Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/19/1997 - RegularOF ROANp~~ ti y z ~ a 1838 HE4XI D'' THE NLE RIIXd' C~.aixx~~g ~~ ~~~xz~o~~e WORKING DOCUMENT -SUBJECT TO REVISION ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA August 19, 1997 R6AAUCE NfINTY VD2GA7A 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. ALL PRESENT AT 3:05 P.M. 2. Invocation: John M. Chambliss Assistant County Administrator 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS ECH ADDED ITEM E-0~ APPROVAL OF REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION ® Recycled Paper FOR PHASE I OF THE SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Library staff for receiving awards for the outstanding childrens' program, the outstanding adult program and the outstanding service innovation from the Virginia Public Library Directors' Association. (Spencer Watts, Library Director) JAY STEPHENS, MICHAEL ERICSON, DIANA ROSAPEPE, AND SHARON HAMMOND RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR PROGRAMS. D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS 0. Approval, of Reimbursement resolution for Phase I of the School Capital Improvement Program. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) R-081997-1 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE REIMBURSEMENT RESO URC 1. Submission of subscriber complaints regarding Cable Programming Services (C.P.S.) tier rates of Cox Cable Roanoke to the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.). (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) HCN MOTION TO DENY SUBMISSION TO FCC WITHDRAWN A-081997-2 LBE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMISSION TO FCC ~~ 1 CITIZEN SPOKE IN SUPPORT 2. Resolution endorsing the Roanoke County Business Park a preliminary concept plan for the development of the Glenn-Mary Site. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) LBE AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE WITH HIS RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO RESO -DEFEATED AYES-LBE NAYS-FM~FFH~HCN,BLJ R-081997-3 FFH MOTION TO APPROVE RESO AYES-FM FFH,HCN,BLJ NAYS-LBE 3. Consideration of Recycling Alternatives. (William Rand, General Services Director) A-081997-4 HCPJ iviOTlO"I TO APPROv'E ALTER"!ATw~ t!d . Tn cnNCLUDE CURBSIDE PROGRAM AYES-FM, FFH~HCN,BLJ NAYS-LBE 4. Request to approve proceeding with items concerning Belle Grove Development Corporation (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator, Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections): (a). Review hearing on appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation of findings and decisions of the Director of Engineering and Inspections related to erosion and sediment control and subdivision ordinance enforcement in Belle Grove Subdivision. A-081997-5.a HCN MOTION TO DENY APPEAL BY BELLE GROVE ~C (b). Approval of the. Roanoke County Bonding Committee's recommendation to formally declare 3 Belle Grove Development Corporation to be in default under their Land Subdivider's Agreement dated June 5, 1995, and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement dated June 5, 1995. A-081997-5.b HCN MOTION TO APPROVE ALT #1, BONDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS SRC (c). Authorization to provided by law, across property existing drainage (Route 605). proceed with acquisition, as of a 20 foot drainage easement owned by Nyna Murray to the easement along Shadwell Drive A-081997-5.c HCN MOTION TO APPROVE PROCEEDING WITH ACQUISITION URC F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS N NE G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS N NE H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AND SET 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR 9/23/97 -URC 1. Ordinance to rezone approximately 0.33 acres from C-1 to C-2 in order to operate a pet business, located at 3534 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Alex and Betty Nelson. 2. Ordinance to rezone 1.01 acres from C-2C to C-2 in order to construct a parking lot located behind Carillon Family Medicine on Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills 4 Magisterial District, upon the petition of Carillon Health Corporation, Inc. 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 1928 Loch Haven Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Word Ministries. ~ - 4. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow summer concerts, located in Valleypointe, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Easter Seal Society of VA, Inc. 5. Ordinance to rezone 0.65 acre from R-1 to C-2 to allow a minor auto repair facility, located 130 feet northwest of the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Northridge Lane, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Marc I. Wilson. 6. Ordinance to rezone approximately 22.01 acres from AG-3 and R-1 to R-1 to develop single family residences, located at the intersection of Finney Drive and Elizabeth Drive, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of F. W. Finney Construction Corporation. I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of .ordinance amending .and reenacting Sections 5-21 and 5-24 of the Roanoke County Code and Section 30-29-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definition of a kennel. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) LBE MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING - 9/23/97 URC 2. First reading of ordinance authorizing the release of an existing 20 foot easement and the acceptance of the 5 conveyance of a replacement easement, on property of Mansell Herbert Hopkins, III and Sandra L. Hopkins, for access to certain public water facilities. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) LBE MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 9/9/97 URC 3. First reading of ordinance authorizing the creation of and financing for a local Public Works Improvement Project, West Main Street Sewer Project. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) FFH MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 9/9/97 URC 4. First reading of ordinance authorizing the construction of and financing fora Local Public Works Improvement Project, Mountain Heights Water Project. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) FFH MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 9/9/97 URC 5. First reading of ordinance authorizing the exercise of an option to purchase and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of approximately 1.83 acres of real estate from David E. Harris, et ux, Dorothy Harris Miller, et. vir, and Carol Harris Likens for Parks and Recreation access purposes. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) FM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 9/9/97 URC 6 J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of 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 fora proposed new business park, and appropriating $1 million for the acquisition. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) 0-081997-6 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. URC 3 PEOPLE SPOKE 2. Second reading of 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) 0-081997-7 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. URC 3. Second reading of 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) 0-081997-8 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. URC K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel HCN ASKED MHA TO CONTACT CECIL HILL FOR REAPPOINTMENT 2. Industrial Development Authority HCN NOMINATED STEPHEN MUSSELWHITE FOR AFOUR-YEAR TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 27, 2001. 3. Task Force for the Disabled, Physically Challenged and Senior Citizens. HCN ASKED MHA TO SEND LAST TASK FORCE BOARD REPORT TO BOARD MEMBERS. L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT A ENDA 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. R-081997-9 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT RESO AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 3 4 AND 7 ITEM 4 DOES NOT NEED APPROVAL OF LEASE BY BOS. URC 1. Approval of Minutes -June 24, 1997, July 7, 1997 (joint meeting with Roanoke City Council), July 8, 1997, and July 22, 1997. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and Social Services Advisory Board. A-081997- 9.a 8 3. Request to approve Courthouse Maintenance Funds Expenditures. A-081997-9.b SHERIFF HOLT SPOKE IN SUPPORT 4. Authorization to accept a vehicle leased by Blue Ridge Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc. to Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department, Inc., and to increase the number of vehicles in the County fleet. A-081997-9.c BOS DOES NOT NEED TO APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT 5. Request for acceptance of Afton Lane and April Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-081997- 9d 6. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities serving Summerfield, Section 2. A-081997- 9.e 7. Authorization to add State Compensation Board funded position in Commissioner of Revenue's Office and to increase the number of full time County positions. A-081997-9.f 8. Request to donate surplus Metrocall pagers to Commonwealth Search and Rescue. A-081997-9.a M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS NONE N. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE 9 O. REPORTS BLJ MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE -URC 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated. Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Account Paid -June 1997 5. Report of Claims Activity for the Self-Insurance Program 6. Changes to the VDOT Secondary System as of July 1997 P. WORK SESSION 1. Update on the regional Sewage Treatment Plant (HELD FROM 9.00 9.35 P M FOLLOWING EVENING SESSION) PRESENTED BY GARY ROBERTSON AND BOB BENNINGER. Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF VIRGINIA SECTION 2.1-344 A (3) acquisition of real property for public purpose; 2.1-344 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff pertaining to probable litigation, i.e. condemnation proceedings. BLJ MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:35 P.M. URC EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.1 R. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-081997-10 BLJ MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 7.00 P M. AND ADOPT RESO EXECUTIVE SESSION INCLUDED ONLY TWO ITEMS' REAL ESTATE MATTER AND PROBABLE LITIGATION RE CONDEMNATION. 10 URC S. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Petitions of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. and Shenandoah Homes, Inc. to apply to the General Assembly for tax exempt status ~ (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) A-081997-11.a _ -- BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING ~1 RC R-081997-11.b BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT RESO FOR SHENANDOAH HOMES RETIREMENT VILLAGE URC R-081997-11.c BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT RESO FOR SHENANDOAH HOMES URC T. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 0-081997-12 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. URC 2. Second reading of 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) ii 0-081997-13 FM MOTION TO DENYORD. URC 5 CITIZENS SPOKE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW ALLOWED USES IN AG- 3. 3. Second reading of ordinance authori~ir~g a Special Use Permit to construct a communications. tower, located at 6332 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial Districts upon the petition of Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless. (Terry Harrington, Planning 8< Zoning Director) ...~~,T~r,~~ Tn n~~ w ono ~n neyc ~nR o «R,41 1 nON" TEST AT SITE. FIVI IVIV ~ IVIV ~ V VGLA ~ ~ ...~. vv ..,.--...., .. - -- - - - LBE SUGGESTED ELIMINATING CONDITION #1 AND AMENDING CONDITION #7. URC 4. Second reading of 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 0-081997-14 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. URC 5. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 35.69 acres from R-3 8~ 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning 8~ Zoning Director) 0-081997-15 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. 12 URC 6. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to replace an existing church, located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Junior L. Conner, Trustee for Little Hope Primitive Baptist Church. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) .~- 0-081997-16 - ~ , - ` - , _ ~" ~ ... ~"' __ FFH MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. ~ - - URC U. CITIZEN COMMENTS .AND COMMUNICATIONS DIANE BOWLES , MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS DRIVE SPOKE -ABOUT THE NEED FOR WATER IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS INFORMED THAT THE WATER PROJECT WAS APPROVED UNDER ITEM I-4. V. EXECUTIVE SESSION .. BLJ MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO CODE 2.1- 344 A.~71 PROBABLE LITIGATION UTILITY EASEMENTS' LEGAL MATTER: GAIN SHARING AGREEMENT WITH VINTON AT 8.55 FOLLOWING WORK SESSION (HELD FROM 9.35 - 9:45 P.M.1 - - URC W. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-081997-17 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT RESO AT 9:45 P.M. URC V. ADJOURNMENT BLJ ADJOURNED AT 9:46 P.M. 13 ~ ElOANp,~.~ ti ' ', p 2 G1 o az 1838 (~.a~xxtt~ a~ ~.o~txr.~~P ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA August 19, 1997 r~wrrr ~ rrff ecue.e~ 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 arrangemen# 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 Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Samuel Belisle Penn Forest Church of God 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 1. Recognition of Library staff for receiving awards for the outstanding childrens' program, the outstanding adult program and the outstanding service innovation from the i Virginia Public Library Directors' Association. (Spencer Watts, Library Director) D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Submission of subscriber complaints regarding Cable Programming Services (C.P.S.) tier rates of Cox Cable Roanoke to the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.). (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) 2. Resolution endorsing the Roanoke County Business Park preliminary concept plan for the development of the Glenn-Mary Site. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) 3. Consideration of Recycling Alternatives. (William Rand, General Services Director) 4. Request to approve proceeding with items concerning Belle Grove Development Corporation (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator, Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering ~ Inspections): (a). Review hearing on appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation of findings and decisions of the Director of Engineering and Inspections related to erosion and sediment control and subdivision ordinance enforcement in Belle Grove Subdivision. (b). Approval of the Roanoke County Bonding Committee's recommendation to formally declare Belle Grove Development Corporation to be in default under their Land Subdivider's Agreement dated June 5, 1995, and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement dated June 5, 1995. 2 F. G. H. (c). Authorization to provided by law, across property existing drainage (Route 605). proceed with acquisition, as of a 20 foot drainage easement owned by Nyna Murray to the easement along Shadwell Drive REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance to rezone approximately 0.33 acres from C-1 to C-2 in order to operate a pet business, located at 3534 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Alex and Betty Nelson. 2. Ordinance to rezone 1.01 acres from C-2C to C-2 in order to construct a parking lot located behind Carilion Family Medicine on Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Carilion Health Corporation, Inc. 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 1928 Loch Haven Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Word Ministries. 4. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow summer concerts, located in Valleypointe, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Easter Seal Society of VA, Inc. 5. Ordinance to rezone 0.65 acre from R-1 to C-2 to allow a minor auto repair facility, located 130 feet northwest of the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Northridge Lane, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Marc I. 3 Wilson. 6. Ordinance to rezone approximately 22.01 acres from AG-3 and R-1 to R-1 to develop single family residences, located at the intersection of Finney Drive and Elizabeth Drive, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of F. W. Finney Construction Corporation. I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance amending and reenacting Sections 5-21 and 5-24 of the Roanoke County Code and Section 30-29-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definition of a kennel. (Terry Harrington, Planning Sz Zoning Director) 2. First reading of ordinance authorizing the release of an existing 20 foot easement and the acceptance of the conveyance of a replacement easement, on property of Mansell Herbert Hopkins, III and Sandra L. Hopkins, for access to certain public water facilities. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 3. First reading of ordinance authorizing the creation of and financing for a local Public Works Improvement Project, West Main Street Sewer Project. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 4. First reading of ordinance authorizing the construction of and financing fora Local Public Works Improvement Project, Mountain Heights Water Project. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 5. First reading of ordinance authorizing the exercise of an option to purchase and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of approximately 1.83 acres of real estate from David E. Harris, et ux, Dorothy Harris Miller, et. vir, and Carol Harris Likens for Parks and Recreation access purposes. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) 4 J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of 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 fora proposed new business park, and appropriating $1 million for the acquisition. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) 2. Second reading of 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) 3. Second reading of 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) K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel 2. Industrial Development Authority 3. Task Force for the Disabled, Physically Challenged and Senior Citizens. L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL 5 BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of Minutes -June 24, 1997, July 7, 1997 (joint meeting with Roanoke City Council), July 8, 1997, and July 22, 1997. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and Social Services Advisory Board. 3. Request to approve Courthouse Maintenance Funds Expenditures. 4. Authorization to accept a vehicle leased by Blue Ridge Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc. to Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department, Inc., and to increase the number of vehicles in the County fleet. 5. Request for acceptance of Afton Lane and April Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities serving Summerfield, Section 2. 7. Authorization to add State Compensation Board funded position in Commissioner of Revenue's Office and to increased the number of full time County positions. 8. Request to donate surplus Metrocall pagers to Commonwealth Search and Rescue. M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS N. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS O. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 6 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Account Paid -June 1997 5. Report of Claims Activity for the Self-Insurance Program 6. Changes to the VDOT Secondary System as of July 1997 P. WORK SESSION 1. Update on the regional Sewage Treatment Plant Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF VIRGINIA SECTION 2.1-344 A (3) acquisition of real property for public purpose; 2.1-344 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff pertaining to probable litigation, i.e. condemnation proceedings. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.1 R. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION S. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Petitions of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. and Shenandoah Homes, Inc. to apply to the General Assembly for tax exempt status (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) T. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 2. Second reading of 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 3. Second reading of 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 4. Second reading of 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 5. Second reading of 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. (Terry Harrington, Planning ~ Zoning Director) 6. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to replace an existing church, located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Junior L. Conner, Trustee for Little Hope Primitive Baptist Church. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) U. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. ADJOURNMENT s 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the Library staff for receiving "The Best in Libraries" Awards from the Virginia Public Library Directors' Association COUNTY ADMINIS'TRATOR'S CONIlVIENTS: SUI~VIARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Public Library recently earned three awards presented by the Virginia Public Library Directors' Association for outstanding accomplishment in FY 96/97. "The Best in Libraries" Program is a competitive award process which reviews library service programs according to a strict set of criteria. Among the 92 eligible libraries in the Commonwealth, nine awards are given for different categories. Roanoke County won the following three awards: 1) Outstanding Adult Program: Awarded for our "First Look @ the Internet" series, which is designed to introduce library users to navigating and exploring the Internet. Jay Stephens, the Library's Reference and Adult Services Coordinator is the principal planner and instructor for this ongoing and. popular program. 2) Outstanding Service Innovation: The Library received this award for our program of library web page development. We received credit for our page content, graphics, and format as well as the support activities related to bookmarking and site reviews and link selection. Michael Ericson, our Electronic Media Specialist, and Diana Rosapepe, Assistant Director and head of the Home Page Team, deserve special credit for this award. 3) Outstanding Childress Program: The Library tied with the Williamsburg Regional Library for recognition in this category, and shared the state-wide award. Our winning entry was a series of programs on bats, developed in conjunction with Mill Mountain Zoo. The series served as a successful prototype for additional programs based on the natural sciences, and has been replicated several times. Sharon Hammond, a Senior Library Assistant in the 419 Reference Department, developed and delivered this series of programs. While the Library enjoys a great deal of success as measured by a number of objective and use- r' I ~ ,.. / based standards, it is also gratifying to receive recognition through a competitive process. Our staff is very innovative, energetic, and creative, as is reflected by these awards. Respectfully submitted, ., `~ Spencer Watts Library Director Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy Denied ( ) garrison Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Minnix To ( ) Nickens -~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION 081997-1 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCINGS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/OR TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, RENOVATION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR SCHOOL PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") and the School Board of the County have undertaken and completed a comprehensive facilities study to determine and prioritize critical capital improvement needs for the County's public schools. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County has determined that the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the Projects described on Exhibit A (the "Projects") are essential projects. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County or the School Board expects to pay, after the date hereof, certain expenditures (the "Expenditures") in connection with the acquisition, renovation, construction and/or equipping of the Projects. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined that any moneys previously advanced no more than 60 days prior to the date hereof (and other moneys advanced for which an exception applies) and those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the County or the School Board for the Expenditures from the proceeds of one or more issues of tax-exempt bonds, including the Loan (the "Bonds"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Board of Supervisors hereby determines that the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the Projects is essential to the Roanoke County public school system. 2. The Board hereby declares its intent to reimburse itself or the School Board with the proceeds of the Bonds for the Expenditures with respect to the Projects made on and after that date which is no more than 60 days prior to the date hereof. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds. 1 3. Each Expenditure will be either (a) of a type properly chargeable to capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the County so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the County. 4. The maximum principal amount of the Bonds expected to be issued for the Project is $47,720,000. 5. The School board will request advances from the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on an as-needed basis, through future resolutions. 6. The County will make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the County that evidences the County's use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the applicable Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The County recognizes that exceptions are available for certain "preliminary expenditures," costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by "small issuers" (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction projects of at least 5 years. 7. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: rn~~,~• C~-u-~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Mike Stovall, Chairman, School Board Dr. Deanna Gordon, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools 2 EXHIBIT A • Construction of a new South County High School • Renovation of existing science laboratories at Northside High School, Glenvar High School, and Cave Spring High School • Additions and improvements to Glenvar Middle School • Construction of a new Bonsack Elementary School • Renovations and additions to Burlington Elementary School • Renovations and additions to Clearbrook Elementary School 3 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Reimbursement Resolution for Phase I of the School Capital Improvement Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~_~~~~ ~i T1VtMARY OF INFORMATION The School Board has presented the County Board of Supervisors with a request to allow them to begin Phase I of the School Capital Improvement Program at a total cost of $47,719,732. The Schools are anxious to begin work on Phase I of the Capital Construction Plan. In order to begin they will need to select a site for the new high school and begin the design phase for each of the projects. The cost to get the Schools through the planning portion of Phase I are outlined on Attachment A. At the end of this planning phase we will have a more accurate and complete budget for the cost of these projects. Rather than borrowing money up-front in the Fall 1997 VPSA Issue we propose that the County should advance funding to the School Board during each step of the planning phase with the intent to reimburse itself from a future VPSA Issue or a General Obligation Bond Issue. This plan would work as follows: money would be advanced for options on the land, then money would be advanced for the land purchase. Money would be advanced for each contract that is awarded for A&E work on these projects. Advancing the money and postponing the borrowing until a later time has the following advantages: 1. VPSA funds would not be available until December 1997 even if we participated in the Fall 1997 Issue. By advancing the funds the Schools can start on the projects immediately. 