owner's Signature: By : '~~ Charles It't! Line, President Cat ~ eived ., f "_' L-. app caticn fe• ~ , ?C;flZ,; ca; plac~c ~f ~ I e.JS date~~ t ss~~ J Case h~mber: ~~ y ~ /f~ F:^~ S[af; Use 0n/y: Case ~:umbe: ~`^"^ ::::~~..,:rt.:~~:rl~,:f::.::er3,..:r.~~'f~l.,~s,:~.~:.~f~:..r';,~t~~.:~5~,~~,-r~......~.:>.:-~~~ :.x...f :.:.:.:.:.....:..::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Applicant McDonald!s Corporation -- 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. Flease answer the fcllc•::ing questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furhers 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. Applicant's request is for a use recognized in the C-2 general cotr~ercial district Flease explain how the project conforms to the several guidelines and policies contained in the F?oaneke Ccunty Comprehensive Flan. Applicant believes that its recuest will further the intent and purposes of the County's Comprehensive flan in that the property will be used in a manner consistent with the adjacent property. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on th=_ property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrcunding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parkslrecreatien, and fire/rescue. It is anticipated that there will be little impact on the adjoining properties as the shopping center use already exists and a traffic signal is already located at the intersection of Route 419 and Carriage Lane. ' GLE\\, FLIPPI\, FELD~SA\~ & DARB~ 200 FIRS2 C_~`~IPBELL SQL;ARE ' POST OFFICE BOX 2887 '~ R02\"OI~E, ti"IRGI\I ~ 24001 (703; 2~-8000 F~k:703i 224-8050 C. SHIREE*7 HAVES Direct Dial (510) 221-8013 August 24, 199 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Terrance L. Harrington Director of Planning and Zoning Roanoke County Department of Planning and Zoning 373 8 Brambleton Avenue, S . W . Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Re: Special Use Permit Application Dear Terry: Enclosed please find a Special Use Permit Application to be filed on behalf of McDonald's Corporation. The application requests a special use permit for the location of a drive-in and fast food restaurant at the Oak Grove Plaza Shopping Center. Enclosed are the following: 1. Application signed by Charles K. Line, President of Tech-Line, Inc., the owner of the property. 2. Six copies of the concept plan consisting of the site plan and elevation plan. 3. List of adjoining property owners, including owners' names, addresses and tax map numbers. 4. List of adjoining property owners including zoning and land use and copies of plats showing locations of adjoining properties. 5. Our firm check in the amount of $40.00 for the application fee. GLEti\, FLIPPI\, FELD~S?~ti\ ~'' DEBB'Y' -_ ;Vis. Terrance L. Harrington - August 24, 1995 Page 2 6. Letter of support from Charles K. Line, President of Tech-Line, Inc. 7. Estimates for daily traffic. Please note that the estimated percentage of cars which will be generated daily by the restaurant at Oak Grove Plaza Shopping Center are less than 1 as follows: Weekday - .78 % Friday - . 87 % Saturday - .77 Sunday - .62%. The applicant also submits for consideration the following estimates of yearly taxes, fees and employees. The taxes and fees are annualized and based on current County tax and licensing codes. Yearly Estimated Tazes and Fees Meals Tax (4 % of gross sales): $40,000 Rebated state sales tax (1 % of gross sales): $10,000 Business personal property tax (53.50/$100 value): $ 5,000 Business License ($.20/5100 of gross sales): $ 2,000 Utility Consumer's tax (12%): $ 3,500 TOTAL COU~~ TABS AND FEES: 60 500 Estimated Employment Full-time Employees: Part-time Employees: 6 45 TOTAL E1~IPLOYEES: 51 GLE\~, FLIPPI~, FELD~i ~\\ ~ D ~RB~" ~~~ _ IV1s. Terrance L. Harrington August 24, 199 Page 3 McDonald's is always very supportive of local charities and schools, and will be happy to provide additional information on its many contributions to the local community. Thank you for your consideration of this application. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours. GCJV t 1~~~~- C. Shireen Hayes CSH:d1p:3186000 Enclosures cc: Mr. John G. Emig TECH LINE, INC. 1511 KING STREE T SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 ~ ~'~ (703) 389-0857 FAX (703) 387-0726 - August 9, 1995 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Planning Commission 5204 Bernard Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 RE: Application for Special Use Permit McDonald's Oak Grove Shopping Center Gentlemen: I am the owner of the Oak Grove Shopping Center in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County. The center was developed in the early 1960's and, we hope, has served the neighborhood well over these many years. Currently, the center is in need of upgrading and improvement. I am committed to taking those steps which will, once again, make Oak Grove Shopping Center a first-class shopping center for the neighborhood. Critical to my project is the construction and operation of a McDonald's restaurant. That restaurant will be located in the now- vacant space formerly occupied by Super-X. Securing McDonald's as an anchor tenant will permit me to continue the upgrading of the Center. I am pleased with the com-aitment and efforts McDonald's has made by designing its restaurant to complement the Center and the neighborhood. I expect the improvements made by McDonald's to provide short-term and long-term benefits to the Center. I appreciate your consideration of McDonald's request. very truly yours, ill` e Charles Line CL/sse z:\Wp50\steph\line.Ltr:sse08/09/95 /~-3 ESTIMATES FOR DAILY TRAFFIC 05;21:95 1;:56 X80-! 610 3d15 ~cDO~iLD'S FUC-21-1~ 10~ 51 t'cDG~~ Mz k=L ~.t-F"Nt ~.[ DS. GZS CSC-: °_ S.G. VA [~:..`! ':nu"z:G trot' - 33000 YS.lZLY y'^...L ~~ - $10D0000 Y'S.' 1V~..;o CHE`.:3 - s 3.15 - -. GL~ CC-~:'S BY FD:.'R CG :He JY pew: r:.xx: rurrsc r.:xs D.11:.Y SZ'Q7Ci i.LT.. :A.`2S T'VIAi/ GL"ltxll. J. bl GEiETUTED BY ZDtE S.l'.3.5 S1LZS C}t.Z'7c Cdr GS U7t] M~1a L.3 ~TiLD'3 6 AC - AK 2.30a 5 63 LI .' 24 l.ll 2a 24.-5 6 7 AK - e AX i.70a S 1]i 52.17 Si 1.11 5] 23.°t ~ B Atl - 3 Tts 5.5at 6 150 6:.;: :9 1,1I 62 23.63 28 9 AX - to AY l.aae t Si7 t2.1~ as 1.09 a2 2a_!e 1s to Ait - 11 Arc 4.60t 8 126 f:.;. SS 1.09 7] 30,23 2: 11 A]L - 12 ?!f t.20t S 22a f3.<1 62 1.15 Sl 31.75 29 1's tN - 1 (1t 12.lOi 5 352 d3.f; 9II 1.15 BS 41.71 35 1 Hf - 2 -M 1.701 7 33A SS.6. 66 1.1a sa 38.4 ]] 2 D'ii - S Tic S. EOa S 158 f:.93 54 l.ld 47 32.lt 15 3 M - ~ n 5-OOt S 137 52.93 t7 l.li 41 31.Ot 23 a P!S - 5 F2S S.00a S 137 SS.6v 3Y 1.07 Si Z1.lt io 5 ?N - 6 FY 6.903 S 18a 52.60 52 1.07 4! 31.11 15 e % - 7 FM 7.301 t 1!9 /3.f0 SS 1,11 50 S3.Ct 17 ? t+4 - 9 tic 5.80i S 158 53.60 at 1.11 40 33.2a la i PH - 9 Di[ 5.1Oi S 139 53.60 39 1.25 ]2 ]S.S1 13 ? !'s - 10 is a.10t S 112 53.30 34 1.22 2A Ss. is to 10 Fir - 11 tic 2.60• s 71 t5.30 22 1.21 11 ]i,it 7 11 Fit - 32 7x .SDY S 1 53.3D 2 1.23 2 il,lt 1 12753 t3.C! EJ6 1.11 79o a7.6t 250 PF3iG87T OF pAtr.v 2'e'USrt-C Lr"NaA.711rdD 3Y r3 - .794 ~~~o Fj o ~~ / X002 F. ~~~ .ZS35'• µ-3 os;2l;ss l~:a~ ~so~ sso ~sls ~cDO~~1.D•s ' Flir21- i SS5 10 51 I"ic 1~Cf~IF L.rS h'.~ r ec e : DIiLFTNT c~c eec:s s. c. vA `Ul.-:.Y TRxFY~e rC-'V^ - 33000 - --. YL12:.Y 5"J'-~L7~ - 51000000 YSx r» C`:X..7 y' SY hLCR QY 1!~IE ~^.1'! F7C1UY P~tLEYS >01tC1Y:' 7AAFFZC G]RS GII.Y 5'T07~ Avr, LE7+`il 'S731L~%5/ Gd~4~'-~ DY G~T:9 HY rafs szxas suss cs.^zz rnw*z cu rav ; xC~i-OL kC~t?inLDs i Alf - 7 AY 2.101 6 70 51.32 30 1.11 27 23.0• 6 7 Akt - H Az 4.401 ! lab 52.32 d3 l.ll 57 Sl.lt 32 R ,1l - 9 Alt 3.1 Ci H 17i E1.i1 76 1.11 6B 21.]1 16 9 Alf - 10 Alf s.lo1 3 iTd 52.3] 7d 1.0! '0 27.41 29 SO Ax - 11 Alf •,6Ci S 133 53.32 46 1.09 dl 29.98 18 11 AK - 12 P!S 7.da1 S 753 53.5_ 72 1.15 65 31.ei 2G 12 !N - 1 PM 11.10 S 403 53.3: LSS 1.15 100 3l.Ot 39 1 PH - i -N H.H01 9 X93 5.3.51 !3 1.18 73 37.11 =7 2 CM - 1 M1 :,00~ £ 200 s3.1< 64 2.14 56 33 .at 1A 3 PN - a PN a.804 3 160 33.13 51 1.18 45 2t.at 13 4 h7 - ! PK 6.807 5 160 S3.E7 41 1.0: 3H iB.68 11 S Tw - 6 Pst 6.501 b 216 33•~T SS 1.07 52 3J.7t 16 4 P1! - 7 P!f 7.SOa S 350 53.67 65 1.11 54 32.34 19 7 !!! - i P7 i.aOR ¢ 213 S3 ,a7 SS 1.11 SO 3l.]2 17 H DN ~ 9 FN 5.301 S 176 53.2: 85 1.23 37 3:.53 18 ! hS So L^f 1.30i S 143 53.36 ~] 1.23 SS 32_ds 11 10 Y!1 - 33 17f 3.301 5 103 53 _36 31 1.33 35 37.3f 9 11 >+[~ - 13 YM 1.204 i a0 S3.3i 13 1.23 is Jl.4S a :1111 57.1! io« 1.11 92S S:.Zn 209 PF7tC'IIJS OP DAbY ZRAFPSC' QOIflC.4:17 ]Y NC~ClD~LD3 - .87t 5~~~ ~~ ~Q iiii „,, ~ooo F. E23~~ ~~~s337 08%21:95 1i:47 ft'C-21-1~_.5 1051 z3~ z:. re c~ ~.cv_- s.e_ yr E:l.L'.F _Si7t~IC CC~= - 3J000 Yt_l.Zi.! :'~?.~ - $:D00000 7.:57 xv~e1:.2. G4tCX - .. 3..5 'd'80~3 6~0 X616 ~CDO`:LID'S I"cDCtir'~DS ~''~ i•cet 1X.`t..°^l~ C\2 ~'t'tt_i -Y TaL1A CP '!R2 B.AY SNTG7lLS~Y ?4kk=!v exz:.F srou >•~. : z+u~ls rax7rst 'S1HG 5x_7;3 Puss C7i~5 e :ueor eax eaxs 6 xx - 7 An 1.i0t S i0 f2.9: 22 1.11 19 x71 - A 7171 a.iaa S 137 52.9: 47 1.12 42 7 xtt - ! T?( G.40t S 21i C2.9: ?3 1_11 eb 9 SEI - So xy 7,sot i 26D i2.9/ B9 1.09 81 10 J~li - 11 7125 o.90a r 226 2.l1 7e 1.09 72 11 x71 - 12 Fx 7.60t 5 25] b.s _07 62 1.15 Sa 22 2S! - 1 P!! 11.1oY 370 SLOT 91 1.15 71 1 m - 2 r97 9.SOt f 3:o fi.c7 16 i.it 67 2 P91 - 3 471 7.30a S 2a1 33 .!I 66 1.14 Si 3 4ES - d 1'tl 5.503 f SES f3.~i 50 1.14 l/ a P7e - 5~ PY s.D04 S 167 S3.7a 45 1.0'% a] 5 P!S - o l?!! S.~Oi f 1T7 51.74 {7 1.07 44 6 !+/ - 7 Pw 5,701 3 190 53.74 S1 1.11 4f 7 YK - S D7/ a.70a r 197 s].7a a] l.ll 7i 8 YES - 9 SK 1.001 S 133 33.71 36 1.23 29 9 }Y - 17 FY 3.SDt S I17 Si .]5 35 1_23 i3 1o ret - 11 vet 2.~et 3 90 53.35 27 1.23 Z] 11 PM - 12 Px 1.lOt 5 17 57.55 11 1.23 9 53323 53.5`- 9a7 1.13 Eal PSPC~r^ 04 77TZZ.Y TAl~F?ZC GI27s~74ATTJ' CF ~JGl7xI.a5 - .77i P f_R. E\. TRAFT~ZG hooxn~ 2T.4Y 30.64 30.ia 29.31 27.5 2+1.:• 3D.Si 21.94 29.02 27,9s 70.21 32.Tt ]1.60. ]4.9Y 2~.os 37.it 36-6t 3S.3a 30.4Y ~00, F.2~= f~-3 T.6'Si UU~9 G?..7EF.1^~ BY E:cncytu.ns 6 23 2~ 2a 21 13 2a lA 19 12 13 14 15 1] to 10 a 3 256 /~ ~~ , ~ •~~ ~~ os:2i;as l;:a; ~soa sao psis scDO~ ~~s F~ 21-1`.~SS 1@:5e' t"cDC3~o-7LD5 t"arket DU.R"NT a=~~.lc ~. ovc cac:: s.c. yr GI:LY TRAFFIC C:w7': - 37000 - -~ Y-~~Y VC1GlSE - (1000000 p£N e1.k -ttra IIT ~~ ee -rxP osr S~'CJ~Y PSR~s`7T CAS:.Y S7Geis ~:G. M ANS ^AklLS/ SI3(" 5a:~~ SaI.E.: L"i°~ C 7GSt: CJ~7. CARS 6 A`1 - 7 111L 1.1Di S 27 53.01 ! 1.11 8 7 J,y - ~ TLS( 3.101 ; 7E 53.x: 2$ 1.11 21 a JUI - ! A!{ 5.60, s 117 6.7 , 02 a5 1.11 l l ~ .trl - 10 Alf 1.001 $ SDS 51,77 CS 1.09 fD ;o AN - 11 ,Vt 8.101 5 198 S3•c2 66 1.09 61 it 711•: - 12 FH 7.307 S 177 f3.l/ at 1.15 36 13 Ptf - 1 F2l 10.101 5 216 s3.91 53 1.15 55 1 PK ~ 2 t>t 9.a0t S 22f 51.l; 39 1.1a SZ 2 DY - ~ P2f 7.SOi f 18? 63.56 SS l.la [5 DD - 4 P!~ 6.2ot s iSl S3 .S: a2 1.1a 37 6 Dx - S 9x s.eat f i32 S3.J) J7 1.07 is S PlY - 6 PY 9,DOt 5 141 S3 .Sf ]9 1.07 36 5 PK - 7 PY 7.lOt 164 $i.5? 60 1.11 35 7 DM - a Pt4 s.60t f 11D :I_Sf ]7 1.11 31 S lY7 - ! Pet 6.907 ^v 119 r3.=: 73 1.21 27 9 ?Y - 1J ?tl 3.301 s 13 71-]~ 2a 1.13 23 10 PK - 13 DH 2_10t S 51 53.36 16 1.33 13 li PY - 17 2'!S .30t S 7 S3 _i- 3 1.53 ~ 52437 33. « 701 1.12 6:7 7~LCII'7: l>f DASLY TRAPPZC ta"~F.IiATz.9 'r. !s-"7DN?t.~5 - .52e OOJ F.e~~ /f ~ X635' r[(j ~ p ra,.ov. SRk:ZC C7u2S yCDG~I7l+.7.: !(C7CRiai.C9 a3.]t 3 39.9t 3 35,6t is si.at 20 33 ,8t 2i 30.Ot 11 ,6.i! 15 16.77 la J..si 12 17.67 10 30.6a 11 32.St 13 33.St 13 37.~t 13 39.~~! 11 39-St ! a1.7r s a6.04 1 32.8t 20S ~ ~ ~N~y ~ ~d 2 a li ' '~ G ~. •, i~ D :~ -'r; iy < ~: C 11 h y c 'I h ~ v ~ .I ~ I O 'i ~- ~ p l 0 _ a h I '~ O O ii • 2 h ~, ~I i .1, ~ ` ~ J f• ~ ~~ 'I _ ' ~~ - - ~ e - = I ~ ~ _ -~ ~?~u .~. . r - c 4~~`' .~ ~ "-'~~ J a I a ~= j o ~ ' '` `~r~.~cr ~~_- :'~ Y - C . ~ v C.i G C < V _. J C ~ ~ _ ~ ~ n _ c G 2 C C ` C s 2' c ~U-~ QQ zJ O~ OQ U ~ ~~ ~~ Cn ~ O ~ 3 i ~J ii I !' - i .I I z__ -« C-.'.. -_C7 Y 1 :~rt,.~-a, y ~i!c~'*Y'"`'~,; OU ~~° ~~3y~ ~ r~:.t=' ~4i~~"_c.?t^: ' ..YL.~~~~3~ti_~-~WW. IFG'~"'~ of"w.SYI~~~tt~~~~"V _ 1,C O .J~~T'.0~2.t_- v ~~~~~:~1'O':y ~j~:~O ~i4~Y~24'S.: `!=.i~ O :o ' z `I z ~'`~'~'~••~.~~iw-~'s_~~i~,:+~3~.~ ~,5-~ ~.~ ~~-`~."-a :..~ .f y=: ~fi''^:=- Z c7 ~ In iv j~ 3 ~•o ~°'€~d:- Spur =r,.~ c~; : :~~..`~:,.~_._ 1.~ ter.:;_'~"_>--_c: . G W z ~I :~ t_ i 11 II i ;, I II I I V.- t u S Z ~ tii. ~. r. o . ~ ti. ~ ~~ ^+. ~~ W ~. J ~ ~ ti -~ ' - j ~ ~ ` - o ,-:.> ~ ... .r ` _.,r:;: ~, . .:.ms's; , : V ; < a < z .. . L N OU ~ ~ _~ ~~ ~ ~~ 'S I ~ 1 j ~ ~ ry C S O a ~ n I l_ 1 -- t9g~C .¢-.0"OZ -~ c - -.0'C£:•,{ `.'rte 3 j 3o a~ lo ~ I - ~ ~ 6 ~ .<.- J ~'a ~ Q , ~ o ...v , ~ ^ j~, ~. O I II ~ ~ ~ ~ / '` ~ / 1. ~ I I b h nh~ ~ m~ } r'1G...~:.r .OZ: \ 1 O 0 ~ ~~ Z4V W C, =~~ L i .. ~ p L ~ ~'a OV Z .^_~__ .--ZD_. ._ . . O uc -G Z- ~ _ _ _ _ .. _ - z N1 W Q< ~1W .__ . .._._._ __ _ - _ - ~ i _ _ .. _ _. _ ....U 2 ~N ©~a ~~ ~o ~ I~ . ._ =~0 N~ ~ I ~ C _ ~ X W ~ . ~ _ ' - - _ - ~-~ I~ NORTN o~ X00 20 ~f ~~ ./ .,:, / 33.!~ o ~:fc roo .~ Ooh Giare E/t lnenleir / s~i ' / ScAoo/ / %'~ i 1 J7 / ~ Cavn/r ScAao/ Bao/J P• ` ~ \ i o/ Roono+i Gzn/ 34 L \~p di G.e. ~ ~.~ Y - .o~ r \ P/are, •~ 2° \ i 6 ~ .~ s/zi _ ~, - 1 door 2 ~ ~ 1 ~ c'-~ . .. ~•c , ~ , _006,_ ~ - ~ .. - ~ ` `_ _, ...• , y 1 ~ ` / 3c76 __~ \ 300/ - % Jlof ~: 3 r sots o. ~o \ J!!9 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~f~. 16 ~.. ~ a 977 ~ ~ • .~~ _ ~'' - ; :::. ~_ C, 7 \ n 2 tea. zs •'s : .~;~° -" _ 'JlJJ / ./ JICi _ ••t :° 14• I / J/JC9 ~~%,Jl796, J!/9 5 1' S sl: .+ / / S:/J v !J9 ~ `/\ ~ - 24 31 970 _"~ cv 10 ' ~n:a . Jic7-`~~. \ silo 25 ( 3 ~.~_-. :,~. ~ =J,7a 6 _ I _ S/J' ~ J_ ,~; ~~ slz9 12 I 12 ~\ ~ 14 _ ~ .a~ ~ R ll' 3iJJ 8.... / . 13 ~\ \~. F~ F C~ c ~ \ • MCDONACD'S CORP. r ~' ~ DEPAR'I'hff~~1T OF PLANNING SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND ZONING 76.07-4-33 ~~ I a`O ~~ von 0 ~o;P 2 0 ~\ o' ~~.~\~\,l - J /t\_: '~~ r~.s / \'t`' :~ /~ • \ i •... COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. SW P.O. Box 29800 -, Roanoke, VA 240'18 ,~/ (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 ~j. ~-• ~, Far staff use only date i received by: appli ation fe PCiBZA dat placard i ued• OS da fir, i Case umber. ~~._ 1 1 ~"' Check type of application file (check all that apply): ^ REZONING LSd SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: ~onna ~fz`e~ Address: ~/ / ~~~7G~~ I / / ~~,3 ~d/7Sc?G~ R4 i VA Phone: l~7-SS/,~ Zip Code: ~ ~~~~ Owner's name: D /vJ ~fz/mar 1~ ~ ~~~~ /~l -~fz/ti Address: Phone: Zip Code: Location of property: Tax Map Number: _ _ ~ S ~(0/,3 /36/~SdG~ JZc~• Magisterial District: ~ ~ S Community Planning Area: ~rJSdc~C Size of parcel (s): /'77acres sq.ft. Existing Zoning: R' l Existing Land Use: .. Proposed Zoning: Q~` t)v ~ .~ Proposed Land Use: ~~iUN~,~ ~ ~QcJAr~ ............................. For Staff Use On/y Use Type: Does the p cel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the r nested district? YES _~ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO Variance o n(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 ~~~ Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan Application fee Application ~>:. Metes and bounds description ~<K< Proffers, if applicable Justification ~~ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and co ent of the owner. Owner's Signature: J ,. ~Q0.r S.CS ~ - _ - -_ - - _ _ - - - __ ~.~_ ,~rcn.~1~ - ~~-- ~---_f e~~,c.~es ~_ . a _ _~c ~ a I _ _Use- --- -----___ _ __ • _ : ~ ~ n1 ~~ - ~t~r _ a _ ~ r . ~d~~E 1-~~e n rte l ~r v~ ~d - --5 c~ c~~ 5 . -- - - _ _ _. _ . -~L.e S~ ~o~ S - a ~'~ _-~..e,~5- ~ _ ~ ~ d p _ YLL~ ~~c-T~n~_ __ ~_ ~0_ _ - - - -- _ _ _ _ _ -- ~ n,~o Carr rnerc C ~( br~~~~ . _ - _ _ _ ___ - --- - _ _ _ _ ~.~e ~e ~ _ we _ ~,` // -1~~ gel/ ~~ '~l c~2_ C~ e ~ ~~~~(e- ~~s - - _ -- _ __ `, ~h f'vZ~i2r dirt /!Jcf_ c~- .~rc~~l~Le--_~~~°n~t~~-• - (J~.__~~/~__-z_ ~nS -- -- --- _ _-- .~/ V 1 / . - --- -- ~L1a~_ dre__(J7~ _ Ye~Ui_rcd___Q~~ ~ ~~~2_ ~2t'~/?e~Cz~- ~i~---ft---.----__- ~- - - --- - - - _e a~~.------~~i~ _ dens--c~rc___C.~~?neci~_/~~~~a%'~--._~ thc_ ~~c~i~x~ ------------ f • - -- - ' -._ .~-- ~ X CCC D2~%c-~---~e/~tt~1!~Q'_._d r~ _Curnp~3fiea'__So_ a_S._ /1o--t_ ~ _Crea ~ ---------------- a_~edLfl - ~ a~~~~.--- ---- _ -- ----- ------ __ -~~ _~~en.s__.dre__!n__~`~ie__~Jd~k---o{_ov~.~~kse.~_Ct~own_a_Sfee~ --------------- --- ---_ __ _ } _embaH..E~ne.~-f_,_ ~ _ Cfc.<.--ale---~a~ye_~'~a~ a,~e~_ cl~~se__fz~ a _~e~.~.- -------------- _TI1~s___a,-ea _ C a~?rca-f_/e_ .See.2 _~-r~rn _z~/.e--- ~c_a_c~ e%~rm-n_ar~ _d{_----- --- - ___ - _ -_ Oc'-r--/1~_~-ri~~r/YS--- ~x_f~e~---~~- ~---L<~sP~ ~e~LJ__ ~6(S_n/;Yc~-7~_~~~°r~/%P~---- ---- ---- ----_ _ _ _ _._L~l2t-lQ____~L<71/~t%LZ!Ci__a/i_~~~5~~.-~._/z/r'~/1Gr/Y1dYe--mpSl`_.~C~2/~_i/)~-----_____--- w~~u~cl b~ ~~~~a~n-eo!-.,~~_f~~e.--,dam- _~ Surraundvk ---gees - ,- -- - _r.~1h.~cG~. a~E_ ~5_ ~__~a EvraL ~o~~c~__darl~er_,_ __ /,~Je_/are_nea-ec__.____------- ---__ fia~/ ~r~ ~~e~~~.~~n-,s cc~rn~/~~ lti _~w._~/ce_~, as_f _ ~~_ ~s __ o{ /?~~k_~ - _ ~~e~t ~/ww- ~i~ %~S_ Dave ycne _1,/~lc~. ~~z~e~-_h~vis~_ ~r'~rh~d_ - - --- - /'oSSv/>'~ Lk.-C/j~eir v2K •_. -_L!'~__!!1al!~ LJ~I~_/~/1~d~O -dO%s f~-fKr~/1G--- - -_.._ _ h~o5~ /~~rF ~hfy hay/~ ~x1y_ GJhen_ ~_ -3~/di~er 0~' S~!dnye-_ .di?1~?(__ _ _- Ccm~cs ,rr. fie yard.~~- -z'~f e~~e~a ofsevere_ ,bar/u~?y_ ~__ _. ___ _ Cdnzp/a~',4.fs ~e can.. l%~,~ ~_ t/~_ c!o9s_ ~~ --~~~ house--.~ -z`'y. fa - - - _ C r~~rd~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ LtiI a~ - _ _ j ~~ ~, ~ ~ f ~~ ~`- ~ ) ~~ r ,_. .~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ i`, . ~ ~ l ,~\ ~ ~ -~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~__,~ ~ - ~~ ~' __ ,~ ~\ ~~ ~ , '~ ~ '`' __ ~- ~ ~~ ~ ~_ a \ ~ ~., \ U ~ ~ \ GL- ~ ~ ~ ~} ~, ~~ ) : ~ ~~~~, ~~ ~ ~ ~J ~~ ~ ~ ti 4 i \ ~ ~.~ a~~c~~ a -~~ ; ~ ,. o :~ ~-~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ i `~~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s ~~ ,;.., i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ " ~~ , ~,~ ~ ~~~ i COUNTY O~ aOANOKE bi=PT. O~ PLANNING AND ZONING 8738 i3rAmbleton Ave. SW P.O. 13ox 29800 aoanoke, VA 24018 _ (7031 772-2068 FAX (7031772-2030 For sta/f use only 111 "":~ dote re received / epplieetion,Ya~ "~~ PC~/~ , piece s u 5 ~ ~///•~ Case Number: ~~~ t II ! I I. 1 I I I I 1 III I III 111 I I i . (~!! II ! ~ I I {I! (`f{ '~ I li,li I ` ~! iII~ i` . ' •' iii ~gi~ll~Il~II~~II:;I~1~If I lllll I iEI"~ I ~~l~ii`i`i~~i~i~ '' ':i" "• I:' II !!I'll III•- II j I iijii.. i latL•iscjtpjl~tl~It~~:~ii:l:~!Ii~ 'i""" jIf jilflll ill' I tILIH:::j:qli:~ ' ' Ii:,i Ill;lj ,lal{jl j If j I ll{a:11t{IIp{~:IIItIL~~II I I IjE`~j IIlII ~I:Ii:~IEIE:E~ I ' ' 'i i ii:::: !ilii':i:!i;ii!:ii::::::::::::~:::: I',I I(il Ill;jlj,!!IIE!li.!I:;`:!::::!:€;<ii I~:I~j.ll~fi:i:;.;.,1,.!f:q.d :.:::.:.::::::::::i::.;:;.;,:. Check type bf 2pplic2tiof, filed (check all that apply): L~ZONING ~7 SPECIAL USE ^VALIANCE Applicant's name: Jones & Jones Associates, Architects PC Phone: 366-3335 Address: 6120 Peters Creek Road, Roanoke, Virginia Zip Code: 24019 Owner's Hems: -Gene D. Lucas ! Phone: 563-9098 Address: p, 0. Box 6313, Roanoke, Virginia ~ Zip Code: 24017 Location of property: Tax Map Number: 28 , 05-1-9 Intersection of Williamson Road and (Route 11) and Summer View Drive Magisterial District: Hollins Community Planning Area: Peters Creek Size of parcel (S): Existing Zoning: C-2-C , 3.09 9creS (:xiSting Lend Use: Undeveloped Sq.ft. i:'l • I : • : : { , : e : ,. }. •,., i'i:i i'i!° '~ii'!ii'!iii 'i•I I I'f•'' ! ii"iIlIE!"iiiiliil'.f°iiiiEii!ii;!:li 'I I'•I'f°iilli'!il`+i "il'~'!i::ii iiiiii°I~ t°iii:iiFiii°i°i'i'iiiiii!!i!ii ! III I h ' I 1 :I~~ I i ~ i 'I Il.:,..i.., dl.. i.. ,...I f I { I I: I u , :. : III 1 ({. y I : : i ``:.::;.;::.iii;i;i::;i;. 1 III I ,I I :I II { :l ' I I ~! i 1 i 1 jfi i j il l~~ lll ' ~ , ~ I ~• (I ' i .li i' .! I t 1 II i liflliiii!ieiii;i:iS;:;iElliiI iillli lii Iili l ill l . PfOpOSeff Zt)ning: C_2_C ..................Y........., For StaN Us• On1 Proposed Lend Us9: Office, Convenience Store, Food Sales Use Type: Does the p9rc21 (nest the triinimum lot area, width, 2nd frontage requirements o f the requested district? YES X NO IL Nv, A VALIANCE IS LEQUIRED FIRST. (7oeS the p2rc21 meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X NO tF NO, A VAaIANCS IS a[:OUIpED PIRST. If rezoning tequASt, 9rA Conditions being profferAd with this requestl YES NO X ;:::;::•: •: : , • : : • : : •:: •' •':::::':':': :• :I s :::i: i:i ij '!iE•i:i•i•i'iii:••i:i:i:i'i iii I i'i ii!ii .•.sl:i: Ii f ::ti:liilli;il:Il II iI I Ii ll! iI iI ! 111 llil fl I iii :i. Ili j'i'i:. It!ili::,;,;.!.I.:.l.tlltlll.. {:: . I... ;,l,;.i•:~!~;..It.. • .:I, ,i iII.I.,,I, j.. :i : I i ;: ! ; :I ,si i :E:i:i':::i.:Ei:l•.. E,Iiiiiii;:iji,:.: ::.ii.:.:ii:ii`IiIIIi.i•I I ::::I:!:ii :i : ~ I ~ ~ i' i ~:Ei'iii!ii:i:':Ei.iiiiSi:E~!i!:is::i:i:i:i:::i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:; ..:::.!.::::t:•,E:,.i:::::=isfi:::is9,-;;i;i;:::::;i ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. sll:~::.::.:..,:ii :::.::...:.:.:...:..........:.:.:. . ` . : : : lli:Eii:¢;;:p,isi:;:!i.:l:':.:U•I::::::E:I:I:IN,tt::r,::el:aii:hsu:;:i::.lEasiciy:r•:r:;:::c:i::i:p:i:.ipiiEEiii?i i! : i ri ..iI :i !.' iei:::::::!:IiaEil:ililE Il Variance of Sectionis) of tale Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: is thA applic2tion complete? Pleasa check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEM5 ALE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. , N! V X ConSUlt2tion X Application X Justification N! V N; V 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan - Application fee X Metes 2nd bounds description Proffers, if applicable X Water and sev:Ar application X Adjoining property owners l hereby certify Chet l ~m either the owner of the property or the owner's event or cont~acr purchaser and am 9ctinD with the know/edD~.A~d,consent.,d~he bwnB~. Signature: Richard L. Jones, Jr., AIA Architect Jones & Jones Associates, Architects PC Ths planning Commission will study re2oning end Special use permit requests to determine the need and justific2tion for thA change in terrti3 of public health, Safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions 95 thoroughly 9s possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please Axplain how the i•2qu@st ftlrtherS'the purposes bf the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) 2s well as the purpose fouhd•2t the beginning d# the 2pplicabie Zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. Summerview Creekside is a multi function development which includes office space, a Convenience Store, food sales, and open space in a harmonious environment. The praposed development. will maintain portions of the site as open green areas ~thile offering services needed by the surrounding corranunity. This project specifically addresses sections 30-3 (A)1, 30-3(A)2,~~30-3(A)3, 30-3(A)6, 30-3(A)7 and 30-3(A)10 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. PIe9sA 9xplain how thA project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County ComprehenSivA Pien. The subject property is designatec~.~as transition land use in the Roanoke County Compresensive Development Plan. Thy transition guideline's encourages this type of development. Specifically this development adheres to policy guidelines as follows: (A) TR-1 prevent h~pli~zard sprawl;•TR-2 encourage,retail•ttses in planned groupings; TR=3 use frontage for office facilities; TR-S limit' conversion of detached housing unit into retail and office; TR-7 coordinate vehicular and pedestrian movement; TR-8 enhance. the duality of highway frontage by limiting signs and landscaped yards; and TR-9 maintaining screening and buffering along property lines adjoining residential uses. Please describe the irrtpACt(S) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding 2re2, as well 9s thA imp9ct~ ort pti6lic Services end facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recre9tion, 9nd fire/r~SCUA. The development will have a.postive impact on the surrounding area. The services offered by St~.mmerview Creekside arE~ directly connected to the needs of the surrounding community. The utility infrastructure is in place surrounding this site and is adequate for this F~roject. The conceptual site plan for this project indicates open greenway space along Tinker Creek. As part of this development the Owner intends to provide picnic table and seating for this green area. Applicant Jones & Jones Associates, Architects PC (Project: Stursnerview Creekside) • ~tOANO~CE COCJNTY ' CITILITY DEPART?iBNT ~" APPLICATION FOR i•tATER OR SEw'ER SERVICE TO ~ - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date 25 August 1995- Jones ~ Jones Associates, Name of Applicant Architects PC Phone 366-3335 Address of Applicant 6120 Peters Creek Road, Roanoke, Virginia, 24019 Name of beveloper Gene D. Lucas Phone 563-9098 Address of beveloper P.' 0. Box 6313, Roanoke, .Virginia, 24019 Architect Jones ~ Jones Associates, Name of Design-Srtgi-tr~et Architects PC Phone 366-3335 Architect Address of b~s3gn -£~g#~e~ 6120 Peters Creek Road, Roanoke, Virginia, 24019 Name of Contact Person Richard L. Jones, Jr. Name of Proposed bevelopment Summerview Creek side Type of bevelopmeht and proposed number of units (Se specific) Office; Convenience Store food preparation and sales Location of proposed developc~ent (FURNISH COPY OF MAP AND PLANIMETRIC T.'UMBER): Map number: Z10 Intersection of Flilliamson Road (Route 11) and Summer View Drive Site of proposed development in acres: ~ 3.Og Acres Give minimum sad maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which thA individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum 1096.00 feet M5L. Maximum 1104.00 feet MSL is thi$ application for a development that will be a part or section of s lamer future development? X No Yes. If ye$, provide map cf entire area ff ava Table. ~. , (OVER) - Signs ure o pplicant. Richard L. Jones, Jr., AIA Architect Jones ~ jones Associates, Architects PC ~~j` . '1 •~ / . ~'O . ~ . _ _ o ~, . . ~ ~. o ~; / / ~ . ,; ~ ~ ~•. .- .. - -~ ~.. a , ,~ 1 \ j ,. 00 . o , / i ~ ; ~' - ~ O . .. ~ ~~' /• r MAP 22; ~ i •~ • b ` Q . ~ •~ / . / ~ 1 (~ ~ ice/ ~ ~ ~s %• ` ~- ~~ •1 ; ~ , _ ~ - . / / ~ t ./// ~' v, EE CITY MAP 76 ~~ ~ •' r 1 •- `~ :~" ~ ...__ .....--- -. T. _ , __ }~ •~~ CONTOUR ,IivTE ~ S,i. •, ` '\ + ,, ~A I t~t ~ ~ pp ~ ~ ' TE LANE COORD SY$.TEM - .. t ,~~( . - ti - ~ :; I ~ -~.. , -. DA ~'~. ~..D-T- ~ AT En • ' I',,1 1o I '' 6 ~ ) . OEC' ~~ 1 ~. ~ '. ~ ~' T f .~ i. 1, 1 •. S, H ~ E ~'~' ,N C~.i A ~-~; ~..~., -, r- / ~. ii I r 93 : O ~i \ 'I T ~~~ •/ 1, ~~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ y ~ .`~ ' ,l . • r .:-<~ - ~ /, ~ , I ~ ~ O I ,• / \ '~ i ~ ; ~- •1 r i~ • i l i ~ /~~ \ 210-31 ', ~ .., i ~ / 2 ~ ~ ~ / .3 j ~ 'y/ i- ~ r .-~ . V 4 i ( ~_ ' 2 . ~~>g • ~ IQ. 27 260 ~ f 1 /3~ ~ ~'! ~ /;-.-may- 3 - Z 10= ~ ~~ O i ' /; it d=6. ' / ~ ~• ~ -~• / ~ •.. ~ ~ Q i ~ `fit {•~ ~~ ! ` O ~ ,~ / ( ~ ~' ~ 1' ~ ~ • ~ 1 - ~ . ~'~ ~n n~ a Q~ ry0 ~n{ f`1 Wv QZ c~ ~ 88~~ ~,~ 213.~~ ,~ I a a ~: a o . _ sa.i.d~oosst~ s~NOr ~ s~NOr r ~ CV V ~ }} ~Z n0 ~ O O n _ m h• ep - nm f58a' S I' 32' 00' W - i ~~Q~ ® ~ z~ N~ ~ ~ ~~ $ 0 tt _~~ ~ ~,, a, ~ ~ ~ r ~ `~ ~ o I W U I Ir~,~~ nni I ~ I ~ :p ~ II ~ ~ ~, ii: ~ i 1 ~, ~ ..., ~~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ ~~.---~ g~ $ ~ZLL~ - s m n .v O °~ o O ~ ~ o ~ N ~ C F 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 8°oS~~~ n r r n wW4 Q ~ d 2 N aQ ~ N ~ F y ~ tt1 v{~ ~~ ~~~ I W A Wz ~~ ~~ ~„~ F Y~ O W ~, 0 z O ~ c~ ~ ~-5 NORTH L G 0 0 f `\ 8 i 1325 I x JONES E JONES ASSOC. _ ~* DEPAR'IMEI~IT OF PLANNING SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND ZONING 28<OS-1-9 , ~ •~. ` . _ ; ~~~ ~~ ~ /= 3 ° / ~ = } ~ 4 o ~ ~ < t, _ J179 S / M c snJ oa / 0 8 .d ~' ~ ~. Rj sru ~° 'y ~ °~ s -' 4e '~ 7 / ` rat ~/ M rj / ~~ / / 9 ~~ 0 F~ 0 ~` ~`\ / ~0 , ~l C 1611 ~~~ ll 1 I I ~ \ £ ~ - / \ 6 R ~~e~~ °~~°~ _ i .., ' I t O ~ ~ ~ 2.93 -: 2 0 0 N ~ .~ ~~ G+4 <~ Q3 _. .e 2 1~ ~ ~ ,a ~ ~ ^_ _ \ 9~ 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 20.1 "STORM WATER MANAGEMENT," AND IMPOSING A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEE TO FUND A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR ROANOKE COUNTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: / am sure that it may seem to the Board that staff is reluctant to take on the responsibi/ity for stormwater detention facilities. Ourreluctance is tru/y due to the increasing responsibilities for testing, unknown costs and the impact that it may have on existing budgets. /really do not believe that we can handle this within the existing funds. There are many questions that remain unanswered at this time. Wi// we be obligated to bring older faci/ities up to standards? What if additional funds are required because of inadequacies or damage? Can we apply the new ordinance inequitably on/y to new facilities and not to older ones? Should the residents of the entire County fund the cost of a benefit for one neighborhood? Wi// we be required to go back and construct facilities where none exist now, but there is flooding? / realize that there is a certain amount of "rightness" to assuming this responsibility, but there are so many unknowns. /f you wish to proceed, please understand our dilemma. We wi// undertake this assignment, but to do so, we may need additional funds and staff. /prefer to charge the cost of this service back to those who benefit from it. /t is not advisable to reduce the 55.00 decal fee imposed in 1985 because of the need to fund the drainage program. One possibility wou/d be to charge homeowners who benefit an additional fee on their real estate tax bill sufficient to cover the operating costs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This is the f first reading of an ordinance to adopt a storm water management program. This program is established as a storm water utility or by enacting a system of service charges to fund this program. BACKGROUND' Section 15.1-292.4 (Attachment A) of the Code of Virginia authorizes the governing body of every County, city or town to adopt a storm water control program by establishing a utility or enacting a system of service charges to recover the costs associated with planning, design, land. acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance activities of a storm water control program. The Board of Supervisors has directed staff to prepare an 1 ~~ ordinance or other appropriate action recommendation to address the concerns raised by citizens with respect to storm water problems. Over the past year the Board has held work sessions: (1) to consider the complaints of citizens with respect to inadequate maintenance of storm water control facilities by homeowners' associations; (2) to consider regional storm water problems, including the current regional study by the Fifth Planning District Commission; (3) to consider the impact of federal legislation on this issue, and the increased role and responsibility of local governments to address this unfunded federal mandate; and (4) to consider various alternatives for addressing these problems. