Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/22/1997 - Regular (2)
V i { r I `..., Irti ~~'-.'~: ~r.;l,, 1 1 j 1 1 1 ~ ` ~~, ~ ri;i i ~1 r,,0~ ' ~ ~~, v l; 1 ~ ~ 1~ . f a - '4 ,r'- ~~ . L vl ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ - - I- ~ it ~x .i . - i ', ~, lam. t ~ .~ . „+~ ~I • ~1 • ,.R - •1 1,1 •~ 1 rl I 1r ~ ,1;,, r~ ; ;, „, r „~ j~~ 1`1 _ 1 `I 71 11 1~1_ I I1i4111uf11 l k; 1 ~1. H , - . ` 1 _~~'~ I~I. 1141 1 \;1 I~, ~,i '::s i ' .i~l~~ll~. _ i 71~IIt,, ~ Jr ~ _ •, I ~ ~ ~•. 1 ++~ 1~ IJi 1 ~. 1~lll ~' 1~. 11 Vii. ~; ~ 1. 1 1 _ II? } ~ I 1, f I gill _ ` ~ ~ ~ IIP ~ ( Y ~ 1 Ir~ ~ '~ ~ 1 1 . 1 ' ~ 1• o I ~ , l l 4 - I r ~~ ~' ~' ~1 1 i _ 1. .. - - 1 I \. i lr t i l f .,~ - - 1 + 1 E i ~~` ~J •`' ~ --t. •.'•, _ - ,del .v, •~ ~.~ _ ~ ~ a 5l _...~~~__ -~ - 1- ~ \ _ '111, J1. - ' _'~ Z ~r 1 _ ~ Y - ~+~ Y ' 1 \Si 71 ~ii~ rl~ i VIII ..-:', f .~T~, ~ [ - ~ ~ `: ~S II ~ `~01) _ ~~~ ±t4 Y .a t ~ h1 ~1~ 1 ~~ r 7~;~!!K~ ~F F - \r Y~'S+)>R _ Y , t' 1 ~ "'N4 J \ 1 i ~~ 1 ~;, , ~-.T" -- _ ~ tl ice. ~~ : - ~~• y L ~~i1 ~1~1 1 1-~c s I I .1 _ ~;~ 1 ,l. ~ ~ 4 ?~ .. 1 I I r~` _ aim 4 :\ / /c ~Proo, ~ sed Roanoke County Business Slte ' SITE INFOR.MATIC7N: y ~~ q,;,.y ~~. 7o7AL /~fN. 437 F~.cRi~' ~® (nr~aoxtw.r~ % i• e,Up~ 11( h y _ ~.. - 1. -Q- '1 ` - I ' ~~ _-: •J - ti 11 -~- '- - -- / ~ -+ - ~...~~ ~{ 1 ~~f I ~~~ _ ~ _. ~L7 ` A I 1 Jy~~'~~ _.. - - ii Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concep[ Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qual~fymg Document TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 3 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 4 F S C 4 ACTORS .................................................................................................................. UCCESS RITICAL SITE ISSUES .......................... ............................................................................................................. 4 LAND IssuES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 SITE ANALYSIS ........................... ............................................................................................................. S GEOTECHNICAL ................................................................................................................................. S ARCHEOLOGICAL .............................................................................................................................. S G A S E SSESS ITE NVIRONMENTAL MENT ................................................................................................... UTILITIES ............................. ............................................................................................................. 6 STORM WATER ...................... ............................................................................................................. C) SLOPE AND ASPECT ............... ............................................................................................................. 7 VEGETATION ......................... ............................................................................................................. 7 VIF,WS ...•..• ........................... ............................................................................................................. g WORKSHOP PROCESS ................. ............................................................................................................. S PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE ................................................................ S CORPORATE VILLAGE ............ ............................................................................................................. S C C 9 IRCLE .............. ORPORATE ............................................................................................................. TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT ......... ............................................................................................................. 9 ccLONE EAGL.: DISTRICT~~ ..... ............................................................................................................. 9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ............ .........................................................................................•.................. 9 WATERWAYS AND .rREENWAYS .......................................................................,.................................. lO INTERNAL ROADWAYS ............ ............. .............. ....... SITE ACCESS ........................,.... ..........,...................,,......................................................................,..,. 10 GLENM~RY ~ ........................ ......................................,.................................................................... 11 GLENMARY II ....................... ........................................................................................................... 11 Dc~w HOLLOW ROAD .. ......... ..................................................................;..,...,.................,............... 11 46011 BRIDGE ACCESS I ..... ........................................................................................................... ll. 460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS II .... ...........................................................................................•............... 12 SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................................ 1Z ' CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 13 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................ 14 1 DESIGN TEAM COUNTY OF ROANOKE CONTACTS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTE TECHNICAL RESOURCE BOARD Context Map Preliminary Concept Plan Plan Detail Buffer Section and Road section Corporate Circle Section Perspective Dry Corporate Circle Perspective of Bridge Aerial Photograph Site Photographs Map of existing conditions Slope Map Road access options diagram ' Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' On March 11, 1997, Roanoke County announced plans to purchase land for a proposed new business park in West Roanoke County, located along Interstate 81, Virginia's Technology Corridor. ' This document is intended to be a guide for the development of this new business park if the Board chooses to exercise its option to purchase the 463 acre site from Glenn-Mary Associates. Over the past five months Roanoke County and a Design Team have worked with citizens in a community visioning process, a method of open dialog and input with the public in the design process. ' Community involvement was in the form of an Advisory Committee, made up of citizens living close to the business park site, the business community in West County, and a Technical Resource Board, profes- sionals in the Roanoke Valley with expertise in engineering and economic development. This process ' has shown that proposed development is compatible with current site conditions. It is recommended Roanoke County purchase the property and proceed with the rezoning process. It is also recommended that the Preliminary Concept Plan and the Design Guidelines Outline Statement be used as a guide in the ' development process for the site. This property offers an opportunity to develop a unique mixed-use planned business park which ' strives to attract new and progressive businesses in the areas of technological research and development and business administration located in a picturesque natural setting in Roanoke County. Imagine a tree- ' lined parkway entry to a business setting of the future. • A village center with businesses and commercial buildings clustered around atree-lined pond. ' • A corporate hears, with corporate buildings and select commercial businesses forming an ellipse around a woodland hollow, just below the village center. ' • A technology district, acampus-like setting of new and progressive technology businesses encircling the village center and corporate. • The Lone Eagle District, a backdrop of this business park with select building sites nestled in the saddles of the wooded ridges. Adequate public water and sewer facilities presently exist within close proximity to the site which could be extended to benefit the business park and adjoining residential areas. A Phase I Environmental Assessment of the property identified no environmental impediments to development. A phase I archeo- logical study was also conducted which indicated possibly one archeological site warranting further ' study. A preliminary geotechnical report concluded that soil conditions are favorable for development, mass rock could be encountered in limited areas of the site and the three of the ponds will require ' improvements to meet construction standards. The study of topography revealed the major portion of development will be located in the southern half of the site. In general favorable conditions for develop- ment. ' Natural buffer zones are proposed along boundaries adjoining private property to screen develop- ment. Critical to success of this project will be extensive but reasonable protective codes covenants and ' restrictions imposed on development above and beyond those imposed by the zoning process to ensure proper and appropriate development and also enhance and protect public and private development within the property. The covenants will be offered as proffered conditions to rezoning of the property ' and will be permanently associated with the property. C ii u Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS Citizens recruited to serve as members of the advisory committee gathered feedback from the community, compiled this information, and made recommendations back to the Design Team for incor- porationinto the Preliminary Concept Plan. Members of the committee attended formal meetings with County staff, the Technical Resource Board, business community leaders, and the Civic League Presidents from West County. They also collected information on an informal basis with co-workers and neighbors. The following list represents statements made by the County to the Advisory Committee and other citizen participants during the Design Workshop for the Business Park. The following items have been incorporated into design guidelines for the preliminary concept plan and will serve as proffers for the terms of purchase. SITE ISSUES • No access road will be routed from Glenvar Heights Boulevard or Prunty Drive. • Height restrictions will be established in the development of each park district. • Public water and sewer will serve the park with no corporate use of on-sae wells. • No operation shall be permitted which prodaces objectionable smoke, dust, odors, soot, radia- tion, noise, vibrations, electrical interference, glare, gases, ligtaid waste, or any silnilareffects, or which creates excessive demands on internal roads, dI•ainage, sanitary :;y;;~em c~ other service or utility. (Level of objectionability to be determined) • No heavy industry. LAND IssuEs • Roanoke County will form a Design Review Board to evaluate whether proposed structures meet the design guidelines outlined in the preliminary concept plan. • Development of a zoning code to incorporate the mixed land uses. • Minimum standards will be created for signage, lighting, parking, loading docks, security, traffic, construction of buildings, buffers, greenways, and landscaping. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS At the beginning of community input, critical and key issues were determined critical to the suc- cess of the project which were addressed in the design process • Public Trust 4 ' Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • Avoiding "The Preconceived Plan" (Use the workshop process to distill the "Smoke and Mirrors" attitudes) • Widening of Routes 460/ 11 ' • Insure that the end result is a saleable product • Use park to stabilize residential taxes • Seek out clean business/industry • Property tax impact -will homes hold value? ' • Buffer zones • Industry & building restrictions • Access roads denied to neighborhoods • Preserve and maintain property integrity (Insure conditions such as mass, scale, color, design, etc. are harmonious to site) ' • Avoid pollution to air, ground, and water (especially during construction) • Traffic control • Installation of water and sewer on site • Avoid negative effects of blasting on private wells (A comprehensive list of critical issues developed by the advisory committees is included as part of the critical success factors and considered in the design process. A complete list is available through Roanoke County.) SITE ANALYSIS ' As part of the design process ,site analysis information was gathered to allow informed design decisions during the workshop. Complete copies of the subconsultants reports related to site analysis are available for review through Roanoke County. ' GEOTECIINICAL ' Engineering Consulting Services completed a preliminary subsurface exploration report which investigated depth of bedrock, soil type, and the conditions of the dams for the four small farm ponds on site. The study was contained to the southern half of the property to reduce the scope ' of the study to areas which can accommodate large-scale development. Tlie method of exploration was 22 soil borings to a depth of 20 to 25 feet and visual inspection of the dams. The ' study revealed that soil types are typical for this area of the Roanoke Valley. The presence of highly plastic silts and clays which suggest that earthwork activities should be limited to late spring, summer and fall during dry weather. Auger refusal from drilling was encountered in six ' borings at depths of 8-12 feet. Further investigation is required to determine the extent and density of rock. In general the site is suitable for development and the costs should be "normal" for the immediate vicinity. ' ARCHEOLOGICAL Lockwood Greene Technologies performed a Phase I Archeological study of the site. This in- cluded research into the written history of the site, and an on-site inspection of historic re sources with test digs in several locations. The study revealed ' that the property was traveled by Native American people and white Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline S[a[emen[ and Site Qualifying Document settlers cleared the lower areas for pasture and lived on the southern fringes of the site. A chimney remains from a cabin next to Calahan Branch. Inspection of the chimney construc- tion dates the cabin to the early 1900's. A standing cabin exist in the lower southeast corner ' of the site. This cabin was relocated for I-81 to its current location and extensively remodeled, which lowers its historical significance. Test digs revealed several areas with Native American and early settler artifacts in the pasture areas of the site, with one area ' eligible to receive further research. The State of Virginia will decide is this area warrants further study. ' ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Lockwood Greene Technologies performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the site. This included on-site inspection and research into property ownership of the site and the adjacent landowners for any evidence of previous environmental hazards. The study re- vealed no history of significant environmental issues and the on-site inspection determined that ' current conditions show no serious environmental concerns, only minor issues such as oil stains from farm equipment and the evidence of some refuse near the existing farm buildings at the south- ' ern boundary of the site. UTILITIES Engineering Concepts, Inc. performed a preliminary review of current and proposed utility demands. This included review of maps available at the Workshop for utility issues and discus- , sion with several service providers of current and proposed utility demands. Adequate public water and sewer facilities presently exist, or are planned to be extended, at ' locations near the boundary of the site. Preliminary investigations indicate that these services could be extended to the property via existing public rights-of-way to minimize impacts. ' Other utilities such as telephone (with provision for voice and data transmission, ISDN lines, fiber optic capability, etc.), cable, electrical service, and natural gas are available in the vicinity ' of the site. The respective utility companies have indicated their willingness in having further discussions to coordinate further planning efforts and capacity/demand evaluations. ' Sewer extensions should be planned utilizing gravity flow where possible to avoid the additional costs. The capacity of the receiving sewer in Glenvar Heights Boulevard will need to be evaluated as a first step in the detailed utility planning process. Building location studies should ' incorporate evaluation of the water pressure zones and sewer service potential. The Lone Eagle Districts should be evaluated for service by well and septic field development, due to their loca- tion at the periphery of the development. ' STORMWATER ' Engineering Concepts, Inc. performed a preliminary review of current and proposed stormwater, runoff impacts and water quality issues. This was also performed during the Workshop ' with available maps. ~ ° ' Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline S[a[emen[ and Site Qualifying Document The site is roughly bisected from northwest to southeast by Callahan Branch ' and it's associated tributaries. The Callahan Branch basin drains the majority of the site and a sizable portion of off-site area to the northwest, exiting the property in the extreme southeast corner of the site through box culverts under Interstate 81. Amain tributary to Callahan ' Branch parallels the eastern boundary and intersects the main channel just upstream of the I-81 culverts. The Callahan basin features two existing ponds, one elevated pond in the western side of the site, and one large pond located in the main stem of the branch, 2000 feet north of the I-81 culverts. A smaller basin occupies the lower southwest corner of the property, draining through culverts under Glenmary Drive and I-81. This basin features two exist- ing farm ponds. The large pond on the stem of Callahan Branch is a more developed, yet all of the ponds are observed to be utilized mainly for agriculture purposes and have no mechanical controls for flow control /overflow protection. ' Management of stormwater from the development of the property should be accomplished on-site to minimize the downstream effects on the I-81 culverts. The Design Team believes this can be ' accomplished. Existing drainage ways are also the best method of achieving some natural water quality management due the established stream ecosystem. The ponds should be enlarged and modified to serve larger stormwater requirements. This will serve to manage the increase in flow ' quantity expected in the main stem as well as the flow from the Corporate Village, Corporate Circle, and Technology District areas of the development. With proper design, stormwater control can assist in the lowering of runoff temperature, which can lessen the impact of thermal loading on a natural stream or body of water. Other methods can include: the incorporation of plant and landscaping materials, shade tree plantings to block areas prone to thermal loading (roofs, pavement), the establishment of forebays upstream of discharge points to the natural channels. SLOPE AND ASPECT Hill Studio P.C. developed a computer 3-D model of the site to study the slope and solar aspect of the slopes. It revealed that the most developable portions of the site, areas which will accommo- date large footprint buildings, are focused in the southern half of the property. The upper wooded drainages revealed small areas in the saddles of the ridgelines which could accommodate small footprint building types. The aspect study showed that the main stream drainage which ' bisects the site from northwest to southeast, creates small drainages in the upper half the site pointing primarily to the south. The result is that a majority of the site contains areas sloping to the south with good solar exposure. VEGETATION ' Hill Studio P.C. investigated vegetation through on site inspection and the study of aerial photo- graphs. The investigation revealed that the upper half of the site is predominantly deciduous woodland consisting of oak, hickory, beech, ash, tulip poplar, and maple, with evergreen along the fringe or disturbed areas and in the deeply shaded north sloping areas. The southern half o the site contains pockets of deciduous woodland left after clearing for pasture. Black locust and Empress Trees have established in select disturbed, rocky areas and wet tolerant trees, such as r willow, ash and sycamore, have established along the stream corridors. ' Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document VIEWS ' Hill Studio P.C. investi ated view im acts to and from the site through on site inspections . g P The investigation revealed the site is not visible along the I-81 corridor directly adjacent to the ' property, except for a limited view of the cabin on the site in the southeast corner of the prop- erty. This is due to the extreme difference in elevation between I-81 and the property. Views of ' portions of the site are possible from the I-81 corridor in select locations to the north of the site. The topography to the south on I-81 restricts views of the site. Views of portions of the site are possible from several adjacent land owners on each side of the property. Woodland on the ' eastern boundary greatly restricts views into the site at times of year when leaf cover is present. Views of the site are feasible from select locations on the opposite side of Interstate 81 along 460/ 11 and other high points in the Roanoke Valley. ' Views on-site from the pasture area looking to the south capture beautiful views of Poor Mountain and the associated ridgeline. View from the pasture area looking to the north capture ' beautiful views of Fort Lewis Mountain and the associate ridgeline. Views to the northeast reveal Downtown Roanoke and Mill Mountain. ' WORKSHOP PROCESS ' The Design Team's five day workshop was a way of directing community input and ideas into the design process. The workshop was held at the Spring Hollow Water Treatment racility along Routes 460/11 in Roanoke bounty. A hands-on intensive collabora±ive effort between staff, consultants and ' citizens resulted in a preliminary concept plan created by all parties involved. The Preliminary Concept Plan will serve as a guiding principle for further development of the site. The wor'.cshop has shown that community involvement and collaboration is essential to the design process. ' PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE ' The proposed Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan strives for the integration of proposed building development with the natural topographic character of the site and the established ' woodland hollows. Like the construction practices of earlier settlers in the Roanoke Valley, the develop- mentworks with the lay of the land and not against it. The design focuses the most developed portions of the site around the intermittent stream, called Dry Branch, and woodland hollow, upstream from the ' larger and perennial Calahan Branch. The following Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines Outline explain the different zones within the park, and set the stage for fully developed design criteria. ' CORPORATE VILLAGE The corporate Village is the commercial center of the development. Located at the upper end of ' the Dry Branch. The clustering of commercial buildings creates a village atmosphere focusing views onto a central pond and wetland doubling as a stormwater management facilities. The two to three story buildings step down the slope with parking toward the access road. Such com- 1 mercial business may include copying and printing, restaurant, day care, coffee shop, service station and small corporate offices. Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document CORPORATE CIRCLE Corporate Circle is the corporate office potential district. Located around the main portion of Dry Branch and its established hardwood enclave, the buildings step down the slope and direct into the trees around Dry Branch. The buildings are two to three story linked together with a pedestrian trail and boardwalk which will skirt the edge of the hollow. The main access road and parking will be located around the Corporate Circle. Such commercial businesses include corporate offices, hotels or travelers accommodations and restaurants. TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT The Technology District is the new technologies potential district. Located around the Corpo- rate Village and Corporate Circle, this district accommodates campus-like clean manufacturing facilities. An emphasis will be placed on facilities which specialize in new technologies, such as chip and circuit board manufacturing, research and development industries specializing in electronics, software publishing companies and telecommunications related to electronics and specialty equip- ment, automotive components manufacturing and "Smart Road" related manufacturing. The build- ingswill begenerally one story which integrate specialty manufacturing and research with business or office. The technology district emphasizes clean businesses with light to medium work force and distribution requirements. ~~LONE EAGLE DISTRICT~~ The Lone Earle District occupies the steep wood areas on the north artd eastern portions of the site. This iistrict is served by a standard two-lane road. 1'he development consists of~ large lot, lligh-end residential, residential with home business or professional business of ten employees or less. Home or professional businesses are strictly service oriented, nou~-manufacturing, with minimal requirements for client parking and truck service. Examples of businesses may in elude :Irchitecture, engineering, computer software consulting, attorney, accauntallt, marketing and financial advising. The lot development for this district is depicted in the concept layout plan. It emphasizes large lots to minimize disturbance. The buildings and parking are located in predetermined areas, also depicted in the concept layout plan. These locations, identified as Limit of Building Zones (LBZ), focus development on the flatter benches and saddles in the terrain, protecting the ridgeline and ridgetop treeline from development. The remaining portions of these lots are restricted from lot clearing, excluding a access drive to each LBZ. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS The property is completely surrounded by a minimum 100' landscape buffer. The landscape buffer on the eastern boundary of the site is extended to the perennial stream, significantly larger than 100'. The upper eastern and northern boundaries are protected by natural buffers from lot restrictions within the Loan Eagle District. In areas where additional buffering is neces- sary, the planting will be a mixture of native evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs. The buffers will be landscaped to provide solid screening and blend with the natural wooded areas within the site and along the edge of the property. 9 ' Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document WATERWAYS AND GREENWAYS ' The stream corridors are ke amenities and set the sta e for devel m n . h three y g op et Te ' main drainage features; Dry Branch, Calahan Branch and the unnamed stream to the east of Calahan Branch flow together and leave the site under Interstate 81 along the southeastern boundary of the site. The two larger and two smaller ponds will serve as amenities and focal points for develop- ' ment. All streams or waterways warrant protection guidelines to maintain their natural character. A greenway system overlays the streams as a defined protection areas. Some of the greenways incorporate a trail system available to residents and businesses within the site. The trail ' system allows a connection between the developed areas and the natural areas of the site. INTERNAL ROADWAYS ' The roadway system is a mix of road types. The entry roadway is lar a enou h to g g accommodate traffic needs for a completely developed business park. This consists of approxi- ' mately two travel lanes in each direction with avariable-width median. The support amenities, planting, lighting and signage, help define the roadway and promote the character of the ' business park. The main internal roadway will accommodate a large portion of the business park traffic and connect to the entry roadway. The size and number of lanes needed will be carefully studied as the concept plan is developed. Topography and traffic volumes effect ' the road design. The road would be approximately three to four lanes and in some areas a separation median could be provided. The secondary internal roadways will accommodate traffic for select businesses. Further study will determine the exact size, probably two lanes with a separa- tion island in some areas. The woodland roadway accommodates traffic for the Lone Eagle Dis- trict only. This would be a standard road and designed to meet minimum standards, which allows a roadway with minimum impact the steep wooded areas. ' SITE ACCESS ' The workshop revealed that development of the proposed business park would require improve- ments to the access road to meet future traffic requirements. A study was performed during the work- ' shop of alternative site access roads, including upgrades to the existing road, Glenmary Drive. The options were studied and compared for economic, social and engineering opportunities and constraints. The options are listed in order of relative cost, Glenmary I access being the most cost effective. ' GLENMARY I ' This option upgrades the existing Glenmary Drive to accommodate future traffic volumes, and develop the entry of Glenmary Drive at the intersection of Dow Hollow Rd., as the entry to the proposed business park. This alternative is the most cost effective and would be a likely candidate ' for initial site access. Careful planning in conjunction with I-81 improvements is required to make this alternative cost effective. ' Benefits: Existing road corridor in place, Visibility to I-81, consolidates impacts, cost effective ' Disadvantages: Single loaded corridor, Future I-81 issues, Impacts Glenmary and Prunty Drive, potential unplanned commercial growth along Glenmary Drive, limited space to beautify road. ' 10 ' Roanoke Coun[y Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document ' GLENMARY II As in the previous alternative, this scheme upgrades Glenmary Drive . It further redesigns the ' entry of Glenmary Drive to bend to the north of the existing commercial development on the corner of Dow Hollow and Glenmary Drive, realigning this entry to connect directly into Dow Hollow. As ' in the previous alternative, careful planning in conjunction with I-81 improvements is required to make this alternative cost effective. ' Benefits: Safer, streamlined entrance system, Improves entrance to Dow Hollow Road, Better Utilizes interchange exit Disadvantages: Impacts Prunty and Glenmary Drive and private property, Future I-81 issues ' DOW IIOLLOW ROAD ' This alternative uses a new access point into the site by improving Dow Hollow Road at the southern end. The new access road would bend to the east and enter the site as Dow Hollow passes Gospel Baptist Church, midway along the western boundary, adjacent to Prunty ' Drive. By using the topography ir. this area of the Prunty neighborhood, the new access road would pass under Prunty Drive and a new section of Prunty Drive would fly over the access road. Benefits: Upgrades neighborlood entrance road, parkway-like corridor, central location into site, catalyst for proper interchange development, no access to Prunty Drive ' Disadvantages: Impacts on private property, impacts around Frunty Drive with bridge ' 460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS I ' This alternative connects route 460/11 and the site directly with a bridge over I-81 and Glenmary Drive. This would require a vertical realignment to 460/11 at the bridge to allow adequate gain in elevation to clear traffic on I-81. Benefits: Distinct corporate entrance, removed from neighborhoods, improved safety, reinforces established commercial corridor along 460/11, short entrance road. Disadvantages: Cost 460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS II This alternative also connects route 460/11 and the site directly with a bridge over I-81 and Glenmary Drive. This alternative would require changing the vertical and horizontal alignment of 460/11 at the bridge to allow adequate gain in elevation to clear traffic on I-81. entry and the continued growth of commercial development along route 460/11. ' 11 ' Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document ' Benefits: Distinct co orate entrance, removed from nei hborhoods, im roved safet ,rein cP g P Y ' forces established commercial corridor along 460/11, short entrance road. Disadvantages: Cost ' PROJECT SCHEDULE ' Some of the next steps in further development of this project will include: 1. Site Master Plan -Development which takes as the basis for design the included plan and in more ' detail focuses on road access, business types, road design, stormwater, utilities and other crucial site development elements with extensive involvement from the advisory committees. ' 2. Phase II Geotechnical Study- More accurately determine soil conditions and rock locations. ' 3. Phase I Wetland Study- Accurately Determine wetland locations, if any, and exact stream corri- dors and types, to fullfill the Army Corp of Engineer requirements with pond and stormwater improvements and road crossings of streams. ' 4. Phase II Archeological Study (If necessary)- One archeological site encountered during the phase i study was identified as warranting further study. The State of Virginia will decide if further study is necessary. 5. Comprehensive Design Guidelines -Develop in conjunction with the site plan employing a ' methodology involving the advisory coirunittees. 6. Proforma/ financial analysis in conjunction with the master plan and guidelines to better identify ' markets and assess the plans financial costs and benefits. ' 7. Take the master plan through the rezoning process to as a Planned Business District (PBD) or comparable planning designation. 8. Develop a set of codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R's) which would convey with land sales or long term leases. ' Some of the many issues to develop specific criteria for include: • Architectural guidelines ' • Site planning guidelines, such as setbacks, entry sequence design, openspace percentages and connections, etc. • Parking and road design • Size, height, types of material and theme for signage ' • Lighting intensity, height and style ' 12 ' Roanoke Coun[y Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document ' • Best management practices for stormwater and water quality • Types of plants, theme of planting and percentage of construction budget • Maintenance and ease of replacement for planting ' • Use of recycled materials in construction • Existing vegetation protection and replacement ratios ' • Budget allocation for the arts on site such as statues and sculpture ' CONCLUSION The Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guldellnes Outline incorporate innovative and site re- ' sponsive development methods. It allows the opportunity to develop a carefully crafted and rigorously controlled business park which protects and enhances natural resources, while facilitating high-quality, leading edge, mixed used development. ' The Proposed Roanoke County Business Park is compatible with site conditions, including access to public utilities, road systems and the concerns of West County citizens and businesses. It provides ' Roanoke County the opportunity become a part of technological growth of this portion of the state. It is therefore recommended that Roanoke County purchase the property and begin the process of ' rezoning and use the Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines Outline Statement as a guiding principle in the design process for the site. 13 ' Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document APPENDIX DESIGN TEAM COUNTY OF ROANOKE CONTACTS ' David Hill, ASLA, Workshop Captain Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison, Jr. John Schmidt, ASLA, Project Coordinator Member, Catawba Magisterial District Hill Studio, P.C. Board of Supervisors 120 W. Campbell Avenue 1638 Weaver Road ' Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Salem, Virginia 24153 540.342.5263 540.389.3054 (h) ' 540.345.5625 (fax) 540.772-2193 (fax) Carlton Abbott, FAIA Workshop Partner Elmer C. Hodge Carlton Abbott & Partners, Inc. Administrator ' Duke of Gloucester Street County of Roanoke P O Box 29800 P. O. Box . . Williamsburg, Virginia 23187 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 757.220.1095 540.772-2004 (w) ' 757.229.8604 (fax) 540.772-2193 (fax) Mike Circeo, P.E. Timothy W. Gubala ' Engineering Consulting Services, Inc. Director Geotechnical Services Economic Development Department 5320 Peters Creek Road County of Roanoke ' Roanoke, Virginia 24019 P.O. Box 29800 540.362.6000 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 ,40.362.1202 (fax) 540.772-2069 (w) Jeff Cochran P E 540.772-2030 (fax) , . . Lockwood Greene Technologies Melinda J. Cox Environmental and Archeological Services Economic Development Specialist ' 1201 Oak Ridge Turnpike Economic Development Department Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37631 County of RoattokP 423.220.4300 P.O. Box 29800 ' .123.220.4310 (fax) Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540.772-2185 (w) Larry Wallace, P.E. 540.772-2030 (fax) Engineering Concepts ' Civil Engineering Services 4656 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24018 ' 540.776.5715 540.776.8543 (fax) 1 ' 14 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTE Robert A. Archer General Manager Blue Ridge Beverage Company Salem, Virginia Carole Brackman Board of Directors Member Industrial Development Authority Salem, Virginia James H. Brock President RUSCO Window Company, Inc. Salem, Virginia James F. Garlow President John W. Hancock, Jr., Inc. Salem, Virginia Martha Hooker Member Roanoke County Planning Commission Salem, Virginia Reverend Samuel J. Huntley Pastor Gospel Baptist Church ~alerry Virginia Charles L. Landis Representative Glenvar Heights Neighborhood Salem, Virginia Karen Montgomery Representative Prunty Drive Neighborhood Salem, Virginia David W. Shelor Representative Glenvar Heights Neighborhood Salem, Virginia Winton W. Shelor, Sr. President Fort Lewis Civic League Salem, Virginia John Pecaric Vice President & Division Director R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company Salem, Virginia Ben F. Powers President Cherokee Hills Civic League Salem, Virginia ' 15 r:~ r~ V w+~l CL~ ~ ~ d ~,y • ~I r+~ ~~ 1~~~J ~V ;~ r; ~' ~ -r \ Z ~ .~ ~ ~ v v ~ ~ n ~` O ~ ~ ~ ~ "` ~ *,r p V ,~ ~ =. `~ ti r ~ ~ ~ ~` V ~ I ~ V ` A V ~;~ < F.. i _. z J c ~~/ ~~ ~!_ M / . '~= ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ° '~ ~ 4 i ~ tt~ ~ I } ~ f,v k } 5 ~ ~~~ , 1 ~ v ~x~`~ 32. ~ ~ S~ y ti S s" ,~ , 7: --. r y v .~~~~ .~~ ~ ~, , ~- ~ ~ ~~ - :~ ,Y , ref r, c Y. ::: x~ -. a ~~ r +e ~~@ ~ '~ > s~ ~ ~ ~ 4 . . f ~ .Y ~~~, P s ~ ti a. Z } ~ . 1~ ~' ~y ~ 1 ti ~ ~ /,~ ((~~ . ~~ ~* r. ,K~'~ t ~ , ' ~ }-, `;. _~• ~^ v ~ ~ Y ~ ~ __ c I'-INCt.tl~ IN~J -* c -' C ~r ~. z '= __.~ i' ~ ~~s :./ ~./ _~ L d L m ~z_ .f~^ ~F~ V ~r ~~ 3 d ~.; ~~ ~~ ,;; i O •~ _ ~~ L Cr ,vO• _ `~ O~ RGANp,~~ G ': ~ z c~ _~: ~~ ~z C~~a~x~~ ~~ ~~x~~a.~.~ 1838 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA July 22, 1997 r~nrrr aF n~ ewr ~ Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48-hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Cail. ALL PRESENT AT 3:05 P.M. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Phillip Whitaker Brambleton Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS ECH ADDED (1) ITEM D-2 -BRIEFING ON 1997 CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY AND (2) ITEM O-8 -REPORT BY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT DR. i GORDON, AND SCHOOL BOARD CHAIRMAN MIKE STOVALL ON BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE PROGRESS ON FUNDING PMM ADDED TWO ITEMS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.1-344 A (7) TO DISCUSS PROBABLE LITIGATION REGARDING DRAINAGE; AND (7) TO DISCUSS ACTUAL LITIGATION REGARDING OHIO STATE CELLULAR. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Introduction of Roger Ellmore, Executive Director of Explore Park. ECH INTRODUCED MR. ELLMORE 2. Presentation of plaque from Virginia Amateur Sports to the County of Roanoke for their contributions to the 1997 Commonwealth Games. ECH PRESENTED PLAQUE TO CHAIRMAN ON BEHALF OF VAS D. BRIEFINGS 1. Presentation on Glenn-Mary Project. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) SLIDE PRESENTATION BY CONSULTANTS, DAVID HILL, HILL STUDIOS OF ROANOKE, AND CARLTON ABBOTT OF WILLIAMSBURG. WINTON SHELOi4, SR., MEMBER OF COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SPOKE 2. Briefing on 1997 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. (Anne Marie Green, Community Relations Director) SLIDE PRESENTATION BY FRANK MARTIN OF MARTIN RESEARCH 2 E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve amended 1997-1998 operating budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) R-072297-1 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC CONSENSUS OF BOARD TO DISCUSS RECYCLING AT END OF EVENING SESSION 2. Resolution approving option to purchase agreement with David E. Harris and Wanda L. Harris, Dorothy Harris Miller and James B. Miller and Carol Harris Likens for approximately 1.83 acres of real estate. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) R-072297-2 FM MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS LBE ASKED FOR WORK SESSION ON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS AT JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION. WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR 8/19/97. G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING - 8/19/97 -URC 1. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a 3 communications tower, located at 6332 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless. 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a camp with daycare facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings, located on Yellow Mountain Road, one-half mile off of Route 220 South, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Christopher Pollock. 3. Ordinance to rezone 14.69 acres from I-2 and 1-1 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct mini- warehouses, located in the 5000 Block of Benois Road, west of the railway tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ron Knuppel. 4. Ordinance to amend conditions on a Planned Residential Development consisting of 39 acres, located at Mountain View Road and Wolf Run, Vinton Magisterlal District, upon the petition of Woif Creek Inc. 5. Ordinance to rezone 35.69 acres from R-3 & I-1 to R-1 to construct single family residences, located between Merriman Road and intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Joe R. Blackstock. 6. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to replace an existing congregation area, located at 7242 Cove Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Junior L. Conner, Trustee for Little Hope Primitive Baptist Church. 1. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending and reenacting Sections 13-19 and 13-23, of Article II, Noise, of Chapter 13, Offenses- Miscelianeous, of the Roanoke County Code, in order to limit the time period for the permissible generation of sound from commercial and industrial zoning districts, 4 and to provide a waiver procedure. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND & PUBLIC HEARING - 8/19/97 URC 2. Ordinance amending and reenacting Section 9-21 of the Roanoke County Code and Ordinance 121796-13 which established a Board of Appeals and procedures and requirements to hear appeals from decisions made under the provisions of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection". (John M. Chambiiss, Assistant County Administrator) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AND USE BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS AS FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS 2ND - 8/19/97 URC 3. Ordinance authorizing the exercise of an option to purchase and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of approximately 463 acres of real estate from Glenn-Mary Associates for economic development purposes. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) FFH MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION (ADOPT ORD AND CONCEPT PLAN) LBE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ONLY APPROVE PURCHASE OF SITE WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE PREPARED ORDINANCE LBE WITHDREW HIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING OF PREPARED ORDINANCE 2ND & PUBLIC HEARING - 8/19/97 -URC STAFF ASKED TO ANSWER LBE'S INQUIRY ABOUT ATTITUDE OF CITIZENS ON USING GLENVAR HEIGHT BLVD FOR SITE ACCESS 5 J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES NONE K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Industrial Development Authority FM APPOINTED NEIL GALLAGHER TO COMPLETE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF 4-YEAR TERM OF GUY BYRD, WHICH WILL EXPIRE 9/26/99. 2. Social Services Advisory Board BLJ TO WITHDRAW NOMINATION AND CONFIRMATION OF ALLEN SIMPSON TO REPRESENT HOLLINS DISTRICT. APPOINTED PATRICIA W. THOMPSON TO FOUR YEAR TERM EXPIRING 8/1/01. FFH NOMINATED ED WOLD TO REPRESENT CATAWBA DISTRICT FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEAR TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE 8/1/01. FM NOMINATED BETTY LUCAS TO REPRESENT CAVE SPRING DISTRICT FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEAR TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE 8/1/01. L. CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA WAS WITHDRAWN SINCE BLJ WITHDREW CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO SOCIAL SERVICES. ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 6 Supervisor Eddv: (1) Advised that County has supply of Citizens Handbooks and they can be mailed to citizens or picked up. (2) Asked for status of revising ordinance to allow three dogs instead of two. ECH advised that this will be brought to the Board on 8/19/97. (3) Asked that recycling be discussed. Chairman advised that discussion would be last thing on evening agenda. (4) Received memo from PMM concerning Planning Commission role in development and approval of CIP, and recommended that PC be involved. ECH will bring back a report. (5) Received memo from ECH on bikeway plan asking for comments. ECH will draft letter of support to 5PDC as long as Board can review and also look at including in six year road review. (6) Commented on recent death of Sheriff Foster. Chairman Johnson expressed condolences from the Board. Supervisor Minnix: (1) Also acknowledged Sheriff Foster's death. (2) Advised that Opole, Poland suffered devastating flood, and that visits to and from Poland have been canceled this year. He is contacting U. S. Officials in an effort to obtain transportation to send aid to Poland. Supervisor Harrison: (1) Has received series of phone call concerning Cherokee Hiiis interest in sewer service, and will forward requests to Gary Robertson. (1) Asked about status of purchase of land behind Montclair Estates for retention pond. Asked that staff move forward on this. N. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS j1) JANE MILLIRON, 2680 GIL HAVEN DRIVE, ADVISED THAT REZONING ON ROSECREST WOULD BE POSITIVE DIRECTION AND SHOULD NOT BE DENIED BECAUSE OF PROXIMITY TO SCHOOL. j2) PAUL BELL, 2705 HILLBROOK DRIVE, SW, SPOKE OF HIS CONCERNS ABOUT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RELATIVE TO CRESTHILL AND GARST MILL PARK. AND ABOUT LEAD AND OTHER SUBSTANCES IN WATER. GEORGE SIMPSON WILL DISCUSS WITH MR. BELL O. REPORTS HCN MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM 5. 6. AND 8, UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance. 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance. 3. Board Contingency Fund. 4. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures before year end accruals and adjustments as of June 30, 1997 5. Status Report on the CIRCLE Suggestion Program. LBE ASKED THAT BOARD MEMBERS BE PROVIDED WITH COPIES OF THE BROCHURE 6. Report on the Task Force to review solutions to problems encountered by the disabled, physically challenged and senior citizens of Roanoke County. STAFF ASKED TO BRING BACK FORMAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING MISSION STATEMENT, COSTS AND FUNDING. LBE ASKED THAT SIMILAR GROUP BE CONSIDERED TO ADDRESS NEEDS OF YOUTH. 7. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 1997. 8. Report from School Board Chairman and School Superintendent concerning funding for Phase I of school construction projects. MIKE STOVALL AND DR. GORDON ADVISED THAT BRC REDUCED THE AMOUNT TO $47,719,732 AS THE BOS REQUESTED. DR. GORDON PRESENTED ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS. ECH WAS REQUESTED TO BRING BACK APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION AT 8/19/97 MTG. MTG WITH VINTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY SET FOR 8/5/97 AT VINTON WAR MEMORIAL TO DISCUSS ROLAND E. COOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND FORMER WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL. s P. WORK SESSION NONE Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF VIRGINIA SECTION 2.1-344 A (3) TO CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES: SCHOOLS; (3) SALE OF REAL ESTATE, WELL LOT; (7) TO CONSIDER PROBABLE LITIGATION REGARDING DRAINAGE; AND (7) TO CONSIDER ACTUAL LITIGATION REGARDING OHIO STATE CELLULAR. PMM ADVISED THAT (3) TO CONSIDER ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PU_ RPOSES; PARKS & RECREATION, WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY HCN ADDED (3) TO CONSIDER ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES; SCHOOLS BLJ MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5:55 P.M. URC EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.) R. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-072297-3 BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE RESO AT 7:00 P.M. UW CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT JOINT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 7/29/97 WITH SALEM CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN POSTPONED S. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS. 1. Resolution of Congratulations to the Glenvar Hlgh School Girls Softball Team for winning the 1997 Division A State Championship. 9 R-072297-4 FM MOTION TO ADOPT RESO AYES: LBE, FM, HCN, BLJ ABSTAIN: FFH 2. Resolution of Congratulations to the William Byrd High School Baseball Team for winning the 1997 Division AA State Championship. R-072297-5 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC 3. Resolution of Congratulations to William Byrd High School for winning first place in the 1997 Academic Division AA State Creative Writing Competition. R-072297-6 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC T. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN OR CONTINUED: Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 4608 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Saint John Evangelical Lutheran Church. NVITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER) Ordinance to rezone 9.77 acre from R-1 Conditional to R-1 to construct single family residences, located at the south side of Woodhaven Road, approximately 0.5 mile east of its intersection with Green Ridge Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ernest Clark. (CONTINUED TO AUGUST 19, 1997 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) 1. Ordinance to rezone 1.0 acre from I-2 to C-2 and obtain a io Special Use Permit to construct a facility for minor auto repair associated with a used automobile dealership, located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Gary Ellis. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-072297-7 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AND APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITION ADDED: NO STORAGE OF INOPERATIVE VEHICLES SHALL BE ALLOWED ON THE SITE URC 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cave Spring Baptist Church. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-072297-8 LBE MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow a private kennel, located at 1529 Dalmatlon Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Sara Cole and Kit Davis. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-072297-9 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AND APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITION AMENDED TO PERMIT SIX DOGS INSTEAD OF FOUR URC 4. Ordinance to rezone 0.94 acre from C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a convenience store, located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Stephen D. and Marie Freeman. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-072297-10 LBE MOTION TO DENY REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT i~ URC 15 SPEAKERS HCN SUGGESTED THAT VDOT MAKE ANOTHER TRAFFIC STUDY IN OCTOBER TO SEE IF AREA MERITS TRAFFIC LIGHT HCN ASKED FOR WORK SESSION BY OCTOBER 1ST TO CLARIFY DEFINITION OF C-1 AND C-2 ZONING ON BRAMBLETON AVENUE. CHAIRMAN DECLARED FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 10:05 P.M. U. OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion of recycling from afternoon session. HCN MOVED TO FULLY IMPLEMENT SIX DROP OFF SITES LOCATED AT LIBRARIES, SCHOOLS, FIRE STATIONS, AND PARKS AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS; AND WORK WITH BOARD MEMBERS ON SITES AYES: FM, FFH, HCN, BLJ NAYS: LBE V. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE W. ADJOURNMENT FM MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:20 P.M. UW 12 OF ~OANp~~ G ti.• ',. ~ Z ~ ° ~ a= C~.~a~xx~# ~~ ~~xx~.aa.~.~e rasa ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 22, 1997 mar ae n~ ...,. ~ Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. Individuals with disabilities who arrangement in order to participate meetings or other programs and County, please contact the Clerk to request that you provide at least arrangements may be made. require assistance or special in or attend Board of Supervisors activities sponsored by Roanoke the Board at (540) 772-2005. We 48-hours notice so that proper A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Phillip Whitaker Brambleton Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS i 1. Introduction of Roger Elimore, Executive Director of Explore Park. D. BRIEFINGS 1. Presentation on Glenn-Mary Project. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve amended 1997-1998 operating budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) 2. Resolution approving option to purchase agreement with David E. Harris and Wanda L. Harris, Dorothy Harris Miller and James B. Miller and Carol Harris Likens for approximately 1.83 acres of real estate. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a communications tower, located at 6332 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless. 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a camp with daycare facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings, located on Yellow Mountain Road, one-half 2 mile off of Route 220 South, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Christopher Pollock. 3. Ordinance to rezone 14.69 acres from I-2 and I-1 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct mini- warehouses, located in the 5000 Block of Benols Road, west of the railway tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ron Knuppel. 4. Ordinance to amend conditions on a Planned Residential Development consisting of 39 acres, located at Mountain View Road and Wolf Run, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Woif Creek Inc. 5. Ordinance to rezone 35.69 acres from R-3 ~ I-1 to R-1 to construct single family residences, located between Merriman Road and intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Joe R. Blackstock. 6. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to replace an existing congregation area, located at 7242 Cove Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Junior L. Conner, Trustee for Little Hope Primitive Baptist Church. I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending and reenacting Sections 13-19 and 13-23, of Article II, Noise, of Chapter 13, Offenses- Miscellaneous, of the Roanoke County Code, in order to limit the time period for the permissible generation of sound from commercial and industrial zoning districts, and to provide a waiver procedure. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 2. Ordinance amending and reenacting Section 9-21 of the Roanoke County Code and Ordinance 121796-13 which established a Board of Appeals and procedures and requirements to hear appeals from decisions made under 3 the provisions of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection". (John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) J. K. L. M. N. O. 3. Ordinance authorizing the exercise of an option to purchase and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of approximately 463 acres of real estate from Glenn-Mary Associates for economic development purposes. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES APPOINTMENTS 1. Industrial Development Authority 2. Social Services Advisory Board CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Social Services Advisory Board. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS REPORTS 4 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance. 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance. 3. Board Contingency Fund. 4. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures before year end accruals and adjustments as of June 30, 1997 5. Status Report on the CIRCLE Suggestion Program. 6. Report on the Task Force to review solutions to problems encountered by the disabled, physically challenged and senior citizens of Roanoke County. 7. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 1997. P. WORK SESSION Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF VIRGINIA SECTION 2.1-344 A (3) to consider the acquisition of real property for public purposes: Parks & Recreation; and (3) sale of real estate, well lot. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.) R. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION S. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS. 1. Resolution of Congratulations to the Glenvar High School Girls Softball Team for winning the 1997 Division A State Championship. 5 2. Resolution of Congratulations to the William Byrd High School Baseball Team for winning the 1997 Division AA State Championship. 3. Resolution of Congratulations to William Byrd High School for winning first place in the 1997 Academic Division AA State Creative Writing Competition. T. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN OR CONTINUED: Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 4608 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Saint John Evangelical Lutheran Church. (WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER) Ordinance to rezone 9.77 acre from R-1 Conditional to R-1 to construct single family residences, located at the south side of Woodhaven Road, approximately 0.5 mile east of its intersection with Green Ridge Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ernest Clark. (CONTINUED TO AUGUST 19, 1997 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) 1. Ordinance to rezone 1.0 acre from i-2 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a facility for minor auto repair, located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Gary Ellis. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cave Spring Baptist Church. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow a private kennel, located at 1529 Dalmation Drive, Catawba 6 Magisterial District, upon the petition of Sara Cole and Kit Davis. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 4. Ordinance to rezone 0.94 acre from C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a convenience store, located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Stephen D. and Marie Freeman. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) U. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. ADJOURNMENT ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER c-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Introduction of Roger Ellmore, Executive Director of Explore Park. COUNTY ADMINISTIZATOR~g COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Explore Park has requested time on the agenda to introduce the newly appointed Executive Director Roger Ellmore. Interim Director Gardner Smith will introduce Mr. Ellmore. Respectfully Submitted by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens '. ITEM NUMBER ~-'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 11, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Presentation on Glenn-Mary Project. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been reserved for the staff and consultants to present to the Board the results of their work and to request authorization to purchase land for a new West County Business Park. The consultants are two of the best landscape architectural firms in Virginia; Carlton Abbot of Williamsburg and Hill Studios of Roanoke. They will report that environmental testing is acceptable; that our efforts to work with residents in the neighborhood have been productive; and that there is a definite market for this type of park. There will be a short slide presentation followed by a question and answer period. Advance information is being sent to you for your review. This opportunity to develop ahigh-end business park, targeted for research and technology companies, will be a significant benefit to Roanoke County and the region. A recent study conducted by the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership reports: 'The Roanoke and New River Valleys have the potential to dramatically expand their technology business sector and become ahigh-tech center. The region has many advantages....it has a leading research and technology university in Virginia Tech; it is in close proximity to large population centers in the US; and the cost to conduct business is generally favorable. It lacks a base of large technology companies." That is the niche that we have begun to fill with ITT, Optical Cable, etc. and this project will stake our claim. I appreciate very much the support of the citizens from the area, the staff, and the business community. I urge your support of the purchase and development of this site. I also ask you to adopt the covenants recommended by the teams. r .r Respectfully submitted by, C~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs. Denied () Eddy Received () Harrison Referred Johnson To Minnix Nickens 2 AN ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENT OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SERVICES PROVIDED BY ROANOKE COUNTY June 1997 A Research Report Prepared For: COUNTY OF ROANOKE Roanoke, Virginia 24018 MARTIN RESEARCH, INC. Richmond -Roanoke -Norfolk ,:~#~. i'I'I: .,~4~ im ~~ °iiii. Martin Research 2 ASSIGNMENT AND METHODOLOGY ASSIGNMENT -The purpose of this research was to gather attitudes and opinions of Roanoke County households toward: resident satisfaction with county services • resident usage of departmental services • responsiveness of county departments and employees • effectiveness of media exposure • resident attitudes toward a bond referendum In addition we were to measure the levels of importance and obtain grade scores for twenty-five County departments and services as well as resident usage of various County services. Media penetration into County households and media preferences for obtaining information regarding County services and programs was also explored, along with demographics of the survey universe. FIELD INTERVIEWING -All interviewing for this quantitative research study was completed by our own staff of trained field interviewers from our offices in Roanoke. No portion of the interviewing process was sub-contracted. Interviews were completed during all day parts, including nighttime and weekends, to ensure that as many selected households as possible were included from the original sample. INTERVIEWING QUOTA -Our completed interview quota was 500 completed interviews from a random selection of households within the geographic confines of Roanoke County. ,::::: . i ~: f !~. Martin Research 3 SAMPLE SELECTION -Since there was no readily available source of county households and phone numbers we ordered the sample from Survey Sampling, Inc. of Fairfield, Connecticut, a firm specializing in providing the service. The sample included both listed and unlisted numbers, allowing us to construct the sample to approximate the Roanoke County universe as closely as possible. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN -The questionnaire was designed by Martin Research, Inc. under the supervision of and with approval from the Roanoke County executive staff. It was also reviewed by members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. TABULATION -After questionnaire editing all surveys were entered into our in- house computer tabulation system. We use computer tabulation programs created by both Microtab, Inc. and SPSS in analyzing all survey results. A number of special cross- tabulations were completed for this report, these are detailed within the computer printout which accompanies this report. RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY - A completed interview quota of 500 surveys provides first order tabulation accuracy at t5% at the 95% confidence level. This is an ' accepted accuracy level in surveys of this type, considering both data requirements and cost. ,:: ... ~~::. ;. , i ~ ` ii': ' Martin Research 4 RESIDENT SATISFACTION WITH COUNTY SERVICES County residents participating in the survey were asked: "How satisfied are you with services provided by Roanoke County?" (212) 42.4% very satisfied CITIZENS EXPRESSED (213) 42.6% somewhat satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION (43) 8.6% neutral (26) 5.2% somewhat dissatisfied (26 respondents) 1.0% very dissatisfied (5 respondents) (499) 100.0% "Are county employees who you have encountered courteous and polite?" (265) 53.0% always CITIZENS DO FEEL (177) 35.4% usually COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE COURTEOUS AND POLITE (27) 5.4% sometimes (2) 0.4% never (2 respondents) _~ 5.8% no response (500) 100.0% "Do you feel safe in yc (299) 59.8% (183) 36.6% (17) 3.4% _~ 0.2% (500) 100.0% cur home and immediate neighborhood?" always usually CITIZENS GENERALLY FEEL SAFE sometimes never (1 respondent) i:iE4h: l1:1c::::i': ''. E. ~I:L .S'if n i~' I. ' Martin Research 5 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES AND RATING OF THESE SERVICES BY COUNTY RESIDENTS Survey respondents were read a series of 25 county services and were asked to indicate the importance these services were to them as County residents. Those respondents who indicated the service was "very important" or "somewhat important" were then asked to grade the service on a school grading scale of A, B, C, D, and F...grade pluses and minuses being accepted. We also determined if the respondent had used each specific service. Grades and Numbers in ()indicate 1995 survey scores. These services, their importance levels, and grades are shown below: Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Police-Crime Protection Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 99% 87 B (B) Service users (41 %) 99% 87 B Note: 78 78 respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Police Traffic Enforcement Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 96% 86 B (B) Service users (23%) 98% 84 B Note: 105 (91) respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Fire Protection Important Grade Grade `Important" respondents 99% 91 B+ (B+) Service users (20%) 100% 90 B+ Note: 30 (19 res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower Emergency Medical Services Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter (EMS) Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 99% 92 A- (B+) Service Users (43%) 100% 92 A- Note: 23 (37 respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Garbage Pick-Up Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 97% 90 g+ (B+) Service Users (94%) 99% 90 g+ Note: 49 50 res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower ~::::y .: j::::'::Il~:: ~~:~:I: t :. f ~ Martin Research Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Brush/Bulk Trash Pick-Up Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 86% 85 B (B) Service users (81 %) 99% 85 B Note: 117 (100) respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Library System Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 87% 91 B+ (g+) Service users (77%) 97% 91 B+ Note: 27 (18) respondents scored th is service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Park Facilities Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 83% 87 B (B) Service users (70%) 98% 87 B Note: 79 (78) respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Recreational Services and Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Programs Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 71 % 87 B (B) Service users (48%) 94% 87 B Note: 50 57 res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower Public Education-The County Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter School System Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 87% 87 B (B+) Service users (62%) 99% 88 B+ Note: 71 57 res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Planning and Zoning Services Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 73% 81 C+ (B-) Service users (28%) 95% 79 C+ Note: 128 108 res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Water and Sewer Services Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 82% 86 B (B) Service users (68%) 100% 86 B Note: 91 (64 res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower Building Inspections and Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Permits Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 69% 84 B- (B-) Service users (41 %) 98% 84 B- Note: 84 89 res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower :::::: , ;~li :;:,.m ~> :. ~~ ` i:s. Martin Research Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Social Services Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 62% 85 B (B) Service users (12%) 97% 86 B Note: 51 (67) respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Voter Registration Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 91 % 90 B+ (B+) Service users (84%) 99% 91 B+ Note: 41 (45) respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Public Health Services Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 73% 88 B+ (B) Service users (20%) 100% 88 B+ Note: 34 (44) respondents scored this service a "C" or lower VA Coop Extension Services (4H) Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 68% 88 B+ (B) Service users (27%) 99% 89 B+ Note: 24 (42) scored this service a "C" or lower Storm Water Drainage/Flood Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Control Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 79% 81 C+ Service users (29%) 98% 78 C+ Note: 143 (- respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Street Lights Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 85% 83 B- Service users (50%) 99% 85 B Note: 148 (- respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Sheriff-Court Services Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 80% 88 B+ Service users (34%) 99% 88 B+ Note: 42 (- respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Treasurer-Tax Collection Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 86% 85 B Service users (85%) 94% 85 B Note: 109 - res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower to :;,:: :iii" ii: `: ~ `'': Martin Research 8 Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Clerk of the Circuit Court Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 53% 87 B Service users (23%) 91 % 87 B Note: 34 (-) respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Greenways Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 59% 81 C+ Service users (20%) 94% 81 C+ Note: 82 (- respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very/Somewhat Numerical Letter Public Transportation Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 64% 77 C Service users (8%) 89% 79 C+ Note: 92 -) res ondents scored this service a "C" or lower Very Somewhat Numerical Letter Affordable Housing Important Grade Grade "Important" respondents 69% 79 C+ Service users (-%) - 76 C Note: 116 (-) respondents scored this service a "C" or lower Minimum Acceptable Score = 85 Scale: A+ = 100-98 B+ = 91-88 C+ = 81-78 D+ = 71-68 A = 97-95 B = 87-85 C = 77-75 D = 67-65 A- = 94-92 B- = 84-82 C- = 74-72 D- = 64 Service Areas with higher scores than 1995 ..................... 3 Service Areas with the same scores as 1995 .................... 12 Service Areas with lower scores than 1995 ...................... 2 Service Areas not measured in 1995 .............................. 8 Total service areas measured ....................................... 25 ;~.;~ ,1, ~~ ~ ;~ :, Martin Research 9 SERVICE AND DEPARTMENTAL AREAS WHERE A PROBLEM IS PERCEIVED BY COUNTY RESIDENTS Storm Water Drainage/Flood Control Greenways Public Transportation Affordable Housing Planning and Zoning Services Street Lights (marginal) :, ~:• ii: ``~'T fi~ [I`:i~ Martin Research 10 USAGE OF SPECIFIC COUNTY SERVICES Respondents were asked how frequently they had used three specific county services within the past twelve months. Service usage and frequency are shown below: Attended a Recreational Program or visited a Recreation Center: (290) 58% never (94) 19% once or twice 1~~ 23% more than twice (500) 100% Low Usage Called or visited or used a county library: (158) 32% never (86) 17% once or twice 256 51 % more than twice (500) 100% Moderate Usage Used CORTRAN or STAR transportation services: (487) 97% never (6) 1 % once or twice 0% more than twice (495) 100% No Usage :: ,. ~„ .€;~i~. ;~: f~ :, Martin Research 11 SOURCES OF INFORMATION REGARDING COUNTY GOVERMENT Respondents were asked if they had used a series of sources for information about County government. Responses were: 35.2% from county newsletters 86.8% from local television news 75.0% from local radio news 89.8% from The Roanoke Times 12.4% from The Vinton Messenger 17.4% from The Salem Times-Register 59.2% from the County Parks and Recreation Program Guide 13.6% from the Internet 13.2% from having attended a Board of Supervisors meeting 34.0% by calling the County Information Line 14.4% by attending a County sponsored informational meeting :, :.:.,. ,::: ~. ~,;:. ii~ m ii i~: ,:':~;:, ,. ~::. Martin Research 12 CABLE ACCESS FOR OBTAINING COUNTY INFORMATION About $9% of our respondent group reported having in-home cable television service in their homes, up from 84% in 1996. Among those homes with cable service (89%) some 72%, up from 64% in 1996, have watched Cable Channel 3, the government and education access channel (64% of the total households surveyed). And 71 % of those households who have watched Cable Channel 3 have watched all or part of a County Board of Supervisors meeting. This group represents 45% of the total survey universe of county households. Frequency of watching these meetings was 88% sometimes, 11 % usually, and 1 person always watches them. Some 91 % (41 % of the survey universe) of those who have watched Cable Channel 3 have also watched other public programming available on Channel 3, both Roanoke City and County telecasts. The frequency here was basically (94%) "sometimes". ';:~ :;:. . , a ~: ~ ~+T Martin Research 13 RESIDENT PREFERENCES Residents of Roanoke County were asked if they preferred having law enforcement provided by a police department or a sheriffs department: (231) 46.2% police department (87) 17.4% sheriffs department 182 36.4% no opinion (500) 100.0% no opinion 36.4% sherif 17.4°r police t6.2% both 32.2 volun 16.4% no opinion Q d% paid staff 42.0% -support for a police department was consistent across all cross-tabulations and zip codes And they were asked if they preferred to have fire and rescue services provided by paid staff or volunteers: (210) 42.0% paid staff (82) 16.4% volunteers (161) 32.2% both 47 9.4% no opinion (500) 100:0% . :~~ . , ,:,: Martin Research 14 THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING ROANOKE COUNTY WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS (non-prompted free response) (168) 33.6% Schools (68) 13.6% Taxation issues (50) 10.0% Population growth (50) 10.0% Economic developmentfjobs (38) 7.6% Crime/drugs (38) 7.6% Traffic/new roads (19) 3.8% Water/sewer (16) 3.2% Zoning (9) 1.8% Consolidation/annexation :~ ;'iii :~ '. ~:,: 'i:; Martin Research v~ c ~ ~_ ~, ~ ~ W ~ o c ° cu ~ ca ~ o ~; -a v cu w o co ~ to ~ ~ O ~ U ~ ~ ~ r~-~ N C ~ ~ U .~ ~ O ~ U 15 SUPPORT FOR A BOND REFERENDUM Respondents were asked if they would support a bond referendum for the following projects. Yes responses Project (364) 72.8% IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING SCHOOLS - 82% support among households with school age children - 78% support among households in zip code 24018. Yes responses Project (320) 64.0% CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SCHOOLS - 74% support among households with school age children - 71 % support in zip code 24018, 71 % in 24014 Yes responses (214) 42.8% Project GREENWAYS - 37% support with age group > 65 - no other significant variances by cross-tabulations Yes responses Proiect - (343) 68.6% STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN/ FLOOD CONTROL Yes responses SUPPORT FOR THESE PROJECTS IF TAXES (307) 61.4% WERE INCREASED BY $30 PER YEAR - lower support in the > 55 age groups -lower among renters than homeowners - 70.1% support in zip code 24018 - higher support in age groups 25-44 - lower support among non-registered voters ~, :: ;~~ :,a:~ ~;: Martin Research 16 Question 99: What other types of programs about the County would you like to see on Cable Channel 3? - None (46) - No opinion (5) - More information on Parks and Recreation - Undecided - More information about adult education classes - Study on Roanoke River -floods - Town hall meetings - Citizens public forums - Info about schools Blue Ribbon committee report - Like to know about crime in different sections of the town - More information on current events, such as we might read in the newspaper - Utility, industrial park updates, county major project updates - More about education - Youth services - More community information - More history about the county - Religious programs - More information - More tourist attractions and history of county areas - Some things about decreasing personal property, upping sales taxes - Things to do and places to go ;:,~. ~:.. ',:, ~; .~• a., Martin Research 17 Question 99: What other Types of programs about the County would you like to see on Cable Channel 3? - Entertainment calendar - None, like the programming they have - Ecology, how businesses are doing - Promote more Channel 3 programming so more aware of it - None, don't watch much TV - Job postings - More on regular channels - More educational funding programs, where money for education is going and how it's being spent y - What is going on in Parks and Rec - Updates, things being planned - The libraries - Schools (6) - Something for SR citizens - Not sure - Law enforcement and what they are doing - Forum of citizens from different areas discussing their particular needs - (Events) things going on in County - Immaterial to me - More information about what the schools are doing - Information about all the services they offer, you might not know what all of them are ,;~ ~: ~~`~'' ~~ , ~:: Martin Research ^ 18 ~ Question 99: What other types of programs about the County would you like to see on Cable Channel 3? ~ - Do good job ~ - Many programs on Channel 4 should be on Channel 3, showing old ways of doing things, etc. ~ - More impromptu programs about local people - I'd like to see programs about what could be done about getting more ~ businesses and better paying jobs in the County - Health care in County ^ - Adult education listings for each quarter ~ - Information about taxes - Announcement of when the meetings will be aired - Spotlight recreation teams and their accomplishments ~ - Parks and recreation programs advertising - Town Hall discussion, children's programs - More coverage of rec sports ~ - More general information, especially building and zoning - More recreation information on Roanoke County - What services are offered and how to contact - None in particular (15) ~ - How personal property taxes are evaluated - Would like to see more programs on flood control - More on government policy - Educational -animals ~::, ;::: ~:~:. :. m `:~:° {'. ' Martin Research 23 Question 108: What is the one thing that Roanoke County Government does the best? - Spend money, sometimes they have their priorities messed up - Crime, police protection - Control the cost of living - Good maintenance on streets, mediums, etc. - Accessible to citizens - Parks - Provide city like services in a rural atmosphere - Improving the looks/cleanliness of Roanoke County - Snow removal (2) - The Board of Supervisors does a good job on most all issues - Would not know - Been satisfied -everything is the best - Fire and rescue - Ambulance service - Entertaining children -kids rec league - Recreation -provide many opportunities for people in the county - Police department, services to the taxpayers - Have a beautiful community - Water problems - Nothing particular - Tax collection format ;ii~:. ~~ i~: ,,! Martin Research 24 Question 108: What is the one thing that Roanoke County Government does the best? - Roads (3) - Overall does all right - Managing money - Accessible information - Tax pretty good - New businesses/economic growth - Police protection, keeping us safe (8) - They do a good job - School system, lower taxes (than the city) - The county government seems to really care about the residents - Picking up garbage (it's the only service we have out here) Catawba - County employees are well trained and courteous - The court system - Attention to schools - Schools and police department - Keeps people informed (2) - True effort to keep citizens informed - They try to keep public informed - Police department, they are always there when you need them - All services are good - They keep a beautiful county ,,;, ~ € ~. i:~: Martin Research 25 Question 108: What is the one thing that Roanoke Counfy Government does the best? - Bicker among themselves - Police protection and the court system - None - Can't think of anything in particular - No idea - Doing well - Clean - "911" system is very good - Spend money we don't have - Keeping streets clean, beauty of county - Management of area this size - They provide safe neighborhoods - Cleanliness of county and beautification - Raise and collect taxes - Helpful people in county government - Does better job than Roanoke City overall - EMT services - Coordination of services - Overall good job - Maintaining the roads - Senior trips :. Martin Research 26 Question 908: What is the one thing That Roanoke County Government does the best? Streets, parks are clean, looks good Sense of community is well established The best thing they do is talk, but no action Roads and streets are serviced well Taxes (2) Spend money (4) Provisions for children Keeps up highways Public school system (9) Have excellent schools Having the garbage collected, Cortran Waste a lot of money Spending too much money Make Roanoke County safe place to live Cheat people out of tax money The school system is extremely good Public relations Seeking citizen input Talks Zoning board works well with Board of Supervisors Law enforcement, fire protection ~,=r:.. ~,a, . ;~ ~,; Martin Research 27 Question 908: What is the one thing that Roanoke County Government does the best? Fire and rescue services Not sure Police protection Recreation improved a lot Emergency management system Red tape Send out tax statement Property kept up They're good about listening to your complaints Conducting surveys to find out about things Leaves me alone Keeps county clean and beautiful Makes people happier Crime prevention Nothing Keeping the area clean and pretty Crime free county The Board of Supervisors do listen They keep the county clean Good at keeping a lot of dead weight, good at making small problems into large problems Not getting involved in low income housing :,.. ;~;_ r~: ~~ ~~` ,~: ,. ,~: ~::. Martin Research 28 Question 108: What is the one thing that Roanoke County Government does the best? - Clean county - Everything - Feed the citizens a bunch of bull - Overtax you - Spending money on beautification - Strict on building permits and inspections - Quality of education - In an emergency people work together - EMS - Having open Board meetings - Clearing away the snow on county streets - Go up on your government each year - It keeps taxes down - Pretty good job overall - Responsive to people in county - Keep main roads clear in bad weather - Try to provide the needed services - Control finances well - Listens to residents of county - Collect taxes, police department - Provide broad range of services ,:,~. ~. ' ;~. Martin Research 29 Question 108: What is the one thing that Roanoke County Government does the best? - Community forum - Clean and safe parks and recreation department, has a well balanced variety of things to do - "Pat themselves on the back" - Maintains roads very well - Police and fire protection - Speeding - Stay out of trouble - Police department, forensic medicine - School environment, recreation programs r' i7 ` i:. Martin Research 30 ne as ect of the Roanoke County Government that Question 109: What is the o the most? needs improving _ Personal property tax too high Consider citizens more than they do School system/Education (22) too hi hand real estate assessments are too high Personal property taxes are 9 Cooperation in the Valley All money goes to S.W. county, rest get nothing where is the money going? 2nd More accountability regarding the money, ton County highest tax rate in the state, second to Arling Drainage problems ater and sewer, getting to more areas of the county W ersonal prope~Y tax d ut sheriff department back into law enforcement, p Shoul p should be eliminated 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Don't think of anything (3) and ermits procedure is too lengthy and cumbersome Licensing p t overnment needs some new faces and new ideas The Coun y g ch attention and money in one section of the county Focus too mu Public housing School system, need more teachers Improvement of roads (7) overnments ' es duplication of effort, consolidate efforts with other g Recogniz Libraries need to be expanded res onse time/efficient way to get general information All p :.,.;.:. ;t ;~ ~~~ , ~~ +~ ~,: ,. Martin Research AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION 072297-1 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY AMENDED BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit any amendments to its annual operating budget to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of the City of Roanoke, and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia approved the budget for the year ending June 30,.1998 for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the March 28, 1997, report of the Authority Chairman, a copy of which is incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, by letter dated July 8, 1997, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, the Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has submitted a request that the County approve the amended budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for the year ending June 30, 1998; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the amended budget for the year ending June 30, 1998 for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the July 8, 1997 letter of the Authority Chairman, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, 1 necessary to evidence said approval. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~., Brenda J. Holt n, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Allan C. Robinson, Jr., Chairman, RVRA John R. Hubbard, CEO, RVRA Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council 2 30 ' Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? ' - Personal property tax too high ' - Consider citizens more than they do - School system/Education (22) ' - Personal property taxes are too high and real estate assessments are too high ' - Cooperation in the Valley ' - All money goes to S.W. county, rest get nothing - More accountability regarding the money, where is the money going? 2nd highest tax rate in the state, second to Arlington County - Drainage problems - Water and sewer, getting to more areas of the county - Should put sheriff department back into law enforcement, personal property tax should be eliminated - Don't think of anything (3) - Licensing and permits procedure is too lengthy and cumbersome - The County government needs some new faces and new ideas - Focus too much attention and money in one section of the county - Public housing - School system, need more teachers - Improvement of roads (7) - Recognizes duplication of effort, consolidate efforts with other governments - Libraries need to be expanded - All response time/efficient way to get general information ;In' '~. {: ; ~: , Martin Research 32 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? None (5) Crime/drugs Every area Taxes (6) Bond issue -Cave Spring Accessibility of administrative department for the citizens Need new school facilities/implement the Blue Ribbon program School standards need to be higher De-politicize the Board of Supervisors, require that some members step out of a vote due to personal agendas Safety in schools Accessible outdoor facilities No idea, I'm satisfied Snow removal and schools Sign ordinance Using taxes appropriately, fair representation of the people, snow removal Roanoke, Salem & Vinton should be under one government Tax, real estate and personal property Cooperation in the valley (2) Response time, visibility Real estate and property taxes not come due at same time Personal property taxes need looked into i~: ;;;~~ Ti `i~: Martin Research 33 Question 909: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? More quality education in the schools Replace entire Board of Supervisors Flood control (7) Zoning (5) Lower taxes (5) Communication with citizens Try to economize Libraries need expansion, roads, zoning, building inspection Board of Supervisors needs to pay attention to the taxation, business license and personal property taxes are much too high Spend money more wisely so we don't have to pay as much taxes Have harmony within personnel of county government Curb side pick for recycling More money for school system (2) Prioritize (Smith Mountain Lake Reservoir water rates too high), the spending for special projects Taxes increased too much Cutting down on needless expenses Improvement in planning and zoning, too much growth of the wrong type Like to have drinking water in my house Improve the tax rate, lower it More police in all. areas (2) r~: ~ } ~' ,,; ': °'°: ~~ n ::.:. Martin Research 34 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? Tax structure Reduce the amount paid to county officials Planning for future growth Getting their message out to others Less talk and more action Sidewalks, especially in subdivisions Board of Supervisors should stop fighting among themselves Financial obligations Power management/storms, loss of power is not consistent Expenditures, where money is spent and how Roads, and more lighting in the shopping centers Paving/resurfacing roads Police department (3) Reduce the water bill because they have been going up so much Activities, recreation for teenagers, personal property taxes too high Action after the planning Get rid of personal property taxes and quicker snow removal Develop wisely and keep the natural beauty of the area Increase in services, budgetary efficiency Inform people of re-zoning Personal property taxes need to be lowered (3) ,::, :, . .:,r. I~' ~. 1: i'::. Martin Research 35 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? - Schools/garbage pickup system - More community input - Water/sewer prices - Too tough on building permit inspections - Tourism and growth - Allocation of the tax revenue - Storm water management for flood control, more retention ponds needed - Additional street lights (2) - Look at tax assessment issue, going up too much each year - Crime control - Failed to do things to help the county grow - Paid staff fire department - Affordable housing - A little better advertisement on meetings so people know when and what is on the agenda - Assessment for taxes - Issuance of permits for businesses and their construction (construction permits) - The way they relate to Salem and the City of Roanoke - Overall planning is desperately, desperately needed, need to plan for corporate growth and local growth - Need to replace most elected officials - Brush/refuse pickup, needs to be more regularly scheduled, stick to schedule ;:t~. ;:;, ;~ . ;: ~.~ d ~: I': Martin Research 36 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? - Don't know, a lot of things really I guess - We need a different County Administrator - I don't know, I just sit in my apartment, I don't complain - Assessment valuation - Law enforcement - Too many I can't even tell you just one, no I can't - Inform citizens of what's going on - Zoning, low cost housing - Restructure tax system, make government more appealing to people, increase sales tax - Parks and recreation (2) - No ideas (2) - Would like to see them consider consolidation with surrounding governments - Should work with the city better - Greenways and parks and recreation and library - Need a long term plan, where are we going - Taxes too high, forcing some county residents to move to other nearby areas - Budget - The interior needs improvement and kept cleaner - Personal property tax - Not to isolate themselves and be more aware of what is going on in the community ~~: E:~Ea '., r ,, +~.. Martin Research 37 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? Board of Supervisors need to make public more aware of what's going on The court system Change whole board Working with the City Responsiveness to constituency Don't always use money wisely, should be more aware of costs Internal budget Move old cars that set around Need to be more cooperative in valley-wide planning Communication with public Nothing, they are doing a good job in all aspects More lighting on subdivision streets in County Need to give more attention to curb and guttering Park and recreation facilities need to be improved Roads, especially Catawba area Don't know, just live here and pay my taxes and try to be a good citizen, county does a good job I'm satisfied with what they are doing Informing the public Schools, renovating/building new schools Traffic Do more for teenagers to keep them out of trouble ,,,;1t :::~; ;i.:: i ~Iil: i~'~~E~ ~ iii. Martin Research 38 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? Attitude of some of the employees could be a lot better Paid EMS people full time Taxes, especially personal property Improvement on schools/parks & rec/building inspectors need more authority Cooperation with other municipalities Better zoning and housing inspection Mowing, not often enough More people on law enforcement/better pay No complaints (3) Maintain drainage and roads need improving Law enforcement When they have a project they need to be "up-front" and tell everything they're going to do Can't really find fault with anything they are doing Plan and development Need to either lower the taxes or not have increases every year Have more qualified people become involved in the County government Land use planning Traffic, law enforcement, employment Taxing system -that's why people are moving to Botetourt and Bedford High water and sewer rates Better cooperation with other governments ~~;::;. ~;;::::::::li: 5i;; 'i`i: i` E tT h,. Martin Research 39 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? Transportation Should keep the recycling program, not discontinue it Greenways Board of Supervisors need to keep public more aware Rates for water and sewer Trash pickup needs to come twice a week Take care of small businesses Flood control -governments in Valley get along Transportation system needed Better enforcement of the tax collection system Pool/park/recreation facilities out in the 460 area Clean up neighborhoods Bulk trash pickup More help with senior citizens Can think of no deficiencies Fire department Need new people in government Road conditions (2) Lower water bill and taxes Broader decisions by the Board of Supervisors, broader minded open to change in favor of a better standard of living, better cooperation between the local governments ,i' '?, Martin Research 40 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? - Economic development - Tax element that does not call for increasing taxes every single year - Need to stick with 5 year plan - Keeping staff qualified - Focus on other things other than teenagers - How to spend money - Downsize some positions in the county - Don't respond to needs or requests - Cooperation with other governments - Lowering water bills - Communication with the citizens - Better services for elderly - Remove taxes from Vinton residents who do not receive County services - The police department needs to be more people friendly, protect and serve instead of "stalking" to give tickets - Cooperation with other local governments - Garbage collections, water/sewer - Long range planning - Taxes are too high, not used efficiently, need to redistribute money - Lower personal property - Trash pickup - Cost of garbage services ;;_;.... i~:.€~ ~m ,.: :. ~~ ~:. Martin Research 41 Question 109: What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? - Maintaining the streets - Get kids off the streets - Get rid of county manager, not worth hill of beans - Flooding in areas - The use of drugs - Awareness of homeless - Have a way to let residents know what's going on pertaining to what the county government is doing - Parks need improvement - Brush/bulk trash removal -too slow, not a clean job, should put dumpsters in neighborhoods for short term use - Zoning-flood - School-distribute money evenly - Lower taxes and get rid of personal property tax - Lack of action - Taxes too much - They spend too much money on unnecessary things - Demand an all paid rescue department - Get along with the other areas - Better budgeting - Need to be a little more spend thrifty - Improve relationship with other areas ..... . ,::;;: :~~:: . , ;;4~; ;::; r Martin Research ( r., ./ ' itl'I ~~,~ i.. ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE ~~--" July 8, 1997 ~ ~' Ms. Mary Allen, Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke 5204 Bernard Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Allen: The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority at its June 25, 1997, regular meeting, approved an amendment to the 1997/98 annual budget. This budget amendment reflects the reduction in projected revenue, due to the decision of the private waste haulers not to accept the discount rates offered by the Resource Authority and to divert more waste to private landfills out of the area. The amendment reduces revenue and expense by an additional $526,000. The reduction will result in the elimination of an additional three positions through attrition, numerous reductions in the operating budget, and elimination of the Resource Authority's participation in the Kroger recycling drop-off facilities, beginning January 1, 1998. The Authority will continue to make every effort to reduce expenses and increase revenues. The amendment will allow the municipal rate to remain as previously approved at $53/ton. The commercial disposal rate will remain at $55/ton and will not include a volume discount. The Resource Authority has made an all-out effort to reduce rates by offering discount rates as low as $38/ton and the private waste haulers were not interested, therefore this budget amendment has been approved by the Resource Authority Board to balance current revenues and expenses and to maintain previously approved rates. As required by the Members Use Agreement, the amended budget is hereby submitted for the Board's approval, as shown on the budget summary. Sincerely, r -~ Allan C. Robinson, Jr. Chairman cc: Elmer C. Hodge, Diane Hyatt, William Rand 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (540) 857-5050 Fax (540) 857-5056 __. e, ~~ Disposal Fees $ ° ^n-~;~0 $: 7 ~ ~, ~~ Interest Income $ 450.000 $ 450,000 Beginning Balance $ 0 $ 0 Sale of Recyclable Material $ 0 $ 0 Miscellaneous $ 0 $ 0 Total: ~ °-o-,~:96A Revised'°T~o'tal: $7;959;OOQ Personnel: '$ '~~ $ 1,270;582' Operating: $ ^.~^-~^z $ 2,SOZ~605 Capital: $ 0 $ 0 Transfer to Reserves $ '"T~o $ 1,Z52r46~ Debt Service $ 2,933.347 $ 2,933,347 Total: ~Q-,~~6A-- RevisedTotal:: ""$ 7,~59;at)"Q Municipal $ 53 per ton Same Private $~_ per ton Same 1 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: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Approve Amended 1997-1998 Operating Budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~ ~2~~~ ~'~'~'' ~ ~~~' BACKGROUND: On March 26, 1997, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority adopted an operating budget for the year ended June 30, 1998. This budget was approved by the County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on April 8, 1997. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Since the original 1997-98 operating budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority was approved the Authority has seen an additional decline in tonnage received from the commercial haulers. In an effort to reduce the impact of this lost tonnage the RVRA has taken the following action: 1. The attached budget has been reduced by $525,960 to reflect the lost revenue due to the decline in commercial tonnage. In an effort to keep this lost revenue at a minimum the RVRA did not approve the volume base discount for commercial haulers. 2. The expenditures have been reduced by $525,960 in the following areas: a. The elimination of three positions through attrition. b. Numerous reductions in the operating budget as a result of the decreased tonnage. c. Elimination of the RVRA participation in recycling drop off facilities beginning January 1, 1998. As specified in the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority's Members Use Agreement this amended budget must now be approved by the Charter Member Users before it can be placed in effect. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\7-22-97. W PD ~~/ FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment to the RVRA budget will not impact the County of Roanoke budget. The tipping fees for charter members will remain at $53 per ton with a $3 credit as it was in the original 1997-98 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution approving the amended operating budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for the year ended June 30, 1998. SUBMITTED BY: ~.~ ~. ~.~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance APPROVED: ~~~ ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To () Motion by No Yes Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens Abs • M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\7-22-97. W PD ,~,. - / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY AMENDED BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit any amendments to its annual operating budget to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of the City of Roanoke, and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia approved the budget for the year ending June 30, 1998 for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the March 28, 1997, report of the Authority Chairman, a copy of which is incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, by letter dated July 8, 1997, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, the Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has submitted a request that the County approve the amended budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for the year ending June 30, 1998; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the amended budget for the year ending June 30, 1998 for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the July 8, 1997 letter of the Authority Chairman, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. • M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\7-22-97. WPD ,~~~'_ 111997 `'l ~~._.- ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE ~-'~~~R~ir~- - July 8, 1997 °' ~ Ms. Mary Allen, Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke 5204 Bernard Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Allen: The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority at its June 25, 1997, regular meeting, approved an amendment to the 1997/98 annual budget. This budget amendment reflects the reduction in projected revenue, due to the decision of the private waste haulers not to accept the discount rates offered by the Resource Authority and to divert more waste to private landfills out of the area. The amendment reduces revenue and expense by an additional $526,000. The reduction will result in the elimination of an additional three positions through attrition, numerous reductions in the operating budget, and elimination of the Resource Authority's participation in the Kroger recycling drop-off facilities, beginning January 1, 1998. The Authority will continue to make every effort to reduce expenses and increase revenues. The amendment will allow the municipal rate to remain as previously approved at $53/ton. The commercial disposal rate will remain at $55/ton and will not include a volume discount. The Resource Authority has made an all-out effort to reduce rates by offering discount rates as low as $38/ton and the private waste haulers were not interested, therefore this budget amendment has been approved by the Resource Authority Board to balance current revenues and expenses and to maintain previously approved rates. As required by the Members Use Agreement, the amended budget is hereby submitted for the Board's approval, as shown on the budget summary. Sincerely, -_~ ~ ~~ ~ i / ~~ Allan C. Robinson, Jr. Chairman cc: Elmer C. Hodge, Diane Hyatt, William Rand 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (540) 857-5050 Fax (540) 857-5056 ~, Disposal Fees $ $~34-96A $ 7;5i~,0 Interest Income $ 450.000 $ 450,000 Beginning Balance $ 0 $ 0 Sale of Recyclable Material $ 0 $ 0 Miscellaneous $ 0 $ 0 Total: $-0:~4$;-96A Revised: Total:. $7,95g00Q Personnel: Operating: Capital: Transfer to Reserves Debt Service Municipal Private ~ ,"~i $" 1,270SSZ $ ^ .~~z $ 2;502,605 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2933.347 $ 2,933,347 Total: ~--°°~aA- Reoised' Total.. $ 7,959,000 $~5 _ per ton Same $~5 _ per ton Same 1 ~ ' a~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION 072297-2 APPROVING AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH DAVID E. HARRIS AND WANDA L. HARRIS, DOROTHY HARRIS MILLER AND JAMES B. MILLER, AND CAROL HARRIS LIKENS FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.83 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (BEING IDENTIFIED AS COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL 97.05-1-1) AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, by Option to Purchase Agreement dated July 14, 1997, David E. Harris and Wanda L. Harris, Dorothy Harris Miller and James B. Miller, and Carol Harris Likens granted unto the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, an option to purchase approximately 1.83 acres of real estate, being further shown on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map Number 97.05-1-1 (the Property"); and, WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the option fee is $5,000.00, the purchase price for the Property is to be $113,000, and the option must be exercised on or before 15 day of September, 1997; and WHEREAS, at such time as said option is to be exercised, this matter will be brought back to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, for adoption of an ordinance to authorize exercise of the option and acquisition of the real estate. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: (1) That the Option to Purchase Agreement dated July 14, 1997, between David E. Harris and Wanda L. Harris, Dorothy Harris Miller and James B. Miller, and Carol Harris Likens, Grantors, and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, Grantee, and the terms and conditions provided for in said agreement, is hereby approved and the execution of said agreement by the County Administrator is hereby authorized and ratified. (2) That the County Administrator or assistant county administrators are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as may be required to determine the feasibility and necessity of exercising the option and acquiring said Property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. (3) That the sum of $118,000 is hereby appropriated from the 1992 bond account to cover the purchase price of this property of $113,000 and an additional $5,000 to cover costs related to the environmental audit, survey, and title fees. (4) That this resolution shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: /~~2~~~. Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance 2 .x r 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: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Option to Purchase the Harris Property Near Starkey Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: -~°~~tR~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During the Executive Session of the July 8, 1997 Board of Supervisors' meeting, the Board authorized staff to continue to negotiate for the purchase of the Harris property. This tract lies directly across from the T-intersection where Starkey Road intersects with Merriman Road. This tract is needed to provide appropriate traffic movement onto Merriman Road when the park and/or school facilities are developed on the back property along Back Creek. Staff has asked the consultant who is developing the master plan for the Merriman and Starkey Park sites to consider the impact of this site in his assumptions. The agreed upon option price is $113,000 and the sellers' have asked for a closing as soon as possible. Staff has tendered a $5,000 deposit subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The monies to cover the purchase of this site were included in the 1992 bond referendum for site acquisition. Once the Board of Supervisors ratifies the option, staff will proceed with the environmental audit and boundary survey which are needed to complete this transaction. The attached resolution authorizes the County Administrator to execute the above-referenced option and will allow staff to continue with the other related activities. It is anticipated that the first reading of the ordinance for the acquisition of said property will be presented at the August 19 meeting and the second reading would occur at the September 9 Board of Supervisors meeting. '" FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase price of this property is $113,000. Staff is also requesting $5,000 to cover the incidental costs related to the environmental audit, survey, and title. Monies are included in the 1992 bond account for the acquisition of property and we request that the $118,000 be set aside in a separate account to purchase this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution which authorizes the County Administrator to execute the option agreement to purchase the 1.83 acre site and house, and authorizes staff to continue with the environmental assessment, survey, and other legal documentation necessary to complete this transaction. Respectfully submitted, Appreoved by, ~~ ~~ ~ John M. Chambliss, r. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ()Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy _ _ Received () Harrison _ _ Referred () Johnson _ _ To Minnix _ _ _ Nickens "+~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH DAVID E. HARRIS AND WANDA L. HARRIS, DOROTHY HARRIS MILLER AND JAMES B. MILLER, AND CAROL HARRIS LIKENS FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.83 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (BEING IDENTIFIED AS COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL 97.05-1-1) AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, by Option to Purchase Agreement dated July 14, 1997, David E. Harris and Wanda L. Harris, Dorothy Harris Miller and James B. Miller, and Carol Harris Likens granted unto the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, an option to purchase approximately 1.83 acres of real estate, being further shown on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map Number 97.05-1-1 (the Property"); and, WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the option fee is $5,000.00, the purchase price for the Property is to be $113,000, and the option must be exercised on or before 15 day of September, 1997; and WHEREAS, at such time as said option is to be exercised, this matter will be brought back to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, for adoption of an ordinance to authorize exercise of the option and acquisition of the real estate. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: (1) That the Option to Purchase Agreement dated July 14, 1997, between David E. Harris and Wanda L. Harris, Dorothy Harris Miller and James B. Miller, and Carol Harris Likens, Grantors, and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, Grantee, and the terms and conditions provided for in said agreement, is hereby approved and the ~~ execution of said agreement by the County Administrator is hereby authorized and ratified. (2) That the County Administrator or assistant county administrators are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as may be required to determine the feasibility and necessity of exercising the option and acquiring said Property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. (3) That the sum of $118,000 is hereby appropriated from the 1992 bond account to cover the purchase price of this property of $113,000 and an additional $5,000 to cover costs related to the environmental audit, survey, and title fees. (4) That this resolution shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. G:\ATTORNEY\HARRIS.RES 2 f ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~"~' e "Cp AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 22, 1997 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 August 19, 1997. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a communications tower, located at 6332 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless. 2) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to to operate a camp with daycare facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings, located on Yellow Mountain Road'/ mile off of Route 220 South, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Christopher Pollock. 3) An ordinance to rezone 14.69 acres from I-2 to I-1 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct mini-warehouses, located in the 5000 block of Benois Road west of the railway tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ron Knuppel. J (~ 4) An ordinance to amend conditions on a Planned Residential Development consisting of 39 acres, located at Mountain View Road and Wolf Run, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wolf Creek Inc. 5) An ordinance to rezone 35.69 acres from R-3 & I-1 to R-1 to construct single family residences, located between Merriman Road and intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Joe R. Blackstock. 6) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to replace an existing congregation area, located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Junior L. Conner. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERK'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 August 19, 1997. (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 6, 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. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by Eddy Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens Respectfully submitted, For staff use only ~"'1 " COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 BeCnard Dr.~_ P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 date recei eceived application fe, PC/BZA date• placar ~• BOS date: Case umber. ~ /~ 1 - , ~II __J Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ~ REZONINGSPECIAL USE VARIANCE Applicant's name: M\G~1ASL ~~ Faa. C~~J (~3~rac.ESS Phone: (•SLlo~5t12~~3 Zip Code: 2Z5~ Address: Wol 54Rta6 LPS,~~ Su~tE ~~ bJA~(NES(3oQ,o,~ia. 22~ao Phone. ~~ 9~9-&~ Owner's name: I~~cH~tE~ A. ~QRy Zip Code: 2y0~--~ Address: ~ Sa yeu.ow µo~~IN ?e. P_oPrf•~c~L:. t ~Pt - Location of property: Tax Map Number: ~p1.~~ z- ~~ Magisterial District: C 6~E5?R~1J~5 nn . SEE t~'CCF~CEtED M~A-P Community Planning Area: ClfA~6~~ Size of parcel (s}: Existing Zoning: a(=_ ~ 35. $S acres Existing Land Use: ~~~ sq.ft. Proposed Zoning: AG' ~ For Staff Use Only Proposed Land Use: (oag;~,L,noN ~ p~~„,s ~p A / So ` CoMt~nu.N~~aro~s Tower-- Use Type: t~~rb ? Rtit o E . . awe~T 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 t..e requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO ~' f~~`~, 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 :;iris: Application '~ Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification ~%y Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent~of the owner. Owner's Signature: ~~~T„Cu~--~ }~/ JUSTIFICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERI~IIT REQUEST: The Virginia PCS Alliance is a conglomeration of eight telecommunications providers in the state of Virginia. In the recent FCC auctions, VA PCS ~~~as awarded spectrum to establish a PCS or Personal Communications System in'the states of Virginia and West Virginia. CFW Wireless, managing partner of VA PCS is applying for this special use permit to provide coverage of the Rt. 220 corridor as it passes south out of Roanoke County. CFW Wireless, being a Virginia based company, is interested in working with the Roanoke County Planning and Zoning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to reach a mutually agreeable location for this tower site. Creating an adversarial environment is neither favorable nor beneficial to CFW or VA PCS. CFWW's current policies allow co-locations on its structures up to the structural limit of the tower and removal of towers that fall into disuse. CFWW has conducted an RF evaluation of the proposed site and has determined that a tower height of 1 ~0' is the minimum elevation that can be used and still provide adequate coverage of the area. In addition, this site will not require an easement through a noticeable wooded area to be cut, protecting the view shed. CFW Wireless has worked diligently to co-locate on existing structures in Roanoke County (please see attached map). It is only after exhausting all co-location possibilities that CFW'W has requested this special use permit to build a tower. • • n C C~ ., i i N O i ~i o, ~. ~, N37 10 22 W79 56 06.5 AMSL 1200 ft. USGS Garden City Directions to site; Take 220 south from Roanoke to Red Hill Road. Go left on Red Hill Rd. approximately 1/4 mile to site. TMP 107.00 2-19 Crowell Gap Road /` / N Z_ Q H O Z O J ~.~ n ~- ~ • O `n i ": V Q~::: Z_ V?, ~ _ ~. 0 ~ ~;:: T ~ ~,. zao_~ ~~~ ~ J _1 ~ ~'- ~ ~:`?> :::::~ t ::::: ~~ m~a:<::: ~C T w : ~~ \ ~ ~z ~ O ~~~J :~~ \\~ r ~ \. \•, ~ t ~~• ~ ~~ \ `` ,~ \ \r. ~ ~ , v r1 ~_ O/"~ ~' ~:~.1 ~.'~...0 w-;•;- Z:;:H ~::::Q ~:l`' . ~' :::;1:~ ~ ~ ~ y ~C ~ ` ~ ~ L_ ..... :' '..: '>::.~~~ w ....: ~ '•. v t~~/ /~~Z::~ : ~:::' .~:: ~ r- w z Q ,o ~_ ~ - ' , _ ~~~ `~`~ ' pp 1, ~ l.,- ,, ~ ~ ~~~ _' ~r ~` '~ ` i ~ i i ~• N I J P yi ~~ :~~ .1 •~..:, ~• ..., . .•~• • ~-- 30' ACC_SS EASE ~ ~'~" ' - -- MENT ' / //,/ /~ NN 60•~O / \9/ i/CGj/' N a / / / /~i/~~~/ ~./ / ~ i f / / .~~/ ~/ i' / ~ / // j i~// ~`~~~ / / _ ~-Aar ~-*im - • m m Oz ~ l i¢~'~Y mp•mmOCammcnm m~z v m la~l y/ I ca; l l~°vl 1 -{ W . r i ---~0 -mi0 ~m0 '~2p~mG'J ~. m -a 5 O~ 0/11 JI / 1`-i~--N-12=-Ni =rr-llSmp~O- i - i m m z m ~ 11~ I y ornn ~ yncnpOr.~w mc,+~m~czp~ :~mov,mc.+~ I I 1 I III j ~ , x(n jO~N~tJ ~' (n t7N V+O Oc? ~ po? ,m Cm N ~ p m m rnm I j V i 111~~1 m o~llol la I I lu1 O ,-`n+ ~u~z~~Z~~IZ~Nm-~r-+ ` 1~~I mj'~ ~ >~i~m~omwNm~j,p~~pm 0 1 '~; I o ~ on7 e N : ~ D ~ m m O m m O m m~~ j~~ 0~ I ij 1 I ~ O-Nib=-Ni=~itn=i=-NimZZD~ ! ~ ~ u I I -a ~ zzz ~vT~~2~N~opo~zm~0~ --ltn ~O m 'Qim mcn 1J ! I ;~ 10111 1 a a, mo p~pw~ooczi~'NNN~mz > t` ~,! I 1 S~3 4 8"E N rn~ p m N~ m Z N m pC Z= m Om 2 .~~ I~~ ~ ~=i0 ~-mi~m~° y~=~mz~ 'I 111 1561'56'53"E ~ p~T~~ycDi»i~~w~mZm -~N -iS z ~ ~ 42.30' ~ 11 m t,+m ~ N~ J ~~ W 1 ~ ~l ~ ~c ~~t pn i+ rnn ~px T1- m N jNm ~~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ > °'~m rnm ~~r z Nero ~ N x ~o zOWNONWO~mO~mm m \ ? ~ i,~"~~\ ;~\~~\ ~ ~1 \ 1 mC C mC ,mcNZpm I ~m'i~~mm ~ ~i m ~D ^~ \~~S ~r j ~ D m O FS ~~'.j ~~F`~ ~ ~ S N ~ p~ ~- ~, ~~`~\~;\ ~ I i ~ ~,~ ~ "~ -r I m D ~ s ~ ~~~ ~ tny~ ~ . ~ ~ I ~ ~ rn I ~ O ~ ~ ~4 ~~ / 03 . ~ / / ~ ¢ 1 ~~ .~~ / 1~•~26"f / tc-.. to ~p O C~ ~' `~ N V O ~ 4'. ~ W ' ' ...C ~ N IT J W >u ry ~. V`. ~~ N ~ ~ ~ > ~ f Con/ w.ctor: _ ~ ~~ H O \ b h C +i C C WRAY S TE ~L V U ~~~ ~. T m ~ _ e `; .i ~~ .~ w N cn O ~ ~- m n~Ommra?m 'O ~A wc~ ~- c~ w~ >vl~z r" r~a'.rn*t~~~D r rT1ZZZ Z n~ mN ~ <C)DC~ ~ ~p m r ~ c wZ~ rn ~ II .~t i> +zn o~ mtv O~Z~ . ., ~.~?mmm ~ ~~ -oc.+ m{ r'oc^_~~-p O = I O x 0D o w ~, - cn _ N .-. om~~°~c~ D -m-i N mmm > O p --1 ZZ~ C N z -r;~-ip-gym p \ ~ rn~ocn~ '" r m o>oiz 0 p..,_,~ZOT I ,` `~ -ZR1NN ~ R7 1 i ~ , J~~ml~~ ! f. ` . ~ Z z >N >~ -' J~ ~ ! ~~~ z z -, [ -n ~ ~ p0 ~ ~ SOS J~ ~ `~~ . \ \ 1 V' Z ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ O t3. \ ~ c.'S D C')OZ-D `, m Z Z - ~ ~ is ' i ~ in Z o ~~ \ ` C~ \ , ~ ~~ , . ~ ~' , ~, ' ~~ , \ , \ ~ ,~• . , ~~ ~ ~ . 9 ~ \ ~ _ _ _ , _ --__ ~ ; ~ \` ~ 1 vw ~-0 ~ ~~ ~p~ I~ \ ~, ~ ~ ~~~~ °~ ~~ N ~a ~~ ~' L ~~9 \-., \ a ~. ~ ~~m~~ / a~ .~ \ ~~,~~ ~~ , /5 / ~ ~ ~0~ =yip •,=3 U~ -- ~_ -- --~/ 0.6£S ~ ~ -- - --._ ~ ~ ~ -----~ St ~~a~ ~ ~. ~y \ ~o s '~; ~~ Q ~ Y .© pm~5 a.CD~ ~~" ~,, ~ ~ ~~~ ~o Z `°'~'~``°r H ~ ~^ ~ I ~ I .IyRAY SITE (~~ ~~ ~\C+~~ R pc¢io ._ 657 ~"' Tower C m ~c .-`~ ~ ~~ R v ~~~ /i ~•Y ~ T ~ /~\ OiT O } n'C~ • Xingery ~, 1 ~ /~~ Ctm. ~-_~ l ~ .~ ~~ ~ ' , \ ` \, 984 ~ US.G.S. 1.IAP "GARDEN CITY" ~~ - /• ~\ RT60t6 t Y _ ~ RCAF C~EK 1208 ~~\`'-_ --, ~~-* DEPP??T~'I' OF PLP.NNIhG ,~, ~ ,~ : P1'vD ZONII~iG ri2oo ~~i _ _~`_ _-~ \ ~1 t, a-~~ ~~ NORTH • 3 36.58 Ac(D) 31.57 Ac(C) r' ' 64~-- a G ~3 .57 -6454 t~ 11 ~0 I ~ 1 / 3 76.09Ac 6705 MICHAEL PRUDEN FOR CFW WIRELESS SPECIAL USE PERMIT 107.00-2-19- / - /1. 3.50 Ac »a /1 ~'' . ~ ~ 1 I O 8 `~ 51 Ac 6667 _+ .~•~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Or.•,- P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772=2108 For staf use only date receivgd~/~~ ceived by:~,, applicatygn fee:%/~/ IPCBZA da; date: Case (V"umber: ~-s -~ Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ^ REZONING 1~1 SPECIAL USE ^ VARIANCE Applicant's name: L~,r•~5~~-~~;.' ~~1~~-~` Phone:s`/c. _.S`I-`~j~i Address: t , , ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ; ~ ~- ~ l~.v ~ ~;~ ti ~ /t f Zip Code: _~ = j , a y r Owner's name: ~ ~ Phone: Address: '?;~"'~` Zip Code: Location of ro ert .S. ,~ ~ P P Y~ - 4 ~.~~ Tax Map Number: ~l~! ~O _ L _ ~:. L . Z , -~ ';, ~~I~c~ r')v~~1~-~•~1 1Zc-~. c~-~ ~~. ~~`J Magisterial District: ~;?~ ~:`•r' :, ~: .~~ ~ I !-~ Community Planning Area: ~ ~,y: , Size of parcel (s}: Existing Zoning: rV ~ ~ - ~ ~• acres Existing Land Use: J ~r„t,,~,,ti ;~~.~t~! ; sq.ft. >;'-~. ~ _ .- Proposed Zoning: ~#~SPECIAL- .USE PERMIT FOR PRE-SCHOOL AND - For staff use only ~ Proposed Land Use: AFTER-SCHOOL CAMPS. ALSO AN OUTDOOR j ir~rrt ~ ~':: r Use Type: GATHERING PERMIT FOR LEAGUES & CLINICS. Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, wicth, and frontage requirements of the requested dis:ric;? YES NO IF N0, A VAnI~.NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for t`~e requested Use Type? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being prof~~~=_:; 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 enclosed. APPLICATION WILL 1`tOT BE ACCEPTED IF : NY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v wa , v ws v Consultation 8 1 i2" x 1 i " concept plan Application fee / Application ./ ~ Metes and bounds description ;;~ Proffers, if applicable Justification _ _.. ,Water and•szwer_a lication - Ad'oinin pp _ , ~ g property owners .:. .., . ,- ..: .: l hereby certify that / am "either the owner of the propet-ty`orahe owner's agent ot• contract purchaser and am acting with the know/edge and consent of the owner_ ` ~ ~ - ,. ) ~ 'ti 6~ner's Signature: - ~ ~ : ~ N1 i-~ - ,: ~ 1. 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. I am requesting a special use permit to further the activities of the proposed recreational facility. Under Agricultural - 3 (AG-3) Summer camps are permitted. I would like to offer morning pre-school camps, after-school camps, weekend clinics and a variety of recreational leagues. Under AG-3 a special use permit would be needed to include these additional uses. 2. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. In the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan Book I found several guidelines or policies that my project conforms to. Land Use Types lists parks and outdoor recreation facilities as requiring large land areas to serve regional as well as rural residents' needs and may protect environmentally sensitive areas from more intense uses. The proposed project is intended to serve the needs of the regional residents by providing a well needed outdoor and indoor recreational facility. The concept plan is designed to protect the natural flow of Back Creek. The project will only use 13 of our 63 acres leaving the remaining SO acres of forest land untouched. Under the land use guidelines and according to policy RP-4, the proposed project's intent is to use the land as a recreational facility to prevent the contamination and degradation of valuable and irreplaceable natural resources, while providing recreational opportunities for all Roanoke citizens. 3. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. The proposed project would impact only 13 of 63 acres. If the proposed plan is approved by the planning commission the 13 acres would be altered to include two outdoor recreational fields, one indoor recreational building, a driveway and parking area. The above design is intended to be built for summer camp use. If this request is approved then the facility and therefore the property itself would only be impacted by year round use. The adjoining properties and the surrounding area will not be affected by an additional special use permit. The project will not use public water and sewer. If the project becomes successful then I would project a slight increase in traffic on Yellow Mountain Road. Yellow Mountain Road is presently under construction to accommodate a better flow of traffic and therefore the proposed camp traffic should not create a problem. There is a lack of outdoor and indoor facilities for the area residents to use, Therefore the impact on the surrounding parks and recreational facilities is a positive one. There will be no immediate known impact on the fire and rescue services. ~~ ~ ~ << xrca iaa~xoo ^ w _ ., ~,~. ,.., „ f.,r y~ Lb' ~..` ~ 1. ` \ •\ \ ~~TbJ ~~ \, '•~ ` `` G \ ~ ~ ~`J~ v~l ate' ~ ~ ~ ~ .I ````\ ~ "----- ~ 3 i _ ~`~ ~ t•1 y I w Q eo ~. ~ ~ .~ Qrr 1, ~ a I I ~ Kin I ~i i I ~ ~ 9 i c L-----J 1 ~ /~ 1 =~ III'r; a II ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~. 9 ~ I ~^ d>` i _~ i j / a; ~3~° it ~~ Y VO y F'gpy ao~~ ~ , z 3k '~ °' ~o' ` 8° /~ aa° \40 ao,. $9~ ~a ~' E< b^ i 9D 0 .\ tY: ~ aU„ q~t. ~4 / 4 ./ / C fa q ~eej ~~i fd ..,~, i }a ^~. ~ ,t=~~~ ~•'~° "' ~::s~ ~ ~~ q .;s,~; a •_.~_ NT~ \\\~\ \ ~ ------~- J i ni ~R04N OKE COUNTY l,r • JI) u ~.i...i .. Mf3. ~ 6 ' ~ ~). ~~ aez ;• , ~' ~„ ~ • ~ ~ '~ d i. • ,Suw ~ ~J \ .ue. ,.~ -~ \ iTTi K ~I ` ~~ .o...~.. .~ ~: ~~ NOR i ~~ ?- r` Scale: 1" = 1000' Date: June 24, 1996 • l.t1K1J I Ut'titK F'ULLUI.K _ '~= DEPAF?T`~~'T OF PLPNNI\G SPECIAL USE PERMIT ±• P1~iD ZONING ~ 99.00-Z-6:2 ~ :, .,, COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard ~r.~.. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 F:~.: (5401 772-2108 G~ ~% =" ~- Fo~ stiff use only ~"~ ~~`~~ ~.. dater c ved. receiv ~ applic tion ~ ?C/EZ.~ a' ,. placards issu 305 da:e: Case Numb r: T Proposed Zoning: I_1 Prcposed Land Use: Mini-warehouse Po~ S;zr," Use C.-:'_: Use T•~pe: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, ~•~:~:~, and frontage requirements of the requested cist-:c:? YES X NO IF NO, A `J,,=:~.tJCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria ;~. :'~ requested Use Type? YES X «O IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRS I . I. rezoning request, are conditions being pr~;;_-__ with this request? YES NO VarlcnCe oT SeC;tOfijS} Oi the Roanoke County Zonir:c ~fClnanCa ir, ~. ~:' to: Is the application complete? Please check if enc`csed. APPLICATION WILL "i~OT EE ACCEPTED 1= ;,NY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR (NCO{v1FLETE. R!S V R/S V A!S V Consultation 8 1 /2" x i i " concept plan Application fee• Application Metes and founds description ~-<= Proffers, if app(ica~ie Justification ^~ Water and Bawer application Adjoining propery owners /hereby certify that / am e' A the o~.~~ner of ti:e piopeity of the o~~ne~'s agent or contract puichas_°r and am acting v~ith the kn wledge nd conse~r of t.^' owner. Ov~ner's. Signature: -yam y-~ `'•..~.~:~ .. ::. r ...~-...~:1:'.. .i I.S . ~ .... .... .Y../~f. ~Jt Ta! ~ - ~~ 1~ 6/19/97 David Holladay Roanoke County Planning and Zoning Department P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA. 24018 Dear Mr. Holladay: The following information is provided per your request for the justification of the changes and effects of the property in question and as part of the application requirements for rezoning. At present, the property in question is an eyesore to the surrounding industrial and residential sites and inturn has probably hampered prospective development to this area of Roanoke County. We have researched the need for mini-warehouse storage in Roanoke and have found that there is an overwhelming need for additional storage for businesses and residential use in Southwest County as well as the entire Roanoke Valley. At different times during the past 18 months, the mini-warehouse industry in the Roanoke Valley has had a 90% occupancy rate with some locations lacking availability. In addition to customary business and residential storage needs, many southwest county residential boat and recreational vehicle owners have difficulty finding storage. We feel that a safe, clean and attractive facility will help businesses and community members with additional storage needs and at the same time promote economic development to this area of Roanoke County. We do not feel that we will need the entire 14.69 acres for the mini-warehouse storage business and discussed other business possibilities with Roanoke County Economic Development Department. We will. continue to look at additional uses of this site at future phases of development. On April 26, 1994, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request from an adjoining land owner, The Storage Bins, Inc, for 3.1 acreas from I-2 and PRD to I-1 and the special use permit for expansion of their mini-warehouse business (see attached). The Storage Bins, Inc., which has been in business 16 years, stated in their request that they at times have had 100% occupancy with additional mini-warehouses needed. Since their rezoning approval on April 26, 1994, The Storage Bins, Inc. special use permit has expired and they did not proceed with the development of additional mini- warehouses. /-,~ - ;,3 Thank you for your time and consideration. f n nup el mlc/RK atch. application list of adjoining application fee deed 9/14/92 property owners ($1280.70) Check#3757 concept plan (8.5"X 11 ") rezoning approval for Storage Bins, Inc. Justification for Rezoning or Special Use Permit Request Question 1: 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. With careful review of Section 30-3, this rezoning request with special use permit for mini-warehouses will help to promote the purposes of the ordinance to include the encouragement of economic development to an area of Roanoke County that has not yet reached its growth potential. In addition, this request for rezoning with special use permit for mini-warehouses will provide a much needed service for the community members of the Roanoke Valley. In no way does the rezoning to I-1 for special use of mini-warehouses conflict with the general purposes of promoting health, safety and general welfare to the public. Question 2: Explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated Principal Industrial by the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. This specific designation promotes warehousing uses. This request conforms to I-1, I-2 and I-3 (maximize opportunities for industrial development; cluster industrial sites within Principal Industrial areas; and expand new locations for industrial growth respectively). Question 3: Please describe the impacts 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. At present, the subject property is in desperate need of upgrading to a visually appealing and progressive industrial site. We feel that the existing zoning of this property of I-2 has limitations on the type of industrial operation that could border the existing adjoining PRD and R-2 properties (Stonehenge Condominiums, Clearview Baptist Church). The nature of the business (mini- warehouses) should not produce any additional impact on public services, water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire/rescue but inturn should allow for a complimentary mix with exisiting adjoining land owners. ~ a.o oo.oc. r w~v wl'L I~YIq 90a0U~ Y pG ~ } S1M.Y (1tt 'tl M.IIN z`Za xo~ ~.I.PII~V3 89`lHO.LS L*ID( ~~o~ a y ,v~ ~C eq ] 9~= o; u C / aya ~ o° ~ ° // ~~h t 4 a' / ~ ~ O / 20 V „~ / ~ / i / i / i / / ~ • / /~ /: /! /: /; /; /; /; /• /% '" /a: P /ddam y /f:~ E /;~ / i /: /: /; ~ i / i / /~ i ~ r / 4 C,M` y~ 10 ~l ~ ~ / q Q;yC ~ / i / pa~~N V ~OV :, / qt iyywa : / p aN : eF ~ a° / // 4 ~ y ~ ~oo Dul~eeulaue -JN`v'1- oa a~~ ~o~ ;a3 ~2q y :" ~~, y~ J _~ ~ ~ \y yi ~ / i \ ~9 _\ ~ j ~: y~q \ t / -1 ~~oenne~ ~a~OCCC 1 ~"e o ~ ~ /r eiN / .''