2. The Schools do not typically spend money as fast as they project it to be spent. Currently there is $6,300,000 in escrow accounts still being held from previous bond issues. G:\COMMON\BOARD\8-19-97.WPDG:\COMMON\BOARD\8-19-97.WPD August 19, 1997 ,~ - , 3. By postponing the borrowing until the Spring 1998 VPSA Issue we will be able to defer principle payments for one year. The longer that we can delay debt repayment the closer we are to the significant debt dropoffthat occurs in the year 2001. 4. If, after the A&E work is completed, the estimates to complete the project begin to increase the County Board can make informed decisions to delay some of the projects into Phase II rather than starting all of the projects at one time and finding that we do not have sufficient funds to complete any of them. 5. By postponing the borrowing until the Spring of 1998 there will be a two year time span between the borrowing and the failed referendum. This corresponds with one of the criteria that is mention in the revised guidelines of the VPSA related to borrowings after a failed referendum. FISCAL IlVIPACT: Advancing funds to the Schools will cost the County lost interest income. However, it will defer the repayment of the principle an additional year which will allow the County to move closer to the large debt dropoffthat will occur in the year 2001. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the attached reimbursement resolution which provides the proper language to allow the County to reimburse itself from future bond issues related to this project. Each contract related to these projects will be brought individually to the Board of Supervisors for advances in the future. ADMO1/JHK SUBMITTED BY: ~•~c~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance APPROVED: ti .~-~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved Denied Received Referred To ~) ~) ~) ~) Eddy Harrison No Yes Abs Johnson Minnix Nickens G:\COMMOIV\BOARD\8-19-97.WPDG:ICOMMON\BOARD\8-19-97.WPD August 19, 1997 ~- / • Attachment A Funds Needed to Begin Phase I Planning New High School Land and related expenses $ 2,250,000 A + E costs -initial plans 880,000 Survey and Testing work 100,000 Science Labs A + E costs -initial plans 104,000 Glenvar Middle Renovations A + E costs -initial plans 152,000 Survey and Testing work 12,000 New Bonsack Elementary A + E costs -initial plans 260,000 Survey and Testing work 50,000 Burlington Elementary Renovations A + E costs -initial plans 128,000 Survey and Testing work 12,000 Clearbrook Elementary Renovations A + E costs -initial plans 115,200 Survey and Testing work 12,000 $ 4,075,200 The above costs are summarized from the attached report prepared by Martin & Associates for the Blue Ribbon Committee. n LJ M:\FIlVANCE\COMMON\PHASE-1.WK4 1 08/07/97 . ~ - ~- / RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT • FINANCINGS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/OR TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, RENOVATION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENTS FOR SCHOOL PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") and the School Board of the County have undertaken and completed a comprehensive facilities study to determine and prioritize critical capital improvement needs for the County's public schools. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County has determined that the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the Projects described on Exhibit A (the "Projects") are essential projects. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County or the School Board expects to pay, after the date hereof, certain expenditures (the "Expenditures") in connection with the acquisition, renovation, construction and/or equipping of the Projects. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined that any moneys previously advanced no more than 60 days prior to the date hereof (and other moneys advanced for which an exception applies) and those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the County or the School Board for the • Expenditures from the proceeds of one or more issues oftax-exempt bonds, including the Loan (the "Bonds"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Board of Supervisors hereby determines that the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the Projects is essential to the Roanoke County public school system. 2. The Board hereby declares its intent to reimburse itself or the School Board with the proceeds of the Bonds for the Expenditures with respect to the Projects made on and after that date which is no more than 60 days prior to the date hereof. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds. 3. Each Expenditure will be either (a) of a type properly chargeable to capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the County so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the County. • 4. The maximum principal amount of the Bonds expected to be issued for the Project is $47,720,000. M:~FINANCE~COMMON~BOARD~8-19-97B.RFS August 7, 1997 L=-- "~ / 5. The School board will request advances from the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on an • as-needed basis, through future resolutions. 6. The County will make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the County that evidences the County's use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the applicable Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The County recognizes that exceptions are available for certain "preliminary expenditures," costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by "small issuers" (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction projects of at least 5 years. 7. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. ADOPTED this day of , 1997. • Clerk, Board of Supervisors, County of Roanoke, Virginia • M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\8-19-97B.RES August 7, 1997 • • EXHIBIT A ,~-/ • Construction of a new South County High School • Renovation of existing science laboratories at Northside High School, Glenvar High School, and Cave Spring High School • Additions and improvements to Glenvar Middle School • Construction of a new Bonsack Elementary School • Renovations and additions to Burlington Elementary School • Renovations and additions to Clearbrook Elementary School M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\8-19-97B.RES August 7, 1997 A-081997-2 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER Lk' ""'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Submission of subscriber complaints regarding Cable Programming Services (C.P.S.) tier rates of Cox Cable Roanoke to F.C.C. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ,/ 1 ~ ~ `~~~`y . ~b . / -U W BACKGROUND: Recent changes in Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) regulations have removed the ability of individual cable consumers to file complaints directly with the F.C.C. which raise objections to rate increases for the cable programming services tier (C.P.S.). Cox Communications/Cox Cable Roanoke has announced increases in their rates for cable customers for both basic cable service and for the C.P.S. tier of cable services effective March 1, 1997. A cable customer has 90 days from the effective date of an increase in cable rates to file a complaint regarding C.P.S. rates with the franchising authority. The franchising authority must receive such complaints from at least two customers before it may file a request with the F.C.C. to review an increase in C.P.S. rates. The County has received an opinion from its outside legal counsel for cable television issues that these rate increases instituted by Cox Communications are within the range permitted by F.C.C. regulations. (See Attachment "A", letter from Brian T. Grogan, dated January 24, 1997.) SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has received complaints or protests from twelve citizens requesting a review of the announced intentions of Cox Cable Roanoke to increase the rates for its C.P.S. tier effective March 1, 1997. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as the franchising authority, made an initial determination at its May 13, 1997, meeting that these subscriber complaints were received within 90 days from the date the rate increase at issue went into effect and that such rate increase pertains to the C.P.S. tier. Roanoke County then sent a written notice, including a draft FCC Form 329, to Cox Communications/Cox Cable Roanoke to inform them that these complaints are pending with the County. ~-/ Cox Communications has submitted a response to the County following this Board's action on May 13, 1997, to provide notice to Cox of the number of subscriber complaints received and the County's option to file a Form 329 with the F.C.C. Cox Communication has submitted an amended form FCC 1240 which justifies their rate increases as within the range permitted by the F.C.C. as reasonable. (See Attachment "B", letter from John W. Bingham, CPA, Business Manager, dated June 5, 1997.) Roanoke County has 180 days from the effective date of the rate increase in question to file the FCC Form 329, along with any response from the cable operator, with the F.C.C. I have received notification that the City of Roanoke has filed a FCC Form 329 with the F.C.C. as to these same rates effective July 14, 1997. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute a Form 329, as prepared by the County Attorney and forward to the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) prior to August 28, 1997. 2. Decline to file a rate complaint on the C.P.S. tier, Form 329, with the F.C.C. and rely upon the review of rate increases previously conducted on behalf of the County by outside legal counsel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #2. E-1 Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Lee B. Eddy ~tzbstitute motion to apgrnvA ~ubmtssion to FCC Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Absent _ ~ cc: File Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney _~ ~_ _~L ~_ Respectfully submitted, ATTACHMEENT "A" LAW OFFICES MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 4HOO NORWEST CENTER 9O SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4129 BRIAN T. GROGAN TELEPHONE (612 347-0300 (612) 347-0340 FACSIMILE (612) 339-6686 WRITER'S B-MAIL ADDRESS GroganB@mosslaw.com January 24, 1997 Mr. Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney P.O. Box 28800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Re: Proposed Rate Increase by Cox Communications Dear Joe: rr~ L' JAod 2': ~~~~~~' f Per your request we have reviewed Cox Communications proposed rate increases for member communities of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee ("Committee"). In particular, we have reviewed FCC Forms 1240 and 1205 which were submitted to each of the Committee's member communities. Based on our review of those forms using an FCC approved spreadsheet formatted for "excel," we have determined that no mathematical errors have been made by Cox and that the proposed rate increases are consistent with FCC rate regulations. Please note, however, we have not attempted to verify the accuracy of the information used by Cox to calculate the entries included in its rate regulation forms. However, we see nothing in our review which would suggest that the numbers used by Cox are significantly out of line with similarly situated communities and therefore have no reason to recommend that a more detailed audit is necessary at this time. The member communities of the Committee need not take specific action to approve Cox's proposed rates but rather can simply allow the time period for review to expire thereby resulting in an implied approval of the rate increases. As you may know, subscribers may still complain regarding the reasonableness of the proposed rate increases and each community has the option to forward these complaints on to the FCC using FCC Form 329. For your review and consideration I have enclosed herewith a copy of applicable FCC rate regulations, instructions and Form 329 which will explain to you the process to be used by any community wishing to submit a complaint to the FCC. If you should have any questions regarding these materials please feel free to contact me. ~ ~~ MOSS &BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Joseph B. Obenshain January 24, 1997 Page 2 I hope this information is responsive to your request. If you should desire a more detailed review and/or audit of the forms submitted by Cox please feel free to contact me. Otherwise, as always I am available to answer any questions regarding this letter or the rate regulation forms submitted by Cox. Very truly yours, MOSS &BARNETT, A Professional Association Brian T. Grogan BTG/slo 85492/1TYS01 !.DOC Enclosures ATTAC@4ENT "B" June 5, 1997 County of Roanoke, Virginia PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ATTN: Joseph Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney Dear Mr. Obenshain: p JUN 12 1997 D II 5400 Fallowater Lane SW Roanoke, Virginia 24014 (540 776-3845 (540) 776-3847 fax ~ .. COMMUNICATIONS The purpose of this letter is to provide the County of Roanoke with the required Federal Communications Commission (FCC) form 1240 to support our CPS tier rate. The County has indicated intent to file a complaint with the FCC concerning our March 1, 1997 rate change and this is our response to your letter of intent. Upon reviewing your draft of the FCC Form 329, the current rate (excluding franchise fees on the rate change) should be stated as $18.3 5 rather than $18.43. The prior rate of $16.90 is correct and does not include franchise fees. Franchise fees have not been included in the computations of permitted rates on FCC Form 1240 as they are treated as an external cost and added directly to the permitted rates on our rate card. Included in the supporting documents are copies of rate cards for your review. I have enclosed an amended FCC 1240 for our CPS tier. The form has been amended due to contract changes in programming cost that were unforeseen at the time of the original filing. The change affects the beginning programming rate for CAPS channels on Worksheet 2 CAPS Method for the Projected Period. The change is due to programming contract revisions for Home Team Sports and Speedvision networks. If the County decides to file a complaint after reviewing, please forward a copy of our response to the FCC with your complaint. If you should have any questions please contact me at 776-3844 extension 155. I will be glad to assist you. Sincerely, ~(/~1~- John W. BinghamlUU/, CPA Business Manager Enclosures ACCOUNTING SUPPORT\CUSTLTRS~FA151 cc: Gretchen Shine, VP & GM Martin Corcoran, Cox Communications, Inc. Kathy Payne, Cox Communications, Inc. Public File IINIIIIIIIII111111111lIII111111111111111Illlilllllllllilllllililillilllillilllllllllillllllllilllllllillllllllllilllilliilllll~ll,) AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ -- - ~. APPE CE REQUEST ,_ _ ,.- -_ __ _ ~= `PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: C a 1 I c v~ a-~-rc I would like the Chairman of the Board of Su ervisors to reco nize me durin the p g g meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED c BELOW: ,- ^ Each 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 r ^ 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. i r ^ 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 ^ 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 c a ~ s. ~ ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s ~ ^~ r ~~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~ rs ~. ~~ ~~ ~Illillllllllllillllllllllllilllillllllilll I II Illillllllllllllllllll1111111111111111111IIIltllllllllillllllllllllllllliltiilillllm L -` L AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION 081997-3 TO ENDORSE THE ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE GLENN- MARY SITE, DESIGNATED ON THE ROANOKE COUNTY LAND RECORDS AS TAX MAP #54.00-1-2, #54.00-1-3, AND #64.00-1-1, FOR USE AS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING PROCESS 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 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 #54.00-1-2, #54.00-1-3, and #64.00-1-1, ("the Glenn- Mary Site"); and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has identified the Glenn-Mary Site as a strategic location for a new business park, to promote and encourage economic development in the County of Roanoke through increased employment and business investment, which constitutes a valid public purpose and is an important function of local government; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to authorization of the Board of Supervisors, a Design Team for the Glenn-Mary Site has conducted feasibility studies and has facilitated a Community Visioning Process with the neighboring residents and local business leaders to develop a preliminary concept plan which addresses critical issues compiled by the Community Advisory Committee and the Technical Resource Board; and, WHEREAS, on July 22, 1997, the Design Team presented to the Board of Supervisors the "Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan" for the Glenn- Mary Site, which has been endorsed by the Community Advisory Committee, and the Design Team recommended purchase of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the "Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan" for the Glenn-Mary Site be, and it is hereby, endorsed for use as the design guidelines in the development and rezoning of the property into a new business park in western Roanoke County and that said Plan be, and it is hereby, transmitted to the Roanoke County Planning Commission for such actions as may be necessary and appropriate in accordance with this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Melinda J. Cox, Economic Development Specialist Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning ~ Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 +L ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN DES/GN GU/DELINE'S OUTLINE STATEMENT AND .SITE QUALIFYING DOCUMENT .DULY i 7, 1997 HILL STUDIO P. C. PLANNING LANDCAPE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE 12O WEST CAMPBELL AVE. ROANOKE, VA. 24101 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 3 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 4 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS .................................................................................................................. 4 SITE ISSUES ....................................................................................................................................... 4 LAND ISSUES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 SITE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ S GEOTECHNICAL ................................................................................................................................. S ARCHEOLOGICAL .............................................................................................................................. S ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... G UTILITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 6 STORM WATER ................................................................................................................................... G SLOPE AND ASPECT ............................................................................................................................ 7 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................... 7 VIEWS ............................................................................................................................................... g WORKSHOP PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. S PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE ................................................................ S CORPORATE VILLAGE ......................................................................................................................... S CORPORATE CIRCLE ........................................................................................................................... 9 TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT' ...................................................................................................................... 9 ccLONE EAGLE DISTRICT~~ .................................................................................................................. 9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ......................................................................................................................... 9 WATERWAYS AND GREENWAYS .......................................................................................................... 1O INT'ER'VAL ROADWAYS ....................................................................................................................... lO SITE ACCESS ........................................................................................................................................ lO GLENbiARY j ................................................................................................................................... 11 GLENMARY II .................................................................................................................................. 11 Dow HOLLOW ROAD ...................................................................................................................... 11 460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS I ................................................................................................................ 11 460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS II .....:.........................................................................................................12 SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................................ 12 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 13 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................. 14 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 2 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 atree- lined parkway entry to a business setting of the future. • A village center with businesses alld commercial buildings clustered around atree-lined pond. • A corporate heart, with corporate buildings and select com~Illercial bus_ finesses forming an ellipse around a woodland hollow, dust 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 builain~ 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 Envirollmental 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. Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS - '"` ~f 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 o~ on-site wells. • No operation shall be permitted which produces objectionable smoke, dust, odors, soot, radia- tion, noise, vibrations, electrical interference, glare, gases, liquid waste, or any similareffects, or which creates excessive demands on internal roads, drainage, sanitary system or other service cr 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 Quahfymg 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 :~~NAI,YSiS 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. GEOTECHNICAL 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 farln 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. The 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 5 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement 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- ernboundary 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 ha-ring 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. 6 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement 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 willow, ash and sycamore, have established along the stream corridors. 7 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan • Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document VIEWS .L..,-^ Hill Studio P.C. investigated view impacts to and from the site through on site inspections . 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. Thy workshop was.held at the Spring Hollow Water Treatment Facility along Routes 460/11 iII Roanoke County. Ahands-on intensive collaborative effort between staff, consultants and citizens res>,;lted in a preliminary concept plan created by all parties involved. The Prelinlinary concept Plan will serve as a guiding principle for further development of the site. The worlcsilop 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- ment works 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- mercial business may include copying and printing, restaurant, day care, coffee shop, service station and small corporate offices. 8 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document CORPORATE CIRCLE ~°" ~~, G• •~ 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- ings will be generally 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 DLSTRICT~~ The Lone Eagle District occupies the steep wood areas on the north and eastern portions of the site. This district is served by a standard two-lane road. The development consists of large lot, high-end residential, residential with home business or professional business of ten employees or less. Home or professional businesses are strictly service oriented, non-manufacturing, with minimal requirements for client parking and truck service. Examples of businesses may in elude architecture, engineering, computer software consulting, attorney, accountant, 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 GREEN WAYS E- 2 The stream corridors are key amenities and set the stage for development. The three 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 large enough to 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. STTE 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 County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying llocument GLENMARY II IG-~ r r~7 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 HOLLOW 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 in 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 neighborhood entrance road, parkway-like corridor, central location into site, catalyst °or proper in*.erchange development, no access to ?cunty Drive Disadvantages: impacts on private property, impacts. around Prunty 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 460111 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 ~~ r~ Benefits: Distinct corporate entrance, removed from neighborhoods, improved safety, rein 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 anti. types, to fullfill the Army Corp of Engineer requirements with pond and stormwater improvements and road crossings of streams. 4. Phase II Archeological Study (lf necessary)- One archeological site encountered during the phase 1 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 employin; a methodology in•iolving the advisory committees. 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 County 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 Guidelines 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 ~IPPENDIX DESIGN TEAM David Hill, ASLA, Workshop Captain John Schmidt, ASLA, Project Coordinator Hill Studio, P.C. 120 W. Campbell Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24011 540.342.5263 540.345.5625 (fax) COUNTY OF ROANOKE CONTACTS Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison, Jr. Member, Catawba Magisterial District Board of Supervisors 1638 Weaver Road Salem, Virginia 24153 540.389.3054 (h) 540.772-2193 (fax) Carlton Abbott, FAIA Workshop Partner Carlton Abbott & Partners, Inc. Duke of Gloucester Street P. O. Box Williamsburg, Virginia 23187 757.220.1095 757.229.8604 (fax) Mike Circeo, P.E. Engineering Consulting Services, Inc. Geotechnical Services 5320 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, Virginia 24019 540.362.6000 540.? 