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This ordinance creating a storm water management program is based upon a model used by Prince William County. It is similar to programs adopted by many other local governments. (See Attachment B). This program will construct, operate and maintain storm water facilities; monitor storm water control devices; and provide a mechanism to control and abate pollution under new federal and state laws and regulations. (See related article - Attachment C). These storm water activities should be uniform throughout the County, instead of serving just a select few. These activities will be very expensive. This ordinance creates a County-wide storm water management program funded by a utility fee imposed on all developed property in the County to pay for these County-wide storm water activities. The revenues from this utility fee are dedicated to a special fund to cover costs associated with planning, design, land acquisition, construction operation, maintenance, and pollution control and abatement activities of this storm water management program. This utility fee is similar to utilities for water and sewer. This fee could be collected either through the semi-annual real estate tax bill or utility billing. Showing this fee as a separate line on the semi-annual real estate tax bill is being explored with the Treasurer, MIS, and Finance Departments. Since all developed property in the County is not in the utility billing database, this alternative is not feasible at this time. This storm water utility is funded through a monthly "storm water management fee". The "base rate" for the fee is the amount 2 ZI charged for a typical single-family residential property in the County. This base rate is calculated upon the typical impervious surface area (that part of the property covered with buildings, sidewalks, driveways and other surfaces that prevent storm water from filtering into the ground) for a single family residential property. This has been calculated to be 2,000 square feet. The fee for apartments, condominiums and townhouses would be 75% of the base rate. Non-residential properties will be billed based upon the amount of impervious area. The amount of non-residential impervious area will be divided by the "base unit" (which is 2,000 square feet or an equivalent residential unit or ERU). The numerical factor resulting from this division will be multiplied by the base rate to determine the monthly fee. Undeveloped property would be exempt from the fee. The ordinance provides for adjustments to the fee for property owners who own and provide for private maintenance of storm water facilities. Finally, it creates a citizens' appeals board to hear appeals from the determinations of the Director of Engineering and Inspections or such other person as designated by the County Administrator. This proposal allows for future growth of the program, not only to implement the recommendations of the regional storm water study being conducted by the Fifth P.D.C., but also to address pollution control and abatement regulations of the state and federal governments under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Act. This fee could fund not only the current drainage program, but also capital construction costs (or debt retirement of general obligation or revenue bonds) for regional storm water management facilities. It could also address other related problems identified by the Board (cleaning out culverts under bridges, clearing debris from drainage easements). FISCAL IMPACTS: Assuming a base rate of $.75 per month ($9.00 per year), and a fee of $7.50 per acre per month for developed non-residential property, this fee would generate approximately $500,000 per year (based on 26,000 residential properties, 940 apartment units, and 3,000 acres of commercial/industrial/institutional property). Adjustments for on-site storm water management, actual measurements of impervious areas and appeals would reduce the annual revenue to $390,000. (See Attachment D) 3 z~ The $5.00 decal fee imposed in 1985 for the drainage program generates approximately $300,000. The decal fee could be reduced and replaced by the storm water management fee. The existing drainage program would be incorporated into the proposed storm water management program. Discussions with the Treasurer, MIS, and Finance reveal that significant programming, administrative and logistical work is necessary before implementing a storm water management program and fee. Calculating impervious surface areas for all developed non- residential properties is a monumental task for the Engineering Department. Therefore, the earliest such a program could be implemented is January of 1997. To implement this new program, staff estimates initial capital expenses for related equipment and ongoing personnel costs as reported to you in work session on October 11, 1994 of $60,000. Assuming annual maintenance costs (debris removal, mowing, inspection, emergency reserve and silt removal) of $3,200 per residential subdivision storm water detention facilities, for 30 residential subdivisions, the annual operating expense would be $96,000, plus the annual personnel costs. These estimates do not include any funds for environmental sampling and testing, or special waste or hazardous waste disposal costs. Therefore, an initial appropriation of $156,000 from the General Fund is required to initiate this new program, or any of the alternatives described below. Thereafter annual appropriations of $140,000 would be required, either from the General Fund or from the Storm Water Management Fund. ALTERNATIVES• First the Board should determine the scope and purpose of the County's responsibilities and obligations with respect to storm water management. Personnel and equipment needs could be identified depending upon the identified scope and purpose. Then the best method for financing such a program can be determined. This proposed ordinance establishes a storm water management program based on the amount of storm water runoff from impervious surfaces. It is "fairer" since it directly ties the problem to its solution. It creates a dedicated revenue source to fund the program. Yet it will be difficult to administer, and the logistics of implementation are daunting. A simpler approach pays the costs of a storm water management program directly from the General Fund. An increase of one cent on the real estate tax rate would generate approximately the same amount of revenue as the proposed utility fee. A more limited program could be based upon the. existing County ordinance #112288-7 (public works improvement ordinance). The 4 s- ~ Board may recall that this ordinance was used for the Bellview Gardens/Bellview Estates water project and the Highfields sewer project. The method for financing these public improvements is through a special assessment added to the participating property owners' real estate taxes. This special assessment can be imposed by ordinance either upon agreement of all affected abutting property owners, or after a petition by 75% of the affected abutting property owners, or by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to the Board. Finally the Board could call for the creation of a special service district or area, if these areas desire additional or more complete governmental services than are desired in the County as a whole. The Board could then levy higher taxes in such areas, and the proceeds segregated for expenditure in the areas from which the proceeds are raised. This higher tax rate shall not be levied for education, law enforcement or general governmental services. An affirmative vote of the qualified voters in the proposed special district at a referendum is required before the special district could be effective. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board consider the following alternatives: (1) If the Board desires to proceed with the proposed ordinance creating the storm water management program and the utility fee or service charge to fund the program, then a public hearing on this proposal should be scheduled for October 24, 1995. It is recommended that the initial rate for developed residential property be advertised at $.75 per month, and the rate for developed non-residential property be advertised at $7.50 per acre per month. (2) If the Board desires a less extensive storm water management program, then staff requests direction as to the scope and extent of the program. It is recommended that the public works improvement ordinance be utilized. Once 75% of the affected abutting property owners petition the Board for a specific project (e.g. County take over maintenance of storm water facilities in a subdivision), then the appropriate actions can be taken to impose the special assessment by ordinance. (3) If the Board desires to implement a new program funded solely from the General Fund, then an initial appropriation of $156,000 is required. Staff will bring back to the Board for its approval policies, procedures and standards for the acceptance of storm water management facilities in single-family residential subdivision. 5 (4) Finally the Board could direct staff to continue to study this matter, and revisit the issue once the Fifth P.D.C. regional storm water study is completed. spectfully submitted, r ~ A , ~~ n 3`~ ~~ ! I t Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Attachments: Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs A) Section 15.1-292.4 B) Summary of selected storm water utility rate structures C) Article from September 12, 1995, edition of the Roanoke Times. D) Revenue Projections stormwacer.Ipc 6 '~. § 15.1-292.1:1 COUNTIES, CITIES AND TOWNS § 15.1-292.4 tion, which is limited in its purpose and scope, is not set out here, but attention is called to it by this reference. § 16.1.292.1:1: Not set out. Editor's note. -This section, relating to only provisions having general and permanent connection to water and sewer systems of application, this section, which is limited in its Rockingham County, was enacted by Acts 1995, purpose and scope, is not set out here, but c. 282. In furtherance of the general policy of attention is called to it by this reference. the Code Commission to include in the Code :-~ ~ .- _ ...~.. r. r4_. § lb.1-292.3. Public water service charges for fire suppression sys- tems. -The governing body of any county, city or town may by ordinance, require local water utilities to allow connections of fire suppression systems to the water supply. Such ordinances may prohibit any requirement for installing water meters on a fire suppression system, may prohibit charging an avail- ability fee to provide water service to such fire suppression systems, and may prohibit connection fee chazges exceeding the actual cost of connecting the water supply to the fire suppression system. (1991, c. 265.) § lb.1-292.4. Regulation of stormwater. - A. The governing body of every county, city or town, by ordinance, may adopt a stormwater control ro ram i t t i h s p g cons s en w t Article 1.1 (§ 10.1-603.1 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of Title 10.1, or any other state or federal regulation, by establishing a utilit or - - =1~ ~Y< y enacting a system of service charges. Any locality which administers a stormwater control ~ `. = '-i, ~h` program may recover costs associated with planning, design, land acquisition, construction o eration and maintenance activities. pp I F~; ~ ~.. ~~: ncome derived fr om these chazges shall be dedicated special revenue and may be used only for the following: Q~`'~~ 1. The acquisition by gift, purchase, or condemnation of real and personal property, and interest therein, necessary to construct, operate and maintain stormwater control facilities; '~: 2. The cost of administration of such programs; 3. Engineering and design, debt retirement, construction costs for new facilities and enlargement or improvement of existing facilities ; 4. Facility maintenance; 5. Monitoring of stormwater control devices; and 6. Pollution control and abatement, consistent with state and federal regulations for water pollution control and abatement . B. The charges may be assessed to property owners or occupants including , condominium unit owners or tenants (when the tenant, or tenants, is the party to whom the water and sewer service is bill d) d h ll _ e , an s a be based upon their ; contributions to stormwater runoff; however, prior to adopting such a system , a public hearing shall be held after giving notice as required by § 15.1-504 or `. by charter. A locality adopting such a system shall provide for full waivers of char es t f d l g o e era , state, or local government agencies when the agency owns ;x and provides for maintenance of storm drainage and stormwater control ~; facilities or is a unit of the locality administering the program. Alocality - rF adopting such a system shall also provide for full waivers of charges to 'any" `:; person who owns and provides for complete private maintenance of storm drainage and stormwater facilities, provided such person has obtained -the °,. proffer permits from the Department of Environmental Quality. Income, derived from service charges ma not d th l ' y excee e actua costs incurred by a ;; . locality operating under the provisions of this title. - : T~: C. Every county, city and town is hereby authorized to issue general ':' obligation bonds or revenue bonds in order to finance the cost of infrastructure',' 124 ATTACHMENT A ~~ ~.•~ ~ 15.1-295 PUBLIC UT'ILITIES• F R~~TCHISES; ETC. § I5.1-296 and equipment for a stormwater control program. Infrastructure and equip- ment shall include structural and natural storinwater control systems of all types, including, without limitation, retention basins, sewers, conduits, pipe- lines, pumping and ventilating siations, and other plants, structures, and real and personal property used for support of the system. The procedure for the issuance of any such general obligation bonds or revenue bonds pursuant to this section shall be in conformity with the procedure for issuance of such bonds as set forth in the Public Finance Act (§ 15.1-227.1 et seq.). D. In the event charges are not paid when due, interest thereon shall at that time accrue at the rate, not to exceed the ma-~dmum amount allowed by law, determined by the governing body of such county, city or town until such time as the overdue payment and interest is paid. Charges and interest may be recovered by the county, city or town by action at law or suit in equity and shall constitute a lien against the property, ranking on a parity with liens for unpaid taxes. E. Any two or more counties, cities or towns may enter into cooperative agreements concerning the management of stormwater. (1991, c. 703; 1994, cc. 284, 805.) The number of this section was assigned by the Virginia Code Commission, the number in the 1991 act having been 15.1-292.3. Editor's note. -Acts 1994, c. 805, which amended this section, in cl. 2 provides that the 1994 act is declarative of existing legislative intent. The 1994 amendments. - The 1994 amendment by c. 284, in subsection B, in the first sentence, deleted "all" following "assessed" and insened "or occupants," and added the present nest-to-last sentence. The 1994 amendment by c. 805 inserted "including condominium unit owners or ten- ants (when the tenant, or tenants, is the party to whom the water and sewer service is billed)" in the first sentence of subsection B. Law Review. -For 1991 survey on prop- erty law, see 25 U. Rich. L. Rev. 859 (1991). § 15.1-295. Lien for water and sewer charges and taxes imposed by certain counties. -The governing body of any county adjoining a city lying wholly within the Commonwealth and which has a population of more than 75,000 and any county having a density of population of more than 600 per square mile and of Botetourt, Gloucester, Hanover, Rockingham, Spotsylvania, and York Counties may by ordinance provide that taxes or charges hereafter made, imposed or incurred for water or sewers or use thereof in such county shall be a lien on the real estate served by such waterline or sewer. Where residential rental real estate is involved, no lien shall attach (i) unless the user of the water or sewer services is also the owner of the real estate, or (ii) unless the owner of the real estate negotiated or executed the agreement by which such water or sewer services were provided to the ro e § 15-717.1; 1950, p. 896; 1962, cc. 511, 623; 1977, c. 66P1978~c. 478a19gp~~' 323; 1990, c. 382; 1991, c. 172; 1993, c. 359; 1994, c. 627.) The 1890 amendment added "Botetourt" preceding "Hanover." The 1991 amendment inserted "Glouces- ~r" near the middle of this section. The 1993 amendment deleted "and" preced- ing "Spotsylvania,° and added "and York" near the middle of this section. The 1994 amendment, inserted "Rocking- ham" in the first sentence and added the second sentence. § 15.1-296. Same; enforcement. - A, ~y such lien when properly docketed in the clerk's office may be enforced in the same manner as other maces due the county or by cutting off water or sewer service provided the public health or safely will not be endangered thereby. B• Such lien shall not bind or affect a subsequent bona fide purchaser of such real estate for valuable consideration without actual notice of such lien, 125 ~'` `M~ y ~ w ~ ~ Cdr r-+ U ~' ~ O ~ U ¢' ti ~ c~ b Q ~ h i z z ~~ ~z z z z z k W CQ ~ ~ d ~: ~ ~ ~ v~ U ~ A,~oO`. ~ ~ ~ `. ~ ~ :, a ~ ~ ~ ~ O td N ed ~ cd _ ~-+ cd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ,~ ~ c~ '~ _ c~ ~'~ c~ ~~' _ c ~ ~' a ~ ~ a ~ ~ c. ~ c, , .~ o. ~ a a~ .y C~ Q C~ Q~ q~ o ~, ' '- ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O E O , ~ ~ ~ O bq " ~ z ~ 69 ~ ~ 6N9 ~ 6 9 ~ 69 ~ N 69 O C/] it ~ ~ '~ dQ v'1 t~ M (~ V'1 O ~ l es °'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~, ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v :~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o 0 ~ ~y ~ 0 per., ~ s~s w° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ M V ~ ~ N V n v01 O V] 69 64 69 69 N ~ 4r 4r 64 6 4 b 4 , , Q Q ~ y ~ 3 ~ Q ~~ ¢ .~ ~ z .~ ~ ~ U H ~ G '~ ~ O Q ~ ~, ..Q ~ ~ cd ~ O a aU a," > z ~ x~ z 2 .--~ N ATTACFIMENT B a~ a .~ ~ o Qr ~~rr, G U ~ O ~ C ~ ~ b I.~ 3 ~ w ~ ~ ~ v U O U a~ ~ .~' o. ~ ~ ~ z z ~~ ~w ~,~ ~ a~ ~ z ~~ ~~ c }.• y of w vi b ~ w O O O >' ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 4'' O ~ ~ M ~ ~ N O M ~ N~ p~ ~--~ -L7 • ~ ^' p O 4, .C «i ~ „ ..C t~ ,~ c~ O ~ ~ O ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y 4. ~ ~-' 4-I 4. ~ O O ~ O O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ L, ¢, w w a i c° a i y ^CJ ~ \ ~ O ~ ~ ~ .S.i ~ ...+ ~.r ~. ..+ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lr ~ ~ ~ ~{.q O W 'w+ O ppp ~G t~ O O . ~ ^N' ~~ ~ v ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ E O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. N 69 GL ~i N ~ 6N9 C. 6N9 vii 6N4 ~ ~ ~ w y ~ ..C .~ C rA O ~~+ ~ ~ O r... w U ~ p ~ . ~,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ d. --. ~ ~ Q\ ~ ~ [~ ~" . 6M9 cQ /~ ~ N 69 cV ~ (V ~ ~ N 69 ~ 69 69 Q~ ~ Q~ y ~ ~ .-, ~' ~ ~ ~ C ~ CS' ~ C Q ~ ~ ~ .b O O ~ O ~ ~ 0o ~' U ~ ~ . ~. cy ~ ~ ~ ~ p~q ~ 6N9 ~ /~ ~''. 6N4 6~4 ~ ~ 6R rn V y O a~ p ~ '~ O O~ vii p p ~ ~ O +-~ y ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ o `~ p ,-. tl, p U O O o i i ° n n I-. •-+ ~ c° V . N O ~ ¢ ~f1 s9 N w.. N 9 ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ., b w V f 3 i ~ ~ v s w ~ ~ V ~ ~ "'" ~ O ~ ?~ ~ _ ¢~ Ur' `. V U I ~ C7 2 3 g~ ra ~ ~ o ~ c e o 0 o E ° E E E E E c I ~ o o °o, o °o I ~ 00 ~ Oho ~ O 00 ~ L Vf Vi V9 H 4~9 i~A G9 0 0 0 o o° o ° o° 0 0 ° o .. o in '' o 0 k" °~ o °o o° °- ° o° ~• ~ o z S~ i N rn N 1- ~ J H d a+ .~ ^ H d .C 3 C ^~ 0 _ ~ ~„~a~ cw~¢ ~o~ ocab ~3~>,ac°io °~~ oy N ' a>ca~w~ 3 4, ~ o on r. > O N ~ .C ~ `" ~ ~ N N .., ~ O tU. y O N •N ca ~ ~ `n ~ U p+ ~~c ~ ~ ~ ~•J^' ° o Y~ 3 ~Pa ~ ao w ~~ ~ o a ~ ai `~ x ~" ~' ~ o ai ~ ~I3 x ~ ~ a ~ ~ E d°QQQ' ~~ a . c i• .. a i c i . ~ N ~ it ~U+ N ~ .n G' 'O N v VJ .r i.. ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ y ~ ~ ~ O C ~ Ca O+ '~ L. CL W ~ y.. ~ "' > ca ~ U ^ o ~ ~U a~i s°'. ~ a ° ~ ~ 3 °F" cow ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ' i v~~ i a ~ W , 4;, v caw +~ ~~ 0 •~ ~ U T a a~ m - ~ ~_ ~ ~_ a~ ~~ ° c co O a~ 3~~ V :. ~ .r 0, aoi a ~' Q a~ .o a~ ca N .-+ O U .~ ~ ~~5~ O ~..~ ~ H Y ~. ~~ ~ ~x -o~^~~ O ,C, U ~ N~~w s`~..U C 7-. O N 'b O ~ U ~ T ~a ^„ O. O ~ O ~ '' U U~ W N N ~~~wT~ °~3~~~ "„ ~~° (ten V •> 3 ~ ^b U Y ~ ~~ ~ " N ~ 3 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 +. U ~ + ~ ~ ~ Q , L1.' ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 .3 o U ~ ~ d~~ ' a. ~ t. z:~ o~ w3 L+ K H y V ~ a~ a ~ o ~ c y ca •~ y ~ y O ~ c ~ ~ a~ ~° ~o a. °,~' ~~°~°= ° }, .J N ~ w N ~ ~ a ~ / y >,~ y ~U+ M T O~ ca ~ O ~ ..+ «+ ~n .~C ~ 'O ~ ~ ~ .x ~,, ca ,r w N '.+ ~ aS w ~ N ~ 3 •> ca s. p ;; .o .0 ~ 0 s ~ ~ o o. '+„ y w C ~" r CL ~ C ~~ VU1 O O+ y ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ " ~ Rcn ~3 3 °' ? '° ~ ~ N ca ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^O ~ w ~, w ,.+ ,U. N~ O O ~ O d ~ t. ~ ~ O a~ ca ~ ~ ~ y `~ O C Y _ Ca ~ z O S"i ~ N w ~ t: ~ r N .U+ E"'" ~ o `" ~~b H.o x ~ ~ ° ~+ _ _S. N C. ...N_u R a u c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ctS~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ Q~ ~ ?~^ o ~ VJ ~ ~ U 1... ~~ Q ss. °~'+ ~ p = o ~ A c^a ~. ~.._,3 ~ U y W y N •3 O p >' ~ T O G .~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ N .' .-. U I ~ i. bA 0 ca ~ v x ~ O a~i ~ 3a~~ ~ >>ad~a °= ~ w ~ .b `n O U ~ vUi C rn a> D a = 4.,,, own o ~, o a~ b ~ ~ v, O ca fl.. y ' :..~ :~ vii C' O' ~'~.. ATTACHMENT C lL Revenue projections for a storm water utility based on a residential rate of $0.75 per lot per month and a commercial rate of $7.50 per acre per month. I. RESIDENTIAL 25,943 Single Family Homes 25,943 X $0.75 X 12 = $233,487.00 944 Apartments, Townhomes, etc. 944 X $0.75 X 12 = $ 8,496.00 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL = $241,983.00 II. NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL 839 Commercial Parcels Totaling 1650.8 Acres 1650.8 X $7.50 X 12 = 5148,572.00 INDUSTRIAL 78 Industrial Parcels Totaling 409.8 Acres 409.8 X $7.50 X 12 = S 36,882.00 INSTITUTIONAL 233 Institutional Parcels Totaling 444.8 Acres 444.8 X $7.50 X 12 = $ 40,032.00 TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL = X225,486.00 SUB-TOTAL = $467,469.00 *LESS ADJUSTMENTS FOR CREDITS $ 70,120.00 TOTAL REVENUE _ $397,349.00 *Credits given for on-site storm water management in accordance with ordinance, adjustments for uncollectable fees, etc. ATTACHMENT D AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTE 20.1 "STORM WTER MANAGEMENT," AND IMPOSING A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEE TO FUND A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Section 15.1-202.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, to adopt a program for long range storm water management and set fees to fund that program; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the storm water management program and its funding is necessary to provide for the general health, safety, and welfare of the County and its residents. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinanc was held on September 26, 1995; and the second reading and public hearing was held on October 10, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Roanoke County Code be amended by the addition of the following new chapter: CHAPTER 20.1 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ARTICLE I. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Sec. 20.1.-1. Findings (a) Roanoke County has a unique topography which requires the design, development, improvement, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a system of manmade and natural components of storm water management infrastructure to both limit and manage the volume of storm water to control flood events and to prevent degradation of the County's waterways and erosion of the County's lands through storm water quality and quantity management. (b) Roanoke County will be subject to the Federal Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for storm water discharges. In order to comply with NPDES requirements, the County must develop a storm water management program to reduce storm water pollution from the drainage system. (c) Storm water runoff is associated with all developed properties in the County, whether residential or non-residential and the individual property impacts of runoff are directly related to the amount of impervious surface on the property. (d) Storm water management infrastructure provides benefit and services to properties within the County which have impervious areas by directly protecting that property, and by controlling flooding, and by reducing the impact of storm water flow over the property on the County's natural environment. (e) The costs of designing, developing, improving, maintaining, operating, and monitoring the storm water system required in the County, both to meet federal, state, and local laws and regulations and to address identified flood event needs, should be allocated, to the extent practicable, to all property owners based on the impact of runoff from the impervious areas of their property on the storm water management system. (f) The Board of Supervisors is authorized by state law to adopt a program for long range storm water management and set fees to fund that program. Establishment of the storm water management program and its funding under this chapter is necessary to provide for the general health, safety and welfare of the County and its residents. Sec. 20.1-2. Establishment of Storm Water Management Program The storm water management program of Roanoke County is hereby established. The program shall include the design, development, improvement, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the storm water management system. The storm water management system consists of all storm water management easements, infrastructure, and equipment in the County, and all improvements thereto for storm water control in the County over which the County has regulatory authority or has assumed maintenance responsibility. Storm water infrastructure and equipment includes structural and natural storm water control systems of all types including, without limitation, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and other water bodies, retention basins, storm sewers, conduits, pipelines, pumping and ventilation stations, and other plants, structures, and real and personal property used for support of the system. 2 ~- ~ The storm water management system shall be designed, developed, improved, operated, maintained and monitored in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations and policies. Applicable local ordinances, regulations and policies .include, without limitation, the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Improvements Program, the subdivision ordinance, the Design and Construction Standards Manual, the Budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the drainage maintenance policies and programs of the County government, and all storm water maintenance agreements. Sec. 20.1-3. Definitions For purposes of this chapter the following shall apply: Base Unit means the total impervious area of a typical single- family residential property (or "equivalent residential unit" or ERU) based on the statistical typical horizontal impervious area of a property with a single-family detached dwelling in the County. The typical horizontal impervious area of a property with a single- family detached dwelling in the County is equal to the median impervious area of the principal structure on a parcel of 1550 square feet plus an allowance of 450 square feet for other impervious features, such as driveways, sidewalks and subordinate structures. The base unit equals 2000 square feet. Base Rate means the monthly storm water management fee charged on a base unit, and will be established by the Board of Supervisors by ordinance. Developed Property means real property which has been altered from its natural state by the addition of any improvements such as buildings, structures, or other impervious area. For new construction, property shall be considered developed pursuant to this chapter upon issuance of an occupancy permit. For a non- residential property to be considered "developed" for the purposes of this chapter, its impervious area must be equal to at least one half of the base unit. Developed Non-residential Property means developed property which does not serve the primary purpose of providing permanent dwelling units. Such property shall include, but not be limited to, commercial properties, industrial properties, parking lots, recreational and cultural facilities, hotels, offices and churches. Developed Residential Property means a developed property which serves the primary purpose of providing a permanent dwelling unit or units, and which may or may not have accessory uses related to the purpose of providing permanent dwelling facilities. Property in the agricultural zoning district classifications on 3 _.~- "" which a dwelling unit is located shall be considered developed residential property for the purposes of this chapter. Director means the Director of Engineering and Inspections or such other person as may be designated by the County Administrator. Dwelling Unit means a single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one family, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, and shall otherwise be defined as provided in the zoning ordinance. Impervious Surface Area means a surface which is compacted or covered with material that is resistant to infiltration by water, including, but not limited to, most conventionally surfaced streets, roofs, sidewalks, parking lots, and other similar structures. Revenues means all fees, assessments or other income received by the Fund established by this chapter, including but not limited to, amounts received from the investment or deposit of monies in any fund or account and any amounts contributed by the County, grants, fees or proffer funds provided by developers or individual residents, gifts or donations, and the proceeds from the sale of bonds to finance the storm water management program. Storm Water means that part of precipitation that travels over natural, altered or impervious surfaces to the nearest stream, channel, conduit or impoundment and appears in surface waters. This definition includes snow melt. Storm Water Management Fund or Fund means the Fund created by this chapter to operate, maintain and improve the County's storm water management system. Storm Water Management Fee or Fee means the monthly service charge based upon the base rate applied to property owners of developed residential property and developed non-residential property as more fully described in Section 20.1-8. Undeveloped Property means any non-residential parcel which has one half or less than one half of the base unit of impervious area. Sec. 20.1-4. General responsibilities of the Director. The Director shall be responsible for the use, management, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the storm water management system to the extent set forth in the storm water management program adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Subject to the approval of the County Administrator, he shall have the 4 ..~ - f authority to establish procedures and to enforce regulations relating to the storm water management system. ARTICLE II. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FUND Sec. 20.1-5. Establishment. of Storm Water Management Fund. (a) The storm water management program is established and the storm water management system is provided to protect the waterways and land in the County by controlling flooding and to protect the County's natural environment. The costs of designing, developing, improving, operating, maintaining, and monitoring the storm water system required in the County should, therefore, be allocated, to the extent practicable, to all property owners based on their impact on the storm water management system. In order to provide revenue to fund those costs and to fairly allocate those costs, a Storm Water management Fund ("The Fund") is established pursuant to Section 15.1-292.4 of the Code of Virginia. (b) All revenues collected from the storm water management Fee or otherwise pursuant to this ordinance shall be deposited to the Fund. The Board of Supervisors may make additional appropriations to the Fund. All disbursements from the Fund shall be for the purposes of the Fund as set forth in Section 20.1-6 of this chapter. Sec. 20.1-6. Purpose of the Fund. The Fund shall be used only for the following purposes: (a) The acquisition by gift, purchase or condemnation of real land personal property, and interest therein, necessary to construct, operate and maintain storm water control facilities; (b) All costs of administration and implementation of the storm water management program, to include the establishment of reasonable operating and capital reserves to meet unanticipated or emergency storm water management requirements; (c) Engineering and design, debt service, construction costs for new facilities and enlargement or improvement of existing facilities; (d) Facility maintenance; (e) Monitoring of storm water control devices; and (f) Pollution control and abatement, consistent with state and federal regulation for water pollution control and abatement. 5 Sec. 20.1-7. Administration of the Fund. (a) The Board of Supervisors shall budget and appropriate for the Fund annually. (b) The Fund shall be managed in accordance with the purposes set forth in this chapter. (c) All revenues collected from Fees imposed pursuant to Section 20.1-8 shall be deposited into the Storm Water Management Fund. Sec. 20.1-8. Storm Water Management Fee. (a) There is hereby imposed a service charge on property in the County on the basis set forth in this chapter to fund the costs of operating the storm water management program as set forth in section 20.1-9. This service charge shall be known as the Storm Water Management Fee ("Fee"). The Director shall determine the amount of the Fee to be charged to each property as set forth in this chapter. (b) The Fee shall be paid by the owner of each parcel of developed property in the County. (c) The base rate will be established annually by the Board of Supervisors. The base rate shall be calculated to insure adequate revenues to provide for a balanced operation, maintenance and capital improvements budget for the adopted storm water management program (d) The Fee is based on: (1) the extent to which each property creates a need for the storm water management system, (2) the amount of impervious area on each property, (3) the costs of implementing the storm water management program, and (e) The Fee shall be imposed effective January 1, 1997. Sec. 20.1-9. Classification of Property for Purposes of Determination of the Storm Water Management Fee. (a) For purposes of determining the Storm Water Management Fee, all properties in the County are classified into one of the following classes: (i) Developed residential property; 6 r-ll-- -~ .