/ /y ;'~ ~~ ~i e ~ // ./ •/ ,/ / ~~ ~I ~\ \ ~ 1 ` ~. t 1 ''. `\ `\ 1\ ~, \\ 4pa \ ~; `\ ~oY `,~ j':l1 atZ i Z.?l ~ ~~ `~j ti~~{ 4F \`\ \1`,`\ ,~•. `1 ~; `\ ~• `\ `~ ~ ~ , ',' `~ _ ~ ` ~~ ,` w -~ O I ' 1 .a -Y ~ _ ~~\ _ / ~xq ~~ 4 ~~ O / 1. ~ '°~ ~ ~~ __ ;~- t time ~. O~ ~ y~N 1 0 q, .<- a~ a ,~ x: K ~- \\\ `\ 1, t ~1` 1 a °a 1 qe~ i ~~ ~~ r: a ~i' 9: a S~~ " •e i2 q by F a i ~ h~ ~h -0~4 ae ~Za i i'V by 4 O ~' =~ ~a -,.~~~ "_':=oo _ ..;~~~ d. ~J is Jm F YZA V~j~ a~Y+a Ci~3 N~F~ Ui^w ~--mat / 8 ti f 3 r "G`DE ,' EAg~ i.r: rvnti'i, xtt t Q~•~:vrar ct~ $ JC: dC~7CF ~~ ~~~.: ~~ NnR'I N ~'1 ~ ( ~r ~ ,t •. 9 v. ,I' s« w. ~~ / \ ~\ u ~~ Cs..w .tir.i CMI 2.Qf4 R-2 J~1• ~ b 1 + ,~ TA ll ~`^7 ~~' ' I ~. I ~ ' - rra I f]o' JS o _ w ~,r (• , .' r DEPARZ~r OF PLPl'VT1IrG RON`~ KNUPPEL < P.ND ZONING I - 2 TO I -1 ' •' ' 87.10-2-4• .,, ~Os"'r Oro 4f IlJ<[7}f C[UC' E~ '~ 70b ~~ ~~ "' For s taf( use only - ,/..~,+r COUNTY OF ROA,NOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard t~r.~ . P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 Fr.~ (S~~o 1 %72-2108 dater eeive :' rcceiv~d b•/: ~} application fee: PCi°7.+ dare: iJ Cr ~ . ' placards issued: SOS ~a:e: a Case Number: ,T C ck type of application filed (check all that apply): REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^ VARIANCE Applicant's name: (~olt- CP.~Cr,~ (/%~- ~-JZ ~t~~S~~~•~- . ~`~ ~ Phone:~~t1~(53 Address: Lly~~u ~zk~~ Q,fJ , S~ ~Oo,von ~, ~ c.j of ~( ~ Zip Code: Owner's name: S~~. l~p.l'~JL Address: Phone: Zip Code: Location of property: ' Tax Map Number: ~ C~ _~_}-~ ~pJ,~~ratN ~C~ ''"`~" ~ ~~-t- <<.lagisterial District: ~ ~ ~~ J~ `r Community Planning Area: `1~}'~v Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: ~~--~ ' ~'"~~~ ~~~ acres Existing Land Use: ~~I;~~,J~-tiA.` sq.`t. R t .. Proposed Zoning: ~ {~~ Proposed Land Use: ~,~; ~,~~-ui 1 r=oe S;ar." Clsr Cc;;~ Use Type: DOeS trle pj''rCel meet the minlmUm IOi afc' ~'+':: :-. and frontage requirements of t~'le r2gUeSte^, C:Si.•,,:? YES / NO IF NO, AV`.'l=.-;~.~lCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. / Does the parcel meet file minimum cnieria fC.' .-•= reCiC'esied USe 'I ype? YES I/ ~O IF N0, A VARIANCc IS P.EQUIRED FIRST. li rezoning (egUesi, art CGndltlOnS being ~irC.:i°_"c. '~'~1u1 tnlS regUeSt? YES NO ::;.~ i~`i ii ~'~F`~'~')''.:''~° ``:~~'~~'~:~f':i:i:i i:=i:`E;`i;:;iE:;:iii:i:i:E:it2i:i:iifi ?ii`f~;ii::iii:EEi:`ii;i~i~ii;Ei`i;E:E;E;E;i ;i;E~E:iii:i;i;6asisisi:::E:::i:::::i:i:i~i't.;.;.:.~ `1f~~7i~rtr F~ ~ l t 1 fI~3 Va'fianCe Oi CeCtlOn(S1 Gi fife Roanoke COUni`~ ZOning OrCln.anC ;.. _.:.~. i0: Is the application complete? Please check if er:c.csed. APPLICATION Y`/ILL ~tOT EE ACCEPTED 1= A~~:'f OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPL~ tt c. ws v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x i i' concept plan J'` o Bounds descri Application (vtet_s anc ption "~ Justification ^~~ Water and rawer application l hereby certify that l am either the o.~~nei of tie a~operty or the owner' am acting with the ;cnoN~ledge and consent of t::e owner. I Ov~mer's Signature: d~~. ~ " ~`'w ws v Application fee' ..;,.. Proffers, if applica;.ie Adjoining property owners agent or contract puicnase~ and ~2~ r,l ~ ' ~ J~~~. ~ 5~~~~ June 20, 1996 - -~Q`~~~' Q.-~-- HlL L 5 TUDIO, P. C. PLANNING AND DESIGN OFFICE.• 120 WEST CAMPBELL AVE. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 MAILING: P.O. BOX 1204 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24006 U5A PHONE: 540-342-5203 ~' NI r. Terry Harrington, Director ~ Roanoke County Planning Office ~ ~ ~~ Second Floor, County Administration Buildid~``~ Bernard Drive Roanoke Va. 24018 /y~ 7 ~ ~; . , .-, RE: WOLF CREEK ONE-YEAR HSPC Project 928.06 Dear Mr. Hamngton CHECK-U~Lf;rti~~~ ~GJ~ } { This document is submitted to the Planning Commission and Count~~ Board as a one-~~ear adjustment to the PRD masterplan and guidelines for the Wolf Creek Community. Over the last year, several overarching concerns have surfaced regarding the restrictiveness of this particular set of guidelines, the management of the guidelines, and the education process for potential owners and builders. Solutions to these three big issues are addressed herein, and it is with this submittal we request the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors allow these amendments. 1. Overall Restricti~~eness of the Guidelines In general, the 6~-page book has been well-accepted by builders ~ :: potential home o<<~ners in the community. However, there are so-e minor revisions that would improve the guidelines, and make this ~~ overall better quality document, as well as a more marketsble community if these could be adjusted. In the Board meeting «~:e Supervisor Bob Johnson stated, "We are not here to protect you f:~m yourselves," «'e scratched our heads and wondered what he was sa~~i::~. In retrospect, his ~.~ ords «-ere wise, as these guidelines are so restric:i•: e that it is ver~~ difficult to meet. In particular, the difficulty comes f:o-: the combination. of rustic, or "Pioneer" style homes to address B_e Ridge Parkwa~~ concerns and "old Virginia" colonial style to meet :::~ program of the e•~t'ner. Very few house designs can be both. T.... solutions to this problem are addressed in specific guidelines char:=~_. an active Architect~.:re Review Board, and through potential homeo~.~.-er education progra::~s. Fi~X.• 2. Management of the Guidelines 540-345-5625 The time is no~v for the management of the guidelines to transfer from the County Planning office to the volunteer Architecture Review Beard. With site residents and lot owners ready and willing to perform this service, the burden can be alleviated from County Planning and the process can no~v run closer to the originally planned-structure. A special transition year committee is proposed, with Janet~Sheid, and David I-lill, _.: ~y ~Voif Creek ~,.~.~ Page 2 __. .' _,r~, ~,,,~ ,~ ~ ttivo planning and design professionals who were on the original Wolf Creek masterplan team. The Transition Design Review Board is described herein. 3. Homeowner and Builder Education Programs In Virginia's more urban and suburban counties, guidelines are no«~ very common, and builders and potential homeowners have come to expect design guidelines as a part of the home construction process. Where intensive guidelines are applied, some planned communities limit the builders, and apply other exclusive means to maximize qualin~. As Roanoke County's first planned community with intensive residential guidelines, Wolf Creek provides an opportunity to introduce this level of quality to the Valley. With the spirit that has accompanied this work to date, educational materials are proposed to be developed over the next year. These are outlined on the last page of this report. This work is a cumulative response to requests from both Count~~ planning staff, the Owners of Wolf Creek, and those ~vho have attempted to buy a lot or build at Wolf Creek, and is submitted for a comprehensive review. It is our hope that the Planning Commission and Board will agree these adjustments will make Wolf Creek an even better community for Roanoke County. We request that the Commission a::~ the Board act on this package in its entirety, at August ~ and August 19 hearings. Respectfully subr.~~itted, HILL STUDIO, PC I David P. Hill WOLF CREEK ONE-YEAR CHECK-UP Ny This document is submitted to the Planning Commission and County Board as a one-year adjustment to the PRD masterplan and guidelines for the Wolf Creek Community. 1. CHANGES TO SPECIFIC MASTERPLAN AND GUIDELINES WITH ONE YEAR PERSPECTIVE STATEMENT OR GUIDELINES TO CHANGE The following pages of the Wolf Creek Planned Community Rezoning Application book are amended, as through one year of review, they have proven difficult to understand, or unworkable. The sentence (s) are shown below in their original form, and revised, with revised words underlined: PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 15 Modeled after Williamsburg dwellings, substantial houses (160 to ?150 sf~ of 1-1/2 to 2 stories are placed closely creating courtyards and motorcourts, with large blocks of common open space adjacent. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Modeled after Williamsburg d ~ Iii-~s~ substantial houses of 1 to 2 stories «'i~ current minimum a rail v'ali, ~0 000 are placed closely creating coum'ards ~ an motorcourts, with large ioc.~s of common open space adjacent. co~N~uENTs The sizes of hoieses will cha~ige over completion of the project. People are requesting all single floor hoccses, and three floor hoceses which will not fit on the lots at the Io~O - 2150 sf size. Note this also applies to the first drawing following page 54. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 16 All major park amenities are built by the Developer, during Phase I of the Proiect. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE All major park amenities are built by the Developer, prior to convevin~ lands to the National Park Service. COMMENTS The final size and location of strccctteres in the village and deck home neighborhoods (Phases 3,4, and S) 3vi11 effect the finial alignment of park property boundaries, and the location of trails a~cd other park amenities. It makes sense not to construct these items ccntil their final location can be tied dotivn. Note this change also applies to page 21. ~Volf Creek Design Guidelines DRAFT - June 20, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 2 -- L/ PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE / 23 These guidelines are not meant to be all-inclusive and approval will be based on ouality of construction as v<~ell as materials used. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE These guidelines are not meant to cover all site-specific adaptations nor should they be used as a substitute for common sense and in each case should be applied to better the `~' objective described above. The Architectural Review Committee should review design ~' ~ solutions with the overall uality of the guidelines in the influence of the design based on duality of proposed construction as well as materials used. COMMENTS This is a clarification. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 24 The 5' sidewalk, part of Meadow Trail, is setback from the trees on the north side. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Meadow Trail is setback from the curbs as topography allows. COMMENTS The previous gacideline vas too specific. The fcnal size and location sidetivall~:s a~zd -V trails shoicld vary according to specific topography and fou~id resources in detail. For example, the boulders foiind during road constriction in this area allow for a trail varying 3' to 6', which is a micch better design than a standard S' trail. Note this change also applies to pages 19, 20, 25 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMEi~`T OR GUIDELINE 2~ The 5' walk, an extension of Meadow and Streamside trails, will be on one side of the road in the sidewalk zone (see plan), a 14' wide alignment that can vary with utilities and trees. i REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE ~~ / The variable-width walk, an extension of Meadow and Streamside trails, will be on one ~. ~t" side of Wolf Run in the sidewalk zone (see plan), a 14' wide alignment that can vary with utilities and trees. COMMENTS This is a clarification to better coordinate with the plan on page 20. wolf Creek Design Guidelines 'One Year Check-up Page 3 DRAFT - June 20, 1997 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 26 ... the 20' resin and pebble road is aligned with rusticated curbs. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE ... the 20' brown pebble road is aligned with rusticated curbs. ~~ COMMENTS ~--~'-~ After searching nationtally, there is not a reliable co~tsiri~ction process of pebble and resin. Specifications are ~toiv being finalized for an asphaltic pebble construction, which will prodtcce similar visttczl results. Note the same cha~tge applies to pages 19, 31, 46, PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 31 Architectural Elements VI Architectural Elemen These are defined with ~r t N awings oages/~7-4~.\ ~ ~~-~' ~ I , ~v PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 31 The following five pages illustrate the proposed homes for village and deckhome neighborhoods... REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE \~` The following five pages illustrate the design guidelines aoDiied to demonstrate the g,uality of proposed homes for village and deckhome neighborhoods... COMMENTS 77te house facades will vary, depending on new products available for fictttre phases. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 37 Colonial precedent is required. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Colonial or pioneer-style influence is required. - L, COMMENTS Tliis broadens the types of houses allowed in the comnutnity. wolf Creek Design Guidelines DRAFT - June 20, 1997 'One Year Check-up Page 4 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 37 These guidelines are not meant to be all-inclusive, and approval of the Architectural Committee will be based on the quality of construction as well as materials used. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE These Quidelines are encouraged, and approval of the Architectural Committee will be '~ based on the quality of construction, site specific problems and adaptations, as well as materials used. COMMENTS This is a clarification. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 38 3. Flat roofs or primary roofs «°ith a pitch of less than 8:12. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE zzral elements sectio~tz zere it really belongs: _ re/~. ~ ~l Moved to Architect r._ _ ,v1 10. Roof slopes with a pitch of greater than 6:12. ~ ~~~ i ' i ' COMMENTS `~ ___~ The 6:12 minimum requirement seas based orz the original tivorkshop guidelines (Carlton Abbott, 3/28/90. 8:12 is very prohibitive, and too strict for the single far~tily areas, not visible from the Parlctivay. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 44 Min. hgt 2 steps but can be as much as 6 steps REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE ~~ Delete this sentence. It does not encourage site specific solutions. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 45 Virginia Pines and hazard trees may be excluded from this rule. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Virginia Pines and hazard trees including those which would be compromised during or because of careful and~rudent construction activity, may be excluded from this rule. COMMENTS This is a clarification. «'olf Creek Design Guidelines DRAFT - June 20, 1947 One Year Check-up Page 5 ~~ PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 46 Each public pedestrian walk~vav shall be lined with planting beds. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE '~~ Public pedestrian walkways in high exposure areas shall feature occasional planting beds. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 47 ...pockets of 2' wide planting beds... REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE L~ ...pockets of varvin~-width planting beds... PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 47 Single Family Home Landscape Guidelines REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE ~~ u Delete this section. It is too prohibitive and in the woods, it's not necessary. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 48 Walls shall be constructed of field stone and mortar, or dry-laid. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE `~' Walls shall be constructed of brick or field stone and mortar, or dry-laid. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE ~1 Seventy-five percent of the plants chosen for the individual landscapes will come from this list. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE L'~ Fifty percent of the plants chosen for the individual landscapes will come from this list. COMMENTS Fifty percent tivill easily meet design objectives. Seve~Ity five percent is too prohibitive, with the variety of plants available locally. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines DRAFT - June 20, 1997 . ,One Year Check-up Page 6 ~~ ~ SPELLING and GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING The following spelling, syntax, and/or typographical errors are hereby proposed to be amended: PAGE ERROR CORRECTED 2 on the following page... following page 14... 41 ameteurs amateurs 46 orcrds orchards accomodates accommodates avreaging averaging responsibiity responsibility 47 landsape landscape responsibiity responsibility Following approval of the proposed amendments by the Board, updated pages will be supplied to the County for the inclusion into inc:ividual Wolf Creek PRD Rezoning Application 3 ring binder books. tt'olf Creek Design Guidelines DRAFT ]une 20, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 7 2. MANAGEMENT OF THE GUIDELINES ~ ~~ TRANSITION ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE It is now time to give the power of the Design Guidelines enforcement to the Architectural Committee originally proposed in the Guidelines. It is proposed that an inaugural committee sit for one year, to further the original ideas for the guidelines into built homes. For the first Architectural Committee, it is recommended that for the year September 1, 1997 - September 1, 1998, a transition committee be established. The membership is proposed to include: Steve Musselwhite -Chairperson Mr. Musselwhite is the master developer and owner of the property, and has been the vision and spokesperson of the work to date, including original Parkway workshops. i`~Sr. Musselwhite is currently a lot owner. Sue Hubbell An art teacher by profession, Ms. Hubbell is currently building her residence on the site. Matt Robertson Engineering sales and a builder by profession, Mr. Robertson is currently a lot owner. ~. '~. Jane Sheid~ A~re"sident of eastern Roanoke County and the Roanoke County project planner of this project to date, Ms. Sheid has been re$p~szisible for the successfull}~-negotiated award-winning plan and has monitored submittals for: 1 ~J David Hill A landscape architect, Mr. Hill tvas the project landscape architect of the original masterplan and author of the design guidelines. Elmer Craft -Alternate and Review Contact Person Coordinator of development, Mr. Craft has coordinated submittals of house plans to date. ~Sr. Craft is currently planning his residence for construction. Over the next year, the Transition Architectural Committee will review for compliance designs of both additional single family dwellings, deckhomes and village homes prepared for this period. Mr. Craft twill prepare and coordinate submittals, and the Committee twill meet monthl}~ if necessary. Approval of the Committee twill be forwarded to the Building Department with a request for a building permit. One of the objectives of the Transition Committee will be the authorship of an objective score sheet for use by future Architectural Committees. The purpose is to create an objective system of guideline compliance, while allowing site-specific flexibility, and secondarily provides a system that continues the objectives of the cooperative design partnership that has occurred to date. SCORE SYSTEM - "' Because of the variations in individual building sites and owners' tastes, a scoring system is - proposed to be used by future Committees in assessing designs. The system will be designed over the Transition year to allow some flexibility in site-specific adaptations for design solutions. (For example, a total of 120 points may be possible, and request for a building permit twill be forwarded if 100 points are completed). Wolf Creek Design Guidelines One Year Check-up Page 8 Scoring will occur in three categories: 1. Guiding Principles 2. Home Building Guidelines 3. Site and Landscape Guidelines DRAFT - June 20, 1997 By adding the guiding principles to the guidelines, a level of education and site-specific adaptation due to its distance from the Parkway and other houses may be rewarded. For example, points may be awarded for: ~ • Owner has completed Education and Trayning Process ~ • Owner has obtained Qualified Builder ~ • Location on Wolf Run or Wolf Crest, hidden from Parkway. • Others to be considered during the Transition year. Education and training points may be a~z~arded for. • Completed one design review meeting • View narrated Slide Shotiv of the Guidelines • Reviewed Blue Ridge Parkway Design Guidelines •, Complete a 1/2 hour open-book test on the guidelines • Others to be considered during the Transition year. Builders may be qualified for: • Built a house in Wolf Creek Previously • Built a house somewhere else with guidelines • Complete a 1/2 hour open-book test on the guidelines • Others to be considered during the Transition year. These above examples help to transition the use of the guidelines by education, coupled with enforcement. This will gain the County as well as the Development Company a reputation for inspired development, rather than just dwelling on enforcement. TAKING CONTROL With the Board's approval, these measures will be implemented over the following year. JQ// ( < •C S ,`J ` I 1 i / 4 ~ . ~a ~ P .a•P ~ C~.:/1:.. Or OKwtDCw J ~! ~, :. e op 11 i , T ~ M^u.~-e~/ sue ~.uf. r I ~ ~ ~F~~ CHs 1- ! d aC°°_5 ~ VICINITY MAPS ~ ~ aq d ~ 1[ i P 5) ~ ~~`'' .~~ ', ,~~.. r Y~ :.. + ~z:a -o- Fo~ ~i ""~, ~ 6 6 p If j ?Y ~~ o ~ !, _~ L/ NORTH WOLF CREEK INC. _ ~' t DEPARTMEN'T' OF PLANI~IING 50, 04-3-73 ~ _ ~• AND ZONING R-1 TO PRD .~ • '~~ 1DLUl:C L'. TTCII. Attorney at Law 302 Second Street S.W. Southwest Yrginia Savings Bank Building Suite 4A ` Roanoke, V'uginia~ 24011 ,540) 344-1902 • Fax (540) 345-8936 ~ROANOKE INNING AND ZONING )r.~ oi8 ~ FAX (j':0) 772-2108 ... ~ , . . , For staff use only date received:' received .,~/ ' application feet/ -A 11.3 PClBZA ate _ r ~ ~3~ Ft placards is ued: ~ BOS date: ~-,-, ^ ~-I.14~ Case Number: / /y ` -r' // Check type of application filed (checfc all that apply): © REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^ VARlANCE Applicant's name: Joe R. Blackstoc'_~c Phone: 774_L!507 Address: 2405 Carolina Avenue, S. :~1. Zip Code: 2`-!0 ~ 4 Roanou V'r~-~ n' Owner's name: ~ ~ Phone: same as above Address: Zip Code: Location of property: Va. Sec. Rte. 4 Tax Map Number: 97.01-1-5 90 between Merriman Road and intersection of Starkey Road an ~`~iagisterial District: Cave Snrin~ Buck Mountain Road Community Planning Area: Cave Spring Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: p~ 3 ~ i :__ 1 ~5. 69 acres Existing Land Use: vacant and undeveloped sq.ft. '~' .:1:, `'` "`~a.~~. ..... ~~~~'`~~F-r: :Y::~~ .... . .......... Proposed Zoning: Rl ~ Fv~ Star;" use Cr;iy Proposed Land Use: Single family to ; density residential use ~vpe: Is the application complete? Please chec4c if enc`csed. APPLICATION WILL t`tOT 8E ACCEPTED IF A.NY OF THESE (TENS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. .. ws v wa '. v ws v Consultation v 8 1 /2" x i i' ccncept plan x Application fee x Application x ':~"~ Metes and Bounds description Proffers, if applicabt=' x Justification x '~^`..<. Water and sa~r~er application x Adjoining property ov,rners ,_ l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of r:. owne .. Owner's Signature: ,~j,4' //(. _~~%~i',G'Gj` ~ ~~ - :~(;7 `. Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, Y~ict:~, and frontage requirements of the requested dis;r;c;? YES x NO IF N0, A VA=:l~J~CE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parce! meet the minimum criteria fcr l-= r~ques,ed Use Type? YES x NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. . !f rezoning request, are conditions being proffe~~~ •r:ith this request? YE5 NO For Staff Use Only: Case tJumber r,Nplicant Joe R. Blackstock i he 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 follo~.~ing questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. P}ease explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as t;~~ purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoni~~g district~c(assification in the zoning ordinance. '''he project will be located with an area. of residential development designating up to three (.3) units per acre. Summer Place will provide t-f;enty-nine (29) lots in an area of 35.69 acres. Consequently, Summer =lace will be significantly less dense than the maximum allowable number o= ~~nits per acre. ,The Rl designation will allow the controlled and orderly development o? the rural setting. The property is presently zoned R3 but is undeveloped and taxes in the land use program. ase explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke runty --_T<=.nprehensive Plan. __~e project i s a conventional resid=~tial development of ~ single fami 1~; detached housing on conventional Acts. There are twenty-nine (29) ind_vidua L '- ~ ~ ~ ~ The pr0~ ~Ct _o~s ranging from 0.51 acre (LOS _~; ~0 6.04 acres (Lot 23 . wi 11 not impact on an existing lOCa! Strut network of an adjoining neighborhood, having direct access to Starkey Road. The project will p~~^otec the integrity of existing natural a_:.enities with low impact on environmental resources. I i I ~ - I Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properies, and the surrc~rcing area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. The project. will not interconnect into existing neighborhoods. Two r.e; roadways will be.constructed from Starkey Road into th~e..project. Presently Roanoke County maintains a water tack and lot on the top of the property. Construction of the new.roads within the project will allow easier access to the County's site. The project ~~;ill require water and sewer hookups to n ~.ch lot . - s project would not significantly impact the existing schools, parks/ .creation and fire/rescue. .~ r- ,. ~--- z ~- -nY I \ i ~~ \~ `' i ~_- ^r _ -.. „1'~`~t ` l :Y' ~ ~ ~' ~ I . ~S ~ 1 ~\e _ ~ i 1 ~. 'i" _ \ t'~I'1~ - ~ +q~- } S I ~~f e 4 _ ~ 1 I ~`~ ~, _ _ ~I~~ -- - - --J'' .--- - - - ---------"-- -- --i - - -- ~ " ~ - a ~ '_ I ~- ~ -_ I -- I - .e i I ~`;'~: -. I ~ ! ~ ~-- i ! ° 3 !ll...~~i///~' I ig...;<.93I _ i _ ~. I=mo iy:~_ I==- ". ~~o~ _i _ n~i1 _' , f ~I.:y; ti x +~ '~ ~ f' I . 4 a ~ 4 < 1 I ~, ~ f = ~~ ~ o ~~~ ' o I ~ s \ ,~ ~;~ ~~~o~ ~ -~- ~ I ~ z ? < G W ~ bb 3 ~a's's~a~aaRs'aaa ~ - ~ ., ~q LLq u3;u u333uu7 ~ rA„$$~~ ~ Cy oBO°n~ Wyk 2ZZ22ZZ2H 2.nZZN WJ UW Z mu~puuZ-~YU3=O t imuu.,.~ui! ixYaz 3 IR '7. '! 'Y~d ~ vM r~Q1J3R'.000°tl30~.+eB_ ~ ~r J . - _~ v -, ~ - ~`a ~ ''. a~ s .. Sri Y~ ^o~~~~ ~ Y_ ~ N ~ N e , ~ \C n J .. 1 r .. x i r -dove W _ ^SiaR IL - OW W q 3 3 u u p u JW=r^ii ~~O Qq ti' n Wq n':R ~-W m.~, ^.on.. U< aoa.nu n .`iomv. x ~~ - i?~ ~~ Q:\~~. yo ~ ~ ~, a .n b~ -- < °~ _ ~, ~d=Yo X R.~~..- 0 p Z ~a< ~< -_~ ~o cZ $ < >; a ~~ _°< Yb~ ~~_` ~~] v .U V. pma .3za~^ _~~ _~~; _ .e^ =m3W ~~y~ TpSj!a vS ~~ <p~'3a8'T:7aio 45~~~" 00 d<~a-o„ 6 ^ p ~ ~ ~ < N pu 0`,.~ Z D~2O-=om`c~ m'^ > Gpu ~`s~~~~s~~~ W~_~~=Y~ e i~~gs~$~:j ~ ~F~Y~-~~~i 2 -n n. ~ Y y.So" ^b f -~R ~~ ~ x ~ Y ~ `~^=~ 4i - \ i ° \ 1' o S . ~1 ~~ ~~ - \\ oIo / b~~ 1 ` n` ~. Y~ i o )Z s x~ oo ~ ~ ~ yr G ~~n w - ~^ ~: °,- _ any %~ .'. ~ i~ - r a., r _oo ~ 3es 1300 ~ _o ~~~ :a~ ~ ^ e occ '~. 's 'rd < f 6° / w_sa..+iz~vto.~ o ~~~ .-. o = i a v" U ~' ~ ~ ¢ L'-z ci Q < ~_~ Y + ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~-~ - w ~ Z Vl y o+ ~ J t ~ .. v ~ ~ ~ 4 C •~ J C... ~ Z r ~ r , < S QcnV CK W \J a ~ ~ ~ ° ~ " z r, ~ C Uo~ ~~ } a U Y U ~ ~ m F-~--~ r n 3 ` ~ Y ~~ z Z V 1 a ~ Z _ #~ N ^' > z ~ O o ~ ` ~~ a Q Z Q < ~ y) r-, a Y-'--i C~ U c - ~ ? ~ < ~ z *-y ~ = r7 w ~ J :n ,~~ ±'~y •Q ;a ~Y~~$ Y \r ~v ~S_ , i ~ i4, \: ~J fi s ~~ bb ~ _i i8 eNsa'°-558~'~~~.~bs~lr~ ~Re~-- i ar ~ _i ~ 38- T - .l.. ~~ 1 '-E~Ni=YR„.^Sx~R~° a~jv~R~~:.-F S~ .!~'og$SYD iR^5~-5-SSi2 ~°~~'-...„Y. Y. 4iy ^.5=i• ~~a5e~s SSR ~.,,"T ~-F ~; b~°.zRbbi ~ i~'g,•g•,,~3-~~~C•i3~•f ..d fe5~gl^ 1..o -:`g,a, •5.•.j~~S~uM1:~3~Y a ~, ~ . ~€e5- ~g,.l--a~i~;~i-y;gam z=•; C SO ~.s a~~u ~b~~8$~~jy yyY 3ui~sco`-~a='RS ii Y~ i~u 3 ~Z Yd~ z~. aa ~ j v~Y _'; z a;~ ui•o&~3.a~EY:.~,~~.Q~-'stit"3--°¢$~:~' m _~~ .z°se =.s ~`S~S=;~='°:~a~isz 55C bi~:. r ~~~ ~€~ssa~€:59 `o aYU~a?:Ai 3g~~i`-.ai:-~~ i i~~ Y:~a~~Y~s. _Y C~:bR aBa%.Y_Rs_~C.3„~~z< -3 < f :n 4 8 3, I ' U -O8o'~^,,:.'_°:~o°~+Si8a888885t~,p,~,p.' ,.. a ~-aR~~RB~,SaM18d~RRRRB^-== =R~ 3 < C u u; 3.r u333;3su333,•, uiu `. .yy y .~.+ ao=====_ . . t Uo ~~o- ~ ~ ~ c( f P~~~~' ate-` 61 .u. ~ o srH,4x~Y ______-- p R. ~~~ ~ , x 1300 ~ / ~_ .,;y A A ~ ~...-~\ ' ~~~~~.\ .. .. L. ~~ 1<ll R ~ 1.~. J {,~~ ~~~ ~~ "a RV r ~ ~ ~'' ~° RVN Cr~ 7° ~ - ~ ~ s OR, ~ uQ W ~a\P ~S~S !<i ~ ' 1300 A ~. C.~P (010 J Y., r.. O ~ .. ~' NORTH ~I .O b = ..'.~ •'O •'• '4 . I ~ 1 ~ __ C i ~;~ i \ 4 `r :~ . ~. DEPApTi~c~7'I` OF PI~NNII~G AND ZONING • JOE Ra BLACKSTOCK 97.01-1-5 R-3 & I-1 to R-1 ~, Z x~ I u~ P N - .. M' /n+ ~ ~ p _ ~•./ / ` i ~ a r `~,' ~ c' t \ , I ~'' ~j \ O 734 lcr~'' • ~~ - ~ u ~ , ~ - ., ~_,-o . .o, ~ t S1 _ 1 ' ~ ~ I ~i .~. ~.; Sbi Al ~.. `; - --:{. o ~ l '~ f :~~. . _ . •~, •.. "~• _ ~ n+i-• ~' fJ.131c .. _ .. ' . _ _< Z-;yam.. Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, wiC:^, and frontage requirements of the requested cis:;;c:? YES NO IF NO, A VARIA.~~CE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fcr ::.e requested Use Type? YES ~ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being prcff~'~c with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinanc= in cr~~r to: Is the application complete? Please check if enc`csed. APPLICATION ~/ILL I~OT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR. INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x i i' concept plan :,~:~: Application :. Ntetes and bounds description Justification ~~~`:~ .Water and sewer application ws v Application fee' Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners l hereby terrify that l am either the of~ner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of t^e owner. Owner's Signature: 3 ,~/ - ~~ - ---~ ~~ W m^ d Nrn ~,4 ~ r\ °w~ w W o`D q `~ .n Ol p w p J l o ^ o~ z r oa - n w m ¢ r W ~ '.' `~v 2 ~OV N w W Z aNOM ~,, Z v a~~ ww J o ~ p° t ~ ~ ~ 000 UO C 6, o z~ w .- r °' Q x m w0~Y0 J ,~ `` ~ a o .. S~ ~ w w p •a- ~ z 8t7 £'Z ~ . o U op \ S wN~ OJ O .BZ~tOt ~ ~ a ~ ~ 3 U O wZ ?.o M o ~ ~ N"-, .OZ.9p= S ~~ zoo n .99'L9t Ow a ~ w ~ ~ / \I i N p I Z ~- ~ > j a ~ ~~ '~ .OZ.9p. ^~ a d h~ I c N ~,CIS.LZ ` S w < o. in ~ st ~ s: I I i i ~ ~ ~ I ~, ~ ,~vi °QC w o ~i ° Oo ~, - p ~ M ~ h ~~„`,i yJ~ N N < .~ ~(] ~ c _ ~ /0 ry 2 ~^ ~, ~- Z O~ IN 2 J ~ p O J p O W ~ CC Q V0 a~ r =r C m ..'`', /Jy ~ tap }~ wI,'' 1 U~ ~ O C C ~ / W P o O oN ~ ~{~ Nw ,~d ~ ON ~ ~ v p ~~' ~ a < rn ''~ C ~ ` m ~ 1\ `n ~ _ `a~ U ~ ~g ' \ Z W u Z w z Q It p / ~ ' N O ~ r O~ ~ Z o tO ! ,S c; 3 ~;~ '~ C ~ ~ U j I Z w ~ e ~ . o~ i G Jo o ro_ - 1J N N ~~ w ~O ~ / Z U ~~ O (n ~ ~lj Qw ~ ^ ~ ~ CU7 Z ~ ~ ~ Z 2 to ............ /....., j1 O J N ~ h ,.. ...... _ ................ o0 9d SZS;'8'0 ,,, '"~\\ ~ 4, ; _ w z i..... O 1~ a ~l\ ~ i \ ~_______ ....Z v... N Z F- ... ... Z N ~. J _~ ~ i 2 i' 0 CN Zp c i p ' <p O } - a O cc ~ N `c''~ap r ~c i 4' 0y .a OOQ j as j ~ JU / ~ Ory a~ \ (' ~„za o Yw ~ ~. ~ `~~~ c a a 3 /ham c' ' U a ^r h ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ O / ~ ` / ~ Z W ~ ~ d N ~ ~` 2 Z I h ~` w ~ O v O .J n ,~~ ~ W 00 d ~ ~ w ~ mo z a O r a j N O LaJ "~ z z 3 .6t.ZS.lt N avwi ~ ~oZ'n a Z zm 9S: b. '9d o= rr a ~ a 0 =r5 r 9t-t b£'fl '&'0 NO1l3W '3 NOQ ~ ''`~ ~ r Y N J O O Z d0 A1213d02/d ~ ~ a r a m o~od _ ~ ~. Z K W h V O N ~.us ~O ~c l 4~ U O I ~ zo~ ~o~ oa J ri yJ 4 O O O " Z m xo G ~ :~ c 3 -~ <. w ~ W h N - m - ~ - _ ~I r '~, ~ O J O O n Z Np N W W Z m~ .~ = V Z O ~ O L ~ \ OWO UO-~ ~ O Oz~ w.-~ a Q xm `~O~OJ ~.. ~ o M - < o . SF`.8p CZ ~ w o O ra- N 0 0 .BZ~lO~ s ~l ~ a \ 3 O \ •- oW rO:~ / 'H ~ n .OZ9= S U~ oo n N .99'! 9! w c ~ N ~ ~ ~- N ~i t ~~ •~ aN '-I-.~M.029p 2 h~ ~~ Z~l \S / ~• as ~' I ~.o !S'[ ~ ` ~ ?w --, a vi i St ('SI I ~~. ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~, / ~ ,c0/ ~ Qc u qj N ~ I v '.^., ,ri /~ `> C _ O t~ On tp h ~ S ~^ ~ ~_ zJ~IN 2~ C_ Q UO aC ow ~ ~.~ W O r = m w /Jy, ^ ~~ }v W 3 O ~ ~ ~ -' 4: ~ < v ~ ~~, ~ a < V t o n I U ~ C < I rn n ~ ~ t `~ ~ m! 1 t ~ L 'v~ ` C v+ n ~ n~ O W ~o ^on ,~ ~ n O ~ ~ I / O Z _ ! J H h L ............ ~....... ~ J/ ~ 2 ..................... ~ 1 o _.. .. 1 ..... .... .. ~ ~'~ y~ 1:.: ~' Q U O ~ O Cam, ~ t i ,~ ~ _ - ~~ -' ~ C :n ~ / W Z Z . c_ ~ tijN, z !~ / ~ G ~ >~ z C a z , j « J v ~ i ~ ti ?< ~ O `` \ , Y W ~ ` ¢ C C ~ y) ' U C ~ C < ~ ~ /ham ~` 1 O "J~ ~ ~ -. ,~` /ham ~ 2 ~V~ ./J d vWi u \ / Z ~ tD / ` ~~ . V n w 00„ O J t o~ z .OL'8LZ ~~ ~ u o ~ ~ n d0 z 3 .6 L,ZS t t N ~ ~ zf' a vWi <z 30<~ p w z~ . 00 .. ... ` / w WV Z a 0 o ti a O <o 9£4 'Od 'Of£l 8 0 \~ ~ ~ 5 p ~ 9t-LO-00'Z8 ~ v o W n ~ NO1l3W '3 NOa ~ ~ J x N ~ Oo" _ d0 A12/3d02ld - O ~- ~ r a m t oo ._ ~ ~ ~ ,i1~.:~~:_ ~ . `1 W Z ?KrL y~ :.~ ~aT 5:5. e~-sY~~n~ c'~CSI~~~ w... '..'.... ,` ~ h P n / O /~ o h 1 i'_\ ' 9.42 Ac T 8 _ ~ ? 47Gc U/ 1~ ;d 7693 ~` * DEPAP.TMEIVT OF PLA.NNII~'G ~ JUNIOR Lo CONNER - _ SPECIAL USE PERP•1IT ~- AND ZONING 82.00-1-7 - .s .,, N- /c~ - -``JJ .~ I s ~~ /Pio 72.00-i-1 ~ 1" - 400' ~ 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: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 13-19 AND 13-23, OF ARTICLE II "NOISE" OF CHAPTER 13 "OFFENSES-MISCELLANEOUS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, IN ORDER TO LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE PERMISSIBLE GENERATION OF SOUND FROM COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND TO PROVIDE A WAIVER PROCEDURE THEREFOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Roanoke County currently regulates certain noise disturbances. Referred to as the "Noise Ordinance," these adopted regulations are contained in Section 13-16 through Section 13-23 of the County Code. The Roanoke County Police Department enforces these provisions. The noise ordinance defines "noise disturbances," and offers specific illustrative examples of these disturbances. These examples allow case by case informed professional judgements on whether a particular noise is a disturbance, and thus, a violation of the code. Examples include late night equipment operations or motor vehicle repairs, loud horns on private vehicles, loud radios or other music devices, and vehicles without factory mufflers. For most of these and other examples, the noise is only a "disturbance" if it occurs after 10:OOpm or before 7:OOam. The ordinance also contains six exemptions that permit certain types of noises (Section 13-19). One exemption covers all sounds generated in commercial and industrial zoning ~~ 2 districts that are necessary and incidental to the uses permitted in these zoning districts. This exemption is in the existing ordinance in recognition that many commercial and industrial uses generate noise disturbances as a necessary part or by-product of their commercial or industrial activities. Prohibiting such noises could prohibit certain commercial and industrial activities within the County. Over the past six months the County has received two major complaints regarding noise from commercial and industrial uses. In one case, industrial equipment operating outside a building was disturbing nearby residents late in the evening. In the second instance, a newly installed commercial compressor was disturbing nearby residents. In each of these cases, staff has attempted to work with the property owners, with varying success, to mitigate the noise disturbance, and resolve the complaint. The proposed changes to the noise ordinance modify the exemption for commercial and industrial uses, by limiting their exemption to the hours of 7:OOam to 10:00pm. Noises occurring at other times of the evening, or early morning, would be subject to regulation if deemed to be a disturbance. This change to the ordinance has the potential to affect many commercial and industrial activities. Many businesses conduct activities after 10:00pm, (loading and unloading goods, equipment operated by second and third shifts, vehicles of employees and customers, etc.). Because of this, a second proposed change to the ordinance also grants the Board the right to waive the noise ordinance in specific instances for specific business activities. If the Board finds that the noises do not endanger public health, safety and welfare, and are necessary and incidental to the commercial or industrial uses generating the sound, then you may grant a waiver. The Board may also consider whether compliance with the ordinance, without a waiver, would produce serious economic hardship, without producing substantial benefit to the public. These changes give authority and flexibility to the Board to permit, by waiver, certain types of noises that have been deemed to be disturbances. To this end, businesses will continue to have an option, if their business activity requires the generation of noise late in the evening. By adopting these proposed amendments, the Board can balance the concerns of residents disturbed by the noise with the interests of the business activity. ~~~ 3 Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board hold first reading on the proposed noise ordinance amendments on July 22, 1997 and schedule a Board worksession on this item and second reading and public hearing for August 1997. Respectfully Submitted, .. ~~ Terr nce Harr' gton, AICP Directo of Pla ning and Zoning Approved, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 13-19 AND 13-23, OF ARTICLE II "NOISE" OF CHAPTER 13 "OFFENSES-MISCELLANEOUS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, IN ORDER TO LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE PERMISSIBLE GENERATION OF SOUND FROM COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND TO PROVIDE A WAIVER PROCEDURE THEREFOR WHEREAS, on October 27, 1992 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted a noise ordinance for Roanoke County, declaring it to be the public policy of the County to promote an environment for its citizens free from excessive noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare or degrades the quality of life within the County; and, WHEREAS, this ordinance contained an exception for sound generated from commercial and industrial zoning districts which are necessary and incidental to the uses permitted therein; and, WHEREAS, the Board finds that this exception is too broad, that it has resulted in numerous complaints from citizens, and that it has effectively eliminated meaningful enforcement; and, WHEREAS, the Board finds that late night noises emanating from commercial and industrial zoning districts have a deleterious effect upon neighboring persons and constitute a noise disturbance; and, WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the importance of commercial and industrial uses to the local economy, and intends to balance the needs and interests of residential neighborhoods affected by this noise and the needs of the businesses to produce their products and services, and the 1 --~-1 employment created thereby; and, WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board by the adoption of this ordinance to narrow the scope of said exception and to provide for a waiver procedure to mitigate serious economic hardship without the corresponding substantial benefit to the public, which may be caused by the application of this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the second reading was held on August 19, 1997. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. That Article II of Chapter 13 of the Roanoke County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: ARTICLE II. NOISE Sec. 13-19. Exceptions from this article. The provisions of this article shall not apply to: (5) Sound generated in commercial and industrial zoning districts between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. which are necessary and incidental to the uses permitted therein; and (6) Sound for which a T waiver has been granted in accordance with section 13-23 of this article. (Ord. No. 102792-12, § 1, 10-27-92) 2 ........ ~` f Sec. 13-23. Undue hardship waiver. (a) Any person responsible for a noise source may apply to the board of supervisors for a waiver, or partial waiver, from the provisions of this article. The board of supervisors may grant such waiver, or partial waiver, upon a finding that either of the following circumstances exists: (1) The noise does not endanger the public health, safety or welfare; or (2) Compliance with the provisions of this article from which a waiver is sought would produce serious economic hardship without producing substantial benefit to the public. (b) In determining whether to grant such waiver, the board of supervisors shall consider the time of day the noise will occur, the duration of the noise, whether the noise is intermittent or continuous, its extensiveness, the technical and economic feasibility of bringing the noise into conformance with this article and such other matters as are reasonably related to the impact of the noise on the health, safety and welfare of the community and the degree of hardship which may result from the enforcement of the provisions of this article. (c) Except as provided in (d) below, no i~3e waiver, or partial waiver, issued pursuant to this article shall be granted for a period to exceed one year, but any such waiver, or partial waiver may be renewed for successive like periods if the board of supervisors shall find such renewal is justified after again applying the standards set forth in this article. No renewal shall be granted except upon written application therefor. 3 ~~~. ...~ e (d) Applications for waivers for noise generated within commercial and industrial zoning districts shall be considered by,the-.board of supervisorss_based upon the criteria contained in (a) and (b) above, and upon the- extent to which the noise is necessary and incidental to the commercial and `industrial use generating the sound. In considering such waivers, the board may, but shall-not be required to, impose a time limit on any waiver granted. (Ord. No. 102792-12, ~ 1, 10-27-92) 2. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from August 19, 1997. 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER .,_- Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of an Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 9-21 of the Roanoke County Code and Ordinance No.121796-13 Which Established a Board of Appeals and Procedures and Requirements to Hear Appeals From Decisions Made Under the Provisions of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection," of the Roanoke County Code COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: At the December 17, 1996 Board of Supervisors' meeting, the Board designated itself as the Board of Appeals for the County's Fire Prevention Code. In April 1997, the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development adopted certain amendments to the Virginia State Wide Fire Prevention Code which address the administrative appeal system and the qualification of members of the Board of Appeals. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: After reviewing the changes, it appears that the County's Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals could be an appropriate body to also serve as the Fire Code Board of Appeals. This could be accomplished through the designation of an alternate with fire protection engineering experience or a fire protection contractor with at least 10 years of experience. These qualifications meet the fifth category of the qualified individuals. The attached ordinance as prepared by the County Attorney outlines the necessary changes to the County's Code and is offered for your consideration. ~~• STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance amending and reenacting Section 9-21 of the Roanoke County Code which delineates the qualifications of the persons who shall sit on the Fire Code Board of Appeals. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to utilize the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals as the Fire Code Board of Appeals, we will determine their eligibility and report back to the Board with the second reading of the ordinance on August 19, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Chief Richard .Burch, Jr. Fire and Rescue ACTION Approved ()Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ _ _ Harrison _ _ _ Johnson _ _ _ Minnix _ _ Nickens Attachment (2) ~~.' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 9-21 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND ORDINANCE N0.121796-13 WHICH ESTABLISHED A BOARD OF APPEALS AND PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS TO HEAR APPEALS FROM DECISIONS MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9, "FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION", OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, Section 27-98 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides that a local governing body may establish procedures and requirements for the administration and enforcement of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code; and, WHEREAS, appeals concerning the application of this Code by the County Fire Marshal shall first lie to a local board of appeals and then to the State Building Code Technical Review Board and, WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 121796-13 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County designated itself as the board of appeals and established procedures and requirements for appeals of enforcement decisions made under the provisions of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the Roanoke County Code; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development adopted certain amendments to the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, which became effective April 15, 1997; and, WHEREAS, certain of these amendments address the administrative appeals system, and the qualifications of members of the board of appeals; and, WHEREAS, said amendments require certain changes in the previous action taken by this Board; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on August 19, 1997. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That Section 9-21, "Appeals" of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Section 9-21 Appeals. (d) The Fire Code Board of Appeals ..shall consist of five members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. To the extent such persons are available, the board of: appeals shall consist of individuals from the following professions or disciplines: Registered design professional who is a registered architect.., or a builder or superintendent of building construction .with at least 1D years experience, five of which shall have been in responsible charge of work. Registered design"professional with structural engineering or architectural experience. Registered design professional with mechanical- or -plumbing engineering experience, or a mechanical or plumbing contractor with at least l0 years experience, five of which shall have been in .responsible charge of work. Registered design professional with electrical engineering experience, or an electrical contractor with at lest 10 years experience, five of which shall have been in responsible charge of work. Registered design professional with. fire protection engineering experience, or a fire protection contractor with at least 10 `~- - years experience, five of which shall have been in responsible-charge of` work. Two alternate members may also be appointed by the Board of Supervisors..:. Alternate members shall be called by thee-chairman of the board of appeals to hear appeals during the absence or disqualification of a-member. Alternate members shall possess the qualifications for board membership. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after August 19, 1997. G:\ATTORNEY\BOARD\APPLBD2.ORD ...L` ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, CRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996 ORDINANCE 121796-13 ESTABLISHING A BOARD OF APPEALS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS TO HEAR APPEALS FROM DECISIONS MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9, "FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION", OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, Section 27-98 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides that a local governing body may establish procedures and requirements for the administration and enforcement of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code; and, WHEREAS, appeals concerning the application of this Code by the County Fire Marshal shall first lie to a local board of appeals and then to the State Building Code Technical Review Board ; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby designates itself as a board of appeals and establishes procedures and requirements for appeals of enforcement decisions made under the provisions of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the Roanoke County Code; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 3, 1996, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on December 17, 1996. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section, Section 9-21, "Appeals" to provide as follows: Section 9-21 Appeals. (a) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Roanoke County Fire Marshal under the provisions of this Chapter may file a 1 written a p "'~" ~~- ppeal with the clerk to the Board of Su ervisors for review of the Fire Marshal's decision. The written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days of the decision of the Fire Marshall, in a manner and form to be specified by the Fire and Rescue Chief. (b) The written appeal must specify the grounds for the appeal, and must be accompanied by the payment of the sum of Twenty- Five ($25.00) Dollars in order to defray the costs of such appeal. (c) Upon receipt of the appeal the board shall proceed at its earliest convenience to hear the appeal. The board shall within three (3) working days render a decision in accordance-with its findings. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after December 17, 1996. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ~ Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 2 i ~•. Action No. Item No. -' 3 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: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the exercise of an option to purchase and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of approximately 463 acres of real estate, being identified as County Tax Map Parcels 54-00-1-3 and 64.00-1-1, from Glenn- Mary Associates for economic development purposes COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY; Roanoke County has identified the Glenn-Mary Associates site as a strategic location for a new business park. The 463 acres is located on a frontage road parallel to Interstate 81 and is approximately 12 miles from the future interstate entrance of the Smart Road. The site is estimated to be able to contain 15 to 20 small to medium sized businesses. The target market for prospects will be in the high tech arena. Since March, the Design Team has been facilitating a Community Visioning Process with the neighboring residents and local business leaders to develop a preliminary concept plan based on a list of critical issues compiled by the Community Advisory Committee and the Technical Resource Board. The outcome of this committee's and the consultant's Design Team efforts is a recommendation to the administrator and board that the property be purchased. Mr. Glenn O. Thornhill, Jr. has signed the option and the County is desirous of exercising the option. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The subject property is necessary for the development of a new business park. This parcel of land is owned by Glenn-Mary Associates, a limited partnership, and is more particularly described as: All those parcels or tracts of land, with improvements, situate in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, described as follows: Being Parcel 1, containing approximately 325 acres; Parcel II, containing approximately 80.64 acres 1 ~ , ,, --t-- and Parcel IIl, containing approximately 73.60 acres, all three parcels together known as Glenn-Mary Farm. LESS AND EXCEPT the following parcels: 1) That portion of the above property conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia for Route I-81 by deed from Glenn O. Thornhill and Mary F. Thornhill dated October 25, 1962, recorded in Deed Book 703, Page 429. 2) 7.499 acres on the south side of I-81 conveyed to Joseph C. Thomas and Joseph C. Thomas, Jr., by deed from Glenn-Mary Associates dated January 12, 1989, recorded in Deed book 1340, page 1254. 3) 1.49 acres conveyed to Edgar Dickerson and Lottie B. Dickerson by deed from Glenn O. Thornhill and Mary F. Thornhill, dated November 10, 1966, recorded in Deed Book 815, Page 448. The County's independent appraiser has determined that the fair market value of the Glenn-Mary Associates property is $2,535,960.94. FISCAL IMPACT: The County will make the payment for this property over a three year period. At closing, $1 million will be paid. The balance will be paid at one year increments of $1 million each. Interest will be charged at rate not to exceed 6%, which would amount to $180,000. The down payment of $1 million will need to be appropriated from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance. Future payments will be shown `Below the Line" on the General Fund Unappropriated Balance report until they become due in future years. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Adopt the first reading of the proposed ordinance approving the Option to Purchase Agreement with Glenn-Mary Associates authorizing the exercise of the option to acquire the property with an annual payment of $1 million plus interest over the next three fiscal years. Appropriation language to be drafted and presented during the second reading of the proposed ordinance. 2. Authorize the County Administrator to request that Glenn-Mary Associates agree to an amendment to the Option to Purchase Agreement to provide for payment of the entire purchase price of $3 million at settlement, and approve such Amendment if agreed upon. Further authorize the County Administrator to exercise such amended option and proceed with acquisition and acceptance of the property. 2 .~ 3. Decline to exercise the option. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ~=3 Staff recommends alternative No. 1 in order to acquire the Glenn-Mary site for economic development purposes in accordance with the preliminary concept plan, and appropriating $1 million from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance Report. Respectfully submitted: .~ elinda J. Co ,Specialist Department of Economic Development Approved: -~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to ACTION Attachment 3 No Yes Abs Eddy _ _ _ Johnson _ _ Harrison Minnix Nickens ~-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 463 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (BEING IDENTIFIED AS COUNTY TAX MAP PARCELS 54.00-1-3 AND 64.00-1-1) FROM GLENN- MARY ASSOCIATES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES WHEREAS, by Resolution #031197-5, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County approved an Option to Purchase Agreement dated February 26, 1997, wherein Glenn-Mary Associates, a limited partnership, granted unto the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, an option to purchase approximately 463 acres of real estate designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 54.00-1-3 and 64.00-1-1 (the "Property"), for the sum of $3,000,000.00; and, WHEREAS, said option provides for payment of the purchase price in three equal annual installments, with the first payment of $1,000,000.00 to be paid at settlement, and with future installments to be paid by deferred purchase money note bearing interest at the Adjusted Federal Rate for short-term loans in effect on the date of settlement (not to exceed 6%}, and secured by a properly recorded first lien Deed of Trust on the Property; and, WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the option must be exercised on or before August 31, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the property is required for the development of a new business park to promote and encourage economic development in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, through increased employment and corporate investment; and, ~3 WHEREAS, increased employment and investment constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997; the second reading was held on August 19, 1997. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to exercise the option to purchase from Glenn-Mary Associates the following described real estate, to-wit: All those parcels or tracts of land, with improvements, situate in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, described as follows: BEING Parcel I, containing approximately 325 acres; Parcel II, containing approximately 80.64 acres; and Parcel III, containing approximately 73.60 acres, all three parcels together known as Glenn-Mary Farm. LESS AND EXCEPT the following parcels: 1) That portion of the above property conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia for Rt. I-81 by deed from Glenn O. Thornhill and Mary F. Thornhill dated October 25, 1962, recorded in Deed Book 703, page 429. 2) 7.499 acres on the south side of I-81 conveyed to Joseph C. Thomas and Joseph C. Thomas, Jr., by deed from Glenn-Mary Associates dated January 12, 1989, recorded in Deed Book 1340, page 1254. 3) 1.49 acres conveyed to Edgar Dickerson and Lottie B. Dickerson by deed from Glenn O. Thornhill and Mary F. Thornhill, dated November 10, 1966, recorded in Deed Book 815, page 448. 2. That the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance for the initial payment of the land purchase. The remaining payments will be appropriated in future fiscal years. ~3 3. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute anon-recourse promissory note and a first lien deed of trust in accordance with the terms of the Option Agreement, and such other documents as may be necessary, in connection with the seller's financing of the remainder of the purchase price for the property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 4. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the exercise of the option and the acquisition and acceptance of the property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~ ~"' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards ~"OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~L?1KIKARY OF INFORMATION: ~ TNDU3TRTAL DEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY Guy Byrd has submitted his resignation as a member of the Industrial Development Authority because he plans to run for elective office in the City of Roanoke and will reside in that locality. His letter of resignation is attached. His current term expires on September 26, 1999. ~ SOCIAL SERVICE ADVISORY BOARD The four year terms of Ed Wold, Catawba District; Betty Lucas, Cave Spring District; and Allen Simpson, Hollins District, will expire 08/01/97. Mr. Simpson is filling the unexpired term of Mary Anderson. Supervisor Johnson is nominating Mr. Simpson to serve a four-year term which will expire on August 1, 2001, and requested that his confirmation be placed on the Consent Agenda. SUBMITTED BY: ~l.Q~- .~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison _ Johnson Minnix _ Nickens _ r, • 1. 2 ~-.~' 2324 Broadway Avenue Roanoke, VA 24p14 342$338 June 26, 1997 Billy ~. Branch, Chairmazr Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County FO Bo~c 2p068 Roanoke, VA ~4Q18 Dear Billy, As I expeGl you have heard, I have decided to enter the political arena. EarYier this month, 1 was approached by the Republican Forty of Roanoke City, and was nominated at a mass meeting on June 9~ to seek the office of C~~mmissioner of Revenue in Roanoke City. Tn order to pursue this oflice, I have had to re-establish my official residence in the City of Roanoke, which means T am no longer a fult~time resident of the Courtly. It is my understanding that I could remain a member of the Roanoke County IDA While residing in. the Gity, but it is also my understanding that the Board of Supervisors has a strong preference that alI rnembcrs of the Authority reside in the County. Therefore, I am tendering my resignation from the Roanoke Gounty IDA, effective immediately, to t~~ake room fcrr another county resident. I have enjoyed working with you and the other members of the Authority, and congratulate you on the fine work that you aze doing. I will miss seeing everyone each month, and just hope there will be a way for us to work together again sometime. Kindest personal regards, C y W. By d, Jr. cc Timothy W. Gubala, Sec.=treas. „~°,.fl ~ TDT~L P.03 L-r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 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 July 22, 1997 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 Item 1 inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Social Services Advisory Board. 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. 1 ACTION NO. y ITEM NUMBER ~"~/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Social Services Advisory Board COtrn?TY ADMINISTR_ATC)R ~ S COMMENTS The following nomination has been made and should now be confirmed. Supervisor Johnson has nominated Allan Simpson to serve a four year term which will expire August 1, 2001. Mr. Simpson will represent the Hollins Magisterial District. It is recommended that the above appointment be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Approved by, ~,, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens i ~;~Jlllllllillliillllliillllilllllllillli illlllill Illllllllil111111111illiilllifillllllllllllllllllllllllll1111111IjjJ _. - _. - -_ .~ AGENDA ITEM NO. .~ ,_ ,_ PE CE REQUEST _.. - :_ - ,~ - ', = PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 'CITIZENS COMMENTS ° _.. ° .. SUBJECT: G~iC~~;'~~'~l~~~'~ ,~~~'/~A~~~~~~~ ° ..~ 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 ~: FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED s. BELOW: c ~~ i a~ ~~ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to ® .~- "" do otherwise. "' •s ^ 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 ~~ a ~~ _ s ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. s ° ^ 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. _. -_ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK a ~ s ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o ° ~ ~ i i ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i i ~~ s ~' a~ - - ~ a_ ~ ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllilllilllillliillll II II Ililiillllllllllllilliltlllllllillililili11111iiillllllllllllltilllillliiliiiiillllm Illlllilltllllllilllllllllllllllllliiillllilllillliilllllllllllllilllllllllillillllllilllll[Illllllllllllllllllltiilltl IIIIIII~,!) a. _ _. _ __ ,= AGENDA ITEM NO. :: ,.. ... ~~ s ~~ APPE CE REQUEST • ' ism ~ ~~ r o. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ j,= PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ,_ ._ p SUB CT: on. ~ a r. °_ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND'ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ,_ .. .. ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment = whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to ~.. do otherwise. •s ~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. ,= _ Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. '~= ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.` __ ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments c vc~th the clerk. ' s ~ ~s ~ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GRDUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c ~- ,._. ~. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND .GIVE TO THE CLERK s ~ a~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ o~ ~ a~ - _ _ ~~ i ~~ a ~ ~~ O ~lllitllltttliltliltiilttitlllllllllilllll I I Illtllllillilitl1111lIItllt1111!1111!!llilllilitttllllllllliil111tlllitllllllitilllllm o-~ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA of General Amount Fund Revenues Beginning Balance at July 1, 1997 (unaudited) $10,083,177 10.16% Balance at July 22, 1997 $10,083,177 10.16% Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $10,083,177 West County Business Park ($3,000,000) Reserve for R.R. Donnelly - Phase II (730,700) Reserve for Valley Gateway sewer extension (150,000) Potential Liability (400,000) $5,802,477 5.85% 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 1997-98 General Fund Revenues $99,264,769 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $6,204,048 Respectfully Submitted, ~~ ~. ~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Gen97.WK4 b'~ CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIlZGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1997 (unaudited) $1,113,043.00 Balance at July 22, 1997 $1,113,043.00 ote: $100,000 of these funds have been temporarily advanced to the Mayflower Hills Park project. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ ~. Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap97.WK4 D -J' RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIIZGINIA Amount From 1997-98 Original Budget $143,000.00 Balance at July 22, 1997 $143,000.00 Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board97. WK4 ~ .y ~ r. r .n.. a 'r r i ~ w • ~ ~ • • t r • r / .- ,. ,~ .• .. .. ~. .. •, _ a ., ., w .. .. F, ~ ,~ ,,, .; .., :. ^; n P .l n fl !.~ 7"• '9 x x~ a N A P d R i P R A R 6 C B 3 p E 0 B! R c t' R M t 'il h ~ ~ - f- I 0 o I o \ I 0 N 0 0 W W c0 h 2 Q ', i ~ ~ ~i CU F •~••) .n ~ i ~_' ', N W !7 GF 1E'dF U C~ ~ ~ p ", ,~ r W " 7 1 ~ ~aa', rd ° ' • x C V. ~ o N O C ~ roomy ; f~ ab va L E 1 v h U mz ~U vW0 ^V C ~ 7: M- UI O Q ~, U v U }.