62.1202 (fax) Jeff Cochran, P.E. Lockwood Greene Technologies Environmental lnil Archeolo¢ical Serviees i'l01 Oak Fide Turnpiite Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3'7631 423.220.4300 423.220.4310 (fax) Larry Wallace, P.E. Engineering Concepts Civil Engineering Services 4656 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540.776.5715 X40.776.8543 (fax) Elmer C. Hodge Administrator County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540.772-2004 (w) 540.772-2193 (fax) Timothy W. Gubala Director Economic Development Department County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roa~toke, Virginia 24018 540.772-2069 (w) 540.772-2030 (fax) Melinda J. Cox Economic Development Specialist Economic Development Department County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540.772-2185 (w) 540.772-2030 (fax) Gam., "°" ~, 14 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMTTTE 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 R 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 Salem, Virginia Charles L. Landis Representative Glenvar Heights Neighborhood Salem, Virginia Karen Montgomery Representative Prunty Drive Neighborhood 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 David W. Shelor Representative Glenvar Heights Neighborhood Salem, Virginia Winton W. Shelor, Sr. President Fort Lewis Civic League Salem, Virginia ~! 15 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan ` Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document TECHNICAL RESOURCE BOARD Fred Altizer, Jr. District Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Salem, Virginia Arnold Covey Director Engineering & Inspections Department County of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia Beth Doughty Executive Director Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership Roanoke, Virginia Timothy W. Gubala Director Economic Development Department County of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia Terry Harrington Director Planning & Zoning Department County of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia John S. Phillips Economic Development Officer Virginia Tech Blacksburg, Virginia Gary Robertson Director Utility Department Kessler Mill Service Facility Salem, Virginia Wayne Strickland Executive Director Fifth Planning District Commission Roanoke, Virginia ~"` 16 FROM :'Hill Studio, P. C. PHONE N0. 540 345 5625 Aug. 14 1997 10:19AM P1 ~"..~..~ ADDENDUM ROANOK~ GOUN`CY BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPY PLAhI DESIGN GC!/DEL/NES OUTLINE' STATEMENT' AND SITE' QUs~[./F'Y/NG DOCUME'NT' This addendum only includes changes to the original report dated July 17, 1997 shown. in: italic text. 7'he complete report is available through Roanoke County. AUGUST 14, 1997 Hac. S~uv~o P.C. P1,ANNING LANOCAPE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE ~ ~~ WEST ~iAMPB~LL AVE. RoANO-ce, Va 24101 FROP•1 Hi 11 Studio, P. C. ,AUDENI~UM PHONE N0. 540 345 5625 Aug. 14 1997 10:19AM P2 UTll.l'1'IES Roanpke County Business part; Preliminary Cgnccpt Plan mcs U+itlinC Statement and Sil.c Engineering Concepts, Inc, perfon~aed a preliminary review of current aad 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 boundazy 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, ISDIV 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 willingless in having further discussions to coordina.tc further planning efforts and capacity/dem,and evaluations. Sewer extensions should be planned, utilizing gravity flow where possible to avoid the additional costs. The capacity of the receiving sewer in Glenvar irleights 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 I.,one Eagle l~isiricts poses phycicttl cunslrcaints for public utility .service and s•huuld he evaluated further Public utility ,service shr~trld he a long term goal for this district. PRELIMiNARX CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OvT~LINr The proposed Roanoke County Business ParkPreliminary Concept flan strives for the integration of proposed building development with the natural topographic character ofthe site and the established woodland hollows. Like the construction practices of earlier settlers i.n. the Roanoke Valley, the develop- mentworks with the lay of the land and not against it. The design focuses the most developed portions ofthe site around the intermittent stream, cal led D.ry Branch, and woodland hollow, upstream from. the larger and perennial Calahan Br~inch. "C'.Eae following Preliminary Cozteept Plan and Design, Guidelines Outline explain the different zones within the park, and set the stage for fuily developed dc;sign criteria. - GOYtP012ATT~: Vc.I.t.nr;~ The corporate Village is tlae connlnercial center of the development. Located at the upper end of the Dry Branch. The clustering of buildings in this district 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 parkin; toward the access road. This district will primarily he comrrterelr~l oriented with u puse•ible btrsinc:.ss and o~ce tr.sc~ wi[htrz the commercial structrtre. 1'he specific. commerical and bz.~s•iness types will hecr~me clearly defcned with further developent of the preliminery site plan, design guidelines and further rrrc7rketing reserrtch and development by Roanoke Cr~unty. CO)iPOItA,Tt~ CiRCiC,E ~ ""'~ Corporate Circle is the corporate orrice potential district. Located around the main portion of Dry Branch and its established hardwood enclave, the buildings step down the slope and FROM Hill Studio, P. C. PHONE N0. 540 345 5625 Aug. 14 1997 10:20AM P3 _ ~ ADDENDUM ~ .- Roaooke County Bud incss Park Prelimintuy Conc;c;pt PJan Dcsi~n Guidelines Oulliue Slfitcmanl and Sipe Qualifying Document direct into the trees around Dry Branch. 'The bui.Idulgs are two to three story 1arlkcd together with a pedestrian trail and boardwalk which will skirt the edge ofthe hollow- The main access road and parking will be located around the C:orpurate Circle. %he apc~c~ifrc c.•ummericcxl and busiraes~~ type'..' will hecvnie clearly do f rtecl. with fi~rrlher clevelnper~l of ~ the prelintirtc:ry site plan, d~si~n guideline.. rind ft~rlher mclr~ketrng reser-ueh and devu(vpment by Rucrrtvke Cnunly, TECI3NOLOGY DISTRICT The Technology District is the new technologies potential district. Located around the Corpo- rate V.llage and Corporate Circle, this distract accommodates campus-like clean manufacturing facilities. ~ln emphasis will he placed otz facilities wlzich.speciallae in riew technvlogie.s and "Smart Road" related manufacturing wish light to tneilium work force and di,slributinrt rc>yztirements. The buildings will be generally one story which integrate specialty manufacturing and research with business or office. The .specific. hu.siness type,. will he.conte clearly defined wish further develvpent of the preliminery rile plan, design guidelines t~rzd furth<?r nulrketing reseraclz and development by Roanoke C'ounly. "LONiL EAGLE DISTRICT" The Lone Eagle District occupies the steep wood areas on the north and eastern portions of th.e site. This district is sewed by a standard two-lane road.. 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 .an predetermined areas, also depicted in the concept layout plan. These locations, identified as Limit of Building 7,ones (LBZ), focus dcvc;lopment on the flatter benches and saddles in the terrain, protecting the ridgeline and ridgetop treelinc From development. The remaining portions of these lots are restricted tTOrr1 lot clearing, excluding a access drive to each LBZ. This district will be high end residential and small service business oriented. Because of physical site constraint.. llte business use within this district will he limited and strictly enfvrceil. The spec f c residentr.'al and husinc~..rs types will become clearly defineci•with further developent of the preliminery ,site. plan, design guidelines and further marketing reserach and development by Roanoke County. 'FRlJM ~: Hi 1 1 Studio, P. C. PHONE N0. 540 345 5625 Aug. 14 1997 10:21AM P4 A nL)LN DUM ~~ Roa~~ok.e County Business Park preliniiuary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Oullinc Stalcmcnt and Site Qualifying Documcut PR~t,tMnvAr~X CONCF:P'r PLAN The attached plan includes revisions tt~ the original plan in the report date July 17, 1997. The revisions effect the conceptual hui (dings depicted within the Corporate Circle District and the Technol- oby District located along the existing AEP power line which runs north to south through t}xe site. The buildings have been modified to reflect ata adeduate clearance zone along t.hc power line and to clearly shown that no future building development will be located under the powerline. Action No. Item No. ~'~ '~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution to endorse the Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan for the development of the Glenn-Mary Site, being shown on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map Numbers 54.00-1-2, 54.00- 1-3, and 64.00-1-1, with design guidelines to be incorporated during the rezoning process as requested by the Community Advisory Committee. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I ask for your approval of this concept plan and ask that you forward it to the Planning Commission for their evaluation. Martha Hooker of the Planning Commission and Supervisor Harrison participated in the process. Some of the requests such as the improving of Route 11/460 are not the direct responsibility of Roanoke County, so we may have to make note of that. This plan is the result of a process that we have used successfully with siting of the landfill and the community visioning process for the McDonald Farm. The committee gave unanimous support, and I think all of these requests are fair and attainable. I support them and ask for your support. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Roanoke County has identified the 463 acres of the Glenn-Mary Farm as a potential business park site. To insure that the community would be an integral part of the process to qualify the site for acquisition, a Community Advisory Committee was established. Membership on the committee was targeted to civic and business leaders from the western portion of the County. The committee undertook the challenge of a Community Visioning Process on March 11 for the development of the Glenn-Mary Site and completed its objective on July 17 with the presentation of the preliminary concept plan by the Design Team. The committee has forwarded its endorsement of the Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan to the Board of Supervisors for incorporation into the rezoning and development process. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Endorsement by the Community Advisory Committee to the Board of Supervisors is significant for the following reasons: " .2,.. • Committee made commitment to participate in the five month long Community Visioning Process led by the Design Team • Committee met with various groups to seek and compile information that would be of value for inclusion in the concept plan. Meetings were held with the Technical Resource Board, the West County Business Forum, and the Catawba District Civic League Presidents under the facilitation of the Design Team to develop a Critical Issues list from the communities' perspective. Several committee members were opponents to this type of development but felt that the Community Visioning Process was the appropriate model for the County to use to encourage community involvement in economic development projects. These individuals have volunteered to serve as community representatives on the Design Review Board. Citizens would prefer that no development be implemented on Glenn-Mary Farm. However, these individuals realize that development will eventually occur and they wanted the opportunity to be a participant. On July 17, the Design Team presented copies of the preliminary concept plan to the Community Advisory Committee for their input in order to present to the Board of Supervisors for the First Reading of the Ordinance on July 22, 1997. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the resolution endorsing the Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan for incorporation during the rezoning process of the Glenn-Mary site. es ectfully submitted: Melind Co Economic Development Specialist Approved: ,~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~'- ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to No Yes Abs Eddy - Johnson - - Harrison - - Minnix - - Nickens Attachment ~"" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE GLENN-MARY SITE, DESIGNATED ON THE ROANOKE COUNTY LAND RECORDS AS TAX MAP #54.00-1-2, #54.00-1-3, AND #64.00-1-1, FOR USE AS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING PROCESS 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 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 #54.00-1-2, #54.00-1-3, and #64.00-1-1, ("the Glenn-Mary Site"); and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has identified the Glenn-Mary Site as a strategic location for a new business park, to promote and encourage economic development in the County of Roanoke through increased employment and business investment, which constitutes a valid public purpose and is an important function of local government; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to authorization of the Board of Supervisors, a Design Team for the Glenn-Mary Site has conducted feasibility studies and has facilitated a Community Visioning Process with the neighboring residents and local business leaders to develop a preliminary concept plan which addresses critical issues compiled by the Community Advisory Committee and the Technical Resource Board; and, WHEREAS, on July 22, 1997, the Design Team presented to the Board of Supervisors the "Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan" for the Glenn- Mary Site, which has been endorsed by the Community Advisory Committee, and the Design Team recommended purchase of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the "Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan" for the Glenn-Mary Site be, and it is hereby, endorsed for use as the design guidelines in the development and rezoning of the property into a new business park in western Roanoke County and that said Plan be, and it is hereby, transmitted to the Roanoke County Planning Commission for such actions as may be necessary and appropriate in accordance with this resolution. c:\wp51\doc\agenda\econdev\concept.res 2 Illllllilllillllilllilllilllllillllllilllllilllllllli111111IIIIiIiIIIIIIIIIIIIliII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111j~,J ~= ,Z AGENDA ITEM NO. ._ ,_ _. APPE CE REQUEST :_ ._ - PUBLIC HEARING `'~ ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS -- ° ~ _ -~ c/<, SUBJECT: ~' ~.~,,; ~'~{~.~ .,,. ~;'~;~ w^ , ~~ ~ ti~~ .+ c ~~ ~-• ° -_ 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 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 arecognized A 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 ° 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 a ~~ s ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~IIIIIIIIIitilltlflii111111111111111111111IIIllltllllllllillllllillillillllilillllllillIIIIiiII11111111111Ullliillililillilillllm ACTION NO. A-081997-4 ITEM NUMBER ~~~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE NTY~ VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Action to Select Recycling Alternative COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENT3: In October 1987, Roanoke County began a pilot program to study curbside collection of recyclables. The original program consisted of source separation, with homes in some areas receiving stackable bins for newspaper, aluminum and glass for collection on a biweekly basis. In 1989, this program was expanded into another area of the County. The participation rate for this program has averaged between 25-35% per biweekly collection. In the early 1990's, the County began automated commingled collection, with selected homes receiving 65 gallon containers in which to commingle mixed paper, aluminum, plastic and cardboard. With a monthly pickup schedule, participation rates have ranged from 70% to 80%. During the past year, The Board asked staff to review this pilot program along with possibilities for providing this service equitably on a County-wide basis. Staff determined that expansion of curbside recycling opportunities to all households would require additional equipment and staff. The projected cost for source separated collection is $902,500 capital and $227,948.80 annual operating (Attachment A). The projected cost for automated commingled collection is $1,332,560 capital and $129,499.52 annual operating (Attachment B). Utilizing drop-off centers around the County was presented as an option. At the March 25th work session the consensus of the Board was to pursue privatization of drop-off centers through the RFP process, which would allow all County households an equal opportunity to recycle. Two RFP's were received, neither of which included a curbside option. The proposal that was favored utilized private business properties in high traffic areas. These businesses desired the traffic and would pay the rent on the containers. Waste Management would pay the screening costs since not all the sites were in the county that required screening. The estimated annual cost for this proposal was approximately $75,000 for the pulling fees ($80.00 per container per week) and $10,000 for educational materials for a total of $85,000. The concern that non-County users would use these sites was articulated by the Board and staff was directed to ~..`. ,~ # find locations on County property in each magisterial district. Six possible sites are: Starkey Park, Mt. Pleasant Fire Station, Hollins Fire Station, Oak Grove Park, Ft. Lewis Fire Station and Masons Cove Fire Station. The projected annual operating cost for this method and siting is $28,000 startup and $99,720 annual operating. No revenues or tipping fee avoidance figures are projected due to unknown quantities and price fluctuations. For example, newspapers bring $2.00 per ton while we must pay $40.00 per ton to dispose of collected recyclable plastic. Clear glass brings $5.00 per ton while colored glass has no value. Aluminum brings 34 cents per pound. With this pricing we must recycle 20 tons of newspaper to offset the cost of recycling 1 ton of plastic. The pulling costs and container rentals are over and above these costs. 1) Expand commingled recycling to the entire County at a cost of $1.33 million in capital and $129,500 in annual operating costs. This will provide the service equally to all County residents, but at a large capital startup cost. 2) Expand source separated recycling to the entire County at a cost of $.9 million in capital and $227,948 in operating cost. While this would expand the service to the entire County, the participation rate is not as high, and the service has a larger ongoing cost. 3) Negotiate and execute a contract with a private vendor to provide recycling services with drop-off centers placed at County facilities at a cost of $28,000 startup and $99,720 in operating cost. 4) Conclude curbside pilot program and replace with an education program to utilize existing recycling facilities. 5) Maintain current recycling program. Res " e c f u 11 i ~e~~--- William J. Rand, III Director of General Services Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge , County Administrator ACTION Motion by: Harry C. Nickens mnt_inn to approve alternative Eddy #~4 - to conclude curbside Harrison p~gram Johnson Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Absent cc: File William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance • SOURCE SEPARATED RECYCLING 1 pick up /month ATTACHIviENT A ~-. Explanation Ca ip tal E Dual side load, 6 bin, Vehicle Cost source separated 3 stackable bin sets Container Cost for each home Total Capital Expenditures Number Needed Each Cost Total penditures 3 X $100,000.00 $300,000.00 24,100 X $25.00 $602,500.00 $902,500.00 Start-up Cost Labor 8 man crew per week 3 X $5,081.00 $15,243.00 3 rental trucks per Equipment week 3 X $1,563.00 $4,689.00 Educational Materials Mailings 1 X $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Total Source Separated Start-up Costs $29,932.00 AnnualOperatin Costs Drivers Grade 14 -Midpoint + fringes 4 X $29,749.76 $118,999.04 Collectors Grade 10 -Midpoint + fringes 2 X $24,474.88 $48,949.76 Maintenance 13R Fuel Fuel & Maintenance for new trucks 3 X $20,000.00 $60,000.00 Total Annual Operating Costs $227,948.80 Total First Year Start-up and Operating Cost $1,160,380.80 NOTE: No revenue or avoidance costs are included due to fluctuating prices and unknown quantities. 8/12197 • y AUTOMATED COMINGLE ATTACHIvIENT B RECYCLING ~_ 1 pick up /month Number Explanation Needed Each Cost Total Capital Expendit ures Vehicle Cost Automated Side- loader 2 X $100,000.00 $200,000.00 Container Cost 65 gallon Toter Carts 24,200 X $46.80 $1,132,560.00 Total Captial Expenditures $1,332,560.00 Start-up Cost Labor 9 man crew per week 4 X $5,812.99 $23,251.96 Equipment 3 rental trucks per week 4 X $1,563.00 $6,252.00 Educational Materials Mailings 1 X $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Total Automated Comingle Start-up Costs $39,503.96 Annual Op erating Costs Labor Cost Grade 14 -Midpoint + fringes 2 X $29,749.76 $59,499.52 Vehicle Cost Fuel & Maintenance for trucks 2 X $35,000.00 $70,000.00 Total Annual Operating Costs $129,499.52 Total First Year Start-up and Operating Cost $1,501,563.48 NOTE: No revenue or avoidance costs are included due to fluctuat ing prices and unknown quantities. 8/12197 Drop Off Box ATTACHMENT C Recycling 6 sites on County property 1 dump /week per container ~`" Number Explanation Needed Each Cost Total Start-up Cos t Preparation Screening for each site 6 X $3,000.00 $18,000.00 Educational Materials Mailings 1 X $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Total Drop-off Start- up Costs $28,000.00 AnnualOpe ratin C osts Container Rental 3 containers per site 6 X $4,140.00 $24,840.00 Dump Fees 1 dump per week, 3 containers per site 52 X $1,440.00 $74,880.00 Total Annual Operating Costs $99,720.00 Total First Year Start-up and Operating Cost $127,720.00 Note: No revenue has been included due to fluctuating prices and unknown quantities. 8/12!97 ACTION # 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: August 19, 1997 SUBJECT: Request to Approve Proceeding with Items Concerning Belle Grove Development Corporation SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Before you is a complicated issue which has not been resolved, despite the best efforts of the staffto do so. Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections, will present a history of this problem and request action. Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, will also ask for permission to proceed with legal remedies so that this problem, which is affecting a variety of parties, may finally be resolved. Mr. Covey will outline the engineering problems and lack of agreement between neighbors which have brought us to this place. I want to emphasize that the County staff has been working for over a year to resolve this, but we have been unable to do so. Staff has been out there, I have been out there, and Mr. Johnson has been out there, and while everyone agrees a problem exists, we have not been able to obtain agreement between the Murrays and Belle Grove Development Corporation. Earlier this year, I wrote a letter to the parties, offering what we felt was a reasonable solution, which would benefit everyone involved. We want to help Belle Grove Development Corporation complete their development in an appropriate manner, and we want to help Ms. Murray improve her property and solve the drainage issue permanently. The County offered to install an underground drainage pipe, and have Ms. Murray participate in the placement of that pipe. We offered to maintain the pipe in perpetuity, and asked Belle Grove to fix the Murrays' sink hole and pay half the cost of the drainage pipe. Instead, Belle Grove does not want to pay for half the improvements, and Ms. Murray continues to tell us she wants $100,000 for the easement -more than the assessed value of her entire acreage. This is a once in a decade case. I cannot remember being unable to get neighbors to resolve an issue, particularly with offers of assistance from the County. This stalemate needs to end, so that the problem can be fixed, hopefully by the end of the year. The developers need to resolve the stormwater and drainage issues which will be presented, because they need to finish the Belle Grove subdivision and have the roads taken into the state system. Ms. Murray needs to have this issue resolved, so that the water which drains onto her ~-Y~-~ property can be properly contained and will not continue to erode her land. The residents of Belle Grove need this resolved, so that come winter, their streets will be plowed by VDOT and maintained by the state in the future. I recommend that after reviewing this matter, and listening to the staff presentations, you approve the staff recommendation, so that we can begin to take appropriate action. ~~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson _ Minnix _ _ Nickens cc: File Illlllilllllllllllilililllllllllilllllllllll lilillllllllllllillillilllllllllllillllllllillllllllllllllilllllllll11111tIiIIIIIli~j1l _. - _ - AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~ `~ .._. - - - ,._ - s - APPEARANCE REQUEST _ - :__ __ _ - PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS -- ~ ~ ~ c '- ~ `-- ~ - °° c SUBJECT: . _„/>~- ~ _ - .._ - o - 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. ,, _ WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND' ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED c BELOW: = ._ ~-- -_ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman wail _ 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. ._ _ - ,.... - ^ 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 BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. - EASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK PL _ i ~ ~1~ - !~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ v~ ~ ~ - s ~ ,~~ - a~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ - ~~ - ~Ililllllllllllllillilllllllllllllllllllll II II I1111111111111111lilllllllllllllllllllllllllttlll11111111111Ullllllllllllllilillllm ~Ili1111ll~llllllllilili1111!llltillilllllllllillllliillillli[II III11111111111111111111111111111111111111111Iilllll lilllllililll~ .a. __ AGENDA ITEM NO. E ~ ,_ APPE CE REQUEST _ _ :__ __ - - ~° ,PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS -_ __ c SUBJECT: ~...:~~~ !~.~.,--,,~ . ~= I would like the Chairman of the Board of Su ervisors to reco nize me durin the P g g _ 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: ^ 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. 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. s ~ ~~ _ ~ ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at aIY times. '- ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. c 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. a PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK °- _ -- i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~1 ~~ ~ ~ ~lllilllllllllllllllilllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllilli11111!lltlllllli1111lllfllllllilllllllllillllillllllllllllllllliilllliim A-081997-5. a ITEM NUMBER ~~` ~~'"""" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Review hearing on appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation of findings and decisions of the Director of the Department of Engineering and Inspections related to Erosion and Sediment Control and Subdivision Ordinance enforcement in Belle Grove Subdivision. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ c~~~ l/ ~~ BACKGROUND: By letter dated May 30, 1997, Belle Grove Development Corporation requested an appeal to the Board of Supervisors for review of County requirements in connection with Belle Grove Subdivision. The requirements are specified in a letter dated April 25, 1997, to Belle Grove, a copy of which is attached, and are imposed pursuant to `Article 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Law.,' of Chapter 5, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the Roanoke County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, including but not limited to Sections 8-4, 8-5, and 8-6, and pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.1-465, et sea., and the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance, including but not limited to Sections 17-3, 17-6, 17-18, 17-19 and 17-24. Staff recommends that the Board deny Belle Grove Development Corporation's appeal and support the decision and notice to comply of its Director of Engineering and Inspections. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On January 5, 1995, LMW, P.C. Engineering (the "Consultant") submitted subdivision plans on behalf of Belle Grove Development Corporation (the "Developer") for review by Roanoke County (the "County") staff and the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). As a part of this review, Roanoke County 1 ~~ Engineering and Inspections specifically questioned whether the stormwater detention pond discharged into a natural water course, as it was not so delineated on the plat. The Consultant claimed to have addressed the comment in a subsequent transmittal. On March 6, 1995, VDOT commented in their review letter that there was an area noted on the plans as being a "natural drainage Swale" and that the area would be reviewed in the field to determine if it met all of the legal requirements to be classified as such. The County reiterated the concern that VDOT had raised about the "natural drainage swale" and felt that the determination needed to be made prior to plan approval. In response to VDOT's and the County's concerns regarding the determination of the "natural drainage Swale," the Consultant, on April 11, 1995, wrote that VDOT had indicated that the natural drainage Swale was a scoured channel and would provide adequate drainage. On April 13, 1995, VDOT approved the subdivision plans for the Belle Grove Subdivision. On May 22, 1995, the County approved the subdivision plans for construction based in part on VDOT's assurances and approved the erosion and sediment control plans as well. On June 5, 1995, the Developer submitted a Land Subdivider's Agreement between the Developer and the County in evidence of their willingness to construct, install and provide at the said subdivider's sole expense "...those certain improvements described and shown on the stamped approved construction plans..." in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance (Land Subdivider's Agreement, p. 2, ¶1). On the same date, the Developer entered into an Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement as well that .requires the developer to ensure the installation, maintenance and performance measures provided for on approved plans or revisions thereof for the control of siltation and erosion (Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement, ¶7). Letters of credit to guarantee proper and satisfactory installation according to approved plans were also submitted with these agreements. In June of 1995, construction of storm drainage, water and sewer facilities and roads began at the- Belle Grove Subdivision and continued without incident until the summer of 1996. During that period, sinkholes appeared in the stormwater management pond and on the adjoining Nyna Murray property (Tax Map #28.09-02- 04), through which the drainage channel runs. Immediately after receiving an inquiry from the Murray family regarding their concerns about the amount of run-off crossing their property and the sinkholes that had developed, the County visited the site and assessed the Murrays' concerns. It was determined that the area delineated on the subdivision development plans prepared by the Consultant was not a natural watercourse. On July 8, 1996 the County wrote the first of many letters to the Developer requesting that they take steps to correct the situation of the pond discharge to an adequate channel. On July 15, 1996, the County wrote the Developer to advise them that the stormwater basin/sediment basin was not 2 r ~"" ~GL. functioning properly and that corrections to the pond were necessary as water was discharging as rapidly as it was entering. On October 10, 1996, a geologist hired by the County to evaluate the detention basin provided information about repairing the Murray's sink hole. His suggestions included piping the surface water into a natural drainageway to prevent it from entering the groundwater regime and contributing to further sink hole development, or making the sediment pond as watertight as possible using a liner and diverting the discharge from the dam away from the sink hole on the Murray's property. A letter from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) was received by the County on October 16, 1996. The letter contained observations made by DCR in response to the adjacent property owner's complaints about the stormwater management basin and its outfall of stormwater from the basin. DCR observed that there was no defined channel exiting the basin. Five days later, the County and VDOT conducted an inspection of the roads and drainage facilities, and in writing suggested to the developer that he should comply with all the recommendations outlined in the geologist's report. In response to the letter sent by the DCR, the Consultant (LMW), on November 11, 1996, reaffirmed his own conclusions as to the disposition of the outfall of water from the detention pond onto the Murray's property and rejected the recommendations of the official sources hereinbefore noted. Per letter dated November 26, 1996, the County required that the Developer submit revised Erosion and Sediment Control plans and accompanying calculations that addressed the concerns of the County and DCR by December 15, 1996. The Developer responded that the letter from DCR had many deficiencies and that no problems were cited concerning on-site or off-site stormwater management nor were they able to cite any soil and erosion problems. Also, the Developer stated that he was unaware of any specific concerns expressed by the County. On December 20, 1996, the County reiterated its concerns pursuant to its authority to require amendments to approved plans under Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, Section 8.1-6(D) and 8.1-8, and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Section 10.1-563(C), as well as under the County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 17-18(d). The County requested that the Developer provide modifications to the pond to compensate for the sink hole; provide receiving channel calculations and demonstrate their adequacy; show embankment slope grades and methods for stabilization; provide revised calculations for the detention pond; show the adequacy of the drainage inflow ditch systems into the pond and provide emergency spillway calculations. The Developer was given until December 31, 1996 to comply with the request. 3 On December 31, 1996, the Developer objected to the County's request to require amendments to the approved plan. He also stated that the concerns about the embankment slope would be studied and if the grade was excessive, the problem would be corrected. The County responded on January 24, 1997 about the objections to the required amendments to the approved plans, and once again enumerated the deficiencies that remained unaddressed by the Developer. The Developer was given another deadline of February 7, 1997 for corrective action. Rather than take the corrective action requested by the County, the Developer instead restated his position, in a letter dated February 4, 1997, that the County had overstepped its moral and legal bounds in asking him to resubmit modifications to the plans. More than a month later, the Consultant, in correspondence dated March 25 and 26, 1997, merely verified his firm's original calculations and observations. The County hired Mattern and Craig, an independent consulting engineering firm, on March 4, 1997 to review the plans and calculations. It was revealed in the Drainage Review submitted by the independent consultant (M &C) dated March 26, 1997, that the existing Swale conveying the stormwater pond's outflow across the Murray property did not meet the definition of a "natural watercourse" as asserted by the Developer, as it was not a "definite channel with bed and banks" per the VDOT Drainage Manual. Therefore, it was again recommended that outflow water either be piped across the Murray property or that an open parabolic ditch be constructed in the same location for drainage. Either option required that the Developer obtain an easement (p. 3, Drainage Review, Mattern & Craig, March 26, 1997). On May 02, 1997, the Murray family submitted to the County and to the Developer a list of demands (attached) to be met before they would grant a drainage easement across their property for which they would require payment of $ 100,000.00. The County met with the Developer during the first week of May and asked the Developer to present the County a plan to allay the County's concerns, which the Developer agreed to do after consultation with his engineer. The Developer refused, both in his meeting with the County and again in correspondence dated May 09, to attempt to purchase an easement from the Murrays, claiming that such an action was not "feasible" per the family's demands. In an effort to resolve the situation, County Administrator Elmer Hodge wrote a letter of proposal to the parties on June 25, 1997, a copy of said letter being attached hereto. None of the parties agreed to the County Administrator's terms. By letter dated July 17, 1997, Mr. Hodge notified the parties that this matter would be placed on the August 19th agenda for the Board's consideration. 4 ~~ ~~ ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny the appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation and require that the corrections described in the April 25, 1997 letter from the Director of Engineering and Inspections be completed within thirty (30) days of this proceeding. If said corrections are not completed within the time limit, then the County should draw upon the Letters of Credit deposited in surety of the Developer's Land Subdivider's and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreements in order to complete the improvements. 2. Approve the appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation, but grant the approval with such modifications as the Board of Supervisors deems equitable and in accordance with State and local law. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative # 1. BY: Arnold Covey, Director Engineering & Inspections E-4.A Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) APPROVED BY: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: Harry C. Nickens a,c~tion to deny appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation VOTE No Yes Absent Eddy ~_ Harrison ~- Johnson _~ Minnix x Nickens ~_ cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney pc: Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney 5 ~ _.. _ _ v 10 yo ~ ~ J ~ .~ca~~ \ 3 4". ~~ y l2 I 8 urn ~ ~ e M \`~ P ` O r •i» \ ~\ y µ , ` lr 4 ; LS ~ i 2 .` ,, ~.~ ~k IT \ ~ ,", ~ s<~ \ , 2~ _ '~~ ~~~ iyJ 129~t07 2. R!/e iii \ ~ ~ "" 19 153ntG ilia u ~ ~~ j • \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 23 ~ ~ p s t29:t v ` '- ~ ' ( / RT 605- -.. -_. J s .~ APPROX. m ~ ~ S^ z ~~~• i ESlvll. 4;1 ~ \ 4 s+ ~ ~ i ~~"/ !.' LOCATIOiV OF POND ~~ /_° ./ '/= i r, i ROANOKE COUNTY BELLE GROVE SUBDIVISION WITH APPROYI?~ATE LOCATION UTILITY OF DRAINAGE EASE*SENT ACROSS THE ?NRRAYS PROPERTY DEPARTMENT .,~_~ -- /. ... % _ , O~ p,OANp~~ 1 - ' z ~ ~ o C~~a~xxY~ ~a~ ~a~xx~~a.~.~ v a ~~j. 1838 DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVEY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GEORGE W. SIMPSON, III, P.E. Apri125, 1997 CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT Mr. Terry Parsell Belle Grove Development Corporation 1007 First Street Roanoke, VA 24016 Re: Belle Grove Subdivision Project No. 95-SB-00001 Review of Design and Construction of Stormwater Management Facilities Dear Mr. Parsell: ~ - L/~., Based on problems that have arisen with the stormwater management facilities and the sinkholes that have developed over the past several months, we retained the consulting engineering firm of ~Iattern & Craig to review the design and construction of stormwater management facilities in the above referenced subdivision. The results of that review are enclosed for your information. Additionally, we continue to have major concerns because of the sinkholes that have developed in the detention pond and at the outfall of the detention pond. There is reason to suspect that due to karst geology and the appearance of these sinkholes that the pond embankment may be underlain by a sinkhole that could compromise the integrity of the embankment structure. Please see pre~-ious correspondence from the Department of Conservation and Recreation and copy of the preliminary geotechnical report that we requested from Baratta & Associates. As a result of the above and our letter to ~~ou of 01/24/97, we are requiring the follo~vinQ; 1. A permanent drainage easement must be acquired across the adjacent property below the outfall of the detention pond. The easement must extend to a natural watercourse or adequate channel as defined in the VDOT drainage manual, the Roanoke County Drainage Standards, and State of Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Regulations. A pipe must be installed to adequately convey the runoff, from the appropriate storm, from the detention outfall across this easement. 2. A geotechnical analysis, to include soil borings, must be conducted to address failures that have occurred within the pond and downstream from the pond. The report should address deficiencies and recommendations for ensuring that the pond, embankment, and outfall structures are adequate and safe. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 • (540) 772-2080 • FAX NO. (540) 772-2108 ® Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Terry Parsell Belle Grove Subdivision Project #95-SB-00001 Page 2 of 3 3. Inside embankment slopes shall be constructed to a minimum of 2:1 slope or as recommended in the geotechnical report. Field measurements reveal that this 2:1 slope standard has not been met. Outside embankment slopes shall be constructed to a minimum 3:1 slope, as shown on the plans, or as recommended by the geotechnical report. 4. Field density tests for the embankment shall be submitted to ensure a minimum of 95% density in accordance with Section 303 of the VDOT Road and Bridge Standards and Roanoke County Drainage Standards. 5. Show the limits of the "Stormwater Management Detention Pond Easement" as shown on the current Record Plat. This easement must be identified and described by metes and bounds and submitted for review and approval. 6. The two drainage ditches discharging runoff from the roadways into the `pond «-ere not shown on the plans and are not constructed in accordance with standards. Calculations must be submitted showing the proper design and proposed construction for these ditches. 7. The energy dissipator at the end of the pipe from D.I. m 17 must be installed and the head wall backfilled to provide positive drainage. 8. Upon reaching final grades and necessary revisions, the pond shall be seeded and stabilized as specified on the plans. 9. A licensed professional engineer will be required to certify that the above deficiencies have been corrected and that the stormwater facility complies with applicable regulations and accepted engineering practice. Mr. Terry Parsell Belle Grove Subdivision Project #95-SB-00001 Page 3 of 3 This action will be taken pursuant to `Article 4. Erosion & Sediment Control Law.', of Chapter ~, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended), and the Roanoke County Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, including but not limited to Sections 8-4, 8-5 and 8-6, and pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-465, et sew.,,, and the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance, including but not limited to Sections 17-3, 17-6, 17-18, 17-19 and 17-24. Should the above corrections not be implemented by May 15, 1997, Roanoke County will draw upon your letter of credit and have the corrections made. Please advise if you have questions. truly, Engineering & Inspections pc: Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorne~- Mr. George Simpson, Assistant Director, Engineering & Inspections Mr. Doug Meredith, LMW, P.C. Mr. George Assaid, Development Re~•iew, Engineering & Inspections Mr. G. Lyn Hayth, Bank of Buchanan AC/kcf _... ~/a, d ,v_ SENDEfl: ^ Complete items 1 , r 2 for additional services. I : Nish to receive the y ^Complete items 3, aa, and ab. following services (for an ' ' - y ^ Print your name and address on the reverse of this farm so that we can return this extra fee): ~. card to you. ~ _._.._. .__. -----..~_.~-------- --- - - ^Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. ^ Addressee's Address ~ . - - - --- -- ~ Dermit. y ^ Wrife'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the articl e number. Q- ^ R@Stncted Delivery _ ,_ - . ~ ^The Retum Receipt will show to whom the artice was delivered and the date = - ' - - ~ delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. 0 _ - v 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number ~ P 4~2 708 241 - - o 1vIR . TERRY PARSELL 4b. Service Type ~ - BELLE GROVE DEVELOPNLNT COR ^ Registered ~ Certified t w 1607 FIRST_ ST. ^ ExpressMail ^ Insured o ROA~IOKE , VA 24 0 16 Retum Receipt for Merchandise ^ COD .- .. 0 a 7. Date of Delivery `~ ~~ ^~ - z G Y - - __._ .. 5. Receive By: nt me) 1 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested - and /ee is paid) _- _. .. .... . ...... _ ._ _ . - - ¢ ' 1 f ~ 6. Signa re: ( o Agent) BELLE GROVE DEVELOP?~NT _ ~ , 495-SB-00001 - T X ~ - -, .. ~ .~. _._ _... :. ::-- -=--=- ~, -~ PS Form 1, December 1994 F 452 ?08 X41 mesuc rfetu~n rtecetpt i!~ Pcstal Service eeeipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse) Sent to ;~rVAc 24016 OANp,Y of F` . .a .,~:.~.: y 7 2 ~~ . , a 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 25, 1997 Mr. Terry E. Parsell Belle Grove Development Corporation 1007 First Street, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Ms. Nyna Murray 7920 Shadwell Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Ms. Murray and Gentlemen: O JUN 2 6 1997 ------------ - ------ ------- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN HOWNS 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. ODEL.L.'FUZZY" MIN NIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) 772-2005 Mr. Mike Murray.. 7950 Shadwell Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 In the last few days, my staff and I have spoken with all of you in an effort to resolve the issue of storm water management on your properties. We now find ourselves at the point where the County has notified the Belle Grove Development Corporation that it intends to draw the bond to make the necessary repairs for proper drainage across the Nyna Murray property. The Murrays have indicated that they are unwilling to sell the easement until they know what the plans are and until they receive an amount of money acceptable to them. Belle Grove maintains that they will oppose the County~s calling of their bond and that they have no obligation to perform or pay for any further work in that area. All of our meetings, phone calls, and letters have been unsuccessful. Despite the fact that the County maintains that it has no financial responsibility in this matter, I am proposing the following solution in an effort to resolve this situation as soon as possible. It is proposed that Nyna Murray be paid $5,000 compensation for the easement across her property. In addition, storm water will be piped underground to the existing easement along Shadwell Drive. County engineers will work with the Murrays to design and construct the pipe to minimize any impact on future use of their property and, in fact, improve its value. This is estimated to cost $20,000. Nyna Murray further agrees to grant Belle Grove access to the property to repair the sinkhole. Belle Grove agrees to repair, as required by a professional geotechnical engineer, the sinkhole that has developed since the construction of its subdivision has taken place. In addition, Belle Grove agrees to pay one-half of the cost of putting the pipe across the Murray property as described above. The County agrees to pay the other half. Roanoke County will maintain the drainage easement in perpetuity,_and Belle Grove agrees to maintain the storm water detention pond, which is on its property. This agreement is intended to resolve all off-site issues among the three parties. This agreement does. not relieve Belle Grove Development Corporation of any on-site corrections noticed by Roanoke County. If we are not able to reach agreement a®Rde®~ibed above, I will take to the C~~ixxt#~ ~#' ~~~tx~~~~e Mr. Terry Parsell Ms. Nyna Murray Mr. Mike Murray Page 2 June 25, 1997 Board of Supervisors Belle Grove's appeal of the County's requirements as outlined in the letter dated May 30, 1997, from Terry Parsell. In doing so, I will ask that the Board support the County's action to draw the Belle Grove letter of credit to pay for any and all work necessary to correct this problem. At the same time, I will recommend that the County proceed with condemnation of the Murray property for a simple, open drainage easement and will offer to pay the Murrays an amount calculated by the formula usually used for such purposes. This amounts.: to an approximate maximum of $1,100, depending on location. Belle Grove will then be requested to maintain this drainage easement. I hope that you will see that it is to the benefit of all of us to resolve this issue no later than July 7, 1997. As such, I am asking that you indicate your concurrence by signing below, as I have done, and returning a copy of this letter to my office. If you have any questions that we may answer, please call me at 772-2004 or Arnold Covey at 776-7111. I would like to get this resolved during the current construction season. Sincerely, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ECH/meh Enclosure cc..- Mr. G. Lyn Hayth, III Bank of Buchanan P. O. Box 339 Buchanan, Virginia 24066 I concur with the agreement outlined above: Nyna Murray Mike Murray 7920 Shadwell Drive 7950 Shadwell Drive Roanoke, Virginia• 24019 _ Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Elmer C. Hodge Terry E. Parsell Roanoke County Administrator ~. Belle Grove Development Corporation - Water dispute for Murray property on Shadwell Dr, Hollins District water being discharged from Belle Grove Sub Division 05/01/97 Fazes needed for Murray Property Shadwell Dr Hollins District Roanoke County VA POND PROBLEMS - Geotextile Liner to keep water from preameating ground. - Rip Rap over top(on overflow azea) of dam added to protect dam - Work plans to be approved by State Engineer(Dept of Conservation & Recreation) M::rray Property G~. ~,G~ - Sinkhole will be repaired as per State Dept of Conservation & Recreation specs with approval of Murray's, with an inspector to be on site as work done. - All damages or injuries incurred during or associated with construction will be the responsibility of Roanoke County or their contractors or the developer or his subs. The Murray's will hold NO liability and will be named as insured on the policy for project. Bond & Insurance to be on record with a copy provided to the Murray's. - Any easement agreement will be used only to access property for work to be done on Murray property. NOT to be used as access for maintainence or work of any sort on dam or pond itself. This will not be a road through property. - Any easement is for use of a drainage pipe from pond of Belle Grove only, unless agreed upon in writing at a future date. - All trees destroyed or damaged will be replaced with either compazable size and type of trees or 8 foot min. white pines. Both on Murray property and in buffer zone recorded in Belle Grove Plat. - Any Easement will run pazaell to end of house of Mike & Joy Murray at least 40' from end of house on a pre agreed and staked path. - Arty pip;, will be loc; ted at least below the frost lint so as not to interfere with Mowing of hay or yards. - - Any and all manholes, or other above ground structures are to be agreed upon and approved_by Murrays before plans approved by county. - Land will be returned to its orginal condition after pipe is installed. All top soil soil will be replenished with at least 6"-10" on all disturbed areas. - There will be an inlet at dam to contain any water from overflow on dam. The pipe shall be large enough to handle flows of all water fora 100 year flood. - If pipe shall become clogged or silted more than a depth of 1/4th the diameter of pipe in future, the Engineering Dept of Roanoke County, VA shall be responsible(to see work done or to see developer does job or homeowners association) to see that the pipe is cleaned. " Water dispute for Murray prop~.rty on Shadwell Dr, Hollins District ~ 1,,/~~ water being discharged from Belle Grove Sub Division r 05/01/97 - Core drillings will be done by an independent firm on Murray property to check for the extent of damages, with a copy of their report being given to Murray's and will be responsibility of developer and Roanoke County to see that damages incurred during this tenure are corrected. - Well of Mike & Joy Murray, will be replaced with a suitable water supply(type to be agreed upon prior to implementation, with all costs for pipe, pump drilling, etc not to be born by the Murray's. - All recording costs and legal fees for easement will be paid for by County or Developer. Actual recording will be done by Murray's attorne}~. - Taxes will be reduced for easement tract. - type of pipe will be PVC larger than 16" with rubber gasket joints to prevent leakage as water crosses property unless another type is agreed to b}' Murrays in writing prior to construction. - The costs of the easement across the Murray property, to be approximately 400'x20' will run in the neighborhood of $100,000. - The allowing of an easement across the Murray property and the filling of the sinkhole in NO way releases nor holds harmless Belle Grove Inc., Roanoke County or any other group or company nor its successors from responsibilities for any other damages past or future that may occur due to the dumping of water onto the Murray property. - No solution can be had on the Murray property until the pond itself upstream is fixed. ~- Cl- r~ l ~-o ~~~ s ro sad ; s re- t.c.i~~ w c.C~'t~-u- '~ ~~s ro w~. ~Q~ $, pl e_~4P-4e r ~.v obd~ ~ ~ ~ a ~-t o ~ cc: Jimmy Edmonds, Dept of Conservation & Re: reation f ~~ ~ ~ A-081997-5. b ITEM NUMBER """ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of the Roanoke County Bonding Committee's recommendation to formally declare Belle Grove Development Corporation to be in default under their Land Subdividers Agreement dated June 5, 1995 and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement, dated June 5, 1995. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~~ ` ~:~ ,,~ ~~~Gw~X ~f'u~c.~ %~ '~~ ~~ O'~ BACKGROUND: Reference is made to the immediately preceding agenda Item #E-S.a. for background information regarding Belle Grove Subdivision and Bell Grove Development Corporation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The .Roanoke County Bonding Committee recommends the following to the Board: That Belle Grove Development Corporation be formally declared in default on the above-referenced project; 2. That the Director of Engineering and Inspections be authorized to make demand of the surety (The Bank of Buchanan) on Belle Grove Development Corporation's Letters of Credit for payment of the funds in full for application to completion of the project, pursuant to Section IX, Subsection B.3. of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy; 3. That the Director of Engineering and Inspections be authorized to contract for and on behalf of Roanoke County for completion of the project, pursuant to Section IX, Subsection B.3. of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy; and 1 ' .