- (ii) Developed non-residential property; or (iii) Undeveloped property. (b) Single family detached residential properties will be charged the base rate for each dwelling unit, regardless of the size of the parcel or the improvements. Townhouses, condo- townhouses, and townhouse-apartments will be charged a flat rate of seventy-five percent (75~) of the base rate for each dwelling unit. Apartments and condominiums will be charged a flat rate of seventy- five percent (75~) of the base rate for each dwelling unit. (c) The monthly Fee for developed non-residential property shall be the base rate multiplied by the numerical factor obtained by dividing the total impervious area of the property by one base unit (2000 square feet). The numerical factor will be rounded to the nearest tenth (0.1) of a unit. The minimum Storm water Management Fee for any developed non-residential property shall equal the base rate. (1) Until such time as the Director determines the impervious area of developed non-residential properties the following shall be the monthly storm water management fee for that property: (i) For each acre of developed non-residential property, ten (10) times the base rate. (ii) The Fee shall be adjusted according to the acreage of each property. (iii) The owner of the property may submit to the Director a report calculating the impervious surface area certified by a professional engineer for purposes of determining the Fee. (d) The monthly Fee for vacant developed property, both residential and non-residential, shall be the same as that for occupied property of the same class. (e) Undeveloped property shall be exempt from the Fee. (f) The Fee shall not be billed for properties owned by federal, state or local government agencies, when the agency owns and provides for maintenance of storm drainage and storm water facilities, or is a unit of government of Roanoke County. Sec. 20.2-10. Adjustments. (a) Adjustments or reductions of the Fee can be made upon application of the owner of developed non-residential property to '7 the Director and upon certification by the Director that the owner or the property meets the criteria of one of the following subsections and an adjustment in the amount certified by the Director is therefore appropriate. For the first year in which a Storm Water Management Fee is applied to property, adjustments certified by the Director during that year shall be applied retroactively to the date on which the Fee was first applied, if the Director is satisfied that the circumstances under which the adjustment is certified existed on the date the Fee is first applied to the property. In subsequent years, the date on which an adjustment is certified as appropriate by the Director shall be the date on which the adjustment takes effect, the adjustment shall be prorated from that date for the balance of that year. Once certified, adjustments shall be effective for as long as the conditions and circumstances under which the adjustment was granted continue, and shall not be effective for the upcoming year without renewal on or before December 31 of each year. Renewals of adjustments may be granted upon reapplication by the owner of the property to the Director and upon the Director's determination that the property owner is in full compliance with the terms of any existing storm water maintenance agreement. If an adjustment lapses for any reason, the property owner must reapply to the Director in order to re institute the adjustment. Whenever the Director becomes aware, through investigation upon complaint, through random inspection, or through any other means, that the owner has failed to maintain the conditions and circumstances under which an adjustment has been given, or has failed to perform under a required storm water maintenance agreement or has failed to comply with the requirements of an approved program listed in subsection (c) of this section, the Director may immediately revoke an adjustment by sending written notice of the revocation by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the property. The Director's revocation may be appealed by the owner as a Director's determination under section 20.1-13 is appealed. The Director shall notify the Director of Finance of the revocation of an adjustment, and the revocation shall be effective 10 working days after the date of the written notification, if the owner has not filed an appeal. If the owner files an appeal and the Appeals Board upholds the Director's revocation, then the revocation becomes effective on the date of the Appeals Board's decision affirming the revocation. (b) Developed property where storm water management is provided by the owner on-site, and where the owner has entered into an appropriate storm water management agreement with the Director may be eligible for the following adjustments under the following circumstances: 8 ... 1, (i) Where on-site storm water management is provided for the property to standards which protect against the two-year 24- hour flood, the owner may receive an adjustment of the Fee to reduce the Fee by 10%. (ii) Where on-site storm water management is provided for the property to standards which protect against the ten-year 24- hour flood, the owner may receive an adjustment of the Fee to reduce the Fee by 10%. (iii) Where on-site storm water management is provided for the property to standards which protect against the twenty-five year 24-hour flood, the owner may receive an adjustment of the Fee to reduce the Fee by 10%. (iv) Where on-site storm water management is provided for the property to standards which protect against the one hundred year 24-hour flood, the owner may receive an adjustment of the Fee to reduce the Fee by 10%. (v) Where Best Management Practices are provided in accordance with County Standards for water quality protection, owner may receive an adjustment of the Fee to reduce the Fee by 10%. (vi) Adjustments granted for supplying on-site storm water management as described in paragraphs (b)(i) through (b)(v) above may be combined, so long as the maximum adjustment granted under this subsection does not exceed 50%. (c) Developed property where no adjustment under paragraphs (b)(i) through (b)(vi) is applicable may be eligible for the following Fee adjustments under the following circumstances: (i) Where the owner has agreed to participate in storm water management or storm water quality protection project approved by the Board of Supervisors for use in granting fee adjustments, such as an adopt-a-pond project, a volunteer lawn program, and other pollution prevention programs, the owner may receive an adjustment of the Fee to reduce the Fee by 10%. (ii) If the owner participates in more than one project described in paragraph (c)(i) above, adjustments granted for participating in those projects may be combined, so long as the maximum adjustment granted under this subsection does not exceed 30%. 9 ~l Sec. 20.1-11. Notification of Determination of Impervious Area on Developed Non-Residential Property. The Director shall notify each owner of developed non- residential property of the amount of impervious area on that property, or the interim determination of Fee pursuant to Section 20.1-9 (c) (1) . Sec. 20.1-12. Storm Water Management Fee Date; Collection of Fees. (a) Before or at the time of preparation of the land book for real estate taxation purposes, the Director shall prepare and forward to the Treasurer all necessary data for the billing of the Storm Water Management Fee. This data shall include the identification of every parcel to be charged the Fee and the amount of the Fee to be charged, including all adjustments. The Treasurer may cause the Fee to appear on the real property tax bill for each property for which a Fee is charged, as a separate line item, and shall collect the Fees and deposit them to the Fund. In his discretion the Treasurer may determine to send bills for the storm water management Fee separate from real property tax bills. (b) In the event that the Fees are not paid when due, interest thereon shall commence on the first of the month following the month of the due date, at a rate equal to the interest rate charged for delinquent real estate taxes, until such time as the overdue payment and interest are paid. Unpaid Fees and interest accrued shall constitute a lien against the property, ranking on a parity with liens for unpaid taxes. (c) When developed properties receive an occupancy permit, the Fee will commence, and the Director will forward the data concerning the Fee to the Treasurer so that the charge will be issued with the next tax bill. The Director shall prorate the Fee from the date the occupancy permit was issued. (d) In the event of alterations or additions to the property which alter the amount of impervious surface area, the Director will modify the Fees upon receipt of the final building inspection of the alterations or additions. The Director will forward this data to the Treasurer so that the next real estate tax bill will reflect the modification of the Fee. Increases or decreases in the Fee resulting from alterations or additions to the property shall be prorated by the Director from the date of the final building inspection. Sec. 20.1-13. Request for Correction by the Director. (a) The owner of developed non-residential property may request a correction of the determination of impervious area on the property, by submitting the request in writing to the Director 10 ,, f" within 20 days after receipt of notification of the amount of impervious area. The owner of developed non-residential property may request a reconsideration of the denial of some or all of a requested adjustment, by submitting the request in writing to the Director within 20 days after the date. of any written determination by the Director denying some or all of a requested adjustment. The owner of developed non-residential property may request the correction of mathematical errors in calculating the Fee to be applied to the property, by submitting the request in writing to the Director within 20 days after receipt of the first bill containing the mathematical error. (b) The Director shall conduct a hearing, if requested, on the determination of impervious area on the property, or the granting of a requested adjustment, or the accuracy of the calculation of the Fee, and shall make a determination within 10 working days after the hearing. If the owner does not request a hearing, the Director shall make a determination within 10 working days after receipt of the owner's written request for correction. (c) No issues other than those set forth in subparagraph (a) of this section can be addressed by the Director in a request for correction. If a request for correction raises issues other than those set forth in subparagraph (a) of this section, the Director shall notify the owner within 5 working days that the request raises issues which are not properly the subject of a request for correction. The Director's decision under this subparagraph shall be final. Sec. 20.1-14. Storm Water Management Appeal Board. (a) A Storm Water Management Appeal Board ("Appeal Board") is established to hear appeals from determinations of the Director made under section 20.1-13. If the owner of developed non- residential real property is aggrieved by a determination of the Director on an issue listed in section 20.1-12(a), the owner may appeal that determination in accordance with this chapter. (b) The Appeal Board shall consist of three (3) members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. One of the members of the Appeal Board shall be either a professional engineer or certified land surveyor. The members of the Appeal Board shall serve a term of four years commencing January 1, and they may be reappointed to successive terms. The Appeals Board shall elect annually a chairman and shall adopt rules and forms for its procedures. (c) The Appeal Board shall have no authority to obligate or expand any County funds without authorization of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors may authorize compensation for the members of the Appeal Board and operating and administrative expenses, including travel expenses, from the Fund. r-~ Sec. 20.1-15. Appeals to the Appeal Boars. (a) An appeal may be filed by a property owner, who has paid his Fees, with the Director within 10 working days of the determination of the Director on an issue listed in section 20.1- 13(a). The Director shall forward the petition to each member of the Appeal Board. The petition for appeal shall be in writing setting forth in detail the grounds upon which relief is sought. The Appeal Board shall hear the appeal within 30 days of the filing and render a decision within 60 days of receipt of the appeal. (b) The owner must comply with all rules and procedures adopted by the Appeal Board when submitting an appeal petition. Failure to comply with all rules and procedures shall be grounds for denial of the petition. (c) If the owner is appealing the Director's determination as to the amount of impervious area on the property the Appeal Board shall have full authority to affirm, modify, reverse, or set aside the Director's determination of issues under section 20.1-13(a). In evaluating the appeal, the Appeal Board shall determine whether the decision of the Director was issued in compliance with the standards, policies and criteria of the storm water management program. (d) All decisions of the Appeal Board shall be final. Sec. 20.1-16. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed severable and, if any of the provisions hereof are adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. after 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and g.attomeystovnwaU24 12 ~. . t AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE 92695-9 AUTHORIZING QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF MONET DRIVE AND LOCATED BETWEEN LOT 1 OF THE GARDENS OF COTTON HILL, SECTION 1 AND TRACT 1 (TAX #96.02-1-45) PROPERTY OF STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. WHEREAS, in order for Monet Drive 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 water and sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Monet Drive and located between Lot 1 and the remaining portion of Tract 1 (Tax Map #96.02-1-45) Property of Strauss Construction Corporation, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, it will serve the interests of the public to have Monet Drive 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 and is acceptable to the Roanoke County Utility Department. 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 12, 1995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995; 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 conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia for acceptance of Monet Drive into the state secondary road system by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 3. That quit-claim and release of the water and sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Monet Drive and located between Lot 1 of the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, and Tract 1 (Tax #96.02-1-45) Property of Strauss Construction Corporation, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, is hereby authorized subject to the following conditions: a. VDOT issuance of a permit for the water and sanitary sewer lines or facilities. b. The facilities located within the 60-foot right-of- way, between Lot 1 of the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, and Tract 1 (Tax #96.02-1-45) Property of Strauss Construction Corporation, 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 Monet Drive 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. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ..7~ • ~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Engineering & Inspections Director Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney Gary Robertson, Utility Director Virginia Department of Transportation 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM• ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE OF A WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF MONET DRIVE AND LOCATED BETWEEN LOT 1 OF THE GARDENS OF COTTON HILL, SECTION 1 AND TRACT 1 (TAX #96.02-1-45) PROPERTY OF STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ ~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the second reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize QUITCLAIM and release of water and sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Monet Drive and located between Lot 1 and remaining portion of Tract 1 (Tax Map #96.02-1-45) property of Strauss Construction Corporation, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to certain conditions. BACKGROUND In March of 1993, Roanoke County retained from Norma Jean Sigmon a 20 foot water and sewer easement for the development of the County's south loop water transmission line. Said easement is shown and designated as "New 20 foot Water and Sewer Easement" upon easement plat recorded in the Clerk°s office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 15, Page 63. Soon thereafter, Strauss Construction Corporation purchased the Sigmon property for the development of a single family residential subdivision. In June 1994, Strauss Construction Corporation subsequently subdivided the property by plat showing Section 1, The Gardens of Cotton Hill, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Plat Book 16, Page 157, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The 20 foot water and sanitary sewer easement described above lies within Section 1 and is beneath Monet Drive. Si]'NIlKARY OF INFORMATION In order for Monet Drive 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. The quitclaim and release of the subject portion of the water and 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 60 foot right-of-way, within the boundaries of Monet Drive and located between Lot 1 of The Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1 and Tract 1 (Tax #96.02-1-45) property of Strauss Construction Corporation, may continue to occupy the street in the existing condition and location. The release would be for so long as the subject section of Monet Drive 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 of highway. The Utility Department is in agreement with this request. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS (1) Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for quitclaims and release of the water and sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Monet Drive and located between Lot 1 of The Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1 and Tract 1 (Tax #96.02-1-45) property of Strauss Construction Corporation. (2) Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance, which would result in Monet Drive remaining a private road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Roanoke County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed ordinance as provided in Alternative #l. SU MITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Arnold Covey, Dir ctor Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering & Inspections County Administrator --------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: ACTION Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs cc: Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Department 1 ' , i,~/ ' + ,~~ QO aJ. //~ Jl ^ Sys / J \ /{{ /~ ? ~/~, _ i \00•a^ af y no DO O9/ `.+ -~ ~ // / ~ y ,~Nu $ n o ~ O / / n> moo G a ~ ~ // ~ ~ ~ ... 1 cA~~/ ~ -• - / 11 I ~ - / / ~ 1 > 0 z ~' - l 0 1 ! SAC ~ I ~ cll ~ / v W ~~~ / a ~ I I ~., m i ~ / - / n rn N ~n~' ~r+ Vi / /-+ ri A ~ N >>L 2 aN 2~ v. " oz -gn>° _ M~~,$ ~P (lagyp ^C)np ~o2 bn4' 1 Qi "' $ + ~ ~ w> n g u[ala~~. is. rc izs ~) / % / ` V I I^ I J ~NI • n N N 1 N IO~J'I9• E I I ~' n' Q 7~ 3= ~-~_ F ~ ~~ v 0 I z '~ ~ ,', \ ~• ~ \ I ~ 30.00' n 1 r ,y w ~y 1 ~ .Y~ ( , J ~ '~~~ -'Y,e~ m ; iV m r" / $ v / \~ / ~ r ~ v N j,° 4/ ` 4 `°9sS?J.f Ip j .E r / ~ / •' \ \ ~ O \ ~~ M 107J'19' f 7~C / * 1 - r1 \ / I " F ~ S I~s C2' M ~ {~ 0c'V IJ~.01• ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ V) ~ ~G \ J .~~OG. 9~~IQ~ E O ts65Y 72.as~ ioT ~ N 03'.S'69~ w ~72.60.~64 J. $.~ / _ \ £ O III 1/' N 20 7.IJ' 1 \ ~ V / Y19 W r \/ u N . B J 3.2 JJ./ S Gam/ a^ Z J\i nN N I ~ ~ aW (~C . ~~ . ~1nn W 2 C -_ . ~~~ `. m ~ n i w m o. T ~ ~ r C~ i ~ ~ C '~ ~ .'+~i o o w N ( ~ ~'t~ 9 C 4~~ ~ \ 0-64 S _ ~ .l f ~ ?1 ' W o . y v _ _ C ~]4 w O 7' ` ' ~\\ ~ n \w. N N N n o ~. i~ L 7 7 ~ \ ~ 'n ~ a +N ~,, o = a ~, _ ~ . y , _°.<s ~ C/RCL E 50' ~ ~t- 6~-~ Z ..mmgv~c=i \ \ \ ° ~~ or ~,, Ip c boo ` ~ C- 2 N_~ ~Oy',' a i~ Jam.. (Q, ~~ s i _ >c+oy~oz \ \\ \\ ` 4 UI ,LQ'L1l S lii H~ 4 ~/ VI a /-,~_-- _ 41 vi `' ~ wF-. u ~ u ~ \ \ m. o. 1 ? m° c. o ~ F °. N ~ F O1 'Q a f 6 0 .~ py t N~ w 2 \ \ \ 1 1l~ _ , __ N w ~ a C ~ y6'66 \ ~'\ \ V, i1r __ - 1 _ _. - ' NN H~ a u~~p19 Ci ~O~1 \ \ ` - ~ ~. ~.`fi, ~~`- _ ~ U c $o~ ~ y l1 _ J O 30 tC C~~S 1 \~. o` ~m~ a ~ ~ n~ °- ~~6~5 C ~ m £ 'lot g~ ° 1 F1 \ ~ w' t~C6 o n Z O 1 V~ l ~ I" „ In z ,~] z s (7 r7 r7 ~ o. ~ ~ 7 °v C" m > o~ ~ w~~'u _~ ~ ~ ~ a ~^a ~ a~ ~ Z~ o~ o ~ n ~ ~ ~r ~x~ .~ n mC7 ~ ~ Z v N~ N ~ ~ ~ Di ~~ ~~* ~ ' UI D~ ~ x O t1~ OZ nm ~ O ~ o ~ o O ~ n ~^^ ~^: ° ~ ~ o ~ o 1 ~ ~ n ~ ; ~ //i 11---~~ c~ NN Z z~ o~ L. ~ O ~~ ~ ~ N I O 5~ ° ND _ H ~ ~ y M I ° '" n ~ /-J = a ~--3 ~ g I ~ ism k ~~ i Q r-~ „i S ~ 1 "0 ~ y ~+ .,. n I1 / ~ rn L -~ n V „~ ~ ~ W ~ N m ~ ~ 03 .n 1 ~ i ~: ii ~ y~ m ~ N O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ e ~ ~ps~^ r~~~ °>~s~m. . ~~ ~ age ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ F ~ l g~g g~g ~gg ~>• ~ QQR tt~ ~~ 666 ~~4µ ~ ~ 6~ 4 ~~ q ~~ E~IBIT "A" i w t" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF MONET DRIVE AND LOCATED BETWEEN LOT 1 OF THE GARDENS OF COTTON HILL, SECTION 1 AND TRACT 1 (TAX #96.02-1-45) PROPERTY OF STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. WHEREAS, in order for Monet Drive 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 water and sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Monet Drive and located between Lot 1 and the remaining portion of Tract 1 (Tax Map #96.02-1-45) Property of Strauss Construction Corporation, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, it will serve the interests of the public to have Monet Drive 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 and is acceptable to the Roanoke County Utility Department. 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 12, 1995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995; and, f Y ~ ~ 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 conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia for acceptance of Monet Drive into the state secondary road system by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 3. That quit-claim and release of the water and sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Monet Drive and located between Lot 1 of the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, and Tract 1 (Tax #96.02-1-45) Property of Strauss Construction Corporation, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, is hereby authorized subject to the following conditions: a. VDOT issuance of a permit for the water and sanitary sewer lines or facilities. b. The facilities located within the 60-foot right-of- way, between Lot 1 of the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, and Tract 1 (Tax #96.02-1-45) Property of Strauss Construction Corporation, 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 Monet Drive 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. ., Y', L ~ ~ 1 ~~ n i ~ ~ ~ ~ i to 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE LESLIE WELL LOT COUN'T'Y ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~ ---~~~'~~'01' ~ - ~~ This is the first reading of an ordinance to sell a surplus well lot, in response to the receipt of offers for same. On October 25, 1994, the Board adopted a policy for the sale or disposal of surplus real estate. Many of the parcels identified as surplus are well lots to be abandoned with the completion of the reservoir and the water transmission lines. This procedure provided for the annual advertisement and publication of the surplus real estate list, inviting bids from the public. This notice and list of properties were advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. Once an offer is received, staff submits the offer to the Board of Supervisors in executive session after evaluation by the County Administrator, County Attorney and Property Manager. If the Board wishes to proceed, then the County Attorney prepares an appropriate ordinance for first reading, which constitutes notice that a bona fide offer has been received, and that other written offers may be received until 5:00 p.m. the Friday preceding the next Board meeting. The identity of the offerors) and the amount, terms or conditions of the offer(s) or bid(s) will be kept confidential until the second reading. At second reading the Board may accept the best offer received or reject all offers. 1 .~- The County received an offer for this surplus real estate. The parcel of real estate is identified as follows: Leslie Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.11-3-10 Pursuant to Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the proceeds from the sale of capital facilities, including real estate, will be paid into capital facility accounts and expended therefrom solely for the purpose of acquisition, construction, maintenance or replacement of other capital facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached ordinance. Respectfully submitted, •~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to reeleslsurplus.l si Motion by Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix 2 1 ~ ~ ~,J~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND AN ACCEPTING-OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE LESLIE WELL LOT 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, having been made available for other public uses before permitting disposition by sale, is hereby declared to be surplus. 2. That an advertisement for bids for the sale of surplus real estate was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 1995, and the second reading was held on September 26, 1995, concerning the disposition of the following parcel of real estate identified as follows: Leslie Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.11-3-10 4. That offers for said properties having been received, the offer of sum of to purchase this property for the Dollars is hereby accepted/rejected. 5. That the purchase price for the property will be paid upon delivery of a deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of ' ~ ~ ~~ this real estate are to be paid into the capital improvements fund. 6. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale of said property, all of which will be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance will be effective on and from the date of its adoption. e g en d e. r e s l e sL. su rpl u s. f rm 2 ~ t ^~-~-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE 92695-10 DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE WHEELER WELL LOT 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, having been made available for other public uses before permitting disposition by sale, is hereby declared to be surplus. 2. That an advertisement for bids for the sale of surplus real estate was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on August 22, 1995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995, concerning the disposition of the following parcel of real estate identified as follows: Wheeler Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.11-3-28 4. That offers for said properties having been received, the offer of Lyndon R. Carr to purchase this property. for the sum of 13 525 is hereby accepted. 5. That the purchase price for the property shall be paid upon delivery of a deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be paid into the capital improvements fund. 6. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to 1 execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale of said property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. 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, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Jam' Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment John Willey, Property Manager Gary Robertson, Utility Director 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE WHEELER WELL LOT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~~,~~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the second reading of an ordinance to sell a surplus well lot, in response to the receipt of offers for same. The Board had previously considered and rejected an offer to sell this well lot at their meeting held on September 12, 1995. This is a new offer to purchase. BACKGROUND• On October 25, 1994, the Board adopted a policy for the sale or disposal of surplus real estate. Many of the parcels identified as surplus are well lots to be abandoned with the completion of the reservoir and the water transmission lines. This procedure provided for the annual advertisement and publication of the surplus real estate list, inviting bids from the public. This notice and list of properties were advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. Once an offer is received, staff submits the offer to the Board of Supervisors in executive session after evaluation by the County Administrator, County Attorney and Property Manager. If the Board wishes to proceed, then the County Attorney prepares an appropriate ordinance for first reading, which constitutes notice that a bona fide offer has been received, and that other written offers may be received until 5:00 p.m. the Friday preceding the next Board meeting. The identity of the offerors) and the amount, terms or conditions of the offer(s) or bid(s) will be kept confidential 1 ~.J- until the second reading. At second reading the Board may accept the best offer received or reject all offers. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County received an offer for this surplus real estate. The parcel of real estate is identified as follows: Wheeler Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.11-3-28 FISCAL IMPACTS' Pursuant to Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the proceeds from the sale of capital facilities, including real estate, will be paid into capital facility accounts and expended therefrom solely for the purpose of acquisition, construction, maintenance or replacement of other capital facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached ordinance. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to realest. suralus.wheeler.2nd Motion by vote No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix 2 S3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE WHEELER WELL LOT 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, having been made available for other public uses before permitting disposition by sale, is hereby declared to be surplus. 2. That an advertisement for bids for the sale of surplus real. estate was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on August 22, 1995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995, concerning the disposition of the following parcel of real estate identified as follows: Wheeler Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.11-3-28 4. That offers for said properties having been received, the offer of sum of to purchase this property for the Dollars is hereby accepted/rejected. 5. That the purchase price for the property shall be paid upon delivery of a deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of ~3 this real estate are to be paid into the capital improvements fund. 6. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale of said property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. egends.reslesl.rheeler.ord 2 e !' ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE 92695-11 DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE ALGOMA PARR WELL LOT 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, having been made available for other public uses before permitting disposition by sale, is hereby declared to be surplus. 2. That an advertisement for bids for the sale of surplus real estate was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on May 9, 1995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995, concerning the disposition of the following parcel of real estate identified as follows: Algoma Park Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.06-2-22 4. That offers for said properties having been received, the offer of J. Larry Lyons to purchase this property for the sum of Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred ($16,300) Dollars is hereby accepted/rejected. 5. That the purchase price for the property shall be paid upon delivery of a deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be paid into the capital improvements fund. 1 ~ , That the Utility Department be reimbursed for the costs for the relocation of the existing water line from the proceeds of this transaction. 6. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale of said property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. 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, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~. .