~ C N E V. 1}-I • f U ~ N N ~ I i j; S-I O } ~ ~~N/ W I' Y ~ S-I r: ~-1 .C~C fi .~ i ~ U ~-1 a 1 ~ ~m_~~ ^'Tm '~i it I V C 7 4 'i m L a c • C9 0 0 Z LL I a ' • C ~ ' • O Y > a • \ C OC S o '' ~ ~ h b ' N •' ' ad w L .+:A d d La c y!!. d N 'y r T i tl N I C ' O I E 0 1 ' 7 ^-r, i i ~I i i I I 11 q1 O q) 0 •t T o b F,o b T 0+ N C M -- tf1 N q) VI N --d .- b N- O C F o M M o M m 7 of T .v C N bb M .- o Ui N CIM N F C N F M -- M F F aD 0 o q• aD F T T o N~o o ^~q) T b M N Nio Ifi obo.-o ov ao~aooao NC oFF Mo•NIII EDOF ~o F q1 Q) T ~J F M •- 171 vD C N Nc0 Q)aDwb NN-d1 F~ - - ~ o g1Mq a ~ u ~I 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I l 1 1 I Ib Epo~Fo1-V1CNF-U1 ~oFM.•oNC•-lfl c0-a0•-~I•-CNN VQOU1 apMOlf1 I M IO - F VI A C C o• o q) q) ED ~ N b T F O .- ap m b F o ~C •O F •- F Yf o q+ o ~O N '- •• 1 •-Mg1~Mq)VIOFbC ~-FtJINCN•-EONMTN oFCC~MMYl V1bMNTM~ I FVINCEDNeMbCFNO+i-~1-CaDMC1~aDM a~N;T aD--C~O~N•-~OCFNF~ I Vi EObFNglMO•Ctn~ VI q)tiN V1C N - NVI O~.-NbMN bo+ bd II ~ ' j N 1 - I NaDTEDN O+N VICNF~CMNM~oNC•-Vl qi-~o~-t01A 111m~1fl o~aDMOOF I 1 FED gIN7 W UIC TOg1 q)~EDFbmFOO~tDTb NF~lflMOblbM FobNOY ~ 1 W M -- qJ b -- a• o F b C- N C F C Vi ~ p ~• M C N T M !VI F V1 q) o M C M N F o e II . , ,.. . , . . . . ... . . . I VI VI F Vl - F C M b o+ F N N DD M E. m o .- b F b p M q+ ~ED E+ M T O E+ ql C F O O V i t b p N b F .- F C C N b VI W N C N o VI VI b C VI N ~ N ~b M F W O CS b O• 171 O 0 1 q)qS q1M g1CMFVY g7MCO~ MN VI oM~C-HOED O+F NNE i I , . . 1 N q) - C C M xF. •- N i a I oo+ CNCbPgIFb tioEDCF•-NMo F IICNFgIFp) o.- M I I C•^ NF MbMII1MO MMCOaD-bVI N '~.o q)ED tnNN V1M N ~ 1 q1C FFCFT MMT Ep O~VI N,-C O~•-C b iC (fIF NMC Nb o I MC MNNNOU1oao TN~NbMIIICm 1a .VIM •-MNb MM ql 1 1 Nb FNCq)M OC•- OD NN C O r•N- bVi 171E M ~ I FF CN •- M F C.- 1 I . 1 b .- 1 1 IAooooo0000000000000000o IA MI~o~p)FFOO1flo ~IAE i 00000 000000000000 o q)OOO oF;oFFVi000FO Q~p • I N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ o M 0 0 0'o N b N F o V5 .- o b M L b I . , , , . ,.. . ., . . . , I ED o 0 0 0 o Vl o o V1 0 o Vl 0 171 N VI N ED - o F V1 M N iq1 .- C •- o N •- Ul o M F G 1 1 0 0 m C o 0 o VI o F N o F VY b N M o C C C M ~ C ED ~b N N N b M M o N b E 7 I NN q) C •-MFN~D CaD Mt11- NN C -C'.N FMCD~ ~O ~O NMC 7 1 . I '- F ,- N C M N ~ M N •- C 1 C .- b n. m m O EI ~, v ~ M L '+ L i E 10 V C d N '+ I T d U1 ;• V o ••~ d •-. I < N C N • 3 Dl ' C O U ~' EI N• N v 0 W LL d O L -+~N • ••+ U 171 Q+ • x •b x 171 N E d > ~ •.+ h ~.~ EI x L r N x • b V • N • I N • > U> ••+ L U N O N F- • x N C 1- O 4 • 0.k N N ~' H 7 L •+ L A L f- • F- T C O x O EI IL N L O O d • C ~•• L • L< 7 L L 0. h • ~•+ 1E @ W • • 7 U V L• y v O y • O N TO •O T U vh O • ~ • N v • ••.~++I > a h 01 f7 •~V1 • r V v v • ••+ 1E O ~ LL C LL • ••~ UI N > ••+ , O • ••+ V • •+ • A x L C 7 x .. N J~• C • •.1 • » C JD i L q: N .+ q 1tl qJ M 1E LL V Q N• d ~+ • 1q .+ C L N L ~+ V V L F • 7.d v A• ++ I EI ••+ 1 +• C F- 4 U •+ h +. • x• O C •-1 EI O •. L g L E E Vl d; a N U M U L V U L L ++ b •b J v U El ~••• U•• a L ~~ 7 t O O O ~ V 7 0 C O ++ O .+ O U b L> N~ ••+ h U• U ~+ • h v 7 O U LL L L L L'• O U L• N<• N a P C v d L N c• J ~•+ ~ ••+ O L • C W V r- LL O O L • O a v • A EI • EI r+ ... N • t J E it x 0 ~ '+• LL• C O x W C A •tl C M C i v y ••+ N L N M• C q U~ 0. C N N t 1E •• IL b M O M .+ i EI A v+ ~+ V• N ++ > O W I 1- C N O O• b 4 M N ~,tn '•1 L ~+ • w N b .+ V 7L i W C U ••+ C i• t ++ •+ El s+ U 7 7• N I ~+ • EI 9 L M C M 1 O +• ~ EI •+ 7 C U L N ••+ ~••+ h L N •~ Y O• C C a O+ JD •> V• A W L• A~ L. i •+ N ••+ N E E7 h ••+ C O N -1 d• b E V E N L N ••• L LIB U O I L V- U• t-. U 6 6' nl L D C T U C N 9 v x ~.. r x t ••+ C L•• O C>> M b ~~ N V C 10 ••+ ~ L ^~ 7 t L •• 7 d 1E O O 7 L O 1E J+ O VE v C N•• •+ t ++ •• L L • •~ • o L W~ V• V J+ V d'D_q.Rd JUmW Eh 7ShOaJ6.LLUQ. ILKKV VitYEK2N7t W 03 WOb1 o .- N M C O •- N M C VI b F [6 G+. o .- N C F ED o~ o- Ol OD ~o ~ ~o o .~- +~ -•:- M O N UD Al l N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M C C C P N VI VI b af! b 1b F q) 07 tlD fT 1 O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 __________ R A p A A K'~ R F R a A F P a ~t R R F A IR f c f 8 7 f i 0 f 9 P; ~~ ~~ . ~~,. i> V k • +~ '. rfl4''.'. ' ~ ? a. ,. ~ , i i I 1 1 1 A Y A 1 1 n R A R V~ C ~~ t ~~ r j rI V I ~^ O` CU I7 O o c n t- n o W w V' F- G ao ~ ~ '. r ~ ., ~ 'A T T ° 9 -, p ~ ~l. tt S G B B B c B B d B B G B 6 I' F C R' R 1' P I iN C N d 0~ a~ dti .-~ ~ c ti N Ao ~vW > U F IQ ~C ~EqJ~ O O N O room ad¢ 1+ m i dux ~~~ ~wo t O J U Q V U Cm I p W `C+N N v Vm I V C a ro L d C 0 y c ~-' 0 0 « Y \ S N C N A' w 4 i [ .~ n ~ m ~ i ! f-' 0 C ~' I,'. 11 o ~~ r e ~ i ai i L I Ci !. L L t i i i I 1 I I I I I I i ~ ~ 1 1 I 1 I I I t 1 i i i t I t i I 1 i 1 1l1 M o. N M' N o+ a+ ti v T N .n M v~ N M v N m m r c P m m O~ r N ar I ~ I ' '. ~' I! j' ~' G ° , i.'. I., i ~ ~ ~! Z ~_ ~ W I J J r a i o ' r- ~ `° ~ i ~- c z o ' ~ z j ' cs a ~~ ~! '. ,. ~p _ ., ,, .. e j,, '.., '... . m e ______ ___` R: P n` B B F B B A ~ p R 7 '~ R P B R B: 0 7 3 9 i: B t R :, B A% B B R ,..,.,.._ ~ n..-.,.____. _ .. , _... __.. ,_ ___ _ _._ ,; ~.. i ~, _ , ' `~ . F '~, ail ~. r _ ~~rq, `3 ~ ~,. ~ ~ i I J ~R ` {i f ^ a F P .- h O o O h- O O W W tD F ¢ ¢ a o HIV I I I j , j j i ' I ~I C I~ !'Y ro iL a 0 L I am !¢~ N 'O o ro C \ -+ ro r- C o oI 0 W LI d 1- ua > co ro L LL mao Y E O ] fl) c ua ro C OWI a ._ ar 1•- odz L O 7 E v r J 'O 6 O C V Ntn I a~ x LL w N O d V d L u iN V C LL ro L m C a, C9 0 O z LL .,.I .. a ~ III, I V II: ~ ~ C no-? w c d aWd 1- w a N I e J l e c N- m ~a .r. ~ L cu n .r W 1 i i ~ 7 ~ ~' 1... .~,. i I ~'' 1 ~ i i I 1 ~ i aI I T I V I 7 1 mI I 1 1 I N I ~ U I i C 1 ro I I .+ I ~ ro I m 1 1 I G I ' H I I N 1 t I 1 m U 1 ~ C I 1 ro 1 is E 1 1 7 1 ~ U 1 fcl Iw I d I L I 7 1 r I i~ I ry„al c 1 d I a~ w V I O I U I ~ 1 7 I m I 1 N ul W b N N 0 0 O M N to M M 111 J F H Q W 2 Ca N up a 1 Z • ' ~ ' a o o o FOO a• ap v F ap ut m o• ap O N N r-No N u1M 1~ o~ F N W o C vN~Oe .OWNe: c~~m ap e !1 Mj UI ~- •- N .- On N TAM N N o~~O N ^ M50 77N D o O~ b b M O ~'r ~ b~b .- U W oD N b o] N~- t-IaD o ' ill M c 7 N N ap! b ~D P N N N' O o -- gym r o t-w W o+.. ap 10u ~ op uti M F W b aD M F'~ ap c0 d r M ~o N N N r- o+ 0 7I U1 10 "1 M WT N SO T b N N111 N ^^ to op 7 M r- T N W N N M M m N a+ b N 111 N F !n o• ~ o Q ~ M W N M N O UI .- N N N ~o T ~- 0 o c0 0+ ~ ~T m anN M ~ ._ M trM W NV' VI o M~••• N F T^ o N V N FN N V ', F ~~O 7 W In NN W u1 N •- W N o• f0 N aD •- N l o NO N c+ P UI 7 N M^ ~ VI •f ~ T T N N V' a0 - N aD M o+ o et a N N In o o .- o M ^ N r- v < an ^ b N NN b .- 117'. ~o o o+P vi ui ao ri ri aE r E w ro ~ C W L ¢ O J 1+ N U M a .. .. c ro c ' u H d E U E 11- 4 9 ~.+ C ~ C W ¢ w• L a' ro o Z r- V d L O o > c ti- v . . ro O L' C N M [D O ~b d N U.. N. V a Cb .. M' ro N d 1 ro L ro ¢ N C D C U ~ O d t.W E 7 W 6 LLm C 1+.C ~ V U M w d '4+ 7 U N C N b .+ CJ ro ++ h L O O « ro •3 o ac•.. o ~ L o s o w v o ro 0 o U7 C 6 o C w U I o N L r ~- v 0 •~ N W • o ~ 0 o C• 7 EU 2 LL m m -+ o o •.+ ro • o J csw v c» J l~vi 0 00 o o N o ool ' N~ N M1 N o N N M 1 I o e 0 O.O. o oo~ _ __ ° R ~'. A A F A A G p A A ~5 A ~ 11 +~ Q ~) Q Q M 7 P 5 ^ N 7 aV o~ o+ 0 M T 7 N ap .o N ap F N 1 b N N Q r w t+ a, 0. ro N a 7 a D O n o 0 0 L I E A A p .~, ~ a:.'n axpp R p a p x n a x I r p p P p >R'4f ^R OMNTNod -N~.O--M poop ~O •-ero . ~ ^ D Tb.om oaQpmmtia~Oo ^ I gal r1v .o avarla D .- ' ~O o Q .- O 0~ ~O i0 n W ~11 aD ~O N T .- T N ap 1 o N ~O .- N MNNM r 0+~ ~- mole 111 ~^ N m ~O n ~D #>P7 W N lap.-o~o+0. 7NMIOF ^ N^QO~0.-r rod-apN M ~07aD 7~O lAQ -aD ~oO^M an Mf~OO~.-M~ U NIfI QOM O MIfl NCO Nt-0. 1~O IIO~ NO M Mbo M~ 1 N%U M M^ ~ _ o I7 P W N M i N IM W d 7 by M N N I a N M M a0 UI 7 T F ~O roltnmu~i tm- aontiln I~ad'o 1- 7 +-o~o+v ; NNp Nut ~ OMaD- M M .- '~Ib ^ M 7 N M W 0 atl e' p -v,Noao a FMaoNaor M U1iM OOp 0 .oMT7NMa ~-aO .NT T • M111M O~ OI h•u N ^IN UI er N M NIflNNNC MaO INNN O+ 7N^ <• .i M N N M Q^ I cal I ~ I OI I (9 i I I V / ./ p R r l" R! N I' ~6 ~ 6 N U N ' ++ C y OI W 4 ro I .Ci L O •L ~ ~ N 3 U1 U Q C ro 7~ x U U ~ roCI N• Nm' m~ rtcr.+-.u a 4~ a L .D •+ a •~+ t t S M U G M ~ ro A C al 0• L ++ C O 10 d • 4 b N ••I > o~LU ~ xx~aysm • a o N o u-~ v ~+ -+ a11+ OIL 7 A L ..r ro 7 C ro V o •+ b~+Yl~+~ u. ++ Lc aaJ]My •roi ro a •>>>coo BSI wc~ dma/r>-m O N~ W 0 Ifl o UI O if1 d I t1'<i 7Y NNNWW ooi oO 00000 I sa a x a a: s r s t r e p e a a p QII, © 4 • ~ ~ O ' .~{ . ~ ~% ' ` ' . ~ ,~~.° I I z ay .,{~ ~..~ ,:.,:. i i ~' " e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~ r ~ t L m. ' ~ y I ,. f '. ~ ,, 1 ~ i i X C R :~ N ~J X ti k I: Y. r. ' :, F d .t k p h a; S : J Y i Y. 'f :s :I d k 4. 8 `n ~ o .; G J t '. o N W 4 t h o+ ; \ ~ N P 0 o o \ ' ~ o P . I 0 0 W W O !- Q Q as S1 0. 1 1 I hh M'-M ~o ~oN N olll •-PO OOb NO p•, o .o O i I PpD t-M^ M~ON ^ 7M IfiN0 00O ao IO o IJt d E r ~ d7 6 I Mao W hlA NWO ^ Nap o.-o o. O M x U q 1 W a+ fn mf>• mo+O .- T^ 1110 ~ , O W M W C V 1 W 7 a mi I Fa >~ 1 ~ N 1 ':O I tO O .-oh N WPT h h NOD NhIO N W pD PO+ O BO O W ~ ~ O a 1 '.a ! am ~foN .- PIAO ^ o Ma o~M O .p M~a fn^ N r- a :. p p 0 I O 4 U 1 a ~ ~ W h ul M m q T .O In h m s0 IA N o u1 N .p M^ T O ao psi p ~ o ' C I - ., ., ~+ 7 4 I -+ I m ~' o• .- 0111 ^ N a .n .- .- 0 N ~O ^ o+ 0 1!'I a P h M P 4 In G~ r V' a . h W a NO MPIA No MM o .p a o o 0 L ~ 1 ~ o i ' `0 1- o o~ i. i , N N Q P tp fl o. • 1 .O~ oom ~o alAO h •D .-a hao N o+o. 0 0 0 0 0 Q\ L I ^h N .- ~o PAN -- 0 0~ o~p o .O M^ ^ W 111 .- .- I c ~ I a^ ~oaa. IA MIlIN ~- N Nap aPO lA o^ O O o w .u 9 ~ C\ i + O 1 x0 11100. ep hoh W o .O owN a ^M o M M M M ~ ~P O F I --m Mp~h .- N PQ O M N as W s0M N to 0 4 0 ~ o C >` I ~- lfl .- N N m h In M ~- M ^ N M .- '~ d N W fl 1 N ~ a {U N N GT m I a f- x 1 a ~ W N ' ~ l Cp a A U 1 N P ^ a o a N N R a F {L C I o O P W N M .O ~O c0 N ' p ~ i o a+ m IA ~0 N N !?f a a s N N 0 0 U Q E 1 i ^ ~ v C WI .~ MF UZ ~. O 7 r J 4 M x 4 WN ~ ~ O a 7 'D a t U N V C LL ro f. a C a V O 0 Z 7 4. 1: J 1 7 1 U 1 C i WI a 1 L I ~ 1 ~ 1 I V 1 c 1 a x I W I I r 1 O I V 1 7 1 ml R I 1 '1 1 c u c 1 o [ N t a• .O < '. f i W ~ •O 1 o f a[ pJ ~ ~~ N• h r M r ro N o U m.-~ -M pip h N c • M m a p row ~ro s rn 1 L Lo O ~ a f- > r f. Ip a~ C N 1 1 E O I ~ V J 4 t N •. V O f ~u r r c~. l0 ~ [ Y f N L . r a c .• ao: ¢uc 0 o c Phr ooc f: rv w m [-0 M N n1 M N .P0 v U w G O N a L U a W N L N a O 0 h 0 N N ~. to 0 p 1011 aMp 0 P M In r olAp W N N W u p+ .- V h P . .0 r E n L rn O L a C O ' m l PCI C a I C x. O W 1 N a b > C PM1 ~ 10 C 4 t m o i 0 1 auu IA ou OlO p ooc A N 6 N 0 a u a r W o p o c O p •O p m p h L i f [ a C O [ • c N M { f- n 1 N f C E N < L c r C c q L C a 0 a aD 0 k k b. M c N4 P = 7 N p c M c ul r M a 1 1 i C N f ti ~ w a 4 C f a i f0 [ a~ a C T Of .-. •. a~ e •. we o u 0+ o ac A F a W 0 0 [ O O [ O O [ o 1A[ pp N• a. o. a ro u V C S W I T 1 a V N .~ [ 7 W O \ 1 a •[- G a I m .+ c •'+ a I a Ir 1 u N >[ V ~ I EF-p 111 o c N M c o+mc 0 o c ;[ a a ~O N M M Ln a Mw .- r N c .- p V m a [- ~. ~ i c a a U acs x N O W ~ a tq i J] T i a u. a C 1 o. < 7 C f a •.. f i r f H [ [ a o 1 (Y U: Inop P Q. p ooc .. ~ "e N M a t0 N N N I+ a C u ~ -~ o > U L U as N T f_ N O C Y Lc V a r > c c M N N W a~ m 0 0 'i r P r P p N C M e 0• C m u a r c+ D N e r o p .- 4 N 1 C a E I r I L I ID Y d I O 1 c r O ~ ~ 1 0 O y tT 1 o I [ 1 V 0 i a Y v '0 l a e Ip L O+ C a c h [ 7 O 1 a i d I w I u 1 C V 9 1 L I r I I V F C 7 c r- v ~ c M c N m 0 y V I11 1 ~ r ~ M in v 0 m w h' 0 N O 0 Z a tz J a F Q r v X .; IA c~ N h M c r J O F 2 a fr [9 of u a ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER jYIEETING DATE: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Report on the Circle Employee Suggestion Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I'm pleased with the progress thus far. We are off to a good start. ~•~ ~•i~~~~~ On April 22, 1997, the Board approved the use of $5,000 for the Circle employee suggetion Program as a way to encourage employees to look at cost saving opportunities and efficiencies in their jobs. The Board requested a report 60 days after the program's implementation. Through the Circle (Continuous Improvement of Roanoke County Led by Employees) Suggestion Program, Roanoke County employees are making operations better, faster, more efficient and safer. Although programs like these take some time to catch on, in just 60 days from implementation, employees have responded by making a total of 31 suggestions. Through the program, one employee identified a way to prevent eye injuries and save the County $13,000 in costs from potential accidents and lost time. Another employee suggestion will save the County $8,000 in labor costs by reducing the time required to complete paperwork through the use of existing computers. Other employees have found an additional $15,000 in savings and improved service through the Circle program. The Circle program rewards Roanoke County employees with nominal cash incentives, but more importantly, rewards employees with much needed recognition for the good ideas they have about their jobs. 1 ~_~ As a part of the program, supervisors actively encourage their employees to look at their jogbs and use their expertise to make improvements. When employees bring their ideas forward, supervisors assist them in implementing the improvements. The result? Employees feel that they are heard and respected and the County improves its operations with a small investment. Records for the first 60 days indicate that, for every $3.00 paid in incentives to employees, the County received $100.00 in "soft" savings. (See the attached reports highlighting current activity levels and results) There is a Circle Project Team working on the development of communication formats to keep employees informed and aware of the Circel program on an on-going basis. Staff will continue to monitor the Circle program and refine or improve as necessary. Reports are made to the County Administrator on a monthly basis. In summary, during the first 60 days, 31 suggestions were submitted. Seventeen of these were implemented resulting in identifiable savings of $36,000. The County paid out a total of $690 to the employees based on the program's graded savings and awards scale. So far, all suggestions submitted were eligible under Component One of the Circle Program. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~C J s h J. Sgro Di ec or of Human Resources Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 2 G/' "~` 0 0 cv t U '~ co O m a~ 0 U a~ m c 0 .~ a ~U a l-- _ _ W W ~ ~ } ~ W Z CJ W ~ 0 In Z ~ Q U U _ O ~ w ~ ~ > > Z Q ¢ w ~ ~ ~ w w Q O 2 JJ ~ W m Q Q ~- _ J LL W O Q ~ Z Z H F- O W Z Z O W ~ C7 w W (~ m C7 ~ Q Q z a Q w ~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 r~ 0 0 0 0 N 0 O O O 0 O O O N rn N a r Data Count of Received Count of Implemented ~ ~Ceiwed Name 3 2 111.95 JOHN PATTEN 3 3 52.51 EDNA LAWSON 2 2 143.76 ROGER REED 2 2 77.4 VICTORIA WEBB 2 2 46.99 Gill M. Elaine 2 0 5.52 DIANA WILSON 2 1 8.28 KATINA KEITH 2 0 5.52 ;NANCY MITCHELL 1 1 71.88 !HENRY WILEY 1 1 71.88 REBECCA FRALIN 1 1 37.31 ;TINA BOUSMAN 1 1 37.31 ':DOROTHY DICKASON 1 0 2.76 JACK MCNEiL 1 0 2.76 STEVEN WHITE 1 0 2.76 ROBIN CEDILLO 1 0 2.76 G THOMPSON 1 0 2.76 DIANE GUERRANT 1 1 5.52 BETH GUERS 1 0 2.76 ROBERTA BOYER 1 0 2.76 DONNA WALDRON 1 0 2.76 WILLIAM DUFF 31 17 697.91 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: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy, as of June 30, 1997. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BANKERS ACCEPTANCE: CENTRAL FIDELITY 2,972,106.67 CRAIGIE 987,715.00 CRESTAR 991,600.00 NATIONS 986,506.67 SIGNET 3,846,834.88 WHEAT 1ST 4,194,227.56 13,978,990.78 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS: CRAIGIE 1,000,000.00 FIRST AMERICAN 100,000.00 NATIONS 1,000,000.00 SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA SAVINGS 13< LOAN 100,000.00 2,200,000.00 COMMERICAL PAPER: CENTRAL FIDELITY CRESTAR NATIONS PAINE-WEBBER SIGNET SUN TRUST WHEAT 1ST LOCAL GOVT INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL FUND RESOURCE AUTHORITY REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: FIRST VIRGINIA CASH INVESTMENTS: CENTRAL FIDELITY COMMOI~JWEALTH (8 W1ST) COMMONWEALTH (RES. AUTH.) TOTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully Submitted by , Alfred C. Anderson ' County Treasurer ACTION Approved ()Motion by: Denied 985,082.22 1,979,096.95 1,983,491.67 1,982,181.94 990,916.67 1,972,137.22 2,177,172.34 10,026,682.62 1,623,526.54 4,175,000.00 12,070,079.01 11,650,209.16 4,175,000.00 2,000,000.00 3,076,191.87 4,955,991.60 10,032,183.47 54,106,462.42 Approv by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Received ( ) Referred ( ) To () Eddy Harrison Johnson Minna Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs 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: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Report on the Task Force to Review Problems Encountered by the Disabled, Physically Challenged, and Senior Citizens COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On June 10, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved the establishment of a task force to review problems encountered by the disabled, physically challenged, and senior citizens of our community. The charge of the task force is to identify needs of this population, suggest solutions, and try to determine the fiscal impact to implement some proposals. Dr. Nickens met with Debbie Pitts, Parks and Recreation; Dr. Betty McCrary, Social Services; and John Chambliss to begin this effort. This group recommends that the task force consist of approximately 20 people from all parts of the County and representives of the major special needs groups. Each supervisor is requested to appoint two members to the task force. These appointees must meet one of the eligible criteria themselves or be a family member helping to serve such a person. We further suggest that we use the service agencies, advocates, and employees as resources. By doing so, we can gain the benefit and knowledge of other studies and needs assessment processes, tried and proven methods of removing barriers, and identification of available resources. Other methods of input could come from surveys, community meetings, and other means of contacting .' °~ persons generally unable to attend public forum-type meetings. The composition of the task force should be a diverse group who can share from their own experiences the difficulties that they face in accomplishing daily tasks. Perhaps they can offer practical alternatives for consideration. This task force could also perform on-site visits of buildings, programs, and services to offer suggestions or comments. The task force could become involved in the Senior Citizens Work Program and the improvements to CORTRAN transportation. The task force should also organize into subcommittees to undertake the various activities of the task force. Periodic progress reports will be made to the Board of Supervisors and a final report will be completed by July 1, 1998. Besides the staff members noted above, we suggest that Myra Sellers and Betsy Dennis from Parks and Recreation and Bill Hammond from Social Services also serve as at-large members of this committee based upon their services with this special population. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that each Supervisor nominate two people who meet the criteria of being disabled, physically challenged, senior citizens or a family member who is a caregiver of such a person to be identified at the August 19, 1997 meeting. We would like to convene this committee in September to begin studying the needs of our community. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~I John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ACTION Motion by: Approved by, ~~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs r (. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION 072297-3 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 Certification Resolution and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Holto ,Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session w ~ ~ ._~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION 072297-4 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO GLENVARHIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE 1997 DIVISION A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and WHEREAS, the Glenvar High School Girls softball team won its fifth Group A State Championship this year, beating Powhatan 1-0 in a 16-inning shutout game; and WHEREAS, the Glenvar Coach, Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison was named regional Coach of the Year by the National High School Coaches Association, and was one of the six finalists in the United States for national Coach of the Year; and WHEREAS, pitcher Amy Layman was named All State, All Region, All District-State Player of the Year, and right fielder Sheree Thompson was named All State, All Region, and All District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the Glenvar High School Girls Softball Team: Amy Layman; Ingrid Moldenhauer; Sheree Thompson; Renae Anderson; Sara Henderson; Tara Huff; Alison Price; Evan Burbage; Kelli Julg; Chrissy Lewis; Shelley Shiflett; Elizebeth Wilburn; Hallie East; Shannon Paxton; Heather Strine; Sabrina Dillon -Manager; Kim Ratcliffe -Scorekeeper; and Coaches Spike Harrison; Geny Brittain; and Dennis Layman for their athletic ability, their team spirit, and their commitment to each other; and 1 'a BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its congratulations also to Coach Spike Harrison for his accomplishments after 13 years coaching softball for Glenvar and for being named regional Coach of the Year; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the team members, the coaches, and the school in their future endeavors. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Harrison A COPY TESTE: 1 Brenda J. Holt n, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Congratulations File Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent 2 .~ S'-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE 1997 DIVISION A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and WHEREAS, the Glenvar High School Girls softball team won its fifth Group A State Championship this year, beating Powhatan 1-0 in a 16-inning shutout game; and WHEREAS, the Glenvar Coach, Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison was named regional Coach of the Year by the National High School Coaches Association, and was one of the six finalists in the United States for national Coach of the Year; and WHEREAS, pitcher Amy Layman was named All State, All Region, All District-State Player of the Year, and right fielder Sheree Thompson was named All State, All Region, and All District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the Glenvar High School Girls Softball Team: Amy Layman; Ingrid Moldenhauer; Sheree Thompson; Renae Anderson; Sara Henderson; Tara Huff; Alison Price; Evan Burbage; Kelli July; Chrissy Lewis; Shelley Shiflett; Elizebeth Wilburn; Hallie East; Shannon Paxton; Heather Strive; Sabrina Billon -Manager; Kim Ratcliffe -Scorekeeper; and Coaches Spike Harrison; Geny Brittain; and Dennis Layman for their athletic ability, their team spirit, and their commitment to each other; and 1 ""'~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its congratulations also to Coach Spike Harrison for his accomplishments after 13 years coaching softball for Glenvar and for being named regional Coach of the Year; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the team members, the coaches, and the school in their future endeavors. 2 ~ .r F^~ f AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION 072297-5 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE 1997 DIVISION AA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Baseball Team, with a theme of °One Team, One Dream." won the 1997 AA State Championship, beating Tabb High School in a 4-1 victory ;and WHEREAS, the coach of the team, Rodney Spradlin, was named AA Statewide Coach of the year, and team member Chris Manning was named to the First Team AA All- Star Team, and was Region III Player of the Year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the William Byrd High School Baseball Team: Cory Ross; Chris Ribble; Josh Durham; Randall Sell; Derek Rivers; Parker Humphreys; Nick Jones; Blake Davis; Ryan Wheeling; Chris Kendrick; Matt McGuire; Ross Blankinship; Scott Wise; Brennan Gee; Steve Ragland; Ben Smith; Neil Zimmerman; Tommy Chambers; Chris Manning; Justin Likens; Brian Spraker; Brian Rickerson; and coaches Rodney Spradlin; Gene Riggs; Gary Walthall; and Josh Herman for their athletic ability, their team spirit, and their commitment to each other; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the team members, the coaches, and the school in their future endeavors. 1 f On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol n, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Congratulations File Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent 2 " ,~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE 1997 DIVISION AA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Baseball Team, with a theme of "One Team, One Dream." won the 1997 AA State Championship, beating Tabb High School in a 4-1 victory ;and WHEREAS, the coach of the team, Rodney Spradlin, was named AA Statewide Coach of the year, and team member Chris Manning was named to the First Team AA All- Star Team, and was Region III Player of the Year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the William Byrd High School Baseball Team: Cory Ross; Chris Ribble; Josh Durham; Randall Sell; Derek Rivers; Parker Humphreys; Nick Jones; Blake Davis; Ryan Wheeling; Chris Kendrick; Matt McGuire; Ross Blankinship; Scott Wise; Brennan Gee; Steve Ragland; Ben Smith; Neil Zimmerman; Tommy Chambers; Chris Manning; Justin Likens; Brian Spraker; Brian Rickerson; and coaches Rodney Spradlin; Gene Riggs; Gary Walthall; and Josh Herman for their athletic ability, their team spirit, and their commitment to each other; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the team members, the coaches, and the school in their future endeavors. _~ !4 ~°"~, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION 072297-6 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL FOR WINNING FIRST PLACE IN THE 1997 ACADEMIC DIVISION AA STATE CREATIVE WRITING COMPETITION WHEREAS, Roanoke County schools emphasize academic excellence through a well-rounded curriculum and dedicated teachers; and WHEREAS, students at William Byrd High School recently won first place in the Virginia High School League AA Academic Division for acreative-writing booklet; and WHEREAS, William Byrd High School is the first school in the Roanoke Valley ever to win this award, and the students competed against 70 other high schools and 140 students, the largest number ever to participate in the competition; and WHEREAS, William Byrd was the only school in the competition whose entries were all judged "superiors or "excellent," and was also the only school to have winners in every division of the competition; and WHEREAS, the students who competed for the award are Holly Henderson, Christopher Sloan, Brian Sutton, Julia Jackson, Martin Kessler and Courtney Tolley, and their teacher is Rebekah Woodie. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulation to the students at William Byrd High School for their creativity, dedication, and hard work in receiving first place in the Virginia High School League AA Academic Division; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes 1 1~ _~ to the students, their teacher, and the school in their future endeavors. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~~~ Brenda J. Holt ,Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Congratulations File Dr. Deanne Gordon, School Superintendent 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL FOR WINNING FIRST PLACE IN THE 1997 ACADEMIC DIVISION AA STATE CREATIVE WRITING COMPETITION WHEREAS, Roanoke County schools emphasize academic excellence through a well-rounded curriculum and dedicated teachers; and WHEREAS, students at William Byrd High School recently won first place in the Virginia High School League AA Academic Division for acreative-writing booklet; and WHEREAS, William Byrd High School is the first school in the Roanoke Valley ever to win this award, and the students competed against 70 other high schools and 140 students, the largest number ever to participate in the competition; and WHEREAS, William Byrd was the only school in the competition whose entries were all judged "superior" or "excellent," and was also the only school to have winners in every division of the competition; and WHEREAS, the students who competed for the award are Holly Henderson, Christopher Sloan, Brian Sutton, Julia Jackson, Martin Kessler and Courtney Tolley, and their teacher is Rebekah Woodie. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulation to the students at William Byrd High School for their creativity, dedication, and hard work in receiving first place in the Virginia High School League AA Academic Division; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the students, their teacher, and the school in their future endeavors. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE 072297-7 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FACILITY FOR MINOR AUTO REPAIR ASSOCIATED WITH A USED AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON A 1-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 3300 BLOCK OF SHAWNEE DRIVE (TAX MAP N0. 55.02-2-10.1) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 1-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF GARY ELLIS WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 24, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held July 22, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Gary Ellis to construct a facility for minor auto repair associated with a used automobile dealership located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive (Tax Map No. 55.02-2-10.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following condition: (1) There will be no storage of inoperable motor vehicles on the property. 2. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1 acre, as described herein, and located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive (Tax Map Number 55.02-2-10.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I-2, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of Gary Ellis. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly side of Shawnee Drive at the southwesterly corner of Tract "A" as shown on the Map of Fort Lewis Industrial Park which is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke in Plat Book 9, page 202, which comer is also the northwesterly corner of Tract "B"; thence with the southerly line of Tract "A" N. 81° 35' 24" E. 124.75 feet to a point marked by a pin; thence with the property now or formerly owned by Charles L. Whitt, Jr., S. 8° 57' 48" E. 74.29 feet to a point marked by an iron pin; thence N. 82° 07' 16" E. 144.64 feet to a point marked by a pin, corner to the property now or formerly owned by Millard L. Foley; thence with the Foley property S. 8° 40' 44" E. 125 feet to a point marked by an old pinch pipe; thence with a new line through original Tract "B" S. 80° 15' W. 265.92 feet to a point on the easterly side of Shawnee Drive marked by a pin; thence with Shawnee Drive N. 9° 45' W. 206.9 feet to the place of beginning, and containing 1.00 acre of land. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance and approve the special use permit with condition added that there will be no storage of inoperable motor vehicles on the property, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson 2 NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~' Brenda J. Hol on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 T~ \a. R • , rn ~~ \ SOUARE~ PAR ES Uf SO URRRQQQ STATE ~ ~8FA 4E57A . \ PQLIfE. 'O r, ~'f v 9 \~ , L ~' v .. o ~b c-c ~ ~i Tv~ l_E I ~~E ~ 'y~ ipv. FO~7t fa ti~ ~D .IS `FSOp~,~a o tAp-N 5'C >a£~°W d ORT ~~SL~~EWIS r 6~ I NpARXRfAL t S~ GO~x ~~yµpNNOR ~~rR OJT XROGiVP.rr 5 ~~ c ~~ .. _ ~ c~'. _.......--- ~.o ~ .; o . v~l rI1GNL3N0S•~ r a~:a;. ~ QP ~e~vER p 1656. \ ~ _.. _ T- NORTH --- --- L39Ac y s s t . . 3327 3jf ~ ylss ~ w ~ y ~~6 ` jl 6 ~ ~ ~ i J 0 Jsfs. f ' ~ ~ p ~.. •, Y e ~ wd j J~s~ ~i 9 JJG % ~Ofi ~~ `b ~ ~ H ~ Rt. 1210 ~ 2 . is ° F~ L ~~ +.a ~ Cw.+7 Ss~«/ sov+I ./ ~ O See Map 55.10 ~~ ~, ~ •Y ~ .~ „~.~ RwMtI cavwry -" Is• 100 Y +r"1. Ac 38 !9 Ac fly 31AS ., L45Ac fa~..~~cn+~.~r w.c.e.s Mc~n Street `: ~~ 36a 37' 39. 46~ W e ~ ~ o : ~~ ~ Rt ~ o o .~ %~3 r ~. 2 jf~? Z7 J f 12 o , o~ ~~ ~ ,,~ ~` 3f52 1.12 Ac ~- ,~~~ 3306 14 0 6 N7C.' L08Ac ~, ,~ ~,.A3f,2 4 ~~~ 2 's G ~ n ' ~ "" 6n _ 5 3.IIAc Q , SOOAc ,~.,. ~ y ~' 4~ 2.I8 Ae J f f C ~ ~ t 1 X13.1 o It) ~ u+~~ ~ I.OAc 3~ 10 2 J ~.l ~~2 o S.ISAe 'Z " S.91Ae~-•" 2.BbAc335f W = .+•' ~~ -~ / ~~.3S~ Z H / S+B,OCo 233 . - ~ \ ~~ 1 f _~ t ~/ GARY:D, ELLIS _ ~` * DEPARZT~IfSI'!' OF PLA.NNII~G I-2~ TO C-2 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT A.rm zorrlrrc 55.02-2-10.1 .~ .,, ~~ t / ~/ PETITIONER: GARY ELLIS CASE NUMBER: 18-7/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: July 1, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 22, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Gary Ellis to rezone 1.0 acre from I-2 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a facility for minor auto repair, located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to the Commission, Mr. Ellis stated that there will not be any junk cars on the property and no inoperative vehicles will be stored at the site. The cars on this lot will be receiving minor repairs and detailing work only. Mr. Ellis commented that he plans to clean up the brick and block on the lot and make improvements at the site. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker moved that the Commission recommend approval of the rezoning request. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hooker, Robinson, Thomason, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross Ms. Hooker moved that the Commission recommend approval of the Special Use Permit. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hooker, Robinson, Thomason, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other ,-~--~ Terrance Har ' gton, retary Roanoke unty Planning Commission / •- STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: GARY D. ELLIS PREPARED BY: TIM BEARD A. Executive Summary CASE NUMBER: 18-7/97 DATE: JULY 1, 1997 PART I This is a unconditional request to rezone 1.0 acre from I-2 Industrial to C-2 Commercial and obtain a Special Use Permit in order to construct and operate an automobile repair and detailing facility. Single family residential, institutional, general commercial, industrial and undeveloped parcels make up the general area. The proposal includes a 3,000 square foot, one-story metal building (excluding basement) containing limited offices and three detailing/service bays in addition to a small parking area in front of the building and an auto storage area behind the structure. The site is designated Transition and Principal Industrial by the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. B. Description Petition of Gary Ellis to rezone 1.0 acre from I-2 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a facility for minor auto repair, located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. C. Applicable Regulations Minor automobile repair, detailing and associated offices are permitted by right in C-2. Use and design standards include prohibitions on the exterior display of new or used auto parts and on overnight equipment or vehicle storage in front of the building line or within 35 feet of the public right-of-way, whichever is greater. Vehicle storage yards are permitted by Special Use Permit in the C-2 district. Standards include the planting of a 10-foot wide vegetative strip adjacent to any public right-of-way (including a large or small deciduous tree or Large evergreen tree planted each 30 linear feet) within which motor vehicle or auto parts display of storage is prohibited. Also any vehicle storage yard containing automobiles missing major mechanical or body parts or otherwise substantially damaged shall be fully screened from public view and set back at least 100 feet from any adjoining residential district. Commercial entrance permits will be required by VDOT. Site development plans will be reviewed and approved by County staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. ~-/ 2 PART II A. Analysis of Existing Conditions Location: The subject property is situated on the east side of Shawnee Drive, 150 feet south of its intersection with West Main Street. The property is in the Glenvar Planning Area and urban services are available. TopographyNegetation: The site of the proposed project drops considerably north to south. The tract contains mature hardwoods and scrub deciduous vegetation. Also visible is a trailer, discarded drums, a conveyor and a mobile building in addition to abandoned block and other building supplies. Surrounding Neighborhood: In addition to the subject I-2 zoned parcel, vacant I-2 tracts lie to the east and south. A C-2 zoned residence and Whitt Carpet and Tile stand north of the applicant's property. The applicant's existing G&G Car Mart (zoned C-2) and the I-2 zoned Watkins Motor Lines are found across Shawnee Drive. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture: The applicant's proposal includes one 3,000 square foot metal building containing offices and athree-bay garage for detailing and minor automobile repair. The concept plan indicates very limited asphalt-surfaced parking in front of the proposed structure and a graveled auto storage area to the rear of the proposed building with a capacity of approximately 30 vehicles. A stormwater management area is noted in the southeast corner of the parcel. Final design could be of any type permitted by C-2, engineering and building codes. The parking requirements for minor automobile repair call for one space per 200 square feet, plus two spaces per service bay, plus one space per employee on a major shift. Access/Traffic Generation: The applicant's concept plan shows three access points on Shawnee Drive. No VDOT comments were available at the time of preparation of this report. The 1994 ADT count for Shawnee Drive was 146. No accidents have been reported at its intersection with West Main Street since 1995. Staff estimates total traffic generation in the 50 to 100 trip ends per day range including auto repair and related traffic from the applicant's used automobile sales business. Fire & Rescue/Utilities: This area is served by the Fort Lewis station. Emergency vehicle travel time is estimated at four minutes or less. Public water is available to the site via an eight-inch line along the west side of Shawnee. Public sanitary sewer is not available although County records indicate atwo-inch force main running along the east side of Shawnee Drive. Drainage/Floodplain: The southern half of this parcel is shown in FEMA flood zone "X" which refers to a 500-year floodplain and/or a 100-year floodplain with an average depth of less than one foot. County engineers have noted that no adequate discharge point currently exists for stormwater and that it must be conveyed to either the ditch along Shawnee or the existing railway channel. T_ / C. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject tract is designated Transition and Principal Industrial by the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. Both categories discourage general retail development. Although removing this one acre parcel from the County's industrial land inventory, the proposal represents infill commercial and the potential restoration of productive economic use. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD The proposal calls for near maximum allowable development of the subject one-acre parcel. Review and approval of site and building plans, erosion and sediment control and stormwater management will be required. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is inconsistent with both Transition and Principal Industrial designations of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. However, land use impacts on neighboring properties are expected to be manageable. Minor traffic impacts are anticipated. rr '~ " ! Fnr staff use only • COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Or.~. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 date received:' ~~ received by: U.~"~+ application fee: ~ l PCBZA date: '~ // ~ r r T7 ,,, 111 placards issued• l i/7 805 date: f z~ f ~ Case Number: Proposed Zoning: Co ~ /-rt e rC i ~t ~ C ~ ~ l,~ t Foy staff Use Gniy Proposed Land Use:..Zw,a.+f fu 11 y.i/~ q B~'~ /`li~,> . 7`c' C/C /t9/Aar Use Type: ~ 7 y ~i ac!iarr . f•~ cS~/ M S '~ d .y t,, .Zc7t rlcJtiif ~llP Jff«~ I S Ca7~o ~ ~aa„1Q~- ~~C L~7~G~ ~0.~ ~E'~. .................. .... Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, ~viCth, and frontage requirements of the reg,uested dis:ric:? YES jh NO IF N0, A VARI:-.NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. .~/ _-~ Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for t.~= requested Use Type? YES ~~NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. ~1 If rezoning request, are conditions being proffe'ed with this request? YES ~ NO / i, ~~ ~1 X F~Z}f'•Tf V l-f P I i-t 2 k/ t L n 7 ~ !.. ~ l!J"T 2 Y !~ Y I Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in cr;;~r to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclcsed. APPLICATION WILL I~tOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ars v ws v ws v / Consultation / 8 1 /2" x 1 i " concept plan Application fee Application ~~ ~`~: <~' ~ _„etes~nd bounds description : Proffers, if applicable Justification ~%<F Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and cent of tr,e owned A Owner's Signature: ~/~/t~y% ~- ~~~""I J +r. -~ /7~~l~" ~/lam S ~'o ,mil- f j ~e ? v ~, P C7 ~5 a T ~ u ~c Gi S-e / 7L ,~ ~ ~{~ y~ J e ~ i s ~ ~ ,, ~ ,~ « ~; h ~ s ~ w ~, ,~ ~ Gi -:~-•r- h r~ s o ~, ~' ~j Y C tt- !7 ~h~ ~~-~v, % h eve, %h~ ~~vc%~ me:1 t[- c~ 7-~~~5 /~ !-a~«'~y w•%i~it %S oh~y lfJ/)P ~~CI--P L+/ a u l~~ ~ C! (~ c' ~'O / JvtP j-O (/e / l2 Q ~ 0 nl h7 C-L j•1 /r~-/y r .,1- 7L .L l7 4 ~ S' /~ /~ ~rC~ i C( C' o h S 7 !- u c ~ i d n ~ br .~, ~o S i 7~ ~ ?~ 0 1v C-•i'.-J ~ ~J ~~ S ~v <• ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 9J~ ~' P h ~ P c7 /-,l , ,~~ ~ ~,' s c, n~~ Gr l7 u.S u / i-e ~~ a 7~r i- ~ « ~ C o [. e <-- ~"h t e e /=our-f h ~•z v ~' ~h e ~o ~ ~ 7~ ,~ r~ -.r ~ i ~ t~ o [~ ~~ ,~ E C /ear ~ c~' y~ _L h ~`t a~ ~a ./J C~c / lu ~ f~/ i G 2 /lam' ~ ~/ U f(~[> ~G1 ~T~2'' ~ ~9~5 ~ cr h 6 g hJ :f Ci f ~ i~ ~ / Kj hri Gt G~ d 6f~ h P<;,/, /7 ~ ~ C' ~rJ' J~"~~ G- /~ P S ~ /7« ~ ~ ~!i~/~oc~ ~o' tQ h P G/// 7' ~' /' ~ ~. ~Jj P ~r `s 9 Gf ~ /~/ ~`-! i ti~ H-v ~ /off as ~ ram % ~~f a ~ - ~ ~~, p ~ ~ o <- ~ ~- ~GI ~ 7` h ~ 1 ~c L~~' , • i• • ., _ ~ ,/ U ~. ~ ,-~ ~ •, - - l ~ . fi-p` ~ D -~ ...ts-•'"" ~ }~- TO S`411..Ep10•. • ....~_ ~ a ~. ~ o .. _ .~' r ~N_ 6i f .. `` ~ W ~ ~ 1 W 2 __-__-....." .L~ .,` .` VECItVfTY l~AA~ SCALE 1~ = 200 • T- / j Graphic I .__. Consultants ~ DESIGNED REVIEWED AS NOTE D SCALE DRAWN DATE 5- I S " $7 '' ~ JEM ~ APPROVED CHECr ED COMM. NO. ~ REFERENCE ~ ~ ~! AUTO MART SUB T17LE CATAWBA MAG. DISTRICT i j ROANOKE CO. ~ YA. fi -- !I '~ PERMANENT FILE NO. ~ . f f DWG ` . .OF 1 1 • C, • o w W O' Z as 3 H 4 ~ V ~ D Z - Z w ~ w v ~ = a ~ O a o Z - N a W J W tJ > ~ 6 0 ? O ~ > m w o ~ a = ~_,~ N W O w i J ~ ~O F Q N p ~ Q O 0 Q ~ tp N a a 3 a O LL~ n ¢ a I O O \an aQ I f ~n = J o ~ ¢ _. _. ~ .-• O 1 = ~ a z Z J ~ a m Q ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ w G Z L~. F- ~ O a ~ ~ W ~ W 4 ~ O a ~ a ~ O - ~! dS a ~ .a z agi ~ ~ Z I ~ S •~` ~ ~ J W 1- W 3 ,O,AA W .t ` t1 ~ N r ~ S`. ` i ~ S 1 ,o o '~ t J mZ ~ ~+` t i I I t~ O~ . U N~ I 1 1 Q OQ! ~i..'1' E II ~N ~rI :a' O ~. w : X ~ o ~ ~ }.,':.d. 1 ova M v:~~ :, ~~ ~~ ~r ~a.. 1N3W3Sy3 07dt/ ~S~ ~~ ;~~'" ~'~?•=•'td ;,~ _~..:yf~rr. 4~ ~ -_ W J a ._ .J _._ '! ~ 1 ' • ' ~~-- - --`- W 1 vi ~ ' l ~ +, ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ; . , ' ~. ~ ~~~f~ 1 I f 1' j' 1 ~ ' i I E ~ 1d I ~ :~ I ~: i I ~ ~ N 1 ~I~ ~ ~ I r ~ ~ l ac ~ ~'., i _ :: ' ~ I . 1ZQQ ~ ?I; ~.~;~ V ~ '! S 1 t a. •~ :)- . ~ t ~I . ~~ x .~'~ 1 ~; ' ~ ; ~ ~ `. r- t -~ } ~+ I J N I 7 N w ~ Q O ~ N a m z n ' J J } ~ _ ~aQ a~~ W a a 0 N N O Wr r: W~ tr v Z O • s 'r _ LL ~ F z ~ ~ ?- ~ ,O ' :Q . W a I ~ / O z a a f X a . _~ ~~~ L39Ac y ~ ~e , 3J11 331 ~ ~~t ~ '° 3~ 33-s ~ ~ io i' '' 'J r , ; ~ ~ ,>> i JJJ~ (7 3309 ~ ~~ Le. y ~ e ~ ~ Rt. 1210 f~» 2 is '~ 3=J399 ~~o •~ ~ ~ '~i ~ ~~'• ~~ 39 7~ fdt3o L' b s.s ~ Cw.~) J~CIM/ /as/ N m O See Map 55.10 ~, ~, ~ `",34i ,,~9 RMMII c.n,r, -" i"^ 100' ~ ~ ~Yy "~ +~.o~ac 38 (/_!9~ iJJs 343 „ t.45Ae f~Tl..:r f/~.,~r~.) R.c%z Mo~~ Street 33 J,1- ~~"'a~ Wes t `: '~ 36a 37 " 39. 460 c IAOAe S3 ~ ~ o ~ 32 ,~ Rt , ~ & R n1 N o ; J,s•~ ~ 3JJ~ .'c 1 ~ c i /~ JJ~2 Z~ (/ 3J70 ~,'i7 JJ/2 ' ~ Cg2 Iolaccol LZx ~ 1 ~ I ~~ 1 ,,~ '` JJEZ L12Ac ~t ~.~~ ~ ~C ~oeac 336 14 0 : y , ~-.. ~~•~3iJ1 4 ~ ~ 2 a `~ ~ ~ "" 6 5 3.IIAc a ~` S.oOAc ~sG Z ~' ~ ~~~ 2.isac 3JJC t e n - X13.1 trl 2 ~ r'~ ~ 1 I.OAc 3~ 10 J n(~ , \ ~~Z Q S.ISAe 1 ~ ~• ;~ ~-Z t ~- ~\ '2 - ~. o '~, 1 5.91A~~~ 2.B6Ac 3~ ~ ,.,~ ~ _~ ,+ JJ M / y.a,aoo ••Y / i ZSJ~ ._ f ~ %~ GARY D. ELLIS ~* DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING I-2 TO C-2 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT Arm zoNrNC 55.02-2-10.1 .~ ,,, T- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FACILITY FOR MINOR AUTO REPAIR ON A 1-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 3300 BLOCK OF SHAWNEE DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 55.02-2-10.1) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF GARY ELLIS WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 24, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held July 22, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Gary Ellis to construct a facility for minor auto repair located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive (Tax Map No. 55.02-2-10.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved. 2. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1 acre, as described herein, and located in the 3300 i / '~ block of Shawnee Drive (Tax Map Number 55.02-2-10.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I-2, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of Gary gllis. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly side of Shawnee Drive at the southwesterly corner of Tract "A" as shown on the Map of Fort Lewis Industrial Park which is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke in Plat Book 9, page 202, which corner is also the northwesterly corner of Tract "B"; thence with the southerly line of Tract "A" N. 81° 35' 24" E. 124.75 feet to a point marked by a pin; thence with the property now or formerly owned by Charles L. Whitt, Jr., S. 8° 57' 48" E. 74.29 feet to a point marked by an iron pin; thence N. 82° 07' 16" E. 144.64 feet to a point marked by a pin, corner to the property now or formerly owned by Millard L. Foley; thence with the Foley property S. 8° 40' 44" E. 125 feet to a point marked by an old pinch pipe; thence with a new line through original Tract "B" S. 80° 15' W. 265.92 feet to a point on the easterly side of Shawnee Drive marked by a pin; thence with Shawnee Drive N. 9° 45' W. 206.9 feet to the place of beginning, and containing 1.00 acre of land. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\ELLIS.FRM 1 '~-- i AT A REGULAR. MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FACILITY FOR MINOR AUTO REPAIR ASSOCIATED WITH A USED AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON A 1-ACRE TRACT ©F REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 3300 BLOCK OF SHAWNEE DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 55.02-2-10.1) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF GARY ELLIS WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 24, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held July 22, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit -to Gary Ellis to construct a facility for minor auto repair associated with a used automobile dealership located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive (Tax Map No. 55.02-2-10.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved. 2. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1 acre, as described herein, and located in the 3300 Y ~ • block of Shawnee Drive (Tax .Map Number 55.02-2-10.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I-2, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of Gary Ellis. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly side of Shawnee Drive at the southwesterly corner of Tract "A" as shown on the Map of Fort Lewis Industrial Park which is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke in Plat Book 9, page 202, which corner is also the northwesterly corner of Tract "B"; thence with the southerly line of Tract "A" N. 81° 35' 24" E. 124.75 feet to a point marked by a pin; thence with the property now or formerly owned by Charles L. Whitt, Jr., S. 8° 57' 48" E. 74.29 feet to a point marked by an iron pin; thence N. 82° 07' 16" E. 144.64 feet to a point marked by a pin, corner to the property now or formerly owned by Millard L. Foley; thence with the Foley property S. 8° 40' 44" E. 125 feet to a point marked by an old pinch pipe; thence with a new line through original Tract "B" S. 80° 15' W. 265.92 feet to a point on the easterly side of Shawnee Drive marked by a pin; thence with Shawnee Drive N. 9° 45' W. 206.9 feet to the place of beginning, and containing 1.00 acre of land. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. C:\OFFZCE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\ELLIS.FRM w M }' _.. ) r ! -• AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE 072297-8 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CAVE SPRING BAPTIST CHURCH TO EXPAND THE EXISTING FACILITY LOCATED AT 4873 BRAMBLETON AVENUE (TAX MAP NO. 86.12-3-4), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Cave Spring Baptist Church has filed a petition to expand the existing facility located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue (Tax Map No. 86.12-3-4) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on June 24, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on July 22, 1997. 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 expand the existing facility located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue (Tax Map No. 86.12-3-4) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following condition: (1) A swale shall be constructed along the western property line to direct stormwater into a detention facility. ~~ i° NORTH 1 M_71/! / / ~~ ~ 4 IIeI K free •. frn J 17 + fru ,1 • • ~ •ut ~ 4 • ~ ~ ~ Is '-/o"'"` l ~• ~/: ~ ~I •.f, ~.• ~ of l7~ 9''t~ ~ ~ ,/e~ ~ ~ s ~r. •rM ~ / '1 • ~ ~`~ rr z ~ p~ '~ . rwr a`o r'' / ~•' ,s'p'a I'-~ A/ / O ~ \ ~ ~ ~, 1 ra 33 2 ar ~ ~p°~ ~ \. .~ ~ 17 I %~ •• 4' ' nff ~ / 1 25 u ~ i 23 1 f • ~{y~' - .r.~ ~ ~ 11 r / l w.e JrI^I M / br [wwrw s' 19 Y x f +r ~~ Ri, O~y Z 1 .e ae n.. n ~ .a w _ ~ / ~ 1~~' ~`Rl ee9 ~ Ne.f lore-ROOA ^ ~ e. ~ ~ 1 s.el we ` / 4 }~ \ Y n S ' utf ~ uu ]9 . \ • ~a K I ~ 1 ~ 1= x b ~ Sao K f •~ uN i ~ ~ ~. ( ~ _ / \ .'+ f'e•+y r ~ n \ - I I I I I I 1' 1 a a ftn i 3 R. n 1 / Ga.wma a ~ 16 e , ~ fe 3e .. a ~ Y sn.r we.f ~ I , I ~ „ ,n ~ nc ~ c ~~ 17 ~ 4 _ f _ _ _ _ _~ • OI 3 a i ° 5 9 t -r ru rr /`'~ ~ a.. tr:wf swrw cw.rw / \\ foer~ 7 t ` ~ r f , , .. 9 O \ 12 ~ O } ~ff + } ', / / \ \ \ \ 33 i t to q: ' ° ~ / ~/ \ - • !.' ) /V` ~ J \ 1 ` '°\ ••Of.wV e~~r ~ {, ~~ Ci ~ N/ /e/r Lwwq\ ! 1214 f / / Cm Jr.^s\ Jrwiwr M.M Stwwl \. \ \\ ' \ q~ "\)' \ ~ f, V / . 6• . '~^oa \vy e,~ less / // I pes "b 2'I ' ~ .>'~ M to i J~ ~~ +-~ / ~ A.rG uu s~ rS„ •. / / z + LtlK •••IB H^' / T C..ary Jew«//rw/d •tff i ~ D 3DO.e ( / ~ ~ i.el fe Nr ~ / .CGt1 \ ~ G^+)SeMVIA+sId ~.n ~ // .iw+r C'arrq /~ C~, ~°S / ~,dx. ,~ '~'~.~` . CAVE SPRING BAPTIST CHURCH _ >• DEPAP,TMF~~1'I' OF PLP1~tNIhG SPECIAL USE PERMIT ,; -~ ~'-~ zotvzNG 86.12-3-4. .I. t. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Holto ,Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 PETITIONER: CAVE SPRING BAPTIST CHURCH / 'r CASE NUMBER: 19-7/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: July 1, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 22, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Cave Spring Baptist Church for a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Homer Duff, Deacon at Cave Spring Baptist Church, spoke in favor of the special use permit. Pastor Rick Elmore addressed Commission discussion about scheduling of activities at the family life center. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Witt asked staff to clarify buffer yard distance at western property line. Mr. Thomason asked about stormwater management and the capacity of an existing drainage pipe. Mr. Jeff Parkhill, architect for the petitioner, responded that the new stormwater detention facility would be designed to release no more water than is currently passing through the pipe. Mr. Witt asked whether activities at the family life facility would attract students from Cave Spring Junior High School. Mr. Witt also suggested the following condition: a swale shall be constructed along the western property line to direct stormwater to the detention facility. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. A swale shall be constructed along the western property line to direct stormwater into a detention facility. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason moved that the Commission recommend approval of the special use permit with the recommended condition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hooker, Robinson, Thomason, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance Harr gton, S retary Roanoke C my Planning Commission • STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Cave Spring Baptist Church CASE NUMBER: 19-7/97 PARTI • A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T- ~ PREPARED BY: David Holladay DATE: 7/1/97 Th~~.~s.a xeq~estfor ~;~pec~a~ ~se;Permi€.tg.expand a fac~~ty.far~el~g;nus.a~sem~~y . Thy prQPvsed.~xpa~~an ~s.IocaYed ©~.a.predominantiy c©mmerclat ~~g~~uay,.;eomd~~ and ~s adlaeent lro resx~ent~a~:.neighborho~d~.....'I~e request ~~. ~onslstent. wrth the D~ve~opment. fan use,~es~gzzataor~;of thq.,Rc~n~ke ~~unty comprehensive Plan; B. DESCRIPTION Cave Spring Baptist Church plans to construct a 23,700+ square foot expansion of the facility. Part of the expansion, a 9,400 square foot family life center, would be built on church-owned property which is zoned R1 Residential. Religious facility expansion of this scale in the R1 zoning district requires a special use permit. Since there is a life lease estate on the residential property, the church decided to apply for a special use permit to build in the R1 zoned property, rather than rezone the property to C 1. Another part of the expansion is a 14,266 square foot education addition. The education addition is an expansion in the C1 zoning district, and is permitted by right. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site plan review is required. In the R1 zoning district, a special use permit is required for major expansion of religious assembly. PART II C~ A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Location -The church is located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Topographv/Vegetation - In the late 1980s, the church built a new sanctuary and expanded their parking areas. The south parking lot and the existing structures are slightly elevated above Brambleton Avenue. The southwest corner of the property is a grassed area with a picnic shelter and playground. Behind the church, the topography drops down to the western property line at the bottom of a short wooded slope. The trees on the slope were left intact to serve as landscape screening for the previous expansion. The adjoining residential yards have a gradual slope up 7 ~- toward the houses, which are situated at approximately the same elevation as the church. From the entrance driveway at Roselawn Road, the property slopes down to the western property line. • The adjoining property is zoned R1, and slopes up toward the existing residence. Several large deciduous trees and a row of cedar trees exist on the residential property. The north parking lot is on a lower grade than the church, and is level with Brambleton Avenue. The remainder of the property slopes gradually down to the north, through grass fields, toward the intersection of Roselawn Road and Brambleton Avenue. Surrounding Neighborhood -Adjoining and nearby properties to the southwest, west and north are zoned R1 with single family residences. Cave Spring Junior High School is across Brambleton Avenue on property zoned C 1. Vacant frontage property to the south, across Rosecrest Road, is zoned C 1. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture -The education addition is a one and two story structure to be built on the northwest side of the existing church. It contains classroom space for both the existing day care center and Sunday school classes. The church plans to relocate the existing day care center into the new addition. The day care classrooms will also be used for Sunday school classes. Attached to the north side of the education addition will be the family life addition. It contains a gymnasium and fellowship hall, weight room, and space for other indoor activities. The first floor of the family life addition will be on a lower grade than the first floor of the education addition. A majority of the family life addition will be built across a common property line, and into the R1 zoning district. The education addition will be entirely within the C 1 zoning district. Due to the proposed location and floor elevation of the additions, some of existing vegetation along the western side of the property will be removed during construction. Required buffer yards and screening would be installed along the western property line. Some of the parking areas will be reconfigured and expanded. The parking area to the west of the sanctuary will be lost to new construction. Eight-five new parking spaces will be added to the north side of the existing parking area, for a net gain of 42 parking spaces. A stormwater detention pond is shown on the north side of the site. Roanoke County engineering staff have noted that flooding problems exist downstream, and that stormwater management will need to be addressed during site plan review. Access -Access to the property will continue via existing entrances on Rosecrest Road, Roselawn Road,. and Brambleton Avenue. An interior driveway which connects the two main parking areas will be relocated and reconfigured for one-way traffic only. Traffic Circulation - Impacts to traffic on Brambleton Avenue should be minimal. The proposed parking lot expansion will provide a net gain of 42 spaces. No expansion to the sanctuary seating capacity is planned. The use of the day care center and the family life addition would not be. simultaneous with peak use of the sanctuary. 1996 VDOT traffic counts for this section of U.S. 221 are 20,000 vehicles per day. f n e. The im act on fire and rescue res o s Fire & Rescue/LTt~l~ties -The proposed expansion has no p p site is currently served by public water and sanitary sewer. . C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The request conforms with the Development land use designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Community activity centers, such as churches, are desirable land uses within the Development areas. Policy D-7 encourages development of "activity centers of schools, churches, parks & recreation facilities that benefit new community residents." D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Major expansion of religious assembly in the Rl zoning district requires a Special Use Permit. Site plan review is required, and stormwater management will be necessary to account for increased runoff from new development. The property appears to have ample space to conform with applicable design standards. PART III A. 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 design standards of the zoning ordinance. No negative impacts are anticipated. • • • COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard tOr.~_. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540' 77z-2os8 FA ; (540 ~ 772-2 ~ 08 For staff use only J.~I~ date rec v ,- received application (ee• PC/BZA da' placards is O date: Case Number: / -. Y Check type of application filed (check all that ~?~ly): ^ REZONING ~ SPECIAL USc ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: Hughes Associates Architects 540Phone: 342-4002 Address: Zip Code: 24005-1 0 P•O, Box 1034 Roanoke VA , , A ent Owner's name: Cave Spring Baptist Church ~ Phone: 989-61 36 Address: 4873 Brambelton Ave. , SW, Roanoke, VA Zip Code:2401 8 Location of property: I Tax Map Number: 86.1 2,r3-4 51 48 Roselawn Road ,,;agisterial District: Windsor Hills Community Planning Area: Windsor Hills Size of parcel (s): existing Zoning: R-1 1 .08 acres Existing Land Use: Residential sq.ft. ...., L may! a t: .; .~ . t ~.. ~.~ ... - f Proposed Zoning: jZ_1 ~r staf7 Use G.-iy Proposed Land Use: Religious Assembly use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, 4v:~;.`~, and frontage requirements of the requested cis;-;~;? ~ NO IF N0, A V~;=:.=.'~iCE lS REQUIRED FIRST. YES _ Does the parcel meat the minimum critera ,... :'_ requested Use Type? YES ~/ _ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being prc~'=~_~ with this request? Y~S NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance ir: crier ;;,: Is the application complete? Please check if e-c'csed. APPLICATION WILL htOT EE ACCEPTED IF r,,\Y OF THCSc ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPL=T~. ws v ws v ws v Consultation ~ 8 1 /2" x i i' concept plan Application fee Application Metes anc bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water anc sewer application N Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of tie property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and copse of t.^e owner. ~ ~ ~~ ~`~~~ ~ w~`~ Owner's Signature: 4 f~~ Staff Use Only: Case Number ~:~~~~ ~~l~ T `~~~~~'~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :~~ : •':l'. ' ~ ~ ;A fill`. .. . ~pplicant D JEFr~~-[ Qp2-K.1-'~1i,1~ A i/~ }~~X/{t~ES- ,p~~;pGi/~~~ P.~ZG't-t~T~C i5 '~t-O~- C.~ vE S i'c? i ,~ G~ P~ A ~T I S' ~ C t-k-u ~C t-} ' The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need anc justification for the change in terms of public heals;~, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the fellc~::ing questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furhers the purpos.s of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as t`~e purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning districrclassification in the zoning ordinance. This project is an expansion to an existing religious assembly facility located on 8.1 acre C-1 site and a 1.0 acre R-1 site. This request is for a special use permit to allow the expansion of the facility across the common C-1/R-1 property line. The proposed expansion will contain approximately 23,700 SF in a 2 story structure to house classrooms for the existing daycare and a family life center. This facility is a continuation of a long time existing use which is and has been harmonious with the community. Special use permit is being requested in lieu of rezoning due to a life lease estate on the subject property. Please explain how the project conforms to the ger:=ral guidelines and policies contained in the Roane~a C~ur,ty omprehensive Plan. Religious assembly facilities are permitted by the ordinance by special use permit and is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. The church has been at this location since 1954, before many of the adjoining neighborhoods. The visual mass of the building will not change for the adjoining neighbors or from Brambleton Avenue. Flease describe the impacts} of the request on t~~e rropery itself, the adjeining properies, and the s::r;cu-.cing area, as well as the impacts on public services ar,c facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. This project will have minimal impact on the adjoining properties with regard to water, sewer, schools or fire rescue. Traffic will not be affected during peak hours. Additional on site parking is planned to expand parking and replace parking lost to the expansion. Adequate land is available for on site storm water detention and open green space and buffers. Type C buffer yards are planned between the existing C-1 lot and the adjoining R-1 neighbors. . ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' o ~ \ ~ ~ a- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ \ Q ry \ ~ ~ \ \ `` ' '~ c \ c- o~ ~\, ~'. i . o \ V v ° ° ~~ `' ~ ~ ~ , 2 o ~ ~ 1~ , . V O _ ~Z ~ ~ \~ \tY~ ~ ~ ~o ~\~g ~ ~~ ~y~~'~, J ~ .~ \~ o \ ^;~ ~ y ~N~d~O ~~ \ / \ Z // J~~! / sr \\ 3/~ ~ 2 _ k Y r ., \ N i ~.,.. ~ ~ \ ~~ / ~ i Zo ~ u ~ o ~ZO ~ °.. ~ 2 ~., 0~. °~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~-- 10' O.E• ,~6 ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ v::l: ~: ~\ o':; O "~ ~J~ Z~ Z~~` /$0 ~~ ~OL1i ~~ i Z i ~ // /~ ___ Z 'a v' f/~~ ~J 1 I 1 ~' J v V Q 1 ~ 1 ,0Q ! ~ ~ '- ~ 1 1 I 1 ~--- .. ~~ _ ~. ~ ~.~ ~.1 U , ~ i m V 'L Z tf y ih~t I~ 'Q V ~.t I ~~ ~~ h ~ .-~°" ~~ wet D. ~ ye M l/ I. ., lre e I 1? a „~? ~ . ,/T~ el,. .y '~ +: ~ r9 , w~ wee b N = _ ~. = a j ~ ~ 20 e eerl ylI - fe •~ ~Rl iJt9 ~~ Ree.l .. a~e~Read ~~ ~ ,----, -- - - .,,,e .~ _ ~ ,~ _ _- i~ ;~ _~- I / ,d'1e per ti~ Iw~ ' / 1 9 • // '~~ .• SM 7 J A/ zso •< 3.2 ~ e+ e'er! F-"' I •.~jP°~ * •y~ s i ~ ~ .- ~ ~ li \ ~e.l s >" ~a.. f W \ Y 16 .+or e / io.re» • vo . s.nx se .. a: ~ es 1 i 1 5 f' ` pel~ e un s..:.e ir:ee wrr. / \\ 7. tte ~~ ~ t ~ 3 \ / \ \ ~ !6 2.R /a (4/ / \\ t Rr. I ~ 9 / c.., sr.v \ \ ~ \ 4 ac~z •,a. ROj•c, by ,, _~ ? ~ • ~ eje °+ T ; ~ N.es ti v e. o ,~ -° ~e. +~P e~ ^b 2:1 e~ us es uw P°'•• ~\ J~ ~ 2 .~., ~ ...le ` ~ l3! K .).e I rco.. / / ~ // , / ~ / ~~ Is ee / // .teed poeecrejl ' `~ Roes ~1 . ,1 3/ti ,, 1 ~ I / ~~ - ~ ..19~ ^\I ~ ~ •: r.... ~ ' ..G •r,. ./ r / wd w ~ ~ N..n.., aM7 .ecet w /% caw~se.aeleessd 'b.n ~ .M..e. q.wq .i°d`~, - e e° ~ DEPAP.~~IT OF PLP1\1NING P.ND ZONING CAVE SPRING BAPTIST CHURCH SPECIAL USE PERMIT 86.12-3-4. ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CAVE SPRING BAPTIST CHURCH TO EXPAND THE EXISTING FACILITY LOCATED AT 4873 BRAMBLETON AVENUE (TAX MAP N0. 86.12-3-4), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Cave Spring Baptist Church has filed a petition to expand the existing facility located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue (Tax Map No. 86.12-3-4) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on June 24, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on July 22, 1997. 