~ N ~` ~~~ 4. That the County Attorney be authorized to institute such other measures as he may deem appropriate to enforce the provisions of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy, the Land Subdivider's Agreement dated June O5, 1995, and Letter of Credit, the Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement dated June O5, 1995, and Letter of Credit, and all applicable local, state and federal code provisions, pursuant to Section IX, Subsection B.1. of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Belle Grove Development Corporation is constructing Belle Grove Subdivision, which is more particularly described as tax parcel number 28.09-3-1 through 26, in the Hollins Magisterial District. On June 5, 1995, the Developer submitted a Land Subdivider's Agreement between the Developer and the County in evidence of their willingness to construct, install and provide at the said subdivider's sole expense "...those certain improvements described and shown on the stamped approved construction plans..." in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance (Land Subdivider's Agreement, p. 2, ¶1). On the same date, the Developer entered into an Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement as well that requires the developer to ensure the installation, maintenance and performance measures provided for on approved plans or revisions thereof for the control of siltation and erosion (Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement, ¶7). Letters of credit to guarantee proper and satisfactory installation according to approved plans were also submitted with these agreements. Currently, public water and sanitary sewer facilities have not been accepted by the County because adequate as-built plans have not been provided. Additionally, all requirements that will allow the roads to be accepted into the secondary system of state highways have not been completed. An adequate and acceptable method for transporting stormwater runoff from the subdivision streets to a natural water course must be provided prior to the Virginia Department of Transportation acceptance. On April 23, 1997, the County notified the Developer in accordance with Section IX, Subsection A of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy that their Land Subdividers Agreement and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement were due to expire within ninety (90) days and that a completion schedule must be provided to the County no later than May 15, 1997. The County has not received any correspondence regarding this request. On July 29, 1997, a letter was sent to the Developer explaining that the Bonding Committee of Roanoke County has found them in default of their agreements with Roanoke County. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval of Roanoke County Bonding Committee's recommendation to formally declare Belle Grove Development Corporation in default on Belle Grove Subdivision and approval of all additional recommendations of the Bonding Committee as 2 ._ l ~ ~- ~" y.~ specifically set forth above. Consistent with the decision of the Board on preceding action E ~ a., authorize and direct the Director of Engineering and Inspections and the County Attorney to initiate said approved actions, if all corrective actions and subdivision improvements have not been completed and accepted by the County and State agencies within thirty (30) days of this proceeding. 2. Decline to approve the Bonding Committee's recommendations. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Alternative # 1 above. SUBMITTED BY: ~ Bonding Committee of Roanoke County ,~ Arnold Covey, Director Engineering & Inspections ~~ Paul M.1V1'ahon~y ~yj' 1 County Attorney Don C. Myers Assistant County Administrator E-4.B APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved (x) Motion by: Har~.y C. Nickens Denied ( ) mntic~n to approve alternative Eddy Received ( ) ~1 - Bonding Committee Harrison Referred ( ) Recommendations Johnson To ( ) _ Minnzx Nickens cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney VOTE No Yes Absent _~L ~G_ ~_ _~ X 3 A-081997-5. c ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization To Proceed With Acquisition, As Provided By Law, Of A 20' Drainage Easement Across Property Owned By Nyna Murray To The Existing Drainage Easement Along Virginia Secondary Route 605 (Shadwell Drive). COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~ ~cc~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -mil ,~n,c'.Le~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: / This agenda item is for staff to obtain authorization to proceed with acquisition, as provided by law including initiation of eminent domain proceedings if necessary, of a 20' drainage easement for the management, collection, transmission and distribution of any form of drainage, including but not limited to stormwater drainage, across property owned by Nyna Murray. The approximate location of the proposed easement, extending from the stormwater detention pond in Belle Grove Subdivision to the existing drainage easement along Shadwell Drive, is shown on the attached map. BACKGROUND: Reference is made to the immediately preceding agenda Item No. E-~a. and Item No. E- y $.b. for background information regarding Belle Grove Subdivision and the Nyna Murray property. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Nyna Murray is the owner of property, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #28.09-2-4, located on Shadwell Drive. The rear property line adjoins Belle Grove Subdivision and its stormwater detention facility, which discharges into the "drainage swale" across the Murray property. During construction of Belle Grove Subdivision, numerous storm events impacted the Roanoke Valley and it was discovered that the Belle Grove stormwater detention and drainage facilities installed at the site required additional corrective action. Nyasa Murray has since made extensive demands upon the County and the developer (Belle Grove Development Corporation) to resolve issues associated with the sink holes that developed on the properties and stormwater management. Although staff has repeatedly attempted to address areas of concern to Murray, the situation remains at an impasse. Among Murra~s demands is that a drainage easement be obtained by the County for the sum of $100,000 and the easement would be subject to stringent conditions. Staff has estimated that the fair market value of the proposed drainage easement, based upon the real estate tax assessment, is an approximate maximum of $1,100 depending on location. An independent appraisal has not yet been obtained, but will be required in order for staff to proceed. In an effort to resolve the situation, the County Administrator extended a settlement offer to the developer and the Murrays by letter dated June 25, 1997, a copy of which is attached. Murray responded on July 4, 1997, with the following: "...., we hereby request that the terms of the said proposal be left open until we have had time to adequately consult counsel. Also, we will need further specifics with regard to the proposal." No further word on the settlement proposal has been received from the Murrays or their counsel. By letter dated July 17, 1997, the County Administrator notified the parties that this matter, as well as the two preceding items related to Belle Grove Subdivision, would be placed on the agenda for consideration and action by the Board. FISCAL IMPACTS: Staff recommends that all costs associated with this authorization be paid for from the funds drawn on the developer's letters of credit for completion of Belle Grove Subdivision, in accordance with the previous recommendation of the Bonding Committee. Such costs may include but will not be limited to expenses for an independent appraisal, a survey, easement consideration and related closing costs, engineering, and construction, with the possibility of court costs and an additional award by the court in condemnation proceedings, if necessary. 2 ~°~.. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with acquisition, as provided by law, of a 20' drainage easement to extend from the Belle Grove stormwater management facility to the existing drainage easement along Route 605 (Shadwell Drive), and authorize payment of all costs associated with such acquisition from the funds drawn on Belle Grove Development Corporation's letters of credit and in a manner consistent with the action of the Board on the preceding agenda Item No. E ~ .b. 2. Decline to authorize acquisition of the easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 above. BY: A34iold Covey, director Engineering & Inspections E-4.C Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) APPROVED BY: .~u.~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: carry C. Nickens ,,,ht-; ~„ to abprove groceed~ ng ~;t~ ac$uisi ion VOTE No Yes Absent Eddy _~L Harrison ~L_ Johnson ~ Minnix x Nickens ~_ cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney 3 E- y~ NORTH ROANOKE COUNTY BELLE GROVE SUBDIVISION WITH APPROYI*4ATE LOCATION UTILITY OF DRAINAGE EASE?vIENT ACROSS THE HURRAYS PROPERTY DEPARTMENT •~a ,~~ O~ POANpr~`. ~' ~ "~ ~z ~ 7 r; 2 ov. a~ raa8 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 25, 1997 Mr. Terry E. Parsell Belle Grove Development Corporation 1007 First Street, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Ms. Nyna Murray 7920 Shadwell Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Ms. Murray and Gentlemen: ~_- SSG D JUN 2 6 1997 D BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ' HOW NS 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" MIN NIX . CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) _ 772-2005 Mr. Mike Murray. 7950 Shadwell Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 In the last few days, my staff and I have spoken with all of you in an effort to resolve the issue of storm water management on your properties. We now find ourselves at the point where the County has notified the Belle Grove Development Corporation that it intends to draw the bond to make the necessary repairs for proper drainage across the Nyna Murray property. The Murrays have indicated that they are unwilling to sell the easement until they know what the plans are and until they receive an amount of money acceptable to them. Belle Grove maintains that they will oppose the County~s calling of their bond and that they have no obligation to perform or pay for any further work in that area. All of our meetings, phone calls, and letters have been unsuccessful. Despite the fact that the County maintains that it has no financial responsibility in this matter, I am proposing the following solution in an effort to resolve this situation as soon as possible. It is proposed that Nyna Murray be paid $5,000 compensation for the easement across her property. In addition, storm water will be piped underground to the existing easement along Shadwell Drive. County engineers will work with the Murrays to design and construct the pipe to minimize any impact on future use of their property and, in fact, improve its value. This is estimated to cost $20,000. Nyna Murray further agrees to grant Belle Grove access to the property to repair the sinkhole. Belle Grove agrees to repair, as required by a professional geotechnical engineer, the sinkhole that has developed since the construction of its subdivision has taken place. In addition, Belle Grove agrees to pay one-half of the cost of putting the pipe across the Murray property as described above. The County agrees to pay the other half. Roanoke County will maintain the drainage easement in perpetuity,_and Belle Grove agrees to maintain the storm water detention pond, which is on its property. This agreement is intended to resolve all off-site issues among the three parties. This agreement does not relieve Belle Grove Development Corporation of any on-site corrections noticed by Roanoke County. If we are not able to reach agreement a®R~1®bed above, I will take to the C~a~x~t~ ~~ ~.~~xx~~~e ~- hoc Mr. Terry Parsell Ms. Nyna Murray Mr. Mike Murray Page 2 June 25, 1997 Board of Supervisors Belle Grove's appeal of the County's requirements as outlined in the letter dated May 30, 1997, from Terry Parsell. In doing so, I will ask that the Board support the County's action to draw the Belle Grove letter of credit to pay for any and all work necessary to correct this problem. At the same time, I will recommend that the County proceed with condemnation of the Murray property for a simple, open drainage easement and will offer to pay the Murrays an amount calculated by the formula usually used for such purposes. This amounts:to an approximate maximum of $1,100, depending on location. Belle Grove will then be requested to maintain this drainage easement. I hope that you will see that it is to the benefit of all of us to resolve this issue no later than July 7, 1997. As such, I am asking that you indicate your concurrence by signing below, as I have done, and returning a copy of this letter to my office. If you have any questions that we may answer, please call me at 772-2004 or Arnold Covey at 776-7111. I would like to get this resolved during the current construction season. Sincerely, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ECH/meh Enclosure cc._- Mr. G. Lyn Hayth, III Bank of Buchanan P. O. Box 339 Buchanan, Virginia 24066 I concur with the agreement outlined above: Nyna Murray Mike Murray 7920 Shadwell Drive 7950 Shadwell Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 _ Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Elmer C. Hodge Terry. E. Parsell Roanoke County Administrator Belle Grove Development Corporation ~iiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiu~~~ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ ° ° ° ° ° ° -_ ° ° _ - _ - ° APPE CE REQUEST _ - PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ° ° =_ ° ~L°/ c sUBJECT: ~ro Ve- ° =_ 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 TIE GUIDELINES LISTED ° BELOW: c ° ° ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment c whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will ° decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, _ c and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ofgthe Board to ° do otherwise. ° °_ __°. ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. __ Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c ° ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized c speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _ ° ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments c - ° ° vnth the clerk. ° ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ° ° PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° - ° ° ° fi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~ ~~~ l ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ ~- t° AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /' c~~a-G~ 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 September 23, 1997. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1) An ordinance to rezone approximately 0.33 acres from C-1 to C-2 in order to operate a pet business, located at 3534 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Alex & Betty Nelson. 2) An ordinance to rezone 1.01 acres from C-2C to C-2 in order to construct a parking lot, located behind Carilion Family Medicine on Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Carilion Health Corp. Inc. 3) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand the existing facility, located at 1928 Loch Haven Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Word Ministries. 4) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow summer concerts, located in Valleypointe, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of The Easter Seal Society of VA, Inc. ~/-~ 5) An ordinance to rezone 0.65 acre from R-1 to C-2 to allow a minor auto repair facility, located 130 feet northwest of the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Northridge Lane, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Marc I. Wilson. 6) An ordinance to rezone approximately 22.01 acres from AG-3 & R-1 to R-1 to develop single family residences, located at the intersection of Finney Drive and Elizabeth Drive, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of F. W. Finney Construction Corp. 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 September 23, 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. Respectfully submitted, Q.ccQ ~1'l.. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Action Motion by Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr.~ . P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 0540' 772-2os8 Fax (540 ~ 772-2 ~ 08 ~' ~f~- t For staff use only date receive received by: . applic Iti fee: ~ ~ PC/SZA da:~ ~ ~a ~ ~ placards issued: oOS date• No - Case Number: r • Proposed Zoning: C2 For Staff Use Cr.; Proposed Land Use: Pet Business use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, v~i~th, and frontage requirements of the requested dis:::~:? YES ~ NO IF N0, A VA^i~.NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fer :'__ requested Use Type? YES '~ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being prc;~z'°_=~ with this request? YES NO •:~•~f1~1Y7~lF~lEFf'.'C:~'lE~~•~~• ~.•.~fF't'~~:~`::~C~.~:~i~:'~~..~~..~.':~:~:='~:~:=:=:=:~~~:~::'::~~:~::~:~~:~:~:~:~~~~:~;~:~::::::::~:::::::::: Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in c;~_- to: Is the application complete? Please check if enc;csed. APPLICATION WILL.N'OT 6E ACCEPTED IF ~~.\Y OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v ws v .i Consultation ~ 8 1 /2" x i i " concept plan Application fee r% Application ->%~ Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable t/ Justification '~~~ Water and saver application ~ ~ Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the ov~~ner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: ~..::':~::I N, I ~ - S' -, __ __ ~ ._ ,.~ _ _ _ r' _ -` fi;(, ~ ~ ~ ._ ~:..% li iii `: ]~~r July 31, 1997 Mrs. Janet Scheid County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Mrs. Sheid; Thank you for your letter requesting information on the business we plan to operate at 3534 Brambleton Avenue. This will be a retail pet shop offering pets and pet supplies. We also do some bird grooming and boarding of birds. Our anticipated hours will be 10 A.M. to 7 P.M. Monday through Friday and 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. on Saturday. Will be in for several hours on Sunday to feed animals and clean. Hours may be extended during holiday seasons. Classy Critters Pet Center has been in business in the county since 1985. We would appreciate any help you can give us in upgrading this propdrty from C-1 to C-2 so that we may stay in business. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Alex & Betty Lou Nelson k-I C~1NTY OF RO~IOKE, VIRGINIA FlATER / 5c"'~R SERVICE COPITRACT June c3, 1997 Nave; NELSON III FLEX M /YELSON BE-iTY L CLP.SSY CRITTERS RET CE;lTER INC Mailing Address: 4614 CORLELL DR City/State/Zip: ROAAbKE VA 24018 Service Address: 3534 BRA~S3LETC~V AVE Deposit A~aunt: f 108.98 Account No.: 909"cb66+D Location Na. ; &39161 Sac. Sec. #; PRIM: 54i-56-874 SEG. Rhone: {rJ~JRK) 540-999-4033 A'~E) 540-774-597? start Bate: 051E3/97 C~lER 8aok #: Sbis' 4 Deter Serial #: 0@8R53542bw "akelSize: BADGER 5/3 Service Type: kATERlEci~ER LE6AL DEvCRIPTIGN OF SERVICE ADBPESS: Lt - Bloc - Sect: 19 - -? 5ubdiv.: MT 4EtiN~~ ~icHTS Tax Map #; 77,13- b- 5 The undersigned herehy applies to Roanok? County and its successors and assigns ;o receive •;eriain govern;sental services as indicated below to the above described prAaises only, situated in t„e County of Roanoke, Virginia, essd for residential/coeeerciai purposes. The undersigned apalican. agrees to be iiaDie far ail Charges far these goV2r1@?ntal,servic:a cn s?:d ;re7lse~ until notice, in writing, is given a Faun:y of Reanok? tosereinate }his agreeaen: and 5~1~;~ a;G'sn:s shall be recov?rabla oy all reeedi?s provided ~~; taw; hoaes.ead and all other ex?actions of the apoli_aa: herehy eovenar-ts and agrees ;n pay ail Such charg?s darine .he terA 0!' th:4 3;r??72n5 a5 ~`~e'd bec:ae Ql'? 1':C payabia acid to abide by, caeaiy wit`i died aJs$rv2 a~_ rUi2i, regulasionS, a`d ral''+ei nGw in ?'~rC~ ar `ere3T:cr ::golly estabiii^z7 by ~~clit(e t".aUn.y T1r ;~2i? _v'%~t:i32i143! i2rV1C25 to 5i~? ~r?'aii?i. Roanoke GaUn;y reser'+95 the right L~ S?Y#i';dt2 :..is dyr?ei?na ~lpon Si:;: ",.~i ~ay5 iiv~:C2 fir _dU52 '^~ the violation of any rule ~~r regulation; ar uoo~, ::.e failure to Fay the rises or charge. iaresed f.cr these service=_. The County shall in na event be respon5i'ole for eaintaining cry Service line awned by t;~e applicant, nor far daaages done by water or sewage ?scaring therefroa; nor fraa defects in lines ar fixtures an ;he rroperty of the applicant. All charges are effective frog the dare of actual connection with Raanoka County's water/sever sys;ee and continuously thereafter until :ereinated as provided in paragra~ two {2) or three l3). _ _ _ ~leasa sign contract and retain yellow copy far your records. _ - _ _ _ _ _ • • • .,GEAIfRAL NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED ,.'MTHOUT BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT I ~i .. ~ p~ tiry AND IS SUBJECT THERETO. THEREFORE, THERE MAY EXIST ENCtJi~BRANCES WHICH AFFECT THE PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. O~~~e~ 2. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NA1'HIN THE UTAITS OF ZONE "X" Q~ ti' A5 SHOWN ON THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE UAP. THIS ~~" ~~ bETERf~INATION IS 6ASE0 ON SAID I~AP AND HAS N07 BEEN VERIFIED BY 0• ACTUAL FIELD ELEVATIONS. I ~ LEGEN FR ~ FRA~1E BR a 8R1CK CONC e CONCRETE OHW OVERHEAD WIRES U.S. 221 P ~ ORCH BRAINBLETON AVENUE, S.W. S/W ~ SIDEWALK 80' WIDE N 58'00'00" E sET 00' u~ 75 . PALE 300' TO CURlis AvE., S.w. I / ~ I 75.00' IRON PIN IRON PlN " ~ I I IRON piNl FOUND a FOUND I BEARS ' ~ te.3' i I N 79'31 35 E 3 t 0.26' sr STORY ~ I I ! 8R de FR ~ ' X353 1 I I - . ~'~ LG~f( ~'~ ~:` ~~ as w~o+ I L ~ ROPERTY OF ( ~ LIND F. be WIIUAM A. 20' I PAVED JENNINGS UWP G I pRIV~ TAX ~ 77.10-06-OS ~ O1yNp c~uc ~ _ _ D.8 1523, PG. 890 AT 108.18' y Q.19 wE3'T N ~ Z - -s W PROPERTY OF N I ~ ~ o LINK ~~ DAVID L. k BONNIE °o ~ IIA.fO~ PART o 0 o.z' EAST TOPPING ~ ~ LAT ~~ o oF' uNE TAX ~ 77.10-06-10 p ~ ~'~ ~ D, B. 1493, PG. 138 ' o m ~ IINK FENCE GRAPE ARBOR" 0.5' EAST , ROCK wAl -• ~ LINE 75.00' ~5.00'~ " N 58'00'00' E W SEARS S 58'0000 N 7033' w IR N PIN 0.70' IRON BOLT IRON PIN FUND IRON ROD FOUND FOUND PROP RTY OF SEARS s 55'14' w GERAL W. SINK PROPERTY OF °'47 PROPERTY OF TAX ~' 7 .10-06-20 ANNA L. MITCHELL ANNA L. UITCHEIL W.B. 43, PG. 1395 TAX ~- 77.10-06-18 TAX ~ 77.10-06-19 D.B. 234, PG. 127 D.B. 681, PG. 117 SURVEY F~Fi ALES M. NELSON $~ BETTY L. NELSON ~Tg op >y OF THE MAJOR PART OF LOT 10, BLOCK 2 FAOUNT VERNON HEIGHTS, SURVEY N0, 1 ~ LINDA R. DU Y P.B. 2, PG. 67 No. 1°1y CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 1/,~9y ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ~ ~d .10-06-09 TAX ,~ LO 15 Tpp~s T• p• p ~-163 DRAWN SCALE: 1 "~ 40' Ax'~ ~ SON APRIL L DATE: ~ 1997 , oie Bealw.rd N.B !•NOIN66R~ CALC. CHK'D `~ suR~+cvo~e Pe.~ oenes >a~ so p_ 4Co`13 4. ClOSED~_ LRD PI.ANN6RE 9el~m, ~htlal. sates Vi/,0,, '1 - oc.~ I ' - ~ 'yam' NJ .~•..4f ao 0 .~ °a z ~? c~ a a` I 1 " ~ C 1(~ I~~ ~ ~ - ' ~.c4Scif't~ 68 - Lea ¢ ° ~ ~ - ~~ v I ~! ritt ~ O~Q \ r~,~\ c ~ Sao ~/? ~~' "'< - Ni 1 R oi' ~' ~0 4^~~ C ~~G '~° ' z %` ~,<< 9~ ~° ~ ~~~y' o~-°~~- IMF>s = ~ N 0 R i H t ~~ -o-"9 ~ -a P ~-9 'M l,ct4e ~Di'iT' 16 ~ ~ SC1 ~• YI/ I '~~ 1 ~ JlOf ! lri/ ~6 ~_ - ~'+- , ru I x1+ JCt77 I ° D Stn - - ~' r ~ 1/ Stl/ /1 ' Sf4 }710 " ' , I ' ° as 3 ' ~' 24 Q r II ~~ -- -- I / acv a C I I ^ 3 ss1 ~ ~ sttr Q t2 17 s ~ ~ g~ .i ° II ' ~ 31J7 ~ ~ .iM ' s p L3 ~ I • ~ :ate = ti tee ~.y / ' ` ~~ 1177 ~ ~u m ~ I '~ I `RI ,IS ~..r ~ 10 ~ ~ > >rf/ 7 8 {/d • ~ • ~Ft.i ~ t004 '~ J+GV of ?a/ ' " - ~.. ea w 15 = I ~ f6 U 4 l7?0 ~ ti..\ `'v J YY7 3vf JY71 ~ 21 ~ f9 ~ \ 'r~ ~ aa/ 1~ ~ sn°20 _~ -'~ Ph+~val• -~ -~ L ,.,, lf+/ 3~cs ~ w ' 2 / ~ y aau n .m n n I ..~ ~ r.r b Rood ~ _-~ ' ~' ^ n ` -~ . JB Js7d J)~ V • PJ~ r ,,- '~~ \~ =1 ~ ,. .~ ~ \ ` ~ ~~. .. _. / ' •~' ~~ I l \HO/~ `r'~C~~JS~ Lj \\ V Wi J.~7t 4 S • V' 1 C q ~~ ~ , ' 6 o,- !~ ~ .~. ~,, t` ~ DEPARTMEt~IT OF PLPNNING PND ZONING • . ~ ~_ ALEX & BETTY L. NELSON C-1 TO C-2 77.0-6-9 A . h- L Z COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard ter. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (5401 772-2108 C~2, 7/L1/ 57 ~ r~ ~ p 7(x;1 z Cl ~ _ For staff use only d-" date rec ived:' received by: application fGe: C~ PC/BZA dat~% placards issued: BOS date: G+ Z ~ i Case Number: '- Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ® REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: John C. Christodoulides Phone:981-8834 Address: 127 McClanahan St. , SW, Roanoke, VA Zip Code: 24014 Owner's name: Carilion Health Corporation, Inc. Phone: 981-4041 Address: P. 0. Box 13727, Roanoke, VA Zip Code: 24036 Location of property: Tax Map Number: 77.09-4-52 .1 Off Northwest Margin of Brambleton Magisterial District: W ;~~~ E{;~,~s Ave., County of Roanoke Community Planning Area: cAvF sPY~IN~ Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: C-2 Conditional 1.01 acres Existing Land Use: Unused, occasionally overflow parking for local 43,900 sq.ft. businesses Proposed Zoning: C-2 General Proposed Land Use: Parking Lot For Slaff Use Only Use Type: 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 ws Evs v Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan Application fee ~ Application ~-~~ Metes and bounds description ~=%< Proffers, if applicable Justification '``: Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that ! am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: _ - ~~I _^ • JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING The Carilion Brambleton Center is a major heathcare facility in Roanoke County offering a wide range of patient services including surgery. Growth experienced over the past few years and projections for the future necessitate plans for expansion. Rezoning of the subject property, tax map number 77.09-4-52, is critical for a growth process furthering the purposes of the Roanoke County Zoning ordinance. It is proposed to convert a largely unused lot into a modern parking facility to support the Brambleton Center. Most of the proposed parking spaces will provide greatly needed parking for staff members and patients relieving congestion in a facility with limited parking. Adjoining businesses will benefit from the proposed parking during their peak hours when traffic at the medical center is minimal. The proposed parking lot design will comply with Roanoke County rules and guidelines for adjoining properties and will enhance and beautify the area. Carilion aims at improving the well being of the communities it serves. The planned expansion of the Brambleton Center will improve considerably health care services in Roanoke County. A well planned expansion, compatible with the needs of the community must include adequate additional parking which will be made possible by the requested rezoning. • .;' •: I . ~~ 2 1 'bliOwl\l4 qp<O E4b£~.AE-.f'~ FRO~d RELACATE~ V.l. Slx:. RTE. G02 CGe.RST 1./-I~.L ~O) ~O U.S. R't:. 221 C DoedulOltZ'O~.l 4V~-.tUO, b.Wa • EXHIBIT "B" !~ ~47 ~ k J ~~ v=~ ~ ~ a~ ~g~~ ?~3 o WQ~ ~_ 0-11 tq0 D-11f 34 I w C is .~ ~g ,~ ~ $ .a ~~ r~ T I BRAI.ABLET0IJ f ~ NARDW4RE ~~ ~ e3roo•oorE...~. as2.z~~ ;.z u ai-oo~oo-w - si~.9t• PITY 01~ CNdRL.ES R. & 1.1dO1~A 1 G. t • s~-~PSOU ' ~ Cz-OO-s¢ cN.-AL,~ a~a-useur) bs2•o~00'E ~- ~~19707 ~---- ,o..~. -- ~s. i.. d 8 ~~~~M~ ~ ~~ o.3.u..caes~ o-2~a,3 Q -r100RE'S 3 BU 1 L011JG g suPS~~Y D--~q~q s3r« -r-soot J 4.~aw GrSAO• ~ ia.~a• y u32~~~ ~ ,~ u ~aarocr~ -~.. O.s1S e.CRC 1 o-uns~ s~-oooo•~ - Zs.oo• atiis ecsie o-z-Z~~ a ~ .ca¢ \ o-ttoae 0 p< 92 ~~~~ ~ E-r PRAPEQTY OF BODD1 E - UOEt_L.. EUTERPR 1 SES, 1 UC. d C uAUO~~~s) o.a. aso ~.sa'r ~ ~ ~~ • ~ n Qd ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ou U w. ~ ~' ~ 1 ~ so~u~A B. t~ • QB.1090 FG.T (LO-JCs .lp~l.) Si~.YE1 w /~ ` 3 o- 19363 6S ~aR3T ad ~ ~~••Q" ~~ .• ,~. • C~ ~ /~Ap. w lenv \ly . 8~1 ~ ~ U 2~ a S~.W REl-OCtaTEp V4. SE+C. RTT~. ~2 PLa'T 1,A4DFi ~OS~2 BOUTS-iERU 1..~-UD COWIPAUY 1 Mt1~[•T C[RTIIy THAT TMIf _ n ' ~~~ CCt~AtCT. go~.uoKe couvrr vlllolrlu ~r T. P. PARKER d SON eunlucc/c 1 tl1RVEr~Ri O.~O.~Cq ~ c • tzaai ~Y` .~ ,3 ~ N o~ 1 N ~aP W W Q~ ~N F- W W~ ~ ~' ~a m .~01*1 L M1M(E!t ~11lO IMtY[r~011 ~ Ci11TRhCATt M0. ~~ LAM D •GAIt• ~• ~~~ ~ DAT[ ._A1~111~1~... i~dQ 1 1 1 ~~~ -. • • b H Ri 7 Y Y (V N i ~ g y h w ~ u z ~ ~- ,~ Z W ~ ~ U ~ W ~ O Z Z W ~ O ~ R +- ZO~~ o ~ F- wed p tD a Q ~ a ~ Z lal - Z w Z w J Z m ~ Q U ~ O O U fn ~ ~ (n lf') 0 O ~ ~ ` ~ a U ~ J U Q O --'r---{ { n a o- f Q Q o n Z e N N m CJ ~ W _ N ~ o ~ N 4 H W ~ o W K ~ r o Z Z O U W ~ N = ~ u _ ~ ~ ~ 'za~ N ~ W > ~ j- W ~ m m W I,.~ ~ Q Fi ~n U N N X N W F- R c~ ~ z 2 O < ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ---7 Y W ` Z ~ ~ Q d Q ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ _ _ N ~ _ p ~ U Q a ~ N ~ ? O U ~ ~ Z ~ cV f7 ~ • -~ -z U ~~ ~ - - - , -- • 5 6 z 7 _ 8 ~ 9 ~ ~ t _ •w.,.... ci... JTJI ,i cr... lTt6 ~ JTIO / A J70t Y y v t~ ~~ ~ I ~ / app ,~ // ~ ~ ~ k as ~i e.+io~ 63 .,o i3o ~ .._ ~ i~it aar .. .20 '• '. „ • ' O 1 to r c ~ ~ ~ 4.ti9 Ac e - ,13`. ~ .,s - ~ ~ ' T , ' 21 2 62 T !s ~ i Ori~~~i ~i l ~ -.; +Q. -1~~, ; I5 -1 S AC Q~ 1.2 /~ I {~ c 2.2 a Ock~ i :. 1 .8 ~0 i ' IS a -t ~' G e ii :_ ~ 34 2 3 ~'~ ~ I .