~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment John Willey, Property Manager Gary Robertson, Utility Director 2 f 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY ALGOMA PARR WELL LOT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the second reading of an ordinance to sell a surplus well lot, in response to the receipt of offers for same. Offers to purchase this well lot have been received and rejected by the Board of Supervisors. This is a new offer to purchase. BACKGROUND' On October 25, 1994, the Board adopted a policy for the sale or disposal of surplus real estate. Many of the parcels identified as surplus are well lots to be abandoned with the completion of the reservoir and the water transmission lines. This procedure provided for the annual advertisement and publication of the surplus real estate list, inviting bids from the public. This notice and list of properties was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. Once an offer is received, staff submits the offer to the Board of Supervisors in executive session after evaluation by the County Administrator, County Attorney and Property Manager. If the Board wishes to proceed, then the County Attorney prepares an appropriate ordinance for first reading, which constitutes notice that a bona fide offer has been received, and that other written offers may be received until 5:00 p.m. the Friday preceding the next Board meeting. The identity of the offerors) and the amount, terms or conditions of the offer(s) or bid(s) shall be kept confidential 1 until the second reading. At second reading the Board may accept the best offer received or reject all offers. J. Larry Lyons has offered the sum of $16,300 which is the amount of the independent appraisal. The County received an offer to purchase surplus real estate. This parcel of real estate is identified as follows: Algoma Park Tax Map No. 87.06-2-22 Utility Director Gary Robertson recommends relocating and upgrading the existing water line on this parcel. The current 4" water line bisects this property limiting the potential future development. Mr. Robertson recommends upgrading this line to a new 8" line to run along the outer boundary of this property along Beacon Drive. Pursuant to Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the proceeds from the sale of capital facilities, including real estate, shall be paid into capital facility accounts and expended therefrom solely for the purpose of acquisition, construction, maintenance or replacement of other capital facilities. The Utility Department requests that it be reimbursed for costs for the relocation of the line from the proceeds of this transaction. It is estimated that the relocation costs are $3,000 to $4,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney 2 Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Action Motion by Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE ALGOMA PARR WELL LOT 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, having been made available for other public uses before permitting disposition by sale, is hereby declared to be surplus. 2. That an advertisement for bids for the sale of surplus real estate was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on May 9, 1995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995, concerning the disposition of the following parcel of real estate identified as follows: Algoma Park Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.06-2-22 4. That offers for said properties having been received, the offer of J. Larry Lyons to purchase this property for the sum of Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred ($16,300) Dollars is hereby accepted/rejected. 5. That the purchase price for the property shall be paid upon delivery of a deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be paid into the capital improvements fund. J That the Utility Department be reimbursed for the costs for the relocation of the existing water line from the proceeds of this transaction. 6. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and-take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale of said property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. agenda. realestalgoma.ord 2 ACTION NUMBER ~s ITEM NUMBER ~l 1 L~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCES BOARD Mr. James T. Phipps, Director of the Court Community Corrections Program, has advised that the Community Corrections Resources Board has been abolished by the State. A resolution will be brought to the Board of Supervisors in the future establishing a new Board and the membership criteria. Until that time, this appointment will be deleted. 2. GRIEVANCE PANEL The two year term of Cecil Hill will expire September 27, 1995. At the August 22, 1995 meeting, Supervisor Nickens was asked to contact Mr. Hill about his willingness to serve another term. 3. HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION The four year term of Ms. Jackie Talevi, Legal Representative expired June 30, 1995. Ms. Jackie Talevi, has served two consecutive terms and is not eligible for reappointment. 4. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The four year term of Charles R. Saul will expire September 26, 1995. r• ~~~~~ SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To f ) Minnix APPROVED BY: E~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Nickens e . t AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-12 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September 26, 1995 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 3, inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Industrial Development Authority. 2. Approval of a Raffle Permit for the Virginia Junior Miss Scholarship Program. 3. Resolution in support of Catawba Hospital's application to operate a class E non-emergency patient Transport Van. 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 Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None s , A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney Commissioner of the Revenue L ~_~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 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 26, 1995 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 3, inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Industrial Development Authority. 2. Approval of a Raffle Permit for the Virginia Junior Miss Scholarship Program. 3. Resolution in support of .Catawba Hospital's application to operate a class E non-emergency patient Transport Van. 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. A-92695-12. 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nomination was made at the September 26, 1995 meeting. 1. Industrial Development Authority Supervisor Kohinke nominated Carole Brackman to serve a four year term which will expire September 26, 1999. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that this appointment be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, 7~2a~.t,c-~-. .~. ~,~i~~.l-c~~..~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Approved by, ~~ ` Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Edward G. Kohinke No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to approve appointment Eddy X Received ( ) .Kohinke X Referred ( ) Johnson X To ( ) Minnix X Nickens X CC: File Timothy Gubala, Economic Development Director Industrial Development Authority File i ACTION NO. A-92695-12.b ITEM NUMBER ~- Zi AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Approval of a Raffle Permit from the Virginia's Junior Miss Scholarship Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Virginia's Junior Miss Scholarship Program has x to hold raffles in Roanoke County on dates December, 1995, as specified in the application. has been reviewed with the Commissioner of recommends that it be approved. The application Clerk's Office. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: requested a permit in November and This application Revenue and he is on file in the It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit from Virginia's Junior Miss Scholarship Program be approved. SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Edward G. Kohinke No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to approve. Eddy X Received ( ) Kohinke X Referred ( ) Johnson X To ( ) Minnix X Nickens X cc: File Raffle & Permit File Commissioner of the Revenue RAFFLE PERMIT APPLICATIONc- z 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. sea• of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 g~,s sea• 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 sizty days from the filing of an application to grant or deny tho 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 Mailing Address o ~a-~'S~, ~ P a~~~ City, State, Zip Code When was the organisation founded? ~~ S Purpose and Type of Organisation S~~1c~„[S~', p Q(p~~~ Has the organization been in existence in Roanoke County for five continuous years? YEB~~ NO Is the organization non-profit? YE8 / NO Is the organization exempt under 5501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? YEB~~ 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. seQ. 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 organisation who violates the above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? U ~S Does your organisation 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?• U ~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIItGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COMIVIISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 1 ' 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 qualified organization pursuant to S 18.2-340.13 of the Code of Virginia), partnership, or corporation of any classification whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing, or conducting Raffles ? y Q,~ L-2. DEBCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES: Article Description Fair Market Value c c~.~I ~ ~ ~~~ l1 c,~~ ~ ~~ ~e~ , ,~ g~ov.~ ~ .'~~ DATE OF RAFFLE C ~/ec lp !!J~ n ~1 i r1 ~ ~VO Y• 3 ~ ~ 9 9 S If this application is for an ANNUAL RAFFLE PERMIT, list below all dates raffles will be held. ~~~ N oV ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' 7 /I : " l Specific location where Raffle drawing NOTE: This permit shall be valid only Any organization holding a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles shall use twelve and one-half percent (12.50 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. ~~ • °O ~-~~ S c~o~a-C'S~ ~ {~ rnon ec.,f - aw ciJ~-~ COiT1VTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COMIVIISSIONER OF TIC REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 is to be conducted? ke ~ 2 ~ o'~ or the above locat on. 2 ' .Officers of the Organisation: ~` President: ~(~~,k, ~~ . ~~oc'~b2f"O~Q-(~ Phone: O - 37~0~ Address: '1~~0 ~~f1w .\,!L ~oa.noK2. ~~~ Z~-F~IX~ Vice President: ~ p~nn, L,. ~~bnb~~ _ Phone: O $~'7- ~CoS Address : ~ ~"1 O ~¢.C' f1.cv~-- ~ ~. ~ c~ C~..nO Jae. ~ ~ ~V t~ Secretary : Phone : ~`d (.¢ - ~n y `I Address : ~a ~ ~'~~ ~~~ o AND ~~ ~ 1/ / ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~' Treasurer : ~., ~. ~ b ~ Phone : CSZ(O) ~ $9'- 3 7~S Address: 1~~p ~~Nw~Lj ~, aim I~~j V~ ~~~l~ Member authorised to be responsible for Raffle operations: Name :~~,, ~~ 6 r~J e,{~< /, Home Address 1 ~{-^lO ~2-(n~~-t ~ (~- . ,~o ~'/VU~c E~ (//~ a ~ al Phone ~Q-~?j1(p ~ Bus Phone ~ g c7 ' ~~ ~° Member responsible for filing financial report required by the code if your organisation ceases to exist: Name : s ~7yt L ~- r o n~~-f"~P~(, 1~ l Home Address 7 ~7d ~n W 1~... ~o R'Nd ~~' " ' " ~ ~~ Phone ~Qq -~j~ Cod Bus Phone g $ ~ .~3d Does your organisation understand that it will be required to furnish a complete list of its membership upon the request of the Commissioner of the Revenue? l/e S Has your organisation attached a check for the annual permit fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke?~ IF ALL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIItGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COMIVIISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 3 NOTARIZATION ' +TRE FObLOWIN(3 OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS: ~" I hereby swear or affirm under the ponalti®s of perjury as sat forth in 518.2-434 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above statements are true to the beat of my knowledge, iaformation, and beliefs. All questions hav 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 Beotion 4-86 ot. se of the Roanoke County Code. signer by: 'i P ~ 7 ; ~ C tit.. 7 ~ 7~ ..F.n-il.C ccJ e t e Home Address ~~~~~ Subscribed and sworn before me, this C~~day of~~°,~-19~ in the County/a#~--ort- t+Gc~l~/~-C,~ , Virginia. ~ .. ~ My commission expires: .~ ~ 19~ tary Pu 1 c NOT VALID UNLE88 COUNTERSIGNED The above application, having been found in due form, is approved and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of this calendar year. T~ ~~ i5_ ~ ~ ~ ,~. ~ ~,_ .,~,~. ,~ Date Co i~ oner of t Revenue s The above application is not approved. Date Commissioner of the Revenue COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COMNIISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 4 IS p ylwut~x:~;I~n, yYC:1-.~,y®~~A-!AM1ii+AY ~W:lltsc.. w,~•.r...T.. .:as:..l.1.i.~. ,.. ... .... ... ..-.__... .._..... ,• ~ L 4 yr~ 7 _ .rafscr~ to Lor,;JC:..~_„ .. Liar: i•:_~c_ , ~~ r` ... i - ..Y.~-. `:he ~~~er~ ca' Y 1~~rlior ;•iiss S~~t;_•, ~.=..:1._w ~c ` . (t~D~~) 221-~.~:.:. .. ~..: • .. Fefer pEy tv: r ~•il:.u.~~~=01- Pz - - ^ i ~~ 1 .. ~;tYig1F,; lue :~~ . ' : L..E: iG? uer t•(1..':.=°~ - ~ty_~1.77G3 Dean' Si-a or Madam= ~ _ ~ .•1 T~ 1. 'fi~JLL iv 4; ° r~C~, ~Pr+ 3S c+l OT';~a r~_Z.~.~JL e:tie:I:~- ~ -' ... _,t :.r ''^"~'~ - . r ' :~ .. C _ ~~.. _ C (. ~ `^ ~ O S. ~ :.e .s-T=r..2~ :3i. ~ f~~'~ ?:1L:E' 1.::~t' Oaf U' 'W";G1O" v.'. ~{...L~ iv."`..J ~i .1`. .may Cie:~:tirl"~ ^QG .Ci tifN ~ ~::~,'~3=:' J r i-'7 r•• ~ 1'C ri=X~ l.~ ht_~ ~ ~~ ~~-;11;3 ~r.ti 2:;~ fOlUI7C3~.:.Ci '>J~}n1~ i. ~ ~I:.:..~~ r 5~9(a}~~~' • Ccrtribut':.orls tG yc:. ar = .. • tee.. ~:.~e~ c,~.: ~... to The ta.~c exerp} stotus 'c Y - ~~ oc~.~f:~ed a; r~~:•%::,~•.. , .t 7 ~ ~'1 i.: eL'? P_C':, ~:.^t:J teX~1L'~a~~ , :..2'1 el~eG"~ •8r'.4. tII---~. I'L'fC+c~'-' ~ C;1?_C? d `r-.-, yQ~y„«• ~~~,r-rCSP_5~ Cf:2..t'?.':.c'!', OC by the .~oe:-:za1 P~evenue S~w~ce. ~f ~ c o-r ~n~idz: the e..~..:-~ pz r ,. ; ,, t]Z : e prtzd t0 ~;3 50 Ire T12f G methd~' Gy ope.. at_cn ass r ~ ~ _._. :~,- exert statLS YLu m~,:st a? so `ego: ~ a::;+ ~^a=-~~ J~ th>r cAa.-~g° o:. your ~ . Thank you moo: ;~^cur coore_ratian. - . r G.,^~cerely ya~irs, E. :'.'Van Meter „~ ,f Exempt Or~an~.zaticns S~ec~a17-sue M of Vo9es ~ Post-(t'" bcan0 Sax u8 S«1~ttat mvfoM7671 , .~- ... ~J/ /J ~ -~~~ L /G'J / /~ y._l / ~~ f' S*~. . ~ "~I~;j 4 %/.. C.C~.,~ . ,~ '` ~ -- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-12.c SUPPORTING CATAWBA HOSPITAL'S APPLICATION TO OPERATE A CLASS E NON-EMERGENCY PATIENT TRANSPORT VAN WHEREAS, Catawba Hospital, a division of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, located in Roanoke County has filed an application with the Virginia Department of Emergency Services (DES) for permission to operate two Class E vehicles for the non-emergency transportation of wheelchair-bound patients from that hospital to local hospitals or health care provider locations, and WHEREAS, this Class E Non-Emergency Patient Transport Van will not be available for public use, and will not be part of the emergency services system for the Roanoke County area and will service patients at Catawba Hospital only, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County will continue to provide emergency medical service coverage for Catawba Hospital, and WHEREAS, DES requires a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County prior to approval of such an application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County endorses the application for an EMS Agency License for Catawba Hospital to use and operate a Class E Non- Emergency Patient Transport Van. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix . ~ NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~- Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney 1 ACTION ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CATAWBA HOSPITAL'S APPLICATION TO OPERATE A CLASS E NON-EMERGENCY PATIENT TRANSPORT VAN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : E~~/~''°~ v Q _' _ BACKGROUND' Catawba Hospital, a division of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, located in Roanoke County has filed an application with the Virginia Department of Emergency Services (DES) for permission to operate two Class E vehicles for the non-emergency transportation of wheelchair bound patients from that hospital to local hospitals or health care provider locations. One of the requirements of DES for approval of such an application is a resolution or statement of support from the governing body of the jurisdiction where the applicant is located. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Catawba Hospital has requested a resolution from the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as the last step in their application process to operate a non-emergency transportation system. If approved, this patient transport van would not be available for public use and would not be considered part of the emergency services system in Roanoke County or adjoining jurisdictions. It will serve the patients at Catawba Hospital only. The Hospital has a contract with a private ambulance service to transport patients needing oxygen, intravenous fluids or who are otherwise medically compromised. Catawba Hospital would call upon the services of professional and volunteer rescue squads for emergency transport only. The Roanoke County Department of Fire and Rescue supports this request. FISCAL IMPACT' None. / ~ 1 / `/' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Resolution in support of Catawba Hospital's application. Respectfully submitted, ~..J Jo h B. Obenshain Se or Assistant County Attorney ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred Kohinke to Minnix Nickens A ~ .- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, Catawba Hospital, a division of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, located in Roanoke County has filed an application with the Virginia Department of Emergency Services (DES) for permission to operate two Class E vehicles for the non-emergency transportation of wheelchair-bound patients from that hospital to local hospitals or health care provider locations, and WHEREAS, this Class E Non-Emergency Patient Transport Van will not be available for public use, and will not be part of the emergency services system for the Roanoke County area and will service patients at Catawba Hospital only, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County will continue to provide emergency medical service coverage for Catawba Hospital, and WHEREAS, DES requires a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County prior to approval of such an application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County endorses the application for an EMS Agency License for Catawba Hospital to use and operate a Class E Non- Emergency Patient Transport Van. ®-/ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1995 (Unaudited) $4,994,791 Addition from 1995-96 Budget 10,558 Sept 12, 1995 Doanation to IDA - Rusco (127,500) Balance at September 26, 1995 $4,877,849 Submitted By ~~ ~, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 5.78% 5.64% I 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 1995-96 General Fund Revenues $86,464,490 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $5,404,031 of General Fund Revenues M:\Finance\Common\Board\Gen95. WK4 o-~ CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1995 (Unaudited) $428,786.67 July 17, 1995 Payment on sale of old School Administration Building 399,984.00 August 18, 199 Sale of land adjacent to Kessler Mill Road to VDOT 1,020.00 Balance at September 26, 1995 $829,790.67 I Submitted By Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance The above does not include a note receivable from the sale of the old School Administration Building due July 1, 1996 for $200,000. M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap95. WK4 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1995 (Unaudited) $1,773.00 From 1995-96 Original Budget July 27, 1995 Survey of Needs -Four Year University Balance at September 26, 1995 100,000.00 (2,500. $99,273.00 I Submitted By Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board95. WK4 (~u~~#g of ~uttnaC~E ~ t.~ a~ EtOAIy ~~ ~, , L ti ~ Z ~ 2 a 38 DECLARING OCTOBER 1, 1995 AS "ARTIE LEVIN DAY" WHEREAS, Mr. Artie Levin, a New Jersey native, and his wife, Kay Ida, moved from Atlantic City, New Jersey, to the Roanoke Valley in August, 1943; and WHEREAS, Mr. Levin is the proud parent of one daughter, Cynthia Sue, and one son, Larry Paul; and WHEREAS, Mr. Levin began body building and weight lifting classes in Atlantic City in the earty 1930's, and in 1961, pursued his love for physical fitness through a television exercise program on WDBJ Television for more than twenty-eight years; and WHEREAS, Mr. Levin is a charter member of fhe Blue Ridge Bicycle Club, inc., having served as Treasurer; and WHEREAS, Mr. Levin has competed in the Virginia Commonwealth Games since its conception in 1989, winning medals every year; was rated in triathlon as an All American in his age group for 1990, 1991, and 1992; and continues to participate in lifelong fitness, providing an inspiration to all through his exemplary lifestyle; and WHEREAS, Mr. Levin was the recipient of the 1962 Father of the Year Award, 1969 Junior Chamber of Commerce Physical Fitness and Stress Award, and the 1972 Brotherhood Citation Award; and WHEREAS, Mr. Levin has demonstrated his warmhearted humanity and deep concern for the welfare of the citizens of the Roanoke Valley through unceasing service and devotion to numerous civic organizations and to the ongoing progress and development of the Roanoke Valley community; and WHEREAS, in 1993, the "Roanoke College Century" bicycle ride was named the "Artie Levin Century" in honor of Mr. Levin's contributions to bicycling in the Roanoke Valley; and in 1995, will be held on October 1st. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, H. Odell 'Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman of fhe Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia do hereby proclaim October 1, 1995, as ARTIE LEVIN DAY in Roanoke County, and on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County express appreciation to Mr. Levin for his many to the Roanoke Valley ommunity. P .f ..--~ H. Odell "Fuzzy" ~ x, Chairman ' ATTEST: Mary H. Allen, Clerk ~~ ~IIlili~~t II~ ~IIFiY[II~2E ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~x~~~ ~r t~ ~ ROAN ~ F ~~ z ~ G'f 2 a ~ sa DECLARING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 15 - 21, T 995 AS YWCA WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE WHEREAS, the YWCA Week Without Violence. a public awareness campaign led by fhe YWCA of the U.S.A., falls on October 15 through October 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, the YWCA, the oldest women's membership movement in the United States, has a long history of empowering women and families, fostering racial Justice, and preventing vfolence; and WHEREAS, the YWCA represents more than one million women, girls, and their families through 3741ocal member associations with programs in more than 4,000 communities in all 50 states; and WHEREAS, YWCAs across the country provide a wide range of programs and services inclusive of battered women's shelters and counseling, residence for women and children, child care, support to victims of rape and sexual assault, Job training, sports and fitness, and legal advocacy; and WHEREAS, the campaign will focus unprecedented attention on practical and sustainable altematives to violence at YWCAs, schools, community organizations, neighborhoods, and workplaces nationwide, and In 95 countries around the world; and WHEREAS, the campaign will provide a series of national and local forums that will Jnspire communities to work together to create effective alternatives to violence, and the YWCA Week Without Violence is a challenge to all Americans to spend seven days without committing, condoning, or contributing to violence. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, H. Odell °Fuzry ' Minnix, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim throughout Roanoke County the week of October 15 - 21, 1995, as YWCA WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE t~ r ' H. Odell "Fuzzy" ~ in ix, Chairman ATTEST: ~' ~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk - - ~n~ttt# of u~r~c~~e o- ~ _. - - ~ - - - __ ~ ~ ~x~rt~x,~ ~ r,~t ~ MOAN ~ F ~• ~ ~ ~ z ~ 2 ~ a` f 38 DECLARING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 1 - 7, 1995 AS MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK WHEREAS, mental Illness strikes 1 !n 4 families from all walks of life regardless of age, race, Income, religion or education; and WHEREAS, chronic mental illness, which Includes schizophrenia, major depression and bipolar disorder, is now known as a biological brain disease; and WHEREAS, chronic mental illness Ts highly treatable with medical care and other forms of therapy; and with appropriate treatment, two out of three persons with mental illness are able to lead productive lives; and WHEREAS, the stigma of mental Illness is a form of discrfmination fueled by myths and prejudices which keep families from finding assistance and treatment for themselves and their loved ones; and WHEREAS, people with mental illness can be productive citizens, and avoid a relapse and repeated hospitalizations, with adequate and available community services including: housing, support services and treatment; and WHEREAS, research of mental Illness has made the greatest progress during the -ast ten years, providing new medications and treatments which offer rea/ hope of conquering these devastating Illnesses. WHEREAS, the 101st United States Congress passed a joint resolution designating the first full week of October as Mental Illness Awareness Week, to focus attention on the plight of the mentally 111; to erase the stigma they suffer; and to draw attention to new breakthroughs in research. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, H. Odell 'Fuzry " Minnix, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim throughout Roanoke County the week of October 1 - 7, 1995, as MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEED and urge all citizens of Roanoke County to join with the Alliance for the Mentally Ill in observance of this week to support continuing research and treatment. EN under my hand and the seal of the County of Roanoke, this the day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Five. V A Odell "Fuzzy" i nix, hair ATTEST: Mary H. Allen, Clerk t IJ~.U~~xi~~1 ~T~ ~.IT~t~.II.K~ ~,~ ~x~~~ ~C r~r ~ EtOAN ~- F ~, , L ti ~ Z ~ 2 a 838 A PROCLAMATION expressing the intent of the County of Roanoke to enter Into a Sister City relationship with the City of Opole, Poland, and authorizing negotiations with the proper City officials of the City of Opole and other parties to establish a Sister City relationship and a cultural exchange program between the two localities. WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke has had a partnership agreement with the City of Opole, Poland since 1993 through the Virginia Local Government Management Association; and WHEREAS, the County's participation in this program has resulted In a warm friendship between the County and Opole and promoted international understanding; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke was honored by the presence !n the County from August 20 through September 18, 1995 of a delegation from Opole, Poland, consisting of Leszek Pogan, President of Opole, Andrzej Namysio, Chairman of the City Council, Graryna Frister, Clerk of the City and Zbigniew Bartkiewicz, Assistant Director of the Center for Local Democracy in Opole; and WHEREAS, it has been suggested that the County of Roanoke and the City of Opole should enter into a Sister City relationship; and WHEREAS, the Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors desire to endorse a Sister City relationship between the County of Roanoke and the City of Opole, Poland. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, by H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that: 1. The County of Roanoke hereby expresses its intent to enter into a Sister City relationship with the City of Opole, Poland and to implement a cultural exchange program between the two localities. 2. In implementing a Sister City relationship with the City of Opole, Poland, the Chairman and other officials of the County of Roanoke shall negotiate with the proper officials of the said City of Opole. 3. The Chairman, the Members of the Board of Supervisors and the people of the County of Roanoke send their warmest greetings to the City Council and the people of Opole. n~ D / ~ H. Odell Fuzzy" Mi Chairman ATTEST: Mary H. Allen, Clerk 4 ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 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, 1 ~ ~' ;~,: ,_r . ohn M. Chambliss,~`Jr. Assistant County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Approv d by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens ~, BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment A September 26, 1995 1992 BOND REFERENDUM PROJECTS PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS ROAD PROJECTS Fifty-six projects were approved for various maintenance needs. As of this date, 52 of those projects have been completed. Projects remaining are: • Cove Road -Drainage VDOT has revised the schedule. Construction is planned for Spring, 1996 due to additional utility relocations (sewer and utility poles) and easements required for the project. • Ridgelea Road -Curve Improvement VDOT needs right-of--way and is presently working with property owners to secure needed right-of--way. Construction is planned for Spring, 1996. • Pinkard Street -Rural Addition Project County submitted the construction plans to VDOT on August 25, 1995. Staff is presently addressing VDOT comments and plans to hold a public meeting with citizens this fall. • Longview Road -Curve Widening/Drainage VDOT needs right-of--way. They plan to begin obtaining right-of--way by September, 1995. Construction is set for late fall 1995 or spring 1996. PARKS AND RECREATION Vinyard Park I - We have finished the original scope of the project. We will construct a pavilion with available bond funds. Ballfield Fencing -Bids have been awarded for additional fencing at Walrond, Whispering Pines and Brookside Parks. Merriman Soccer Complex -Staff is preparing bids documents for field lighting. Tennis Court Renovations -Bids are out for renovation of Mt. Pleasant and Bent Mountain courts. ., O d' O M ~ O O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~; N M ~ O 6g b4 i.+ C7 ~ ~~ zbA o~c~~ ~° ~~ 0 U ~ W 0 ~, a F d A H 0 a as rn rn GU ~ r.,, N N N U N ~~ ¢~ F O W O a U a W Az d a C/1 U ~C A ., ~. a d x ti w a 0 z ,r, F O a W a O ., w c~ Q a W a w a w a w a w a w a w a z d z d z d z d z d z d z z F z ~ z E z F z F z E z ~ a ~ a ~ a ~ a ~ a ~ a ~ a ~ a d a d a d a d a d a d a d 0 0 o ~ a z ai U F E~ ~' ~l aF~.,~ a ~a H da uW a waz~ O ~~ ~z z c~o~ ti~ o d UA a ¢w ~~ ~ ~~ a ~ c~ 0 .~ ~. w ,O c~ O F ~ z .~ .~ ~ ~ Q O U r ~ O pO O O O O v~ O O ^~ y~~ ~Nq U ~ ~ ~"' «3 ~ ~ ~ A z~~ ~: ~~ b S ~. U W U N O a W F A ,~ U °` Q ~ N a z~~ a ~ ~ C~ x WWW AG U z 0 F U O a W C7 z a~ A ti a d a ., U W A O z 0 w rn ~ ti w w z F z F z F a d a Q a d z O Q ~ U F '" z 3 W a ~, ,~ wH z O H O ~ U O U .~ ~. 0 3 0 .~ a bA '~ .-~ ,--~ M a~ a°. a~ 0 U O ... 0 .~ .., b a~ ~, 0 bn .~ a H O U N "" ...~.~ ~ O O O O O O ~ p O N ~ ~3 6R ~ a~ ~ ~ p~jp Q ~ ~ ~ O ~ z ~ ~ i-~ +~ s-~ ~ O U O Q ~ o W U U O a W F A U °~` ~ ~ a z~~ Ri ~ Q~ V] "~ WW a wU G4 a 0 i h U 0 a W d z A ., Q ~O a Q a Q w w ., w A O z ,~ F U O o, a w c~ o :::: ¢ :::: a 0 ., w W ~ ] ~ ~ ~ z Q F z Q F z Q F z Q F z Q F a d a"~. Q a d a Q a d A w o ~ z ~ ~ F 3W Ca~ ~~ H ..a N wF w ~ w d Q U ~ U ~ ~ U P . U ,-: i--i N ctt a .~ A a~ c~ a~ a~ an .~ ~. b 0 .~ U v~ v y O ~ ~ 3 o ~ 3 b .~; O '~^' 3 ~ o a ~ o a~ rs, ~ 0 0 ~-' '~ Qr C.1 .a~"~+ 3 ~ ~ o ~-. U '~S"r ~ ~ ~+ O ~ ~ ~" U ~ ~ U W h W M °'" ~~ ~ ~ A -~~o ~ ~ ~ o ~, an ~Zp~q ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ o o d 0 U U N ~O a N pd 7 E'+ ~ O~N a A Z U ~ O +~--, ~ d ~O a d Q w w z d ., W A 0 z ~ F U O W Q a ., W C7 A t0 W a ~ w a ~ w z a ~ w a ~ w a ] z d E, z d F. ~ E. z d F. z d F, a Q a d a d a ¢ a ~ A O W w O A F ~ F ~ z WW A W ~ F w N w ~ d ~ a d w F- ~ U ~ U U d U ~ a a x F x 3 A H U O a a w z A a~ a~ 0 0 an .~ .--~ .~ ~, ~. 3 0 a 0 a x 0 H 0 ...-i .~ O ~~ .o 00 ~ ~ b ~ .b .-' y O c~ ~ N ,~ ~ O .~ O .., 3 ,~ U ~ a~ ~ "'~ ~. a U H O U "" , ~ O O ~ ~'~ ~ Q O ~ ~ M ~ &4 ~ b~~A N a.+ ~~., ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~, °o w Lr" U '~ Q O O U U N O ~. a W H A H ~ U °` O~N ~ a~i ~ z~~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~O a d Q w w z d ., U W A 9 O z ,~ F U O a a w ~ ~ a d a a ., F w ca a w a w a w a w a w a Q a w a z d z d z d z d z d z d z d z ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ d a F U d ,..~ F U d a F U d a F U d a F U d a F U d ,..~ F U a d a d a. d a d a d a d a d a o 0 ~ ¢ Qz Q a a ¢ a v H a ~~ zw ~z w~ ~W~ ¢ o ~F~ WWI ~Fa wW~ a az wc7 a¢Q ~ C7 ~O~ ~OZ w o Ed-' ~~ na.w ' a3a ~a ~aa„z xa 0 /'~ ~ Z../ "' c~ 3 ~. a~ b .., a~ i a~ ~s 3 4.. 