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 expand the existing facility located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue (Tax Map No. 86.12-3-4) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Compre- hensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following condition: (1) A swale shall be constructed along the western property i~ line to direct stormwater into a detention facility. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\CAVE.SP C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\CAVE.SP a - illilllilllillllllllllitilllllilllllllllilllllllllilillllllllilllllllllllllllllllllililllllllllll111111111111111111111111111111I1,1) s ~ •~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~_ AGENDA ITEM NO. % Z" ,_. ,~ ~. _ APPE CE REQUEST -_ -_ _ ~~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS __ _. _, SUB CT: I would like the Chairman of the Board of Su ervisors to reco nize me during the .. p g ,= meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. „= WHEN CALLED TO TKE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED ,= BELOW: ,- ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will _ decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, _ and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - _~ - ~- a ~ ^ . Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. o _. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized s w speaker and audience members is not allowed. _. .. s ^ Bath speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. -- ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments = with the clerk. __ a s _ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK e s ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ v~ ~~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~~ s ~ at ~~ ~~ ~_ ~IIIIIIIII[tllilllllilllllllllllllllilllll 11 l Illlllllllllillilllllllltllillllllllitlllllllillllliillllltlllllllllliliillliiillllim Illlliiillllillllillilillllliilllllllililllilililllllllllllllllll11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111iltlllillllll,(,u ~.. _ ~, s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.= AGENDA ITEM NO. Z ,._ .. -- - ,_ _ APPE CE REQUEST :_ ~_ _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ~_ SUBJECT: /fit. l~ G/~V ~ 'mil Ll l~ lil (~j,~,PTI~~ 1` 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. ,, _ WREN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ~-- -_ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will _ ~~- decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - _ - ~- i ~ ^ 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 s speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~.~ a rr~ _ a ^ 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. s ~~ ~w ~~ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP '° SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FRDM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK e ~- -- _ _ i ~~ ~ ~~ i /~~ s ~ ~~ - _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~IlllillliilIII[f[Ililllllllillllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliliilllllillillllllllifllillllllllilllllllllllllllliliillllm T- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE 072297-9 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SARA COLE AND KIT DAVIS TO ALLOW A NEW PRIVATE KENNEL TO BE LOCATED AT 1529 DALMATIAN DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 36.03-1-30), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Sara Cole and Kit Davis have filed a petition to allow a new private kennel to be located at 1529 Dalmatian Drive (Tax Map No. 36.03-1-30) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on June 24, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on July 22, 1997. 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 Sara Cole and Kit Davis to allow a new private kennel to be located at 1529 Dalmatian Drive (Tax Map No. 36.03-1-30) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) That the private kennel permit shall be for a maximum of six dogs. (2) That the kennel permit shall be issued for a one year period. (3) A kennel silencer shall be installed in any outdoor pen or run constructed to confine the animals. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance and approve the special use permit as amended by Supervisor Eddy to permit six dogs instead of four, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: tn~- Brenda J. Holt ,Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 ,`~P~ A }d78 61 2.52 Ac ~.-1 "~1u ~~ ~ i~~a ~1 ~ 53 `G 389AC ~~~o ~w 14n ~~Ro_d __ ~~o ~` ~~~ O 140 C~ o~~/ ~~ e 9' ' 3~ • IlGb o rs NORTH -~-- . ~ .22 / r \ 1.93Acld ~ ~ ~'~t ~ \ L67AdC) ~ ~o~ ~ ~O / / i ~ X24 ~- ~ ~°l x.02, c y 2Ae ~° \ 1 1331 ~ /~ o4 ~ ~ p °~ J . ~ ~ ~ 25 ~ 1 ti J ~ / ? s ti i .a 5 '(~ ~ 1y65 ~ ` >• '' ~ JI o}!11 26 1.08Ae Iy p `yb ~ ~ ~ 56 / 77 l 8 ~~ e / 'r ~ 2 ,: OIAe `y5~ Q-~' >B' 16 s s i v _\Iq?~ S e ^ ~ ,. ~ _ ti646 ~~ 3 ~ " 42 1 Woeds ~ ~~ s ~ e 4 ~ G ~~ Leur• s.~~ c1~e ~°?~ done ~ i ~ '' /e/z ~ M09 °' : s..« W.n ~ ° R 1 777 9J~ `'~ Q'~ ,I/ ~ b y '? / ; ~ ~ y r, ~ " L o/ Ook rDrlva Ext. 1 I ~ 2 s 55 ~ i ~ 6D 4 11.47 Ac10) /3S8/ 13.85 adU _ 32.22 Ac ~ 33J ° ,`TJ~ / \~ O AC ~ 32 \'~ 54 Q~~ ~ ~2C8Ac ' ~-' ~ ~ 6.70 ac ....~~' 1 U / 1309 ~ 1311 1313 Common.d°/!h of Virg/n/o 32 34 .t ~ ~ ~8, 39 ~ 264 Ac 6.75 Ad D) /3.9< Tr. o/dN 5.31 AcIC) ~r Sd"m Par'ci w ~d ~.00 Ac ?~ 40 '' j 1.06 Ac 14J0 1337 /J~ ~ .76 1.36 Ac 42,E t~l 43 42.1 ~. ~ R°~ SARA COLE & KIT DAVIS DEPARTMF1ti'T OF PLPNNIF~'G SPECIAL USE PERMIT A~TD ZorrlrrG 36, 03-1-30 ,' ' PETITIONER: SARA COLE & KIT DAVIS CASE NUMBER: 23-7/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: July 1, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 22, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Sara Cole and Kit Davis for a Special Use Permit to allow a new private kennel, located at 1529 Dalmatian Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Several citizens who reside in the adjacent subdivision expressed the following concerns: existing loud barking and dogs running loose in the neighborhood. These dogs are from a home other than the site of the proposed kennel. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Witt stated that if dogs from other homes are currently running loose in the neighborhood, that this is a problem that animal control should address. He advised the neighbors that the applicants can have two dogs by right with no restrictions on noise. The issuance of the Special Use Permit for the private kennel, would allow more dogs, but compliance with noise and other standards would be easier to enforce. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. That the private kennel permit shall be for a maximum of four dogs. 2. That the kennel permit shall be issued for a one year period. 3. A kennel silencer shall be installed in any outdoor pen or run constructed to confine the animals. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker moved that the Commission recommend approval of the Special Use Permit with the recommended conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hooker, Robinson, Witt NAYS: Thomason ABSENT: Ross F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE Mr. Thomason stated that he did not believe that the Commission should take action on a request where the applicant or their representative was not present to present and explain their petition. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance Ha gton, cretary Roanoke ounty PI nning Commission STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Sara Cole and Kit Davis CASE NUMBER: 23-7/97 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B. DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY: LEE GARMAN DATE: JUNE 24, 1997 T Petition of Sara Cole and Kit Davis to receive a Special Use Permit in order to be allowed to keep more than two (2) dogs in an R-1 District. The petitioners, who are moving to this address, currently have three (3) Golden Retrievers and would like to keep a maximum of ten (10) dogs. Exterior runs are planned to be located behind the dwelling and greater then 25 ft from any adjoining property. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 30-82-4 of the Zoning Ordinance general 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) from any property line. For purposes of this section, perimeter fencing of a yard shall not be considered a confined area. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Location -The subject property is a 3.5 acre parcel located at 1529 Dalmatian Drive, in the Catawba Magisterial District and the Peters Creek Planning District. Togogi•aghv/Vegetation -Property is bounded by heavily wooded areas across Dalmatian Drive, in the rear and on the west sides. Surrounding Neighborhood -The subject property is one of three single family residences on Dalmatian Drive. Each property having 3 or more acres. A VDOT maintenance facility is located behind the property. ' APR 28'97 10 23 FR UPS NEWPORT NEWS CSC 757 591 6182 TO 915407746396 .. F II..F No . 478 Qdf25 ' 97 09 =53 I D =1'YCB REAL.T~S 5407746396 APR-25-97 FR1 08c50 •. ' A L • • ~ Op ~/p(,~g~~~ FAX H0. 7037771108 Gou~lTY of ROA~1oKE DEPT. OF PLANNit~tG ANfl ZON1Nt~ 520ti Bsrnard Or.• . P.O, tiax 25800 Kn~lrtoKe, YA 24018 { §!~d' ?72dfl68 FAX (Srl~- 772~21G8 P.05 Pty P. 03 5 u~ : ~/z~/r~~, iar staff usr on/v j1- ~ n S/~ ~ l ~ ~ date r~cw.d: l.c 'wd DY: z~ aPP~~u t PC 2A asa: , •C° yU '7 i 9 Lid: f {R plpC•~ gds ~ 2 ~ , ~ .~ ` NN ~• (~~ ~~ ~ .. j _ _ _ chi typ. of appncatlar, fi>ed tchacic aq that ~ovtvl: C7 REZON1hiG ~ SP~ClAt_ USF O VARIANCE Ap~CCSnt's r,artze: >'honQ: Addtoa.s: S~ -~ ; ~,1 ~~~5 ZJp Code: . (G.. ~• r4nA ' Ptwrte: 7S7 Qwttar's rwtlle: ~ ~ /7 ~r~n'`crr ~lo~ ~ZJS r Address: ~/~ ~~. ~ ~/l~. Y..~.GI.Gh- V'~1- 23~s1 Zip Coda; .~~`f-J l.E~- Location Of IirOp4RY~. Tax Map Number: ) ~, r V ~ - ~ r"` 28 bEa~MA~~ot[~A~.~/>E 1 5 Magisterial plstrict.: CrfjTAw /3a , ` V4 ~/5 3 ~sN~ i . ~ Convnuntty ptanning Area: j~~t~s C,eFc-~ Size of parcel (al: F_xistinQ 2onirlfl: " ~ 3.5 acres EYlstl~9 Land Use: sq.ft. ,. r r 1 Pte ssd 7cnirp: • +a+*s s e'»~~ `~~t'O''d tSN~*.~i. ~+•.:•S +~+'~ for sort oar o.,rr ~~ ~n. ,r Prapaaed Laid Use: • y.S ~ u.. Trvo~ D ~ l o .>C>1N>r, Daes tJ`-a pare meat the rrtintrnum bt stns, wiC~, and frontage ragtdraments of tt-s rQgc:astad district? YES ~~ NO 1F N0, A VARt.:~lC>< 1S REQUIRED FlRST. Dons the paced meet Sho tTlirtimum criteria tar ,fie rtauastsd Usa Type? YES NO 1F N0. A VARIANCI: IS Rt:4UIRED FIRST. Jf rezanJnq requs,st, an conditions bang prof;ared wfth this request? YE.S NO y~riance of Ssctioatsl of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordin3nt2 !n order to: -- I~z9 • oa1~.4+-rw t~ jp ~er~ i//1. Li~~< Is Zha application cetttplote7 Pigase chock it ~nctosed. APPI.ICATiON W1l.t, NOT Bfi ACCEPTED 1F ANY 4F 1"1•ifSr~ t7ENIS ARE MISSINL3 OR INCOMPLETE. . ~ v ~.: v ~ v Cansultaticn 8 ~/Z" x 1 ~" cancspt plan ADAlication fee AppJ'catien Metes and bounds doacripiren Praffors, if iQplicsba• JusCficatiarl Water end stover sppJlestien Adjoining prepesty owne / hua0y cent/1y that ! am e~7hei the ownai o/ the ~~vpaty of t/:e owners aflarzt oi. canuact Owe/taser and arrr ~clrng w+rth the lrnawledpa and eorrsfc~o/ the owner, . Ownar't SigtNWrQ: pplicant For S(aN Use Only: Case Number ~~ :::::f ::::.: : :::. ::::: 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 folle~::ing 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 :he purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the Yropery itself, the adjoining properies, and the surcunding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sev~~er, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. ~.~,~, ~ ~,~; n ~- : ~- ~,~,~, G~..a/ 3. S~ acute- ~- P'~-e~ ~ ~-e-Q-a- ° ~~-r--~ Ole- `f'~-e- ~~- °`^~c-- ~. o to t ~ . ~O `~' ~~ ~tn~- ) n /yuti sc_ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ' \, w ~ ~ ~•y\ tel. ~/ 4 • _ - • ~ ' `~~~ l~~ ~ 4 O , N j ~~ j I ' ~ ~ ~ ` ~~ - ~ ~ f ~~ ! , ` y 1, ~ ~. ~ \ \n \ .1 ~ .: ~ L ~ r ~ ~ ~ YJ V ~i' ~ ~ J ) ~ ~ Y ~ ~. • ~~ 3• ~ < ' ~ ~ ~ i ~~ h ~ ~ ~ 08 w ~ ~ ~ re ~ ` c _ ~ ~ .~ Q~ o O ~ r v ~ ~ ~~ 7 ~ ~• i i -i--J 1 t? ~ rf ~, •~ ~ Z ~ , ~ h . 1 ~. _ ~ _ N ` C 1 y a f `~ '' ~ X a 3 23 _ Dt ~' ~ ~ ' '1 ~ V Y ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ • ~ . ~ 1• ; $ Y 1 = r ~ i 1 . S = ~ r o r ,.. ~ • . ,~ ~ ' ' ~ ~! . ,• . ~~ i! r % •!t ~o _~ ~ ~C~f } . `mi'l' Vii ~"~ J• . ~~ , , ''vr 1 `_ Z9'd 9£9ibttQOt 113~C1.1tlr>4~i2! ~0'd 96~9bLL0bST6 Ol z8ti9 Z6S LSL OSO S~1SN l~lOd~18N Sdfl b~ ~Z:OT L6~8Z 2ldd I ti ~~ ,~ v .P ~ C fn ~ ~\ . - N . P A N Z ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ %I' \ ! T_.~ _ ' n v. C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` i :~ ~d , .~ . . ~ :~ . o I ~~ ~ r ~ ~ . ~_ : ~^ ~ K . ~ ~' i _ c c Y ~ ~ L ~ , ~ ~~ ~~r ~t,i a 0~~ p 1 ~ y ~ rt v ~ -_ ._._ •~ .... .- -•~ i ;~ , v ~ ~; 1 ~ ~~ 2 t i i N ~~ - ~ ` ~ / ! y ~ / ' S ~ ~ CC 9 r i ' ~- ~ / . X $ ~ i f h' ~ ~ ~ ` 'h ~ r • ~ 4 t N ( 1~waW ~..~....~ / y i '~ P~ ~ ~. ::>:::, ~ • /24 ~' 311 _-:~''>. .::::: ~.o_ . se n T3 ~~ NORTH - - -- - - - - - ------ --------- - - - i '~s ~\ 300Ac / ~ X22 ~ . r \ ~ L93AClD1 / ~ ~ ~ ~ ` 167AdG1 1.83 Ac ~\ 9 ~ 4.1 / ~lsss ~ 4 ;o~ ~ ~ \ 1 , 1 ti~ 5 Ul J ~ / ? J 26 1.08Ac \-'~' ~ 1Be~ \ ~ s o .7. ~1J1 ~tiy° ~~ \ 55 ~ n ~ v ~' 2 c;OIAe t15~ P\~~16~ a~x v ~~-! ~ ~1 8.77 Ac V _ : / i ~ b-0 6S~ S '~ v Nre LOYf,I woedi ~~~ ~w UuE 59 5 ~ . / yo w ,'s ,.l: ° cp R MO! I e ~, :p `1Q • \~ ~ 61 . ~J?o \° a _ +ea x.a s~.n w,~s u • rr s.l + Q- 2.S2AC ~ _ ~ ~\ Ook „Dnv~e Ext. 1 ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ - ~Sa s 55 ~L~ i ~ g0 4 ~~ ~ 138' Ac(q \ l33e/ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 72.22 Ac /776 iii / ' \~\ J~ ~ / / °l337 ~\\ ~ J.1 9 ~ 32 ~~~ -1 ~ 33 54 ~ ~ ~~ ~ 33 ~ 3.89AC ~2C8Ac 7 ~~ Rood _ s .o,. O° c` ~` 0 ~e~ / r ~~~ y X309 1311 34 13 ~3 Commonreo/lA of YirQlnlo 3Z3a tc i \ ~ 39 6.7SAdD) !39'~ Ti. o//M 264 Ac 3.31 AcIC) ,fir Sdem Pwcl • Clu+ ~.00 Ac • I.OG Ac ~ lI3~ lJ1~ 41 r1+i i I ~JS I.36 Ac 42 ~ - ' ~ e ~mI 42.1 ._ °' •w°e ~o°~l DEPARTMFlv'T OF PLANNIi~G PND 7A~IING . ~~~-•~ 6.70 Ac .s , ~~ SARA COLE & KIT DAVIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT 36,03-1-30 :s ~'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SARA COLE AND KIT DAVIS TO ALLOW A NEW PRIVATE KENNEL TO BE LOCATED AT 1529 DALMATIAN DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 36.03-1-30), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Sara Cole and Kit Davis have filed a petition to allow a new private kennel to be located at 1529 Dalmatian Drive (Tax Map No. 36.03-1-30) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on June 24, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on July 22, 1997. 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 Sara Cole and Kit Davis to allow a new private kennel to be located at 1529 Dalmatian Drive (Tax Map No. 36.03-1-30) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1- 456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (i) That the private kennel permit shall be for a maximum of four dogs. 1 e~ .y (2) That the kennel permit shall be issued for a one year period. (3) A kennel silencer shall be installed in any outdoor pen or run constructed to confine the animals. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\COLEDAVI.WPD 2 • „ ~}il IIIIIilliillllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllillllllllillllllilllililllllilllllllllllilllllillllllllllllllllilllillillillll,(~J _ _ ._. - ... _ - ,- AGENDA ITEM NO. _ .,, - - APPE CE REQUEST _ __ ;__ _ ~- ,PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ~--~ `` II __ _ SUBJECT: ~ ~~ ~lr~~ g ~ ~ N>;1 ~ S Z ~ ~~l N~~~~n~ - ~n~lm~,, L~~ __ ~~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me daring the __ meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: _. ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment c whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will c` decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. . ~- . a ~~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~~ a_ ^ Bath speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. i ~ == ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. _: ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. -. c PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK -- _ - _ _ ~. _ -_ i ~~ II -' NAME ~~~ ~ ~-e a ~ s ~ ~.~ ~ 22 I S M S s-~ 11 ADDRESS ~ e V~ ~Lh, U,~ Z~ ~(SJ .,.. ~_ _ PHONE ~ S ~ ~ ~ " ~''~'~ ~ X1111[Illl111111lllllllllllllllllllllllllill IllilllllllllllllllilIIIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllilllllllllllllllllllilllllll~ _~. ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 DENIAL OFORDINANCE 072297-10 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE ON A 0.94-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROSECREST ROAD AND ROUTE 221 (TAX MAP NOS. 86.12-3-14 AND 86.12-3-15) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF STEPHEN D. AND MARIE FREEMAN WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 24, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held July 22, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: On motion of Supervisor Eddy to deny the rezoning and special use permit, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Holt n, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Roanoke County Department of Planning Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP Director of Planning DATE: July 22, 1997 RE: Submittal of Revised Proffers and Traffic Study; Freeman/PMI Rezoning Request; Brambleton Ave. Mr. Freeman submitted a set of revised proffers this morning. Proffer #6 has been added stating that the developer would contribute to the cost of a traffic signal on Brambleton, if WOT determined such a signal was warrented. A revised ordinance reflecting the additional proffer will be distributed to you this evening. Mr. Freeman also submitted a traffic study for this project this morning. The study is attached. Staff has not had the opportunity to review this document. T-y ' Roanoke County Department of Planning Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP ~~~ Director of Planning DATE: July 17, 1997 RE: Freeman Rezoning and Special Use Permit Request; Proposed PMI Convenience Store on Route 221 On July 1, the Planning Commission recommended denial of these two related requests, and forwarded their recommendations to you for your consideration. At the Commission public hearing, the applicant offered several rezoning proffers, and the staff presented several recommended special use permit conditions. After considering the Comprehensive Plan, and listening to public comment, the Commission voted on their recommendation of denial. The ordinance before you lists all of the offered proffers, and also contains all of the suggested special use permit conditions. You will note that there is an inconsistency between the signage proffers limiting signage to a height of 18 feet and the suggested special use permit condition requiring a monument type sign with a maximum sign height of 15 feet. Our recommendation was based upon 15 foot high signage displayed by PMI at another location, that was presented to the staff and Commission as an architectural and site design model for the proposed store on Route 221. If the Board is inclined to approve these two requests the staff requests that the Board not accept the freestanding signage proffer. We also request you attach to the special use permit the ordinance condition that the freestanding sign be a monument type and not exceed 15 feet in height. This will help to ensure that this development, if approved, will have minimal "strip commercial" characteristics, which are inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan guidelines for this corridor.' PETITIONER: STEPHEN 8~ MARIE FREEMAN CASE NUMBER: 20-7/97 ''" Planning Commission Hearing Date: July 1, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 22, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Stephen D. and Marie Freeman to rezone 0.94 acre from C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a convenience store, located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Fourteen citizens spoke against the petition. The following concerns were raised: safety of the school children attending CSJH; increased traffic on Rt. 221; school children trying to cross 5 lanes of traffic to go to the store; the sale of alcohol and tobacco products; the proximity of other similar stores such as Harris Teeter, Revco and Wilco; kids hanging out at the proposed store; thought office use was appropriate land use; Baptist Church concerned that their parking lot will become a hang out; do not want C-2 commercial in the area; gasoline fumes, noise, trucks. A citizen presented a petition signed by approximately 400 area residents opposed to the rezoning from C-1 to C-2. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Robinson asked questions concerning the sale of alcohol and tobacco products to minors and what the penalties were for such illegal actions. Ms. Hooker expressed concern regarding the safety of the school children who may be tempted to cross the road. Mr. Thomason said that although PMI is a good corporate citizen he did not feel that this location was the appropriate site for a convenience store. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan prepared by Shanks Associates, dated May 20, 1997 attached to the zoning petition. 2) The construction of the building, canopy and pavement area (excluding landscaping) shall be in substantial conformity with the photographs filed with the County. 3) The landscaping of the property shall be in conformity with the plan presented to the County with the following exception: All deciduous trees on the landscaping plan shall be a minimum of 3"-4" caliper in size at the time of planting. 4) Signage shall be limited to 18' in height. 5) No billboards will be located on the property. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason moved that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning request with the proffered conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hooker, Robinson, Thomason, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross r-y Mr. Thomason moved that the Commission recommend denial of the Special Use Permit. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hooker, Robinson, Thomason, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Repo _ Other ~~ e Terrance Ha ington ecretary Roanoke unty PI nning Commission • COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard i)r._. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For staff use only days received b applicat' n e• CiBZA date: placards i sued: P S J ~17 ~f 7 BOS date: Case Number: ..r / '~ Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ® REZONING ~ SPECIAL USE O VARIANCE Applicant's name: Stephen D. and Marie Freeman Attn: Edward A. NattPhone:774-1197 Address: 3539 Peakwood, Roanoke, Virginia P.O. 'Box 20068Zip Code: 24014 Roanoke, VA 24018 Owner's name: Stephen D. and Marie Freeman Phone: 774-6500 Address: 3539 Peakwood, Roanoke, Virginia Zip Code: Location of property: Tax Map Number: 86.12-3- 14_ & 15 Southwest corner of Rosecrest Road p~tagisterial District: and Route 221 Windsor Hills Community Planning Area: Cave Spring Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: C-1 • 0.94 acres Existing Land Use:Vacant sq.ft. .... 7 {: Proposed Zoning: C-2 For scarf Use o~ry Proposed Land Use:Convenience store Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested distric;? YES X - NO IF NO, A VAnIA~~CE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for t`~~ requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffer~~ with this request? YES X NO t~~`.~~~ Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in orcer to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. rUS v ws v ws v Consultation X 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Application fee X Application X ~':~ f~letes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable >.~< X 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 consent of the owner. .»„~. ~ r p ~°' °:1 s ,~~/-. Y' Owner's Signature: t For Stall Use Only: Case Number ........................................:::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: •yy:.yy;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: •: ~............. Try#f n~1 a~- ~T>~i 3:J.~:'.~t~~~~l~l~its'~CE~~t1• ....:..........................................:.:.:.:.:...:...:....:...: 7 }~ . yy~~ • .~~..yy~~t~:isz.~l~?(•:~5~!i•t•:lk~i,~;~l:Ylf Y.~_T,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,;,;,,,c,,.:,,.,.,.,...,:...,.:.,.,,,,:,:.:,:.,.,.................,.,,.,,:,:,;.:,,.:,:.:,:,:,,,:.._...._....,.,.,..:.,,:.:, ~pplicant cro„hcn n_ and Marie Freeman 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 follo~.ving questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The rezoning will further the purposes of the zoning ordinance in that it will provide the neighborhood with a convenience store on a major highway. While the property is included ', in the neighborhood conservation district, the general nature and intent of the reighborho conservation district would indicate that residential use on a major road such as Route 221 is not appropriate. The property is already zoned commercial and the proposed use would simply be a change of commercial zoning classifications. It is important to note ~ that prior to the widening of Brambleton Avenue, there was a similar convenience store approximately two (2) blocks to the north which was removed as a result of the widening. That former convenience store was a significant landmark and provided a needed service to the community. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County comprehensive Plan. The existing zoning of the property is commercial. The requested change is a cha:.ge from a one (1) commercial district to the other. The Comprehensive Plan recognized that commercial uses are appropriate on major highways even in a neighborhood conservation district. Thus, it is submitted that~the proposed use is appropriate for this property. 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/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. The proposed use will no'' have a negative impact on public services and facilities. There will be no substantial increase to the water and sewer service,:~the roads, the schools or fire and rescue. The typical customer is a "drive-by customer"-this is not a destination business. The people utilizing the business will be those people already utilizing Brambleton Avenue. JXIXO2871 XOd XY7d .Ld9JXOJ a LNll O~ ~ ?I l ~ S?IO d _ ~ . . . r is v 3n J x ~ ~ ~a~v-~o d naedrn ~a,rz n s ~asrs(ossl r i x e~sc~sr(orsl ~+~,/ ~+~qQ/~,/~/~+ ~ g ~ / ~ , / +~ ~ ^ p / p ~ y~+ , / / ~+~/ p~q,~,~y J e~O~/~/C! Y /27 ~ ~©®~.~/~0/ /s7 ~ .~t~~~/ V~~/ `V~ - .J ~ `.7.71. Y/a/~./e~e~ Y e7I7/C! Yf7'e7 ~ 8991 31(1021 - db'02J 1532103SOi! - f'; s3N a in ~~ ~~ u n - o j ~~ ~"~'^ r s u~rr r ru ~ "> ¢¢ r 3 ~N y _ ~ c~ i 3 i~N ; y ' a z .~ - - ` Y ~ ~z ~ ~ _' < Y ~ F ~ 3i~ ~g ~~ Yi ~ ~~ ` I I ' E5- ~ ' ~ ~ " a & m ~' ' ~ ~°' M I i a G ~ X<Y ~ ~ ~~~ g a o - o~ ~,e ~ I I ~ ~ N ~ ° iS i~ z z ~ pp S ¢~ ~'u a _ ~' ( I ; ~ ` z ~ c y b ~ o: a ~ ~ $ ~ °~ ~ o' ~ I I ~ r ~i a d m Y t ~~ ~ 3~" ~ s =~ < ~ ~' '~ ~ 3 3 Ta 7~ •~ r V_°V ~ ~~I q~ 83~: ° s . ~~ ~ - ~~ age Y~:~ ~^ F ° ~~_ ~s ~~ 33i ~ ~ ~ -- .: ~ ~~ i ~ ~I Q~ ~4~ ~ i° R . ~ -~ _ ~ ~ - •! ~ ~ ge ~ k .t• •~~ r -_ _ ?s y : tl°_ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~: :: \ SST ' .>, . : t ~ .%~:[i:+~i . ' •;: ~~, . 1 .. ....-. :.. ~. 5~~ ~~°~ ~ ' ` ALA ~ ~ lE _ '~ :~ ° ~ ~~ 5 u~ B~ b ~ ~ °a~8`1 l ~~8 ~ ~ :3 Y "' ~~o YS b f~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~C ~ ~ ' A ~~ b7 € .T.rs . .rmr . d (moa ~vnusd) 3NY1 Nv.121 ~-. m.aa vuwwa ~ mar I I I I I~ N IN I ~ X I~ 7~ I I~ ,I ~~IZ h ~IQ~ `IZ ~~ to W CO ~-~ ~~ m ~~ ~~ ~ I ~~ I ~~~ I l I I I I I a ~ I L i f I r 3 0 x U ~. ~y ~~ _ _ ., ~-1 ' a~~ / ~. !J~• 1 G HN ._.._ ~'lc;~ 4 \ E M \ i II L13 4 ~ • °~a•.. \ 16 ~ 1 10 \ ae io 4 ml . ~° , anx Jo« ye 4 IC • 1° 1 ~ WYaeA IT • ! LA + ~~~- ~ ~ MJ ~ e f51 ` / \ . n Fi \ ~ >o°~~ • , 1 , ~ \ . q »• a al ~ I , ,, \ \\` \ .r I~ e / \ \~ ~'.. rc~ ~ ~..:..:, \ m 7 . R° bee w«« cw•s \ \ ~ 6 os roy R°j~ / \ IB \ • f~ ~ ~• i h ., \ . ~jP / ~ le Lm4 ua pd n I /~ / \ ~. .Jll { h• ~ / \ L:9.e w«.w,. a..a ~, \ +Jll / \ \ i 2D ~ ' ~ ~ _ \ ~ ~ ~ ~0.a ` // /seer Canp' / 1 ~ \t1 ' 19 , ~ / ~ a 23 19 ~'~ 9 ~•~ IB ~.° ~2 f fill f X 13 / ` :~ ,1 25 •. '~ 4 _ J 'r / / t , 70 27 O / ~ fy. la ~~ / ~./ f _ ~ 9+ _ i e O. 9 ~ ~ ~ 9 29 ~ ,Q.. I~ 76 ..fN1 Iliac ' '13 ' ;0~ .!•!'D! 1 .. 4 ~/ 11 a fJ,l '1 .. / / _ . /r ~!i~S a a29 +I~ + / 1I /~ . STEPHEN & MARIE FREEMAN DEPARTMFI~"I' OF PLPNNIrG C-1 TO C-2 & SPECIAL USE ~ PER~1IT P.ivD ZoIVING 86.12-3-14; ~-15 Ty IiI ~v I i l~ ~~ 3 I ~, I r ~ .: !,~ ~. ~~~~ J a ~ n- £'~ m ' ~p ~~! r ~ ~i ~~-~ i " __ i;'. x xx 1 " % f { x x 7 ~ I s ~ +~^Y.~ IT ~X, itt 1 ~- V, -y, ,. i - .: i ~~ _ a M Lo li " a I~. ~ A T I ,~~ R ~ ~ ~ I ~ ` ~~ ~a Z I ~~ 0 S ,~ -5 ~ ! x z ~ ~ ~ ~,:, ;~ ~- _c i3~ 'k I it ~ ~ ~'„ ~' 7 .a., F'i __ I ~ ~ ~'~ `~1 '7 1. HS ` 1 1 i ~ i ~ ---- ~ ~\_ ~ ';~ ~ i ~~, ~,. . --1 ~~I ® U. 1 1 ~ (~ ~, ~ ~, ~i _.._. __._-~I II ~~b ~I ~ { t1 ..'a l ~ ' j~' I ~a i„ .~! /~ ^'~ ~ ~, .~ 1 I 1 t '~ i ~ .,._ I ''f 1y N ~ ,_ O ~ I ~ .• ~_, _ 1 ~.ir. ~~~ ti I 1 i= ~~ ~ ~~ ~- j/? '^ ~;. P~ ~`~ i JUN-27-1997 15 58 OSTEP.HOUDT FEP.GUSON NATT 1 540 774 0961 P.02i02 PROFFERS r"r ` 1 `~'1( The undersigned does hereby proffer the following conditions in conjunction with the rezoning: 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan prepared by Shanks Associates dated May 20, 1997, attached to the zoning Petition. . 2. The construction of the building canopy and pavement areas (excluding landscaping) shall be in substantial conformity with the photographs filed with the County. 3. The landscaping of the property shall be in conformity with the plan presented to the County with the following exceptions: a. The maple at the front corner of the store shall have a three-inch caliper. b. The triangular grouping of purple plum trees on the left of the store shall have three-inch calipers. c. The purple plum trees along the front of the property have two-inch calipers. ~. Sign age shall be limited to eighteen feet in height. 5. No billboards will be located on th= property. St hen D. Freeman 2:\41P50\LlSA\SPRING.PRO:laf06/27/97 TOTAL P.02 t ~ ~; s :, S ' ; ~~ s, ~. ,~ ~ ~ 3 F 5 , ppJJ i~ & „$~ t ~i f . ~. ~~ f ~ Y . lr+ .t 7 1 1 i _~ ~++ /..~. ilk ~ ~~~ ~ ~ .~ . } r ~ ,, ~,, , . „~; ~ p ~ ' '~ ~~ ~_ ~s + . ~", }+ .- y .r ~ a ~ 4• - - i ~ t ~ f ~~ ~,' - y ' -}t '~ f ,a ~~ .x . ~ .~. Y x ~! R I V ~_ ~' ~ ~ ; ~ ~: y ~ - t ~ ,i _ ~ 1:` yN k~ .. `' * / L . ~Q , '~4.,.Y ~o- ~ Y ~ ~i ~,W ~ .p~ ~ ~^ y, ~ ~., r ~. ~~~~~. ~ ~~.Q~~ ~ ~y S i } ~ .. i. ., i .,. , Fa i 1 ,1~ 1 vr,~ ,.®. .,~~ r-y r ', J is .. ~,~d~L`~y~ ~I ~ ~ ~, 'k ~. t `/ STAFF REPORT Case Number: 20-7/97 Prepared by: Janet Scheid Applicant: Stephen and Marie Freeman Date: 7/1/97 PART I A B. DESCRIPTION The petitioners are requesting C-2 and a Special Use Permit to gasoline pumps. The property is side of Rt. 221 (Brambleton Magisterial District. a conditional rezoning from C-1 to construct a convenience store with approximately one acre on the west Avenue) in the Windsor Hills C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Permitted Uses: In the C-1 District: The C-1 District allows a wide range of civic, office and commercial uses including limited retail uses where they are supportive of the office uses. Examples of this use type would be photocopy and office supply stores. In the C-2 District: The C-2 District allows many of the same uses as C-1 with expanded commercial and retail uses permitted by right. Gasoline stations are permitted by right in C-2, with additional use and design standards, while convenience stores are permitted with a Special Use Permit. The additional use and design standard for a gasoline station is as follows: 1 r- Y 1. Bulk storage of fuel shall be underground pursuant to the standards established by the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Special Use Permit required for a convenience store imposes additional general standards as follows: 1. Limited sale of foods prepared on the premises may be allowed provided no more than 20 percent of the floor area is devoted to seating facilities. Seating areas in excess of this shall constitute a fast food restaurant. 2. Exterior display of merchandise for sale is allowed under the following conditions: A. On a paved walkway within 3 feet of the building. B. Ice machines and soft drink vending machines, in operating condition, shall be stored under roofed areas. 3. The display of vehicles "for sale" is prohibited. 2. Site plan review will be required. 3. Commercial entrance permit will be required from the Virginia Department of Transportation. 2 T_ y- PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Lot Area - The petitioners' site consists of two lots totaling approximately one acre in size with approximately 190' of frontage on Route 221. 2. Location - The site is located 250' south of Rosecrest Road .and 90' north of Ryan Road, a private street. The properties directly to the north of this site are also zoned C-1 and are owned by the petitioners. The property directly to the south of this site, zoned C-1, is owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and is a well lot. To the west of this site is exclusively single family residential in well-established, stable neighborhoods. Across Rt. 221 and to the east of this site is Cave Spring Junior High School, zoned C-1 and other C-1 office uses . The well lot mentioned above is on the Roanoke County surplus list. In order for the sale of this well lot to occur it would need to be appraised for fair market value and competitive bids sought. Approval by the Board of Supervisors is required to sell a well lot. 3. Buildinas - This is currently a vacant lot. 4. Access - When Rt. 221 was widened a single 25' wide access was developed to this site. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Use - Petroleum Marketers, Inc.(PMI) have contracted to purchase this property contingent on the successful rezoning. They plan to build, own and operate a convenience store with gasoline pumps on this site. 2. Buildings/Structures - Petitioners propose to build a "country store" style convenience store with gasoline island and canopy. The proposed store is 3000 square feet with an exterior of gray, natural wood siding, white trim, dormers across the front, front porch with railing and ceiling fans and paned windows. The highest point of the pitched roof is 24 feet high. It is a silver/gray tin roof. Similar to the Starkey Road store, this store will have a deli and small seating area. 3 r-y The site will also include gasoline pumps. Four gasoline islands are proposed with a total of 8 pumps (each pump has 3 hoses). A maximum of 8 cars can be getting gas at any one time. This area will be covered with a 24' x 108' canopy that is 18 feet high. The canopy is downlit. While the store building takes on a country theme the gasoline pump/canopy area is fairly typical of other Shell gasoline stations. The canopy has a flat roof. The color used in the canopy and pump area is predominately gray with yellow trim. The Shell sign, in white, and logo in yellow and red are displayed on the north and south ends of the canopy. Note: these signs and logos are not displayed on the store at Starkey Road but are at the store in Charlottesville depicted in the proffered photographs. Petitioner has proffered that the appearance of the store building, canopy and pavement area will be substantially as depicted in photographs of a similar store in Charlottesville. These photographs are included in your package. Petroleum Marketers, Inc. will own and operate this store. They began their country store concept with the store at the corner of Starkey Road and Penn Forest Blvd. That store is approximately the same size (3,000 square feet) as the proposed store. 3. Access - A single access from Rt. 221 is proposed where the existing access is. The access would be widened to 50' and off-set to the southern end of the property. VDOT has commented that a southbound turn lane may be required. 4. Circulation - Traffic will enter from Rt. 221 and than proceed around either end of the gasoline islands or directly to the pumps. 5. Parlcina - Parking is in the front and to the northern side of the store. Nineteen spaces are shown on the concept plan. 6. Traffic Count - In 1996, Route 221 had approximately 20,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of this site. It is very difficult to get reliable data on traffic generation from this type of use. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has done only minimal (8 or 9 samples) analysis of this use type.. Due to the proliferation of stores and convenience-markets many of the customers to any given convenience store can be 4 r-~~ expected to be from "pass-by" traffic. In other words, these vehicles were on the road to begin with. It is fair to say. that there will be some level of additional traffic on Rt. 221 if this store is constructed and there will definitely be a large number of additional turning movements into and out of this site. Within the immediate vicinity of this site, there were 2 accidents in 1991, one accident in 1993 and no reported accidents between 1994 and 1996. The posted speed limit on this stretch of Rt. 221 is 45 mph. Flashing school zone signs, reducing traffic to 25 mph, are posted just south of the Rt. 221/Ranchcrest intersection and near the intersection of Rt. 221 and Arlington Heights. By State Code these flashing lights are only used one-half hour before school starts and one-half hour after school closes. They are not used at other times of the day or night for other school events. 7. Public Services - This site is served by public water and sewer. 8. Cave Spri Junior Hiah - This school has an enrollment in excess of 900 students. Beginning in August of 1997 the incoming sixth grade class that originated from Cave Spring Elementary will be going to Hidden Valley Junior High rather than to CSJH as they have in the past. This is an attempt to shift students from the overcrowded CSJH. Those incoming sixth graders from Back Creek Elementary, Bent Mountain Elementary and Penn Forest Elementary will continue to go to CSJH. Consequently, until the new high school is built, CSJH will have 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th grade classes. Mr. Marty Robison, Executive Assistant to Roanoke County School Superintendent informed staff that plans call for CSJH to remain open and the school administration is putting approximately 2 million dollars worth of improvements into that facility. g, Environmental Issues - This site has been filled and PMI will be conducting compaction tests. Noise is always a pote and gasoline station.. back up to this site. the petitioner's site of buffer between the lots to the west. ntial concern with a convenience store There are three residential lots that They are topographically higher than and the proffered site plan shows 40' subject property and the residential Petitioner has proffered a lighting plan. Overhead lights are proposed at four locations on the site in addition to the-down 5 lighting underneath the canopy. It is approximately 65' from any of the proposed overhead lights to the closest residential property line. Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance requires that: all exterior lighting fixtures shall be designed, located and arranged so as not to direct glare on adjoining streets or residential properties. The intensity at adjoining street or residential properties shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. 10. Amenities - In staff's opinion, the petitioner has proffered a visually attractive "country store" concept with interesting architectural features such as pitched roof, wood siding, large front porch, dormers and paned windows. The color scheme chosen for the store itself is unobtrusive. In addition, the petitioner has proffered signage restrictions and substantial landscaping to maximize the visual attractiveness of this site. il. Signaae - Petitioner proposes the following signage: 1. A 99 square foot Shell monument sign located at the northeast corner of the property. This sign would be 18 feet high. 2. Two signs, one on the north end of the canopy and one on the south end, each 22 square feet. These would each include the Shell logo and the word SHELL. 3. Petitioner has proffered that billboards (off-premise signs) will be prohibited on this site. 12. Community Meetina - A community meeting was held on this petition on June 16. Approximately 80 citizens attended with the majority being opposed to the petition. The primary concern of most citizens is the location of this proposed convenience store across Rt. 221 from Cave Spring Junior High. The concern is one of safety with the potential for school children to be tempted to cross the 5-lane Rt. 221 to shop at the store. Other concerns were as follows: 1)sale of alcohol and cigarettes at the store; 2)hours of operation; 3)congestion on Rt. 221 and it's effect on turning movements into and out of Rosecrest; 4)continuing commercialization further south on Rt. 221; 5)property values; 6)loitering; 7)noise and light pollution; 8)geology and filling of site; and 9)increased crime. Response to comment #2 - Petitioner has proffered hours of operation of Gam to 12 midnight; #6 - Staff contacted Ms.~Gail 6 iY Wright, Manager of The Country Store on Starkey Road and inquired about loitering problems. She stated that her store is open 24 hours a day and at times they do have young adults congregating on the porch. Their policy, which she states has been very effective, is that the people have 10 minutes to congregate and then must move on. She does not feel that it has been a problem. Positive comments included the attractive architecture and landscaping and controlled signage. Others commented that PMI is a good owner and operator of convenience stores. 13. Other Public Input - At the time this report was written staff had received approximately 35 calls from citizens opposed to the rezoning. All cited the location near the school as their primary concern. In addition, staff has discussed this petition with Mr. Marty Robison, Executive Assistant to School Superintendent Dr. Deanna Gordon. His concerns also focus on safety issues with the location of this proposed store. In his opinion, it is not just a potential safety concern during the school day but may be even more of a concern for school sanctioned after- school activities such as sports. At these times, the school children are less supervised, many times they are dropped off at the school by a parent to attend the planned function. These functions are often during evening and night hours when darkness can exacerbate the safety issue. At their School Board meeting on Thursday, June 26 the Board voted to oppose the rezoning of this site to permit a convenience store across from Cave Spring Junior High. Staff has also spoken with Ms. Terri Langford, CSJH PTA President. Ms. Langford has spoken to the PTA Board (35 members) all of whom are opposed to this petition. Her major concerns are increased traffic on Rt. 221 in the vicinity of the school and safety of the school children. She is particularly concerned about the times before and after school when the children are not as closely supervised and the after school sporting events. Prior to the distribution of this written report staff made numerous attempts to speak with personnel at Cave Spring Junior High School. Unfortunately, the Principal, Mr. Steve Boyer was out of town and the Assistant Principal contacted was not willing to discuss this issue. Staff. will continue to pursue input from CSJH next week. In an attempt to see what if any problems have occurred at other schools that are located near existing convenience stores staff spoke with representatives of William Byrd and 7 r-~~ Andrew Lewis Middle Schools. William Byrd Middle and High Schools are located in relatively close proximity to a convenience market. This store is not directly across the street but rather about one-quarter mile away on the opposite side of Rt. 24 a divided 4-lane road. Ms. Marlena Jones, Assistant Principal WBMS said that the store has not presented any problem to the middle school or the safety of the school children that she is aware of. She did state that as a resident of the area where the petitioner's site is she is opposed to the convenience store and thinks it will present safety concerns at that specific location. Andrew Lewis Middle School is located directly across 4-lane College Avenue from an existing 7-11 store. Mr. Mike Akers, Assistant Principal said that there is a crossing guard at the intersection of College Avenue and Fourth Street and that alleviates any safety concerns with children crossing the street. He stated that they have not had a problem with school children leaving school during the school day to go to the convenience store because the penalty for such action is a one day suspension. He was not aware of any problems with the sale of alcohol or tobacco products to school children. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As the Planning Commission Department of Planning is Comprehensive Plan this year. is aware the Roanoke County revising and updating the The 1985 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Conservation. This designation establishes neighborhood areas where the highest degree of protection is appropriate. When the 1985 Plan was prepared the residential and commercial growth and development in the Rt. 221 corridor was not anticipated. It is staff's opinion, that in 1997, given the tremendous residential and commercial growth in this corridor and the widening of Rt. 221 to five lanes, that the Neighborhood Conservation designation is no longer correct. The petitioner's site is not appropriate for single family residential development. The question remains what is the appropriate comprehensive plan designation for this site? An analysis of land use determinants for this site show that it has frontage on a primary road and is oriented towards that frontage, it is in an urban service area and serves as a buffer between the major road and the residential neighborhoods. Considering these factors it is staff's opinion that Transition is~ the 8 r- v appropriate designation for this site and the areas to the north. The following land use types are desirable within the Transition designation: office and institutional uses, retail uses when clustered or within a planned shopping center (free- standing retail uses are discouraged), multi-family and attached single-family uses and outdoor recreational facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools. The Transition policies are intended to discourage commercial sprawl along major highway strips while allowing planned and clustered commercial development. The policies recognize the high compatibility of office development along major highway strips and encourage strict screening and buffering to protect existing residential neighborhoods. The existing C-1 zoning of this site is appropriate under the Transition land use designation. PART III STAFF COMMENTS One of the concepts that emerged during the 1995 Visioning Process was that of small commercial nodes to serve local areas. Envisioned were local general stores, laundries, home offices and other services that would blend into the community while minimizing impact on residential land use. The ability to walk or ride a bike to these facilities was thought to be a desirable amenity. The proposed rezoning from C-1 to C-2 for the development of a convenience store with gasoline pumps is inconsistent with the Transition land use designation. The zoning on this property should remain C-1 and staff recommends against the petitioners' proposal. The petitioners have submitted the following proffers: 1) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan prepared by Shanks Associates, dated May 20, 1997 attached to the zoning petition. 2) The construction of the building, canopy and pavement area (excluding landscaping) shall be in substantial conformity with the photographs filed with the County. 3) The landscaping of the property shall be in conformity with the plan presented to the County with the following exceptions: a. The maple at the front corner of the store shall have a 3" caliper. 9 l ~ ~ Pram $2,900 to ~'~ 800 ~ School Board gets 66% raise The teachers organization supported the increase, but , four residents have ! opposed it. • • Br JOEL TURNER TKE ROA.~'OKE TI.11ES The pay for Roanoke County School Board members will increase by 66 percent in July while county teachers will receive raises aveng:rtg 3.2 percent. On a 4.1 vote Thursday night, boazd members raised their sala- ries from 52,900 to S4,800 a yeaz despite objections from two county residents. Two people opposed the raise at an eazlier hearing. The chairman's pay will be 55,900 a year because the board voted to continue a 51,100 sup- plement for the post. It is the first raise for board members in fne years. Board member William Irvin said he supported the higher pay because he has found that the boazd duties require so much time that it has affected his private job. "It has cut into t[u' income because it is taking more time than I expected," said Irvin, the Cave Spring Distrcc member, who is in his second yeaz on the board. Irvin said he doesn't think the amount that is spent for board salaries de[racs from the county's quality of education. "Even !f we used all of the money for the children, it would be only about S 1.50 per student a year," he said. "I don't chink it would make a that much of a dif• Terence in t';e education of our children.' In a separate vote, the board approved a 3.2 percent raise for Superintendent Deanna Gordon and her cop assistants. On anoti:er matter, the board voted to oppose the rezoning of land on Brambleton venue to permit a com•enience score across from Cave Spring Junior High. Several parents urged the board co fight the rezoning because they fear that students might be struck by vehicles while crossing the five-lane highway to reach the store. They also feaz that students might skip school and buy alcohol and tobacco products at the store. "I think it is wrong fora con- venience store to be so close to a school,' said Terry Smith. "Schools and convenience stores do not mix." Terri Langford, president of the Cave Spring Junior High PTA, said she worries that students who play sports after the school day ends might cross the highway to get food at the store. PLEASE SEE RAISE/82 Raise ~ ~- ." ~' "This will be a temptation for ~" ~ students and will endanger their safety," Langford said. • On the board salaries, Chair- man Michael Stovall said he voted for the raise because he thought the other members deserved more pay for the time they give to the job. But board member Thomas ieggette opposed the increa~ because he said he views [he post as public service. "Serving on the board has alsb had an effect on my income, but I " •' have a philosophic difference (with other board members]," Leggette said, "I think the children ,.,.._ _ _. should come first." Under the policy adopted by an another matter, the board voted to oppose the rezoning of land on _ Brambleton avenue to permit a convenience store across from Cave • ~ Spring Junior High. Many~arents cited fears ' that students might be struck by vehicles while • crossing the five-lane - highway. ~L . the boazd, the pay for members will increase in future years by the same percentage as teachers' - salaries. Despite [he big difference in pay in the next year, the teachers hate no complaints. Richard Kelly, president of the Roanoke County Education Asso- ciation, said earlier that t:,e teach- ers organization beGe•:es board members deserve a raise because of the time they give to cite job. Kelly said the board's salary is lower than those of some other governmental. bodies in the coun- ty. The county supervisors are paid almost 511,500. A year ago, the General Assembly raised the limit on the county School Board salary to 56,000 at the board's request. This year, the' legislature authorized an increase in the sal- "" ary limit for Roanoke School Board members from 52,400 to 53,000, and the board h'as . _~.,._._ approved the increase. ' The salary limits are set at the request of the localities a-ith no formula for determining the amount. The 56,000 ceiling for Roanoke County School Board members is the highest in Western Virginia, but it is lower than the 58,000 limit in Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties. - ~ Arlington, Chesterfield and Hen- rico counties have a 57,000 ceiling. ' ~_ „~ ~I ti PETITION AGAINST THE REZONING OF PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND ROSECREST ROAD S W -y We, the undersigned voters of Roanoke County absolutely oppose the proposed zoning change for the property located at the corner of Brambleton Avenue and Rosecrest Road SW from C-1 to C-2. The gas station/convenience store being proposed to be built on this site once the zoning change occurs presents the following concerns to the surrounding community, churches, and to the children who attend Cave Spring Junior High and Elementary School. 1. Such a store is NOT needed in our community because of the close proximity of Harris Teeter, Wilco and Revco (less than a mile). 2. The convenience store and gas station would tempt the children attending the Junior High to cross a busy, 45 MPH, five lane state road thereby possibly causing tragic automobile accidents involving either children and/or motorists. The small convenience that the gas station convenience store would provide is not worth the risk of losing a child's life or well-being. 3. The convenience store will be selling cigarettes, alcohol and condoms. None of these products should be offered in a store adjacent to a Junior High School regardless of how well managed the sales might be. 4. Establishment of a convenience store adjacent to the Junior High School will increase the likelihood of truancy and skipped classes by the children tempted by the sight and close proximity of the convenience store. 5. Lights and noise from the store will disturb the peace of the neighborhood around the site. Trees or other barriers cannot prevent disturbances to the residential community regardless of how the store is constructed or how the lighting is arranged on the property. 6. The proximity of the store to the neighborhood will mean increased likelihood of vagrancy in the area and a higher chance of break-ins to homes in the area. 7. The addition of a store/gas station at this intersection will increase traffic problems in the area. Rosecrest Road SW is already seeing increased traffic due to the con- struction of homes up the road and with traffic entering and exiting the gas station, it will make entering or turning on Brambleton Avenue even more difficult and in- crease the likelihood of accidents. 8. Dropping a gas tank into the limestone into this area may cause an environmental issue in the community. Several people in the surrounding area have well water. Gas leaks from the gas tank at the station, regardless of the technology available, may cause an environmental problem for residents of the area. 9. The store/gas station may not have the required 450 feet of visibility for motorists approaching from either the North or Southbound direction on Brambleton. 10. Zoning exists to protect buyers and residents of a particular area from devaluation of property due to addition of businesses that would increase noise, lights, and traffic to their neighborhood. The proposed change would DRASTICALLY alter this for the•residents of this area. The voters signing below urge any elected official who expects re-election not to vote in favor of the proposed zoning change to this property. PHONE ~•- I- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /ea s~ Clete 5-~ ,~ ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~-~ . Z ~~ ~~ ~~ a 7~7 oZ - (3 S~ ?'l ~' a ~.'~ 3 77 - ~~ ~ r~-///S ~7z - z. t 7~ i1~- ~~~ y~ - ~ T 3~ qgq-~~3s ~~ ~ 9S~< 77 f/-.S~ _ t ~ ~ `~ ~~l ~ ~s~~~~ ~c ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ oS~C ~~ S~`" ~~ ~ ~~- ~~~ i'~/'~ "`~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ U ~ .~~ 3 ~r1~~ ~~. S. ~ ~~~-y~ y~ ~~~- ~~~c ~~~- ~~ ~~ 77U-3~~7 ` NA~1E f ~ /I r ADDRESS ~"~ V 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PHONE ~~ ' ~ ~e - ~3 ~~ c ~ir -~ ~e1c~s ~~ . 5 ~Z 1 Q~9 -egoq ~1~ - ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~ c,~ ~f~ ~,~:~~ J`r~-~ ~- ~~ ~. a v - ~~ ` ~a o `?7~'~-~..~~ J ~ ~ l rl ~ ,... 6 7 S ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~~~~ `'C.~-ie ~~ ` ~' ` S L~ 77`x- 3~~~ 9g~ ~~~~G JYL/ ~~r ~~~ ¢so~ ~s~~~ ~~- ~~ ~~ ~ -Z¢zs .. ~ S~7 7~~-~~z~ (~ ~ ~~ ~~~'i lM/~ ~` tv W b „'~ J `J ~l ~/ y~ os~ . v ~ S ~ ~ . ~ -- /3~ NAME n n `" i ~: ~ _ - ~f ,~ I ~~ ~I ~-~ ~ PHONE 'fig ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ 9~r ~ ~ ~ , . ~ 7~~~ NF:ME ADDRESS _ , ~~ J C1 LEE'.-w~ S~y.7 f-or~z.~c,v ~ei~. ~z , ..~ 5a ~7 ~ ~u~ is r~ G~-~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 530 5 ~~ (~ r-I ~ ' ?~ _ ~ ` ~~~~ ,~ ~ ~ s ~ ~, sa a o ~-~µ~ ~ ~~~ W~ ~~ . '~/Qi i ~ ~y/) .r-,~ o I X 33 .~' 1 PHONE ~ ° 1,~ ~7~-~~~z ~~~-~i ~I -z 7L~ --~ ~ ~( ~' -~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ -o~~ ~~y ~a~~ ~~~ ~/~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 'i 7~~ -,~i~s /~ ~/5~~ ~~~ 9 ~9- ~~~ S ~ ~ - , ~~ I~LT-MME ADDRESS PHONE --- ~ ~ 1 sr ya/ - ~,~, U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ esce/ d a 1 ~0~4 J ~~ {--- _ ~ °i~ ~~a-~~~ 1 I ~ ~. ~~ J 5 ~ I ~b ~'a~cic~l~-~~~. ~~ ~~ .~I ~~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ b~~~~ ~L~ ~' X1,0 ~ ~ ~ ~ F -~ ~ ~3 ~ n ~ a ~o~~ ~ - ~ ~8 ~ ,~~ N~~~ ~ ~- ~ l ~~~3 C r ~ ~ ~~ s3 y ~ ~ . S. ~ ~ai~ ~9y 6 a 6 .~~ . ~o,~.~~ ~yZ~ CI'A i Sr,~o~t~? ~2• Jl/ ,25`DI~ ~6 n ",1b.~~ /' . !li/~rn~l ~ 7 2,~/ r ~o~ r~ ° ~~ 3 8` o ~ ~9 ~~ 5.30 ~~~ ~ ~ NA;^~ ~„~ ~1 Z~ Caw ~ , 98Q~~~~o~ ~ ~ ~4~ ~7/~ - ~ ZS ,.,. PHONE '"~ '. r- ~~ ~~ ~ ADDRESS S '~~ ~ ,~, c ~ ~~ ~d ~~ sao~ s ~~, C~- ado ~ ~ ~~ a - ~-'~ ~'S ~~ ~ szzz - ~( - ~zz2 ~ ~c7/g ~~y-g~ _--- ~~ ~~ Z-~z Saa ~ ~ a/ ~ 8 3~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ Z Z ( ©~ - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~{ l `' ~ 89-308 ~~~~ 5 ~ Q , ~ ~ l u~,•~,-~ s 3 ~ o e~-~-.~-. ~ ~-.~.Q. ~ ed Q~C.Q sic ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~~`- ~~~ 5313 ~oMW~~~ C-~- ~°~^~".~ ~~~-/Q~~ ~~ S ~ ~ 6 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~' ~~l ~~ 9~q-7 - S~ S ~-- >> I J I ... ~Z ~a ~~ 5, ,~,~ o ~ yg ~- 6s4- 1... ~.> ~' " ~~ ~Y~ l i - L/if.d~/hiI1Z~ ~~/ ` '2 - S c~ 73-~ S~ --~L ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ s ~- Sb~ 4 sd ~o ~-Z~. ~c~1 ~~. . ~ .~ _~- ~ ~, l ~3 Y ~ - s ~`' ,'~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~v v ~/G- IJlL~ ~Y~ -~33~ `77a-(~~,1~ ~~-i~3~ ~~-~~`~~ >~T! ~~/ l•' I ~a~~ ~L!.~ PxorrE '~ - r ,- .- ,~'-~ y ~- _3 . - ~7~ o0 I (e552~ /~-Y /~.S U ~/6 ~ _ ~ ~je~'r~h1 ~ ~ ~~ ~' 7 - ~3 5S T ~ 9 !~ ~~ i~ i ~i ~ . L Q ~ C C ~~~~ ~~ff ~ / /O17i`2~'n ' ~~~V~~`1~ e J ~ , ~ ~6 p Rd s w / r ~,,n ~+ 7 7~ - OZ~~- - vc~ . t, ~~ l`~~-~ 985-~~~ ~G~~ ~f ,~ ~r~ Sw ~« ?~ ~ ~r~c ~ ~ ~~ i~ ~ GZ,vvt C, r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ __ _ _ r7 7 -~ ~-5~ ~.~ o l ~ °~~-cues off-- __ .1 ~ +rL ~ ',~ `.-~ r ~'"' ! - / , '~ ~ (~ J / -F./)'l't.r". , y---r. ~' CC. :~ t _ . 1. j ~ ~~~1 - ~ .l^ ..~ J j / r v ~ ~ n !' ,~ I j" - !'' /~ /; r ~~~~~/ ~~~ ,~~~`'G v ~'~~ pxorrE y ~l 1 ~ ~/~f ~~ ~a~~ r, ~. /~J ~ i~~ ~ ~ - S •~ _ -»~ -~Q g 3 ~I G3 ~'~ -~ ~` ~~a o~~ ~a - :~ ~~, ~~ .~- I ~x ,~ ~~~~ P _~ ~{/ 7 1/~ , sao3 - - UGC, ~~~ -- ~ V .S L~ l,~ - s 4go~ L~woo C~ Que.. S w ~ ~s ~ I`~S~ ~b ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ --~~~ Pxor~ ~'"~ i 4 r ~j ~~ ~~Y-i U L l~ ~ ~~ ~ S~ 4 7 /~os ,~1~~,vn1 ~ ~~ V~ ~9v I ~. ~~~ ~G ~ __ ~ ~3 S/ 3 ~ ~u ,~..n~~e,, ~~~~ ~ / 7~ ~ ~O~ 77 ~. ' ~~d~ r ~ 3"l~ 3~~cKi~r.~~M 172 (~ I~oANo ~ va o- a ~ '~'Z- . ~ ~^ sia.9 o~~~ 1~ ~~o/ ~~~-~~~~ --_ ~ ~ ~-~ wow ~~ ~~ o !a ~ . ~~ ~, ~~~ s - ~~ ~ e-~.~,~-ems, 3Sl Z cr~2 l~e~ , S ~ o ( ~{- - 3 ~ ~~ ~ ,~, 3si a :~ ~; ~~- t.~ ~~o(~ ~~~- ~//3 . r ,; R.~=acs ~ ~ r= ~- - 5 i Z S1~~r.;~l-{EN' E SCQ ~.car~o~-r= Z~kol~ h 'Z L- - 3l r- t~~ ~ o ,~ n ~-I'/,} fi'U,1 ~~ i„ Ci ~~D `~ ~~ Vl'~ ~ C Q s I, d~ o`[ `t-c~( ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~- ' , NAME .,,,m. PHONE `~' $ - ~~ y~ ~, ~ ~ 3~0o Ga~s~ Cab; ~r,v L I(o3 ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ 3 T~ ~"~ ~ 7S i ~ ~- f7~3 G /her t ~r~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , `" ~ ~ ~l Q03 ~ti ~~ ~ s3 ~ S ~ c~ 5 ~ ( ~r~ cc.. 6 ~C P r G , u ~A„J ~~s/ /CO Se~9Lc7rJ ~`G'~ Qb2.1~ S~2~6~5 ~c5~ ~~S~~Qwy~ - 6~,n,.. ~q~ ~~D e ~ ~3.n~~ce ~~- Z4~ X18' J 738~z- ~ ~ ~. . ~-,~ ~-~ ~ 8 ~~ - fs~; .f-r, 24.1 ~ ~ s- ~~~ G U~G~t~cS-,~'Y~ 2„ 37j- ~~,7~' ~y~i ~~ r ~~~ ~; Sal ~~, V cs3 ,; X80- yes` s~~ .~ ~/~ ~ ~~ 3~ ~ y3S~ ~~ - / ~ -~ - ~~~ ~ ~~ss3 3 0-~7 l ~~ ~ya~ gs ~~ ! ~'/2~ a PHONE "~ 1.' DAME ~ ADDRESS Sa,~oP,PL ~. DR~JC S`-io 3v a~ ~ _-~~~~ . S~ T~ ~- ~~~ ,!~ /~ ~ 1~~ ~ v~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ _ X30 ~ ~~~c-~.._- J 7 ~~ /~£~v5 ~~ /~z, d~ ~Ari.b l l~ll~ . Z Y~ ~8 ~ ~ Z - 6 3 zs~ ,~t~p S~v C% / a ~~~ Gil ~ ~~ ~ oa s G V 7~ ~/-~~~ ~ a~~1~ \' f 3 ! D ~ N I 1'1'1 n ~ ~ .~ ; ~ ti~ -~ {~1~ ~,Sf~O~ E ~ ~ ~/ aUoi~ 77Y-~s~~~ Sane,-a f?/la~~,J 3a 50 ~.~d e woo ~ ~~-. s.lcl- ~~~~ Ua. '~7~~ v Cci~-( (~~ (1 S~t. /~ G~'-c./1D~~ U~ ~S~-v ~~ ! 7~G- GG~~ ~.~""~~; ~~7 ~ c~i ~ c~ / / ~ /'4a~i~'P /G/ /~i. She/ a'~~J ~ ~ 7 ~~- ~' a LQ-~-c r~T . ~ Q.~S dd'L. 5 ~t n n crc ~ ~0. ~o~r~a ~-4 G 1 ~' ~ -7 -~ 9 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d_ ~w ~ ~~i~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ v~~~ y ~ ~~ G ~o ~~ Gloal~ ~if w ZY~ F ~'S - L ~L ~ ~- .~ _ l ~ 5 < < ~ -~ ~i ~ ,, ~r ..~ ~ ~~ S? ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.1 ~ `~z ~ (l- ~. ~ ) t ~°^~ ~~ o f ~+~~.` J ~ ~ ~ ~`~ ' i~ Vii/ / i ' ~• / ` ~ '~ -- ~ W L ~! ~ ~ r ~/- < < ~ ~ ,• ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ •(,, ; ,-.",, ' e; 3~~ / "; ^ '.moo' ~x ! 1 `r~ f s~' 4J ` ~ ~ ~"~ 1 C.I. /~ JJ ! ~ / ~ r ~ ' E _ t .~~ 1 ~.C~ t / ~ -~~G'/S' r~J/ S ..? 2 ~Q~tc.vt~3ttL yn.. ~yrc<.2~ ~--"'~-~--f~.,/G;,...1 3 `~ti(- ~ f ri~ .. G• '~ ~ ~ f i~ `4 ~~ . _ f ~1, ,~rr"~F ~ .... ~~ /~ fir ...~.\. ~ti.1~l~~-.~-~ } "J lr7\,,; (t^; 1~.,:~ ~ -r ~. .•--- f r r,~~ ± ~ ~~ ~~ -~~ ~~~ ~ r '/Ltd-~~'~,~y,,~~, , r°~,,\~ ` ` • =y ~Y~ v, ~~ J l =~ . ;~ -~ _ ^ ' ) , I 1 /~ l~.-J''- ~~ ._Y /•~.i11}~"li4`1~'~ .J L~ «~ of (1...-r ~ ~ f' 'f ~y f '~ i ~ - _ __ _ PHONE ~*~=~,1 NAME ~. ADDRESS f ~ s_l ~ Irv ~ ~~7(.U J~/~e.~r,~r,~ ~ ~o~n a ~ ~ ~~ s~ 71 ~l~ Try ~, ~ ~ 7 ;~ , ~~a~~~ ~~ ~5 ~ Z L .~ fw %.~-a-~ ~- ~ 7 'f 3506 s S~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~' . ~ ~ ~ • ~. ~, . _ ~3 ~ ~ ~~ s~ ~~1~ R~ . w3~ ~ ~.~. ~~w• ~~1 }~ ~~- z~ > .cam Trr7~f- - ~' ~~~~3 No~i~ U~ ~~~~-~0 3 ~~~~ ~~6- ~,~~Z~1 r~ 77z-3o~® ,~ :.,~ ;;. ^~ ~~~ ,~ ,m ; Vie~s~z~o- J ;. _ PxorrE -"'r i ADDRESS ..2 / ~`~~~ ~ ti ~' ~ ~ t ~~ ~l ~~ ~~a~o~ ~ 9~~ -~/ 7~ ~ , a ~o~r ~S~-/r3 ~~~ 1 ~ ~- S ~3~ v~ ~ ~ ~ /~ 9~- ~~ ,~~ ~ ~ ,~~~ ~~~ ^~~n G o// ~a.vJ c~2cS~ C~~z . /~~P . ~/~ Z f ~/~ 77 Z ~ / S/~ // .~ ~ 6 ! (o ~~ ~.~ U~ Z o ~ 77~ ~l Z~ "fi~u-n~ • PHONE ~~ ADDRESS G ~~ 3 ~ J o a ~~ ~ ~ tfa ~ 6- ill ~-~ .~k ~rs4iR~a~no~~ 2 Q'gy/S~y ~c ~5'0~ P" ~ 7 ~ a~~ i ~--~ ~ ~ ~ 3 q ~ ~ ~,~^ r J ~'~ ~ -~ • gs.>r~v~ ~ LAS ~ otx,r~a~ ~~ 1. ~o -1,-1.4 ' -l'lb'3 ~vA~'` -~ ~-- l ln. l ~ .~ a1.0 ~. ~~ r~uJ C ~-- . -~~~~ r ~ ~~/~ 1'CJ) ^ y ~ 77 _ Zz9~ ~ ~~Zs ~~,e~ ~. ~ ~l ~ s ~~; ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ 33~s ~4 ~oe,/ ~~ /~ o~4No~E ~ z~a 9 ~ 9 ~9~,3 - ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o /~ aye, ~ ~ 3--~'-c ~` ~:.~,~,.) Cam. y~ o~ -77~- ~~ 3 _ ~~o~~ ~~~-~~ ~~_ -T~ ~oNE -' :° ADDxESS NAME 2.d, C..Uz.c~ 2 ~o ~ ~ 774 -S~3 g XJ4v ~rd8 ~, `~ S`S~ ~ e ~~ m~'~ I~o~ 9. a 7 - 0°1~ a y~s3 f~ ,, ~ ~ ~ ~1~~ ~3 , ~. 7 r~ ~3~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~.~ z~~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~< << i. Ic ~ ~. n~~ f~~~~d1~ ~2-337~0 `~ ~D~ S~ ~~ C~~ ~~~ ~ ~r ~ ~ /yl~ OS9 i - 395% .., .~ ,, ~, ~, lr ~ ~~ Z~,3 b1 5~ i~.v~ 2~~i ~( ~a~ -s3s~ -~ .a~~-g ~(3 ~, ~ ~ 1~~C 9 ~~ ~ l ~ ~~ va ~ `~ - ~_ ~ D ~ a , ~~'~ ~6 o~ ;~~~- ,; I~ME ~~ 4~ ~' ~~ ~ ~~--r ~. -~, .. c. a ~ Co ~I Z 1 0 ~~ Y~ sffi9~~ ~,r,J p,P.. ~~ i~,r/o /fL ~~ . 3'7oC~ B uc~~,~-~t~~ s-7 ~ s c,~-t ~ Cc~ ~~ ~7~ ,~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~''al'1 ~ ~,U,Ja-xa-o~J~c 3y~1 ~C~~'r~~v~i shy ~~i c~ ~~~-- 2~ D S- /co /'cs ~ c ~' c ~ I T'G1-vy vn 3~t-~?~ y~~-~~o .3~J=sz 6 ~ ~~s~~~ _ .~ a _ I'~~ ~7 ~- ~'9a~ ~~ ~I ~`~ /~7 ~7~ / s/~ i i u - ~ ~~{-~29 !3 S~~-b~ e n.cu~ 4B9 -~.3~ 5.85 ~C~,W~~Jr~ ~7~~I5~~ 3 / 1~ ~ ~-s~ -D~° s ~ 9 8 9 - i7~`1 MME ADDRESS rnvivn ~. ~~ oQ~rd~~ V~ Z~d ld' ~ 8 a o m~a ~-~ }~vi oG Tv ~S`I b~ ~~~ ~~ ,Zott-.~ok~. vim- zq o ~ ~S ~ . ' i ~~ ~~~ 6962 ` L ~oI ~ ••..,, 2~oq(~ ~~ ~~~- 90~~ - ~ 5ay~ Ccu,~ S ~ oTh o ~- ~~~-~ ~~ 33 ~ (a Mclo ~c~e, 3 (0 45 Q ~~a~, vim... ~ ~ -~ s3s 3a1a ~ c~m~ ~ Va I 7~(a -S ~ ~ 0~ ~I a ~ c~v~ ~ ~ ~~l~C~ ~~ ~us s~ ? o ~~~~ r l~a~ tit- ~l Q v~ ~. o I ~ ~ ~? ~ - ~' 37~ 59~ o . ~. ~'q~ RIB . ~'c , a ~ 8 U ~ 7~ 7 ~'~ ~ ~~~ g ~ ~ row ~ ~ a G~~ ~i ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~' ~\~, ~ , a~ ~~3 ((ZSS b~'dl-tr~G~~IC .e.~.Q~ ~~ tJ79- akvs ~1ay•4~~ ,~ 'f3~.s ~ a: ~. Vii: ~s4- 7~,Z. ./ ~ ~. ~8z7 ,~'R~/~~ ~.v , s.W X79.08~~ y ~I 31 .~ PxorrE 7' = 7~~~~~ -~~ - ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ v ~ ~~ //~~~ ~ ~ Uf9 t ~/ GO l ~I~,~1 N ~~ '17 ~-- /.~a .~~~-- 2~~ 5 3~~~r 3u~ ~ ~ ~ Y - ~~ 8.~ (,~ ~ ~s ~ ~1a~ ,Q,t , ,~ ~~'q. s s ~~ 350 ~ Sw ~~-S s Uy ~~ d~~~~~ ~6 ~foZ ClJa/cvvo~2 ,,Q /• 7~ ~-87/x, c . ~~~~A W~~ -~ ~ _ ~ - d ~r ~~ s -~-~ ~ ~ . y ~ ~3g ~~,~ S w 338 ' ~-~ ~kT s -~ /Lo ~~o ~~ l~,a- ~ ~9 -/~6.s~ 3~~; ~ ~ oY ~ ~. ~~ ~~ v~ t ~~ - ~O ~~-~ ~~,~ ,~~~ ~~3 g ,,~c~-~ ~ ~~ ,~. w. ,~,~e V~ 9 g ~- /~ czs ~ ~- ~' g9' s~a7 f 723 L~~ ~ r, D D l V ~~~~ 12Z~ ~~~g ~~2 n~ ~ ~ S~ l s" G ~A~~nJ L,L~ 2n,~~e ~~ - S ~ ~ e J-~/ y~,' ~~ , .. E2~~r~J G~ ,~ a-t,~/1 a. ~ ~ Jo ~s ~ „~ ~ PHONE `r Ire ADDRESS y.3~ • .Pd aD ~~~~.~ ~'I ~ / 77~ ~3 sus ~ss~ s~ a~n~ ~f ~oa~o~e v~ a-~o i ~a~ -aq~ a 7s~ ~ ~ ~~~ .~ ~3 , 75s~ ,~ .~ ~ (O 3 l d - /rG ~ r /FDA , r 6~ ~. ~ , ~„ ~. ~ ~i~vv. ~6-~ 5 ~ ~, saa ~, ,~~~~~ a ~J -SnocL 3 S~~ W ~~~ ~~~~ ~~'~ ~~-~~~4 c~ . ,~ 2 ~ ' !S ~- ~~~ ~c~c~~~~~~~~ ??a~U1S~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~ r ~~~ ~Yat -S8~ n L a ~o~s ' ~~~ ~OdndE'e ~ ~~~ ~`~~~~ t~~ d ~ ~ ~ _ .~y~ - ~ boo M~ IG~ j,~-P ~ ~r8 2 ~ 2 - ~<l ~' 7 4110 Woodvale Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018-4721 June 28, 1997 Mr. H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix 3314 Kenwick Trail, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Minnix: SUBJECT: REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FROM C1 TO C2 PROPERTY LOCATED AT BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND ROSECREST ROAD, SW Please accept this letter as a formal protest to the above mentioned rezoning. This neighborhood DOES NOT need another convenience store. We have the 21St Century Store, Harris Teeter, less than a mile from this location, and two lots from Harris Teeter, we have Wilco, a gas station and convenience store. Not to mention the super drug store, Revco. 