°• s ~ 42'0 3xs ~ O~ 58.45 '» ^ p~- ,-~ ~. 5!• ~ 52 z , 43 ~ 58 4 ~ ~ ~ ' e " •~ ~ •46 ~ - -1- 1.01 Ac ,° ~~ +~~ .b ~' ~ ~~ I iul,•• bl`-''Se.48 ti \ J6C9 . - eb n •' ~ ~ 58.49 ^Y a :. ~ r \ n 58.4J c ~ -~~ ~ -_1 IRTO ~ ~ .. r ~ I C `ao ~ ~ `~ \ / 58.39 •+ '• III VIM Court ~~~ / J /~6_ \ •9~,~, , \ \ ~ Vr /r , ,¢, .r'. , ° San . • ~. • ~ • V J6/S 58.32 , ~e• ~1,.~` iax , ~ ~ y ~,o\e~0~ ~bie 3. ~ ,- f 0t. 3czt 4 rt ~ I+~ ~0° 'a ~T J6 r 3azz/ » ', 5 ~ ,A /' / ~5 4 san ~ .523 ~/ ''p JsJi ° ~' V J ° ~. ~! 1 ~ V ~ / Sc!• 'n / !O qal V , ,a° ~2 ~ ss3J t~\ N 3 , e 2' a ~7 ~\~\~1~~~~ I ~ e 71, 3~x~ 22- . ~\`td~ lTj1 \ 196:.c / ,~ !c b~cwo 0 21' ~, ~~~ ~ .~' \ 3632 O ~ 7 ` a,i1 ~O. ~ 36~ TJ ~ ~ ~ 2 j ~ ° o w ~' ., T. \ \ , ~~, At._`s, ~. ~ I ~ / 1 \ " ti~ ~ ,o ~ 16:3 ~ \, , c.~ I ~ ~TZ9 \ ~, 15 , y a ~ {S. \ ~o o \ 34~ (• - 4 V~ a3 / ~` \ \ \ ~a \ f .,o S)25 y p 1 ~ :c3J ,`\\ ~~ \ 3 \ 35 ' 2• 373e C '~ '' ` \ ~, .sere ~ Q' 1~ 2 \ cL \ \ Cam` 0v ~ ~~ iiwr ~~ I \38 ~ ,~ / \ \ .° i x '~ n 45 +ti '~ 3 $ a Tne Bipmoiupn Crr/er \ \ 40 'r _ \~ ,, 44 ~ ] c! ' ~ ' 43• '~ ., ~~ '~R.CB.S `'.. ~ P a ~. ;, w ` 2290c f01 O 4 1.T2 sc tcl \ ,3`10 ,~ ,~ ~:. - ,~ 1R ~ ~~ :~'~, a2 !lSO4~ i1 J6's ~ • GCARILION HEALTH CORP. _ ~' * DEPARTMEN'T' OF PLANNING C=2C TO C-2 P.ND ZONING ~ 77.09-4-52.1 .~ .,. For staff use only l"l -~-~ ' COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNI~'~'G AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Or.~.. P.0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 l 540 772-2068 FAX t>40 l 772-21 08 Bat a eived:' received by: appfi anon fee• ~ PC/E~;. da;c z 97 pla 's$ ed: SOS~a;e: ~ ~ ~~ C a s N u e--r , . Proposed Zoning: AR Proposed Land Use: R E L I G I O U S A S S E M B L Y For Slar•` Use C.^iy Use Type: Does the parcel meet the r~~inimum lot area, `•~i~:`., and frontage requirements of the requested dis;r:~;? YES X NO IF NO, A V,,:=I~.`~CE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for ,: ~__ requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are COndiilOnS O?Ing pfC~fcr=. •.'~Iti'1 t~''is request? YES U/q NO ~~ ~~f~~~'~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~1~t l Variance Of SeCilOn(SI Of tie RCanOke COUniy Zoning Ordinance in c,~=. to: N/A Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION ~/ILL f`tOT 6E ACCEPTED IF r.NY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v ws v Consultation 8 1l2" x i i " concept plan Application fee Application ~ Metes and Bounds description Proffers, if applicadle Justification ~ Water and s~vver application Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that l am erthei the or~nei of the a~ope~ty or [he oV~ne~'s agent or contract puici;ase~ and am acting t~~ith the know/ed~e~a~nd c~onse~ f~-tr~oN~ne~. Owner's Signature: fl -2C,l' ~! ' ~ !~ Foi Staff Use Only: Case Number .:.:.: ~plicant VALLEY WORD MINISTRIES The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need anc justification for the change in terms or public healt~~, safety, and general v~:elfare. Please answer the folic:;ing questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain ho~v the request furthers the purposes 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. THE PROJECT PROVIDES FOR CONVENIENCE OF ACCESS AND SAFETY, DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREETS, AND CONTRIBUTES TO A CONVENIENT, ATTRACTIVE AND HARMONIOUS COMMUNITY. THE EXPANDED BUILDING WILL ADD OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. THE PROJECT DOES NOT DESTROY ANY HISTORIC BUILDINGS OR AREAS. THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER RESOURCES. lease explain how the project conforms to the ge^eral guidelines and policies contained in the Roano'~c=_ Ccunty ~prehensive Pia n. THE SITE IS DESIGNATED~~COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER.~~ THE COMPREHENSIVE FLAN LISTS CHURCHES AS AMONG DESIRABLE LAND USE TYPES WITHIN COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER AREAS. THE PROPOSED PLAN CONFORMS WITH THE LAND USE GUIDELINES IN THAT IT PROTECTS THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD FROM DISRUPTIVE IMPACTS OF LAND USE CHANGES. THE PLAN EXPANDS A NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CENTER WHICH IS ALREADY WITHIN CONVENIENT DISTANCE TO EXISTING HOUSING. THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE SITE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on tyre prcpery itself, the adjoining properties, and the s:.~r;:-ur:ding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/se~r;e r, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES WITH REGARD TO WATER, SEWER, ROADS AND FIRE~RESCUE. SINCE WE ARE NOT EXPANDING THE SEATING CAPACITY THERE WILL BE LITTLE OUTSIDE EFFECT. THE EXPANSION•WILL BE BUILT BEHIND THE EXISTING BUILDING IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WILL NOT BE SEEN FROM _ THE ROAD. THE EXPANSION WILL NOT CHANGE THE STORM WATER RUN OFF TO A GREAT DEGREE. FIRE~RESCUE PATHS WILL BE MAINTAINED WITH ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE FOR AN EMERGENCY. . OOOt OOS OSZ S l 0 ppgt-99f(OrS) 6lOrZ 'rn '3NONVOa 99SL X08 ~0'd ~"" j I--{ I dINI~2IIA '~.LI`If10O ~?IO~~IdO~I s~euuald puel ~ s~eeul u~ ulllnsuo~ ,LOI~I,LSIQ 'IdI23~ZSI~dY1i dgMd,LdO • ,~a :aNH;, Z9190L6 ~/ av~V " O O 6 U i ~ e 8 U I B U 8 ~AI2IQ I`I~AdH HO0`I SZry=Aet:~r~5 C66196oA1f11`:31Q I~IOI,LFIOI~dd~1 ,LII^I2I~dM~Sf1~'~I`~IIIO~dS -JN`d~l- I 0 I .os~ ~ W .~ W x .~~b I ~ `~S I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 o ~ o ~,.~ 1 1 1 1 ~i p"i Z I ~ I 1 1 ~°o ~o \ \ x ~ I 00 FN FCO~ I zi \ 6N \ \ ~ d, \ \ O 1 ~ I ~~ Z^ \Ps\ a. i I O ei I ~ ~ ~ s` 171 z~n /^ ~~ z~ ~ ~ a° w~ a~ ~ ~ I '~~ I \~ ~ L a. ~ c- ~ I E- i ~~ F ~ ' -~ ~ " ~ X co / ~ ~ .. II Ea^ ~ 1 .. ^ I O 1 i~ Z< N G ~' ~/ '~~ <i a 1yl F II ~~ ~--- a =~ O~ F ~ I ~ L Z I o cv i a i z -r I ~ o a / a I 7xC a l L F~ to ~ 1 rr/ / p~ ~~ I I I~ z~ z l oo I I I al I I I ~o z., I I I I ~XXO ~~ a ~ z- I I I ¢ c~+~ E- ~ c-. I I E' ~ G» I m I I ~~ o 1 I ~~ I I 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~? \7 1 1 Z :: ~, I I ~ 0 11 ~ oos osz sz~ o ooo~ H ~ 1021:ONFp Z9t90L6 :P OYOV 'Brvrv:AB NMY210 9t90L6:'oN 80f ,OSZ = .131V~S L66t 'sZ AlM 31V0 \\`~ •~s'~ \~ J '•! O\ ~ ~ ~~~\ ~~d ~~ 1' /~ / ~ / / // ~ // 1 I 1 I ~ i I i i I' i I I ~ I I I I 1 I ' I s~euue~d puel • s~eeu~Ou~ au~i~nsuo~ -o0 6ui~eeui6ue _~Nd-~- dINI02IIn '~,LNf10~ ~?i0Nd02I ,LaI2I.LSIQ ZdI2I~,LSIOdNi dg d d~ ~nI2IQ N~ndH H~0'I -/!, S~I2I,LSINIY~I Q~IOM ~~ZZ n NOIZd~I'Iddd ,LIY~I2I~d ~Sfl 'IdI~~dS I c~ C I ~. S~ E.. I ~ ~ ~a ~o ~ ~ ~ a a y S~ = I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~z > r ' < 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ t / S " ~ ~ ~~~ rF ~y'J' ONO YpU ~P4 / ass o. y Y U ~ q o© G i / .~ U.3 \. \ / ~ ~` 8 ~ 0. ~ \ / ~ d i o C -_ ~,= ~~ z / ozo a.mF i ~ e (11 4 / m i / W A / A e .'L W y $V / x 0 a u = ~, °~ 3 F ~s Qd ~~ 80 G° ~m &~ ~> • • ev ~~-~ea gt}~.+7 't a.2t: y'r`i •. I III i «_ ~i~,~:,'1 I ~ ~ j J - I is l\ 1 J J ~ j~ - .'I ~ I '~ __ ' 1 ~ II If ~I _. ~ i ~ ~= ~, i _ ;I r I ~ _. ;~,. _ __ ~ ~,~ of i _ I I ' I - _ o ~. r ~~- ~ 'I '~R~L-; `` ~ ~ I~ l _ _ .-` ~ i II LL t ~ ------_-- -~ - ~ !I ~, I y - - - ~I ~ ---___ _ ~I _ .: ~ _ I j ~ - = -,~ :- - ~ ~~ .. ~ -~~ ,~ ,~ ~, ~ ; . ~: ~; ~-: I ~ !' _ i~ '. ~ ~ y a~~ 'l E _ ~ ` ~ci -f~Y . /_ ~~ 5 ~ h e ~J ~~-~~ _. 3.. Meo 23.04 r • zoo' :~~' 7 L934 ! I L4.4 i I L \ ~ / a„• /~ ~ / N ¢ _ ~._~ t3~ 4 '~ 0 a vro Ss.io-il~2 ~ ~ !~ i•tioo• :~ i L s ~. ',~ , s .y n VALLEY WORD ~~IINISTRIES . _ ~' T DEPARTMEN'T' OF PLP.NNIh'G SPECIAL USE P E RM I T " prm zoNZNG 36.07-1-4.1. .~ . .,, a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ Susan S. Knight , Vice-President ~F ;'. Yom, i Roanoke-Blue Ridge Region ~`;;,; r~ r ~ ~ ~ :. i The Easter Seal Society of Virginia, Inc. '~~ 4841 Williamson Road ~ t P. O. Baz 5496 Roanoke, Vvginia 24012 (540) 362-1656 • 1-800.365-1656 (540) 563-8928 7DD/FAX • ROANOKE NNING AND ZONING ir.~ 018 F.X (j40) 772'21 08 For staff use only '"~i 41k~ date receiv d•' received application ee: PC/f3ZA da:_L` placards issued: oOS da:e• Case Number: /r Proposed Zoning: For sraii use C.-;y Proposed Land Use: ,~ Uit^.ryic2 ~~~?c.C/-% SEd.'i~,l - ~1~4i/c;~~'v-..T-? use Hype: Variance of Sections} Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, ~•~i~th, and frontage requirements of the requested cis:::c;? YES ~ NO IF NO, A Vr;=I~.~JCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fer :`,= requested Use Type? YES iti'0 IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being prc,;=. _~ with this request? YES NO of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordin~r,ce in c~~~: to: Is the application complete? Please check if enc;csed. APPLICATION WILL t~tOT EE ACCEPTED IF r,NY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v wa v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x i i ' concept plan Application fee Application » Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification %~ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner o/ the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the know/ed~,e and consent of~i;e owner. r r Owner's Signature: ~~,/~ Ql},.yt/ ~J. /.Y)?/~ts,7/./ ~ ' :: ~ ~r~r~~i~tis~r-~~1~~:r~iz~~t°,~~r'`t~c*~I~D1=~_ - ~~'.~I.~~f~t`~''~~~€f';r',~~Rl~'1~~~~_ ... ~~ ~ .~ The Easter Seal Society of Virginia, nc. ~,~~`~' _a ~ ~ ~~ ~ _.. ~F. .. ~~~~ ~_`- _:, July 15, 1997 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Terrance L. Harrington, AICP c?tr"°''`` Director of Planning Chairman of the Board '-e;~• ?. Hamlett, Roanoke County of Roanoke, Virginia First Vice Chairman Romer D. Neathawk, Richmond Post Office Box 29800 Second Vice Chairman ~--rs A. Barbour, Esq., Roanoke Virginia 24018-0798 Roanoke SeeTetary , --tc C. Lunsford, Roanoke Treasurer ,._r. ~1. Hudgins, Jr., Salem Dear Terry: :ti71'::Yi-at?i~ti c,~~--a T. Breit, Fredericksburg all ~ o~ a Thank you for the opportunity to make application to The County of Roanoke to Rchmond k Jr ~!,na ~li .`~':c-.aelR. Frey, Centreville - I renew ours ecial use ermlt so that we may continue The Valleypointe After P P --.mast. Haake Centreville ' :ti_.gHopkina,Ashland n rt erles. AS I mentioned to ou we do have the endorsement of our Hours Co ce S y , -~ ?. Hudson, Falls Church :~.~zamH.Hvtton,Mechanicsville hosts, Liberty Property Trust, for this application process. =s:v".-ee, Roanoke - -~: AlcCall, L chburg _.. Yn _ vndall McGuire, Richmond ?=~.ar!.4.Moats, Woodbridge There are no major changes from when we last made application 5 years ago .c+e^.:V. Mortis, Virginia Beach -:: r,'.C. Motltha, Jr., Salem except for the development which continues within the corporate park. This .r-rr: L Owens, Roanoke z y, h6dlothian ' affords more defined parking areas around the completed buildings in addition to : len Thomas, Newport News ? n ke ;;o~ .~ li '~ what the county permits us to have on Valleypointe Parkway during the concert e . a'.:1 Mintz, Falls Church season from 5 to 9 p.m. ?resident ~:_rr. Knight Certainly, I will be happy to provide you with any additional supporting 5 a: Headquarters ~' information or answer any questions prior to the meetings. Feel free to call -- 48416Ulliamson Rd. - P.O. Boz 5496 except on Thursdays. Roanoke Va. 24012-2390 .540) 362-1656 (local) ?00-365-1656 (Va. only) 540) 563-89281faz) Sincerely, C-ccs 5319 Castle PL, Suite A. _ rails Church, Va. 22044-1907 ) ~T03) 538-4480 (phone) / _G /1 /1~~~ ' 1703) 237-0249 ((ax) x;703) 538-2407 Cf7~ / V 7~.,C~.-G1, Susan S. Knight 5291 laurel Grove Road, Suite 2 Vice President - '~lechanicsville, Va. 23116-2969 ;804)746-1007 (phone) Roanoke-Blue Ridgpe Rep~77on _ (804) 746-9214 (fax) C 7 _ 3101 Magic Hollow Blvd. Virginia Beach, Va. 23456.3010 (757) 468-3140 (phone) ~$ (757) 468-3452 (fax) Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9185 Virginia Beach, Va. 23450-9185 -_ .. ; Enclosure ~ - ~ . 1 Camp Easter Seal-East ) - -, - _ - 20500 Easter Seal Dr. _ _ - Milford, Va. 22514-9730 cc: Robert Crawford (804) 633-9855 .--: Camp Easter Seal-West ~ Liberty Property Development Corp. - . to 2, Box 534 ~ Castle, Va. 24127-9566 )864-5750 - Federal Tax LD. - p54-0515735 Formerly The Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc. of Virginia '..~- 'a fly ants ~I,LEYI'OINTE • • Concert Series April 17 The Embers f 24 The Entertainers May 1 The Breeze ~ 8 North Tower 15 Bill & Ammon, The Original Rhondels 22 The Band of Oz .~ 29 Fat Ammon's Band June 5 The Wailers ~` 12 The Fabulous Cruisers 19 The Part-Time Party Time Band 26 Maurice Williams & The Zodiacs Jul y cowmen ~' 10 The Fantastic Shakers ~ 17 Clifford Curry 24 The Voltage Brothers r 31 The Spontanes August e Breeze ~ 14 Bill & Ammon, The Original Rhondels 21 The Embers ~' 28 The Kays s open 5:30-8 p. m. Concerts 6-8:30 p. m. Admission $3, adults, ~n under 72 free. No outside food, beverages, coolers, or picnic its permitted. Casual attire suggested, shirt and shoes required. ruble ID required of all patrons 25 years and younger. Buses welcome. A/1 proceeds benefrt programs and services of The Easter Seal Society of Virginia, Inc. The 1997 \~ {{ ~~~ L ~~ .. P d ~- -Pa aoar~t~ot~ ~' ~I ~~ ~ ad Ci s~~~ ~ cy I p, p~ - ~l ~I .~ ~ ~. ~~ ~~~ "J I~ v P` Y ` ~~. / a.. ~ //''~~ ~~~ a, P ~ a ~ ;. ° a~ ~ ~ 4 - P ~~. 1.~ A~ ~C1 0 x W w Q -•~ d a J 4 ~~ , G X . ~~~ -~ /9~' o d~ .. ~ ~ ~~.~ --_ ~~ ~~ -----_.. - _ '---~_ z ~ -~. w ~ ~ F"" S' ---i u .[~ `~ "mss h~~ `~~ era ~ / ~ 0 .~~ 9 cy C'OR~UST HNE' S Q ~ x q 13. '..' :. G C~ ~' .:.. `~t~ •~ ~"~ Fp LEh10 TON .:>. ,a~Ra:: ,.": •.. 'O ~• P ~ ~ Jed P' .~f • ~ ^ C ~ ~~ ~y°ryTO O ` ;~ ``~ - `=T ~~'sr~~i,Q,GTS,H~OR Ir O ~~ 4.~/ o~v ~ q'Sgr, y:Q~~ ,~:kv ~r~:.R~.vf CCP.? ~~~ PENTECC 90pNG J O,9 ..~-~> R£Sf~ CF.v ~^ O ~' ''^~R d HOUNES ~9'j' ~R~FS ~fC)fW~,,IpHNGCHUR Tt ~~ C R Q. ' i---~ I NORiN 14.2 l~, c ~ ~~ ~ ,~ 14.1 ~, ~ 13x1 ac A O •~ ~~4 t} ~o> ~y 2 1. l d ~ ...-, Cf`~ 6 ~, ~ 9 K.9 4 `C. ' p M.3 e' 2.9~ ~c ~` 14 4 O .~ +~ ~ J~2 east ~e waa.er ,Nr/~w/ I~ryerf Cam i ~ i ~/ ~ ? M.T 7 ~ ~.1 *•el EK ~~ ~SI ~1 , ' ~ era ' f ~,e G\'~ /~co F~ i ~~ / G s •~- ~ - ~ _... ~.e 6 ~~" Ftt 1390-~ ~~ ~~ . f Mtec• Un4) ~. ~ .~- ~ .. ' ~ ~, / ' aw„ T DEPAR'TMEN'T OF PLANNING <_ AND ZONING ' .~ ,,, . C.(1J I Lf\ JLnL Jvvi ~ ~ t v. . SPECIAL USE PERMIT 37.07-1-14.6 - COUNTY OF f~OANOKE DEPT. OF f~LANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard t3r.• • P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 21018 (540 772-2068 FAX (51+0) 772'2 1 08 T ~ For s[a/f use only !g rl~tc rceci cd:" rr_ i •ed by~.~, 7 22 q ~ ~ ^pplieation (~ ~ PC/B !1 date: . ~,~-1-~ , ~ Se . ~ 9q1• placards issued: ~ . S S ~te: 9 , 1 3 19 ~ Case Number ~ _ ~ _ - .:~• ll J Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ® REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: rtarc I. Wilson ~ Phone: G3-1133 (Fl) Address: 5001 Glenvar sleights Slvd. Zip Code Salem, VA 24153 Owner's name: Joe D. ~ Imogene Ylingate Phone: ~ e86-0472 (ld) Address: G854 Campbell Drive Zip Cod Salem, VA 24153 Location of propert Tax Map Number: ~ ~•/c~ _~_6 ~ Peters Creek Road ~~ :~~ ~~^^'~` ~~lagisterial District: .Catawba Roanoke, VA 24019 Community Planning Area: Peters Creel: Size of parcel (sf: Existing Zoning: R-1 ~ • 0.G5 ~ 'acres Existing Land Use: Vacant sq.ft. :~: :~: ~~ • ~r~ Proposed Zoning: C-2 For srarr Use o~;y Proposed Land Use: Automotive Service, minor use Type: II1SllranCe f~~e11C}7 Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, v~id;t,, and frontage requirer~lerits of tl~e requested distri".' YES X NO IF PJU, A VAFI ;?JCE IS REOUIRED FIRS-i~. 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 prof~~r~d •:~ith this request? YES NO X Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in cr::_r ;o: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF Ai`J'f OF THESE ITEMS ARE fvIISSING OR INCOMPLETE. rvs v ws v Consultation ~ 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan .;,, Application ~•/". Metes and bounds description ,;,w, Justification ~"" Water and sewer application ws v Application fee =~ Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property o~•~ners l hereby certify that l am either the owner o/ the property or the owner's ages[ or conlracr purchaser and am acting with the know/edge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: ' ~ ~ - ,. _. For StaN Use Only: Casc Nurtiber ~plicant Mr Marc WilsonMarc Wilson 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. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-31 as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The intended uses proposed by Mr. Wilson are well-established and respected businesses already located in Roanoke City on Peters Creek Road within half mile of this site. Their customer base covers the entire Roanoke Valley and beyond. The ability of this customer base to locate and have simple access is crucial. It is Mr. Wilson's intent to provide an aesthetically pleasing site development with safe and convenient access having minimal impact on surrounding properties. Driveways are planned to minimize impact on Peters Creek Road. Rezoning of lot #6 to C-2 will provide the necessary area needed to prevent overcrowding of the site. Please explain how the project conforms to the gen=ral guidelines and policies contained in the Roanok= County mprehensive Plan. Lot #7 (currently zoned C-2) will be developed as an automotive service facility known as The Sportscar Clinic. As shown on the concept plan, the rezoning of lot #6 to C-2 will allow Mr. Wilson to develop this site in an uncrowded and attractive fashion, utilizing the existing topography to greatest advantage. The office building provides an effective and attractive transition from lot #7 to the residential site behind lot #6. This area of Roanoke County has been in a steady state of transition from residential to commercial for several years. This development proposal follows this trend in an orderly and pleasing way with a positive, minimal impact on the surrounding community. 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. This development plan takes fullest advantage of the site's existing topography. Simple and safe flow of traffic ~ is provided by locating the entrances and exits as far from the corner as possible. Adequate public utilities are already available to the site. Intended ', uses are quality, clean, and upscale businesses with hours of operation Monday through ~ - Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. No weekend, holiday or evening activities are intended. ,' - ~~ S Of tSG p Clinic • Quality Import Car Servlca To whom it may concern: .. ~_. The intent of this plan is to locate my already established business from its rented location at 5153 Peters Creek Road to 3328 Peters Creek Road. As founder and president of AMS, Inc., t/a The Sportscar Clinic, I have, for 22 years strived to project the image of quality and professionalism in my business. Seven years ago, we took one of the ugliest sites on Peters Creek Road and developed it into Roanoke's most respected independent automotive service facility. Unfortunately this is rented property with limited possibilities for the image I wish to project. Five years ago, I bought a retail carpet store along Montgomery County's busiest corridor and developed it into a service facility that breaks the mold of the average repair shop. Please see the enclosed newsletter for more information about my business. My intent is to do even better with this development. The proposed office building will house my father-in-law's businesses, an insurance agency and travel agency. He has been well established on Peters Creek Road for over 13 years. Thank you for your attention to this request. ~.- Marc Wilson ~5 North Franklin Street ;; S 153 Peters Creek Road 'stiansbur , VA 24073 _ _ _ g ~ ~ _ .Roanoke, Virginia 24019 (730) 382-1133 FAX (703) 382-1470 (703) 563-1133 ~ - .a • • o° , ~ ~^ \ /~ / ~'. / \ \\~~ ~ ~ 2j4i p lY / ~ ~ ~ ~ / 9 \ \ ~ 35' BUFFER YAR\ ~~ LOT 6 \ ~ ~} 0.65 ACRE ~ ' \ `~l~ ~ T ` \pp• E ~ ~~ 20' SETBACK ~ __ ~ ~ . ~ / / ! PROPOSED ~~ ~ .ONE-STORY. ~ :~,` '' , 5 ~" :;BUILDING W/ ~ - _ - ~ ~, / ~~BASEMENT `~/ o ~- (2,350 ..S F~ ,. ~~ ~ ~ I ¢~,~ z~ ~ 1~ 3 a v ,~ ~ o N ~o, SCREEN/ 2 / `FENCE / `~ i r --- 1 t1 PROPOSED ~ ~~ =ONE-STORY BUILDING a _. ,(6,200 S.F) ~'~~ A T K ' SE B C 20 Sa7'35'w _ - - - 205.12' - - PETERS CREEK ROAD (VA. RTE. 117) _________ (WEST BOUND LANE) ______ ~~ o~ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN scA,L~ r - ao•-o~ TOTAL PARKNQ = 4f SPACE3 4 / ~ ~- o I ~ Lv c ~ ~ Q >e c~ / v /~ r~ of / N/N {/N If ~ / _ _ J LOT 7 0.75 ACRE / -----6d _5 ~~0 ~ oo° N • • I Ndld 1Vld 9NLLSiX~ I ~, I A A f d ~~~~ (Oyu 1y Y ` ~~ ~` I ~ RAY ~ y , G `' `~` ~ ~ / ` ~ ` . _ # / ~ ~ ~ ~~~ \I I i / ~ )/ / I ~- }~ .~, s t e i • 8 / £ ~I~ ~I i ~ i ib f ~ ~ ~ ~~ 7 h ``~ +r.s +~ Z i 4ys\ 3 • ~~~ ~. a ~ o ` C~" O~' ~ C ~• ~ \.". _ NOaTH ILAk~ J1~ 4P r~ p , ROAN ~•~~'T P`~ °P O 1 r 9 . , ~ ' _ ~E' WttL i / ) • •~ °~ pOS' / Q7 ADMI'NISIRQI.1~~/ T~,~~GN~P-/Q ~ _.~ WIVIEOA_lE 4L ~'~9A ~...:: .Y ~~, O,o 0 -_\ \\°~ .-"~~~ `cp ~~soF9 0°~-~ •I ~ i+oat``S' a d ~ti <. ~~, j O~ 53 COVE' ~ ~\•~~ ~~~5<,'~t1Q ~Y` ; : '~y~P 51~ ~~,. J~~ rip RY _ ESQ/. ~F.~~'L~'! \r.: ~ of °•f~ `r 9~ r /~~ ~ '~• 1 780 °~N ~ 629 • ~ ~ s R I \ o w~` ~~ A ROW Y ~ Q:, DR O 404 .pP~ ~. °/) ? A 1r Z +,, ~~ .Q s;.• MII~R ~r7 C,,, •~ ~'~ ~ ~ 30 y=== ~ I - 11 4 4.34 4c ~ X 2 h Et~• ~ 'a I R-1 ,== s 2B u Rd's 'G I s= .••;, 27 r 26 ~ ro ~ a~~v,~ s r s ` ~ , ~ ~ R C@ •X cJ d 4i ai ' 1~)9 24 a IS 1y7o ~>aJ , o : a V LYa ~ ^ ~ O 9.1 I)6.~T M 01 n . ^ • 4.33 Ac u..a C~ 16 4 S 12 Y J % ~1911~~ ~ 22 s + ,, ~ + ifs '' t 1911 = _, O {~ K i~ ~ y `aO o ` 1 ~ V 21 + r 17 1 9 ~ I I r 8 St Pou/ Eronyencoi Y `~y5 ~ 1 0 13 LWAIrOn CAurcn ~. ~ ~ ~ S~. ~ ~ • 20 ~ j~~ , I 1 ~ y~~~• c M 19 `o ? ~ b C •t 7700/ , * - ~ ' - 1909 D 19 \ r ~ 191 e Y-~ ~ ~ ~. I NORiN I ~~ ~ .~ r Pao sza-I.2z O I.OOAcIDI aesac Ic) ~/ro» 6bpa:/ CAurcA 1 ,~1a Z .0 ? LDOAC ~~.~ s Su • 5 4 ~~ 1i3o J~\ ~a-a ~t i a c s ~ O ` C sita T ~ / ~~ o ~` ~ ~t• / 8 C2 _~ >1 s. ?> ~ ~0Z is~ ar r~ • Y V p ~ri Y~ 191. , ,~ Q' 7 ~ R ~ ~~ s ~a 110 1931 47 - : ~ oft . 43 C i ~ ~ 1 ~~ , ,~ ~.,- 48 s Q,cP i~ ~ ; ~~~ri eel ~' r .~ .,. 49 '~to L36Ac C~ ~`°G, ~' . n 0te~ ~ DEPAP.TMFIV'r OF .PLP.NNIhG A~TD ZONING a ~QO i MARC I. WILSON R-1 to C-2 37.14-1-6 • COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 ~~Z9~~~ ~~~ ~~~5, ~r Fnr Staff use o lv date eceived:" ZS 97 received by: Z/~ sr application fee: PC/B A date: ~ /9~ placards issued: 8 y~a; X97 Case Number: I ~ ~ f • Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ~ ^VARIANCE ® REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE nt's name: F. W. Finney Construction Corp. a Applic Phone• ` ` Address: 225 Lee Avenue, Vinton, Virginia r ,~ / Zip de:]24179 x ~~~ C ' Phone orp. Owner s name: F. W. Finney Construction Address: 225 Lee Avenue, Vinton, Virginia Zip Code: 241?9 Location of property: i Tax Map Number: 1.10-1-8 • 1.10-2- 0 ~~~tagisterial District: Vinton Montgomery Village Subdivision ^ Intersection Finney Dr. & Elizabeth r ~I~j_~~,,~} ommunity Planning Area: Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: AG-~ ~ ~~ ~ 10+ acres Existing Land Use: ti:~-~~rnved ~'a .ol sq.ft. . Y Proposed Zoning: R-1 For Stall Use Only Proposed Land Use:Development as reside~:tial housing-single family Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES X NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being prof~~r=_d with this request? YES NO X Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in orc~r to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws ~ v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan Application fee Application ~-t Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable "` Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners Justification '~~ 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 kngwledge and consent of the owner. F'. W. ~~e ruction Corp . Owner's Signature: gy^r~~ `!-~ F. W. Finney, President CRANWELL MOORE ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW POST OFFICE BOX 1~80a, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2a022-180a TELEPHONE (540) 044.1000 FACSI NILE (Sa0) 3aa-7073 July 25, 1997 DELIVERED BY HAND Mr. Terry Harrington County of Roanoke Dept. Of Planning and Zoning 5204 Bernard Dr. P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Re: F. W. Finney Construction Corp. --Proposed Rezoning of Portions of Tas Map Nos. 71.10-1-8 and 71.10-2-70 Dear Mr. Harrington: Enclosed with this letter please find an application, submitted on behalf of F. W. Finney Construction Corp. (Finney), to have the above referenced parcels of land rezoned from AG-3 to R-1 classification. The application has been completed according to the instructions you provided during our consultation Wednesday, July 23, 1997. This letter, in addition to serving as an introduction, is intended to fulfill the justification requirement of the application. Parce171.10-2-70 is a portion of a 180+ acre tract Finney purchased in 1970 from T. W. Muse. At the time of the purchase, the property was zoned for agricultural use and the county rezoned the entire tract for residential use. Finney proceeded systematically to develop the tract under the name of Montgomery Village Subdivision. On January 10, 1979, Finney acquired the 9.44 acre parcel, # 71.10-1-8, from Walter Ballard Settles. The most recent phase of development, Montgomery Village, Section 8; also known as River Ridge, was approved by the County on August 9, 1988. During the county's review of the Section 8 development, plans for the future development of the remaining property were discussed. Specifically, the county required Finney to enlarge the storm water drainage and retention features of Section 8, to accommodate the volume of storm water runoff anticipated once Sections 9 and 10 were also completed. Finney, having discussed its development plans with the county in great detail during the review process for Section 8, believed that incorporation of the storm water drainage requirements of its anticipated projects into the approved plans for Section 8 represented a tacit understanding between the county and itself as to those anticipated projects. • LAW OFFICES 111 VIRGINIA AVENUE WEST, VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 ..~. Mr. Terry Harrington July 25, 1997' Page 2 The subject property had been zoned for residential use ever since it was purchased, and Finney, in ongoing consultation with the County, had continuously developed the property in a manner consistent with that zoning classification. Finney, therefore, reasonably expected that the remaining parcels would not be considered for rezoning. In 1992, however, the County developed and implemented a comprehensive rezoning plan pursuant to which nearly half of Finney's remaining property vas reclassified AG-3, apparently as the result of the rezoning line having been drawn to correspond to a break in the tax map. Because of the comprehensive nature of the rezoning, individual landowners were not given notice that their land would be effected by the changes, and Finney, relying on previous discussions with the County, recorded no objection to the comprehensive rezoning plan. On June 19, 1997, Finney submitted its plans for development of Montgomery Village, Section 9, to the County Department of Engineering and Inspection. During the County's review, the disparity in zoning was brought to Finney's attention for the first time. As the result, Finney is submitting this application to correct what Finney believes was a mistake in the comprehensive plan, which changed the zoning of its property in such a fashion as to completely prevent the use it has always intended. The mistaken characterization, it appears, was based on a break in the tax map, rather than on an on-the-ground assessment of the appropriate use of the subject property. Not only was Finney unaware of the change, during the period since the rezoning Finney has continued to pay taxes on the property at the higher residential tax rate, which is how the County has taxed the property because part of it remained zoned as R-1. This, despite the fact that the AG-3 zoning makes it impossible to develop the remaining portions as residential property. In light of the problem which has arisen with respect to the zoning of subject property, Finney has thoroughly reviewed its plans, to determine whether there might be any legitimate basis for the AG-3 classification. It is Finney's position that there will be no negative impact to surrounding property owners or to county resources as the result of the requested rezoning, and that the change in 1992 was made by mistake. For these reasons Finney asks that the Planning and Zoning Staff recommend approval of this application to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible opportunity. We understand that your department accepts the development plans, previously submitted by Finney, as the concept plan required by_the County application for rezoning; and, that it will not be necessary for Finney to submit a separate water and sewer application and planimetric maps. You also indicated the list of adjoining property owners will be drawn from your offices files, and that the application fee will be waived. The development plans contain metes and bounds references for description of the portion of the subject property currently under review for development. We do not have a separate description in paragraph form; however, if • "° • • Mr. Terry Harrington July 25, 1997' Page 3 one is needed, we will see if we can develop one. With respect to the 9.44 acre parcel, intended for development as Section 10, a despcription is enclosed. Please let us know if there is anything else you require for this application to be considered complete. Otherwise, we look forward to receiving the notices for appropriate posting. Enclosure cc: F. W. Finney Very truly yours, CRANWELL & MOO By: Kevin L. Pearson • C ~~ ~ ~ - b MaVy~ i, 1~-~`b~ ~ 1 ~ -. .. . ~ m MD=ORO AV \ ,,. f' ~ ,a 7L alL1b~RNC AV j~ i ` - ~ BOURNE W a . > ~ ~,'/ '1` O y ~ ~ : ~~. ~ •. . 