0 0 ... ~. a~i a z a~o~ °OOo~o ~ o o ~ x~~~ a~ _ _ a~~~ N ~t O ~' ~ O `'' b~A ~ 'd O ~ Q U ~ ~ U ~ G"r N ao a ,~ w a~ O U U d W V a rn o~ ~ N d cn U P~4 a z 0 W~ A4 WU a x a ., a Q a ~, w w ., w A 0 z <:':~~ o : :: w » ~:::, N ~ ~ d ., E'" $ r $ ~ S ~ ~ N S ~ O ~ V N A M p~~ p 01 ~ M ~ O 7 M V1 00 "~ M N ~ M ~ ` Q z Q z Q z z z a d a Q a ¢ a d a Q A z a ~ a A ~ oc~7F' ~" ~ ~~ U AQW wz ~ zap r, a ~" a~ z ¢ a , oat H z ~ ~ Boa o ~ w «i a -~ .., ~ o ~ o o ~ .4: ~ ~ ... a ~ .~ 3 ;~ ~ ~ 0 ... a ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ U ~ .--~ ,--~ N ++ O ..r .O 'C ~, a o ~, o b h ~ C~ ,~ ~~ RS •~° 3 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ x '~ w ~ ~ ~ a w -d b ~, ~ '~ .-. F O U ~-..~ Q"~g~ ,~ N O o0 ~ p O ~O N ao~~ ~r 0 0 °' 00 ~ N ~ A ;bNai ° d- ~' o °o ~ °~' U ~c ~ .. o ~ Q., a w z O U U W A H U °a a z °~ GU ~ N N ~ U N ¢~ H O a a z 0 W~ A4 U d C/~ x a ti a Q o~ W w z ti W A 0 z , F ::;ifs..{ n o w rn ~ d .~ ., W ~ ° m oMO ° ~ ~ N A N N h 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z d Q d a ~ a a a w a a ~ o a z ~~ H z ¢a ~" ~¢ ~° ~ Wz H .~ w ~. ~° U O b b .~ ~, 1 a~ U O C/~ .'., F W 0 N 0 U L; .~ 0 ~a a `~ ~°OO°o 0 0 0 ~°oo ~~ d~~~ z 'd A o,~~ o ~ o °~' b O v b O U ~ ~ W O a F A H ~ U °` W ~ O ,., c~ a z~~ a ~dri~ U O a~. a ., a ~ :~ ~o a ~ :<~ a rn W w ::: Q ., ::< U •.'.: w :< A E'>: o z :::: ~ F, •'• O ?E O1 w ~ :< rn C7 a `•`#~ ~ ti :#~ ::; w 0 A z N Q a ¢ a a w Q W F ~ ua w F O ~ U w ~ .a v i Q ~ O O Q U Q H an ~ cd ~ s.„~.., ,,,,,„,3 N o 3 b ~ ~ o ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~: ~ ~ a ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~''' ~ ~ a~ i C/~ U C/1 ,-- ~ ~ d ~ _ ~ ~ 4 c O `n ~ ~ cr, ~ .~ 'C ~ N ~ ~ ~ bA O N •~ ^~ bA ~ ' ~ a > ~ o ~ ~ '" ~ ~rn ~ • 3 0 ..., ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ E.. .~ ~~ ~ O~ ow r1~ o~cA,a ~ ~; ¢ O + ..-., ~ do ~ b ~ ° ~ ~ ~ o ~ . ~ O . ~ :„~ ~ w ~ ~ ~" U •° bw ~ ~-d ~"•~ - ~ oi , o " ,r ,~ ~, `~ a " ~ ~ .~ •~' ° A .~ °' t=. U U U U ~ cei ~ ~ ~ Q ~ " A o o A ~ ~~UU~ , .~ ~ . ,-. ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ H o o ; ~ a ~ O . ~ ~ ~ a ~ '~ b ~Q ,, ~ b ~ a~ ~ ~ an ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U ~ ~ A ~ , •~ ~ o N ~ i ~ ~ ~ u ~ .~ "~ ~i O U ~ a -~ U •~ c~i ri ~t .--i Q O x ,s= U 0 ti i..i z 0 U i~ 0 ~. 0 0 U U O a H A H U O a z Q~ °00 o ^; O N ~ ,--i bF} ~ N b~ ~ A 0 a~ b a~ a W v~ GQ ~ ~, N ~ ~. ~~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r•a x U x x x 0 W A a w 0 w x a z ti d 'O a w w z ti W A a z ,~ F U O ~, W a ti A o c~" o W z Q F" E" w d a d 0 ~z o .~ w b N bA .., .~ 0 U F z 0 U rn .~ F.,.._,.. .,,..m3 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment C September 26, 1995 -~ .~ BOND PROJECTS COMPLETED DRAINAGE: Mt. Vernon Heights Sierra Drive/Fenwick Drive Green Valley Mason Creek Phase I 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 Garst Mill Park Starkey Park -Parking Lot Whispering Pines Park 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 Mt. Pleasant Park Brambleton Center Elevator Goode Park Vinyard Park I FIRE HYDRANTS NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY VALLEY TECHPARK ~ , P U P O~ Y O~ U W \ I~ \ N \ N \ •F N N CO •F \ \ \ \ W 00 00 00 00 d N l0 O Ippf.1. 1!1 P lA U IpA. Ul O• O• v ~ \ \ \ \ N ~ ~ O V1 N N N N O a0 \ 1~ \ ti \ ti \ M N f~ 00 P ~O W O IA l0 O O O O O d f d ~ N 7 N O d N ~ 2 a+ L L O 1~ i+ V F L U1 L O 0! O H N L f~ O 7 O ~ ~O N O r ~O lA f N F O• C! d N U .- N a+ 7 N i~ O v 7 U ++ 7 O O O O O 1' O ~ d' O ~ N ~ N ++ W T N 00 f0 /0 F 3 W W L L H 0) i+ d w x E L O N O 2 U LL P a + O W M ~ N ~ ~ ~pp N •O ~O y ~ O G1 W d d 00 4- i+ ~+ If1 1+ i+ O 7 7 ~ 7 7 z O O O O O ~ d' OC o ~ OC r ~ N F T N O y E N a >. 7 rn N L Z N 2 NN d ~ C aU+ ~O ti I~ O H O 7 O ~ ~O U O O O O N x d OC N ~ ~ ~ H N J Q O1 W L 3 ++ z O O ~ g N ~ N O 7 , N U Gl Z O L J P U O x N W W L C F L U d Y 0! l0 J Y C O a+ O O ~ F N J d 3 w • • ~ ~ 7 7 G1 O O N ~ d a w oc C C O O y a-• ~ ` E N Y L C C _ N 3 Z m > > O a 'O 7. O O d L I~ ~ ~ Y N 7 .O C C C C C T C 7 ~ O O O O O 3 O ~ _ • _ i+ i+ N i+ d i+ Y a+ C U P U 0) U L U f0 d 'O W "O N W d U V) W Vl W N d N N C W L U C O E G/ a+ ++ w V N Q Y C 7 d O Y U O C 10 O 1' I i II o .~ o ~ o e~ i 0 0 I! W d i < 4 aL O j • • i 7 ~ n ! > \ ' q • ~ waCM I, c~~ p q o w.7 rW > u l- 6 C • V ono A ~ b O '~ • t 4 f 1 O .+ _ a, p 2 r W O ooJ V < C h w ^ h. • r N q o M a i c 7 LL q i L • I c • ! v j I ! ! I !M ,• II I • O r II > •II '• k P''1 ~ 'O !1 q 7 '1 ~- aPil ~ I • • i ~ C II j •a q ~ I q .~ '1 • q 1 L m I ~ i I • '1 ~ o c!i F • 1 } > '1 • !,1 O: I 1 1 ~ 7 1 L C l ~ r •,I O ~ 1 I L K ',1 ~ I I ~ ;' 1 ~ 0 Mj N', D'i L~ O) ai • EC I f,_ _._ _._.____I D Z LL ~ ,~ I I I~ 1 ~ I i~ ,. ~ ~~ ~~ I ~; i ~ ~'' I I, i I j ' '~ I '~, ~ ~, I ~, it ~ '~ i ! !I ~ i ! ! I I ~ I ! I ~ I 1 w~N e~~ooFN^an ~o 111o~anr~MP~0 I11N I'IF MF~ooof NNN^MoN OO~oNOaDrmin io uloboaD7oa0 oaoF NtnNmoNao F ~-Inro^of I i M aD FOan Mr11F ~111P 1AbFO1~rN'TO^O ahNr ^~O ~o ~O M ^~ N i ^^ N^ M M^^ M^ N o ~. i I '. ! ~, ' 1 ~IA O~'gOTITPItINFObNY1 ~11 ~O SON MITI aDr ^^e^NFf NaD ~O ~OMF {fl 111 M~OOMOOM1e FMIMooaD aD F-FaO b~f UI^~-NNoFaDrorM^NT M ~o ~o o aDOOOf an o~Omoo.-NanNFOIFrbf ^~O O.OO O.OFM^tnNN M M ~, ' Ioe Ul ~roo f-e apbo e~oD aD ~O~^0~411NM~-eN'^aD r~O O~o~f FOM~oo ^ ^ ~ aY1F ra"^mMfMFOkU f mMM.-'r ^Nr~OFMO~o Ylao o`^ o` o` I FoFh an ap 111 Off M~ QO I N^i r o~ONNF~-^U1F 111 oaD F F ! ~'~ rMN ~ ! •- M .-r. r m O II I I 1 Nf ~ 00^r~N ~rrleOM rF-~o r~~~-IIIrr a0 t1YN aDF N~of M o o `•M ~O anOTNb.O b~ ODN eMrbQOMN N0~111rNr^F F ap a0 ' O~^ P IIINOanMo bap F ear Nb~N lnr UINM W^an ^NN~-o+ ~O M M M o. Io o~`}~' o~ ~ oo oa ~ aD ~ ri -- ~ m' .o b e o eo Qo ~ ui as o ao 1~ m w v of M'1 'It1 ~00MF ,aD rM~- r N~ NNoMN' ~o N ~ N N^ rrN^~ ^ ~" j ^ I, ~ I I ~ ~ v ' I~ NM !o ObDO F'1^ Mf O~O~f ~OF-^In !r lO aof MaD^111 N 111 In Y1 +oo N o~l~r No kD .O^ o~m~rFMrMNrNf W Oro M f o 0 IAF '- IA an bul I~ rF f W NFb~o.O Mao FtlloT^.O .O M M M ; or M TAN ~-aD 1'IFaD `NO~tl1N!oMfapOTF^NOYI 111 aD f r Na f MN ^M i F NN f FNanNNrMNN r ^',.. ~' 1 ~ ~ 1 bOObOO~bOOOOOb00~0O~00000 ~0 X00 OtQOMO^ OCDM a 111 111 1 0oooooboooooboeboobmoooNrooFOlA OaDOrO~^ r r 1 oee0eooeo0eeboo ooban ollfeMano UlNeFO W ooYl o~ F F 1 e'aYIV1o0000`11oo'be'N~VIN~~..e~-YIQ1o~a0nrUIaDV1NO~~otD to In 1 OoFNan M!~t otnFNObOIA hIN PIf rNaD^rr~O O111o TInr ono fnM f f 1 oNFM MMaD Ff ~OM10o ~ N^~ r oNNMFMrFaDN oaD M M ! I M ~O .• j N ~!f N L• EJ 19 ~^ r M hl a^ I ~; i ~ i i I ~, an ! ~ ~ I' Qo ~ I I ~ ~, '• r v ~ j c r •~ M c u a • • ^ i! ~ M ~b x ~ L' tl IIx' M M I = > O ~ "•' w "V' r i a 0 'M !- a x M C O • '• 4 M ~Iq • 7 I L ++ L ++ L '~, F n;• (- q ;C O x O N LL M L O •. a C; ~ • L •< 7 i ~ LIL ~- ! F ;iw aI/IL • • ~7 V V L •~, w M OM O !M T O• O T U r i- O • p •~ !r • w `~ p>~ < P ~+ W IxL 'C 7x~r X19 •~• w PiOLLLKM ~+M a«aUp O q• •~+• a.+C L N L V «L`- •,7 tL r a •.. aww C Z I I- n U~ w F w •%• O C ~1 O ~+ L q L^ tll d M M U M V V V L w 7 i Ow J r V q~.+U••6 Lw 7LI00 i ~ 70wC0 OOU ~~ LL I'~,•L>' N~wFU•VY•M 7 OV 4.L L'.L•Ot)L •a~l-•M pC j ' ;« d L• C • I J 4+ Z w 10 L• C m a7 I r- O O L• O n r • a J , a •'•-~.~+'M •l J'~td % O T9 F~- q C9 px.O a~O r C M t :J v.+m~ a'Lrr•c a fi 4n,c• ca••w « awL, ~ < 'Ma rvM•MwyOT 11-~ CM 00a•M Yaq ~+Lr •M •[7LL • O 1- WI C V y,, C /• t j r q r U 7 •• 1 •+ • q V L L ~ F O ~Ow{.~•~+,7C V.L •.+ ~~.q w >sONC p,pd•>U•aLaLL M F- " •~~giaMw C'O •'+f ••9•ML«••L'L ^UOI Lw•w••c ~ :q L D 'c T U L N q !v % w % t C L•• O ,c > a '~q w M V C q •+ L .. t t a~ ' ~• • 7• a O 'O 7 L 'O g r O f M C q •• ~+ t ++ • L L• +~ • O L • r • r« L, {cdR~0. JE70l LLIiI l-O MO Jd t/n OC a,1 C~OtSKZU130300F! ~ !o^N ro NM'fNm ~~ N -rW~oNbDO^:•o^~MObNM!, tl ' ^ N N N YU N N N M M M M r r v ut to to ~o ~o ~o F aD hD an an , b o o 0 0 O o b 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o i o 0 0 0 0 0 o O b o 0 0 0 0; i~ ~~ ~; P ~ i ^ m o .- i o \ I o n ee W W <a ~ d o q C O w r + L a 4 ~ cm ' d \ bM I ++i ~ ~m C o .~ I PaW L U t > io LIL ~ m 60 O 7 m C U d rcW I I 4 a F ~ o~c a. 7 = i v r cwJ i 7pd U •m a .. I W LL ~ o ~ O • !. b 1 I 7 • I W v ~ ~ m j c ~ • i u I i I I I ~ O Oi I LI d • K ~' ,, ~~~' ~~ i !; ~ ~ '' I' I I ~ I j !, i i v .- i ^a6D ! Flnlu mm~ Memo .to~oMa<bD FN ', i Cn O 1 ~~' FN~O O~Fm j Mm N0~1OFF NomN7oM QF a~xri r`ao80 aui~ I o..~r tuuibina. ~+ ~-r-m.oM uiri x V PI '. N.- ^^ i NM1- ^.-k^.- 1Ii .-^111^M ^ W c qb = I i i I I~ ~ I rl i ~O _P F .ONM M f~i N~O~ O~'~ ^~ORFT m I~M~O^FM~ F ~Om I _ ~~ L • I mM V ~o ^~o Lh M ~ oo N m^7m^' 0 7MFYF7R~ ^ MF • V I FtMLL 111 ~O O.O M ~ ~-F Ill MMmF~D O~ I~MN MM.-R F olA , !~ ~ 4 1 ^Fp O~ ~m7 O ~ OnO~ a NF~II ~O ~D m Ill ytomNU1~ ~O m.- ~ ~~ 7~ 1 ~O ^ W MF ~ F ~O' SV^F f ^NO~m^NF M Illm . , Cm 1 '~ ^~ N FM ^~O M TN.-Nm M 7mF M UI U1N - . • I M 7 ^~ In Nlu o ~. NNE F N 7 c' 1 ! I ^~ ~ j -, ~ 1 oF~ F ~O N+t N IA 00~ ~ NM~oF ~,. ~o ~ MmMM~'1 0. FIA j ' L n 1 NFY 7 Mole M I aF FNL-^N r N F I11NO ^ mN ~ '~. 7 ^ 1 o m/- o OFM .- ~OfOD o. 111NKU1 ill ~ N T .OO.-.-m F ^m ~i i ~~ .~. U I ~ NN~- N'. o.e ~ o ~ Mb f W o~oF' M ~ N YmN~n 7 I11M ~~. ~ ' b C~ I mFr 111 of m i aaN o~' oNIO7N ~O ^ o~~o^~oM o+ mo ~I , ', C W 1 m T ^ .- MN7 a rrN ~- F M^. ~O N N ii a ~ ^~ N'I t I P • '~ 1 11 iI I c u t 0.0 ~1! 7 m m 7 e, Y1N~ m,. V1N T' m o ~O F N^ ~ .~ C I ~' m 000 m i ~D 7 m o ~ 1(1 0' aD ~o ~ ~O ; N N F o~ M 7 I ~+ I N F i- ^ i o r. M I N ~D o F m b~ C ~. ^ o~ o~ o. to I V i ~I V Q 1 ~ M ~ M i~, .- Y 111 ~ N ~ ^ ', a T it .Q D. 7 `O ^M1- M 0 7 i a 7 1 i I ! M ~• i o '~ ^ v V I ' ~, ~ , 'l O ~ 1 ^ ~ i r ' I ^ • I T~1* ~O i mot N enb M ~' v^~oYm ~ 111 lU <~O mb aN I L 1 I, mFP ~o' ODFM a ~ tD f~A ^o~to f I MbD mb N F^ . i 7~ y l , N 7 OOODDDDDD m ED UI ~ f I M O 000000 M ~. ~o Q b ~o N 1f1 f M^ O~ o m o~ m ~ t~i apOl6o m''. av~I r n~~ o.i oaao~oo; ~o M Coln vb' o. fM i ~. 1 ^o', N ~ QOM m On l~ o mlll NUI ~, a ~ fm MN m M I i . t C l f! r'.. fM Nfit N M i L a 1 M 1 ' ~ ~ I Yl I i ~i I I 1~ F•~~ 111 ~~ MYI ~D ~O 0111 e'.. •obmF ~' N (f1MObOFf11 F f f - ~ , j I ~i oo •-'. N~•1r COI MOD f I MfI11Fr YI FMY1oofM M No'. i ~ I mMM ~O ~ ~OFb ~! I F.- f : o~U1NN^ IoMT7111NM 7 N• j • 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ .. P 1 Mel ^ om~11 7 i N.-b f oFbHF7 N NI YINNoF~h ^ Mln . b 1 as f < ~ m ~ oM~i ~•'~. NM0~1ll0' ^ MamIllMmr- M fm 7 I N F +- N' m! N . IA m M '~ M ~O N o^ O N o~ M ~- N m V' I I ^~ ~, A !~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ c ~ a ~ ~ a d c°v o I i ~~ I C '~~ I~i +a+ v I I I ~~ I w lA • I, ~ + • ' ~ I I i ; a U ^ i ~- I w w N + I I i- •~ •~ L r~ P~, a •- + ^~ j .a P. I O I ~ + ~ O • L b O ~ uI r -+ m MI a s au+ b -~ .+ • G V M i +~ + d~ .+ t U +7 x U~ V ~++ ~+• t~ + O • L• ++ ~j O > ~ yr • a+ •+ L i •I~bo ci r~c b =3~ a o.•'aaL a :. .,v cc> +' u .x.61+ V i +++ ti L~ d ~+C~Om~. d •••M~>• 2 tC I qy I i i M + + .r L •~ O Z I O OK ~. Y O Y O A LC)~ C• O ~ __ rdr i C 7 S O M T ~ I i ~ +O a LYE o~ aC A ^j-V OM o N CM W ~ o M '. o • •••+ aMCO~L r C+++•~ o V.~ Vr ~+ e'' +~+L.+~L+ 111 ~.+•1.rr~+ of L a+ aeL~ , 1 ~ ~ U j .. • PC• of L ``4 7f V 0 ~L 0 7 w•+OL C~ Cn ana7V I Ln ••}! JU ~ OOti+ V V ++~ JiL •+F~• KL OO i ' •777000 LdNdr+Y~E7 ~ +~ dJ ~ I ~ j ee b l~ oo u l elnbNo~ btllolOeNo I eon p ~ 1 ^a~ 1 ( pV NN111 Fa MM ~1 NN~Mr ~ r'f f f NNMM771A ~ I11N111 IA YIN111 i ^M FF 00 oobb oe ooboo eooooo oo l . r ~ A a - - - .. _ -. r, G .. ~ ~~ r R r, ~ s _ - .. - ~ a s 1 f5, I N ~ i I~ i i ~ ~ t \ N aD i o I ! \ ~ i 0o I ~ i i a< ~ i ' n. o I I I i i i 1 ~ ' °~o ~ i M I ca o ~ i ain i r Ok ~• ^ :4 7 X ' , i 1 I 10 1- M N f ~- x U OBI Www~i ! Yb I In N I I ~ w {1° i I ` .y ~ I I ~r i i 1i eM~ ~ w BOO ~ • a c I L • 1 j a N v o~ ' 1n r ~r o + r rn 0 • 'U I ~O N o In 111 T N I A N r . a ;c i ^ w l I aD aD b N N N O 1 n M ui i mab W no~F ~ i L C ~ I o 6 D ml O I I M ~ C ~ I I I • 6 F o m ~ o <~ I 1 .a 1 !. No4 i N - l 1 i 7 ^ 1 !. oo~f f Mf h D 1 o FI wc~ i ~u i ; aie6: r' a ' I N I +o CW I NMO ~ ~ a M C I ^ I P N W d ,d 1 ~ ~ V< i ~ ' W i t I i I ~ ~ ~ dO 'q I m M • ~ 9 N a ~ ~a i o m ri v; ~0 1 0 c u< v ^ I I In' ~ ~WI ci I ~ , O ~ Z LO !r • I ~ No4a o f no i i ~ T7S i L 1 Mob , M' Mf r b ~ « V >~ ~7 I M UI 1- F ~ aD N I A Ni 7~t LI~+ I II O~Nb o' I M 1 0 ~ l In V O ~ C 1 I -IU N 7 N N~. C f tl l C ~ , x L IG I I ~ i LL ' ~ 1 ~!. I '~ ~ o O j 1 I NM~b N! ~ oro ~ e • i a ~« 1 1 FN111 0'. E DfbN o w 7 I o '•ai . oqi a + oo~oo ul IL ; NaD~ ~ rFbF ~ _ F h1 f i O I ~ ! M' I l- .- bl L 1 i • I i ^ ' I U I ^ • C « oO of o o j I c . v • d i ~ j ~> w cI c r~ ~ L ~ w C +O+ I7 ~ c ~ c ~ i + . i i~ a w a. M <~!~ + owa iC i V R r ! .r N ^ i O wW L R! • L C ~6 >N w I w II N i r a• a c w ?.+ • O M A r Oti ~ b L C ; o! i c N e' i o o a n °' °O~ < ~ ° n Wd w u D c R o bb uto o eY ~ ~ LL oO oe o e KI ~- l '- :^ I II ~~oboooo~oo mo JaDOOOOOOV~o Mo 1~ F i DN OOO~bM OM1 T t111A o 1- 1100~to~00~0TM o IAA F (~ q~obo~bmmm In No N N -MN~teMbrN7 O+ UIO M M -oNb~ oolAN o NM o~ n~KN~ sae a T7 M ED ~ ! N N ~D F ~ j v v oD n OFi I ~ ~, ~ M IFA 7 7 a ED 'i a ~. F ~e N o 0 7 M' F? F M M N - F N o 7 7 NI N ~c .0 111 I II N ~I ~ F a hl N m N ~ M I i > N m '~ aD aD F o 0 0 ~ aD I N ', FED c o o N 4 ~- F ~- M M M ~ N ~ ~ C v AOObO bM•~ ~ F b In ~- W noo~fo omo ~o o~- ~ v f e obIo omF' F Itio ~0 1- D YI Y1 K o to • rl ~O m' aD ~ 111 YoN W+- boM ~ o+M M •' A~'f Illy ~ r N. ~- 111 V' o h N ' ~o F aD F'1 a r a ~ a c ~ i r u'o M! c M LI ~ ~'~ o ^ U C o 0 r ~ b~^ C9'. C ~' •~ 7 F O O C• w ^ M r O O >~ ~7 V• V ~+ ~r r, L L • L w x~ m • C w~ F L ~ •~L>W~. ub a rr • vo •vwo • cc F a rr.+ar•k0•>u D ww r 2 C7W Lw.rl «L,U I L L C LO\~va rw •< C FF w • •~ • •,V ~+M O L > C•~ L •'.C L > 2 9 9 F J ^^w uM•a..L Cc < V ~+ ~+ • L P O w 0 O 7 7 O ~ • •K~O ra4+ 6L C O~ L w T f xr xa~w,cwr> rr .,w~~•••occc ~~ oLI- ~rc!»MN ~alo~l~~r~mlMi1~ ~o~ T 0~ 0~ •~ •~ P O~ O~ T D O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 II .°" I, I 9 R 9 :, .. ,. - - i"~ ~ ~ ~~ I i t l r t I L i I i 1 I ACTION # • i• ITEM NUMBERa AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -August 1995 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: Payroll: 8/11/95 $598,660.10 8/25/95 613,075.98 $4,414,162.59 $5,625,898.67 1,211,736.08 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED ~ ~ ~. ~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved () Motion by Denied () Eddy Received () Johnson Referred () Kohinke To O Minnix BY:APPROVED: ~u~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator No Yes Abs Nickens fff' •••ITEM NUMBER ~ `" d AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Vehicle Replacement Policy COIINTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This is a work session and 1 look forward to discussing the vehicle issue with you. There is a schedule enclosed which shows that our 10-year history of all vehicle purchases is less than $1 million per year. Staff truly has been thrifty and we've gotten the job done. The work session data includes 3 scenarios for replacement of vehicle. These are examples only, even though they are all developed using realistic parameters. Mr. Rand and 1 suggest that we continue to capture the data, use the canputer system as a guideline, and gradually implement replacement of vehicles as funds are available. SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION In July of 1993, the Facilities Management Team delivered a recommendation for a vehicle replacement policy to the Board of Supervisors. During the presentation, several suggestions were made for modifications to the proposal. These suggestions were incorporated in the criteria used to select a vehicle management program. The vehicle replacement module of the program that was purchased uses a modified point system for recommending vehicle replacement. The system will allow the use of the following criteria: age, mileage or hours, cumulative non-accident related maintenance cost, condition and life expectancy. The position of Fleet Manager was moved to the General Services Department in April 1995 and a computer program for vehicle maintenance, repair and replacement has been purchased. A fuel management system that interfaces with the management program was purchased earlier and is installed and operational. The vehicle management software module, called "Faster", was installed on July 1, 1995. It is used to track new work orders and parts and ongoing maintenance cost. Historical cost data is being entered and cannot be used at this time as one of the replacement criteria. However, the system can be used quite adequately for recommending vehicle replacement using the remaining criteria. We have used three sets of age and mileage criteria and generated three sets of replacement options using that data. We present these three options to you here. At the work session we would also like to discuss possible funding options and the possibility of creating a motor pool using surplus vehicles. by : , ~~ ~~ ~ Approved by (. , ~ William J. and III, Director Elmer C. Hodge Department of General Services County Administrator l AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-13 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session File AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. C ~! ,~ ~_~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-14 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO RONALD S. EDWARD3 FOR OVER 22 YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Ronald S. Edwards was first employed in February, 1973, as a Firefighter with the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Edwards has also served as a Fire Captain, Fire and Rescue Planning Officer, and Technical Services Officer; and WHEREAS, Mr. Edwards was very instrumental as Project Manager in the implementation of the new 800 MHZ Radio System, which has improved the capabilities required in the areas of Public Safety; and WHEREAS, Mr. Edwards, in addition to his other duties, reviewed site plans in order to assure sufficient fire hydrant placements and access for fire and emergency equipment to provide quality service to new sites; and WHEREAS, Mr. Edwards, 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, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to RONALD S. EDWARDS for over 22 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. ti ,4 On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Human Resources Director. r .'. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO RONALD S. EDWARDS FOR OVER 22 YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Ronald S. Edwards was first employed in February, 1973, as a Firefighter with the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Edwards has also served as a Fire Captain, Fire and Rescue Planning Officer, and Technical Services Officer; and WHEREAS, Mr. Edwards was very instrumental as Project Manager in the implementation of the new 800 MHZ Radio System, which has improved the capabilities required in the areas of Public Safety; and WHEREAS, Mr. Edwards, in addition to his other duties, reviewed site plans in order to assure sufficient fire hydrant placements and access for fire and emergency equipment to provide quality service to new sites; and WHEREAS, Mr. Edwards, 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, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to RONALD S. EDWARDS for over 22 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. 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of plaque to the County of Roanoke for their contributions to the Commonwealth Games COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Peter Lampman, President of Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc., has requested time at the 7:00 p.m. session to present a plaque to the Board of Supervisors and express appreciation to the County for their support of the 1995 Commonwealth Games. ~'~ ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens e~,~~ g w. • ~~ ~~~ VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS, INC. PRESENTING SPONSORS Mobil NationsBank PREMIER SPONSORS Roanoke Times & World News WWD tLOLD MEDAL SPONSORS Contel Cellular Cox Cable Domino's Pizza Holiday Inn, Tanglewood Kroger Stop In Food Stores CITGO Tanglewood Mall V Magazine SILVER MEDAL SPONSORS All-SPORT Carillon Gentry, Locke, Rakes, 8 Moore BRONZE MEDAL SPONSORS Appalachian Power Charles Lunsford Sons & Assoc. RHH of Va., Inc. First Team Auto Mall Met-Rx Mountain Springs Water Roanoke Fruft & Produce Roanoke Electric Steel Voice-Tel 305 First Street, S.W., Suite 412 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 343-0987 FAX (703) 343-7407 September 26, 1995 Mr. Fuzzy Minnix Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PO Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Minnix, Just a short note to say thank you for your ongoing support and commitment to Virginia Amateur Sports and the Commonwealth Games of Virginia. Due to your effort's and others like you, this year's Games were once again very successful. Enclosed is a report on the economic impact the Games had on the Roanoke Valley. The report also provides information on the growth of the Games and the demographics of where the athletes travelled from to participate. These figures reflect an approximate 10.5% increase in the number of athletes who participated last year. There was nearly a 19% increase in the number of athletes from the East and North over last year's numbers of athletes from the same regions of the state. Also 47% of the athletes came from east of Roanoke. Over 40,000 athletes have competed in the Games since its inception. Again, please accept my thank you for enhancing our ability to carry on our TRADITION OF EXCELLENCE; THE COMMONWEALTH GAMES OF VIRGINIA. Sincerely, Virginia Amateur -----'~ I ~~;~,~, ~~ ~l Peter Lampman President Sports PROMOTING SPORTS /N THE OLYMPIC IDEAL Sanctioned by the United States Congress of State Games and recognized by the United States Olympic Committee CJ Recycled Paper SPONSOR OF 1 1995 Commonwealth Games of Virginia Economic Impact Analysis I. Methodology The methodology used for estimating the economic impact of the 1995 Commonwealth Games of Virginia is one that is presented by the American Economic Development Council at their professional seminars. Total visitor expenditures, as well as estimates of room nights and tax revenues are presented. Several assumptions were made regarding the number of visitors that attended the Commonwealth Games in 1995. Total visitors were counted at a ratio of 1:3 with each athlete bringing an additional three spectators (i.e. coaches, family members, friends). The average length of stay for overnight purposes were determined by reviewing the days devoted to each individual Games event and assigning either a day, days or portion thereof to each event. These were averaged for the entire Games giving a figure of 2.05 days as the average length of stay in the Roanoke Valley. For areas outside of the Roanoke Valley, the respective length of stay is used. The Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership indicates that $139.75 is the cost of an overnight's travel in the Roanoke Valley. Day travelers spend less than overnight visitors. The Roanoke Convention and Visitors Bureau indicates that $15.00 is a typical figure for expenditures by a day traveler. II. Economic Impact of the '1995 Commonwealth Games The total estimated expenditures of the Commonwealth Games is $4,496,208 based on estimated expenditures from all Games events through the Commonwealth of Virginia and involving athletes and spectators. III. Regional Multiplier and Turnover There are various types of regional multipliers for value added, employment and payroll/earnings. There is insufficient regional data available to be able to determine the value added or output from the Commonwealth Games. However, a turnover model used from Iowa was applied to indicate the extent or turnover effect of the expenditures of $4,496,208 from the Commonwealth Games. A $1.00 spent turns over five (5) times in the local economy at a decreasing rate such that the full impact is $1.66. For example, total expenditures from the Commonwealth Games times 1.66 equals $7,463,705 in full expenditures in the local economy. 1995 Commonwealth Games of Virginia Economic Impact Statistics Roanoke Valley Direct Visitor Expenditures A. Number of athletes that stayed ovemight 4093 B. Number of spectators that stayed overnight 12,279 (1:3 ratio) C. Average length of stay 2.05 Days D. Estimated average daily expenditures $ 112.50 E. Estimated overnight visitors expenditures $ 3,775,793 (A+BxCxD) F. Number of day athletes 4,366 G. Number of day spectators 8,732 (1:2 ratio) H. Number of day volunteers 1,500 I. Estimated average daily expenditures $ 15.00 J. Estimated day visitor expenditures $ 218,970 (F+G+HxI) K. Estimated total visitor expenditures ~ 3.994.763 (E + J) Regional Multiplier and Turnover L. Tum-over effect to local economy $ 1.66 (See report) M. Full local economy economic impact $5.635.307 (K x L) Estimated Sales Tax Revenues N. Percentage taxable sales 100 O. Local sales tax rate 4.5 P. Estimated local sales tax $ 179,764 (KxNxO) Total Visitor Related Tax Revenues $ 179.764 1995 COMMONWEALTH GAMES OF VIRGINIA OR{GIN OF PARTICIPANTS North 880 Roanoke Valley Other 2,639 166 A West 2,023 \. r r r \. ..... \,\.. r r r r r r ~', Central ~';'4'\'\ •;\;\ 1,408 \;\;\;\`. \,\\ \,\ r r r, r r r r r r r r r •. \ \ \ 4 \ \ \ \ \ • \ \ r rrrrrrrr r r r r \ \ \ \ r\r\r\r\r\r\r\ ,.\\\.\ r r r r r r r r r r /// r r r/ r /•.~ \r\r\'\r\r\r\~\r\r\ :• / f / / / / / r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r East :;;;';;; • 1 671 •• ~: Roanoke Valley: Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, Vinton West: Bristol, Martinsville, New River Valley ~ Central: Charlottesville, Lynchburg, Farmville, Staunton North: Winchester, Culpeper, Harrisonburg, Northern VA East: Norfolk, Richmond, Fredericksburg, Virginia Beach Other: DC, PA, MD, NC, WV, TN, KY East 19 Roanoke Valley 30 North 10 ` r r .`.`,`. \ \ \ \ \ \ r r r r r r Other 2 % • r r r . , r .. , r r I I I / / / \ \ \ \ \ • 1 / r r f / ! f \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ / r f r / / 1 \ \ \ \ \ Central 16 % ~~,~,~;~ West 23 \.. 1995 COMMONWEALTH GAMES f AGE OF PARTICIPANTS ji.. . 56.0°/ 25 - 44 45+ 17.5°/ GENDER DISTRIBUTION .... 8.4°/ MALE FEMALE x;61.6 %•';:'':~ POANp,S. z°~ ~z Mobil Na~ionsBank° v .a 7838 NOI(E VIRGINIA, Ch'ARTFRfD SAS" Roanoke~mes w~D ~~- Cox Coble _ Roanoke. Inc. CITGO Cam: _ = ~= CELLULAR® rAI~LION~ ROANOKE FRUIT AND PRODUCE ®, Charles Lunsford Sons & Associates Lewis-Gale Foundation 'y~ STRwOP' P FOOD STORES V Magazine TANGLEWOOD MALL tE ~~: GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE MET RX fI~Si1E~M 10MAll _~-, f~l~ vv YONEX WINDOWS ~ ~ ~I I~P~be&'k REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Roanoke Electric Steel ~AP~P~~ALACR NIAN ,--~ SOUTHERN sec \ STATES LANFORD BAOTNERS CO., INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS ~ds~utdoors 211 Draper Road Blacksburg, VA 24060 (703 552-9012 4362 F]eetrie Road Roanoke, UA 24014 (703) 774-4311 -- MOU1eTTAI1~ DELTA DENTAL Candler Oil Company ~ r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 A RESOLUTION 92695-15 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALEM AND THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE RELOCATING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SAID GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THAT CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS RELATING TO SUCH BOUNDARY LINE BE TAKEN AS PROVIDED BY LAW WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 24, Title 15.1, 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the governing bodies of the County of Roanoke and the City of Salem wish to petition the Court for approval to relocate portions of the boundary line between these two jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the relocation of the boundary line of such governmental entities in the area proposed will permit more effective and efficient delivery of municipal services and promote the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the governing body of the City of Salem has adopted a measure reflecting its desire to relocate and change a portion of the boundary line between the City and County as requested by certain property owners within said areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke have agreed to the boundary relocation by action of their respective governing bodies. WHEREAS, this action is being taken upon the request of Patrick S. and Robin S. Pillis. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that: 1. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby e ~ s y authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke, on a form approved by the County Attorney, establishing a new boundary line at certain points between said jurisdictions, as more particularly shown on a plat prepared by T.P. Parker & Son, dated July 31, 1995, which is incorporated by reference herein (Exhibit 1). 2. The boundary line set forth in said agreement will be described by metes and bounds (Exhibit 2). 3. Notice of the proposed boundary line adjustment has been duly published as required by §15.1-1031.2 of the State Code. 4. Upon approval of the execution of the agreement between the governing bodies, the County Attorney is authorized to petition the Circuit Court of one of the affected jurisdictions to relocate the boundary line in accordance with the plats and the agreement. 5. Upon entry of an order by the Circuit Court establishing the new boundary line, a certified copy of such order will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 6. The County Administrator and County Attorney are authorized to take, or cause to be taken, such other actions, and to execute other documents as may be required by law to effect the change in the boundary line as set forth herein. 7. The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to the Clerk of the City of Salem. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~../ Mary H. Al`~en, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Randolph Smith, Salem City Manager r 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALEM AND THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE RELOCATING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SAID GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THAT CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS RELATING TO SUCH BOUNDARY LINE BE TAKEN AS PROVIDED BY LAW BOUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~u~ ~~ This Resolution authorizes the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute on behalf of the County an agreement to relocate the boundary line between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke. BACKGROUND• The County Attorney's office has reviewed the Boundary Line Adjustment Agreement and the Petition to Relocate the boundary line between the County of Roanoke and the City of Salem for submission to the Circuit Court. A plat has been prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, dated July 31, 1995; a metes and bounds description has been prepared by the City Engineer for the City of Salem; the City Attorney for the City of Salem has prepared the required legal publication. The procedure followed is established in Article 2, Chapter 24, Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia. Over the past several years the County has followed this procedure to relocate the boundary line between the County and Floyd County, and between the County and the City of Salem. Previously the County and the City agreed to relocate the boundary line by exchanging parcels of real estate to accomodate requests of their citizens. Although this action commenced as such an exchange, the transfer of property from the City to the County is not part of this transaction, since the underlying real estate transaction was not consummated. The transfer of this property from the County to the City is proceeding upon the request of T- ~ Patrick S. And Robin S. Pillis. This resolution authorizes the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute an agreement on behalf of the County with the Mayor of the City of Salem to relocate the boundary line between the respective governmental entities. The corporate boundary line between the City and the County would be adjusted so that the corporate limits of the City of Salem will include a 0.336 acre parcel of real estate as more particularly shown on a plat prepared by T.P. Parker & Son, dated July 31, 1995; said parcel to become a part of City of Salem Tax Parcel No. 212-4-10.1 The metes and bounds description and the plat showing the proposed boundary line adjustment are incorporated by reference into the Resolution of the Board of Supervisors and will be filed with the Petition to Relocate with the Circuit Court. The plat is available for review by the Board in the County Attorney's office. There would be minimal impact upon total assessments and revenues as a result of this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the proposed Resolution. Respectfully submitted, fin. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney 2 T- / Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Action Vote No Yes Eddy Johnson _ Kohinke Nickens _ Minnix Abs c:\rp51\egende\reelesl\pillis.sdj AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALEM AND THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE RELOCATING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SAID GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THAT CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS RELATING TO SUCH BOUNDARY LINE BE TAKEN AS PROVIDED BY LAW ! "~ WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 24, Title 15.1, 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the governing bodies of the County of Roanoke and the City of Salem wish to petition the Court for approval to relocate portions of the boundary line between these two jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the relocation of the boundary line of such governmental entities in the area proposed will permit more effective and efficient delivery of municipal services and promote the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the governing body of the City of Salem has adopted a measure reflecting its desire to relocate and change a portion of the boundary line between the City and County as requested by certain property owners within said areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke have agreed to the boundary relocation by action of their respective governing bodies. WHEREAS, this action is being taken upon the request of Patrick S. and Robin S. Pillis. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that: 4 .~.= ~ 1. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke, on a form approved by the County Attorney, establishing a new boundary line at certain points between said jurisdictions, as more particularly shown on a plat prepared by T.P. Parker & Son, dated July 31, 1995, which is incorporated by reference herein (Exhibit 1). 2. The boundary line set forth in said agreement will be described by metes and bounds (Exhibit 2). 3. Notice of the proposed boundary line adjustment has been duly published as required by §15.1-1031.2 of the State Code. 4. Upon approval of the execution of the agreement between the governing bodies, the County Attorney is authorized to petition the Circuit Court of one of the affected jurisdictions to relocate the boundary line in accordance with the plats and the agreement. 5. Upon entry of an order by the Circuit Court establishing the new boundary line, a certified copy of such order will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 6. The County Administrator and County Attorney are authorized to take, or cause to be taken, such other actions, and to execute other documents as may be required by law to effect the change in the boundary line as set forth herein. 7. The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to the Clerk of the City of Salem. c:\wp51\agenda\realest\pillis.ord 5 i/ ~~ ~/ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ii ~iry~ ~•~'~ O ~O ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~o~ o~ ~, Q ~ ~,o ~~~ ~~ QQ~ ~ ~ G ~ /)., A ~n M ~O ~ a~ ° a ~~. 4 ~ 2 ~- ~•,~~a ~~ ~~ ~. +3 ,N !~ N 0 PROPERTY OF IVAN H. WINSTION. fit. TAX N0. 58.03-02-08 D.B. 1274, PG. 1848 3 "e ~ ~~, ~''' F ~ s ~ 0.338~ac. ~ ? sg. N ~" BOUNDED BY CORNERS /~ ~ 4.5.8.10 TO 4 2 /~ EXISTING W CORPORATE UNE + s eo ~ °3' ~ ,~r3 ' O! / !~~ y / 4~r / "' a~ ~~ ~ ~~,~~~. ~~ ~` q'~'Y x'39. k, ~ ~, ` N °'~ s,~ ~ eo a ~cr a ;~~Eo~~ ~ ,~~ ~ HR v 8 Tp ~ERS ~ b6'39 ~ £ ?p? 9?~ NEW TRACT 3A 1.125 AC. j,TH OF ~ ~-~ rrA ~fv JOHN T. PARKER ~ U No. 1076 ~ety 3~~ I~i9~ EXHIBIT 1 ~/~ M/ ~ ~NF To ..~ ~RFA AR~~ ~/ \ ROgO 3o R `Ro l VF ~~ ~~ N ~ Q H ..• ~ c~ ~, ,bt ~ ~ ~~ J' ,n° Qr ~r o 24~ f c~~ c~ y ~. NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY A TITLE REPORT BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY. 2. SEE SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR KARL B. & JUDY G. TAYLOR BY T. P. PARKER & SON DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1992 RECORDED IN P.B. 4, PG. 98. SURVEY F'OR PATRICK S. & ROBIN S. PILLIS SHOWING A 0.336 AC. PARCEL TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA FROM ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SITt~ATE OF OF AMY LANE SALEM, VIRGINIA TAX N0. Z1Z-004-010 T N.B. JR-95 DRAWN DAP 1 PPBtJ~ T. P. PARKER de SON 81S aoule..rd CALC. CHK'D J~ SURVEYORS pow ~ ~x 90 CLOSED: F'~-ANNERS 8alsm, Virginia 24169 %=r PROPERTY OF a K. WASFIENBERGER TAX N0. 56.03-02-09 D.B. 1081, PG. 132 CITY OF SALEi~A PROPERTY OF J. K. WASHENBER(~R TAX N0. 212-001-010 ~ 72'31'43" E D.B. 1005, PG. 123 O N 81'35'17" E 35.81' SCALE: 1 "= 60' DATE:~IULY 31, 195 D- W,p„ _95-0751 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I,(1 _ y _ _ ~~-~m ~- ~ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~_ c APPE CE REQUEST - _ _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS c - - ~ SUBJECT: Q L ; ~ ~ v, .- _ i - - - - - - _ _ 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 c decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ot~the Board to __ do otherwise. - c ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their oint of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the C~airman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between 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 c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ~ c - PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK - -- _ - _ c - - - - - -_ i - mlllllllllllllllllllillllllli1~11~lililllllllillllllllll~~i~ll~llll~lllll~ll~l~~~~f1~1~1l~1~t~~l~l~~i~llilllflttnltllllllll~l~l~ SEP-18-1995 17 52 FROM T.P. Parker & Son TO '?722108 P.01 .~ - TPP~~ ENGfNEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS FAX No.: 772-2108 County of Roanoke Department of Planning & Zoning P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ATTN: Mr. Terry Harrington T. P. Parker, P.E., L.S. (1919-1989) John T. Parker, P.E., L.S. Frank B. Caldwell, III, P.E., LS. 18 September 1995 RE: Special Use Permit Worlanan Oil WO# 95-0135 Dear Terry: I have been advised today by Richard Hrammer of the Highway Department that Jeff Echols is requiring that I submit additional information to the Residency. It is then my understanding that Mr. Echols intends to submit this information to Traffic Engineering for their review and comment regarding the entrances and turn lane on Plantation Road. Given past experience with the tune frame involved with these submittals, I do not feel that we will have all of the information necessary for the Board of Supervisors Meeting on September 26, 19'95. Therefore I re nest that this etition be continued to a later date. I cannot estimate t e ate at this point pending additional information from the Highway Department. I will be back in touch with you in order to reschedule this request as soon I have resolved this issue with VDOT. Thank you very much for your help. very truly yours, T. P. PARKER & SON FHC/msc Caldwell, III, P.E., L.S. - T. P. Parker & Son - 816 Boulevard • Post Office Box 39 • Salem, Virginia 24153 • Telephone 703-387.1153 • FAX 703-389-5767 TOTAL P.01 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE 92695-16 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CAVE SPRING UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CHURCH TO INCREASE THE SANCTUARY AND CLASS ROOMS (TAX PARCELS 77.17- 5-20, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Cave Spring United Methodist Church has filed a petition to allow the expansion of an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel Drive, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 5, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 22, 1995; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 26, 1995. 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 expansion of an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel 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, and hereby grants a Special Use Permit to the Cave Sprinq United Methodist Church to allow said use, subject to the following condition: 1 +' _ .. (A) In accordance with Section 30-92-5(A)2, Petitioner will provide innovative landscaping or architectural design on the building site to achieve an equivalent screening or buffering effect. (B) Petitioner will construct a gate around the loop road to discourage trespassers. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance with condition (b) added, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. A len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Acting Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 PETITIONER: CAVE SPRING UNITED METHODIST CHURCH CASE NUMBER: 29-9/95 Planning Commission Hearing Date: September 5, 1995 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: September 26, 1995 A. REQUEST Petition of Cave Spring United Methodist Church for a Special Use Permit to expand an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS J. T. Anderson, whose property adjoins the church's parking lot, said that he was assured by the church that arrangements had been made with the police to stop the gatherings but the parties continue. He said that the parties go on even if the church is being used. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the buffering of the parking area will provide a better hiding place for the young people who parry at this site. In response to Mr. Anderson's concern, John Dreiling, architect and church member, said that the church wants to get the problem resolved and will do whatever we can. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission requested clarification on the neighborhood meeting regarding the concerns expressed by neighbors about the buffering. Staff said that screening and buffering will be addressed at site plan review and we will work with the developer to come up with a doable plan. In reply to a question from the Commission regarding stormwater, Mr. Dreiling said that stormwater runoff has not been addressed as yet. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS In accordance with Section 30-92-5(A)2. petitioner will provide innovative landscaping or architectural design on the building site to achieve an equivalent screening or buffering effect. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt, Robinson NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance H ngton, etary Roanoke ounty Pl 'ng Commission C.~t.. • STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Cave Spring United Methodist Church PREPARED BY: David Holladay CASE NUMBER: 29-9/95 DATE: 9/5/95 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SL:fNINIARY B. DESCRIPTION Cave Spring United Methodist Church plans a 20,000± square foot expansion to the existing facility. The two-story addition includes a new sanctuary on the upper level, and classrooms on the lower level. Additional parking and associated landscaping are also planned. The existing structure is approximately 26,000 square feet, with Sunday school classrooms and a 320 seat sanctuary. The church also houses the Cave Spring United Methodist Church Weekday Pre-school. The pre-school operates from 9:00 a.m. until 12 noon. Enrollment is approximately 100 full and part-time students, ages 2-4. The church plans to continue the pre- school in the same space and not expand it into the new addition. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site plan review is required. Commercial entrance permit is required by VDOT for new entrance. Use and design standards for religious assembly require additional screening and buffering where new or expanded parking areas adjoin residential use types. In the R1 zoning district, a special use permit is required for expansion of religious assembly if the addition exceeds 7,500 square feet. i• PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTL~TG CO\~ITIONS "' Location -The site is located at the corner of Hazel Drive and Vest Drive, in the Cave Spring magisterial district. ToQoQraphv/Vegetation -The existing church is situated on a hill which is the high point of Hazel Drive at the intersection of Vest Drive. The existing parking area slopes down gently to the west and south of the church. The remaining property slopes more steeply to the south. A stand of mature white pines exists along the southern boundary. Surrounding Neighborhood -Adjoining properties to the south and west are zoned R1 with single family residential land use. Two adjoining properties to the north are zoned C2. One property contains a counseling center, the other contains a medical facility. Both commercial properties front on Brambleton Avenue, with a steep slope between the church and the sites below. One property to the north and properties to the east across Hazel Drive are zoned R1, with single family residential land use. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture -The concept plan submitted with the application shows the proposed two story addition extending from the west side of the existing church. The upper level contains a 644 seat sanctuary. The lower level contains Sunday school classrooms. The concept plan shows a reconfigured parking area to the west and south Qf the building, and a new parking area on the south side. The stand of white pine along the southern boundary is to remain as a landscape buffer. Community Meeting -The church held a community meeting on August 7, 1995 to provide information about the addition to the neighborhood. At the meeting, representatives from the church presented the concept plan and some architectural renderings of the addition. Some neighbors mentioned that they have had problems with groups of people gathering in the back parking lot. They were concerned that the parking lot screening requirements could exacerbate the problem by offering the trespassers a better place to hide. Alternative landscaping and gates to the parking lot were discussed. Also discussed was the existing row of mature white pines on the southern boundary, which is to remain as a landscape buffer, and proposed landscaping in and around new parking areas. The neighbors also voiced concerns about existing stormwater runoff from the site and throughout the neighborhood. Detention of any additional stormwater runoff as a result of the proposed expansion was discussed and will be addressed during site plan review. Access -Access to the site is shown on the concept plan at two points. The existing access driveway from the intersection of Hazel Drive and Vest Drive will remain, with some narrowing of the pavement. The parallel parking spaces on the north side of the driveway will be removed, and handicap parking spaces will be added to the south side of the driveway. Anew access driveway is planned from Hazel Drive to the expanded southern parking area. Traffic Circulation -Traffic counts in,the vicinity are as follows: Colonial Ave Hazel Drive From _ Brambleton Ave _ Merriman Rd Hazel Dr Colonial Ave __ To Merriman Rd Hazel Dr Penn Forest Blvd Vest Dr 244 Improvements to Colonial Avenue around the intersection of Hazel Drive are included in VDOT's immediate six year plan. The emphasis of the work will be to lower the grade of the hill at the intersection of Hazel Drive and Colonial Avenue. VDOT expects to close Colonial Avenue during some of the construction. Colonial Avenue will remain two lanes, with some improvements to the Penn Forest Boulevard intersection. Construction is anticipated during the summer of 1996. Fire Rescue/Utilities -The proposed expansion has no impact on fire and rescue. The site is currently connected to public sewer, and the church plans to connect to public water during construction. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUN'T'Y COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This request conforms with the Neighborhood Conservation land use designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood activity centers, such as churches, aze listed as desirable land use types within the Neighborhood Conservation areas. Policy NC-6 encourages development of neighborhood activity centers within convenient distance to existing housing. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Major expansion of religious assembly in the Rl zoning district requires a special use permit. Additional use and design standards which apply to this proposal include screening and buffering where new or expanded parking azeas adjoin residential use types. Site plan review is required and will ensure conformance with applicable development standards. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The applicant's request for a special use permit to expand a religious assembly is consistent with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The site appears to have ample space to conform with all applicable use and design standards of the zoning ordinance. No negative impacts are anticipated. PREPARED BY: DAVID HOLLADAY DATE: 9/5/95 '~ Vehicles per day (199-~ 9039 9785 9674 pr: ~-zr-~ja For staff use only ^-zr-~S =v~-~ • • • COUNTY OF, ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. S:v _ _ P.O. Bax 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 dat° a e~ i eceived y: - ~M application ` 1 ~ /~L ?C;3ZA Cate: plat sy..~.' oC5 da;e: CaseCase Number: ~ ~ ~ ~~ t~~ ~ >aP~~~~~~ Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ~ REZONING ®SPECIAL USE VARIANCE Applicant's name: Balzer & Associates, Inc. ATTN: Pat MileyPhone: 772-9580 Address: 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA Zip Cede: 24018 Owner's name: Cave Spring United Methodist Church Phone: 989-3673 Address: 4505 Hazel Drive Roanoke, VA Zip Code: 24018 Location of propery: Tax Map Number: 77.17-5-20 4505 Hazel Drive ~~tagisterial District: Cave Spring Community Planning Area: Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: R-1 4.566 acres Existing Land Use: Religious Assembly and Education sq.ft. PfOpOSed ZOning: R=]_ For Staff Use Cnly Proposed Land Use: Expanded Religious Assembly and Educatio i;se Type: (10,000 s.f.± ~n ion fo~.sanc~uar~ and class rooms : exis in4 c urc ................ _ .... Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested dis:ric;? YES X NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fcr t~~e requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditicns being proff~r~d with this request? YES NO ~~~~::~~ Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in cr~ar to: Is the application complete? Please check if enc!esed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ,~~ :Y OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. Ris v ws v ws v X Consultation, ~ X 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan X Application fee ($40 ) X Application X ~'"< Metes and bounds description `~< Proffers, if applicacfe X Justification X '<w`< Water and sewer a plication X Ad'oinin ropert p 1 9 P Y ~~'•~~ ers l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge ~irbns~of the owner. Owner's Signature: .~, - .~..°`, Applicant Balzer & Associates, Inc. for Cave Spring United Methodist Church 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 3Q-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The project provides for convenience of access and safety, does not contribute to congestion in the public streets, and contributes to a convenient, attractive and harmonious community. The expanded ', parking lot will facilitate fire and rescue services. The project does not destroy any historic buildings or areas. The proposed density is in keeping with the neighborhood and complies with the zoning ordinance. The project will not impact surface or groundwater resources. The proposed use is an expansion of an existing by-right use in the R-1 Low Density Residential District, and meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated "Neighborhood Conservation". .The Comprehensive Plan lists churches as among desireable land use types within Neighborhood Conservation areas. The proposed plan conforms with the Land Use guidelines in that it protects the ~ residential neighborhood from disruptive impacts of land use changes (no changes proposed). The plan screens and buffers parking areas from adjoining residential uses per the zoning ordinance, utilizes existing landscape and toptographic features where possible, and maintains adequate yards and open space. The plan expands a neighborhood activity center which is already within convenient distance to existing housing. The scale of the project is in keeping with the site and the neighborhood. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrcunding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sev~~er, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. The proposed expansion will increase the number of sanctuary seats in the church, the number of off-street parking spaces provided on site, and will bring the parking lot into conformance with current zoning requirements with regard to dimensions and landscaping. A grass strip on the north property line will be increased as parking adjacent to the north property line is eliminated and as pavement tridth is reduced. Parking areas will be closer to adjoining properties, but these will be screened and buffered .as required by code. Circulation on site and in the neighborhood will be improved by the addition of a second entrance/exit on the property. Sewage flow will increase somewhat due to the addition of restroom facilities. Water service will be con- verted from a private well to the public utility. Stormwater runoff will increase, and will be managed in accordance with State and County requirements. • 7y,0. ~Nr_ ~ pii~'G/GL°L \ S,gj~ ~d ~~ # XY< ' ~~1-sd. N~ ~,S ~ Q -a/n~1 Sg ° ~~~yJ O I Q~~ Ory 2 V~~ s Q~\ 1 ~~ ~ ~ t S ~^~~ Z .. ~ ~k hQ~ I ~ I XR ' 3 O\ V ? Y~? ii R, y N _'~ =. ° c ~~ -~ N ~ v~r Oa W «w p ~~( r ~' ~ w Y O s' ~ ~ ~ r0 s G ~ .. a M.-. . . ..Xe M [VJ p ~ 6 Fr3~ MFY nv S U _' ~ F y~~6, two eC Fu t ~ poi K Ft 0.S ()N q,q ~~( i N / rOiw F aa t Iw ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~q sSK w l`l ~~ ~'~~ q S jow (. .' c ~" ~ ~= °~ na~ 05 Fi F ~_ F o o° m o .U{ s >>V~n Y w ~ ~ Y ~q o ~~ o l:: ~,- O M in ~ i ~w~ S q K 7t q O i ~r N M.iO SS i w ~ d r O O I~ ll S ~ M n _ nl~nn i F`~. .n b-~ e~1 ~yr na a „ H w OiH iwa • C 11w 6+ } }II ,.t a` N U ~ O pi Y .t SO ;; ~C4 7 Iq~gn I~~<~ fr ~ V pY( ^ r °~ w rw F •r7~ w F It ~ ~ ` 7M~rw MO r' ~ =: Mw A- ee00 IL ~ O 0.Nv » r i i ~ = W W •- /• ~- DKO wy ON.n •r = >rn 00 O O 00a 7 r -ae~ ,P,pp OFwti aG ,C ~1 M i~7 rpi aq ~qt _qq ' r ~ tpF s 'G ~ ~ O M q F Z ~ ~ ~ Q y ~ yny ~ -c-~ C U i nl « w! ,i V p S0. ~ N ~ ~~ t ^ 0 ~j r SKe i Y~r ~ >d r ~ F O^ r ~^ Y Oi m OV O ~ N7C M Mi 4 ~ = ~ ~ O F"' V ~ Z r \ SOtn V ~qMI ~ ~~ W f { 4w p~ i ~ t.~ f ~ VM z 0. w y ,[( . VOt W d F Of ~ ~Vrn 1 .7 ~ yyI~ a K0~ if ap6o ~q.~.~~- p qnq~t 6y ~1 ,> 0 0 I ~ Z Q ~ ~ ~ p y iO -e y ii OOVrii Yii -c Y ~Y m I W I y i ~ ~ ~' °o ~ U ~y ~~ I I ~ Z Y Z Q S i s i .i 91 .. t~ n R 2 I ~ 7 W ~iraY&'~7v-7 ~ i/- UCL /XYl / ~ %SZ "v^d 'b6L '9'a a'~d 92/Q /~'Y3l} ~J rl u~ ~~iv ~ W _ ~• $tm ~ ~ ° ~~ou ~ \ to w I U N > Z GG[~ Cto/9a v~o~a rt ~ ~ ~Fa 4 1 u ` `~~~ ~ ~ -i U V ~ / v a~sso ni. ss ~~~.. zc// i ~~ ~ ~a ~ 3 rr~rveor~~°" ~g aea~~+c~- ' 3 - C ~ ~~' ~ - ~ I /Vi/~ • -f • .o~./ • r/ I _ ~ . Z -. _ / _ -X n , S'Ob// g ': 3 ' ,rvrtt s'6c/i - ~ Sn, , 8F ~ 60 W ~v v~ / 3.~wss rvr~ w. r...= / ~ C b ly' u ~ ~ ~~ '7~:c i o p • ~~ ~ -9 ~ - 6~F~ :+_J f. ~~ .609 s ;;~ ~ ~ \ ' ' I ~, ply[ 1 d-~'~m o `a~ ~- .i - .. J , 1` ~ ~ -1~Z ~ .L'KIT g~ ~ r< n / \N Ir ~ ~~l > ~_ S I \ ` / ~~ ~L . h5/ I \ ~ I j~`\ .~ --__ 7' ~ ~- ®._ l ~ 1N3 3D~JY!'!]L-d'3LVf+(K20L' 6iaG~ ~ i i ~ ~_-i ~~~ ~ • ~-I^~YY?~ J 9~~ J ~ ~hl / b ,zr.l/- _~- --_~vo~L66 , .._n1,.oo,S/foLaM _/ / y~y ^OC 8 ,be XYl I /D': gjyPl bgV r N75?731h',3J/lY f N/77y 6/-S-SO'Fg y' XVl ~ i~~ !l I sA ~~~ :I J~W ~~ ~~ U I ~ II > L ~` I' I, ~ ~ j/(~~ ~I 3 Nb it z fiK// I ~~7~'~l 01.1 f 77'~ ~ t / '\~I ''~ ' ~I /u~l i I I ~ o sa/i ~< b~ II z 0 F a U 0 q ° n J! ~ `I ~: /~ I \ V ~ r J J O ~ o Q ~~ •-- NORTH . , / ' _ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CAVE SPRING UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CHURCH TO INCREASE THE SANCTUARY AND CLASS ROOMS (TAX PARCELS 77.17-5-20, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Cave Spring United Methodist Church has filed a petition to allow the expansion of an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel Drive, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 5, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 22, 1995; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 26, 1995. 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 expansion of an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel 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, and hereby grants a Special Use Permit to the Cave Sprinq United Methodist Church to allow said use, subject to the following condition: 1 ~ "' ~.~ (A) In accordance with Section 30-92-5(A)2, Petitioner will provide innovative landscaping or architectural design on the building site to achieve an equivalent screening or buffering effect. cevesp.spu 2 r~.. i i AGENDA ITEM NO. l~C.- - ~ c ._ _ _ APPE CE REQUEST s _ _ _ _ __ ~ ..'~"PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ' ' .A CITIZENS CONIlVIENTS _ t ~~ ,~ Y _ s i __ _ .. c SUBJECT: Pf __. _ _ _- _ 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. c _ WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS c FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: c ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will c decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority 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 b the Chairman y . ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. c 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 c SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. _ c c PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c -_ - _ i ~ ` ~ ~ ,~I NAME a ~ .~ .._ _ _ t ADDRESS ~ ~ _~- ', ._ ._ -, PHONE '_ _ fiiiiiiiii~~r~iiiii~l~~rliiiiiiii~iiiii~ii~~iiiiriiriiiiiioiiii~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiti~liiiiiii~iiiiriN~~tt~Nt~tt~ ~IIt1NNlli111~ { AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE 92695-17 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO HELENE MAWYER TO OPERATE A PRIVATE KENNEL LOCATED AT 5502 SOUTH ROSELAWN ROAD (TAX PARCEL 86.03-1-30.3), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Helene Mawyer has filed a petition to allow the operation of a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 5, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 22, 1995; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 26, 1995. 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 operation of a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended and hereby grants a Special Use Permit to Helene Mawyer to allow said use, subject to the following condi- tions: (A) There shall be a maximum of three dogs kept at the site, effective October 1, 1995. 1 i r (B) The dogs shall be controlled with a no-bark collar when outside and unattended. (C) This Special Use, Permit will be reconsidered by the Planning Commission at its October 1996 public hearing. The Planning Commission shall evaluate the applicants compliance with conditions (A) and (B) and shall consult with the Roanoke County Police Department Community Services Officers regarding any current violations on the property. If the Planning Commission believes that the conditions (A) and (B) have been violated, and that the applicant has not successfully controlled the barking of the dogs on the property, then the Commission shall recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Special Use Permit be revoked. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance with the language in condition (C) modified, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Kohinke A COPY TESTE: ~- Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Acting Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John Cease, Police Chief 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE 92695-18 AMENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE 82592-12, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ROANORE COUNTY, BY AMENDING THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, the following text amendments have been mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order that Roanoke County maintain its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That the following sections pertaining to the Floodplain Overlay District be amended and reenacted to read and provide as follows: FLOODPLAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ROANORE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES SEC. 30-28 DEFINITIONS FLOOD, ONE HUNDRED YEAR - A flood that, on the average, is likely to occur once every 100 years (i.e., that has a one percent chance of occurring each year, although the flood may 1 FLOOD - A general and temporary inundation of normally dry land areas. M ~ occur in any year). SEC. 30-74 FO FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 30-74-4 Delineation of Areas (A) The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the 100 year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the Federal ................. .................. Emergency Management Agency, dated October 15, 1993 ~t These areas are more specifically defined`~`~~~~as ........................... follows: 3. The Approxi~r floodplain ar for which no 2 FLOODWAY - tt~re ~eSigrra-ccu-ccrea-v= one-Treedp~~eq~~ed~~ e re th whe :~::<:areas P .......... .. ..... ~? ::::::.::::::::::::::::::::...:..:.:. . drainage area is ~~~~greater~~~thari~`~~10~0~`~~acres . ~e-~-t~i~i 1e~Ts••N°~~-- "~}~ ""~„ Where the specific 100-year flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of data such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to existing land use and potential development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the 3 Sec. 30-74-7 Floodplain Area Provisions, Generally :~::_:><:>::>:<::::>~he:»>:e:1:e~raa~~::>:of:>the::>:~ne....h r..d......e ..... ... .. ... .. (A) A structure or use of a structure or premises which lawfully _=_, before the enactment of these provisions, but which is~~~`~rio~E~~~""'ri conformity with these provisions may be continued subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing structures and/or uses located in the Floodway shall not be expanded or enlarged (unless the effect of the proposed expansion or enlargement on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements). 2. Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use located in any floodplain area to an extent or amount of 50 percent or more of its market value, shall be undertaken only in full compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. All ordinances or parts of ordinance in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Planning and Zoning Director Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney 4 Sec. 30-74-12 Existing Structures in Floodplain Areas Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Main Library John H. Cease, Police Chief Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Don Myers, Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, .Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Gary Robertson, Director, Utility 5 '--sC' PETITIONER: HELENE MAWYER CASE NUMBER: 25-7/95 Planning Commission Hearing Date: July 5, 1995 (CONT.) August 1, 1995 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 22, 1995 (CONT.) September 26, 1995 A. REQUEST Petition of Helene Mawyer for a Special Use Permit to operate a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (CONT. FROM JULY) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Judith Hoven asked that the Commission deny the request. She said that since the Mawyers moved to the neighborhood, there has been excessive barking at the house both day and night. On occasion, when the power goes out, the dogs will stray from the yard but they have not been in our yard a lot. She presented a petition signed by several neighbors who object to the barking dogs. [NOTE: SEE ATTACHED LETTER FROM MS. HOVEN DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, IN WHICH SHE STATES THAT ... "as long as the Board of Supervisors grants the application with the conditions attached as recommended by the Planning Commission, we have no objections."] Sandra Boatwright who lives next door to the Mawyers commented (in fairness to the Mawyers) as follows: we have lived there for a year; we keep our windows open; I have heard barking dogs in the neighborhood but I don't know whose dogs--there is a dog on the other side of us, one behind us and one below us and we have a dog. Mr. Ross referenced a letter from the previous owners of the Boatwright house who had lived there for 4 years which stated almost the same thing as Ms. Boatwright--it was not a significant problem. Ed Griffin, a resident of Bridlewood Subdivision, said that he has called animal control numerous times and there should be a record of the calls. He commented that he is concerned with the number of dogs allowed at the site and also with the noise. He noted that he had talked with the Mawyer's house guest and since that time (within the last 3 weeks) they have not been disturbed by the dogs. In response to citizen comments, Ms. Mawyer commented that on one occasion her house- guest left for the weekend and left all the dogs outside and they barked continuously. However, there are a number of times when other dogs are barking and you cannot tell where the noise is coming from or whose dogs they are. I have documented since June 30, situations of other barking dogs and where the noise was coming from--I think it would be incorrect to say that all the barking was because of my dogs. `~ C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission asked how many times staff has visited the site and the maximum number of dogs present. Staff replied twice; one occasion no dogs were present, the other time there was one dog outside. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Mawyer commented as follows: her guest who has been with her since March of this year has two dogs and will be leaving in September; her guest is financially strapped and is unable to afford to board the dogs or buy "no bark" collars which cost $150 each; when traveling out of town, there is someone to stay at the house with my dogs; during the four years that I've lived there, I have received only two complaints (one time, the dogs were not even there). In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Griffin commented as follows: I've resided at my home for 13 years and have only witnessed the barking since this spring. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1) There shall be a maximum of three dogs kept at the site, effective September 1, 1995. 2) The dogs shall be controlled with a no bark collar when outside and unattended. 3) This Special Use Permit will be reconsidered by the Commission at its September 1996 public hearing. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason moved to recommend approval of the petition with the conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Robinson NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map Staff Report _ Other Terrance Ha ngton, S etary Roanoke ounty Pla ng Commission ~-^ r, Cl i % ~ - ~ \\vf i ~ Lc L - D .~ :~ J September-6. 1 95 - - ~~ ~(,~., J Board of Supen~sors of Roanoke Count<~ Roanoke Countv Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke. Virginia 2-1018 RE: Petitioner -Helene Mawver Special Use Permit to Operate a Private Kennel Gentlemen: A Public Hearing was held on August 1.1995 before the Planning Commission regarding the above petition. At that time, we appeared and spoke against the petition as did Mr. Grff~n. Several other neighbors were present because of their interest in this matter. The Planning Commission's recommendation to you to grant the petition with the following conditions is satisfactory: 1. Mrs. Mawyer shall keep a maximum of three (3) dogs. 2. The dogs shall wear no-bark electronic collars whenever they are outside and/or unattended. 3. The license is subject to approval in one (1) year, not automatically renewable and should there be any disturbances, the Planning Commission may be notified. 4. The dogs owned by Mrs. Mawyer's house guest must be gone by September 1st. These are the conditions generally as we understand them and as long as the Board of Super<~isors grants the application with the conditions attached as recommended by the Planning Commission. we have no objections. We plan to attend the hearing before your Board which was rescheduled to September 26. 1995, but would like this letter to be a part of the file. Thank you. Very truly yours. ~- ~ ~- ~ 6~~ /~ ~J H. Hoven Judith E. Hoven 5474 S. Roselawn Road Roanoke. Virginia 24018 772-1810 ~~- We, the undersigned, being residents of property' either adjoining or in close proximity to ~~02 Souuth Rosela~~~ Road, Roanoke County, Virginia, opined by Helene Manti-er, herebc verify and confirm that the continual barking of the dogs o~rned by- Helene Maur}-er or harboured by Helene Ma~ryer constitutes a public nuisance. Name and Signature Address Date ~; l .~~ ~~~ ~zr~ - t ~ ~, . ~~ ~,.~Q,~- vaavJ'abaD.,~~.. G ~~~/9s "~ `Ve, the undersigned, being residents of propem- either adjoining or in close prosimirc to »02 Souuth Rosela~~-n Road, Roanoke County-, Virginia, o«-ned by- Helene Maw}-er, hereb}- •~erify and confirm that the continual barking of the dogs o~~ned b~- Helene Ma~~•er or harboured by Helene Ma~i-~-er constitutes a public nuisance. Name and Signature Address Date -rye ,MUw~ev~ c~o~S lna~~ ~e~~ c, s c~~ r~~ o ~, ~ rt ~t ~ ~^ Gil ~.,~ S ~ ~ P C~ o ~-t P , L~~ Q '~ ~lU 1 S .~ ~u ~ Q Lt ~ ~ ~ e a ~ i'~ C ~~~T~t -~~. ~ ~ ~~- ~,t P I ~' ~ ~G~ ~ Lt~ ~ ~, c~ ~-1'~ f ~{u r -~- ~ ~,1 ~ l1, Puy ~ ~ 5 S , ~--~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ .~ S ~~~ ~ ~ d ~~ cl L~~~~_=~~ 1, c~,1~ ,Li c~ SG~d~~Pr~c~S .~ L ~ `7~z~~5s' GZ J ^~ l/ ~ - '~ We, the undersigned, being residents of propem~ either adjoining or in close prosimifc' to »02 Souuth Roselaw~ Road, Roanoke Counn~, Vi D°inia, o«'ned b~- Helene Maw}=er, hereb~~ ~-erif~~ and confirm that the continual barking of the dogs owned b~~ Helene Maw}~er or harboured b}' Helene NSaw}-er constitutes a public nuisance. Name and Signature ~~ ~~ _ ~ ~~(4 G~~ L~yLc Address Date k ~' S `~`~ i ~ b ~ Q ~-~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~~~--- ~. Mr. Terrance Harrington Director of Planning Department of Planning and Zoning P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Va 24018 ~~ ~ , v ,. ~:;~11 _ ~ i ~, ~r-i.;. .sti.~ ;~ ~(.. July 26,199 RE: Application for Special Use Permit-Private Kennel License/ Helene Mawyer Thank you again for delaying the Council meeting originally scheduled for July 5. My father- in-law's operation was successful, and he is slowly recuperating.. Although I know that I will have an opportunity to present my request to the Planning Commission and before the Board of Supervisors I was so distressed at the extent of erroneous information in the June 27 letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hoven that I felt a written response was also needed. I am seeking a kennel license only so that my 3 dogs may be legally licensed in Roanoke County. I have no desire to have a private kennel, nor to have additional dogs. The 3 other dogs referred to in 1~~Irs. Hoven's letter were at my house for a total of 4 months. The dogs are owned by my husband's business and are legally registered and permanently boarded in the state of 1~lontana. My husband lives in Montana for 7 and sometimes 8 months a year. The dogs were at my house pending transportation to Montana. During much of this time, they were boarded at Mr. Richard Lawrence's kennel in Craig County. While I am an extremely private person, this situation leaves me no other choice but to convey information I would much prefer remain private. I am temporarily helping a long time friend who was in serious financial difficulty and quite frankly had no other place to turn. I have provided him with a temporary place to live until he can get his life in order again. He brought 2 dogs with him. I am extremely unhappy with the presence of the dogs, and they were the cause of the only significant disturbance that I ever heard about. The individual in question is novv employed, and we have agreement that he will find permanent lodging of his own by September. If you knew his entire story, you would not ask that I insist he move sooner. He can not afford to board the dogs, but he can, has, and will control them better. In any event, he will be out this September. It is rare that my dogs are unattended in the evenings When my husband is in Roanoke, he remains at home most of the entire day. I am usually home by 7:30 at the latest when my husband is out of town and I always bring the dogs inside. They are very definitely house dogs. Contrary to Mrs. Hoven's letter, it is also only recently that I have begun to do any significant travel but I never leave the dogs out at night and the comment that they are out "many nights until I :00" is just blatantly incorrect. The one single instance is referenced above, and my house guest will attest to the fact that it was his actions that caused the problem. and that it will not happen main. In the 4 years that I have been living at this location I heard from Mrs. Hoven three times, about events that if not excusable, were at least understandable. C.~ '.~ • My property is enclosed by an '`Invisible Fence". This year, I moved the invisible fence further inside the ..2~ acres wooded area separating our lots to increase the distance between the Hoven's house and mine. On occasion (dead battery, loss of electricity) the fence will be deactivated. Even in this case the dogs are mostly inclined to remain within the confines of the fence as a result of the negative conditioning. It is true that on a few occasions one of my dogs did manage to get on the Hoven's property, but they are extremely tame and friendly animals. And while I do not like throwing stones, I think it's important to note that the Muse's cat across the street was killed by the Hoven's dog, and Mrs. Copenhaver was aggressively chased by another of the Hoven's dogs while walking her 4 year old son in a stroller down South Roselawn. • My dogs wear "no-bark" collars during the day. My dogs can, however, be incited to bark. Mrs. Hoven's cat, a black cat with an orange collar, and an orange cat, all frequently come on my property. The Hoven's cat was often found in my garage, on top of my car. Three dogs whose owners I cannot determine repeatedly come onto my property. They have no tags to identify their owners either. It's not unrealistic to expect a dog to bark in these circumstances. I can keep my dogs in, but unfortunately I cannot keep other peoples pets out. As a woman alone for 7 months out of the year, I also appreciate the protection offered when they bark at strangers that come uninvited. • There are many other dogs in the immediate vicinity that are "very active" barkers. Please see the attached drawing and sample data. I believe that this barking may be mistakenly being attributed to my dogs. • My nearest neighbors, Dr. And Mrs. Boatright, and the previous owners of their house, the Copenhavers, do not find the dogs to be any problem. Please refer to the enclosed diagram for a description of the relative locations. I believe I am a responsible and considerate pet owner, and certainly plan to continue in that regard. I love my three dogs and cannot imagine being asked to part with one of them; they are as close to me as children are to their parents. The two Irish Setters are 9 years old, and the English Setter is 4. The dogs have been spade, or neutered, as appropriate They are a part of my family. I request that the Board of Supervisors grant my request for a private kennel license so that I may be certain that my three dogs will be legally licensed in compliance with the regulations of Roanoke County. I appreciate your consideration of my application, Very sincerely yours, .LQ /~~~ Helene Mawyer OCCURRENCES OF CONTINUAL BARKING IN THE SOUTH ROSELAWN AREA • June 30, Friday Mostly all day • July 3 Monday Mostly all day • July 4, Tuesday Mostly all day • July 12, Wed........ .. 8:15 PM • July 15, Saturday .6:15-7:OOAM 6:30AM • July 16, Sunday .2:15 PM-2:30 • July 16 Sunday 9:45 • July 22, Saturday 6:00-7:00 PM • July 24 Monday 11:4 AM • July 25 Tuesday 8:00 AM • July 27 Thurs 3:4~ AM Behind house, right Behind house, right Behind house, right Behind house, right Behind house, left Bridlewood? Cat in my driveway! Front of house, left? Across street? Behind house, left Behind house, left.Bridlewood?. front of house, left? Across street? Behind house, right. Right, Facing house or across street Right Side?? Somthing lites my motion lights * This list was first started July ,otherwise it would be more extensive. Times rounded to nearest quarter hour. E."~~' ' ti .37 ~~'ti:`• ~> ~`..'• :.•:+ .. .. v~ :~: T ':~ . +:#M ~ . c~~,'~.y%%~ 4~ fr. ?~x j,,,:.^ q:1 'l~f f%'l u~r. 9 •~ (~[~ O N .~ (G:' • /~~ ;iii: ` + ~ iii . :~~v ` . ~f' .. :5:.:.: , st:. .~~ii I '`F.yy::.~ I ~:~ ' ' 1 I 3--~ `'".. " ~ YY °~:I:~::~:'rt ~: 1 ` 1 ' `r f 3 ~ O ~ V ~ ° 1 ~~ ~ 'v~ ' ~> O v~ c~ L~ I = I ~I ,~ r C/] Fi,+...: -c:. ;: ~`¢' h~' ~~ >~, STAFF REPORT • PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Helene Mawyer PREPARED BY: LEE GARMAN 25-7/95 DATE: July 5, 1995 A. SUMMARY B. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Use and Design Standards for a Private Kennel are as follows: 1. Minimum lot size: One (1) Acre. 2. A Private Kennel shall be permitted only when accessory to a single family dwelling. 3. Exterior runs, pens and other confined areas designed to house four (4) or more animals shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from any property line. Perimeter fencing shall not be considered a confined area. C7 C. EXISTING CONDITIONS The property is located at 5502 South Roselawn Road in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The size of the parcel is 1.55 acres. There is a single family dwelling on the property. The applicant has three (3) dogs which are basically indoor pets. The dogs are confined to the property by an electric invisible fence system. There is no "kennel silencer system'. There is also a small fenced area for the dogs which is approximately fifty (50) feet from the nearest property line. The parcel is surrounded by heavy vegetation. The applicant proposes no additional dogs or facilities. Surrounding land uses are single family dwellings zoned R-1. The area to the west is generally larger lots (5-40 acres) while the area to the east is Bridlewood subdivision. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Since the applicant's property is 1.55 acres with dense vegetation on all sides, one (1) dog in addition to the two (2) permitted by right should not create a significant adverse impact on surrounding properties. There has been opposition to this request. Allegations have been made about noise problems, dogs loose outside of the property, and that there have been eight dogs on the property at one time. If anymore than three (3) dogs should be allowed on this property, a more restrictive confinement area with means of controlling noise should be considered. ~J • ~.~~ 7~Z~u~.-t~~cr /4.E it~~ G~,(~ mot.. ~~t/YIt.~~ ~~~t~~~' ~~ ~ G__ / ~y~J ~;CL__ ~l-~Z .,~-~~~~2~1-,.rte ~. ~1'vt.l, L~s1CJ~ • ~` • Trig] & Linda Copenhaver 340 Yorkshire Avenue ~t'a}nesboro, Vir~~nia 22980 (703) 949-8001 June 30, 199 Board of Zoning Roanoke County, Virginia Re: Request of Barn and Helene ~-sawyer of ~~02 South Roselawn Road to Obtain a Kennel Permit for Family Pets Gentlemen: As a recent neighbor of Mr. & A~-s. Ma~,yer for approximately four years, I feel compelled to write to you in response to your solicitation for our comments regarding their application to obtain a kennel pernut. We are in support of their request and ask that you grant the permit. While living at 5504 South Roselawn Road, we always found the Iviawyers to be responsible and caring pet owners. Immediately upon moping to their home, they spent considerable sums of money to install invisible underground fencing and provide barking control collars for their pets in order to protect the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their neighbors. The dogs are kept in the house at night. It should also be noted that the dogs aze of a peaceful and docile nature, making excellent playmates for our young son (currently 5 years old). I might also add they prodded an extra sense of security, as both Mr. Mawyer and myself frequently traveled out of town on business for ea-tended time periods. Though the area is urban, the immediate neighborhood is quite rural, with not only household pets being common, but an abundance of cattle, horses and other farm animals. In light of the fact the request is not being made to operate a commercial kennel, but simply to provide for the family pets, we feel it is a reasonable request. It is just one small way with which we are able to repay man's best friend for their continued love and loyalty. It is for these reasons we respectfully request you approve their petition. Thank you for your consideration of our position on this matter. l.J ~~~ Trigg Co enhaver Sincerely, Linda CopenhaveYr • ton Secretar ~` Mr. Terrance Harring Y ,~~ Roanoke County Planning Commission ~:; o ~''~ 5204 Bernard Drive - -_ . -__, Roanoke, Va. 24018 - - - = ~ ~-y . Dear Sir, We are writing to request that the special use permit to operate a private kennel applied for by Helene Mawyer be denied. Public hearings on this matter are scheduled for July 5th and July 25th, 1995. My wife and I have owned our house at 6208 Saddleridge Ln (Bridlewood) since spring, 1982. This is a beautiful wooded residential area. We just love to leave our house open to enjoy the environment. We have a screened in porch on the back of our house where we eat dinner about 8 months of the year. Unfortunately, the Mawyer home is directly behind us, perhaps 250 feet away through the woods overlooked by our porch. The Mawyers' dogs are ruining our enjoyment of our home. We have been long suffering on this matter but this spring the barking has been terrible. The Animal Control officers have done what they could to help us. They have talked to the Mawyers, cited them for not licensing their dogs (Mawyers were found guilty on April 20th, 1995), and cited them for keeping five dogs without a kennel license. Each time action has been taken against the Mawyers, things got better for awhile, and then started up again. About a month ago, I spoke with Officer Newsom (Roanoke County Animal Control) to ask again for help and was shocked when he told me that he could no longer help us. Officer Newsom told me that on June 25th, 1995 Judge Broadhurst (General District Court) had dismissed charges against the Mawyers for keeping more dogs than the zoning permits. I suppose that it was standard procedure, but we were not represented at the hearing since we were not notified. Officer Newsom stated that under the circumstances, Animal Control could do nothing, and furthermore, it wasn't against the law for dogs to bark. Officer Newson stated that our only recourse was to take civil action against the Mawyers (which we haven't done to this point). Officer Newsom also said that if the Mawyers apply but fail to get a kennel license, he would again attempt to enforce the two dog zoning limit. It is worth noting that the issue here is not really how many dogs the Mawyers have but rather that the Mawyers' dogs are a long standing problem. However, Officer Newsom told me that the Mawyers' attorney stated in court that the Mawyers were keeping only three dogs. Our impression is that they have more. Several months ago my wife and I walked through the woods to the back of Mawyers' yard to check things out. When we emerged from the woods, we were met by a pack of hunting dogs (many more than 3) apparently. restrained by an invisible fence. My wife and I beat a hasty retreat and haven't ventured anywhere near since. After speaking to Officer Newsom, I spoke with the General District Court clerk and then with the Commonwealth Attorney's office. I was told that no information was available as to why the charges were dismissed but was given 4:./C: confirmation that our only recourse was to take civil action. The Commonwealth Attorney's Office suggested forming a citizen's group to share the legal expenses. In addition, I spoke with John Murphy of the Planning Dept. and was told that Mrs. Mawyer has applied for a kennel license with the first of two public hearings scheduled for July 5th. Mr. Murphy told me that all contiguous property owners would be notified of these hearings. Perhaps because of some quirk in the property layout, we were not notified. Please be so kind as to add us to the list of those notified so that we may be properly represented at the proceedings. My wife and I haven't kept records of dates and time when the Mawyers' dogs were especially bad, but let me cite a few recent instances that I remember. Saturday June 17th (my wife thinks I'm remembering the night of June 16th) I went to sleep listening to the Mawyer's dogs. I was awakened at 1AM and again at 3 AM by the Mawyer's dogs. I got up at 7 AM listening to their dogs bark. Monday June 19th we are trying to celebrate my birthday. The dogs barked so loudly that we had to raise our voices to speak to each other. On Tuesday June 27th we have a replay when we try to celebrate my daughter's birthday and the Mawyers' dogs decided to join the party. This is a beautiful residential area and my wife and I have loved living here. Please help us. We request that the Planning Commission take no actions to extend the Mawyers' dog rights. We also request that you take no actions which might impede future civil action in the event that the situation is not rectified when the Mawyers are keeping two dogs. ~cerely GYZ~~-- Ed a da Griffin 6208 Saddleridge Ln. Roanoke, Va. 24018 • June 27, 199 Mr. Terrance Harrington, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 ., .~-J ~, ~.. /~ ~ ~~ RE: Application for Special Use Permit-Private Kennel License Helene Mawyer, 5502 South Roselawn Road, Roanoke, Va 24018 Dear Mr. Hamngton: u `~ The undersigned own and reside at the premises adjoining the property of Helene Mawyer, who is applying for a Special Use Permit in order to obtain a Kennel License. Unfortunately, we aze required to be out of town on July 5, 1995, and will be unable to attend the Public Hearing scheduled for that date. However, we wish to register our objection to this application by this letter and plan on personally attending the next hearing on July 25, 1995, before the Boazd of Supervisors. We have lived in our home at 5474 South Roselawn Road since Apri1,1990. Mrs. Mawyer purchased the home next to us in August of 1991. At that time, Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer owned two dogs which were confined to their property by means of an electric fence (Invisible Fence). As soon as Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer moved in, the bazking began, very loudly, continuously both day and night. There does not seem to be anything which necessarily provokes the dogs, and they bazk for hours on end, many nights until 1:00 a.m. and later. When Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer travel, they have someone come in to take care of the dogs. However, there aze times when the people never show up at the house or leave the house, and the dogs bazk all day and all night. It is important to note that whenever the dogs are outside they bazk, and it does not matter if someone is home or not, the bazking continues. In an effort to be understanding , we did not complain about the barking to Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer for several months. However, the bazking became unbearable, and since nothing was being done, we began to call them. The barking continued, in spite of our numerous calls, and we eventually called Animal Control. Mr. Lewis Poage, then Animal Control Officer for the azea, stopped by to speak with them. Any stop to the bazking was short-lived, a week possibly, and it eventually returned to its normal level. During this time, Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer obtained another dog which was in our yard on a regulaz basis. Some time after that, Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer obtained another three dogs. With six dogs unattended, the barking escalated. Some time prior to mid-March, 1995, there were two more dogs at Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer's, totaling eight dogs. We once again called Animal Control due to the intolerable situation created (..~'~ `~ by so many dogs. Animal Control went to Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer, and they were cited for not having a kennel license and having six unlicensed dogs. Granting a Special Use Permit to obtain a Kennel License is inappropriate for the following reasons: l.. The dogs living at Mr. and Mrs. Mawyer's premises, regardless of number, are unattended and allowed to bark all hours of the day and night so as to constitute a Public Nuisance (A proceeding is currently pending in Roanoke County General District Court for a violation of the Public Nuisance Law). . 2. The Application states that the license is requested for three dogs. However, it appears that from past experience, there would be more than three dogs at the premises. . 3. This area is zoned R-1 Residential, and the intrusion of a Special Use Permit allowing a Kennel License would defeat the purpose of such zoning classification. 4. The granting of the requested Permit and License would have a detrimental impact upon the properties surrounding the Mawyer property because of their close proximity and would deprive the owners of the surrounding properties of their rights to the normal use and enjoyment of their property, including the loss of property value. We thank you for your consideration. If there is any further information you require, or we can be of assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to let us know. Very truly yours ~ ~ !~°~-~ ~, John I~ Hoven and Judith E. Hoven 5474 South Roselawn Road Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone: (703) 772-4810 C7 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 start use on/y date received: ~ ~~~/`,.~ received by: ~ i, application few ~/ PCIBZa da e: • y ~ lacards ' p ~ 3 ~ 005 date: _ /z-S Case Number: ~ ;~ ~ ~~~ Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ^ REZONING SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: ~(~,,;~ ~,.~i., f~- Phone: ~~~ / X37 ' Address: S~OZ ~~~f~ c~(~~.~ ~d ,~~~ U~' Zip Code: Z=~^iS Owner's name: ~ ~ /Yl ~ Phone: d Zi C Address: e: p o Location of property: Tax Map Number: :%„ ~: _~ _ - "; 4.-: ~~~~~~ Magisterial District: (,(1 Community Planning Area: (~J, ~,,~ Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: ~~- ~ /-5~ acres Existing Land Use: ~ , .•~-_ -=~.•-..'--. ,~~ •-.~~ sq.ft. - Proposed Zoning: !~~~ J ~ f For staff Use On/y T U Proposed Land Use: /;, ~,,,~ ~ r~,,,; E? _ se ype: v ~~~ ~- 3 JoG s - l~7 ~~ ~cnx~-C ~-~-~ Does the par eet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES ~ NO 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 Count Zoning Ordinance in order to: y Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. nis v ws v ws v Consultation ~ 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan Application fee Application ~~~ Metes and bounds description ':<x< Proffers, if applicable i Justification ~s Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that / am either th owner of the properly or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge d ,onsent f the caner. Owner's Signature: /~ U-3 Applicant ~ ~ ti The Planning Commission will study rezoning and spec~fet s andrgene al 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 they c°tn'classC'~f'~dClataonen the zon ng ordinancel.as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning dist Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the properiY iiaCii, "'° 4V~~"'~ area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and firelrescue. ~~ ~ ~~~.~~G~2~S ~ JL~ ~~~~J~~ ~ . G1 2e • ~ - J~j { ~ e• ~' O O ~ S ;/ U nJ 1 ` ~ : ~ ~~ N ~ n o S ~ 6 d~ 3 M ~' . ~` ~ ~ N ~ 8 0 ~ 6 o~.6b~ ~ l ~~ ~ -~ '?:~d-- ul ~~ '~i :j «~ ~ ~ / ~ ` /.~' ~ ,:~ t Z ?- ~ /=:•~ l ~ ~ F- _J C J ~ ~~~~ d'`'• / U, ~ v ~ ~ e `'' ~ a ,~ ~' N ~ c ~ Z i o¢t' I ~ J ~ it ~'~ ~ u~~~~d 213J~7 ~ '~ p ~ ~ ~ Sd°1~ ~ w m ' ~ it}M ?7~?1<J ~ M ~ t : ~ ~ t lr?t\ a / ' v -~ ~ i ':. ^ 1 -.' J II~~~ Q ~ l~/~ ~ ~ v ~,3Ntm~ 'l._~. 2 .t. 1 J ~ ~ J v Z 3 uV/ Z ¢ \~ t~- y e o ; u ,~ ° ~ `' 1 w a ~ e ° o Z ~ 3'0 ~ o 3 •~ti t6Gt't a i ~~ N .. ~M..l.q.~oo6~•s ~~ •- \.../ G ~-. H ~(; c Z [:; C1 H ~ 7 C E, ~ O U F-' C C =. > ,•.' (.!) to G O [C ~ ~ ~ ~ p c 0 a ~ to r y, ~ -'~ p cr., c1 C7 .., (~ ~-- r O Q Wv .s H Z Z to - ~ ~= O ~ J W H ' O C V r .1 ~ ( n a = 3 H F > c-: G U H X Z C O Z C1 Z ,.:.. O G X to O C O .': C c~ ~ U ~ } G C L7 ~ ~ ._^. J F.. :i Z `. ~ G h u e < C~ C~ fA O} Z ~^ ~; ~ ~" e C < c ~ ~ ~ C:V Z u; Vi W N Y H A ~ Z ~ ~ O ~ Z C O C J W 4 ~ is ^ C =- L O W _~ ~ U ~ N 1 ` . ~~ '~G1~IA c`•: ~,~4 ` W 8b c 0 .N o ~. '• ~ o G i v? .. ~ ~ %~ ~ H p . ~* _ ~• :~.-• ~ ~• .C w2 3 .`~O Z ~Of ~~ _; ~~~ J ~ ~ ~ ,tJ u ~~ W~ LL ~ ~ C ~ ~ 0 ~c~~~ o c L ~= v N J J_ of F--- l~ Z C_ 0 -~_ .Z 6 Z a { ~-- - ~6'~d 6 '4J 'd ..uoorn~-?Ui~.cJ•- ~ of`r '~~S/ l ~~01~ ~ ~ L~ c«n< ~~~=~Z <^-''' r Z -~= j'- Z :T ~J~=i ~^ d d a ~ cn a-~ S\ ~~~~~~~ ~;~..~i~ V a of --~ v = ? ^ -`~ ~ i!r` J L L D~ v • C' "~rZ10l.E~v-~4~~co ~~ °4 aC~t~,Ma~ A - :,. O ~ N ~~, a~ `6aRC.Z ~" ~_ t ~` ~ v+ .,` ea. r ~ ac~. po. CJf~iLKL~'~~() ~~ 725 2 ~r ^ n \((+ __\\. ,µ\ti~ ~~'.~,~V()r..' _ _ .. ~~ / ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ DRYS r4 ~`'~.-' ~-~,~r- N O R T N ~~~ ~ "~ VICINITY MAP ~y~~ ~~ 4EEK~- _ . d. l t.oi~ II ~ . 3.00 :~c _ .. _ __~ 12 .. 18 63 9j .. Sg0 DEPAP.T[~d~IT OF PLANNING AND ZONING rJ `^ x 6 g 3g.~~ "' „o glacl ~LT~ I 17 ~ • ~~; S g'~ ' . ,• ,. ' u HELENE MAWYER SPECIAL USE PERMIT MAP ,'-,` 86.03-t-3o•3 C..r[ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO HELENE MAWYER TO OPERATE A PRIVATE KENNEL LOCATED AT 5502 SOUTH ROSELAWN ROAD (TAX PARCEL 86.03-1-30.3), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Helene Mawyer 'has filed a petition to allow the operation of a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 5, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 22, 1995; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 26, 1995. 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 operation of a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended and hereby grants a Special Use Permit to Helene Mawyer to allow said use, subject to the following condi- tions: (A) There shall be a maximum of three dogs kept at the site, effective October 1, 1995. 1 ,~ . "°"" (B) The dogs shall be controlled with a no-bark collar when outside and unattended. (C) This Special Use Permit will be reconsidered by the Commission at its October 1996 public hearing. zoning.mewyer 2 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment of the Floodplain Provisions contained in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~„~,~ ~~~~~~~~ BACKGROUND: Roanoke County has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1978. This program guarantees that flood hazard insurance is available for properties already built in flood prone areas. In exchange the County is required to manage and regulate any future development in the floodplains. The amendments proposed consist of changes in the following three areas: 1) The Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been modified to correct the floodway boundary along the Roanoke River in the vicinity of Diuguids Lane. These modifications were proposed by the County over a year ago and will go into effect on October 18, 1995. Adding the language "as amended" to Section 30-74-4 (A) addresses these and any future map revisions that may occur. 2) In 1992 Congress adopted amendments to the National Flood Insurance Program. The principal change addressed with the attached amendments are requirements to regulate the placement of recreational vehicles (RV's) in floodprone areas Under these provisions, RV's must be mobile so they can be moved in a flood event, or anchored so that they can withstand flood- ing. 3) Minor revisions to the definitions and administrative provi- sions recommended by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)to comply with their requirements. Attached are the proposed amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance prepared in ordinance form by the County Attorney's Office. The attached are identical to those considered at first reading, except .., ~~ 2 that the language dealing with "Approximated Floodplains" in Section 30-74-4 (A) 3. has been modified at the request of FEMA. The County has received written confirmation that, based on their review, the attached amendments meet the current requirements necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program provided they are adopted prior to October 18, 1995. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1) The amendments to the Floodplain provisions contained in the zoning ordinance be adopted as attached, effective October 18, 1995, in order to maintain continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Respectfully submitted, !,I vnathan Hartley ~sist.Director, Planning & oning Approved, ~~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs `~ County of Roanoke Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Jon Hartley DATE: September 21, 1995 RE: Revisions to the Floodplain Maps and Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance We have been advised by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that minor revisions must be made to the floodplain provisions within our Zoning Ordinance prior to October 18, 1995. The proposed revisions are attached and address the following areas: 1) The County proposed and FEMA has approved the revision of the floodway boundary along West Riverside Drive in the vicinity of Duiguids Lane. Attachment A reflects the revised cross sections for this area. 2) Amendments to regulate the placement of recreational vehicles (RV's) in floodprone areas as required by the 1992 amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act. Under these provisions, RV's must be mobile so they can be moved in a flood event, or anchored so that they can withstand flooding. 