1. This store would be located too close to Cave Spring Junior High School, which would be too much of a temptation for the children to cross five lanes of traffic to get to this store. And we know what hazard this poses; the possibility of tragic automobile accidents involving either children and/or motorists. 2. With the addition of a store/gas station at this intersection, there will be increased traffic problems in the area. It will make entering or turning on Brambleton Avenue even more difficult and increase the likelihood of accidents. 3. The store/gas station may not have the required 450 feet of visibility for motorists approaching from either the North or Southbound direction on Brambleton. 4. This rezoning will have an effect on the valuation of our property due to the addition of a business that would increase noise, lights, and traffic to our neighborhood. 5. This store would be too close to Cave Spring Baptist Church and would certainly pose a problem on Sundays when parishioners are going to and from Church. 6. Convenience stores seem to attract teens and eventually becomes a "hang out" for them. I highly oppose this action and urge you to vote against this rezoning and the construction of a convenience store at this location. Yours very truly, Betty C. East ~CC: Mr. Donald R. Witt, Vice-Chairperson, 3332 Kenwick Trail, SW, Roanoke, VA 24018 d1-1997 15 28 PMI I Mr. i Mrs. A_ G_ Maxwell, Jr. 9s4 Two Ford Rd_ awoke, VA. 24018 June 29, 1997 Mr. Lee B Roanoke C~ 5204 Bern Roanoke,' Eddy - Supervisor my Board of Supe d Dr. ~ 24018 ~ Dear Mr. eddy: This lett r is to expiess our property t Rt. 221 & Rasecrest cane®nien a store. We Eeel the live is~ ~ is area and~also woul County. PMI has s own the ability to pri that will provide a service not 419. The have promised not to should be taken at their word. A recent ewspaper article expr get to th store, butlI have se waiting f r their chi}dren to b road to g t to #ootbaJ.l games a those sit ations. ' Mr..EddyR it seems that people take rasp nsibility fir things parents d n't want their Childs tell them so and back that up ~ We hope t at you will resist vc resposibi growth andiincreasec Very truf yours, i i i A. G. Max ell, Jr. and Kathie M. Maxwell ~ i I I rs P.03 ~- ~-' '~ i qualified support for the rezoning of the to a11ow.:PMI to use the location for a it would be a real. asset foF those of us who • produce 'additional tax revenue for the: vide Sn upscale, clean and attractive store available: anywhere else on our side of Rt. sell to children during school hours anii ssed concern for children crossing the road to n parents parking in the church parking lot dismissed from school and also CrosSin~ the d have heard no complaints about either of eve gotten into the habit of having gav~rnateltt,._,.... ,,,,_,,,,,_ _ hat should be left up to parental control. If n to go t:o the proposed store, they should th their own authpTity. ting with the noisy minority artd vote fox business tax base in our part of the County. TOTAL P.03 .._. . -. , .._. .. _ ~ -, ~_ u-v - - - - -- T .- a --- .. - -- l/l/c 4/',nos% Ttif f~~ZD,/iy/ of 7/~ ¢SsY`!. -~`••Si~+e~Xr~C ^7s. t3r-va •-.. - ^/^~ n /~'~ ~i~rias:s.~.` ...ti1•~ - ,..~--.:irk.. :_.:_; - ~-..-~ G U/I~~~~ - ~ 1~ l z r vr, ,~f Gi ~ G ~'1 ~' ~' r~ r ~ ~2 c _ r~ ~L~e S~ V I .~- /~ J - 5 ~-~ % ~ _- ___ _ _Gc.1~~ __ L~ ~~ ~y G1 7_ _. _ _ -_. - ~ ~ - "~-~ ~Lli_i. .~ r%~c.~-. ~ Y~-c- -- c~L1t_.~ _~~G_.y~Ytc.~~~ ~_ -%~.~ _ _ -- -- - _ -- _ --------__ _----- - _ J S ,, __ /.CSC.-_~ 1 ~ _ ~~~ _ ..mac-G!~'~LG"_~/,~C~-.,~~( '~~~.~/.~ jLC.~tii_ _ __ ---------------- ~(~/LZ/1~-~- - ~ ~--- -- - _~c.-2Cc1L.-- -- - ~--cLrn.~--~~zzr,~ _ LLt_e__ --C~c.:C~~_-- wJ ~~ C'~v1~z._-l ----- _ _----- - ~' - -- ,; -- - -------------~~c~ _ c_~~. -- ------------- --- ~ - .~(,Gt-t~c.~_~_~ c~c-e C~ ~_C,t- _~~~-C~d_ ~~Cc J_ ~yt ---~~~4~- ~- -~-~ C'G Lip _ - - ~I- ~c~G(~ ._ ~~C-u_-~---e _~--L~ v2~~-_C~ _~'Y~GL2c~- __C~(l.~y~4~p-- --Q_ .~QC ~ -- - 0 ~ ~- _ __ _ __ ------- ------G~ __-~--,_ _{,~-G~1.-(~~'E-Gc.=t=~- __~tiL-k:_ ~~~ _-~ -0-- ~!~-- _ ~~ C'Lt, ~_`~` ~i.~t..~2~~~... ~~ /`ice! __ - ~.. G C- ,. ~ . 4%~'h!4-~Z~_ = 2 L - -~'~ L ~~~-c;~~ ,/'~"'<iu _C /~~L~~f ~ _ ~.,~~_~~ E~_ t-C~~~' 1.-~~ _ l i f ,, _~_ _ ..1-- ~ rr' /, , _ u~7'f C~-'l~ ~~-f'ii.1~ ~,~i t~Cs./li~- ~!C_~'CGi.(,-' /C~ ~G~.~.;rc-. CL-, L~1(' C~~G'r~ -// J' '~ ~ G. _ - - -- - - - ---- - ~ r ~` ~ / '~,; ~ ~ "~ ~ > ~ ~l i ___~ tie ~~GC~~~-Cy_'--- ~C'~i.~--~-d.~) _.Gr~ C2c.~~~- yL~ Wit. ,..~ _~~C~ - - - _ --- ,. i ---- ~ . r c~~.,_ --- - -- ----- --Cc~.~.cJ , _ '_~ec~.z~~ ~ cam- `~~c~-- ~-~~rr~ ----- '~=3~'l~~u--. _--- ,Q ~' ~ ~ _. ,,/ ;~ ~ `~ (aRO~ J. Fours 4137 Chaparral Drive S.W. Roanoke, VA 240 18 540-989-4085 June ~7, 1997 Mr. Donald R Witt Vice Chairman Planning Commission 333 Kenwick Trail SW Roanoke, VA ~~018 Dear Mr. Witt: I understand that there is a request before the Planning Commission to rezone the property located near the corner of Brambleton Avenue and Rosecrest Road Southwest so that a convenience store/gas station can be constructed on this site. The purpose of my letter is to ask that you vote against this request. I can think of no good reason why Roanoke County needs or would benefit from having another convenience store and/or gas station in that area. There are, however, a number of reasons why such construction should be prohibited. ^ Traffic entering and exiting the proposed establishment would impede traffic flow and increase the possibility of accidents on an already heavily traveled and dangerous road ^ A convenience store would surely be a temptation for the students at Cave Spring Middle School. This could cause not only an increase in skipped classes, but also the increased possibility of pedestrian and auto accidents. ^ The presence of a convenience store would encourage the gathering of `gangs' of youths because of the close proximity of the school. ^ Such construction R-ould undoubtedly decrease the value of other property in the area because of the increase in noise, lights and traffic. ^ Wherever there is a convenience store there is the possibility for break-ins, robbery and other crime and violence which could easily spill over into adjacent neighborhoods. In sunny, I strongly urge you to vote against any request for the rezoning of the above sited property. Thank you. Sincerely y s, Carol J. Foutz ~ -' T ems.: ~ ' 1 c , \ a l~ ~ r~:~ x c~ \ ' \~ . Vt.J ~~!- , ~a~..~d `~~~ `~ uG~~ m G~~st'Rac1 ~~ U ~ h~ ~~~ ~~~ c-~~v ~ ~s ~ ~~- hG~,~~.~-~ ~~~, Gam- ~ ~~G~ ~~ ~, ~, \\ ~~ 1 \\ ll GeL C-~c~7~ ~~ o~ v~~~ ~ ~L • ~ `~h~ ~S -- i~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ CS~ ~ ~~ ~ C~-r~c~ ~ ~,__ S~vdi W ~~~ GC~GaS ` \ ~a " ` ~, ~. ~ 2 ~~ `~ o~d sQ~~ ~~ ~n,~. ~ c~csz,e~ ~, ~~~ _~ ~--~ JUL. -0l' 9 % ITUE) 10:52 RKE CO SCH-ASST. GpUNTj, ~?O~ 1. ~'f-G O ' iI' `~ VJ 9~cehr £ • rt,r+~eN OFFICE OF DMSION SUPERINtENDENI' 5932 Cooe Road Roano)xe, Vir~uiia 24019 P)zone: (54b0) 562-3ZQ0 Fsz: {S40) 562-3994 June 27, 1997 7" Roanoke County Planning Commission Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, 5. W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: The Roanoke County School Board met in regular session on June 26, 1997. Several patrons and a student addressed the board regarding the proposed rezoning of an area across from Cave Spring Junior High School from Cl to C2 to construct a convenience store. Patrons and students are concerned about the safety ofstudents crossing afive-lane road. They believe that the store also increases the potential for crime, littering and vagrancy in the area and that there will be great temptation for students to skip school and go to the store to purchase cigarettes or alcohol. Parents feel that student safety should not be saerifleed for additional revenues. The Executive Board of the Parent Teacher's Association (PTA) at Cave Spring Junior High School supports the opposition of building a store across from the school. The board is concerned about the safety of students, particularly during activities that are held before and afer school where supervision may be minimal. Children at Cave Spring Junior Hi6h School eat lunch as early as 10'40 a.m_ and are hungry at the end of the day thus increasing the temptation to cross the road to purchase snacks at the store should they be staying for after school activities. According to the board, a study was completed in 1995 and revealed that over 18,000 cars per day traveled on Route 221. With the tremendous growth in this aria, the figure today may be as high as 25.000. The accident rate on this road is already high. The Chairman of the Deacon Council of Cave Spring Baptist Church addressed the school board on behalf of the council. The deacons agree that it is not in the best safety of students to construct a convenience store in the proposed area. Patrons of Cave Spring Junior High School as well as Parks and Recreation utilize the church parkin6 lot. Many council members have children who attend the school and are concerned about their safety. Because of the concerns of parents and students, the Roanoke County School Board voted to state its opposition to the proposed rezoning of land across from Cave Spring Junior High School from C1 to C2 for the purpose of construction of a convenience store. Chairmsn V[ichael Stovall abstained from the vote due to a conflict of interest. Sincerely, be William A. Ervin, II1 Vice-chairman, Roanoke County School Board c: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors T- y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE ON A 0.94-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROSECREST ROAD AND ROUTE 221 (TAX MAP NOS. 86.12-3-14 AND 86.12-3-15) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF STEPHEN D. AND MARIE FREEMAN WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 24, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held July 22, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Stephen D. and Marie Freeman to construct a convenience store located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221 (Tax Map Nos. 86.12-3-14 and 86.12-3-15) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of ~ 15.1-456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit 1 % ~ is hereby approved with the following condition: (1) The hours of operation of the convenience store and gasoline pumps shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. (2) The freestanding sign shall be a monument style sign that shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 2. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 0.94 acres, as described herein, and located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221 (Tax Map Numbers 86.12- 3-14 and 86.12-3-15) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Office District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of Stephen D. and Marie Freeman. 4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan prepared by Shanks Associates dated May 20, 1997, attached to the Zoning Petition. (2) The construction of the building, canopy, and pavement areas (excluding landscaping) shall be in substantial conformity with the photographs filed with the County designated Exhibits A and B and dated 7/22/97. 2 -y (3) The landscaping of the property shall be in conformity with the plan presented to the County with the following exception: All deciduous trees on the landscaping plan shall be a minimum of 3" caliper in size at the time of planting. (4) Signage shall be limited to 18' in height. (5) No off-premises signs will be located on the property. 5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly right-of-way of Brambleton Avenue, Route 221; said point being at the easterly corner of the property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County (Tax Map No. 86.12-3-16) and more particularly described as Lots 17 & 18 on plat of Layman Lawn, which plat is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke; thence with the division line between the property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and the property of Stephen D. and Lelia M. Freeman, N. 68° 14' 16" W. 211.68 feet to a point on the southerly line of the property of Bill and Kathleen Sizemore; thence with the same, N. 22° O1' 17" E. 190.00 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 0.94 acres, more or less. 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. C:\OFFICE\W P W IN\W PDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\FREEMAN.FRM 3 PROFFERS The undersigned does hereby proffer the following conditions 1n conjunction with the rezoning: 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan prepared by Shanks Associates dated May 20, 1997, attached to the Zoning Petition. 2. The construction of the building canopy and pavement areas (excluding landscaping) shall be in substantial conformity with the photographs filed with the County which are marked as Exhibits A and B and are dated July 22, 1997. 3. All deciduous trees shown on the landscaping plan shall be a minimum of three-inch caliper at the time of planting. 4. Signing shall be limited to eighteen feet in height. 5. No off-premise signs will be located on the property. 6. If VDOT determines that a traffic light is warranted at the intersection of U.S. Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) and Rosecrest Road and approves its installation, the Petitioner shall agree to pay up to a total of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) towards the cost of said traffic signal. St phen D. Freeman Z:\uP50\LISA\SPRING.PRO:laf07/22/97 July 22, 1997 Members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County P. 0. Box 29800 :• Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Members: I am delivering to you a copy of the Traffic Study commissioned by myself and PMI regarding the intersection at Rosecrest Road and Route .221 (Brambleton Avenue) for your consideration in preparation for tonight's hearing on the rezoning. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, ~ _ ~i~~~~~~.~- Stephen D. Freeman SDF/laf Enclosures JOHNSON. MIRMIRAN & THOMPSON Engineer•in;;:1 BrittterFuwre July 18, 1997 Mr. Stephen D. Freeman 3214 Electric Road, S.W. Suite 200 Roanoke VA 24018 9011 ArboreNm Parkway Suite 110 Richmond, Virginia 23236 Telephone ~au4);szs-aauu rax louw~oco-uoyo Re: PMI & Stephen D. Freeman Traffic Impact Brambleton Av. & Rosecrest Rd. Proposed Convenience Store & Gasoline Pumps JMT Project No. 97371 Dear Mr. Freeman: We are enclosing two unbound copies of a Traffic Impact report based on traffic data collected by your associates on July 9 through July 10, 1997 at the subject intersection. The trip generation from the proposed development will produce approximately 4,320 two way trips over a twenty four hour period; however, only 34 to 38 percent of these trips are "Non-Pass-By Trips" while the remainder are "Pass-By Trips". As discussed in our Conclusions Section, Warrant 2 -Interruption of Continuous Flow of Traffic is marginally close to meeting the criteria for consideration of signal installation. Due to the fact that regular school is not in full session this time of year, it is certainly going to increase the background traffic volumes collected for this report. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this report and please call should you have any questions. Very truly yours, JOHNSON. MIRMIRAN & THOMPSON C~~~~G~~l ~f~~~ Charles H. Barnes. Jr., P.E., P Senior Vice President Enclosures Offices in MARYLAND °ENNSYL;hillA `JIRGINIA ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT WATER/WASTEWATER SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA TRAFFIC IMPACT for Stephen D. Freeman Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 & Rosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668 Roanoke County VA July 18,1997 JMT/Richmond VA Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA TABLE OF CONTENTS Traffic Impact for Stephen D. Freeman Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 & Rosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668 Roanoke County VA July 18, 1997 Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 III. EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK 1 IV. PROPOSED SITE ACCESS 2 V. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 VI. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS 2 VII. TRIP DISTRIBUTION 3 VIII. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 IX. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS 3 X. CONCLUSIONS 3 JMT/Richmond VA i Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE I PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 2 PROPOSED SITE ACCESS LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES TABLE 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION TABLE 3 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPENDIX A PHOTO ESSAY APPENDIX B EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS APPENDIX C TRIP DISTRIBUTION DEVELOPMENT Follows Page 1 2 2 2 2 JMT/Richmond VA ii Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA Traffic Impact for Stephen D. Freeman Proposed Convenience Store with Gasoline Pumps Roanoke County VA I. INTRODUCTION The proposed development consists of a 3,000 squaze foot convenience store with four gasoline islands to accommodate a total of eight pump stations. A maximum of eight cars can be pumping gas at any one time. The proposed site is located 250 ft. south of Rosecrest Road and 90 ft. North of Ryan Road, a private street. Site access is presently located at a single 25 ft. wide access location resulting from the widening of Brambleton Avenue/Rte.221. As a part of the rezoning process, Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson was retained to perform a traffic impact analysis for the development. The traffic impact analysis includes both existing conditions and future impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway and identifies needed modifications to minimize these impacts and provide adequate access to and from the development. The report summarizes the traffic impact analysis, identifies the procedure and assumptions used in its development, and also identifies the recommended roadway network improvements. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Petroleum Marketers, Inc. (PMI) are contracting to purchase this property contingent on the successful rezoning. They plan to build, own and operate a convenience store with gasoline pumps on this site. The petitioners are requesting a conditional rezoning from C-1 to C-2 and a Special Use Permit to construct a convenience store with gasoline pumps. The property is approximately one acre on the west side of Brambleton Avenue/Rte. 221 in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Figure 1 depicts the project location within the study area. III. EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK The existing roadway network in the immediate vicinity of the development site are as follows: Brambleton Avenue/Rte.221, a major north/south four lane divided radial thoroughfare with a flush median that provides ingress/egress from the surrounding JMT/Richmond VA a N `~ ' I . \ 1t0 k / / ,~ W'"0 Commondrrr pr 1.2 • 1.1 ,~ ~• rrJ / // sr ..a ae •a glib •' ~~ ~ ry~r rC / : as ~ ~ P. ~//' y eM3•I raa 9 < 14.4 RC! / / +^' + / \: ~o \ s ~ 9 ~ ~~ Cn• SIriM euarrr Cnurrn / " e' E \ - Pr. 68 2 i S ~i 1M4 / W b iA2 4 «~ 4/ IS ,12 \ 3 6 `' O / ` r II \ 1 r T , / ~ t.>•t~~r tol r to \ :e 4 to $ ry9 O • $ ~Q~ `\ 17 9 "' $ can tOnnq vem:,! enerew / ~ •7^ 1 a \ So 3 / ~ rn S O 2.104 ~ 8 ref ~+ /,' ~ /V 1 • / r rte/ a ~ IJ ~ / m ~ b `• Care Samq Bead Uurrn 22t4~ / r pofgtretr / lSS~ l ~ ~ ~ // goon / '~ Rotvorgj! l/ / ~ • ~ II ~/ °°o/ S. IZI '~r a ryN eo,/P 20 ~I 12 % ~ 13 by9 .I'O to •a,'e^ e ~ ~ o.y ...19 ~q ZC.. 14 / Y Cam? Srnee/d'arld '~ / Absnel. LLur/ 8r r- ,~ / , A t e S /% Ca•nJ Sctwe:5ba~s c! / nuanuar c 7 / nrtl~~t0 ~'/ WINDATE APPRAISAL AND MAPPING SERVICE so.roa, wnum. MAp ~~t .\ ~\ \ \ \ \ ,~ \ cq.rr>ro\~ `\\\ \ \ \ ~ ~ '. \ ca,nr„ smaa eenre a~ App,m•r Caen// \ \ 19 ~ \ t7:.s4t01 ~ \ 2~.t24 ICI \ 2 \\ •` / ~ \~.\ ~,iC •r[• f0~0 na, rf l 1 ~~wvTL ~avf ~~~~~~~ .- Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA residential communities along the southwest corridor to the greater Roanoke area. The posted speed limit along this arterial is 45 MPH. 2. Rosecrest Road/Rte.1668 is a local collector roadway that provides ingress/egress from several residential developments west of Brambleton Avenue. The roadway is atypical two lane subdivision street in character. IV. PROPOSED SITE ACCESS The proposed access to the development is a 50 ft. commercial ingress/egress apron off-set to the southern end of the property along the western front of Brambleton Avenue as shown in Figure 2. V. EXISTING CONDITIONS Present traffic demand in the study azea was determined from review of traffic data collected by Springwood Associates from July 9, 1997 through July 10, 1997. Intersection turning movement counts were conducted between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. at the following intersection: Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 &Rosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668. The Cave Spring Junior High School ingress/egress does not line directly across from Rosecrest Rd.; however, it was counted as a fourth leg at the tee intersection. Photographs of all approaches to the intersection and existing lane configurations are included in the Photo Essay in Appendix A. Copies of the results of the turning movement counts including graphic representations are included in Appendix B of this report. Table I depicts a summary of the approach volumes for both approaches from the major highway (Brambleton Ave.) and the minor approach volume (Rosecrest Rd.) for each hour of traffic data collected from 7 AM through 7 PM. VI. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS As presently proposed, plans for the development discussed in Section II.of this report are used to forecast future traffic conditions upon completion of the proposed development. It is these land uses which aze used to determine the amount of traffic which will be generated by the activities. To accomplish this, trip rates were based upon the Trip Generation • An Information Report: 5th. Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and the 1995 Update. The trip generation was developed for the proposed land uses and building types listed in Section II. The trip generation analysis is included in Appendix C. JNIT/Richmond VA 2 9A(I.~IOZSX 2lOd A(YTd .LdSJNOJ ~ ' ~ b ~ Yf7 r.tS 3i1 Y J K 10Ie YI MIaHLt =5~4b1D-sYS (OISI 9 ~ (OIS) acl+ 1iYC 1 S B ,~~+~,,/ ~,/p ~y~~/~+ / ~y~ ¢ / J { ~ ~/ p ~ / p ~ / / +, ~+,~/ p~p~~~ J ,~ e7®.~l9IClY /® e7K7®/!3/~~/ /e~ ~ e~O~~/~7~0~0~7.~ ~ / d~ `~al• I+~o7e7 Y ~l7/D Yl7e7 ~~ 8991 31(1021 - Ob'02115321~350a yy yV. N ~ g u ~ N ` 6 ~ Z aYf ~i3 ~+ wv ~ +~ ~~$ 3 I I y j~ pp O N %* 3rii P ~O< ~~ q 53~ ~ C=V 4 1 ~~~ i v o w ~-' ~ I I a e~~ ~ ~ N ~ 3 ~ a x c- ay~ ~ i~ i yy ~3 g I I a5 i ~ ~ ga ~ xr a W ~ ¢¢ $ ~ ~ l¢ I I ~ 6 i n ibm ~ , S^ ~ a~ b I ,s. g ~g~ •~~ '~ ~ : ~ I I ~~ ! I ~'~ ` ~ , ` N :=n ~ ~ ~'~~ s ~ N ~ ay~~ ~ ~ '' a ~ ~ ~Y~ i5 ~SdS~f 4Ts~ ~ •~ i H ~ R o^ 3C ~ ~+ ~ ~3~ ~ ~ X ~ d s X 3 I ~ ~i~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ E I I ...:.: _ :. .... .. R i S;a ~• _ ~ i 3.3 ~. ~ ~ Q U ~ `` big ~~ s , ~ i ~ ~~ 3~ rp ~. ~:~ ' r ~~ ~~~ _ 1! Q ~ I m z ~.:. :: ::•~ ~ u ~: ~ ` ~ ,:.. a ° ~ ~"~ ' I fie` ~- :. :" ~::~ ~ # s .>. ~ ,il I ::•. :~: ~~c >:... .. it _ #. • ~ ~. ~~~ '=- ~` ~ F~~ ~~9 ~Y>SS b8 oy°e [C I, ;? Sb7 I ~ ' I I i i ~ I •~mY• d.N ~r~m• ' ~ ~ ' ~ •'j ~. I (Oros 7trnwd) 3N~ll NV,(21 .am: r~-siw - .. y..la ~ waa ~ I II I' I I I ~ I i ~ i I ~ TABLE I EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 7/09-10/97 ' 'HOUR Major Approach Vol. oth Minor ' Approach Volume ~~ 7 - 8 A.M. ~ 1019 77 ~8-9 ~ 891 17 9 - 10 683 48 ~ 10 - 11 ~ 703 47 ! 11 - 12 ITT 709 43 12 - 1 P.M. 726 65 1 - 2 715 84 !2-3 739 102 3 - 4 812 74 ';4-5 ~ 1015 116 ~ 5 - 6 1254 43 6-7 1037 47 TABLE II PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION Major ~Nlinor Approach Approach HOUR Vol. Both iVolume 7-8A.M. j 61 ~ 5. 8-9 ~ 49~ 3 9 - 10 ( 38'~ 2 10-11 ~ 43 3~. 11-12N ( 44j 2 12 - 1 P.M. 38 I 3 1 -2 36! 5 2-3 41 ~ 6i 3-4 43 4i 4-5 54! 5 5-6 I 69~ 2' 6-7 ~ __ 57' 2! TABLE III PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing + Proposed Convenience Store With Gasoline Pumps Major 'Nlinor Approach Approach 'j HOUR ,Vol. oth !Volume 7 - 8 A.M. ~ 1080 ': 82 8 - 9 I, 940 ! 20 9-10 ; 72:1; 48i X10-11 7461 50 11 - 12 N '. 753 45' 12 - 1 P.M. € ,,764 68 ;1 - 2 ( 751 - 89 ~2 - 3 ( - 780: 108 i 13 - 4 j 855 78 i 4 - 5 ! 1069 12 I ~5 - 6 E 1323: 45 6 - 7 1094 49 Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA VII. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of trips was assumed to replicate the existing traffic approach percentages for the intersection and trips were assigned accordingly. The traffic was then distributed to and assigned to and from the site for each of the twelve hours. The assumed distributions and traffic counts are depicted in Appendix C. VIII. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Using the assigned traffic volumes to and from the site depicted in Table II and adding them to the existing background traffic at the existing intersection analyzed reveals the total traffic volumes depicted in Table III. IX. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS There are eleven warrants listed in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for the justification of traffic signal installation. Warrant 2 -Interruption of Continuous Flow of Traffic requires that when there are two or more lanes of moving traffic on each approach of the major street and one lane of moving traffic on the minor street approach, there needs to be at least 900 vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and at least 75 vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach for any 8 hours of a twelve hour period from 7 AM to 7 PM. However; the warrant further states that when the 8~ percentile speed of the major street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural azea, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant is 70 percent of the values above, 630 and 52 respectfully. As observed from Table III ,this warrant is then satisfied for 6 out of 12 hours during the 7 AM to 7 PM period with 2 additional hours being just shy by 3 or less vehicles. X. CONCLUSIONS The additional traffic generation developed in this analyses does not include the additional traffic movements that may occur with the completion of other proposed new construction within the immediate study azea such as: The proposed Cave Spring Baptist Church plans to construct a 23,700 t square foot expansion to include a 9,400 squaze foot family life center with a gymnasium and fellowship hall, weight room, and space for other indoor activities. This facility plus a 14,266 square foot education addition which tivill include additional space for expansion of the day care center that will add additional weekday traffic through the subject intersection. JMT/Richmond VA Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA The Roanoke County Planning Department anticipates an additional 350-400 new housing units in the county in the next year and approximately 1 ~ percent of this development will occur in the Rosecrest comdor. This would produce approximately 50+ single family housing units which would generate another 500 daily vehiculaz trips per day that may utilize this intersection. ;. It should be recognized that the traffic data collected for this analysis was performed when regular school was not in session. This condition obviously does not include additional traffic movements at the subject intersection generated by home to school trips. As noted in the staff report, Cave Spring Junior High School is overcrowded and approximately 2 million dollazs worth of improvements will be put into that facility. From a traffic circulation safety and operational perspective, it would appear that consideration should be given to reconfiguring the ingress/egress to the school complex to include making provisions for primary access directly across from Rosecrest Road and eliminating other points of ingress/egress. This improvement would greatly increase the safety and operation of buses and passenger vehicles entering and exiting Brambleton Av. and Rosecrest Rd. through a protected movement with traffic signalization. Interior circulation within the school property could be designed to allow safe loading and unloading of students without interfering with parking movements. The intersection is on the threshold of meeting one of eleven signal warrants as required in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.. The Warrants for Traffic Signal Installation specifically state that "Tra c control signals should not be installed unless one or more ofthe signal warrants in this Manual are met. " Should a traffic signal be installed at the subject intersection, consideration should be given to include a coordination unit with the existing signals upstream and downstream from the intersection. While the proposed traffic distributions based on the proposed development may in fact follow the analysis performed, existing and future growth policies of the local jurisdiction may change these conditions. This analysis is an acceptable approach by the review agencies to determine what impacts development proposals may have on the surrounding roadway network. JMT/Richmond VA 4 Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA APPENDIX A PHOTO ESSAY JMT/Richmond VA Photo EssayBrambleton Av. & Rosecrest Rd./Roanoke County Looking East Along Rosecrest Rd. Toward Brambleton Av. JIVIT/Richmond VA Looking West Along Roasecrest Rd. Intersecting With Brambleton Av. ,~.._~ i_ '^x t ` } t` ^ aF`~'i~7~c Ik 7 ~ ,~i At ~i}~~ 7 Photo Essay/Brambleton Av. &Rosecrest Rd./Roanoke County Looking South Along Brambleton Av. Across From Rosecrest Intersection On Right Looking North Along Brambleton Av. From Intersection With Rosecrest Rd. On Lefr JNIT/Richmond VA Photo EssayBrambleton Av. &Rosecrest Rd./Roanoke County ~:- t x; ~- .. ..r:~~3 yr° ~._ +Rh. ~. ti-- ~ View North From Cave Springs JHS On Right &Rosecrest Rd. On Left .View of Cave Spring Baptist Church From School Parking Lot JNIT/Richmond VA Photo EssaylBrambleton Av. & Rosecrest Rd./Roanoke County z +yy ~ Y i ;. ?.4 .~'=r:.'!~ y"s'~'a~Y~~e'+,'~~.~:4~'`q~' ,,f~..~1 ~;~:'r-1~'~,~ ,s ~ y~r.!r~ ~" r~±R. . r~+. ~1 ..~yt""~~; .'". ~ ~ aLra v....'}`~^t~.. ~ s .~ . ~'.':~..i:..c- 'r wf. View From Site Across Brambleton Av. Facing School Parking Lo' View Of Site From Across Brambleton Av. JiVIT/Richmond VA Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke County VA APPENDIX B EXISTING TURNING MOVEl~iENT COUNTS JMT/Richmond VA Turning Movement Count Brambleton Av./Rosecrest Rd. Roanoke County VA Source: Springwood Associates Vehicle group 1 Study Name: 973116AM Site Code :97371002 Start Date: 01/10/41 Page : 1 Brambleton Av,/Ate. 221 Cane Spring JHS Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 Rosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668 Southbound Westbound Northbound - Eastbound Start Intvl. Tim L f Thr Right thar L ft Thru Ri h Other Left Thru Right Other Left Thru Ri ht 0 her To a1 07/10/97 07:00 4 18 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 ll4 0 0 9 0 2 0 153 01:15 26 31 2 0 2 0 11 0 2 192 4 0 13 0 8 0 291 07:30 6 S8 0 0 0 0 24 0 6 249 2 0 14 0 4 0 363 07;4 1 0 0 0 0 6 21 1 0 24 0 3 0 2 Hour 37 172 12 0 2 0 40 0 17 114 7 0 60 0 17 0 1138 08:00 3 52 S 0 0 0 0 0 1 181 0 0 12 0 5 0 259 08:15 1 59 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 148 0 0 7 0 4 0 225 08:30 4 68 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 1Sfi 0 0 10 0 1 0 245 08:4 0 62 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 21 Hour 8 241 18 0 0 0 2 0 6 6I8 0 0 42 0 13 0 948 09:00 1 57 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 104 0 0 12 0 2 0 179 09 : i5 3 61 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 9Z 0 0 9 0 4 0 175 04:30 0 45 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 lI7 1 0 8 0 5 0 186 ~a:45 6 S 0 0 1 1 12 0 0 6 2 0 1 2 Honr 4 228 19 0 0 0 1 0 6 425 1 0 35 0 13 0 732 10:00 3 10:15 3 10:30 0 X0:4 0 Hour 6 11:00 3 11:15 0 ii:30 1 X1:4 1 Saar S 12:00 1 12:15 4 12:30 1 '2:45 12 Hou* 18 To~ai 18 1 ~ =ar. ~ :_:. 4.3 8 1.5 3 Start Turning Movement Count Brambleton Av./Rosecrest Rd. Roanoke County VA Source: Springwood Associates . Vehicle group I Brambleton Av.JRte. 221 (Cave Spring JHS IBrambleton Av./Rte. 221 Southbound Westbound Northbound 4991 raMbleton Av./Rte. 221 21 1 3 163 54 5129 Rosecrest Rd. e. 16 07/18/97 ve Spring JHS 49 8 07 : 01daM 143 12:45pM 62 78 ~~ 73 11 335 89 BraMbletan A~./Rte. 221 4688 7 1663 4 1 2945 Study Name: 973718AM Site Cade 91311002 Start Date: 07/10/9T Page ; 2 Rosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668 8astbound ~Intvl. Turning Navement Count Brambleton Av./Rosecrest Rd. Roanoke County VA Source: Springwood Associates Vehicle group 1. Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 Cave Spring JBS Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 Southbound Westbound (Northbound Start Study Name: 91371EAN Site Code :91371002 Start Date: 01/10/97 Page 3 Rosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668 Eastbound Time I Left Thru Right Other! Left Thru Right Other( Left Thru Right Other Left Thru Rightht Other Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection far the Period: 07:00 on 07/10/97 to 12:45 oa 07/10/97 Time 01:15 07:15 07:15 07:15 Vol. 36 206 16 0 2 0 38 0 15 841 7 0 63 0 20 0 Pct. 13.9 19.8 6.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 95.0 0.0 I.7 9T.4 0.8 0.0 75.9 0.0 24.0 0.0 Total 258 40 863 83 Bigh 07:45 07:30 07:30 07:45 Vol. 1 59 9 0 0 0 24 0 6 249 2 0 24 0 3 0 Total 69 24 257 27 PHF 0.934 0.416 0.839 0.168 1200 raMbleton A~./Rte. 221 6 8 ~~ _ 2 31 40 1244 Rosecrest Rd. e. 16 0?/18/97 ve Spring JHS 114 0?:15aM 83 0$ : OOcZM 3 ~ ~~ 0 7 83 43 raMbleton A~./Rte. 221 1091 2 6 228 1 863 ' Intvl. Turning Moveaent Count Brambleton Av.;Rosecrest Rd. Roanoke County VA Source: Springrood Associates Vehlcle STOUP 1 Study Name: 91371HPM Site Code :97371001 Start Date: 07109/97 Page i Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 Cave Spring JHS Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 Rosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668 Southbound Westbound Northbound 8astbound Start Intvl. Tim L f hr Rioh 0th r Let T ru Ri ht Ot~er 6ef Thru Ri ht ther L ft Thru Right Other Total 01/09/91 . 13:00 12 53 3 0 3 0 17 0 6 49 2 0 7 0 7 0 1S9 13:15 1 111 10 0 0 0 3 0 3 90 1 0 19 0 11 0 249 13:30 2 91 6 0 0 0 2 0 4 BO 0 0 14 0 2 0 201 1 '4 11 8 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 7 0 2 Haur 26 344 22 0 3 0 22 0 18 302 '3 0 57 0 21 0 824 14:00 10 96 8 0 3 0 7 0 6 10 0 0 18 0 6 0 224 14:15 2 86 5 0 0 0 2 0 6 83 0 0 26 0 9 0 219 14:30 2 92 6 0 0 0 1 0 4 85 0 0 14 0 S 0 209 14;4 81 0 0 0 0 0 4 86 1 0 14 1 9 0 202 Hour 14 355 25 0 3 0 10 0 20 324 1 0 72 1 29 0 8S4 15:00 3 86 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 78 0 0 9 0 8 0 .194 15:15 0 104 S 0 0 0 0 0 4 69 0 0 8 0 4 0 194 15:30 2 124 S 0 0 0 3 0 4 86 0 0 8 0 5 0 237 15:4 12 7 0 0 2 6 0 0 20 0 1 0 2 S Hour 5 442 24 0 1 0 3 0 12 329 0 0 45 0 29 0 840 16:00 0 136 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 81 0 0 20 0 9 0 258 16:15 1 168 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 78 0 0 11 0 13 0 290 16:30 0 172 7 0 0 0 1 0 2 73 0 0 18 0 17 0 290 1 :4 1 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 70 0 0 11 0 0 294 Hour 2 659 39 0 0 0 1 0 13 302 0 D 12 0 44 0 1132 17:00 0 165 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 93 0 0 1 0 1 0 282 17:15 1 199 9 0 0 0 0 0 8 92 0 0 9 0 4 0 322 17:30 0 249 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 103 0 0 7 0 6 0 376 11:4 1 2 14 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 4 311 Hour 1 805 48 0 0 0 0 0 13 387 0 0 28 0 15 0 1241 18:00 0 178 13 0 0 0 0 0 4 86 0 0 7 0 6 0 294 18:15 0 163 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 86 0 0 9 0- 3 0 276 18:30 0 132 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 97 0 0 11 0 1 0 248 1 :4 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 6 4 261 Hour 0 618 41 1 0 0 0 0 10 368 0 0 33 0 14 0 1085 Total 48 3223 194 1 1 0 36 0 86 2012 4 0 301 1 1S8 0 6082 ~ Apr. 1.3 42.8 5.7 16.2 - 83.1 4.0 95.7 0.1 - 65.8 0.2 33.9 - ~ Int. 0.1 52.9 3.2 0.1 - 0.5 1.4 33.0 - 5.0 - 2.5 - Start Turning Movement Count Brambleton Av./Rosecrest Rd. Roanoke County VA Source: Springwood Associates vehicle group I Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 (Cave Spring JBS (Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 Southbound Westbound Northbound Study Name: 973718PM Site Code 97371001 Start Date: 01/09/97 Page : 2 Aosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668 Eastbound ~Intvl. 5825 raMbleton Av.fRte. 221 99 6 - ? 285 43 6881 Roseorest R e. 16 87f89f9? ve Springy JHS 751 81:88PM 96 8b:45p~ 87 48 1 1 158 4 466 53 aMbleton A~./Rte. 221 5498 15 3388 8 4 2102 Turning Movement Count Brambleton Av./Rosecrest Rd. Roanoke County 0A Source: Springwood Associates Vehicle group 1 Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 (Cave Spring JHS (Brambleton Av./Rte. 221 Southbound Westbound Northbound Start Time I Left Thru Right Otherl Left Thru Right Otherl Left Thru Right Other Peak Hour Analysis By Bntire Intersection for the Period: 13:00 on 07J09/9T to 18;45 on 01/i Time 11:15 17:15 17:15 vol. 1 818 46 0 0 0 0 0 16 380 0 0 Pct. 0.1 94.5 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 95.9 0.0 0.0 Total 865 0 396 High 17;30 11:30 1T:30 Vol. 0 249 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 103 0 0 Total 259 0 104 PHF 0.834 0.000 0.951 Study Name: 91371HPM Site Code 97311001 Start Date: 07/09/91 Page 3 Rosecrest Rd./Rte. 1668 Eastbound Left Intvl. 0 20 0 0.0 41.6 0.0 0 4 0 19J97 17:15 28 58.3 48 17:15 9 13 0.923 1273 SraMbleton A~./Rte. 221 6 62 13 09 Rosecrest R e. 16 8 07/09/97 ve Spring JHS 110 1 Bb;OOpM V 0 48 1 BraMbletan Av,lRte. 221 1234 2 83$ 1 "396 Stephen D. Freeman/Roanoke Count- V A APPENDIX C TRIP DISTRIBUTION DEVELOPMENT JMT/Richmond VA ~~ `_ Project S~~~G~ ~ ~<e-errr~:~ /~,Q.4~'7dl.6Ta~~ ~l~ s ~o.: ~~~C~JT . ~/I ,\i ~~~~~ Subject 2oquo,rc': Coiv~ (/d Job No. 9737/ . ~ T i/ p/~r~z~g.rr~o„~ Qc~EC~oME~r Sheet No. / of ~ JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN BcTHOMPSON _ EngineertngABrlghterFtttUre Computed By ~yfj Date ~~¢ y7 Checked By Date 9011 Arboretum Pkvry. • Richmond, VA 23236 . (804) 323-9900 rri TAP C~~Q~i~/~ 5'~°• C~~~a,~ _ ~~I / // //, LA//V(/ U' ~ LL UG „ _ ' .~.%~ 4r~/~!~~~'.`._'.~~.,~ /f~~~~.r'..~ y~~~~~ ~J~~fJ~ U/~~~ O ~~=//~> ~~ is ~~iJ> >c S~Z. ~O = ~35~4 TTl/L ~~~~.0/ %ZipS Tiy,. ~/ , t/~ ~ ! ~".'..v ~~ n.. PO L ~D.~ JP • !"/ . D G2JIf ~i/i 1C~1 = ~'/¢S ~o c~ 3 X CJ`TJ. ~if , // ~ - / _ ZS3G TTAL ~/~d,~y ~~Pi T,~r~c 71Z-e ~c~,s~a'.>~!,~y o~ GvCEKpAy ass- gy jc,,~~ ,,// Y a ~/~~LG V// ~- ~ ~v~//y>,C,v1~ Ci ~L•~D/'y ~AlI " ~y ~ 01 ~/~'/, ~~. ~~ ~ G~ /4v~r~c ~r..r .tar'-Fic o ~v~ziNC ~~N -~fl - /jy T~~ / 3 ¢ O ~ ~~~i~~ of1-~y T,p l ~~ a /~'.~v~~ ~ e (/` /UT/'/L ~!L/mil QCCU.~ ~GTGrJ~=~ ~/J•~~ - /7I~/"!. ~ ._ 7Z /,ei~r ~' `_ Project,{~/~1J~ ~'G~~{'~~/~,t~~~i~c~b~ ~y~a~Ot~!.~Z.~KTT ~~• .,/~ ,\, Subject ,QU/JNOKC ~.OVNT~ ~A Job No. 737/ .~/'~1~ /,~~~ /~~~~~ih~T- Sheet No. ~_ of ~' .WHNSaN. MIRMIRAN &THOMPSON F.~-g(neet~ngABrighterFutUre Computed By Date 7 / ~~ ~ Checked By Date got t Arboretum Pkwy. • Richmond, VA 23236 (804) 323-9900 n L%x11'r7-vG //~iZ.~zTr~ ~/1~C. /l/m'~~jvrJ,~ _ T ~ /j/ZAr.3~?Oltl ~v. /J/~/J/Y/~CL'IDn~ ~v, /COiCZIZC7? /w. GTiO a ~G~~ S% (°,1 ~/~ (off «~. 7-8,4,~~ 2Z/ (20) T~'8 (73~ ~~ ~T~ 109G /~ 9- /o Zs/ C 3g~ 93z CS7) ~3 C7~ 73/ ~ l0 - lI 305 (4/~ 3~d (S3~ 47 (6> 7So 7 //- /2 N 337 (~s) 37Z (¢~J '~ (Gi Tsz ~ /Z - / Pal, 405 (S/~ 32/ (4l ~ ~J (8) 7~ / 7 3 -~ ~ ? 1 (53~ 3~/ (3 ~ T~ (~~ ~ 8~ ~ ¢- s 700 (~Z~ 31.5 (z?~ //~ (/D~ //3/ 10 -~ Pf¢ <~G~ X00 ~31~ ~3 (3~ IZ97 IZ G- ~ ~ s9 CG /~ 378 C3>> 47 (4~ /D~~ /D /~ /a~ Sao .3472 ~~~ ~K/p ~~01 7/~ /!/j ~ 7P/~ ~~ T ~/ ~~ ~~pp ~o T T~ ~- 5~ s C~V%~L /1/oIJ"/'A/1'6y /~/~i ~!o ~k IT NON ~/J /J'/ //L9~_ ~ -9 8 l3~ .; Z /3~ SL 4 `/~ ~ /O¢ ~0 /D4- ~ /o `l/ 7 /Z / 4~ l Z / ~G //-/Z~ ~ /Z/ ¢~ /z/ 4~ /z- /P1~1~ ~ /Z/ /Z/X 3¢l = 4/ /Z/ ~/ / - 2 7 /Z/ 4 / /Z l ~`rl Z- 3 8 /3a 47 13~ ~~ 3-4 ~ ~3z ~7 /3~ ¢7 .: -~ /Z Z0 ~ 7 / Z0~ 7/ %' - % to . l7~ 55 /7~ S5 ;~7Z x /Jl k ~~% = /7~ . / /~ ~\~ .~/~~~ JONNSaN. MIRMiRAN &THOMPSi1N En~neeringA Brighter F~tUre 9011 Arboretum Pkwy, • Richmond, VA 23236 (804) 323.9900 Project ~7'f ~ ~P~i~1 y ~ ~l~ ~~CL1~ /~Z,~r"i5i ~-~~. //Y. ;~,C~,/~"Z:, ~~, Subject . ~r/.I^lo.~E ~ov~.%v /~/J Job No. 9731 TLio ~il77ZiBUT7o.v /~c-r,~-r.ov.~r~,T Sheet No. _,~ of ~_ Computed By ~/,//3 Date 7//:~/y 7 Checked By Date /n~ ~-- ////IELT/~ r~ /.' ~. /~ J'TR/,j ~l/9 /V - i:2//> ~C:/J ~.~','/J~J So % C,rrrt~ ~SG °~ ~u iT /J/L/~/'~'~~ n.~ /,V /.~24~i~S'CL?b i./ NX• /CO:EZ/ZC7T ,~D. /aTAL/V9A/- < SJ.-:`~Jv~:O r ~/ \JG NOKT,'JffoUfi) 0~ /_ ~' ,~J%~'~G' ~ /~ Pi/~,Uy ~C/1~J 9-/0 /¢ (34~ Z¢ (S5~ Z (~~ ¢o /o -/i / y (¢/~ Z~- ~53~ 3 (~~ ¢G Z - 3 ZZ (~7~ ~~ (4~~ 6 (IZ) ~ ~ 3-¢ Zs (53~ ~~ ~3r~ ¢ (d~ ~7 ~- s 3 ~ (~z) l7 (Z?1 S (~D) S~ S - ~ ~7 (~G~ z z (51 % Z (3~ 7/ G~xZa% = /3 ~~X7~ = s ~~ ,. CHARLES H. BARNES, JR., P.E., AICP Senior Vice President; Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson EDUCATION: 1966 / MSCE /West Virginia University 1964 / BSCE /Virginia Polytechnic Institute REGISTRATION: 1976 /Professional Engineer Registered in VA, WV, MD, NC, DE, PA, FL, CA AFFILIATIONS: Institute of Transportation Engineers -Fellow VA Section ITE -Past President American Society of Highway Engineers American Institute of Cemfied Planners E?~ERIENCE: JMT 4 1993- 1987-1993 1971-1987 1968-1971 1963-1968 HIGHWAYS Mr. Barnes has nearly ;~ years of transportation and project management experience in preparing corridor location studies and environmental impact statements, functional and anal design documents for highways and traffic impact studies. He has special experience in highway/community conflicts through public information meetings, public hearings and mediation process. Other 30 Johnson, Mirmiran and Thompson Parsons DeLeuw Wiley & Wilson City of Petersburg Virginia Department of Transportation JOHN ROLFE PARKWAY, HENRICO COUNTY, VA Project Manager responsible for the preparation of an Engineering Evaluation of the Proposed John Rolfe Psricway in Henrico County to provide a connection in new location between the I-63/I-29~ interchange west of Richmond to ~'rg_ nia Primary Route 6 approximately six miles to the south. An Environmental Overview document was also prepared to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with construction permitting. The primary work elements included detailed tratTic modeling and analysis, and preliminary roadway and interchange design. Based on the final design concepts, an evaluation was performed on the cultural resources and an Environmental Assessment was prepared on the .proposed action. Assisted VDOT with public and interagency coordination, including participation in public information meetings and a location public gearing. A mediation group was formed after the Public Hearing with a designated representative and back up from each of the affected neighborhoods as well as public officials from Henrico County, a VDOT official, and the consultant Project Manager. Eleven evening sessions were held over a six week period which tasted from three to five hours each. A consensus was reached among the group on the limits of the proposed John Rolfe Parkway, the typical sections and the location of at-grade and grade seaarated intersections. U.S. ROUTE 360 BYPASS, LYNCHBURG, VA Project Manager responsible for preparing plans, specs and estimates contract documenu to improve an inre:Change on the U.S. Route 360 bypass and to build a new four-lane divided urban arterial roadway with curb and gutter, side•.vaiks, storm drainage and two signalized intersections to serve Liberty University expansion and a proposed 300,000 square :oot shopping center. Liberty University is one of the fastest growing colleges in the nation, with an existing enrollment of '..00 students that is expected to double in the next decade. A 12,000 seat football stadium to be doubled by the year =~1t;0 and. a~10,000 seat basketball arena were being constructed on campus during the design phase. This fast-track project was .resigned, advertised. contract awarded, constructed and opened to traffic within 10 months from notice to proceed. The contr..ct .vas administered by the City of Lynchburg with reviews provided by VDOT. Project was completed within budget and ~~n rime. CANON BOULEVARD, CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VA Project included preparation of complete plans, specifications and bid documents for construction of Canon 3oulevard in the City of Newport News, Virginia. ROUTE 265 (DANVILLE BYPASS)/RIVER POINT ROAD INTERCHANGE, DA`1VILLE, VA Project includes providing complete photogrammetric Route Survey, Right of Way and Constructioc '!ans. Sign. Signal. Pavement Markings and Marker Plans for the addition of an interchange on the Danville Expressway ~ route ?6~ jar the River Point Road Bridge Crossing. JMT will be responsible for assisting in the preliminary deveiopment and P-~::rninary Design ~•vith prime responsibility for Preliminary Hydraulic Design. Citizens Involvement Meetings and Design Puci:c :?earings. and Final Hydraulic Design. TRAFFIC J.E. JAMERSON PROPERTY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The proposed Planned Community consisted of a 107 acre Industrial Park, a 120 acre Retirement Community operated by The Christion Church (Disciples of Christ), and a mixture of single family, apartments, townhouses for sale, commercial, and community facilities such as a Library and a YMCA. The site is located on a 410 acre tract of land in the City of Lynchburg between Forest Drive~U.S. Route 221 in Bedford County and Timberlake Road/U.S. Route 460 in Campbell County. The total trip ends for the horizon buildout will generate approximately 23,200 trips per day. The southern end of the proposed thoroughfare provides primary ingresslegress to the development and terminates with Laxton Road which includes Brookville High and Middle Schools and Tomahawk Elementary School. Considerable coordination was involved during the study process with The City of Lynchburg, Bedford and Campbell Counties, the VDOT Lynchburg District office, VDOT Bedford Residence office, VDOT Appomattox Residence office and the Campbell County school officials. The rezoning was recently approved and planning is now under discussions for roadway and bridge design contracts with the Ciry of Lynchburg. ATLEE STATION BUSINESS PARK, HPuYOVER COUNTY, VA Project Manager for this traffic impact report on the proposed two million square foot office park on a 236 acre tract of land owned by Media General, Inc., a diversified communication company whose holdings include the Richmond-Times Dispatch, at the intersection of I-295/LJ.S. Route 301 in Hanover County. The recently completed 438,000 SF newspaper production facility has set the tone for the development of the remaining office park. Accessibility to U.S. Route 301 and its close proximity to the interchange weighed heavily in analyzing levels of service during build-out peak traffic conditions. PROPOSED NORFOLK SOUTHERN CENTER, DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, VA Project Manager for traffic impact study for the proposed Norfolk Southern Center. A report was prepared on the impact of the proposed office complex to 15 intersections in downtown Roanoke and the supporting roadway network. Two separate site locations were evaluated and the study provided results of our analysis for several alternate scenarios in 1992 and 2010. A vital pan of the study process was the eazly coordination and continued involvement with the Ciry of Roanoke. the Virginia Department of Transportation and Norfolk Southern. One of the two sites evaluated included a proposal to remove a major access to downtown on the Jefferson Street viaduct. A proposed major access to the CBD loop was also evaluated and strongly recommended for construction prior to removal of the viaduct. Both sites presently have major office buildings completed. LYNCHBURG, VA TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM Project Manager for this project which involved the design of a computerized traffic signal system which included 25 signalized intersections with expansion capabilities in the Central Business District. The central control computer for the system was located in city Hall in the Traffic Engineering Division office. All intersections were equipped with emergency pre-emption and communication capabilities. All new hardware for the signal support system was included in the design contract as well as the under~ound interconnect system. WEST PIEDMONT PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION, D.auYVILLE, VA Study of six thoroughfare corridors including 60 individual intersections for traffic operational improvements. R~commendadons . included transportation system management type implementations to improve levels of service improvements as well as safety considerations. Proposed intersection alterations were superimposed on screened aerial photographic prints of existing conditions at a scale of 1 inch = ?5 feet. IVY ROAD DESIGN STUDY, CHARLOTTESVII.LE, VA The Ivy Road Stuay was sponsored by the University of Virginia, the city of Charlottesville, and Albemazle County. The Plan includes guidelines of roadway enhancements such as landscaping, lighting, walks, crosswalks, bicycle lanes, anti signa;e. Charlie Barnes iJMT} participated in this project as subconsultanc co LlKLA in his previous employment with the Parsons Transportation Group -Harland Bartholomew and Associates. SOUTH BOSTON, VA -This project included the preparation of plans and specifications for replacement of six signalized intersections in South Boston, Virginia as a pan of streetscape landscaping improvement project. LYYCHBURG. VA -Proposed Burson Creek Shopping Center Traffic Impact Study. Development included :Val-Mart anchor store plus several ocher retail establishments. PLANNING ROUTE 288 CORRIDOR STUDY, CHESTERFIELD, POWHATAN,G000HLAND, ~uYD HEYRICO COUNTIES, VA Task Manager responsible for the transportation planning and traffic engineering on the proposed Route 388 EIS and Corridor Location Report in Richmond, Virginia. The proposed faciliry will be a 19 mile long, 6 to 8 lane limited access highway including a major bridge crossing of the James River, and up to seven major interchanges. The Study area included approximately l40 square miles within four counties. Traffic forecasts were developed through the use of the MIMJTP Crave! forecasting model A digitized network of the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization area was available which ;neatly enhanced the model scenarios. Forecasted volumes were used to determine capacity and levels of service on the project roadways; at intersections and interchanges; and to identify recommended improvements. Forecasted traffic data was provided to roadway designers to prepare interchange configurations for functional design. Capacity analysis were performed on major intersections and interchanges using the Highway Capacity Software packages. A Draft and Final Traffic Transportation Technical Report was prepared as one of many technical reports included in the final EIS. ROUTE 288 INTERCHANGE, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA Project Manager for traffic analyses and engineering services to assist VDOT in determining whether to provide an expansion of the Powhite Parkway/Route 288 interchange to accommodate an eastbound Powhite Parkway to southbound Route 288, and the return movement The purpose of the analysis was to establish the Year 2005 traffic volume that would divert traffic from the proposed southwest quadrant ramp movements when a 25 cent toll is imposed on these ramps. U.S. ROUTE 58 CLARKSVILLE BYPASS, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, VA Project Manager for this route location study and environmental assessment to locate a corridor for a U.S. ~8 Bypass of the Town of Clarksville, a major employment center in rural Mecklenburg County located in Southside Virginia. This location study will help expedite the legislatively mandated improvement of U.S. ~8 to a four lane divided highway serving southside Virginia that will enhance the economic development potential, employment opportunities, mobility and quality of life across the entire southern tier of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Three build alternate corridors were analyzed as well as the No Build Alternate. Preliminary engineering plans will be prepared for the corridor selected by the Commonwealth Transportation Board at the completion of the 18-month study. Functional plans were prepared for all three build alternates. A vital part of the study process was the early and continued involvement of the citizens who would be affected by the study's outcome. A two-way exchange of information, ideas and values between the study team and concerned citizens was fundamental to the success of the srudy effort. The approximately 10-mite corridor from Finchley to Buffalo Springs crosses the John H. Kerr reservoir, an impoundment along the Roanoke (Staunton) River, which has sensitive environmental concerns with a large state park located along its eastern shore. The present route also traverses through the main street of downtown Clarksville, which borders the reservoir along the western shore and enjoys increased recreational opportunities associated with the fake during the summer months. . U.S. ROUTE ~8 CORRIDOR STUDY Project Manager for U.S. Route ~8 Corridor Study between the intersection of State Route 722 west of Clarksville to U.S. Route east of South Hill, a distance of approximately 35 miles. The study included nine independent projects as follows: Clarksville Bypass -Corridor Location Study and an Environmental Assessment were prepared to determine the !oration for a 1-lane divided limited access faciliry around the Town of Clarksville. The approximately l0 mile corridor crosses the U.S. Corps of Engineers John H. Kerr Reservoir, an impoundment along the confluence of the Roanoke (Staunton) and Dan Rivets, which has sensitive environmental concerns with a large state park located along its eastern shore. Clarksville borders the reservoir along the western shore and enjoys increased recreational opportunities associated with the lake during the summer months. Functional roadway design plans were prepared for three candidate build alternate aliQttments. seven Parallel Widenin}Projects -Seven previously desisted parallel widening projecu between Clarksville and South Hill were analyzed to determine the impacts associated with the following alternate design consideration: - Parallel widening to the North of the existing roadway - Parallel widening to the South of the existing roadway - Parallel widening to the North or South that would provide the least wetland impact -- A compromise parallel widening that would provide the least impact considering displacements, wetlands, and engineering design criteria concerning roadway safety and economics. South Hill Bypass -Corridor Location Studies prepared by VDOT on four candidate build alternate alignments were reviewed and an environmental assessment was prepared. U.S. ROUTE 58 LOCATION STUDY, STUART TO HILLSVILLE, VA Establishment of a corridor location, preparation of functional preliminary plans, and the preparation of a complete environmental analysis and document of a 36 mile corridor between Stuart and Hillsville Virginia in Patrick, Floyd and Carroll Counties. Identify engineering constraints, develop alternatives, prepare functional design drawings of candidate build alternatives, quantify engineering features and costs, and document engineering studies and findings to determine the most feasible location for the sections in the rolling terrain of U.S. Route ~8 improvements between Hillsville and Stuart, VA. Part of the design objective is to ensure that the preferred alternative selected for implementation is the least environmental damaging practical alternative that meets the project needs in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulations and that sufficient documentation is developed to justify that section. EAST ROANOKE CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR STUDY AND EiS, ROANOKE, VA Project Manager for this route location corridor study and Environmental Impact Statement to locate a corridor for an eastern circumferential route connecting Interstate 81 northeast of Roanoke to U.S: Route 220 southeast of the City of Roanoke, a distance of approximately 18 miles. Four build alternate corridors were analyzed as welt as the Transportation System Management (TSM) and No Build alternates. Functional engineering plans were prepared for all four build alternates. A vital part of the study process was the early and continued involvement of the citizens who would be affected by the study's outcome. A telephone hot-line was available to citizens to have atwo-way exchange of information, ideas and values between the study team and concerned citizens. The approximately 18-mile corridor crossed the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Appalachian Trail, the proposed Roanoke River Parkway and Explore Project. These facilities have sensitive environmental concerns and a substantial amount of coordination was necessary with the respective agencies. HARRiSONBURG, VA; DANVILLE, VA; PETERSBURG, VA ANNE:CATION Responsible for analysis of demographic data, [and use planning, zoning, subdivision ordinances, highways and streets, public transportation, redevelopment and housing, and testifying before the Commission on Local Government and a Three Iudge Court. FREDERICKSBURG, VA Study to determine feasibility of annexation. LOWER PARISH POORLAiYDS, SUFFOLK, VA Report for feasibility study on development of X00-acre industrial park at Driver, VA, City of Suffolk. LIBERTY BAPTIST COLLEGE, LYNCHBURG, VA Master Plan for development of 3,500-acre campus to include academic plan co 1990. Preliminary layout of five modular ,campuses to support community of 50,400. Master Pian update for completion of 200-acre lower campus to accommodate 10,000 students. Estimated cost of (00 million dollars. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, LYNCHBURG, VA ~"' Project Manager for preparation of architectural and engineering plans and specifications for 114,000 SF academic building. ~-. JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN & THOMPSON, ranked #313 for ENR's Top 500 Engineerinc Firms, is amulti-disciplined civil engineering and transportation design firm that has been providing professional design services to the states of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania for over two decades. JMT's corporate commitment to design excellence is founded upon its dedicated staff of cver 185 engineers, planners, surveyors, computer technicians and landscape architects. Over the past twenty-five years, JMT has completed Hearty one-thousand designs for virtually every type of civil, transportation and water resources project accounting for over $1 billion in constructed facilities. JMT has "hands-on" experience executing an assortment of assignments. During the past five years JMT has provided their design services for an array of projects including those required for: • Roadway Design • Bridge DesigNlnspectivn • Roadway Reconstruction • Airports • Parking Lot Design • Landscape Architecture • Traf>ic Engineering • Stormwater Management • CADD Assistance • Preliminary Engineering Studies • Storm Drainage Design • Water/Wastewater and U~lity Design • Wetlands DelineatioNMitigation • Construction Management JMT has an experienced, multi-disciplined professional and technical staff available to provide services for virtually every type of civil or transportation assignments including: • Roadway Design • Intersection Improvements • Bridge Design • Bridge Inspections and Ratings • Utility Design and Relocation • Wetland Delineation and Mitigation • Regulatory Permits (i.e. 404, USACOE) • Surveys • Construction Inspection • Construction Management • Development Reviews • HydrologicaUHydraulic Analyses • Stormwater Management • Storm Drainage • F/oodplain Reviews • Floodproofing • Parking Lot Designs • CADD/G/S • Right-of-Way • Traffrc Engineering • Signal Design • Aerial Photography The capabilities and capacity of JMT represents some of the most extensive and diverse highway, bridge and environmental talents in this region. That JMT has the "Capability" and "Capacity" to deliver the desired services to its clients is reflected in the enviable reputation of JMT to consistently deliver innovative products and services to their client's "on time" and "within budget." In fact, over $0% of JMT's current work is being provided to repeat clients. ~~~ ~~~ .~6~1 ~ a ~~~h ~~~~e~~~ JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN & THOMPSON has documented experience in all aspects of traffic engineering, forecasting and design. JMT has worked on many traffic projects and are intimately familiar with state policies and procedures, existing traffic trends, proposed development and other conditions that influence the approach to a project. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES Traffic engineering studies are conducted by JMT for a wide variety of projects including the need for a traffic signal, adjustments to the phasing of a signal, accident analysis, need for street light;r~g, spot speed studies, parking inventory, parking demand studies, transit inventories, traffic counting and review of signing/striping adequacy. Origin-destination studies are conducted which include license plate matching, post card survey and vehicle interviews. Corridor studies are managed using many of the above studies to develop TSM-type recommendations both for short and long term improvements. TRAFFIC FORECASTING/ANALYS/S JMT has extensive experience in developing traffic forecasts using models such as MinLITP, QRS-II and EMME-2, or manually through the urban transportation planning process. Forecasts. are developed both on an average daily traffic and peak hour basis. Trafftc analysis has been conducted on numerous projects through the use of the Highway Capacity Manual, Critical Lane Summation Technique as well as various signal analysis packages such as TRANSYT-7F. S/GNALIZATION Contract plans and specifications have been prepared for a number of traffic signals throughout the East Coast. Traffic signal designs have ranged from isolated intersections to signal systems. Signal timing has been included as part of many of these projects. The design has included the layout of all equipment, deveiopment of wiring and phasing of the signals, and construction details. SIGN/NG/MARK/NG/L/GHT/NG JMT has prepared signing, marking and lighting plans for a variety of projects ranging from interstate highway to parking lots. Signing plans are detailed to individual projects to include the layout of the signs, sign messages, sizing of the signs, determining post sized and design of the size supports. Signing is designed to match the characteristics of an area to be aesthetically pleasing. Pavement marking plans are developed to include the location, type and color of markings. Plans detail the type, spacing and equipment to be utilized in the construction of the lighting. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES - JMT is experienced in both preparing traffic impact studies and reviewing traffic impact studies for public clients. The range of studies includes determining the affects of new development on the roadway network for private clients and how public facilities such as baseball stadiums, garages; train stations, vehicle inspection and subway stations influence traffic. Reports are prepared for all projects and findings are presented to the public or appropriate officials. JMT also reviews development reports prepared by other consultants for state agencies, acting as their representative in order to recommend changes or adjustments to the report. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Traffic Control Plans are prepared for a wide variety of projects. All appropriate standards are adhered to in the design in order to provide for a safe and efficient movement of traffic during construction. The various stages are developed, including the design of any temporary signs or signals and the layout of all channelization devices. .~ ~~~~/ \~ I/ I, ~~~ JONHSON. MIRIMW W &THOMf ~~~~'~' JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN &THOMPSON and its personnel have e.~ctensive e.