7VPHE P AV J. ~ .ICGL ~RFE 7 o ~; G]w - N SE o U.Y+ ~ Jr -~ ~ h4.~01 RO i, -~-\-~ TR.ill' ER! PeRK ~ l~ --~~ AM~ y _ _ ~~ i! - f ~'*C ~' N 1 1 ~ M~CM1M c,. Eulz~e CY j ~ ~' L / r~ ~ ~ L _ ..7 tar .d ~R ~C~/ ~ n ~ ~ a ~ ~~fd P INiq p EXPLORE i (~ Q ~: c0. v1AG pL 1 G e~~7..oc •71ON PARX \ ~ r.ts ~ r ~,,,,, ...n S 7. z9 a. 6 T a~~` R-~ F ~~ij %~ ~ ,3 ~: ~~ ~ AG• 3 1:1 u rr,~ o-f.i sf.r„ r ~...... J ~ .M DEPARTMEN'T' OF PLAIVIVIl~TG AND ZONING .~ ,,, fr ,EOM ~~ b~ ' - Gf~ 1 ~ fl iii , ~~ ,~ ~ ., ~ tef.~ ° D ~ 7 3 a2 45 a N , f~6j v ~ ~ `~, I.x,c p a3 '~ f 63 ~O • '~ - 2a_ i~ y , I D .II ~f , ~ µ l - , _ R-! a /CM, 1' nn ~_ '' ISM a t~ i ~;- Oc Ezc>< . ~ a ZS o'4 sew n ~ . a 1L9Z ,Or,.V' ~ ; c o L ~ tfr IC ,f°; e ,.:,.. ~ ~ t °~' ._'- ? ~ ,- 19'„9; ~+, ' 4 a• a =. Y y a .ns~ e a . _ ~ _ x: a . So . , ,.,., r'~ Ala xi' ; 1Ho,w Gr. ~R71 ,.,. a t -~ _ ~` 3 - ~ fff, 16 n „~, ' a - J .,., • ~ 17 - '° . ~ - it ~ ¢ ~ ~ - z " . ~ >e.. 1D ,21 -L ~" ,. .af• al ~~t~ T ~ Il 20 a2 ? .18 °,e °~ r /~yJ 9.. ~~ O EI40arn ~a r• e ti3~ tI ~ ,f~ ,,. f f ~ ., naof .a:• ~ ` ~ 5 u FoW. FINNEY CONSTRUCTION CORP. AG-3 TO R-1 P/0 71,10-1-3 & P/0 71.10-2-70 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 5-21 AND 5-24 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND SECTION 30-29-2 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF A KENNEL COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Staff contacted the other Roanoke Palley localities to see how this is being handled. The results were: Roanoke City allows up to 4 dogs, Salem allows up to 3 dogs, and Vinton allows up to 2 dogs. Based on this information it seems reasonable to increase the number of dogs allowed from 2 to 3. I really expect this to increase the number of complaints rather than decrease them because most complaints come from neighbors not dog owners. If it results in more animals being picked up and boarded at the SPCA, we will address any increased costs in next year's budget. At your July 22, 1997 meeting the Board directed the staff to prepare the necessary amendments to allow Roanoke County residents the right to have up to three dogs without the necessity of obtaining a Special Use Permit for a private kennel. These amendments involve changes to the county code and the zoning ordinance. The staff has prepared these amendments for the Board's review and adoption. The attached ordinance modifies Section 30-29-2 of the zoning ordinance to redefine the threshold of a private kennel from three dogs to four dogs. Similar changes are made in Sections 5-21 and 5-24 of the County Code. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and review the zoning ordinance changes on September 2, 1997 and will forward their ~-~ 2 recommendation to you. The Board's public hearing and action can be set for September 23, 1997. Staff recommends as follows: 1. The Board hold first reading on the attached ordinance on August 19, 1997 and schedule the public hearing and second reading for September 23, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, Terrance L HarY`i~ton, AICP Director f Planning and Zoning Approved, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred 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, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 5-21. DEFINITIONS AND SECTION 5-24. LIMITATIONS ON NUMBER KEPT PER DWELLING UNIT OF ARTICLE II. DOGS, CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS OF CHAPTER 5 ANIMALS AND FOWLS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PERMIT THE KEEPING OF AS MANY AS THREE (3) DOGS IN A DWELLING UNIT AND SECTION 30-29-2. RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES (PRIVATE KENNEL) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, in the interest of public necessity, convenience, and general welfare, the Board of Supervisors hereby wishes to amend those portions of the Roanoke County Code which establish limits as to the number of dogs which may be kept in any dwelling unit in the county; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 1992, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopted Ordinance 82592-12 which enacted a new zoning ordinance for Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for Roanoke County will hold its public hearing on this amendment on September 2, 1997, and will make a recommendation concerning approval of the ordinance adopting this amendment to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law, and that the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 19, 1997; and the second reading and public hearing will be held on September 23, 1997. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that Article II. DOGS, CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS of Chapter 5, ANIMALS AND FOWLS and ~~ Section 30-29-2. RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 5-21. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section, unless otherwise indicated to the contrary: Kennel: An enclosure or structure used to house, shelter, restrain, exercise, board, breed, handle or otherwise keep or care for more than ~e-(~} dogs `t sip{{}} months of age or older, from which they cannot escape. The enclosure or structure shall not mean a dwelling or a fence used to demarcate a property line. Sec. 5-24. Limitation on number kept per dwelling unit. (a) The harboring or keeping of more than C} ewe-(-~~ dogs over four (4) months of age per dwelling shall be unlawful, unless a private kennel license has been issued pursuant to this article. The harboring or keeping of more than six (6) cats over four (4) months of age, of which no more than two (2) may be fertile, per dwelling shall be unlawful. The requirements of this section shall not apply to any dwelling which is part of an active agricultural operation or usage as defined by the zoning ordinance for the county. 2 -~' Section 30-29-2. RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Kennel, Private -The keeping, breeding, raising, showing or training of tree or more dogs over sip four months of age for personal enjoyment of the owner or occupants of the property, and for which commercial gain is not the primary objective. 2. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. c:\wp51\doc\agenda\animal\animal.ord 3 ~Ililllllllliilllilllllilllllilllllllilllllllllllllilillllllllll Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllilllllill Ililllilll1111111,~j) ~ - - - _. _ ~, _ _ ~t AGENDA ITEM NO. -'~ - ~ __ -~ ~ - APPEARANCE REQUEST ..- _ ~- - ~~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZE COMMENTS .. / ~ ~_ SUBJECT: 1 n"1 ~ i - + 1 rl c~ ~ i I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisorsjto 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 s BELOW: ~-- -_ ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to _ do otherwise. - `~ - ' ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized ,.~ speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise tour#esy at all times. o ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. ... ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP • SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ._ __ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK s .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ s ~~ ~~ ~~ o~ ~ ~r i i ~~ ~ i ' ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ [[1111I1l1[Illt[I11lIIIII[IIIII11111111111111111i[Illlllllt[11i11 ll1[ilillllll11111111111111111111111111111[illlli1111111111![11~ ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance Authorizing the Release of an Existing 20-foot Easement and the Acceptance of a Replacement Easement on the Property of Mansell and Sandra Hopkins COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: A 20-foot roadway easement was granted to Bridlewood Associates as recorded in D.B. 1079, pg. 382 and dated September 12, 1977. The purpose of this easement was to provide access to a well lot serving the Bridlewood Subdivision. Roanoke County acquired the Bridlewood Water System September 1, 1990 as well as all property and assets as recorded in D.B. 1330. It was recently brought to our attention that the subject easement was never utilized. Access to the well lot and water line has been along an existing gravel drive that serves the Hopkins property as shown on the attached sketch. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The property owners have requested that Roanoke County vacate the existing easement, accept a new easement along the existing gravel drive, and agree to continue sharing equally the cost of maintenance on the existing gravel driveway. The original well is no longer in use and Bridlewood Subdivision is now served by Spring Hollow, however, this property is the only viable access to a water line connecting Bridlewood and Mount Vernon Forest subdivisions. Also, the well lot property contains a pressure reducing station that must be checked on a regular basis. =-L FISCAL IMPACT: The property owners request will not have a fiscal impact on Roanoke County. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative 1: Vacate the existing access easement and accept a new easement along the existing drive. This will allow Roanoke County to maintain access to our existing water appurtenances. Alternative 2: Retain our existing easement and construct a new roadway along this easement. This alternative will allow the County to retain access to our facilities, but will require a significant expenditure of funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Alternative 1 be approved following a second reading of the attached ordinance. SUBMITTED BY: X t ~-~? ~~--,, Gary Robe son, P.E. Utility Dir ctor ACTION Approved ( ) Denied () _ Received ( ) Referred _ to Motion by: APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 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, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF AN EXISTING 20' EASEMENT AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONVEYANCE OF A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT, ALL ON THE PROPERTY OF MANSELL HERBERT HOPKINS, III AND SANDRA L. HOPKINS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCESS TO CERTAIN PUBLIC WATER FACILITIES WHEREAS, Mansell Herbert Hopkins, III and Sandra L. Hopkins are the owners of 4.1681 acres of real estate, more completely described in a deed recorded in Deed Book 1432, at page 221, and this property is served by a gravel driveway which has access to Bridlewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County owns a twenty (20) foot right-of-way across this property for access to certain water pumping facilities, granted by a deed recorded in Deed Book 1079, at page 382; and, WHEREAS, this right-of-way has never been used by the County, rather the County has been using the existing gravel driveway of the Hopkins'; and, WHEREAS, the Hopkins' have requested that the County agree to eliminate the easement across their property, and to agree to share equally the cost of maintenance of the existing gravel driveway. BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that: 1) That the County of Roanoke hereby agrees to release and convey any and all right title and interest that it may own in that certain twenty (20) foot right-of-way across the property of Mansell Herbert G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\HOPKEASE.ORD ~-Z Hopkins, III and Sandra L. Hopkins to said Mansell Herbert Hopkins, III and Sandra L. Hopkins. 2) That the County of Roanoke hereby accepts the conveyance of an easement across the property of Mansell Herbert Hopkins, III and Sandra L. Hopkins, said easement being on, through and over the existing gravel drive, the pathway of which is shown on the survey attached hereto and incorporated herein. The County agrees to share equally the cost of maintenance of the existing gravel driveway in its currently existing state or condition. 3) That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. 4) This ordinance shall be effective from and after its adoption. G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\HOPKEASE.ORD Z-Z ~I i g r~^ ~ ~i R VJ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 000 ~ ~ ~ 1 C .T [[[,, ~ A ~v ~ ~ a S m ~~ !! ~ ~ ~Y 0 ~ ~ ~• C ~ ~ ~ ~ i C e am~wy~ '2e~a ~ ~Q ` W N ~ w ' }}E ,K ~ ~ ~( j 7 fy~ H y ~ \ gm m ~ ~~ q OqY~ ~Q m•l~_ ~ntl c o ~ f0jrb C7 „~ q C-. q ;`~, ~ ~~ ~ f~A \ V C10o~ \ Feu ~ /G ¢I~ i(i, \~< \~oo ~ r t ~9~~U ? Y e ss'~ $ \ L. S~ del r~ ~ T~~r. Zy.,h ~-f. r `r a 4`S \ 4~~°p~ce or`3'.~~, /'° \ et \ fd" ~ vii n ~ i ~ \\ ~b~j. Off.! s ~ \ s i ~ = m m r y ~~ C ~Q Ob Y \ (er~ ~b L 02 N G~+Q~ ik,,,~y b*t~,y~ ~ M ezOFnr S"~'"4c,,,~ a ~~ti ~ Pro / ma rd _ - w ~'..- - + ~we~er`t~„ ~~oY !bo .'~~rs~~'ww~'~" _ ~........o . _ -* / i / ~ xw/- P ~ //L `~;~, ~ ~~ °°~~\ ~R:a ~. S,y5ro6%a i 'r~~s.~ , ~,y ~ ~'4 6. ~ ~ 0.0p 1 ~ ~ w ~ A \ \ &. • . mot ~~~ ~~ ~ e ~" -' ~ 1 ~ a~ 4 ~ 3~ ~~ ~5~ ~{. hY ~ W V ~_ eh 0 \ N gg ti h r~ K 8 ~ 4i \ .P ~ ~ ~~q ~~~ ~ ~, \ o ~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ a ~"~ ~ 4 ~~ `~ ~~ ~ ; ~ ~ / ~ WN o ~ s~ ~7 ~~ ao~ °~~ ~ ~' ~a9 0 WB ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ g~ ~~~~~ a ~g ~ ~o~q a ~~ •_ ~'%?~ N~ qy g ~ ee ~~e / f' ,~ / , ~g~g ~ 3 ~ FFI r //~ / y~~ ~~k~~~ ~~ ~o ~~ ~Q ~~~ ~ ~, _ as 'i ~`' \ // Oy^ S ~`~ ~ ... ~Q~ K OLD ~6 Fgo~v~ h Wo ~~4 ~. 4yyyyT~~ $a N[Mkl JfL7M'IMY Y96( II1p,~M1 P'1 ~ .~: ~' _ \W ~ ~T ~ > 99 ~~ ~~~ f ~~,~; ~~ ~ o i t' t i_ ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~,. r~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance Authorizing the Creation of and Financing for a Local Public Works Improvement Project, West Main Street Sewer Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ,Z~~ BACKGROUND: Several property owners along West Main Street petitioned Roanoke County for public sewer service in early 1996. On April 8, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved construction of a sewer line to serve this area. The project was estimated to cost $175,000 and was to be funded by a combination of the property owners that requested the extension and a loan from the general fund. At the time of approval, it was suggested that a special sewer service area be established that included a fee structure for recovering the construction costs of the sewer line as properties are connected. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The sewer line has been installed and is now in service. The attached ordinance establishes a special service area for the project with each participating property owner paying their share of the cost through a special connection fee. The special connection fee consists of a construction fee ($6,500 plus $20/foot for road frontage in excess of 100 feet) and the off-site facility fee at the time of connection. This fee is presently $1,500 for a residential connection. The ordinance also establishes a method of financing the project for the initial participating property owners. I3 Participating Property Owners Total Cost Amt. Paid Amt. to be Financed City of Salem $20,000 *$20,000 $0 Frito Lay 18,220 18,220 0 Ronald Moran 7,840 7,840 0 Ft. Lewis Baptist Church 10,380 10,380 0 Christian Life Fellowship Church 18,500 18,500 0 Lucy Clark 8,020 1,500 6,520 TOTAL $82,960 $76,440 $6,520 *City of Salem costs were credited to Roanoke County's cost share of Mason Creek Interceptor. FISCAL IMPACT: The final construction cost was $165,604 with Roanoke County's initial cost being $89,164. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached Ordinance after the second reading. SUBMITTED BY: i / \ ~: Gary Robe tson, P.E. Utility Dire for APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied (1 Received ( ) Referred to VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ _ _ Harrison _ _ Johnson _ _ Minnix _ _ Nickens ~~ ~~ ~' a ~a {rc w ~~' w ~ ~~~~ ~,./ off' :K~ 55 p'S' 2\ ~ ~/ 5 ~~^ 2 ~ 3,3'2 ~~ G ~ 2 ~ 3, 55 G J a ~ 3~2 , `,~ G 7 ~ .~i2~ 3 ~ R 55 ~ 26 ~' ~~ 21 ui m 55 ~ "' ~y,3' o F^ ~, 55 p w a~~? ~~ 2$ p~ ~ ° ~a ~ a w ca 5 5 4 F ~ 3/~ -~o 6 KoY 3, ~' a5 0 ~h G -'~ 6 3 ~~3 ~~'k 55 ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ n ~ Q3 3 ~ ~' ~~ La~~ S ~~/ e / .n 5 ~ gG~GN ~ 33 ~ ~` ~~ ~' ~' ' / o. `~~ ~ ~ ~~' s~ ~ ° ms ,n ~5 ~~~3 2'~5 / Q~ ' " r' ~ s' ~ °. s'~" 65 ~ °. S' / // hS O~J~3 W'~ 1 .~~ aWW ~ ~ ~M \ ~ ~ 54 ~ pf SPL ~ Z a ~~ ~~~ \ ~ ~ G~ ~,2' C W 5a O ~ ~ Gd ~~ d , ~ ~ W v3 0V fir, 5~~~ 2 , ~' \o~ J ~ w ~~o~ ~ 5 2 ~ f \ G~ \, \6 ~~ Gq~ 5~ `- r 5k 9~ k N ~ i ~ ~ ~ w`n~ ~ 5a~~ 2 . i r ~ t ~z wo x~ H~ nz l~'~coW w ~ ~ U ~w ~ ~~~~0 ww~aE'" ~~~~h Qa~~z O F., 0.+ Z O~ ~1'r ~ a o ~ 2-, ~ ~~, ~~ G~ 2,1 pz / ~ ~ .- a~ ~ R. ~ ~ ~ ~.~3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF AND FINANCING FOR A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, WEST MAIN STREET SEWER PROJECT WHEREAS, Action A-040996-1 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 9, 1996, approved a sanitary sewer extension along West Main Street, authorized the public/private partnership for construction of the sanitary sewer extension, and appropriated funds; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 072396-5 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 23, 1996, authorized the acquisition of necessary water and sewer line easements to construct the West Main Street Sewer Extension; and WHEREAS, the sewer line has been installed and is now in service; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public sewer system and the creation of a special utility (sewer) service area will alleviate a critical public health and safety problem; and WHEREAS, the first reading of the Ordinance was held on August 19, 1997, and the second reading was held September 9, 1997. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\WESTMAIN.WPD ~- 1- -3 1. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves the creation of and financing for a local public works improvement project, namely, public sewer extension for a portion of the West Main Street community. Pursuant to Action A-040996- 1 of the Board of Supervisors, the total construction cost of this public sewer project, estimated to be $175,000.00, is to be financed as follows: Property Owner Participation $ 54,520 General Fund to Provide for Economic Development 120,480 $175,000 The final construction cost was $165,604, with Roanoke County' initial cost being $89,164. Any citizen participation under paragraph 3. will be advanced as a loan from the Sewer Fund. 2. That the "Service Area" is shown and designated on the attached plat entitled "Proposed West Main Street Sanitary Sewer Extension, April 9, 1996" prepared by the Roanoke County Utility Department and identified as Exhibit 1. The West Main Street Sanitary Sewer Service Area is created for a period of ten years. Any owner of real estate within this service area may participate in and benefit from the public sewer extension to this service area by paying the sum of $6,500 plus $20/foot for road frontage in excess of 100 feet plus full off-site facilities fees applicable at the time of connection; thereafter, the cost to participate in the benefits of this service area shall be the prorata share of the construction costs plus the full off- site facility fee in effect at the time of application for utility C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\WESTMAIN.WPD 2 -~' i service, said costs to be paid in full and in advance of connection to the public sewer extension. 3. That the Board authorizes and approves the payment by the property owners in the project service area who elect to participate on or before April 9, 1996, their portion of the cost of extending the public sewer system to their properties in accordance with the following terms and conditions: (a) A down payment of $1,500 for off-site facility fee and financing of $6,500 for construction costs (plus $20/foot for road frontage in excess of 100 feet)to be financed for a maximum of 10 years at an interest rate of 8% percent per annum. (b) Property owner agrees to execute a promissory note or such other instrument as the County may require to secure this installment debt. (c) Property owner further agrees to execute such lien document or instrument as may be required by the County; said lien document or instrument to be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. This lien instrument or document shall secure the repayment of the promissory note by the property owners to the County and shall be a lien against the property of the owners. Property owner also agrees to pay the County any Clerk's fees or recordation costs which may be required to record any lien instrument or documents in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\WESTMAIN.WPD 3 .~ "~ 4. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect on and from the date of its adoption. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\WESTMAIN.WPD 4 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance Authorizing the Construction of and Financing for a Local Public Works Improvement Project -Mountain Heights Water Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~~~ BACKGROUND: Several residents in the Mountain Heights subdivision have petitioned Roanoke County for public water service. The residents in this subdivision have experienced poor water quality as well as a shortage of water. This neighborhood is adjacent to the North Transmission Line presently under construction. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County prepared a cost study for extending water service to this neighborhood. The estimated cost of construction was $168,000 to serve 52 properties. This study showed the cost per property owner to be $4,500 as shown below: Construction Cost $3,155 Off-Site Facility Fee 2,690 Off-Site Facility Fee Credit for Initial Participants -1.345 TOTAL $4,500 Letters were mailed to the residents in Mountain Heights subdivision on May 2, 1997. The purpose of these letters was to determine if a majority of the property owners were willing to pay $4,500 for water service. Of the fifty-two (52) letters sent, twenty-one (21) responded in the affirmative, which represents 40 percent of the available properties. After reviewing the responses, it was determined that only two positive responses were received from Wygal Drive and Rubley Lane. -~ If this area is removed from the project, forty-one (41) lots could be served with nineteen (19) properties expressing interest in water service. The cost per property for initial participation would remain at $4,500. Should the project be approved, it is suggested that a special water service area be established that includes a fee structure for recovering the construction costs of the water line as properties are connected. The special connection fee for properties that connect at a later date would include a construction cost of $3,155 and the off-site facility fee in effect at the time of connection (presently $2,690). ALTERNATIVES: Alternative 1: Approve construction of a water line in Mountain Heights Drive as shown on the attached sketch. Wygal Drive and Rubley Lane could be added at a later date if interest increased. The estimated cost of this alternative is $130,000. Alternative 2: Approve construction of a water line for the entire subdivision at an estimated cost of $168,000. Alternative 3: Do not approve the request for a water line extension. FISCAL IMPACT: If Alternative 1 is selected, the construction cost would be $130,000. The nineteen (19) property owners would be contributing $59,945 toward the construction. The remaining $70,055 would be advanced from the Public Works Participation Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that public water is needed in this neighborhood. Staff recommends that Alternative 1 be approved and that the attached ordinance be adopted after the second reading on September 9, 1997. SUBMITTED BY: l.~ ~ Gary Robe son, P.E. Utility Dir for APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison _ _ Johnson _ Minnix _ _ Nickens 15 11 No.008 P,02 _ ~d ~C ~ o x -~_ ~~ oc -~ ~.~ U. Exhibit 1 C C~ O~ ~~ _r a~ ~~ d~ o ~: ~~ U. ~~ ~~ '17 ~~ ~r ~c ~~ ~~ ~~ c c L r~ r- U. ~- DI3TRIC RGiMA ROK. CO, UTILITY DEPT. TEL~703-387-6230 Rug 13 97 ~-y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF AND FINANCING FOR A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS WATER PROJECT WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the County Administration has negotiated the extension of the public water system to the Mountain Heights community; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public water system and the creation of a special utility (water) service area will alleviate a critical public health and safety problem; and WHEREAS, several of the residents have requested that the County allow them to pay their portion of the costs of connection to the public water system over ten years in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 112288-7; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this Ordinance was held on August 19, 1997, and the second reading was held September 9, 1997. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project, namely, public water extension for a portion of the Mountain Heights C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\MTHEIGHT.WPD 1 ~- community. The total construction cost of this public water project is estimated to be $130,000, to be initially financed as follows: Citizen Participation (19 x $3,155) $59,945 Advance from Public Works Participation Fund $70,055 That there is hereby appropriated for this project the sum of $70,055 from the Public Works Participation Fund (which was established by the Board of Supervisors on July 23, 1996). Any citizen participation under paragraph 3. will be advanced as a loan from the Water Fund. 2. That the "Project Service Area" is shown and designated on the attached plat entitled "Proposed Waterline Extension Along Mountain Heights Drive" prepared by the Roanoke County Utility Department, dated August 11, 1997, and identified as Exhibit 1. The Mountain Heights Water Project Area is created for a period of ten years. Any owner of real estate within this service area may participate in and benefit from the public water extension to this service area by paying the sum of $3,155 toward construction costs plus the off-site facility fees applicable at the time of connection (presently $2,690), said costs to be paid in full and in advance of connection to the public water extension. 3. That the Board authorizes and approves the payment by the property owners in the project service area who elect to participate on or before December 9, 1997, of their portion of the cost of extending the public water system to their properties in accordance with the following terms and conditions: C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\MTHEIGHT.WPD 2 _ .-~ 1-~ (a) Payment of $4,500 per property owner/residential connection (of which $1,345 is one-half of the current $2,690 off-site facility fee based on a 5/8 inch water meter) to be financed for a maximum of 10 years at an interest rate of 8% percent per annum. (b) Property owners agree to execute a promissory note or such other instrument as the County may require to secure this installment debt. (c) Property owners further agree to execute such lien document or instrument as may be required by the County; said lien document or instrument to be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. This lien instrument or document shall secure the repayment of the promissory note by the property owners to the County and shall be a lien against the property of the owners. Property owners also agree to pay the County any Clerk's fees or recordation costs which may be required to record any lien instrument or documents in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. 