31 Minor revisions to the definitions and administrative provisions recommended by FEMA to comply with their requirements. These revisions have been mandated in order to maintain the County's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. With the exception of regulating the placement of RV's, these changes are minor in nature and legislate, at the County level, administrative practices that have been followed for some time. The new requirements for RVs will require public education, but can otherwise be incorporated into the unlicensed vehicle and zoning enforcement functions of this office. C..'(" ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE 82592-12, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ROANOKE COUNTY, BY AMENDING THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the following text amendments have been mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order that Roanoke County maintain its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That the following sections pertaining to the Floodplain Overlay District be amended and reenacted to read and provide as follows: FLOODPLAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES SEC. 30-28 DEFINITIONS BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.. (BFE,} -The water surface elevation vvh-ch:.:t~ccurs €ri a one hundrecf;year flood as designated by-.;the Federaf'Erne>'gency Mari'agerrer~fi Agency,,', or 'in approximated floodplains, approved by tl~e D~r..;~ct~r'''' cif Er3gineer;ing and tnspections. FLOOD - A general and temporary inundation of normally dry land areas. FLOOD, ONE HUNDRED YEAR - A flood that, on the average, is likely to occur once every 100 years (i.e., that has a one percent chance of occurring each 1 August 17, 1995 ~~ year, although the flood may occur in any year) 1A bne, tiaridred yeah i~[pad ~s a[so referred'tc~ as the base flood: FLOODWAY - . T~-e :ehannel'of ~ river or:otl"i watercourse<~nd the ad'jacen't land;` areas that must 'be reserved rn>'order tc~' discharge the base flood without cumulatively Increasing.: the,'watpj' surface elevation more than a designated height.'. LOWEST FLOOR -The floor of the lowest,enclosed area (including basemerit~;' SU',BSTANTIAL DA'MAGlr -Damage of any o~~g~n.,susta'ined, .by :a~~I~uCtur~' whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before; damaged. ~~ratl~t~on, t~vould equal o;r exceed 5D perc;ent of the market value° of the structure before' :.:... the damage occurred. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT -Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addifiori` or ,other improvement of,,a structure, the 'cost of which equals ;or exceeds'50 percentof the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures which ::have 'incurred' "substantial damage;" regardless of the actual repair work performed The term does not, however,:' include either:! 1:!1, Any project '.for improvement of a structure to correct existing violation'' o'f state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official >which are the minimum necessary to assure. safe'''living conditions'., or ~~ Any alteration of a historc structure;;provided that the alteration will not preclude the''structure's continued `designator as a`; histo'nc structure...:'. SEC. 30-74 FO FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 30-74-4 Delineation of Areas (A) The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the 100 year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated October 15, 1993, slips amer~de:d. These areas are more specifically defined as follows: 3. The Approximated Floodplain shall be those'floodplain areas:a~town on the<Flood Insurance Rate Map for which no detailed flood profiles or 2 August 17, 1995 "'" '~ elevations are provided, and,;`a11 other floodplarn aree,s where the drainage area is greater than 100 acres. Where the specific 100-year flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of data such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to existing land use and potential development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the £ett~p-E~g~eet Director of ;Engineering', and'<l,nsp.~ct~ons. Sec. 30-74-7 Floodplain Area Provisions, Generally ED;}' AI{ applications fo,r development in the`; floodplain,' district and all` buifd,ng' permits issued for the flood plain sha11 incorporate th;e following'. informatit~n 1 For structures to'be elevated,: the elevation of the lowest :floor (,includ,rg basement. ~ For structures to be floodproofed than-resident`a1 on)yj, tote elevatoor' to' _. which the structure wilf'be floodproofed 3'. The elevation of the one hundred year flood': 4 Topographic, information showing existing and ;proposed'! ground elevations:.. (E} For>~all new subdivisions which adjoin or include floodplain areas identified;in the` Flood Insurance; Study, the base flood elevatiin sh~>1 be; shown on ;the fi;na:l' record- plat. (F;~' All''recreational vehicles .located in a FEMA designated floodplai'n sha(I either; 1 Be, on sate far fewer than 18.0 consecutive dayys be fully licen' ed and inspected, and ready for highway use, or 2. Meet the minimum requirements for placement and the :elevation end 3 August 17, 1995 L~ a;nchor;ing requirements for' manufactured homes as co'nta~rtecl irr":'the- Virginia Uniform Statewide Biaildin'g Code;: A.`'redreational'vehicle is i•eady;'for hi,ghw~y use,'rf it"is on its°wheels or iaei~i~tg' system,`' is attached to the site only by>. quick disconnect type ufil.itie~ ~t1c1 security;:,devices, and has no,perma;~ently:.attacl~ed. a~d~t;~ns. Sec. 30-74-12 Existing Structures in Floodplain Areas (A) A structure or use of a structure or premises which lawfully ~g elated before the enactment of these provisions, but which is not in conformity with these provisions may be continued subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing structures and/or uses located in the Floodway shall not be expanded or enlarged (unless the effect of the proposed expansion or enlargement on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements). 2. Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use located in any floodplain area to an extent or amount of 50 percent or more of its market value, shall be undertaken only in full compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. All ordinances or parts of ordinance in conflict with .the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. G.common.f I oodplain.ord 4 August 17, 1995 ~~ Roanoke County Department of Planning Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP~ Director of Planning DATE: September 25, 1995 RE: Clarification of Condition; Ordinance Granting a SUP to Helene Mawyer for a Private Kennel at 5502 South Roselawn Road. Mr. Eddy and I have discussed the possibility of modifying the third condition (Condition C), to clarify the intent of the Planning Commission. This condition currently reads: (C) The Special Use Permit will be reconsidered by the Commission at its October 1996 public hearing. • The Commission's intent was to review this application after a one year period to insure that the applicant was complying with conditions (A) and (B), and to insure that the historical nuisances associated with the barking dogs had been eliminated. The Commission did not want to recommend that the permit be granted only for a one year period, because they did not want the applicant to bear additional application and legal ad fees to renew the permit. The Board may wish to consider the following language as a substitution for condition (C) (C): This Special Permit shall be reconsidered by the Planning Commission at its October 1996 public hearing. The Planning Commission shall evaluate the applicants compliance with conditions (A) and (B) and shall consult with the Roanoke County Police Department Community Services Officers regarding any current violations on the property. If the Planning Commission believes that the conditions (A) and (B) have been violated, and that the applicant has not successfully controlled the barking of the dogs on the property, then the Commission shall recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Special Use Permit be revoked. • 1U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ - 3 c APPE CE REQUEST PUBLIC NG ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ~ 1 //~~ /~ ~ SUBJECT: ~ l _ - - - _ 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: _ _ - 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 ill f th l l i ~ w en orce e ru e un ess nstructed 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. c ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ~ 1 ~ ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments - - with the clerk. - ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP c SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. _ - PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK =_ ., '- - . ~ - - - - - - - NAME ~ ~ ~~ _ - - _ _ _ - ~O Z y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ - - - - - ~~ ~ ADDRESS ~ _ _ ~~ _' ~ v v ~ ~ - - PHONE _ - - m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ii~u - - AGENDA ITEM NO. - -~ - - APPE CE REQUEST _ _ - _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS CONIlV~NTS ~- - _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ = 7~l c -E- SUBJECT: C~ ~ ~ w C ;~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Su ervisors to reco nize me Burin the _ P g g _ meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS __ FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED c __ BELOW: _ ^ Each s Baker will be iven between three to five minutes to comment P speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will whethe - 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 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 ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ~ s _ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK - -- _ - ~ __ -_ __ mii~iiiiiiiiiii~~iii~ii~~~iif~iiriiiii~iii~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiii~~iiifiiiiiiiiifiii~~iiiriiii~~ifrnifiii~iiiiiii~i~iiii~i~~~r~i O~ ROANp,~~ ti ~ ~ 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE MARY H. ALLEN, CMC ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 CLERK TO THE BOARD (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 October 3, 1995 Mr. Jeffrey Echols, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box 3071 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Echols: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Thank you for your telephone call today advising that a correction should be made to Resolution 92695-2 expressing approval and support of VDOT's Project Route 221, Bent Mountain Road, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 26, 1995. Enclosed is another copy of this resolution which states that VDOT's public hearings were held on May 24 and 25, 1995 and not March 24 and 25, 1995. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisor cc: Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections ® Re~yded Paper 4 COMMITTEE VACANCIES IN 1995 JANIIARY SOIITHWEST DEVELOPMENT FINANCING, INC. The two year term of Tim Gubala will expire 01/12/95. FEBRIIARY ELECTORAL BOARD (APPOINTED BY THE COIIRTS) The three year term of Wilton B. "Webb" Johnson will expire 02/28/95. ROANORE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION The four year term of Arthur B. Whittaker, Sr., serving unexpired four-year term of H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, will expire 02/10/95. MARCH LEAGIIE OF OLDER AMERICANS-ADVISORY COIINCIL The one year term of Frances R. Holsinger will expire 03/31/95. APRIL MAY JIINE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The five year term of L. T. "Leon" McGhee, Vinton District, will expire 06/30/95. CLEAN VALLEY COIINCIL The two year terms of Lee B. Eddy, Board Liaison, and Vince Reynolds will expire 06/30/95. 1 JIILY FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION The three year terms of Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Elected Representative; Alfred C. Anderson, Elected Representative, and Mrs. Pat Dean, Citizen Representative and Executive Committee Member, will expire 06/30/95. HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION The four year terms of Lt. Art LaPrade, Police; Jeffrey A. Echols, Transportation Representative; Ms. Jackie Talevi, Legal Representative; H. Rodney Smith, Senior Citizen Representative; and Horace L. McPherson, Citizen Representative, will expire 06/30/95. Lt. LaPrade, Ms. Jackie Talevi, and H. Rodney Smith have served two consecutive terms and are not eligible for reappointment. PARRS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION The three year terms of Tim Hoelzle, Hollins District, serving unexpired three-year term of Rita Watson; Jack W. Griffith, Cave Spring District; and Bobby G. Semones, Vinton District, will expire 06/30/95. ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TV COMMITTEE The three year term of James B. Dickey, Member at Large, will expire 06/11/95. VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMIINITY COLLEGE BOARD The four year terms of Jean Glontz and Geoffrey Ottaway, serving unexpired four-year term of Patrick Shaffner, will expire 06/30/95. Ms. Glontz has served two consecutive terms and is not eligible for reappointment. COMMIINITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM The one year term of Rita J. Gliniecki, parent representative, will expire 07/31/95. AIIGIIST COMMIINITY CORRECTIONS RESOIIRCES BOARD The one year terms of Mrs. James A. (Chris) Pickard, and J. Michael Vulgan, Alternate Member, will expire 08/31/95. 2 SEPTEMBER GRIEVANCE PANEL The two year term of Cecil Hill will expire 09/27/95. INDIISTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY The four year terms of Charles R. Saul and Wayne Dunman will expire 09/26/95. OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER AIITHORITY. ROANORE COIINTY RESOIIRCE The four year term of Gardner W. Smith will expire 12/31/95. BLIIE RIDGE COMMIINITY SERVICEB The three year terms of J. William Pistner, and Mrs. Cheri Hartman, Member at Large, will expire 12/31/95. COMMIINITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM The one year term of Ms. Jo Wirth, parent representative, will expire 12/31/95. LIBRARY BOARD The four year terms of Shirley VanRiper, Catawba District, and Charlotte Lavinder, Windsor Hills District, will expire 12/31/95. ROANORE PLANNING COMMISSION The four year terms of William Todd Ross, Hollins District, serving unexpired four-year term of Ronald Massey, and Donald R. Witt, Cave Spring District, will expire 12/31/95. 3 APPOINTMENTS/VACANCIES TO BE FILLED FOR 1995 DISTRICT TERM ERPIRES AIITHORITY, ROANORE VALLEY RESOIIRCE Gardner W. Smith 4 yrs 12/31/95 BLIIE RIDGE COMMIINITY SERVICES J. William Pistner 3 yrs Mrs. Cheri Hartman, Member at Large 3 yrs BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS L. T. "Leon" McGhee Vinton 5 yrs CLEAN_VALLEY COIINCIL Lee B. Eddy Board Liaison 2 yrs Vince Reynolds 2 yrs COMMIINITY CORRECTIONS RESOIIRCES BOARD Mrs. James A. (Chris) Pickard 1 yr J. Michael Vulgan, Alternate 1 yr COMMIINITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM Ms. Jo Wirth 1 yr Rita J. Gliniecki 1 yr ELECTORAL BOARD (APPOINTED BY THE COIIRTS) Wilton B. "Webb" Johnson 3 yrs FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Elected Rep 3 yrs Alfred C. Anderson, Elected Rep 3 yrs Mrs. Pat Dean, Citizen Rep & Exe Com Member 3 yrs GRIEVANCE PANEL Cecil Hill HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION Jeffrey A. Echols, Transportation Rep Horace L. McPherson, Citizen Rep Lt. Art LaPrade, Police (Ineligible for reappointment) Ms. Jackie Talevi, Legal Rep (Ineligible for reappointment) H. Rodney Smith, Senior Citizen Rep ~IneliQible for reappointment) 2 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 12/31/95 12/31/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 08/31/95 08/31/95 12/31/95 07/31/95 02/28/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 09/27/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 1 INDIISTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY Charles R. Saul 4 yrs Wayne Dunman 4 yrs LEAGIIE OF OLDER AMERICANS-ADVISORY COIINCIL Frances R. Holsinger 1 yr LIBRARY BOARD Shirley VanRiper Catawba 4 yrs Charlotte Lavinder Windsor Hills 4 yrs PARRS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION Tim Hoelzle Hollins Jack W. Griffith Cave Spring Bobby G. Semones Vinton ROANORE PLANNING COMMISSION William Todd Ross Hollins Donald R. Witt Cave Spring ROANORE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION Arthur M. Whittaker, Sr. ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TV COMMITTEE James B. Dickey, Member at Large SOIITHWEST DEVELOPMENT FINANCING, INC. Timothy W. Gubaba VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMIINITY COLLEGE BOARD Jean Glontz 11neligible for reappointment) Geoffrey Ottaway 3 yrs 3 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 3 yrs 2 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 09/26/95 09/26/95 03/31/95 12/31/95 12/31/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 12/31/95 12/31/95 02/10/95 06/11/65 01/12/95 06/30/95 06/30/95 2 r` o~ RoaNO,~~ ~. z J 1 38 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 C~a~txtt~ .o~f ~~~~~~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772.2193 September 29, 1995 Ms. Carole Brackman 5203 Cherokee Hills Drive Salem, VA 24153 Dear Ms. Brackman: (703) 772-2005 The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Industrial Development Authority. 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 September 26, 1995, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Industrial Development Authority for a four-year term. Your new term will expire on September 26, 1999. State law 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. State law also requires that your take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered rior to your participation on the IDA. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw at 387-6205 to arrange to have the oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. 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. FM/bjh Enclosures cc: Timothy Gubala, Secretary, IDA Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Committee File Board Packet File Sincerely, H: Ode~Yl~"Fuzzy" Minnix, Roanoke County Board of Court BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DSSTRICT Chairman Supervisors ®R~ ~,~, Y, ~~-92695-12. 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 26, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION• The following nomination was made at the September 26, 1995 meeting. 1. Industrial Development Authority Supervisor Kohinke nominated Carole Brackman to serve a four year term which will expire September 26, 1999. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this appointment be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------ ------------------------------ ACTION --------------- VOTE ------- Approved (X) Motion by: Edward G. Kohinke No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to approve appointment Eddy X Received ( ) Kohinke X Referred ( ) Johnson X To ( ) Minnix X Nickens X CC: File Timothy Gubala, Economic Development Director Industrial Development Authority File O~ ROAN ~,~ ,a z z a~ 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 29, 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRACT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (7031 772-2005 The Reverend John Hawn St. Mark's Lutheran Church 1008 Franklin Road S. W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Reverend Hawn: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, 1 would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 1995. 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 wifh us. With kindest regards, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors C~o~xxt#~ o~f ~o~xxra~e ® r~,yaed P~ OF ROANp~. F ~ ti . z ~' ~ ~ J .a 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 19, 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B EDDY ~VINOSOR riILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS 'dINTOP% MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (7031 772-2005 The Reverend John Hawn St. Mark's Lutheran Church 1008 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Reverend Hawn: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of today. Thank you for agreeing to present the invocation at the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 1995, at 3:00 p.m. Chairman Minnix will call the meeting to order at 3 p.m., which will be followed by the invocation and pledge of allegiance. This is an open meeting so please feel free to stay or leave as your schedule permits. The Roanoke County Administration Center is located at 5204 Bernard Drive (the old Traveler's Insurance Building) directly behind Shoney's off Route 419. The Board Meeting room is on the first floor opposite the elevators, and visitors' parking is in front of the building. I appreciate very much your willingness to be with us on September 26th. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 772-2005. Sincerely, ~C~ZQ~~ Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors C~a~t~#~ ~# ~o~~t~a~e ® Recycled Paper ~ AOAN ,~.~ ti ~ __ ~ ~ a rasa MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 September 29, 1995 Mr. Forest Jones City Clerk City of Salem P. O. Box 869 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Jones: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 92695-15 concerning a boundary line adjustment agreement with the City of Salem. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 26, 1995. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~' Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment (~a~xz~#~ .o~~ ~o~~~~.e ® Recycled Paper 0~ ROANp~.~ ti z p ~ aZ 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 27, 1995 Ms. Cynthia A. Gore Wayne Engineering Corporation P. O. Box 648 Cedar Rapids, IA 50613 Dear Ms. Gore: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL'FUZZY" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE•CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B EDDY ~.V~NCSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON ~OLLINS MAGISTERIAL. DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS `/INTOt•~ MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 On Tuesday, September 26, 1995, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County unanimously voted to debar Wayne Engineering Corporation, and refuse collection vehicles developed, manufactured and serviced by Wayne Engineering Corporation but distributed by the Leach Company, from consideration for the award of future contracts with the County of Roanoke for a period of three (3) years from the date of this action. Very truly yours, Mary H. Allen Clerk cc: Leach Corporation C~o~ix~#~ ~f ~~~xxto~~e ® Recycled Paper ~ EtOAN ,~.~ z ~ 2 a 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Mr. Forest Jones City Clerk City of Salem P. O. Box 869 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Jones: September 29, 1995 BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 92695-7 concerning agreements for the development and administration of the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation project. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 26, 1995. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, bjh Attachment CC: Mr. John David Robbins, President Hanging Rock Battlefield & Railway Pres. 620 High Street Salem, VA 24153 Cn~a~xx~# ~~ ~~xxY~.~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Foundation ® ae~.yaed P~ ID ,~ ,, ~~ September 6, 1 S Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke. Virginia 24018 RE: Petitioner -Helene Mawver Special Use Permit to Operate a Private Kennel Gentlemen: C~: ~~~- ~2 r ~ ~ ~~ ~~ A Public Hearing was held on August 1, 1995 before the Planning Commission regarding the above petition. At that time, we appeared and spoke against the petition as did Mr. Grffin. Several other neighbors were present because of their interest in this matter. The Planning Commission's recommendation to you to grant the petition with the following conditions is satisfactory: 1. Mrs. Mawyer shall keep a maximum of three (3) dogs. 2. The dogs shall wear no-bark electronic collars whenever they are outside and/or unattended. 3. The license is subject to approval in one (1) year. not automatically renewable and should there be any disturbances, the Planning Commission may be notified. 4. The dogs owned by Mrs. Mawyer's house guest must be gone by September 1st. These are the conditions generally as we understand them, and as long as the Board of Supervisors grants the application with the conditions attached as recommended by the Planning Commission, we have no objections. We plan to attend the hearing before your Board which was rescheduled to September 26. 1995, but would like this letter to be a part of the file. Thank you Very truly yours, ~~\\`~ CZ~L~C/ ~ G~ ~.~ ~H. Hoven Judith E. Hoven 5474 S. Roselawn Road Roanoke. Virginia 24018 772-4810 ~~~ VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS, INC. PRESENTING SPONSORS Mobil NationsBank PREMIER SPONSORS Roanoke Times & World News WYYD GOLD MEDAL SPONSORS Contel Cellular Cox Cable Domino's Pizza Holiday Inn, Tanglewood Kroger Stop In Food Stores CITGO Tanglewood Mall V Magazine SILVER MEDAL SPONSORS All-SPORT Carillon Gentry, Locke, Rakes, & Moore BRONZE MEDAL SPONSORS Appalachian Power Charles Lunsford Sons & Assoc. RHH of Va., Inc. First Team Auto Mall Met-Rx Mountain Springs Water Roanoke Fruit & Produce Roanoke Electric Steel Voice-Tel ~~~~V D ~~ 14 Ic~.~ - ~_ ' 305 First Street, S.W., Suite 412 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 343-0987 FAX (703) 343-7407 September 13, 1995 Cc_ ~'ctf Mr. H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix ~ ~ ~ Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P.O. BOX 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Minnix I would like to have the opportunity to say t;;ank you to you, the Board of Supervisors, and to the county of Roanoke for their outstanding support of the 1995 Commonwealth Games at your Board of Supervisors Meeting scheduled for 7:00 pm on September 26, 1995. My presentation will take approximately 5 - minutes. I would also like to re-present the plaque that was awarded to the county at our reception that was held during the Games. Please accept my thank you in advance for giving me this opportunity. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Virginia Amateur Sports ''````~~11 Peter Lamptnan President PROMOTING SPORTS /N THE OLYMPIC IDEAL Sanctioned by the Unted States Congress of State Games and recognized by the United States Olympic Committee ~, Recycled Paper SPONSOR OF da Cap,® I ~• 1~ I ~yL9 ~Jt'4hR YY4^~ ~ , C®1~~®1®TWE~I,TH o f V~R~~N~A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET DAVID R. GEHR RICHMOND, 23219 COMMISSIONER September 8, 1995 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator, Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Ref.: Report of Changes to the Secondary System of State Highways Additions Made Effective in August 1995 Dear Members of the Governing Body: ,~,. ~. ,~ - ~~~,s r~~v~ JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER The enclosed report represents all changes to the secondary system of state highways, within your jurisdiction, that were made effective during August 1995. Additions of these new roads were made under the Department's accelerated acceptance process. Any faults found in the additions documents that require your assistance to correct will be brought to your attention as necessary. New road additions are now an official part of the secondary system of state highways and the resident engineer has been notified to begin maintenance of these new roads. If you have any questions regarding this material, please call this office at (804) 786-2746 or your local resident engineer. Sincerely yours, .<<y~~ ~ (/1 i ~~ J es S. Givens State Secondary Roads Engineer cc: District Administrator Resident Engineer TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY +~ .. LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF 3UPERVISORB The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, September 26, 1995, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Helene Mawyer for a Special Use Permit to operate a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road, Windsor Hills 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 7, 1995 ~ L~Z-~ J/'-c~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 12, 1995 Tuesday, September 19, 1995 To be paid on delivery by: Helene Mawyer 5502 South Roselawn Road Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 989-1937 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 26, 1995, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the floodplain provisions and maps of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to conform with FEMA requirements. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: September 7, 1995 ~, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 12, 1995 Tuesday, September 19, 1995 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. BO% 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 26, 1995, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Cave Spring United ,Methodist Church for a Special Use Permit to expand an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel 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 7, 1995 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, September 12, 1995 Tuesday, September 19, 1995 Direct the bill for publication to: Cave Spring United Methodist Church c/o Balzer & Associates, Inc. 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-9580 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOR 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 O~ ROANp~~ ~' 9 z c~ ~ a~ 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 28, 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL'FUZZV" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS 'JINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Mr. Jeff Echols, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box 3071 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Echols: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 92695-2 concerning support for proposed improvements to State Route 221, Bent Mountain Road. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 26, 1995. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~- Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment (~~~t~t~ o # ~ ~~x~.v ~e ® R Pier Copies of Letter and Resolution forwarded to: Robert C. Bob, City Manager, City. of Richmond Charles F. Church, City Manager, City of Lynchburg Edwin Daley, City Manager, City of Winchester Anton S. Gardner, County Manager, County of Arling•r_on A. Ray Griffin, Jr., City Manager, City of Danville Gary O'Connell, Acting City Manager, City of Charlottesville W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, City of Roanoke William J. Leidinger, County Executive, County of Fairfax Valerie A. Lemmie, City Manager, City of Petersburg Edgar E. Maroney, City Manager, City of Newport News Robert J. O'Neill, Jr., City Manager, City of Hampton James B. Oliver, Jr. City Manager, City of Norfolk Ronald W. Massie, Interim City Manager, City of Portsmouth Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator, County of Chesterfield Earl B. Reynolds, Jr. City Manager, City of Martinsville James K. Spore, City Manager, City of Virginia Beach Clinton H. Strong, City Manager, City of Hopewell The Honorable F. Seward Anderson, Jr., Mayor, City of Danville The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor, City of Roanoke The Honorable Gary W. Chrisman, Mayor, City of Winchester The Honorable Rosalyn R. Dance, Mayor, City of Petersburg The Honorable James L. Eason, Mayor, City of Hampton The Honorable Paul D. Fraim, Mayor, City of Norfolk The Honorable Katherine K. Hanley, Chairman, Fairfax Board of Supervisors The Honorable J. L. McHale, III, Chairman, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor, City of Virginia Beach The Honorable Robert R. Saunders, Jr., Mayor, City of Hopewell The Honorable David J. Toscano, Mayor, City of Charlottesville The Honorable Gloria 0. Webb, Mayor, City of Portsmouth The Honorable Mary Margaret Whipple, Chairman, Arlington County Board of Supervisors The Honorable James S. Whitaker, Sr., Mayor, City of Lynchburg The Honorable Leonidas B. Young, Mayor, City of Richmond o~.F .p a C~~~~# ~~ ~~x~~.~.~ 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 27, 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRACT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTR,C• (703) 772-2005 Mr. Neal J. Barber Urban Partnership 9 South Fifth Street Richmond VA 23219 Dear ~ r: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 92695-8 concerning the opinion of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors regarding the September 1, 1995 Report of the Research and Issues Development Committee of the Urban Partnership. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 26, 1995. This resolution will be presented at the Urban Partnership Board meeting on September 28 in Richmond by representatives of the County of Roanoke. Sincerely, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator CC: Attached ®ReryaBd P~