~cperience providing surveying services for commercial, industrial and residential sites for both public and private clients. Specific types of survey services JMT provides includes the following: • Topographical Surveys • ProFrles and Bench Run • .Cross Sections • ~~~7etes & Bounds Surveys • Right-of-Way Stakeouts • Constrccction Stakeouts • iYliscellaneous Surveys • Spur Lines • Traf~CC Signalization Surveys • Condemnation Stakeouts • Hydrogmpf~ical Surveys • Test Boring Locations All of our key staff personnel have proven experience in the establishment of horizontal and vertical site control, aerial control, construction surveys and the completion of extensive topographic and metes and bounds surveys. JMT has provided and continues to provide prompt responses to all client requests for control, construction surveys, topographic and metes and bounds surveys and support mapping. All field crews are equipped with modern total station surveying instruments and electronic data collectors. The total stations and associated equipment are regularly checked at calibration stations and adjusted to ensure their accuracy. Attention to accuracy is strived for with continuous checking performed as surveys progress. Control surveys and verification information will be entered into bound field books with detailed sketches to provide sufficient documentation as the surveys progress. Review of field notes is completed to insure sufficiency of sketches and details. JMT is able to provide the verification of initial site control; supplementation of control points with adequate monumentation and referencing; metes and bounds surveys with detailed sketches; utility location surveys; workmap generation depicting topo, property lines and control as it is established. JMT refined software to enable electronic field data collection in combination with total station survey instruments of topographic and metes and bounds surveys. Field data stored in the data collector is downloaded to CARD workstations, processed through JMT's topography program and working plans are immediately generated. Line work is connected, elevations are annotated along with point numbers. Any scale workplot can be produced and with minor additional CARD drafting, the workplot is completed ready for transmittal to the client. Global Positioaircg Systems (GPS) JMT also offers the alternative of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to establish the precise reference points for the required surveys. The advantage of using the GPS method is that it is less costly, faster, and more accurate than conventional surveys where remote areas, large tracts or long distances are being surveyed. The coordinates of points can be expressed in either the state plane or UTM coordinate systems. The coordinates of reference points can be established to a higher accuracy using GPS than with conventional survey techniques utilized to traverse tong distances. These points are used to provide precise control points throughout the project area that can be used for all future surveying needs. All this may be accomplished for less time and cost than ,~ `._ conventional survey traversing required to reference to control datum that is not located'~~I~~~'~ near the site. JOHtiSON.M1iWaRAt1 &THOM E~eerla~~1 l3riPhlet' hlmu JOHNSON,MIRMIRAN&THOMPSON isamulti-discipiinedcivilengineeringandtransportation firm with over twenty years of experience providing quality services to public and private clients. ROAD WAYS/HIGHWAYS JMT has provided project planning and highwayand bridge design services to stateand local transportation clients fornumerous projects involving hundreds ofmiles ofhighway/roadway infrastructure and accounting for over a billion dollazs in constructed highway facilities. His~hway design activities include typical sections, plans and profiles, degree of curvature, lane assignments based upon capacity and Level of service analyses, superelevation diagrams, cost estimates and right-of-way requirements. Geometric studies establish a horizontal and vertical alignment to balance earthworkrequirements while minimizinggrading impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as the stream, wetlands and woods: Projects have ranged in scope from local roadways tomulti-!ane divided interstate freeways and interchanges. Services have also been provided for the design of new facilities as well as the reconstruction, rehabilitation and expansion of existing transportation facilities. Specific type of roadways have included: • Local Streets • Collector-DistributorRoadways • Divided Arterials • Interstate Highways • Diamond Interchanges • Cloverleaf Interchanges • Service/Access Roadways • Pavement Design PARKING/'TRANSIT FACILITIES JMT has recent parking facility design e.~cperience in investigations, conceptuai,preliminary and final design, and preparation of contract documents for site development and parking lots. JMT has also performed the design of MARC stations which feature high and low level platforms, pedestrian tunnels, kiss and ride loops, shelters, and bus interfaces. UTILITIES JMT has been involved with esrtensive record research, surveying and locating required fqr underground utility systems including potable water, waste water, storm water, pipelines, telephone, traffic signal systems, electrical power and gas service. Our staff is thoroughly familiar with the procedures of obtaining utility plans and records ranging from coordinating all field locating and test pitting activities with public and private utility companies to providing field surveys for the horizontal and vertical location of underground utilities, test pit excavation, pavement restoration and permit or traffic control requirements forworking within highway ROW limits. SITE DEVELOPMENT JMT has experience in coriceptual and contrac commercial properties, improvements. a wide variety of services involving site development, including t documents for both private projects such as residential and and public projects such as station layouts and military base ~ -. ~~~ ~~ .,/~~\ JOHtISON. M1WYUilAf1 & THOM F~neerlr~A Brighter FtmQ JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN & THOMPSON is a consulting engineering firm with demonstrated experience in the design of new bridges and rehabilitation and repairs to existing bridges, including awide variety of structure types including straight and/or curved geometry; a variety of materials including steel, concrete and wood; and construction methods including staging for maintenance of traffic. A review of typical projects includes examples of the following: Bridge Inspection/Rating JMT is experienced and thoroughly familiarwith the requirements for performing bridge inspections. A major portion of our practice has been in field investigation, testing, evaluation and ratingofstructures and thepreparation and development of maintenance requirements and recommendations for repairs and/or rehabilitation. The type of inspections performed have ranged from preliminaryvisual ins pections and bi-annual inspections to indepth hands-on inspections with nondestructive testing using corrosion potential and Rand D-meter equipment and destructive testing using cores, chloride samples and steel coupons. All work is under the direction of a registered professional engineer. Bridge Design JMT is also experienced in methods for repairs and/or replacement of structures as well as design of new structures, such as: • New Structures over water, highways andJor railroads constructed in steel and timber with straight or curved 1 or box girders in simple and continuous spans • DeckRehabiliationsofBridges,includingconcreteoverlaysorfulldeckreplacement using concrete, open grid or filled grid systems • Box Culverts, including single cell, multiple cell, pre-cast concrete and cast-in-place concrete • Retaining Walls, including cantilever, NISE,,avity, proprietary, counterfort _ • Bridge Widenings, including insidewidening, outsidewidening, continuous deck, longitudinal joint • Moveable Bridges, including bascule, swing span, single leaf, vertical lift, double leaf Multi ~Ylodal Facilities JMT has experience providing structural engineering services on a variety of transportation facilities, including the following multi-modal facilties: • Transit Stations,includinghandicapaccessibilityramps,pedestrianbridges and tunnels, and high anal low level platforms ~ !'%I ~~~~\ ,lOtiJiSON. MIRIIIUAAN & THOk f~tneerivg~i ert~ta'r ~a: JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN &THOMPSON is a civil engineering Firm specializing in the planning, design and construction supervision of storm drain, stormwater management facilities, highway, bridge, transportation and environmental enhancement projects. Hydrologic/Hydraulic Engineering JMT's staff have provided drainage design required for storm drain and stormwater management facilities. We have performed field investigations, watershed computations using TR 55, TR-20 and Rational Method, channel and ditch analysis using Manning's formula and related homographs, storm drain system sizing and hydraulic gradient analysis and inlet spacing design and spread and pickup analysis. The hydraulic staff have provided hydraulic modelling of watersheds utilizing the ACOE computer program HEC-2 for water surface profiles. JMT have provided design services for the in-depth analysis of stormwater management impacts for various improvements and to provide a feasible design for implementing stormwater management mitigation facilities which includes infiltration, retention ponds, shallow marsh areas, if appropriate, extended detention ponds and detention pond facilities. Reports provide a clear and concise explanation of all stormwater management impacts and mitigation measures and facilities. JMT provides hydraulic experts whose experience in watershed analysis, floodplain delineation, storm drain and stormwater management facilities structure sizing results in minimum impact to the floodplain. JMT has performed an on-going open-end hydraulic analysis contract for floodplain analysis and permit acquisition for over five years. This current and on-going involvement with floodplain analysis and the permitting process provides our staff with relevant up-to-date experience with the requirements and latest analysis procedures. Storm Drain Design JMT's staff is experienced in providing design of storm drain systems. Closed storm drainage systems and inlet capacities are analyzed using the Rational Method. Larger watershed areas conveying stormwater to proposed cross culverts are analyzed by SCS methodologies, TR-55 or TR-20 computer models. Current zoning is utilized for developing ultimate land uses, determining soil types and groups, and topographic mapping for developing to flow paths. Sizing of drainage facilities considers the ultimate development discharges. Existing drainage facilities are analyzed to determine if they meet the drainage criteria; those which aze not adequate will be upgraded, replaced or supplemented with additional inlets and/or pipes. Sediment Control Design Our staff provides efficient and clear sediment and erosion control designs as related to storm drain and stormwater management facilities projects. Sediment and erosion control design and plan preparation aze performed in accordance with the procedures and criteria of the appropriate agencies. Controls are designed to take advantage of the natural features of an individual project site and are coordinated with other construction activities in order to produce an efficient and effective sediment and erosion control plan. Water Quality Facilities JMT fully examines the feasibility of alternate corrective solutions to identified nonpoint runoff pollution sources. Best Management Practices (BMP's) for both urban and agricultural nonpoint runoff pollution problems will be developed. The BMP's will include Infiltration Basins, Infiltration Trenches, Dry Wells, Porous Pavement, Shallow Marsh Ponds, Retention/ Wet Ponds, Extended Detention (dry) Ponds, Vegetated Waterways, Vegetated Buffer Strips, Forest Buffers, Water Quality fnlets, Stabilization of Eroded Areas, Wetlands Creation and/or Enhancement Stream Restoration Perman t E d S d' t Cont of Devices en rosion an e amen r , Implementation of Agricultural Conservation Practices. . ~~~ .~/~~\ JOHl1SON,MIRl1~R1W &i}I0~ . ~lnecrtngABrl~~erFua~ JMTs Water Resources Division is a synergistic effort between JMTs water resources engineers, environmental specialists and landscape architects that can be supplemented with the multi-disciplined resources of the entire company. The JMT Water Resources Division specializes in providing water resources services to meet the special needs of each project and the services provided are many and varied. HYDROLOGY Watershed evaluation and modeling utilizing both time tested and state-of- the-art analytical and computer modeling methods including Rational Method, TR55, HEC-1, Penn State Runoff, USGS Regression and analysis utilizing GIS software. HYDRAULICS Analysis of just about any hydraulic system, structure, open channel flow pressure flow, etc.? Analysis tools include HEC-2,HECRAS, WSPRO, HY8, HEClZ, KYPIPE, STORMCAD GRADIENT and the experience to know how to use them. FLOOD PLA1N ANALYSIS AND MODELING Utilizing JMTs HYDROLOGIC and HYDRAULIC expertise, JMT can develop complex analytical computer modeling for any open channel and floodplain situation. These analysis include bride/structure modeling, HEC-2 or HECRAS floodplain modeling, FEMA floodplain or floodway analysis. FL000 PROOFING/FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION: JMT can identify and evaluate flood proofing and flood damage reduction measures to fit specific project requirements. JMT has designed flood proofing measures such as structural modifications (walls, sealing openings, berms, levees, swales) to prevent flood damage to structures. JMT specializes in the design of flood control projects utilizing such measures as relief drains, detention structures, levees, steam diversions and by-pass systems. JMT is familiar with ACOE publications, "Flood Damage Reduction Manual: and "Design Guidelines for Flood Damage Reduction." JMT is also familiar with FEMA modeling methods and procedures. SCOUR INSPECTION AND ANALYSIS: JMT has performed Phase 1, 2, and 3 scour evaluations for many bridges. The work includes field inspection, evaluation of existing structures, based on state and federal criteria and detailed scour analysis for both existing and proposed structures including the design of counter measures. JMT is intimately familiar with . FHWA publications, "Evaluating Scour at Bridges (HEC 18)," "Stream Stability at Highway Structures (HEC 20)," and "Highways in the River Environment" as well as the use of the FHWA computer program "Scour at Bridges"(HY9). STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: JMT has designed hundreds of SWM facilities from - complex detentioNretention structures to extensive networks of infiltration facilities. JMT is also under contract to review SWM plans for several c}ients and has reviewed hundreds of SWM plans for compliance with client and Code 378 criteria. WATER QUALITY JMT has designed a variety of water quality enhancement facilities using established Best Management Practices (BMP's). These facilities include infiltration basins and trenches, water quality inlets, retention ponds, biofiltration, bioretention, shallow marsh ponds, extended detention ponds, sand filters, erosion and sediment control facilities. ~ %% .,/I~\ a JOHl~50N. MW~N1ft~W &TH014~: F~neerfn~ABrl~terfkrcu~ JOHNSON, M1RMIRAN & THOMPSON is amulti-disciplined civil engineering firm with over 25 years of excellent service to our clients. The capabilities of JMT represent some of the most extensive and diverse services in the Mid-Atlantic Region. JMT specializes in the planning, design and construction of water and wastewater systems including wastewater treatment plants, pumping stations, force mains, low pressure sewer systems, gravity sewers, water treatment plants, water wells, and transmission and distribution mains. Typical project types include the following: FACJLLTY PLANNING ^ Master planning of local and regional water and wastewater facilities; ^ Planning of water supply facilities including surface and well supply, treatment plants, transmission mains, distribution systems, and storage facilities; t Planning of wastewater facilities including collector sewers, interceptors, force mains, pumping stations, and treatment facilities. WATER SYSTEMS ^ Design and preparation of construction documents for supply, distribution, transmission, and storage facilities; ^ Design of industriaUcommerciai fire protection systems; ^ Engineering services during construction; ^ Water system fire flow testing and analysis. WASTEWATER SYSTEMS ^ Perform infiitrationrnflow analysis and sewer system evaluation surveys; ^ Design and preparation of construction documents for wastewater facilities including collector sewers, interceptors, force mains and pumping stations; ^ Development of sewer ordinances and rate schedules; ^ Engineering services during construction. TREATMENT PLANTS ^ Design of water and wastewater treatment facilities including innovative/ alternative treatment processes; ^ Process flow audits/evaluations. PROJECT MANAGEMENT = Contract administration; ^ Cost management and quality control; ^ Oversight and claim evaluation preparation and negotiation; ^ Permitting, preparation of applications for point of discharge, wetlands permits, and construction permits, as well as assistance preparing state/federal grant applications. - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ^ Inspection services, scheduling, claims analysis and mitigation, and design build partnering. FACILITY START-UP/TRA/NING ^ Prepare operations and maintenance manuals; ^ Training of operations personnel and start-up assistance. PRESENTATIONS ^ Public hearings; ^ Expert witness testimony; ^ Special consultation and presentation of testimonies. .~~, .~/!V\ ~~~~> ~~~ JMT offers a full array of construction management, construction inspection, and construction support services. Our client base includes federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private institutions, commercial, and industrial concerns. As the owner's agent, JMT assumes a proactive stance to aggressively anticipate potential problems and develop solutions before the program is adversely impacted, which furthers the owner's ability to maintain schedule, cost, and quality. • Master schedules and budgets • Design A/E selection process • Design reviews • Value engineering • Bid package coordination • Public relations • A/E contract management • Cost estimating • Constructability reviews Procurement and oncm~rr;n~ ptiaae • Bid preparation and coordination • Pre-construction conference • Detailed CPM construction schedule • Progress meetings • Documentation • Change order evaluation • Quantities, pay requests • Quality control inspection • Final acceptance coordination Post-construction and Occunancv • Manage equipment start-up • As-built documentation • O&M manuals, personnel training • Close out documentation • Claims analysis and mitigation • Furniture and equipment coordination • Phased move-in management Professional Staf,~: JMT's registered professional engineers, cost specialists, inspectors, and certified MCET technicians deliver construction support services for highways, bridges, utilities, and transit facilities; commercial and industrial buildings; environmental projects and other public works projects. In the field, JMT's support teams report to job sites with state-of-the-art surveying, inspection, and testing equipment along with the necessary understanding of project needs and regulatory requirements. Accurate and Timely Documentation. Documentation is critical for swell-organized project and for claims avoidance and defense. JMT's project managers and office engineers utilize computerized documentation systems to accurately record meeting minutes, proposed changes, RFI's, shop drawing logs, daily reports, quantities, and non-conformance items. Schedule Expertise. Utilizing the scheduling software most appropriate for the project, our project managers analyze the contractor's CPM in accordance with the contract documents, evaluate the logic and compliance with critical milestones, and evaluate the adequacy of the contractor's resouuces. The approved CPM is then utilized to review the schedule of values and to assess construction status. Estimatin~Snecialists. Cost control starts at the concept phase when the owner's budget is reviewed to determine its compatibility with the scope and schedule. During the design phase, our estimators produce- independent estimates using computerized estimating systems, and verify the A/E's compliance with the original program. Construction phase proposed change orders are analyzed and comparative estimates are prepared. Our :Yfission. While the services provided consist of many individual tasks, the mission of any .JI~iT professional is to manage the owner's schedule and budget, and to control quality. We perform as the owner's agent in a partnering atmosphere, because the most successful projects are those with open communication and proactive decision making. JMT provides the appropriate management resources, openly communicates with alI stakeholders, maintains accurate technical documentation, suggests efficient construction procedures, assures quality control, and, as the owner's agent, has the owner's best interest as the motivation for aII that we do. ~ %%/ ~~,~\ ,{flHNSOtL ML1i1110RAN 8 THOB~ Frtn~A l3ri~trcr f Utrm C. WARRANTS 4C-1 Advance Engineering Data Required A comprehensive investigation of traffic conditions and physical characteristics of the location is required to determine the necessity for a signal installation and to furnish necessary data for the proper design and operation of a signal that is found to be warranted. Such data desirably should include: 1. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during. l6 consecutive hours of a representative day. The 16 hours selected should contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic. 2. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, Editor classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, Rsvns public-transit vehicles and, in some locations, bicycles), during each 15-minute period of the two hours in the morning and of the two hours in the afternoon during which total traffic entering the intersection is greatest. 3. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in paragraph (Z) above and also during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where-young or elderly persons need special consideration, the pedestrians may be classified by general observation and recorded by age groups as follows: (a) under 13 years (b) 13 to 60 years (c) over 60 years. 4. The 85-percentile speed of all vehicles on the uncontrolled approaches to the location. 5. A conditions diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersectional geometries, channelization, grades, sight-distance restrictions, bus stops and routings, parking conditions, pavement markings, street lighting, driveways, location of nearby railroad crossings, distance to nearest signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use. 6. A collision diagram showing accident edate,eand day of week fo~at direction of movement, severity, time of day, least one year. The following data are also desirable for a morbee obtaineddduringdthe of the operation of the intersection and may periods specified in (2) above: 1. Vehicle-seconds delay determined separately for each approach. 4C-1 Rev. 3186 2. The number and distribution of gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street when minor-street traffic finds it possible to use the # intersection safely. 3. The 85-percentile speed of vehicles on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control. 4. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or a Sunday. Adequate roadway capacity at a signalized intersection is desirable. Widening of both the major street and the minor street may be warranted ~~_~~ to reduce the delays caused by assignment of right-of-way at intersections Rey. s controlled by traffic signals. Widening of the minor street is often beneficial to operation on the major street because it reduces the green time that must be assigned to minor street traffic. In urban areas, the effect of widening can be achieved by elimination of parking at intersectional approaches. It is always desirable to have at least two lanes for moving traffic on each approach to a signalized intersection. Additional width may be necessary on the leaving side of the intersection, as well as the approach side, in order to clear traffic through the intersection effectively. Before an intersection is widened, the additional green time needed by pedestrians to cross the widened streets should be checked to ensure that it will not exceed the green time saved through improved vehicular flow. 4C-2 Warrants for Traffic Signal Installation Traffic control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the signal warrants in this Manual are met. The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants is not in itself justification for a signal. Information should be obtained by means of engineering studies and compared with the requirements set forth in the warrants. The engineering stuciy_ should indicate the installation of a traffic signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. If these requirements are not met, a traffic signal should neither be put into operation nor continued in operation (if already installed). For the purpose of warranting signalization, awide-median intersection should be considered as one intersection. When a traffic control signal is indicated as being warranted, it is presumed that the signal and all related traffic control devices and markings are installed according to the standards set forth in this tiianual. It is further presumed that signal indications are properly phased, that roadways are properly designed, that adjacent traffic signals are properly coordinated, that there is adequate supervision of the operation and maintenance of the signal and all of its related devices, and that the traffic iv-ss t Rey. s aC-2 signal controller will be selected on the basis of engineering study and judgment. An investigation of the need for traffic signal control should include where applicable, at least an analysis of the factors contained in the following warrants: Warrant 1-Minimum vehicular volume. ' Warrant 2-Interruption of continuous traffic. Warrant 3-Minimum pedestrian volume. Warrant 4-School crossings. Warrant 5-Progressive movement. Warrant 6-Accident experience. Warrant 7-Systems. Warrant 8-Combination of warrants. Warrant 9-Four Hour Volumes. iv-2o (cj Warrant 10-Peak Hour Delay. Rev. a Warrant 11-Peak Hour Volume. The analysis should consider the effects of the right turn vehicles from the minor street approaches. Engineering judgment should be used to lv-sa tc) determine what, if any, portion of the right turn traffic is subtracted from Re,,. s the minor street traffic count when evaluating the count against the above warrants. 4C-3 Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume The Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of signal installation. The warrant is satisfied when, for each o f any 8 ~ hours o f an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor- street approach to the intersection. An "average" day is defined as a weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at the location. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 1 Vehicles per hour on ;Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on higher-volume mi- on each approach major street (total of nor-street approach Major Street ylinor Street both approaches) (one direction only) I ................ 2 or more ....... . 2 or more........ 1 ................ X00 1~0 1 ................ ~~ 1 ~U 1 ............... X00 2 or more........ t'~00 - Sd0 ~~~ 2 or more........ - These major-street and minor-street volumes are for the same $ hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. 4C-3 When the 85-percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural area, or when the intersection lies within the ~ built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above. 4C-4 Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic The Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant applies to operating conditions where the traffic volume on a majo~siveedelay or hazard n traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers exc entering or crossing the major street. The warraftc volumesegivenenn the each of any 8 hours of an a or street yand on the higher-volume minor- table below exist on them ~ street approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. 1/jINIMUM VEHICULAR. VOLUMES FOR w?,R,gANT 2 Vehicles per hour on Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on higher-volume roa h on each approach major street (total of nor-street app yiinor Street both approaches) (one direction only) iVlajor Street 750 75 t ................ t................ 900 75 2 or more........ t ................ J00 t00 2 or more........ 2 or more........ 750 100 t ................ 2 or more........ These major-street and minor-street volumevoarume on the mtnor sotreet During those 8 hour ach duringtsome ho g seand on the opposite approach may be on one appro during other hours. - - When the 85-percentile speed of major-street tersetctton lies ~thinh he either an urban or a rural area, or when the in o ulation of Less than built-up area of an isolated community having a P P 10,000, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above. 4C-S Warrant 3, Minimum Pedestrian Volume A traffic signal may be warranted where the pedetion duong an avoer ge iv-~o the major street at an intersection or mid-block Coca Rey. - day is: 100 or more for each of any four hours; or 190 or more during any one hour 4C-4 Tl ~ pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as mucl_ as 50 percent of the values given above when the predominant pedestrian crossing speed is below 3.~ feet per second. In addition to a minimum pedestri the otraffic st eam of adequate length shall be less than 60 gaps per hour in . for pedestrians to cross during the same Pea°~v ded stree tavi g as volume criterion is satisfied. Where t to wait, the requirement median of sufficient width for the pedestrian(s) applies separately to each direction of vehicular traffic. Where coordinated traffic signals on ~ an fewer han 60sgaps per hour provide for platooned traffic which resul of adequate length for the pedestrians to cross the street, a traffic signal may not be warranted. This warrant applies only to those locati nn300hf et tand where a new signal along the major street is greater tha traffic signal at the study location would not unduly restrict platooned flow of traffic. Curbside parking at non-inorfeet beyond the crososwalk~ prohibited for 100 feet in advance of and 2 A signal installed under this warrant should be of the traffic-actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is installed within a signal system, it should be coordinated if the signal system is coordinated. ed with Signals. installed according to this warrant shall be equipp pedestrian indications conforming to requirements set forth in other sections of this Manual. 4C-6 Warrant 4, School Crossing A traffic control signal may be warrantede fre~uencyband adequacy crossing when a traffic engineenng study of th q of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as rela nd shows ha the number of groups of school children at the school cross g adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period Shn tri es~e p d using the crossing is less than the number of rninut (sec. 7A-3). When traffic control signals are installed entirely under this warrant: 1. Pedestrian indications shall be provided at least for each crosswalk established as a school crossing. 2. At an intersection, the signal normally should betraffic-actuated. As but full actuation with a minimum, it should be semi-traffic-actuated, detectors on all approaches may be desirable. Intersection installations that can be fitted into progressive signal systems may have pretimed control. 3. At non-intersection crossings, the signal should be pedestrian- actuated, parking and other obstructions to view should be prohibited for iv-so Rey. s 4C-5 at least 100 feet in advance of and ZO feet beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement # markings. Special police supervision and/or enforcement should be . provided for a new non-intersection installation. 4C-7 Warrant 5, Progressive Movement Progressive movement control sometimd not oetherwise be arrangtned, installations at intersections where they wool in order to maintain proper grouping of warcrlantand~ isfied whengulate group speed. The Progressive Movement 1. On a one-way street or a street which has predominantly unidirectional traffic, the adjacent signals are so far apart that they do not and speed control, or provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning 2. On a two-way street, adjacent signalans dohe propos d and adjac nt degree of platoonmg and speed contr signals could constitute a progressive signal system. The installation of a signal according to thissw d indicatesha tanother the 85-percentile speed unless an engmeenng Y speed is more desirable. The installation of a signal according to would be less than 1000 feete considered where the resultant signal spacing 4C-8 Warrant 6, Accident Experience The Accident Experience warrant is satisfied when: 1. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency; and 2. Five or more reported accidents, of types susceptible to correction by traffic signal control, have occurred within a 12-month peed, each ,v-s7 t dams a apparently Re1• s accident involving personal injury or property g exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable accident; and 3.-"There exists a volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified either in the tilinimum Vehicular Volume warrant, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant, or the vlinimum Pedestrian Volume warrant; and 4. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Any traffic signal installed solely on the Accident Experience warrant should be semi-traffic-actuated (with control devices which provide proper coordination if installed at an intersection withininstalled lat an isolat d and normally should be fully traffic-actuated if intersection. ac-s 4C-9 Warrant 7, Systems Warrant A traffic signal installation at some intersections may be warranted to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. The Systems Warrant is applicable when the common intersection of two or more major routes: (1) has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1000 vehicles during the peak hour of a typical ' weekday and has five year projected traffic volumes, based oa an engineering study, which meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11 during an average weekday; or (2) has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1000 vehicles for each of any five hours of a Saturday and/or Sunday. A major route as used in the above warrant has one or more of the following characteristics: 1. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal network for through traffic flow; Z. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering or traversing a city; 3. It appears as a major route on an official plan such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. iv-as c~- Hev. 5 4C-10 Warrant 8, Combination of Warrants In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where no iv_so (c) single warrant is satisfied but where Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the Rev. s extent of 80 percent or more of the stated values. Adequate trial of other remedial measures which cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic should precede installation of signals under this warrant. 4C-10.1 Warrant 9-Four Hour Volumes The Four Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied when each of any four hours of an average day the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4--7 for the e.isting combination of approach lanes. When the 85th percentile speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour or when the intersection lies within abuilt-up area of an isolated community having a population less than 10,000, the four hour volume requirement is satisfied when the plotted points referred to fall above the curve in Figure 4-8 for the existing combination of approach lanes. iv-aa tcf Rev. a ac-7 4C-10.2 Warrant 10, Peak Hour Delay iication where traffic The peak hour delay warran hour of the day minor street traffic suffers conditions are such that for o undue delay in entering or crossing the major street. The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the conditions given below exist for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average weekday. The peak hour delay warrant is met when: ~v-zo tcl 1. The total delay experienced by the traffic on one minor street Rev. a approach (one direction only) controlled b h andOfivegvehc le hours fo ra four vehicle-hours for aone-lane approac two-lane approach, and 2. The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for oae moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes, and 3. The total entering volume serviced d ore gaheroaches or1650 vph for 800 vph for intersections v~nth four (or m ) PP intersections with three approaches. 4C-14.3 Warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume hcation when The peak hour volume warrant is how ofnhe day minor street traffic traffic conditions are such that for one suffers undue traffic delay in entering or crossing the major street. The peak hour volume warrant. is satisfied when the otaleof both representing the vehicles per ho a vehiclee er hour of the higher volume iv-Za (c approaches) and the corresponding P Re,,. a minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 1~-minute periods) of an average daoaalllanesve the curve in Figure 4-5 for the existing combination of app When the 85th percentile speed of major street traffic exceeds 40 mph or when the intersection lies within abuilt-up ak hour volume ~equi~ments having a population less than 10,000, the pe is satisfied when the plotted point referred to above falls above the curve in Figure 4-6 for the existing combination of approach lanes. 4C-11 Factors Governing Selection of Type of Control The principal factors that may Iead to the favorable consideration of traffic-actuated control in the selection of the type of signal control include: 1. Low, fluctuating or unbalanced traffic volumes. 2. High side street traffic volumes and delays only .during the peak hours. 3. The pedestrian or accident warrant is the only warrant which is met. 4. The installation is to provide ~'or one-way movement oftwo-way traffic. 5. The installation is at anon-intersection location. aC-a Z Q Q W J 0 Q O.. Liz u.. 0 0 00 _ o I r- w U O Q do- ~ Q N ~ r- m Ll.. O O .1 O Q ~ ~ O O I 0~0 F- W W o ~ ~ O Q o ~ 'o O o 0 O o ~ o V' ~ ~ p,~, O ON r- Hd/1 - H~`d0add'd 3Wf1~On HJIH 133~l1S ~ONIW 4C-9 w~~ z ~o ~ ~~~ o~o z cn = Q~~ _~ ~ ~ C7 ~ aa.. Z tea= U ?>O Oar >~ ~ p ~ Q OZw = Q u.t w w 1- aC Z ~ ~ -i O oC~Z p ~ O~Q =00 }-- O ~~~ a ~ ~~J who ~~ ~~n Qvo ±Qz ~ o cn >~~~ cn"r ~2~ c- Q r- w H z a Aev. 3189 W F- t/~ O a Z ~ ao ~ _ a~ ~~ W W O J m O a ~ O ~ Z ~ O ~ ~ a~ W ~ °o o Z W Q ~ ~ y C/~ W W ~ _H Z Rev. 3189 ** w Q ,,,.,, w w O Q Q O `~ ~ N W W z ~J Z Q Q ~ w Z ~ ~ O W ~ C: ~ O ~ N 0 0 0 _ ~~ D_ ~ W w tlt ~ N COQ N~~ ~-- I w w OO W Z _ ~a~ Q a~~ o O ~ ~~~ ° - ~a= Q ~~o o O = ~ > aC ~ ~ >~~ O oo¢ ~p m OZw Q pp V- ~ w 2 ww ~ F - J ~ Z ~ O FQ,.. I- Q O~ 0 ~wZ ~ ~O~ 0 I O~Q c0 H =~~ w ~ p ~- o ~ ~ ~~~ ~ Q ~ wH0 . O O ate.=~ ~' ~ Q QUp C ~ O c= ~ O > aC to n.. o~ M a ~ _ O O O ~ Q E- Hdn - H~b'O~dd~/ ~Wf1~On HJiH o 13~~f1S ~lONIW Z 4C-10 ~, Z Q w O 7 O ~' C' LL O O ~' ~-- O O = ~ ~ O I- ~ ~ w~Z - ~ ~ O Q ~ W ~ W ~ z Z Q O= p = _~ Q ~ r- Q ~ V - O t z w ~- ~ °C ~ ~ ~ a v~ ~ ~ ~ w Z o n- _' Q ~ o n z aC Z J ` W Q= N J r ~." O U ~ p=., Q ,~ W aC O ~ O m ~ ac O ° ~ W ~ ti > a . pQQ Q 0 ~ZE- ~ Q w J ~ 0 J 0 Q w N W (v ~." f-- it t o ~ °o ~ ~ ~a~ o r ~ ~Wz ~o~ o w ~a N cD ° ~ = 4 0 ~ f -- O ~ f- O cn ~ ~ t~ ~ Q ~ 0 .+~u}=-0 "') ~~> d' ~ n. ~ p Q UO ""~~2 ~ O ct~ O > ~ ~ O pO 00 M ~ ~ S ~ Q ~-- tOC) '~' ~ N ~-- ~ HdA - HOd0~ldd`d 3W(l~On HJIH Z 1~3~1S .~ON1W 4C-11 Rev. 3189 O * * O F= W W H' y O Z ~ a~ ac GC a, ~ g W W O ~ Q ? O Z Q O .T.. ~ O G. 0 0 ~ O ~!` Z W CC ~ u.. ~ z V i I ~ ~ ~ U Q ~ a- ~Q ~--- ~ m ~ ~ ~ O J ~" ~ Q ._ ~." }--- W O l11 d' ~ . u~ O S Q 0 0 N w ~ "' Z ~OQ u7 w w ova ~a~ QW~ °COw..z 0~= Q ~ n- O J ~ ~ ~~0~.. ~ Q ~ Z W Oaw _ (~ ~ w w (n Z =Q~ O wpb O~~ w~~ w~0 ~o~ Q~~ _~ cn F- O w~> n n- _ ~ QQo =o~ ao~w >a.~ Q ~ 1 ~Q, w H z Rev. 3189 4C-12 O O v dO~" ~ N O Hdn - H~yO~lddd 3W(1~On HJIH 1~3d1S dONIW .~ Q ~ O cn ~~ C Z C p~ N -~ L~ cn ~ "' ~ `" ~ ~ O bA ~ C ~ O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O O bA L O ~ ~ ~ t~ `~ ~ •~ Q ~ Q O >~ +-' O C ~ ~ Q as--' ~ t ~ ~ cCS ~ cC N O O >` ~"' L ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4.7 ~ ~ cNi~ ~ O L c ~ ~~ O~~ L~ ~ 3c'`"n-~ o ~ ~ ~. in O ~ ~ U U ~ O > ' in >~ T s L N vi U O N c_n ~ 0 0 L O +,, ~ ~ ~ -~~e ~n c/~ ~ s css O ~ O ~ c~ Q c~ .~' L O O L O }'j Ri O in ~ ~ C C >` ~ C c'V c~ ~ U~~~ N s ~ U ~ C L~ J ~ O ~ ~ }, O ~ OU ~ ~ bOA ~ ~ C O Ot ~ C ~ a ~s0.~ TO c >,~ +-+ +-+ ~ cC3 - ~ U +-+ v- ~ U O CC ~ ~ N O' T > ~ ~ a--+ ~ > 4-- O U ~ N ~ • N '~--+ O +-+ O ~ ~ U O }' GA ,+, ~ ~ O C 4J S C QJ U ~ C Q'~ ~ O C ~ O N ~ }' cC ~ H O .L ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~.~~~. ~3 C ~ cC }, i < N ~ Q ~ i O ~ '~ c0 ~ O ~ C ~ ~~~ a--+ 00 O ~O O N E O O v~~ Q O bA 0 O p~ - O cn L ~' ~ N ~ O ~ ~ 1` t bA ~ ~ ~ i ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ U L L V1 ^` ^' U~ ~~ U O~^` .~ N O S O i 3~ ~~ N~ ~ U O~ L L ~ bA U pp ~ N S O -Y T ~ ~ fCf ~~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ O O C ~ ~ ` ~ ~ C in L~ O 1 +~ O `n O T O ~ U w ~ O~~ ~ O ~~ ~ "~ Q Q' ~ p ~ ~ ~s (`~'C -~ N • ~- O ~ cXC c~C SbA ~ c1 ~ N O +-+ T U O O ~ N ~ N GA ~ va"'i 1`L ~ ~ N ~n 4J OA ~ O ~ N O ~ ~ cn s N ~ ~ ~ +_+ ~ 4J ~ vii RS ~ v- L ~ C C ~~,, U 4J > C 4J ~ ' ~ O\ OU ~ bA ~ C O ~- +0~ ~ ;~ c~ _N ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ j, ++ C ~ N rtf cn ~+ ~ . s O ~ ~ cC ~ ~ ~ ~ cti .~ ~- N O ~ ~ ~ ~ O a~-+ -.p ~ ~ -O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N +.+ ~ U ' ~ cCf ~ c~C 3 ~ L- L o_s 3 ~,} > o a°J N v a~ Qom a~ 0_3 ~ t • 7 O ~ ~ O ~ 3 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cODU ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ p i b~ASvO' ~ c0 L N ' .~ O ~ +-' ~ C O~~ s U 3~ O Q~ b~A U O .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ L L 'j > O C ~ ~ ~ ~' > U = cC p O O O O~•~ p ~ O~ O c~ •3.~ 3 >.w QU row- ~ ~ ro a.~ v Q L ~ ~ O = ~~ ~ j O ~> ~ ~ ~ O O N ~s ~ ~,~ >. c c ~ 3 L U o •~ ~ ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ L •~ ~ ~2 N ~_ / ~ ~ ~ O ~ C cn O ~ O 3 ~ N O ,~ 4V0211S3?1~350?1 N N W Z Z 0 w m Q m ~ 3NV7 Nb,~b ~r,~ -~-11 (.~ 1 `~1 ~~ .~-..--- ~/ PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED residents of Roanoke County, Virginia, are in favor of the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 with a special use permit to permit the construction and operation by Petroleum Marketers, Inc. of a Country Store with gasoline pumps on property containing approximately 1 acre located on the west side of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) across from Cave Spring Junior High School in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County: _ 1~EY U ~~ - ADDRES ~~ c ~ ~ZI Ncw~r~~a.~l L~ ~~~ . ~ ~~ i 33 ~~ ~3~~~~ ~~ i 3 ~-r `-ten C h r~ ~ rt 3388 -G f~a~m9n~" ~~ 3383 NloYni no ove. I?__c~. ~~~v ~ l ~c~'p ~, P~ PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED residents of Roanoke County, Virginia, are in favor of the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 with a special use permit to permit the construction and operation by Petroleum Marketers, Inc. of a Country Store with gasoline pumps on property containing approximately 1 acre located on the west side of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) across from Cave Spring Junior High School in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County: ~~ ? l `Z~ l> c' ~~~~ '~' J tea/ ~~ ADDRESS: 7/q./...~ ~y~/~ G~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ;fit v~ 3z~~ ~ae~.2~c, R~ l / _ `~! F' Ger.; y~~ 3 ~1.~~.~,-.~.~.,~ 1~~~ a ~ ~? ~ ~~~lv~~~.~ ~~ . .S uJ .5~(v 3 ~' sfl~. /E'o c~ ~ ~1 v c!n o~fc... Ur¢ o? Ko/Q L/ /a ~ i 3 ~~ ~ ~~~ ~; T ~`r NAME: ~ ~' PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED residents of Roanoke County, Virginia, are in favor of the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 with a special use permit to permit the construction and ope~'ation by Petroleum Marketers, Inc. of a Country Store with gasoline pumps on property containing approximately 1 acre located on the west side of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) across from Cave Spring Junior High School in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County: NAIVE _I~ ~ ., ,, ADDRESS: 5 ~ ~y ~~ '~ ~~$S Cr~kiSr-~~ ~r4~~. 5s~~ VJ.s~~-.U~ C_a G ~- r, y ~~~ r" ~e~~,~M~~ (oc~~ ~ i ~1~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~. , SE`S ~ 6 N ~ ~~; ~~' PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED residents of Roanoke County, Virginia, are in favor of the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 with a special use permit to permit the construction and opet'ation by Petroleum Marketers, Inc. of a Country Store with gasoline pumps on property containing approximately 1 acre located on the west side of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) across from Cave Spri~Junior High School in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County: ~~~ ti L ~ ~i 'e~'~! ~~-~~1 ~~~P ~~L~ ~ti IC,~r. L~1~ 1\L \J1~~LA ~~PS . QJI ~ _ ~ rc~cv ~ G ADDRESS: Z-`+oo _? ~ 2.- 5 ~MVc~- s C.d o r s •~ n~ ~J ~-Coc~~!'ce~ Wyly ~~~f~ ~~ . ~~9r~c v~ ZY~/~ ,, u,, 3 ~6 6 Gam,. ~~., z ~~ ~ 3~i ~ C~~~~Cc~ 1~ ~~~. --3 ~ ~~ ~U+~ Cl`rl~ l~ I~ ,~ ~ l ` ~~~~ ~Q,~~~f ~ Llk,t~ ~- „_: , f 4. ' 'r~tz~_° NAME: ~1~Q c~4~~1~ ~h s ADDRESS: ~j~C7J ~0~~/ ~MI /`y,`4 3Sos (l~~ „a~,~a ~n~a4 ~ ~ ~ ~~ // > ~~~~~-~ ~=3-~-1~~i ~~~ ~~ - ~~ ~~ ~l~ L;.~~,r n~~-~~~~~ ~~ . . ~?~i~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ -~ ~ ~~~,~ ,a ~ ~ r ~~ ~- f, ~ 1~~, ~i rl~; NAME: ~~ ~~ ADDRESS: r~ ~ ~~ ~~~ a $~ , ~- ~..~ , ~ I ~.~ss~.~ ~ . ~~, ~1~~ ~n~~ . -o~ ' ~~~, ~ ./" ~/~, ° '(J~ ~~ U! u ~ ~ ~1~ l~ ~ ~j~3 l `I'mo b IJ I, u' ~ I ~ 1 `E74'~N ~~' ~~'C QB~~-4 ~---re_enhov~ ' ~'~~ t-1t~n_ 3'i2 ~ f~r~H ~ Ikq,•.. '~R, ~Ke . u ~ Zy~ ~ Q ~3s cc.?~ oleo ~n 4 , o~n-r- ~ +~ ~ Jet ay0s~ 3~Jo~ o ra.~IC. r Si.~ Zt(bl~ c~ns~/~/~ ~. ~~~f~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ T s ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~,~~ ~y~ r C~~ X11 ~-~'~,.~~~ ~~;/ ~-~.`- ~ ~ `~ ~~ ~~; a (~. P S ~C3S'~c~ ~~ ram i~~~~ -- ~~ ~~ ~~--- -, e I ~ -~^ /, ~~ ~~ .~/ ~L ~ /)lam fit.. ADDRESS: 'j~ /~ ~`~ "'"C '' - ' ` ,~'~ S~~ ~- ~~ C t /J ~~ ~~. /~ Y~os' ~a~ f ,/17// l'~ S~/ yG~-_u ,~~ ~.~ ~ ~r ~~ I ~ Q 1 1/1l~ s-~'o v~r ~ v~~ 3 s ~ ~ .~~ e ~ Sc ir-- `~ (~ ," -__ NAME: 1 F ~y ~ ~~ a ~ .~ . ADDRESS: .. ~,~ ,~~ ~~ ~~;cA~n~ ~ i~ l~ ~ ~ ~l ; c ~' ~-~--t ~ ~-~.~-{,,4 ~4~, ~ ~ r~ ~il_ Sc~ ~~~~ ~ r~~s 11~c~_ ,~ ~y" l C Y-1 ~L ~~ ~~_- ~~~. ~ / G% '~~~/Zs~~~"~~~~'~ ~ l-~l-vim--. 55 I~°z~~,~,I~~~~~(' ~~~:~, ~ ~ ~~"Ti j i'~~ it r - '~ NAME: ,~~~-i~~~Y~~ I r~ic~ ADDRESS: ~~ ~ ~ ~ f - mil" ,~ - ~ `~ i~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~. .~~ ~- 1~-~~. ~` ~ ~~"~ ~~~~~ ~-~~~r~v ~ ~~~y L~ ~ ~~ ~2_ ~ a I ~ ~ .~~- nine ~~ ~~ `fir .~. ~~ ~~» ~~~~~' ~~~~~~~~~~~ r ~~- ~. { 3 ~~ ~, - , ~) ~ ~ , Vii` X ~~ ~ ~ (1 E: :r- i~-C ~t ~~~, ~ ~ NAME: T ~~~~~ ADDRESS: ._ f,ir ,. , his ~ ~~- 1 ~~ ~~~ ~ ,~ Cc~~`~°i ~.~~ l~~ ~ ~~ biz ~~J,~~~~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~.eJ 3~~ ~ Ll ~~~ / ~r10 /"~~~Yl CJ ~ c,~ : rr ~ ~f~i~i l~,~I ~~a~J ~,~5~ 2to`2.~ C.~r~.rtrvt ~s ~r. ~ G~ ~ . A,~ ~~ti ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ NAME: .,. ~nn~~ L~~~~, ;~~ '~hr~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Lac ADDRESS: 7~~~t~~~iaC~ 1~---~' . ~ / ~ ~.,- u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ri~ ~ ~~ G C L1r61 `7 ~ v ~.~-L-- /~ ...C~~~ ,~~ ~~~ . ~ s .~ ~~ --e.-e_~.~~-~~~~~ ~ , S y~ b ~,d~.~ i Lt..,cr~~ c~ d~ ,t~~ ~-br. t~* ~ 1,rr~ ~h, .~'~ h ~ V~-~ 2 Aw7`S ~~~ ~ C~ ,~~-- ~; ll R~~ '~ ~ ~1~ . /~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . -/ ~~ ~~ <<- ~~ NAME: ~ ,~ s . ADDRESS: ~ / ,%! ~~ ~ ~ /fix 2~ if /1~/I/Ir-a'' ,ll// / l1h f ... 1+~~ .. ` i r~-~ ~ ~V \fi~ ~~~ C`7~ -- - .. NAME: `~1~ t, - ~~ ~.~~ ~~~ ~«'~~,~_ Sc~`/~-~~r~r. ~ ADDRESS: ~~/.~L'~.~'~i~/tee ~~ • /Ss~. U~ ~ ~~ 333 2 6~~.~ti ~ ~ ' C~~.-~_ ~ / / ~ 7 ZC ~~, fM <~ oC~~ 5~2~ i G ~-1 ~~ r i rncar~ . Slc) ~~©i ~ ~~-~~ ~~~i~c~s ~ ~~~ ~~,~~~ ~~ C r J (~; ~~ .~"L- ~~f/, ,~r' .~ .--~ -~-- _~~ ADDRESS: q ,~J G.: ~jerk~y,w~n-C. 1~d~. ~~'Ll ~~C ~!~ayoi9 702 ~' j ~~~ `~~~ ~~ ~lI', ~~~ ~%'~/G'ii' I ~ ~~~~ i `~~ ~ ~~ ~X ~.3 7~ ~~~ ~~ y~Q~ ~~~1,`r~.f~,.~,~ ~~ ~ 3 ~~~u~~ s~ Cf. ~~~ "t~ 5~ ~ / ~~~ ~ . /~ ~~ ~ r IC~ ~} ~ 2 ~ I F- ~~~ r ~yl' ..~.~ :s~ -u..-t ~~ ~ N~~, r,~a~~ru l ~~- ~~~~~~ ~, _ ~.~~,~'..~.~.D j~ ~~ aP_D 5tr~~~ c~ ~. ~~ c--- -~~~e~r.~~~-~ ~-'~ _~ ~ ~ ~~- . F ~~ ti ~ ~ ~~d~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ K,e/ n~~ NAME: ~ L~~.ti~~~- 7 ~.~- ADDRESS: r__- ~ s~~_ ~' ~; ~ - ~~ f _. ~~~ti~~ s. i ~ u r ~~ ~ c~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.C \C:~ t`~~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-~- ~~~(~ ~ .7ZC ~ ~= 2u-t.c ~7~1 1 ~. d ~j~~ ,tosJ ,~r?iv ~'~ ~~~3 ~~c`-~~~~ ~~' ~~ ~ n / Z~c 63 ~~ 7 ~~ ~ V~ ~~ 4 r ~ ~-~~.~ ADDRESS: Yj49 ~erdtl l df. ~e y1~Z~'ai~ ,.~- - tin~~r- l U C~~c~~. ~ ~~~~ ~ ~'`~o ~- . y ~~ ~~~0 ~ ~.~P~~'r! 1 ~ ~~r ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ r~~ ~~~~ `-r ~ ~ ~~~~~ '~ ~l ~l ' ~ 6,/ r ~ ,1 J yt~` ~4~ ~~ ~~~SF~~ ii t_~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ CyS~3 C~)~s~c_~u-~- r "2__ ~`~~~~ ~~~~/~ ~~t ,_ yJ ~~; ADDRESS: ' f ~ ~ ~~ 3~~j ~?dr»vx~~n Z_ ~j/~~ ,p/J~J ~,/~ ~~~~ ~ . L~ ~~~ ~~a -- ~.,.., ss~,~ _~ ~~~L PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED residents of Roanoke, County, Virginia, are in favor of the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 with a special use permit to permit the construction and operation by Petroleum Marketers, Inc. of a Country Store with gasoline pumps on property containing approximately 1 acre located on the west side of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) across from Cave Spring Junior High School in the Windsor Hills IV>ragisterial District o~oanoke County. NAME: ~~~~ Gull /G ADDRESS: ~S/2~ t~oa~~h~P f h~n1~ P, t~f1~ Zr.f-~ ~ ~n...~cc~ ~~~9 . {~~~.~ ~.~ 2 ur, ~S ~ ~~- ~ ~ . ~~ %~ alt,,; ;.s sad s ~~.~~ 1~a ~d A~~ 5~~5 j `~~ ~ tz~~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~~ ~i,ur-J-~~~~'' %~3~~~~~ t ~'1 J ~ c.~ ~w~r~ ~ r~~ ~~,`~ '~~~ ~- ~% ~ ~.? .Sri ,,.s ~-,_,~~~ ~..~ /~', .~~2w~ ~._...---.. PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED residents of Roanoke County, Virginia, are in favor of the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 with a special use permit to permit the construction and operation by Petroleum Marketers, Inc. of a Country Store with gasoline pumps on property containing approximately 1 acre located on the west side of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) across from Cave Spring Junior High School in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County: T ~3 031. C~...~-~C - lfiryi: k, r~ . 3~~ ~5 ,~~ S ~~~ 1~~~/~ 4~~ ~~1 3~ ADDRESS: L~l~ ~U~~t~~7" ~~ 2~~a/~ J J Z f - Gam' J ~~ /`l2eC~Y~ /SGT J G'1<-~/! O/~/~- ~~ ~~ P~n~ ~~r`~ PETITION C~ WE THE UNDERSIGNED residents of Roanoke County, Virginia, are in favor of the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 with a special use permit to permit the construction and operation by Petroleum Marketers, Inc. of a Country Store with gasoline pumps on property containing approximately 1 acre located on the west side of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) across from Cave Spring Junior High School in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County: NAME: r .~) ~~~~~ ~~ ,C. c ~_~ P llJ ~ ADDRESS: (Q 9 2 ~ ~~ C ~ CVl',951?c ~/ ~ ~e-sc- ~1-~ U~31 v c,~ , ~~-~~~ ~ ~~ ~C ~~//~~~~ l l v ~~Gi. ,. ~~C/ ,~~ 1r' ; ~ ~ ~~e~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED residents of Roanoke County, Virginia, are in favor of the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 with a special use permit to permit the construction and operation by Petroleum Marketers, Inc. of a Country Store with gasoline pumps on property containing approximately I acre located on the west side of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) across from Cave Spring Junior High School in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County: ADDRESS: (5 S~3 ~~ ~ ~_ /y~~ ~~~~ -s'~~ ~, ~9~~~ ~l ~-(~`/ ~ ~~~~z , - - z ~~,~ ~ 3~ ~~~~ ~~ ~S S ~3~"- ~ ~ U,~~~o~~ ~'~`~ l - NAMR• ~- ~T~ - ~ L-,f~u D I S r`~~7 !~I Gc v G'~ \ ~.~ L. l a.Z~ -~ ,.--- /, O~ ~ .~'~i~'i ADDRESS: -~~ ~ c. //~ ,~ f~~ , ~3 a ~~ ~' ~ ~~nrT t~ ~ ~~ a (~fit.Cf~',( r ~ RR / ~~S` ~~n alt--t~.~~ ~ fit' ~~viy ~ ~=~~5 ~a6~~ ~~,~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~_G^LtC~.1C~-~ IK S~% L '~~1~ ~ .e Ve 33~ ~-~ ~~ ~ C'r ~z ~.~ ~r~~ ~ r ADDRESS: /09 ..~ s, Y~~ ~3~~ C C1/IcL~C~~.o~lC~~. S~~i 0` CkJ/~e d ~~ r ~ S - ~~~ b~~~ ~ -F~v.~ ~~ y~ G',~ qty ~ ~.~ .~ ~ chi f ~T.aa~~i-r r~~ 713 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Z~z~ ,~~ 53't`t P~<r9 not C r~s-~- C irc ~ I`Z k L ~3~y ~ ~1~ .,~-~~ ~-~,o~~ I,f~.~ z ~~~ s -,,--_ Se ~ ~ ~ ~u .2~a~~ ?~~ ~u~ ~ ~C~ ~ arc ~ a ~ ,L,~-- ~ yG i ~~ ~~' ~Z1~ (~~~s ~~!(,(~ l~ ~ 121 ~7/~ ~~,~~n!z~ty~r~~~ ~ ~~t ~~.~- gC ~Z ~l~~~ir~ ~,~ ~~? ~j~ ~- 12 ,. ~~ ~~~ ~'f~-~o ~ ~ -' 6.-~ - , ,~~/lai `~ %is ttecc; '2 ~~~v ~m ~ 2 ~ ~ ~,~ c~ 2~~~ ~~~ i ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ v rc l.~ ~l/C~ ~~~ ~~~~ y~l~ ~Ur~ln~~s~~ ~. o~Yv/ _ y JSG b WG~~n~/~,~~ Lars-~~ UP ,, . C2 ~, ; s P/tom ~S NA1~IE~G-~y~e' ~-- L~, ~b o ~._ v ~~ e ,~ ~~ - ~'~ cl~ ~~-~~ .S ~/ ., ~~i ~ j /~~ r~~ ADDRESS: ~ v c, ~~ ~-- Ci. ~~~ ~_~ ~~, ~ ~T ~~ ~ ~ `~ ~ u rte ~~ ~(~ t l ~ r a ~I ~ ~ ~( .~ .~7 ~ r~-~. ~ C f %~,~a ~ BUG /~' ~ ~~ 3 S~ ~ n ~ r ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~Q ~ ~~~ ~-~ ~ yo, ~ ~: ~~ 6 y6 ~~ ~ ~ ~~e ~~ ~ 2~ r~ ~~lC~ ~ ,x~-~~~i C~' c~ ~pl~ G (c t~l ~3 S S 7 ~~, l ~~ ~. .~ y ~- o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~5 ~~~~~ ~GQ ~~~~` c~C ~~ iMt~ ~h%~ `~ ~~11~ ~ ~~Y1~~~~~`~i~~~~~ l~(7,,,~~/~'' r~ ~` ~ ~~ 15~ ~ Y'' ~ S S , a~ o ~ ~/ ~43v ~~~ a~~ ~~~,~~' ~' f / ~ ~~~~ Q~e~ ~~~ C I111llllllllllllllllllltllllilllillllilllllllil111111111111111111111ilillllllllllllillllllillliliillllllllllllllllililllllllllll,~,ll _. _ .- s ~ ^~ ~_ ~~ "~~'C~~ _~ .°- AGENDA ITEM NO. r -) ~. ® - s ~~ APPE CE REQUEST _ _ :_ __ ~~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS c .~ SUBJECT: 'd. e -~ ~ - ~~~.-o ~ ,, _ 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. „v WREN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED ,= BELOW: ~-- -_ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment ,_ whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will _ decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, _ and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - ` - ,-- _ a ~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~.. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. -- ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments c o with the clerk. c a ~ s ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c s ~ e~ .~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~IlillllllllIII[Illlilllllllllllllllllllllll lllililllllllilllillllllllilillilllllllllllllilllllllllilllllllllllllilillllillllllllm ~~~~ Illililllliillllillilllllllllllllllil[Illllllillllliililllliiillllillllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllll~,u -. - ..., s .~ ~ s ~ s ,~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~' _ ~.~ ~ APPE ~ CE REQUEST ,-- -_ -- _ ~__ - ~= PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ® i .® SUBJECT: ~~~~ ~ ~ `Z° ~.'i ~ ~ ~: ~' ~? I ._ ,, s: 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. s WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ..._ -- s ~ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment s whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will ~: decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - ` - a ~~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. '~ ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. _ _ ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ~~ e i~ ~ ^ Speakers are requested to leave .any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. s ~~ ~s .~ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. .s ~_ -_ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ~- e -. =. ~lilllillllllllllll[llllillll11111[Illllllililllllillllilllillllllllltllllllliillllllllllllllllll11111111111111illllllil111111111m Illlllillllllllllllllllllillilililllillllllllllllliiillillillllllliilllllllillilillilllllllll11111111111111111111lIIIIIIIIIII111,(jJ ~. _ _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. T ° ® - ,° ~. ° APPE CE REQUEST ._ _ :~ / _~ ~= PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE V CITIZENS COMMENTS ~~ ° suBJECT: Co~~ ~~ ~nC~ s+or~ rezoh; n ._ - - 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: i ° .~~ ° ~ ~ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will '° decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - ~ - a ° ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. ,Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ~. °. '~ : ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. r ~.. _ ° ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. -- i ~ _„ ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ° ~_ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK s ° ~~ ° ~~ ° ~~ ° ~~ ~~ .s ~~ ~~ ~~ s ~ i ~~ ~ ° i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~~ ° ~_ ~111111111111111111111111111111111111i1111 lllllllllllllillililll1111It111111111111111111illllllllitlillillllllilil111111111i1111im }IIIIllillllillllllllilllllllilllllllllllllll Illllliillllliil[II Ilillllillllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Ilillllillllllj,~ s ~ s ~ / ~ ,= AGENDA ITEM NO. [-f~f ,_ ,_. i ~~ APPE CE REQUEST v ..- -_ I= PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ° ° ~, SUBJECT: ' ? ~ ~ n > ~ ~ ~t a -~- ° ~ ~~~; ~!v ~ ° ,~ 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. s WREN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS s FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED ,_ BELOW: ~-- -_ -- ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority otgthe Board to do otherwise. - ~ - ~- a ~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. o ,. ° _. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. .v ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ° ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments vc~th the clerk. .~ s ° s ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP ° SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT .THEM. c ° .~ ° PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK -- ° -- o ° ° ° . - - -- ° ~ - __ -_ ~ililllllilllllllilliltlillllllllillilllllll11111111111111111111lIII11111111111111111111111111iilllliilllillllililllllililllilllim Ilillliillii11111111111111111111iI11111iIlIIl111111iiIIIli1111111i1111111IIIII11111iII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~,IJ s. ~~ ~ ^~ ~ s ~ v ~ ~~ ~ a~ ~ ii ;; _ AGENDA ITEM NO. ,_ ° - _. APPE ~ CE REQUEST :_ - _ _ ~_ - ,_ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ~.. ° ,_ ° '" SUBJECT: ~ M .. I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS =_ FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED ,_ BELOW: ° .. ° ., ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will ~e decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, _ and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to ,_„ . _ - "" do otherwise. ' ,~ -_ ., i ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. _ ~. ° ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _, ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments ° ° with the clerk. ' s ~~ ~s ~~ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP ° SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK A UTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ,.. ° ° ° ° PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ° ° ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s '~ a. ~ ~~ ~ i ~~ s _ ~ ~~ e ~11111111111111111111111111i1i111l111111111!{11111111111111111111t11111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111illllllllil~ II1111 lillllllllllilliliillllllililllllllllllliiillllll! 11111 Illlillllillllllllll Illllllllllllllllllllllllilililllljj) ~ ~~ _ - _ - AGENDA ITEM NO..1! _ ,_ - - ,~. - ~. - ~ - ;n~ - ~' APPE - CE REQUEST ~ - ~~ - _~ - s~ - ,~~ _~ ~= ~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS - ® n J - - -- SUBJECT: f'~ C~ ~~/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. ,= ~_ WREN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: = ._. - ..._ -_ __ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment _ whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time Itmit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to ~, . - "" do otherwise. - ~. -- ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. = ,.~. - ,^ ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ® - ^ Bath speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. = s - ®_ ~ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,IIALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. - s - ~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ,_ - ~~ - v~ ~~ s - ~~ - ~~ _ _ - a ~ s ~~ _ ~~ ^s ~lltl[lllllillllllllilllilllillillllilllllllillllllllllillltlliflllillllillllllllfllllllllitf llilllllllllllllllllillllllllliltlilm ~,#,~Iliilllllliiiillllilllllllllllllillllillllillllllllllllilllliflllllllllllllilllllllllillliiililllllllllllllllllllililillllllllll~,~ _. _ ~. s ~ r ~ r.~ ~ ~ ~ . = AGENDA ITEM NO. ~_ ... ,_ - ,~. - ... APPE CE REQUEST ,_ _ ._~ __ ~= ~~PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS c SUBJECT: ~~.L ~"Zc:~~inc 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 i FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ~-- -_ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will _ ~.:° decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - ~ - ~-- ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. _. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized ,= speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~.. _ ^ Bath speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. -- ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. s ~ ~ s s ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK -- `.'1 ti~ ~cc~ \ ~ Irn ~. fie, l ~.~~' ~ L a.-~n~~ ~ - -- _ e ~lllilllllllllli[illiillllllliilllllllill{1{{lIII11111111111I111111litillllllllllllllillllliillllllllllilllllllllllillillllillilim I1111111111iilllllllillllllllllllllililllliilllilllllllilllllllilllllllll11111111111111111illililllllllllllllll 111 lllllllllillll,r,~ s ~ .... ~ s ~ ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~$~ ~ ,_ ,._ ,~ APPEARANCE REQUEST • ~_ _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ° ° -- ° c SUBJECT: ~ ~v~, ; ~ ~1 ~ ~~:~ ~ ~~ ~z~ ~ ~~s~~~S"T' I~~ .._ ° ° s 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. s WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS c FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED ° BELOW: ~-- ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will ~~ decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of~the Board to do otherwise. • - ,.- .- ;° ~ a ~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their paint of view only. ,, a Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ~. ° -. .:: a All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized s e 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 vc~th the clerk. ° °_ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP ° SfL4LL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c ° .- PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c ° c ° .... ° _. e ° ° i ~ ~~ ~ ~ s ~ a ~_ ~_ ~Illllllllllliilllllliiillliliiililllllliiillllil111111iIIIlIIIIiIIllllllllllililllillllllllllllllllllllllllillllilllllliiilillli~ 3 ~Jllli illllilllllililitlllliilllllllilltlilltlllllllillllll[IIIitlillllillilllilflllillllillllillllllilllllllillllilt1111111111~,11 _- AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ -' -- - ,_. ... APPE ~ CE REQUEST ,° -_ .__ - _ ~~ `~UBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~-CITIZENS COMMENTS ~_ __ SUBJECT: E ~Z ~' /t/, /y ~ ~` - ~ ~a ~= ' 2-- ~'c.~~I ~ ~ l ° ° ° I would Iike the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. s WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ~-- -_ ~~ i ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, _ and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - ` - ° ~ s ~ ^ Speaker will be Limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ° ° _. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ..,. _. ° - ^ Bath speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ,~ a ^ Speakers are requested to leave .any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. ° ,= ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP ° SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ° ° _ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK a ~~ .~ ° ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ v v~ ~~ ° ~ a. ~~ ~~ ° ~~ s ~ ° .- e ~_ ~_ ~Ittltittttttllltfttillltttttitlllllllllll Il lllllilllit(Ilitllllilllltiltlllttlllllllittllittttllltltlltitllttllltlllllltllllilit~ D Illlliiillllllllillillillilliilllllililllllillllliillllllll![llllilllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllill II111111111111,(() ~. AGENDA ITEM NO. ,~ _. i ~ APPE CE REQUEST :__ __ - - ~= PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS L -_ SUBJECT: ~~,~~~' ~'- ~ - ~~`~~ ~~, ~_ ~_%~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS c FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ,- -- ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will ~~ decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, s and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - = - ® Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ® Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ,- ^ Speakers are requested to leave .any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. c s .~ ~ s i e INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GRDUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ._ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ~- ,- _ i ~ ~ i ~~ ~~ s a~ ^~ ~ ~Illllillllllllllllllil11111111111[Illilllillllllilllllllillllllllllllilllllllllllllillllllilllillilllliltlllillllllllillllllilil~ 1111111 I1111111liillllllillllllililllllllllllliillillilllll Illlillilllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllll III11111111111,(jJ _. _ s ~ .~ ~ s~ ~ '".~ ~~ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~ .._ ,~ i ~ ~. _ APPE CE REQUEST • .° _ ~_ _ '~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ° .- ~ i SUB CT: ° _ ° ° ° I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ° ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment = whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman w~Il _ ~~ decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. • _ ° ~- a ~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. ,, a Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ° -. ,^ ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized e speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~. _ ° ^ Bath speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ° ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments = vc~th the clerk. __ s ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP ° SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. c ° ~_ ° s ~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ~- ° ° ° ° ._ ° ° ° ~ .... =. _ ~Illititlllllllilillilllllllililllllilllll 11 l I III11111111111111111iiltlUllllllllllillililtlllllllllllllllilltllillllllltlillilllm D }IIIIllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllilllilllililllllllillllllllillilllliilllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllliilitlllllll!11,11) - - s ~ s ~ ~~ ~ o~ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. !--~_- -- - ~- - _ _. APPE CE REQUEST I= V PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS __ SUBJECT: tL~ 2~ ~ ~.. ~-.~ ~ '~~ ~`. ~z~ ~(v - ~1 ~~'`~ ® _. 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. s WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS ~= FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ~-- i ~ Y~ ~~ •~ ~~ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will ~.° decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, _ and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ot~the Board to do otherwise. - _ - a ~~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only.- Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. s _. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ... _. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. -- i ~ ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments c = with the clerk. _ s ~~ ~~ .~ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF 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 ~- ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~_ ~Illlllllllllllllil[illlllllllllllllllllllll Il(Iltllllllllll[llllIII1111111I11111111111IIIlIIII11111111111111llllilllllllililllll~ Illillllllliilllillllllllllllllliilllillilllllliilllillillilllll[ilillllllllllillllillilllllllllllllillilllllll I1111111111111111,(,ll _ _ s ~ s = ~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ... APPEARANCE REQUEST ;~ ._ - PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE i CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: c -- I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. s WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS c FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: __ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment- whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will c decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. . _. .~ i ~~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. r. a a~ ~ ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. i ~ == ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments o vc~th the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK -- o - ~ _ ~ _ ~Illlllllllllllllillilllliliilllllllllllll l l II Illlilllllllllllllllllllllilillflllllilllllillll11111111111111111fiillllllllllillllm Iliillillllillllilll111llillliilillll[Ilillllilililiillillllillllllilllllllllllllilililllillllllllllllillllllllllllllillllllllllj~ AGENDA ITEM NO. _~--_`~'__ .. - - - ,~~. - - s - °~ APPE CE REQUEST ~ - ~. - _ - :_ - ~~ / _ '° PUBLIC HEARING V ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ° ° ~.. - ® - ° - "" SUBJECT: rzc z~,., sue flosr~lt~~ a- a ~-- ~ - ° - ® - ... - ,° 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 i FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED .... - ,. ° BELOW: ° - ° - i_ ~~ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an mdividuai or representative. The Chairman will decide the time Limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to ° do otherwise. - ~ - •s - ~= ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. ,, a Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. = ,... - ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~.. - rr~ _ - ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at ah times. ,_ - ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments ~. - vc~th the clerk. - ° - ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BF,HALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP ° SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. _. -_ ° ~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ° - ° ,_ - _ - ... - ° - ° - i ~ ~~ S s ~~ - ~ ~ O ~Itlllilllliltitlllllllllll1111111111111111111(IlIlI11111111I11lII111111111111111111111111111111Illllllillllllliilllllillililllllm l_".*' ~Jlllilttllllllllllllltltllilitllllllltlllliillllllliitllllilltllllllllilllllillitllllltllllltlilllilllllllllllll III Itilllllllllllj~,) __ _ .~-~ ,~= AGENDA ITEM NO. l APPE CE REQUEST .__ __ - - ~~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~5e~~5`f - ~, /~'c-~-c .e 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. s WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS i FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will ~° decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, _ and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. s ~~ a ~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. ,= „„ a Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. _. '= ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized s ,' speaker and audience members is not allowed. r a rr~ _ ~ ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ~. ^ Speakers are requested to leave .any written statements and/or comments o vc~th the clerk. -_ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK -- -- - ~ - ~ w ~. ~_ NAME ,4-~ ht ~.~'e,,..~.~' c _; e ADDRESS ~- (~ ~ ~j Q~, ~e ~~,'~ ~`~l s ~ s ~_ PHONE b - g ~ltllllllllillillillilllilllllllllllllllllllilllilllllllllllllllilllltllllllliillllllllIIIlIIIIlllllllilllllllllltilllllllltlllilm ~Jllllllilllilllilllilllillillilllllllllllllillillllilllllilll[Illllllllllllllllilllillllllfllllillllllllllllllllllilllllllliillll,(!) ,~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~-" -- ,- APPEARANCE REQUEST _ _ '/ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE V CITIZENS COMMENTS __ - _ ~ (~ > SUBJECT: - ~~ ~~-~ -- _. _ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the ,= meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WREN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ~-- -_ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman w~Il _ ~= decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. - _ ~~ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. ,, Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. _ ~. '= ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. __ ^ Bath speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments = vcnth the clerk. _ s ~ .~ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK A UTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. _ -_ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK -- ~ ~~ a ~11111111l1111111illilllllllllll111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111i1111ltllllllllllllllllilillllillllllm MEMO To: Board of Supervisors From: Don C. Myers Subj: Phase I School Construction Projects Date: July 18, 1997 8 - ~.z- As the Board may recall, at the July 8 meeting, the School Board presented a request to the Board of Supervisors to borrow $58,157,900 for Phase I of the School Construction Projects. At the joint work session the Board of Supervisors requested the School Board to reduce the amount to $48 million, which is the maximum debt service that the County can carry at this time. School Board Chairman Mike Stovall has contacted Board Chairman Bob Johnson and requested time on the July 22 agenda to make a presentation. The Blue Ribbon Committee has reviewed the construction projects and has made a recommendation that is under $48 million, as requested by the Supervisors at the work session. Mr. Hodge is out of town on vacation today, and the agenda packets were complete before I received this information. If there is consensus from the Board and Mr. Hodge on Monday, July 21, we will add this item to the agenda. Attached is a copy of the letter from the School Board requesting that the Board of Supervisors act to borrow $47,719,732. CC: Elmer C. Hodge -~- 1413 R1SE CUUNTY SGHUULS ~~couN~,.~~ 4 ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ osdr ~ July I8, 1997 TEL~540 5623993 UNJ~1C:~ Ul' 111v1S1UN 5UPERIN'I~NDI6NT 593 Cove toad ~oanal~e, ~ir~isiii X019 Pisoac: (540) 5b2-700 ~ax_ tom) ~62r3994 TO: The Roanoke County board of Supeivisuts SUBJECT: Request for Funding We, the members of the Roanoke County School Board, respectfully rcquc5t that the board of Supervisors act w hurruw $47,719,7;2 to allow timely implementation of Phase T of the Roanoke County School Facilities Improvement Plan. We understand that the Director of Finance and her staff will work with bond counsel to structure debt repaymerrt and to assign borrowing in the mnct cost effaient manner. We appreciate the support that you have given to the Blue iiibbon (;ommittee and to us as we have brought these projects to this point. We know that you are cvmrnitted to seeing this construction program brought to a successfiil ronclusian_ ~l~,a~a P. 001 "l,°","~"~ ~ -~- f~- v BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE MINUTES Blue Ribbon Committee Meeting 7/14/97 7:OOPM Roanoke County Administration Building CALL TO ORDER Co-Chairman Jeff White called the meeting to order at 7:OOPM. Those in attendance were: King Harvey, Mike Quinn, Jane Milliron, Donna Vittur, AI Thomason, Bob Kaplan, Wayne Newman, Patty McKinney, Terriann May, Barbara Buckley, Becky Walter, Al Hardy, Marylee Davis, Mike Wray and Jeff White. PHASE I BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Mike Quinn made the following motion which was seconded by Al Thomason: After extensive discussion of several proposals, the committee agrees that no reduction in academic space should be made and that, except for the items set out below, the projects should proceed as soon as possible. In order to keep the projected costs of the projects within the amounts available under the current debt service plan, the committee recommends the following adjustments: Reduce contingency to 2% of projects ($1,013,780) $ 3,652,528 Twelve month delay in construction of stadium $ 5,535,640 Alter roof maintenance and replacement schedule 1 250 000 TOTAL REDUCTION $10,438,168 Original Anticipated Cost $58,157,900 Reductions from above -$10,438,168 ~~~_ BLUE RIBBON FIRST PHASE RECOMMENDATION $47,719,732 The motion passed unanimously. BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS Bob Kaplan made the following motion which was seconded by Al Hardy: In anticipation of the completion of new school facilities, we unanimously recommend the Roanoke County School Board prepare proforma operating budgets to efficiently and economically operate the entire school system. We further recommend that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors plan for a realistic increase in the school operating budget to accommodate Page 2 the operation of new school facilities. We encourage dialogue and cooperation between the county and school system to utilize the skills of paid professionals throughout the county to implement these improvements. The motion passed unanimously. CURRENT CAVE SPRING STADIUM The committee discussed the current Cave Spring stadium at Cave Spring Junior High School and agreed to leave the renovation in the second phase of the Blue Ribbon Committee Report even if this may result in additional unplanned sharing of other county athletic facilities. APPOINTMENTS Jane Milliron made a motion to appoint Al Thomason the spokesperson and contact person for the Blue Ribbon Committee. Barbara Buckley seconded the motion which was passed unanimously. Mary Nasca (Recording Secretary) and her family have relocated to Winston Saiem, North Carolina. Donna Vittur was appointed Recording Secretary. The meeting adjourned at 9:45PM. Respectfully submitted, Donna Vittur Recording Secretary Blue Ribbon Committee .~. ~ ~'n ~~ ~~ ~~ ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~- o~ x' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COU1~T`Y, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER .~`" ,~ E MEETING DATE: July 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing on 1997 Citizen Satisfaction Survey COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I did not have the survey results from Martin Research at the time at the agenda packet was sent out, nor have I had the opportunity to review the results. I ant to do so on Monday and will get the information to you in advance if possible. I still pre,~er to present the survey at this meeting since we only have one meeting in August. ,~^~ BACKGROUND: This time has been set aside for a briefing on the 197 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. This is the third consecutive year that this county-wide survey, has been conducted, involving 500 randomly selected households. This year, the survey vVas handled by Martin Research, which also conducted the 1995 Survey. Frank Martin will be here to present the results to the Board. Respectfully submitted, Anne Marie Green, APR Director, Community Relations' ACTION Approved () Motion b; Denied ( ) Received O Referred () ;°' To s'~ Approved by, ~~,~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison _ _ Johnson _ _ _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens c: July 29, 1997 NOTE Members, Board of Supervisors Paul Mahoney Tim Gubala Diane Hyatt Terry Harrington s From: Brenda Holton RE: ACTION AGENDA FOR 7-22-97 MEETING AGENDA ITEM I-3 -ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF AN OPTION TO PURCHASE 463 ACRES FROM GLENN-MARY ASSOCIATES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. Please replace Page 5 of the Action Agenda with the attached corrected page 5. This is being revised to more clearly describe the sequence of events and motions to approve first reading of the prepared ordinance. Attachment C~rrrct~rc~l ~~~~~~c and to provide a waiver procedure. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND & PUBLIC HEARING - 8/19197 URC 2. Ordinance amending and reenacting Section 9-21 of the Roanoke County Code and Ordinance 121796-13 which established a Board of Appeals and procedures .and requirements to hear appeals from decisions made under the provisions of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection". (John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AND USE BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS AS FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS 2ND - 8/19/97 URC 3. Ordinance authorizing the exercise of an option to purchase and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of approximately 463 acres of real estate from Glenn-Mary Associates for economic development purposes. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) FFH MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION (ADOPT ORD AND CONCEPT PLAN) LBE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ONLY APPROVE PURCHASE OF SITE WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE PREPARED ORDINANCE LBE WITHDREW HIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING OF PREPARED ORDINANCE 2ND & PUBLIC HEARING - 8/19197 -URC STAFF ASKED TO ANSWER LBE'S INQUIRY ABOUT ATTITUDE OF CITIZENS ON USING GLENVAR HEIGHT BLVD FOR SITE ACCESS 5 OF ROANp,1.~ ~ ,A p Z 17 z °v a rasa COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 July 24, 1997 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN ' VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) 772-2005 Mr. Allan C. Robinson, Jr., Chairman Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, VA 24012 Dear Mr. Robinson: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 072297-1 approving the amended 1997-1998 operating budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 1997. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment cc: Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance John R. Hubbard, CEO, RVRA Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council C~~ix~t#~ a~~ ~o~~tx~~~te ® Recycled paper ~ AN ~. >, p a ~ DEPARTMENT;OF PLANNING AND ZONING TERRANCE L. HARRINGTON, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR OF PLANNING BOARD OF 20NING APPEALS Roanoke County Department of Planning Memorandum TO: Neighborhood Residents FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP Director of Planning DATE: June 4, 1997 PARF.IV'FS: We .received a copy of this memorandum from a neighbor who lives behind Cave Spring Baptist Church on Thursday, June 12. I am concerned about increased traffic and safety issues for our students.. if interested, you may want to attend the two public hearings circled at the bottom of this page. 'Thank you, Steve Boyer RE: Neighborhood Meeting to Discuss Proposed Rezoning Request to Allow Convenience Store/Gas Station; Intersection of Route 221 (Brambleton Ave)/Rosecrest Road Roanoke County has received a rezoning and special use permit petition from Stephen D and Marie Freeman to allow a convenience store and gas station to be constructed on a .94 acre parcel on the northeast side of Brambleton Avenue, just south of Rosecrest Road. A neighborhood meeting has been scheduled to allow the proposed developers of this property the opportunity to present their request to the community. The meeting will be held on Monday June 16, 1997 at 7:30pm in Room 3F of the Brambleton Center located~at 3738 Brambleton Avenue. The meeting will be an open house format. Representatives of the developer will be available to explain the proposal and answer questions. Formal meetings to .review this request have also been scheduled. They are as follows: Planning Commission Public Hearing July 1, 1997 7:00 pm .Roanoke County Administration Building; 5204 Bernard Drive Board of supervisors Public Hearing July 22, 1997 7:0o pm Roanoke County Administration Building; 5204 Bernard Drive I hope you can attend the neighborhood meeting on June 16th. If you have any questions please call Jon Hartley at 772-2092 JULY 22, 1997 County staff requests the Board to adopt a motion to enter into executive session within the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act as follows: (A) to discuss probable litigation regarding drainage in accordance with Section 2.1-344 A 7 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. (B) Section 2. 0~ FiOANp,,~~ a r ~. ~ ~ ,7 z raae COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 C~~~xxr# ~~ ~~xxY~.~.~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 26, 1997 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) 772-2005 Reverend Phillip Whitaker Bramblefon Baptist Church 4122 Cresthill Drive Roanoke, Va 24018 Dear Reverend Whitaker. On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for offering fhe invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 1997. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings and the Board is very grateful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. With kindest regards, Bob L. Joh n, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ® Recyded Paper UItG~NT Our fight to oppose the rezoning of the land at the corner of Brambleton and Rosecrest is apparently not over. We have received word that the Board of Supervisors may still approve the rezoning, in spite of the ~ recommendations of the Planning Commission and the School Board. Please CALL ALL the Board of Supervisors and WRITE them and COME TO THE JULY 22, 7:00 MEETTING at the Roanoke County Administration Building to voice your concerns. Please also encourage your neighbors to take action. Board of Supervisors: Bob Johnson (Hollins), Chair, 8276 Olsen Rd. Roanoke, 24019 home: 362-5074 office: 776-0606 Harry Nickens (Vinton), Vice Chair 4179 Toddsbury Dr. Vinton, VA 24179 home: 890-3552 office: 985-8484 Lee Eddy (Windsor Hills) 2211 Pommel Dr. Roanoke-j- VA 24018 . home and office: 774-2930 Fenton "Spike" Harrison (Catawba) 1638 Weaver Road Salem, VA 24153 home and office: 389-3054 H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix (Cave Spring) 3314 Kenwick Tr., SW Roanoke, 24018 home and office: 774-4078 (see back) ..7 _N .Q f~ O _> Q. W Z O m ~ Z q~q Z ~ W O W ~ 00 Z D ~ W J Q ~ Z Y W O Q } m ~ W Q Q W ~ ~ Q C ty J - - W Y H - g J ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 2 W U = ~ ~ W O d w ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ a. J w ~ w Q } } V O ~ g Z V ~ ~ U' ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z m Q ~ V W W Z_ m O = W Z m Z Q J cn = O Z ~ O V = Q ~- Q Z Q Z W m W Z O Q ~ O ~ Q ~- W O O - Z ~ W ~ ~ U' ~ Y Z 2 ~ H ~ -~ (A ~ U' ~ m ~ ~ ~ O O M to I~ e1' O ~ M ~ ti CO ~ CO ~ CO ~ d' O d' O CO (D CO CO CO I~ CO ~ CO ~ CO ~ CO ~ CO ~ CO ~ (O ~ (O ~ ~ lf) U N N 00 ~ M O ~ ~ ~- N N N ~ M ~ M 00 ~-- 00 ~- N N N N N N N N N ~ ~- O Q - ~ tC) O •- ~ CO ~ 'ct ~ O O N ~ 00 N N ~ 00 O OJ 00 ~ M ~ M Cfl ~ CO ~ (O ~ CO ~ (O ~ N Ln CO ~ CO ~ CO ~ ~ O ~- ~- tN() M~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ti ti M M N N N N N ~ N N N ~ w O ~ r-- (fl 7 ~ N M N N N O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ ~ O C N O d _~ w O C O U ~ M M N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- r- ~- ~-- ~ ~ ~ M N . ~ U O ~' O ~ .-+ C ~ (0 ~ O U ~ O M ~ O N M ~ f~ O O f~ V ~}' M O O to ~ tf) f~ ~ ~ N O ~t I~ ~ O f~ (O CO I~ I~ M ~ O ~ I~ (~ O O ~ ~ O tIy O to O to ~ ~ N ~t ~ (O M ~ ~ N O r- to '~t M ~ M p E ?. O O H CO O (O o0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ O 00 N ~ O Cp c0 I~ N e- ~ ~ d' M O O N ~ o0 M c0 O ~' ~ V O oO O O N M 'n Q CO O M CO ~ .- 00 M N 00 M N OO ~ N O f~ N O M N ~ 00 N ~ f~ N O 00 N N Cfl N 00 M N ~ ~ N ~ O N O O N O ~ ~ ~ ti r- ~' ~ CO M O O O N N ~ M N C ~ W N d' N N N N N N N I N I N N N N N N N ~ ~ N N C7 O m (D d O~ ROANps.~ ti ' ~ '. 9 Z z v a rasa ~~ FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT ~4,/1 RICHARD E. BURCH, JR. CHIEF TO: FROM: County Administrator Elmer Hodge Chief Richard E. Burch, Jr. ~` DATE: June 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Fire Prevention Code ~--h i s o r~ ~'~ / C,~...c~- ,~-~'-~ m , Q.~_~~ ~-~y~97 Recently, the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code was revised, with changes being effective April 15, 1997. One of the new code revisions is related to the appeals board process, specifically to member qualifications. After consideration of these changes, it appears we will need to evaluate our appeals process which was established by the Board of Supervisors on December 17, 1996. Attached are copies of the relevant code changes and the ordinance previously adopted by the Board. Please review this information and contact me with any comments you may have. Thank you. 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD NW • ROANOKE, VA 24019 • (540) 561-8100 FAX TELEPHONE (540) 561-8108 Recyded Paper SFPC AMENDMENT PREFACE This edition of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code (SFPC) was adopted on January 27, 1997, by order of the Virginia Board of Housing anti Community Development (BHCD), and became effective on April 15, 1997. The SFPC was cooperatively developed by the Virginia Fire Service Board and the BHCD. The adoption was made in accordance with the regulatory authority granted the BHCD by Chapter 9 (§ 27-94 et seq.) of Title 27 of the Code of Virginia. The adoption order was prepared according to the requirements of the Administrative Process Act. The SFPC is a mandatory set of regulations designed to provide statewide standards to safeguard life and property from conditions which are liable to cause or contribute to the spread of fire; the hazards of fire or explosion arising from the improper maintenance of life safety, fire prevention and protection materials, devices, systems, and the unsafe storage, handling and use of explosives, substances, materials, and devices. Local governments are authorized to adopt fire prevention regulations that are more restrictive or extensive in scope than the SFPC provided, such local rettttlations do not affect the manner of construction, or the materials to be used in the erection, alteration, repair, maintenance, or use of a building or structure. Any provision of the SFPC which is in conflict with the Virguua Uniform Statewide Building Code, or any other applicable laws of this Commonwealth, is invalid. Enforcement of die SFPC by local government is optional. The State Fire bfarshal is authorized to enforce dte SFPC in those jurisdictions in which the local government does not enforce [he SFPC. The SFPC contains enforcement procedures that must be used by the enforcing aRenc}•, An admirtistrati~ e appeals system has been established to resolve anv disagreements that ma}• occur between the enforcing agency and the aggrieved pam•. The BHCD bases the technical requirements of die SFPC on nationally accepted model codes and standards anti m:il:es as few amendments as possible. The purpose is to bench[ the citizens of Virginia by promoting efficiency in the industn•, ma.m• aspects of which are interstate in nature. For this reason, die BHCD encourages anyone w•ho believes that a teclutical amendment is needed to submit their proposal directly to the model code or standard writing organization. Amendments made by such organization., wi(1 then be considered for inclusion in future editions of the SFPC. State law• requires the BHCD to properl}• maintain dig SFPC. The BHCD pIanS to do dus by updating the SFPC when new editiotu of the mode] codes become publicly available. Suggestions f'or improvements are invited at any time. Information on how to preseru proposals to model code or standard orgatuzatioas ma~• be obtained from the State Building Code Office. ' Double vertical lines in dic margin oti replacement pages indicate chanties made by the BHCD for use with the 1996 BOCA National Code. ' The local fire prevention depatttneru should ht consulted for infotznation and assistance regarding application of the SFPC. Additional technical assistance may be obtained by contacting a regional State Fire Marshal's office. Northern Regional Office Tidewater Regional Office Suite 11, SPR Building Suite 223, Bldg. No. S 70 IVSain Street Koger Executive Center Warrenton, Virginia 23186 Norfolk, Virginia 23501 (540) 347-6351 (757) 455-3820 Fax (540) 347-6377 Central Regional Oifce Fax (757) 455-3844 501 North Second Street Southwest Regional Office Rtcnmond,lVirginia 23219 Western Regional Office 703$ North Main Street (804) 371-7153 Commonwealth Bldg. Suite B4U Marion, Virginia 24354 Faz (804) 371-7092 212 Church Avenue, S.W. (540) 783-3461 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Fax (540) 783-7132 (540) 857-7360 Fax (540) 857-7362 Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Building and Fire Regulation 501 North 2nd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-1321 iia SFPC AMENDMENT official may issue a summons in lieu of a notice of violation. SECTION F•113.0 MEANS OF APPEAL F-113.1 Application for appeal: Appeals concerning the application of this code by the code official shall fast lie to the board of appeals established in Section F-113.2 and then to the TRB. Appeals from the application of this code by the State Fire Marshal shall be made directly to the TRB as provided in ~ 36-108 et seq. of the Code of Virginia. The appeal shall be submitted within 14 days of the application of this code. F-113.2 Board of Appeals: There shall be established a board of appeals which shall consist of at least five members appointed by the chief appointing authority. F-113.2.1 Qualifications: To the extent such persons may be available, the board of appeals shall consist of individuals from each of the following professions or disciplines. 1. Resistered design professional who is a registered architect, or a builder or superintendent of building construction with at least 10 years experience, five of which shall have been in responsible charge of work. 2. Registered design professional with structural engineering or architectural experience. 3. Registered desigi: professional with mechanical or plumbing engineering experience, or a mechanical or plumbing contractor with at ]east 10 years experience, five of which shall have been in responsible charge of work. 4. Registered design professional with electrical engineering experience, or an electrical contractor with at least 10 years experience, five of which shall have been in responsible charge of work. 5. Registered design professional with fire protection engineering experience, or a fire protection contractor with at least 10 years experience, five of which shall have been in responsible charge of work. I The code official, technical assistants, inspectors or other I employees of the enforcement agency shall not serve as mem- bers of the board of appeals. F-113.2.2 Alternate members: The chief appointing authority shall be permitted to appoint two alternate members who shall be called by the board chairman to hear appeals during the absence or disqualification of a member. Alternate members shall possess the qualifications required for board membership. F-113.2.3 Chairman: The board shall annually select one of its members to serve as chairman. F-113.2.4 Disqualification of a member: A member shall not hear an appeal in which that member has any personal, profes- sional or financial interest. F-113.2.5 Secretary: The chief administrative officer shall designate a qualified clerk to serve as secretary to the board. The secretary shall file a detailed record of all proceedings in the office of the chief administrative officer. i F-113.2.6: Deleted. ADMINISTRATION F-113.4 Open hearing: All hearings before the board shall be open to the public. The appellant, [he appellant's representative, the code official and any person whose interests are affected shall be given an opportunity to be heard. F-113.4.1 Procedure: The board shall adopt, and make available to the public through the secretary, procedures under which a hearing will be conducted. The procedures shall not require compliance with strict rules of evidence, but shall mandate that only relevant information be received. F-113.5 Postponed hearing: When a quorum of the board is not present to hear an appeal, either the appellant or the appellant's representative shall have the right to request a postponement of the hearing. F-113.6 Board decision: The board shall rule by a concurring vote of a majority of members present. F-113.6.1 Resolution: The decision of the board shall be by resolution. Certified copies shall be furnished to the appellant and to the code official. The resolution shall contain a statement indicating [hat if further appeal is sought, application shall be made to the TRB within 21 days of receipt of the resolution. F-113.6.2 Administration: The code official shall take immediate action in accordance with the decision oC the board. F-113.7 Appeal to the TRB: Appeals to the TRB from a decision of the board of appeals shall be made within 21 days of receipt of the resolution of the board of appeals. F-113.3 Notice of meeting: The board shall meet upon notice from the chairman, within ten days of [he filing of an appeal, or at stated periodic meetings. • AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996 ORDINANCE 121796-1,~ ESTABLISHING A BOARD OF APPEALS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS TO HEAR APPEALS FROM DECISIONS MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9, "FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION", OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, Section 27-98 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides that a local governing body may establish procedures and requirements for the administration and enforcement of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code; and, WHEREAS, appeals concerning the application of this Code by the County Fire Marshal shall first lie to a local board of appeals and then to the State Building Code Technical Review Board ; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby designates itself as a board of appeals and establishes procedures and requirements for appeals of enforcement decisions made under the provisions of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the Roanoke County Code; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 3, 1996, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on December 17, 1996. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section, Section 9-21, "Appeals" to provide as follows: Section 9-21 Appeals. Ca) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Roanoke County Fire Marshal under the provisions of this Chapter may file a 1 written appeal with the clerk to the Board of Supervisors for review of the Fire Marshal's decision. The written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days of the decision of the Fire Marshall, in a manner and form to be specified by the Fire and Rescue Chief. (b) The written appeal must specify the grounds for the appeal, and must be accompanied by the payment of the sum of Twenty- Five ($25.00) Dollars in order to defray the costs of such appeal. (c) Upon receipt of the appeal the board shall proceed at its earliest convenience to hear the appeal. The board shall within three (3) working days render a decision in accordance with its findings. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after December 17, 1996. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: /~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 2 Printed by Mary Allen / ADMO1 6/25/97 11:31am From: Paul Mahoney / ADM01 To: Elmer Hodge / ADM01, Rick BurchJr / PFRO1 Subject: Fire Prevention Code, Appeals Board --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====6/25/97=10:54am== CC: Mary Allen / ADMO1 ....................................... Gentlemen: I have received Chief Burch's memo of 6/23/97 concerning qualifications of appeals board members, and ECH's note that this should be on the July agenda. What exactly do you want to place on the July agenda? What specific amendment are you recommending? You may recall that I recommended that the Building Code Board of Appeals be used for Fire Code appeals; however, Elmer, you opposed that recommendation, and convinced the BofS to appoint itself to hear these appeals. The Building Code Appeals Board includes SOME of the individuals with the required qualifications in the named professions and disciplines. Shall we once again explore this option? Before submitting this to the Board, I would like to have a recommendation, and suggested amending language for the ordinance. Thanks. Page: 1 Roanoke County Department of Planning Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP Director of Planning DATE: July 16, 1997 RE: Outdoor Advertising Signs (Billboards) Several members of the Board have recently inquired about the new outdoor advertising sign that has been erected by Lamar Advertising on Brambleton Avenue, across from the new Harris Teeter. A permit was issued for this sign early this Spring A second billboard permit was also recently issued for the Route 460 corridor in the Glenvar area of the County. These signs comply with all of our current standards for this type of sign. These are the first new billboards approved in the County since 1992. As part of the 1992 zoning ordinance, we tightened our standards for these type of signs, but continue to allow them provided: They are located in a C-2, I-1 or I-2 District They are located outside of a 500 foot radius of existing billboards They are no more than 35 feet above road grade. They are at least 200 feet from a residential zoning district, park, school, library, church, etc., and They are not designed to be double decker or side by side boards In addition, there are size and setback requirements that these signs must meet. Over the past five years, there has been little interest on the part of the outdoor advertising industry to erect new boards in the County. My.assumption was that our regulations were making it difficult to find suitable sites in the County. However, recently, there has been increased interest by the industry for new site selection, and it appears that lack of demand for this type of advertising space over the past five years, rather than our regulations, have limited the number of new sites over the past five years. I would appreciate the Board members comments about revising our regulations to further limit the potential for new outdoor advertising sites around the County. The Planning Commission is evaluating a package of minor zoning amendments, and any such change could be included as part of this amendment package. c: Planning Commission Elmer Hodge Paul Mahoney M E M O R A N D U M TO: Members of the Board of supervisors FROM: Elmer Hodge ~~~ / `~~.~~/J DATE; July 16, 1997 ~~ SUBJECT: Flood in Opole, Poland I'm sorry to report to you that our Sister City, Opole, has been struck by a devastating flood - the worst in 500 years. I first heard the news last Thursday, at which time the city was already being evacuated. The latest word received today is that 40,000 residents have had to leave their homes and 100,000 residents have been flooded to some extent. The center of the city was completely closed including the City Building and the Police Headquarters. Flood waters were well into the third floor of apartment buildings. We have tried without success since Friday, June 11, to reach our contacts in Opole. Apparently all communications are out and the city is without water and electricity. Sanitation is becoming a serious problem. Our information has come from Dr. Jacek Slowikowski, whose wife Kristina has helped us with the Sister City arrangement. Dr. Slowikowski just returned yesterday from a visit to his home, a city north of Opole on the Odra River. That city also had to be evacuated, although Dr. Slowikowski says that Opole seems to have been the hardest his of all the cities along the river. I'm sure there will be a need for clothing, medicine and other goods, but at the moment, the greatest need seems to be for funds to help with recovering and rebuilding the infrastructure. I would like to suggest that we send a donation of $5,000 to help in some small way with this terrible tragedy. If I don't hear from you to the contrary, I will prepare a request for $5,000 to be taken from the Board Contingency Fund and bring it to the July 22 meeting. Printec~.by Brenda Holton / ADM01 7/15/97 11:25am From: Terry Harrington / ADM01 To: Brenda Holton / ADMO1 Subject: Dog memo to BOS --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====7/15/97=11:25am== Brenda... for memo from ECH to Board ******** Attached is a letter that each of us received from Tim Bane suggesting that a change be made in the animal control ordinance to allow three dogs instead of two. Currently, if an owner of animals wishes to have more than two dogs, they may apply for a private kennel permit, provided they can meet the zoning ordinance standards for the zoning district in which they reside. I have heard from some of you who are interested in discussing this change but before we get peoples expectations up or do a lot of research, I would like to have your suggestions as to whether or not you are willing to consider this. I have spoke with Terry Harrington and Ray Lavinder, and both are inclined to support such a change, but agree that some research should be done before any formal proposals are made. Please let me know. attachment c: Terry H. Ray Lavinder ********** Page: 1 July 15, 1997 (9:50am) Note to Don Myers From Brenda Holton RE: Memo from 7/22 Agenda packet See attached note from LBE asking that item be placed on agenda. Mr. Hodge said instead of putting on agenda, he wants to write a memo to Board Members and ask if they want to consider it. He said to put in other concerns -from Terry Harrington, Ray Lavinder, etc. You could call them and get their concerns. Puff it up or whatever. He said to mention letter from Tim Bane and dictated the second paragraph. Attached is a letter that each of us received from Tim Bane suggesting that a change be made in the animal control ordinance to allow three dogs instead of two. have heard from some of you who are interested in discussing this change but before we get people's expectations up or do a lot of research, I would like to have your suggestions as to where or not you are willing to consider this. Please let me know. July 15, 1997 Note to Elmer Hodge Mary Allen cc: Terry Harrington From Brenda Holton as directed by LBE Mr. Eddy and the other supervisors received the attached letter from Tim Bane asking to change the ordinance to allow three dogs instead of two. Mr. Eddy has requested that the issue be placed on the July 22 agenda and that a staff report be presented responding to Mr. Bane's letter. He asked about the agenda and I told him the one new business item that we are sure of, he said that he had just added another item. s ~o~vo~~ couNrY ~'r'ro~v~Y~s o~c~ Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, S. W. -Room 431 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 772-2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Superviso FROM: Paul M. Mahoney ~~ DATE: 14 July 1997 SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program Approval by Planning Commission Last month the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors requested the opinion of the County Attorney with respect to the role of the Planning Commission in approving the capital improvements program ("CIP"). Specifically, the Board inquired as to the validity of the CIP, absent Planning Commission review and approval. Historically the Roanoke County Planning Commission has prepared and approved the CIP as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Approximately 10 years ago the County Administrator reviewed the County's process for development, consideration and adoption of the CIP, and changed it from a planning process to a finance process. This change in process has been most pronounced over the past 5 years as the finance staff has prepared the CIP. Applicable Statutes There are three statutes directly applicable to this inquiry: (1) Section 15.1-464 l~ discusses the local planning commission's preparation and submittal. of an annual capital improvement program to the local governing body or official charged with preparation of the budget; (2) Section 15.1-456 addresses the legal status of the comprehensive plan; and (3) Section 15.1-491.2:1 discusses conditional zoning. The relevant portions of these statutes are set out below. Section 15.1-464. Local commissions to prepare and submit annually capital improvement programs to governing body or official charged with preparation of budget. - A local commission may, and at the direction of the governing body shall, prepare and revise annually a capital improvement program based on the comprehensive plan of the county or municipality for a period not to exceed the 1 ensuing five years. The commission shall submit the same annually to the governing body, or to the chief administrative officer or other official charged with preparation of the budget for the municipality or county, at such time as it or he shall direct. Such capital improvement program shall include the commission s recommendations, and estimates of cost of such facilities and the means of financing them, to be undertaken in the ensuing fiscal year and in a period not to exceed the next four years, as the basis of the capital budget for the county or municipality. In the preparation of its capital budget recommendations, the commission shall consult with the chief administrative officer or other executive head of the government of the county or municipality, the heads of departments and interested citizens and organizations and shall hold such public hearings as it deems necessary unless otherwise required. [Emphasis added.] Section 15.1-456 provides in part that the adopted comprehensive plan shall control the general or approximate location, character and extent of each feature shown on the plan. Thereafter, unless such feature is already shown on the adopted master plan or part thereof ..., no street or connection to an existing street, park or other public area, public building or public structure, public utility facility or public service corporation facility other than railroad facility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed, established or authorized, unless and until the general location or approximate location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the local commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof. This section deals with the comprehensive plan. The link to the CIP is found in Section 15.1-447. Also any "feature" on the comprehensive plan should have been shown, reported or listed on the CIP. Under Section 15.1-447 the "comprehensive plan" may include, but is not limited to, '" (1) an official map, (2) a capital improvement program, (3) a subdivision ordinance, (4) a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps; and (5) a mineral resource map. Finally Section 15.1-491.2:1 is the enabling legislation for conditional zoning applicable to Roanoke County. There are three forms of conditional zoning for Virginia localities and the form authorized by this section is the form applicable to Roanoke County. This section provides, in part, that "No proffer shall be accepted by a county, city or town unless it has adopted a capital improvement program pursuant to Section 15.1-464 or local charter." This section further provides that if the proffered condition includes dedication of real property or payment of cash, "such property shall not transfer and such payment of 2 w- cash shall not be made until the facilities for which such property is dedicated or cash is tendered are included in the capital improvement program pursuant to Section 15.1-464" DISCUSSION The Code does not mandate that the planning commission prepare the CIP. At the direction of the governing body, the local planning commission ~ prepare the CIP. Yet the Code is silent in authorizing any other agency, commission or department to prepare the CIP. All of the statutory references to the CIP are in the context of planning and zoning. The CIP is inextricably linked to the comprehensive plan (indeed, the CIP "shall" be based upon the comprehensive plan), Section 15.1-456 (which is designed to control the general or approximate location of public facilities or "features"), and most importantly conditional zoning. All of these elements are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the planning commission. However, this is an academic discussion. No "penalty" is prescribed in the Code for a violation of this planning process. Further it is discretionary for the Board to direct the planning commission to prepare a CIP (see the first line of Section 15.1-464). Also there are many items in the CIP that are not public facilities or features contemplated under the comprehensive plan. There are at least two serious consequences from the failure to include the Planning Commission in the CIP recommendation and approval process as contemplated by the Code "456" review and conditional zoning. I have preached the necessity for "456" review previously. I will not repeat that old topic here. In summary, the simplest and most obvious grounds for a legal challenge to any County action constructing, establishing or authorizing a public facility or "feature" is to question if that facility or feature is shown in the comprehensive plan (and correspondingly, the CIP). If it is not, then is there a finding by the planning commission '" and Board that the public facility or feature is substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan? If not, then the action to construct, establish or authorize is invalid, since it is not in compliance with State law. While such a challenge will not permanently block the construction, establishment or authorization of the public facility or feature, it has the potential to seriously delay, harass and embarrass. I believe that the potential for serious legal challenge to conditional zoning and the acceptance of proffered conditions exists with the failure to adhere to the requirement for Planning Commission recommendation and approval of the CIP. I have previously urged the Board to consider a process by which cash proffers can be invited and accepted. Cash proffers are used by other jurisdictions in Virginia to defray some of the costs of new development (schools, parks and playgrounds, fire and rescue facilities, water and sewer 3 r lines, pumping and storage facilities, road improvements, etc.). Yet even if this County never accepts a cash proffer, the acceptance of proffers dedicating real property is questionable, if that is not included in a CIP adopted pursuant to Section 15.1-464 (that is, a CIP prepared and recommended by the planning commission). Similarly the acceptance of proffers for off-site improvements is questionable. INFORMAL POLL I asked this question of my colleagues through an informal poll on the Internet. I received a small number of responses, yet these responses are indicative of the differences of opinion on this question. Some jurisdictions treat this as a "finance" function, others closely link the preparation and approval of the CIP to the planning commission and the comprehensive plan, i.e. a "planning" function. In the City of Winchester, the planning commission reviews items related to its functions, and recommends programs for public structures and improvements to its city council finance and administration committee, then to the full council for approval of these projects in the budget. Virginia Beach considers the CIP to be a "financial" as opposed to a "land use" planning document. The CIP is prepared by the Department of Management Services (not its Finance Department). CIP is neither reviewed nor approved by the planning commission. In York County, the planning commission is not involved in the preparation, review or approval of the CIP. The board of supervisors guards this prerogative. To show that we are not alone in struggling with this question, Gloucester County is going through this same debate. Currently the CIP is prepared as an internal staff document, and the planning commission never reviews or approves it. Gloucester is 'concerned about the effect of a challenge to a conditional rezoning, yet has not changed its procedures. Before the city manager of the City of Alexandria submits the CIP to city council, the manager must obtain the advisory recommendations of the planning commission. Hanover County deems the CIP to be one of the principal tools for the implementation of the comprehensive plan, its land use plan, and its development phasing plans. The CIP is prepared by the Finance Department, and then presented to the planning commission for its review and recommendation. Hanover believes that the CIP is especially important in relation to laying the groundwork for its cash proffer policy for rezonings. 4 In the Town of Blacksburg the CIP is prepared by a staff committee (Finance, Planning, and Public Works Directors and the Assistant Town Manager), then submitted to the planning commission for its review and approval. The comprehensive plan is its "driving tool". It is my understanding that the County Administrator has polled other jurisdictions concerning their practices, and that he will share these results with you. CONCLUSION As I have previously recommended to this Board, the role of the Planning Commission in its responsibility to make recommendations to you concerning the CIP and the comprehensive plan is manifest in the State Code. The role of the CIP, and its relationship to the comprehensive plan, "456" review and conditional zoning is clear. It is without question that the CIP is integrally related to "finance" functions, yet it is likewise without question that the CIP is inextricably related to this County's long range "planning" functions. The failure to complete this linkage of CIP and comprehensive plan through the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission can only cause future problems, and opens the door for challenges to its validity, and to the validity of its implementation. Again, I recommend, that the planning commission be provided an opportunity to fulfill its statutory role. Please call me if you have any questions concerning this memorandum. PMM/ spb G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\PC&CIP.MEM 5 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Stephen D. and Marie Freeman to rezone 0.94 acre from C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a convenience store, located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221, 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: July 2, 1997 ~ ~ , ~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, July 8, 1997 Tuesday, July 15, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Stephen & Marie Freeman c/o Ed Natt PO Box 20068 Roanoke, VA 24014 (540) 774-1197 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 Printed by Mary Allen / ADM01 6/30/97 7:38am From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Brenda Chastain / RCSO1 Subject: fwd: STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====6/27/97==1:36pm== CC: Anne-Marie Green / ADMO1, Brenda Holton / ADMO1 ....................................... I understand from Spike Harrison that the School Board is going to recognize the Glenvar and William Byrd Championship teams at the next School Board meeting. We are going to recognize them at the July 8 meeting If you have gathered any information about the teams could you help us? (1) Need names of coach, assistant coach and players for Certificates. Could you e-mail or mail to Brenda Holton? If you don't have, where could we get them? (2) Any relevant information that would help prepare a resolution of congratulations. Could you e-mail or mail that information to Anne Marie Green? I told you that I would be asking for your help! Fwd=by:=Brenda=Chasta=6/27/97==3:07pm== Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1 ....................................... I will gather what I can and forward to you. It is great when we can help each other. Page: 1 Printed by Mary Allen / ADMO1 7/07/97 2:46pm From: Mary Allen / ADMO1Confirm receipt To: Anne-Marie Green / ADM01 Subject: RESOS FOR 7/22 --------------------------------------- ===NOTE________________________________ Both the William Byrd and Glenvar state championship teams will be present at the 7/22 meeting at 7 p.m. to receive their resolutions. I think I already sent you some of the information but, I've got more that I copy for you. Also, William Byrd High School won the state Creative Writing Competition and they will be recognized at that meeting also. I'll send you some info on that one too. Thanks. Page: 1 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Cave Spring Baptist Church for a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 4873 Brambleton Avenue, 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: July 2, 1997 .~ • Q Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, July 8, 1997 Tuesday, July 15, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Cave Spring Baptist Church c/o Hughes Assoc. PO Box 1034 Roanoke, VA 24005 (540) 342-4002 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Gary Ellis to rezone 1.0 acre from I-2 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a facility for minor auto repair, located in the 3300 block of Shawnee Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: July 2, 1997 .~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, July 8, 1997 Tuesday, July 15, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Gary D. Ellis 3306 W. Main St Salem, VA 24153 (540) 380-2886 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Sara Cole and Kit Davis for a Special Use Permit to allow a private kennel, located at 1529 Dalmatian Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: July 2, 1997 ~ ~ ~~ J Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, July 8, 1997 Tuesday, July 15, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Sara Cole & Kit David 2215 Maple St Virginia Beach, VA 23451 (757) 481-7441 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Ernest Clark to rezone 9.77 acre from R-1 Conditional to R-1 to construct single family residences, located at the south side of Woodhaven Road, approximately 0.5 mile east of its intersection with Green Ridge Road, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: July 2, 1997 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, July 8, 1997 Tuesday, July 15, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Ernest Clark c/o Bradley Graham 1541 Penley BI. Salem, VA 24153 (540) 387-9118 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 Printed by Brenda Holton / ADMO1 7/18/97 3:14pm --------------------------------------- From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 CONFIRMED To: Anne-Marie Green / ADM01, Elmer Hodge / ADMO1 Subject: CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====7/18/97=10:54am== CC: Brenda Holton / ADMO1, Melinda Rector / ADMO1 ... ..... .. ... .. ... ..... ... Frank Martin called back this morning. They have found the error in their satisfaction survey and have rerun the program. He said they COULD make the presentation on Tuesday 7/22 after all. I told him both of you were out today, but the item could be added to the agenda on Tuesday if you decide to add it. He will have it ready if you want to make the presentation on Tuesday. By copy of this to Melinda. If Anne Marie calls today or Monday, please let her know. Page: 1 ,4 ~ S-~'e cv ~a~le.. Go a eJ~ o ~ ~e yr Ghr~~s ~~.,,~„-,g /s ~ ~ ,~.4 ~ ~.~t„J Op~~ r ~~ ~ ~~ JUG G ' J7 ~: 1G Cf:OM MOhJY ROAhJOKC VA. • ,. NYutual. of Ne~v York (1V1oN'Y) 114 Nlayrket strut, Site 2~.0 Roanoke, VA. 211 540-344-5193 ~i~ON~ was ~RA~vs~-~ss~o~ cor~s~s~rs of ~- P~~~s. ~_ ~ pa~~ Ynciuaed} ~. DATE: ~ 3 a FAX: ~"? ~~. ~ ~. ~`~ ~ FRO~VI: ~ ~L(•'~ f'AGC . ©G 1 r JUL ~ '07 ~; 17 rror~ MOhJY' R4r~hJOKC 4~A. f AGC.OQ~ r WII,L,IAM _BY~? BASEBALL 997 STATE PIONS 1 CORY ROSS 2 CHRIS RIHBLE 3 JOSH DURHAM 4 RANDALL SELL 5 DEREK RIVERS 6 PARKER ~IUMpHREYS 7 NICK JONES 8 BLAKE DAMS 9 RYAN WI~ELING 1a cats KENDRICK l I MATT MCGUIltE 12 ROSS BLANKIlJSHIP I3 SCOTT WISE 14 BRENI~TAN GEE I5 STEVE RAGLAND I6 BEN SMIZ'EI 17 NETL 18 ?OMMY CRR S 19 CHRIS N~'~1NNI~TG 2a 3UST1N LIKENS 24 BRIAN SPRAKER ~3 BRIAN RzCK~RSON RODN$Y SPIiADLIN -DEAD COACH GENE RIGGS -ASST. GO.AC~-I GARY WALTHALL -ASST. COACH JOSH x~.RMAN - AssT_ coACx ** TOTAL PAGE.002 ~* July 1, 1997 (12:33pm) Note to File Rodney Spradlin called and said that he, assistant coaches, and team members would like to come July 22 at 7 p.m. They may not have all members but will have some. They had a banquet last night and he discussed with the team. He will fax us a roster of members. Brenda Iil1N. -3(i' 9' (hifiN) 1 fi ; 2(1 Jun-1B-97 12:33P a Rk'F Cfi SfH-ASST. Si1PT TFi ;9 54(1 5fi? 3GR7 ~~ ~~~~~~ QifitE Cf iMF PRV/UPAL ViNTON. VIRGINIA .^x 119 .7unp 17, 199? P. ~Q2 P.02 There will hp a student/Teacher Awards Program at the Roanoke County School Board meeting o~ Thursday, July 1p, 1997 at 7:CC pm. I wa,ulc: like to er.couraga the followinc ~tudcnta to attend with their parents. (There is a map far you to use in locating the new location of the Sahaal Board office on the other side.) Thank ycau . t~o,~~ R.A. Patterson Principal Boys Baseball Testa Firot Place is the State coach: ~tadaey spradlis~ ~,~~{~ - ~-~34) Assietaat Coaches: Geese Aigge Gary Walthali Nosh Herman ~111N. -30' 9? (h1(}N) 1(1.20 RKF Gb SGH-ASST. SC!PT TR1, ~ p 540 5h2 3GR? P. (101 C 0 Y E R FAX S H E E T To: Mary Allen Fax #: Subject: Awards Date: Junc 30, 1997 Yager: 2, including this cower sheet. CQMMENTS: Enclosed are the coaches and the head coach's phone number. The school secretary is sending me the names of iitidi~vidual team members and I will send them to you as soon as I get them. Brenda From the desk of.. 9renda Chaabin Cleric, Roanoke County School Board Roanoke Country ~ehoole 5937 Cave Road, N.W. Roanoke, VA 24019 (540) 582.3741 Fox: (540) 562-3987 Printed by Brenda Holton / ADMO1 6/30/97 12:21pm --------------------------------------- From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 CONFIRMED To: Brenda Holton / ADM01 Subject: CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====6/30/97==7:40am== (1) Brenda Chastain e-mailed me that she would be sending me whatever she has about the two state championship teams. (2) Do you think we should give the teams their choice of when to come? i.e. 3:00 p.m. July 8 or 7:00 p.m. July 22? It may be that the kids have jobs during the day and can't come until 7 p.m. If so, will you call the coaches and check? Page: 1 Printed liy Brenda Holton / ADM01 6/27/97 3:07pm From: Mary Allen / ADM01 CONFIRMED To: Brenda Chastain / RCSO1 Subject: STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====______=====6/27/97==1:36pm== CC: Anne-Marie Green / ADMO1, Brenda Holton / ADMO1 .................... ....... ......... I understand from Spike Harrison that the School Board is going to recognize the Glenvar and William Byrd Championship teams at the next School Board meeting. We are going to recognize them at the July 8 meeting If you have gathered any information about the teams could you help us? (1) Need names of coach, assistant coach and players for Certificates. Could you a-mail or mail to Brenda Holton? If you don't have, where could we get them? (2) Any relevant information that would help prepare a resolution of congratulations. Could you a-mail or mail that information to Anne Marie Green? I told you that I would be asking for your help! Page: 1 4 ,... -~~ 4~~,'.~'-.. `~ ~~L~l~1`1~ ~ _ - j v~~.,g: F 1.~~~;'.'t.~~- -`\i 1o1~G~l:y' ~~~ .s~~~(, ~~' lrt (Cy-.~ ~kr ~~'~'~~`?E,4 .cr~t~~.~C ;t4~'4~ C%4 ~~,~ ~~ . , ~ _ f„' .,. t t i~~s`~~~~i~c'.1.. f~1C~~G~~~ j ~~l£~.~:~ i - CS2 ~ ~ tip-~C~ ~ ~ ~!n.r~_ ---. ~~_~~~t ~,~~~.~,~;~s , ~ ~~~~~~ '~~~~F,~ - yet sf~:~~ ~i,tl r~~r,,~,., a~C c(rs r~~~, ' ` ~~~ PEA Y-y ~G\~~ k}E..l le t.I ~46 l~ s-'f I~ ~t;~ ic;r~^3 ,. ~, ~~;~.~~. ~1ti~~~~~~ r~~ ~~`a~. ~ ;~. t4.>, n:,Y,,tc,t. fir.. '•~`r C'°v1Q.~~~IU,tiS~.t~ ~~~/ r~ ii r b ~ „,, X ~Tf.~',~14~~~1:'a t~~~~-~ ~L.',' ~~7+~~~ s'~ ;~ , pr~'P"~st,~~k~~ ~.~ ,~~,'~.-~~ ^~~~°~"".~~~-.- ~'b Kf .~~~. l~f ,,, p ri f~ ~ ~ ';°,. ~<P.;rt~t.. E~rn~~p~~}YC - tr~~.~,~a~~~ h ti ~( i~w(~-s ~;~i,~;. yy f„ x ~.~~:t°n,. ~zt ~.~~ ~°~ . C~fS1~) ,; ~fl., `iZ ..:a~Y_ ~ '`,~~ ~,C G' V. i~ ~-~"`~, ~~~~ ;' `j r,_S a= '~ ~~,~- a ';t..t w ~ ~ "~ °! FAX TO: Spike Harrison FROM: Mary Allen DATE: June 30, 1997 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GLENVAR SOFTBALL TEAM We would like to recognize you and your softball team for winning the State Championship at the July 22 meeting at 7:00 ~.m. We thought about the July 8 meeting, but there is very little time to prepare the reso and certificates and contact the players (we are off Friday, July 4). Also, it seems to work better if we do these types of recognitions at the 7 p.m. meetings because the players don't have to get off work and their parents can attend (or watch on TV). Could you contact your players and also provide us the proper names of the players and any other coaches who assisted you? We will present a resolution to you and a Certificate to each team member. If you have any questions, please call me or Brenda. Mary Allen 6/30/97 CC: Brenda RK.E BOARD SUPER4,'ISORS TEL~?03-~~2-2193 Jun 30'9 8:27 A No . Receiver Transmitter Date Time Mode Pages Result Transmit Confirmation Report 001 HARRISON RKE BOARD SUFERVISORS Jun 30'97 827 00' 44 Norm 01 OK Printed by Brenda Holton / ADMO1 7/15/97 3:21pm --------------------------------------- From: Anne-Marie Green / ADMOICONFIRMED To: Brenda Holton / ADMO1 Subject: Spike --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====7/15/97==2:06pm== I just noticied in my notes that Spik is also one of six finalists in the USA for Coach of the Year - please add that in to the reso. Thanks. Page: 1 s ~'?"~~ 1~ T;€'3~.@ '~,:~ .-~.aos~.'. ~^~~RF (`FEE ~~~ €. I~~a•"~ ~ ~~T~ ~r~Sit.k ~ k. ~.? :.. .. .~ ` Y E. ~ ~__ ~' ~~ ~'P c _ ' ``. ®~A t ~ A A 4 ~~,. ~ ~ C ~~,:~ ~.-~~ ~' F~~ E~ °~.4 ~' 'v~ ~ ~j_ ~ !` ~_ ~ { ` ~ ~r,~.` its.,., <. ~ '" ; '~ 1 ~1~5.~_ F~ ,S,r~.,~ 1t~,_ . ~ <~ d k . ~..' ' . . 1'r~~. ,, ~` t H N~ ~°~ ~ a ~~ ~. '•,,.f t a (a4 :~ ~ _ ~`l ti J t ~ -fi y j ire g „~ "~' ~ ~ :. 6 «> 5# ~ ~ `art ,. .._ L c Y'. __ ... ~i~ -i':. j ~{ '¢ ,mot i.1 ° 4 t Anne Marie (for Reso): Brenda (for Certificates): Another recognition for July 22. Dr. Nickens called and said that the Willliam Byrd High School won 1st place in the state for creative writing. The teacher called me this morning with the following information: School: William Byrd High School Teacher's name: Rebekah Woodie Information - Won first place Virginia High School League AA Academic Division for their creative writing booklet. - Booklet consists of 2 poems, 2 essays and 2 short stories School-wide competition was judged by Adrian Blevins, writer and professor at Hollins College. First and Second place winners from WBHS had entries in booklet. - First School in Roanoke Valley to ever win this award - Competed against 70 other high schools and 140 students, largest number to ever participate in the competition. - Only school in the competition whose entries were all judged "superior" or "excellent". - Only school to have winners in every division. First Place for Poem, Second Place for essay and Second Place for short story. Students who Won from William Byrd Holly Henderson (Senior) - First Place in WBHS and first place in State for poem Christopher Sloan (Senior) -First place in WBHS and Second Place in State for short story Brian Sutton (Senior) -First Place in WBHS and Second Place in State for Essay Julia Jackson (Senior) -Second Place in WBHS for Poem Martin Kessler (Senior) Second Place in WBHS for essay Courtney Tolley (Freshman) Second Place in WBHS for short story Mary Allen 7/7/97 Anne Marie (for Reso): Brenda (for Certificates): Another recognition for July 22. Dr. Nickens called and said that the Willliam Byrd High School won 1st place in the state for creative writing. The teacher called me this morning with the following information: School: William B Teacher's name. Rebekah Wood' `I`~3-3eSB Information - Won first place Virginia High School creative writing booklet. League AA Academic Division for their - Booklet consists of 2 poems, 2 essays and 2 short stories School-wide competition was judged by Adrian Blevins, writer and professor at Hollins College. First and Second place winners from WBHS had entries in booklet. - First School in Roanoke Valley to ever win this award - Competed against 70 other high schools and 140 students, largest number to ever participate in the competition. - Only school in the competition whose entries were all judged "superior" or "excel lent". - Only school to have winners in every division. First Place for Poem, Second Place for essay and Second Place for short story. Students who Won from William Byrd Holly HPn~d -r-~._~n -Senior) - First Place in WBHS and first place in State for poem Chr`___i ,Tnhe.~.,Sioaa (Senior) -First place in WBHS and Second Place in State for short story Brian,Sutt~ (Senior) -First Place in WBHS and Second Place in State for Essay Julia Jackson..(Senior) -Second Place in WBHS for Poem Martin Kessler (Senior) Second Place in WBHS for essay Courtney Tolley (Freshman) Second Place in WBHS for short story Mary Allen 7/7/97 To Date ~~~ i e 1 O. Z Z Vi1HILE YOU WERE OUT M of Phone (-_) U 7 '~ - -~~ ~j R' Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Message C3.. n Operator nMwan AMPAD REORDER O EFFICIENCYo N23-01~ • ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ y/ A~ G ~-~- ao-3z~~~ ~. T~ .~. S ~C ~i4/~pO/ ~ ~~ h w' y ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ 4~' ~ ~ ~` .. ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~```~`~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~,~~ ~~ S ~ b, ys~ ~ , _ ~ ~-~ ~' -h r~S~o~~.r' S~ocZr~ .~ - st~~ - Sh ~ ~ / ~ s s c~j ~' r/c~/~ S~.c~7`'o r~ .~ - ~ ~~-e -- Sr, ~~z ~ s4i,~ o•, S r, n'~-rt'~~ ~CSS~e~y- S~': ~ ~l~0~1- s-f C,oc~.r-~-ney. TQ//e y ~'r~5h.