4. That the payment by citizens in the project service area, in excess of the 19 anticipated with this ordinance, who elect to participate, shall be made to the various funds as follows: The off-site facility fee shall be returned to the Water Fund, and payment of the construction costs shall be returned to the Public Works Participation Fund until such time as the advance has been repaid. 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\MTHEIGHT.WPD 3 . ~ .,, purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this Ordinance shall take effect on and from the date of its adoption. C:\OFFICE\WPWZN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\MTHEIGHT.WPD 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ""~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of an Ordinance Authorizing the Exercise of an Option to Purchase and Authorizing the Acquisition and Acceptance of Approximately 1.83 Acres of Real Estate (Tax Map #97.05-01-01) from David E. Harris, Et Ux, Dorothy Harris Miller, Et Vir, and Carol Harris Likens for Parks and Recreation Access Purposes COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the July 22, 1997 Board of Supervisors' meeting, the Board authorized staff to execute an option 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 is developed on the back property along Back Creek. 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. The monies to cover the purchase of this site were included in the 1992 bond referendum for site acquisition. Staff is proceeding with the environmental audit and boundary survey which are needed to complete this transaction. 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 attached ordinance is presented for first reading with the second reading to be held on September 9, 1997. -~ FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase price of this property is $113,000. Monies are included in the 1992 bond account for the acquisition of property and was placed in a separate account based upon action of the Board of Supervisors on July 22, 1997. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the first reading of the attached ordinance which authorizes the County Administrator to exercise the option agreement to purchase the 1.83 acre site and house. Respectfully submitted, John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator ACTION Approved ()Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To Approv d by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 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, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 1.83 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP #97.05-01-01) FROM DAVID E. HARRIS, ET UX, DOROTHY HARRIS MILLER, ET VIR, AND CAROL HARRIS LIKENS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ACCESS PURPOSES WHEREAS, by Resolution #072297-2, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County approved an Option to Purchase Agreement dated July 14, 1997, wherein David E. Harris and Wanda L. Hams, Dorothy Hams 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, located on the west side of Merriman Road, across from the intersection with Starkey Road, having a street address of 6461 Merriman Road, Roanoke, Virginia, and being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 97.05-01-01, for the sum of $113,000.00; and, WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the option must be exercised on or before September 15, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the property is required to provide future access to new Parks and Recreations facilities; and, WHEREAS, by Resolution #072297-2, the Board of Supervisors appropriated the sum of $118,000 from the 1992 bond account to cover the purchase price of this property and the related costs of acquisition; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 19, 1997; the second reading was held on September 9, 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 and acquire from David E. Harris and Wanda L. Hams, Dorothy Hams Miller and James B. Miller, and Carol Hams Likens approximately 1.83 acres of real estate, together with any improvements thereon, rights incident thereto, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, located on the west side of Merriman Road, across from the intersection with Starkey Road, having a street address of 6461 Merriman Road, Roanoke, Virginia, and being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 97.05-01-01. 2. That the purchase price of $113,000.00, and the related costs of acquisition up to the sum of $5,000.00, be paid from the 1992 bond account. 3. 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. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. ~i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE 081997-6 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 54.00-1-2, 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. 54.00-1-2, 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, 1 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 0. 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 0. Thornhill and Mary F. Thornhill, dated November 10, 1966, recorded in Deed Book 815, page 448. 2 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. 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. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Melinda J. Cox, Economic Development Specialist Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance 3 Action No. Item No. -~_- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMII~TISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGI1~lIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of an ordinance authorizing the exercise of an Option to Purchase and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of approximately 463 acres of real estate (being identified on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map Numbers 54.00-1-2, 54.00-1-3, and 64.00-1-1) from Glenn-Mary Associates for a proposed new business park, and appropriating the sum of $1 million for the acquisition. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ^__/~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~.~~~ `qua" ~- ,~ . ~ ~~ ~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Glenn-Mary site contains approximately 463 acres in West Roanoke County and is strategically located on a frontage road for Interstate 81 which is rapidly becoming Virginia's Technology Corridor. This property also rests approximately 12 miles from the proposed interstate entrance for the Smart Road. The site has been qualified by the engineering and professional firms contracted under the umbrella of Design Team. A preliminary concept plan has been developed in a five month long process of Community Visioning which outlines design guidelines for future park development. The current projection is that this tract of land can accommodate approximately 15 to 20 small to medium sized business or commercial interests with a focused concentration on the high tech, research and development target market. Based on the endorsement of the Community Advisory Committee and the recommendations of the Design Team and the County Economic Development Department, we recommend that the property be purchased for $3,000,000. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The subject property is necessary for the development of a new business park. This parcel of land ~-1 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 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 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: Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the exercise of an Option to Purchase and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of approximately 463 acres from Glenn-Mary Associates, and appropriating the sum of $1 million from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance to be paid at settlement, and authorizing execution of the necessary documents for financing the remainder of the $3 million purchase price over the next two (2) years. .1-1 2. Adopt the second 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 one payment of $3 million dollars and no interest in this fiscal year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the second reading of the ordinance in order to acquire the Glenn- Mary site for economic development purposes and appropriating $1 million from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance Report. des ectfully submitted: ,/' ;n Melind Economic Development Specialist Approved: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson _ Harrison _ _ Minnix Nickens Attachment AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 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 54.00-1-2, 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. 54.00-1-2, 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, ~' ti 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. ~-1 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. Illililillllllllilllilllllllillllllllillllliliilllllillllllllll Iliilllllillilllliilllllllllllllllilllllllllll1111111111111111111j]J _ _ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~= AGENDA ITEM NO. ~/ _- _ _ APPE CE RE VEST Q _ _ ;_~ __ ~~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ° SUBJECT: __~~? 1 / ~~ ~~~C~' l` ~~: 1~~~~~~ - liL~~-~ ~~~'~ ° ° 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. ,= 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 arecognized s 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. c ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP ° SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK A UTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ° ... _° ~ __ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ° ° -- ° ° _. -- ° _ - - ° ~Illiilillllll111111111Iillllll1111111111111IIIIIiII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111iliIIllilllm Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE 081997-7 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 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 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 ~n~a~ ~~>~~~..~~3 ~~~;m.~t~d1<Ql~:pr~ which are necessary and incidental to the uses permitted therein; and .................. ................... (6) Sound for which a ~tafiartee S~'i~t~Q~' has been granted in accordance with section 13-23 of this article. (Ord. No. 102792-12, § 1, 10-27-92) 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 ~~:;:` O ~ ;.e°:. ''.::;:: ~r~`" e`" >ir~>~` `>~~I" ; " ~i~"~' eta waiver or artial waiver issued a 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. (Ord. No. 102792-12, § 1, 10-27-92) 2) That this ordinance shall be effective on and from August 19, 1997. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: .~• Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 3 cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Circuit Court Roy B. Willett, Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge Richard C. Pattisall, Judge Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge Steven A. McGraw, Clerk Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge Philip Trompeter, Judge John B. Ferguson, Judge Joseph P. Bounds, Judge Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge Ruth P. Bates, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court George W. Harris, Judge William Broadhurst, Judge Vincent Lilley, Judge Julian H. Raney, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library Ray Lavinder, Police Chief Richard Burch, Chief of Fire & Rescue Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Law Library, Singleton Osterhoudt Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance 0. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services William J. Rand, II1, Director, General Services Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue 4 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD CENTER THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: SECOND READING OF AN 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 BOUNTY 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 ,~`- 2 2 all sounds generated in commercial and industrial zoning 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:OOpm Monday thru Friday and 10:00am to 10:OOpm Saturday and Sunday. 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. ,~ - Z 3 Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board hold hold second reading and take action on the proposed noise ordinance amendments on August 19, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, Terrance L Ha r' gton, AICP Director f Pla ning and Zoning Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Approved, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 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, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 13-19 AND 13- 23, OF ARTICLE II "NOISE" OF CHAPTER 13 "OFFENSES- MISCELLANEOUS" OF THE ROANORE 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 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: G:\COMMON\NOISE.ORD ~- 2 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 ~~ ~t~<tj which are necessary and incidental :::...:..:.......:..:..:...:..... uses permitted therein; and ~x;.;:.>::.;:;:.;~. ( 6 ) Sound for which a vari~rtce `!3~re:~' has been granted in .......:..:....:::.. accordance with section 13-23 of this article. (Ord. No. 102792-12, § 1, 10-27-92) Sec. 13-23. IIndue 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. ................................................................................................................................... ~~;::::~>::>:~`~`4E'~~::>>:::<:>::~>~:~::>::»:~t.;~:~::::>::;~'ri~# ids waiver, or partial waiver,~~~~ssued~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 G:\COMMON\NOISE.ORD ~-L (Ord. No. 102792-12, § 1, 10-27-92) 2) That this ordinance shall be effective on and from August 19, 1997. G:\COMMON\NOISE.ORD shall be granted except upon written application therefor. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE 081997-8 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. ~~~ ,:ll..'~:~:Q~~~~:<~3p~~~S,SI"IB~~.rt51'~.,+~. .~ ~1'~'fl~~l"~~....>~pp~~~~f .............. ~~:... r~fer.aE~sr-~ t~~~ssit~rti~~wt~t~ ~~>re i~t~r`sc~~i`~hitt>>d~>=~.~~u:il.+~~r`~t` ....! .:..:::::::::::::::::::::::::.9.:::: ~:::::.: ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::.::.:::::: ~.::::::::::::::::::::::::. ~:. ~:::::::::::::::,:.::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::: su .~~cn~~nd~r~t<t~~`~t~il.~i~~ ~>t~ri~tr~~t~p~ vu~th ~~ Ce~s~t:::<':~::<::'~:~~ts..~>.:~ri~~:c~ ~:::v~>::~ >:::. • • • 't?::?:~)ii?` ;t ~::::i:iti:i...i:; ?i:;i:j;:;y}jv;::^}iiiiii}iii':iii}iiiiY'•iiiii:4iif :4iiiY :: •'4iiiiil4iiiiiiiY: 4ii:Piiif'iiiii}iiii:'i"•iii:4i:ii4ii"4iiiii}iiiiiiiiiY.4ii:i^:'ii: •: ivivSvi::::::•::::•: egrz~~~~e~:::r~~si~~ pr~.~e~srQrra~ ~itC~ sfrupfu~.at ~:in~er~r~g ~.arc~c~e:ur~1 :s.::.a: ::>::;::::i:::+::::::.:i::.i:.i::.i::.ii'.iii:.i:.i:.i:.:::.;;;::::.i:.i:.i:.:.i:.iii:.::::.;:.::.:::.;:.;';.;:<.:::.::.::.:iii:.ii:.:::.::.::.;:.;:.ii:.:':;:.::i:. :.:~:i:::':.5:::::`'::::::::::i?:':`':ii" ~~"%:yt:::::iii**i::i'i:;j:::':i':ii:;ii{i:i:~::iji::>..: .. ............... ................. .............. ........ ....................... ~.............i....... fig'-~fer~C?~.d~srg!~ prof~s$rr~n~luv~ mec~talni~~~?sir>t?Ittmb~~1~:.~~ag~~~~rl~t ~~~:~s ' ~ ~~~~~ ~o~,~lumbing r~~#I•~r` ~fk~. ~~ ~e~st.:'i::~t~~~'~~~tpt'i~~~~~ ~t~r .. ... r ~~vl~r:~~;k~~~~ib~e~. i .,..,,.:...........,.~ r~s~i~lt~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~rork :::.::::::>:::::::.::>":»»::»>::>:i <:>:>:::::::::::~::::>::;<>::;::::<::::<:i":::::::<::::>:::>:::~::>:::«::::.::::«::•;:.:>::>::>::>~:::»»>~~:>:::>::>::>:i<::»»::<>::::;::":><i<;i:~;i:;;.;;:.;iii:.::.::.;:~iiii;;;:;;".:;;;;;;::::.;:::.i:.::.::.:::i;;i;;; .: ~s.;re~'~d~sY r~ ,tv~essu~r~>?~i~t~:~at~~~r~~~~ ~r~ ~~~rrt ~~:..'~~~~~>~~` ..... .............................!~.....1~...................................::.:.. ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::. ~::::.~:::::::: t~:.:::.:::::::::::::::.r::::::::::::::::. i:.i::: :>:::»~:>>:>:::<>:>:>::>~:::>:::::>:::::<:::~~::>::>::»::;:::>::>::>::::>::>:i;.:-<::>::>::>::>:»::::>::>::>:>:>:«i.:;::.:>:«:>:<:>::>::>;::»::»::»>::>::»::>::>::»::::>::::>::>::>:::;:>:isi:.;:;;;;;;ii::i:.:~;:.;::.::.;..;i;,ii:.: ;;;.;:.;:.: ::::.::.:.::.::::.is.i:.iiii..i:.;i::;;~ii:;:~:.ii ~1~:~~~:a:1 ~~t~~~f>~~ with ~~:»~~s#::<~:£~ : ~~r~. ~ ~~`i~n~~ ~v~ ~f ~h~~h:::>~I~~t~<:~~u~»bs~~ :: .....................................................................................................Y....................~?:::::::::::::::::::::-.:::.~:::.::::::::::.:::.~ :.::::::::::::::::::::.::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.:i:;it1E ':.~::..~:;.;':.iii:.i:.:.:;.i:,:.:;':.::;:.:.>:.::;.::..:::::::::::::.;:.:::::.+::::::.;..:::::::::.:.:.;i.:::::.;::::.i.::..'::::::.~ ~:::::::.i :::.:.::.::::::~::::::::::::..:.:.:.:.:.::.:..~::::.:::::::::...:::::::::::::.: deg!~st~,r.~esrg~.~r~~e~~~r~~l.:it~>~> :r~e~f~ort.~rt u~€~~r~r~~ <e: :r~er.~.ce>: ..........................................:.....~.................................9...................9::::::.:::::::::::::::.:. t .~.. . . :::::::~.:......ft..:::::::1~..:~.:~?.:::: ~An~C~:c~.r.:.:< a~.•l~as~.'1:~'~t~.~xp~ri~~:~~,..f.~.v~ .~vh~q[~. ~h~t~. ~~v, !::' i$nisi;'::::"i::iitti>'.:i:j:iii::: ~ ii:::: :? ~".::: ~:::::::::'.:' {: .. .. "I ::....:....:................B.:.......:....:...:........ 2 ate>;r~ere~s:rna :<aisc~::~e::e .:. ~nfed:: :th~:::~c:~ard>~~::~€ ::ec~rfsrs ':~`w~:~t~ ................................. ~:::::::::::::::::::::::.::~.:.:::::::::::::.:::::::.::::..................:................~.....:.:................ ..:.:.:.:....... . »;:. a . :. te.: >..~: ~>~i~:b~:;~a~~.e..c~:~ ::~i~trma ......................:::r::~~:~ ::::::::::.~:~~::::.~:~;'.::::.f?p!~:::::: :::::t~~:i<'~ :..: ........................................................~...............:......................................... .per :«>:>::>~'~~'~:. erg .e ~' ber<<'.:~Ite~n dui n ::::.:>a :: ce<:~r~~::.: ~~~f~af~~r~:±~i~:a.:m~~n ..............A................~~..r::.:::.:::::::::r~::s~~.::.::::::~~.::.:##~:.~.: 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after August 19, 1997. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~" ,~, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 3 cc: File John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Circuit Court Roy B. Willett, Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge Richard C. Pattisall, Judge Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge Steven A. McGraw, Clerk Juvenile Domesfic Relafions District Court Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge Philip Trompeter, Judge John B. Ferguson, Judge Joseph P. Bounds, Judge Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge Ruth P. Bates, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court George W. Harris, Judge William Broadhurst, Judge vncent Lilley, Judge Julian H. Raney, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrates Sherri KrantzBetty Perry Main Library Ray Lavinder, Police Chief Richard Burch, Chief of Fire & Rescue Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Law Library, Singleton Osterhoudt Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff Don C. Myers, Assistant Couni Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning 8 Zoning Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Second 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 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. On July 22, 1997, the Board of Supervisors held the first reading of an ordinance which will allow the County's Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals to hear appeals of the County's Fire Prevention Code. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: After reviewing the disciplines required for members of the Fire Code Board of Appeals, it appears that the County's Building Code Board of Adjustments 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. The revised language in paragraph 1(e) covers the proposed changes. S -3 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. Staff further recommends that another alternate be appointed with fire protection engineering experience or a fire protection contractor with at least 10 years experience to satisfy the requirement of the revised guidelines. The Board of Supervisors may also wish to name an alternate with electrical experience to serve on the County's Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals to round out the disciplines represented on that body. Respectfully submitted, /~'I ~J r~-l~ e Sohn M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator Approved Denied Received Referred To Attachment ACTION ()Motion by: () O O Approved by, ~ ~~- Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ Harrison _ _ _ Johnson _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens c: Chief Richard Burch, Fire and Rescue ..-.r' . ~~ ~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 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, J-J 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 fratn the following professions ar disciplines:' Registered~design~professonai~who~isaregi~tered'architect;` or`a builder or`superintendent of building construction with at least 10 years experience, five of which shall haste been in respr~risible charge of work. Registered design prafess.ional with structural"°engineering or architectural experience. Registered design professional with mechanical or plumbing engineering experience, or a mechanical or plumbing contractor with at least 10 years experience,°five of which shall have been""in responsible charge of work. Registered design professional Eaith 'elect~ical"~engneering 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 contrac"tor with`at'least 10 years experience, five of'which shall have been in responsible charge of work. Two alternate .:members may also be appaanted by-the Board of Supervisors. Alternate`members'shall be called,..,by;_the`chairman of the board `of appeals to hear appeals during ;the ;absence or disqualification of a member. Alternate members shall p©ssess the qualifications for board membership. (e) To the `extent practicable the :Building Code. Board'of Appeals`is hereby :designated=as the Fire Code Board'of-Appeals. The Board of Supervisors `shall appoint such-alternate members to the 'Building Code Board of Appeals so that hese individuals are from the designated professions or disciplines. " Upon'any;appeal from the Virginia Statewide Fire':Prevention Code, :such alternative members shall first be 'called by the Chairman of the'Building Code Board 'of Rppeals to hear he appeal. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after August 19, 1997. G:\ATTORNEY\BOARD\APPLBD2.ORD 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ GRIEVANCE PANEL The two year term of Cecil Hill will expire 09/27/97. 2..s INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY The four year terms of Billy H. Branch and W. Darnall Vinyard, will expire 09/27/96. Mr. Vinyard who lives in the Vinton Magisterial District, has notified the Clerk's Office that he does not wish to serve another term. Supervisor Nickens has indicated that he plans to appoint Steve A. Musselwhite to fill the vacancy. SUBMITTED BY: .J6d • Q,rQ~.e. ~. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: APPROVED BY: ~~ E mer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ Harrison Johnson _ Minnix _ Nickens ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to the Task Force to Review Problems Encountered by the Disabled, Physically Challenged, and Senior Citizens COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: At the July 22, 1997 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, staff provided an outline of possible items to be considered by this Task Force. Staff has suggested that each supervisor nominate two people who meet the criteria of being disabled, physically challenged, senior citizen, or a family member who is a caregiver of such a person. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The supervisors are respectfully requested to make their nominations as soon as possible so that the committee may be convened in September to begin studying the needs of our community. Staff members, agency representatives, etc., may be invited to participate as necessary to describe existing services or offer information or to serve in an ex-officio capacity. Your assistance in establishing this committee will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Approve by, .~~ ~~~ ohn M. Chambliss, Jr. 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 K-3 L/-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION 081997-9 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 August 19, 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 Items 1 through 8, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes -June 24, 1997, July 7, 1997 Qoint meeting with Roanoke City Council), July 8, 1997, and July 22, 1997. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and Social Services Advisory Board. 3. Request to approve Courthouse Maintenance Funds Expenditures. 4. Authorization to accept a vehicle leased by Blue Ridge Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc. to Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department, Inc., and to increase the number of vehicles in the County fleet. 5. Request for acceptance of Afton Lane and April Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities serving Summerfield, Section 2. 7. Authorization to add State Compensation Board funded position in Commissioner of Revenue's Office and to increased the number of full time County positions. S. Request to donate surplus Metrocall pagers to Commonwealth Search and Rescue. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution after discussion of items 3, 4, and 7, and with understanding that the lease mentioned in Item 4 does not need approval by the Board of Supervisors, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: .~• Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File John M Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court Gerald Holt, Sheriff Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Richard Burch, Fire & Rescue Chief Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections R Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement 2 June 24, 1997 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 June 24, 1997 371 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 1997. N RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Fenton F. ""Spike" Harrison, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Harry C. Nickens STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Joseph Lehman, Our Lady of Nazareth Catholic Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF y tY June 24, 1997 373 Assistant County Administrator2 R-062497-1 Mr. Chambliss reported that the General Assembly approved a anew program called the Virginia Juvenile Commmunity Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) during fiscal year 1995-96. This replaced the block grant programs of the Department of Youth and Family Services. Previously, block grants funded part of Youth Haven II's operating costs and reduced the flat per diem fee charged to all of its clients. Roanoke County received $399,799 for FY 1996-97 and is scheduled to receive $511,617 for FY 1997-98. Staff suggested that the funds be used for the following programs: A. ELECTRONIC MONITORING $16,488 B. INTENSIVE PROBATION $58,200 C. COMMUNITY SERVICE $9,360 D. PROBATION AIDE $29,000 E. OPERATING EXPENSES $14,500 F. PURCHASE OF SERVICES -NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Expenses necessary for the treatment of youth which may include certain testing, treatments, or programs that do not result in the residential placement of the youth. $20,000 2. Outreach Detention. $35,405 G. PURCHASE OF SERVICES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT OF YOUTH: 1. Crisis Intervention programs (such as the 28 Day program of Youth ~. June 24, 1997 375 THE VIRGINIA JUVENILE COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL ACT WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke has been advised that it will receive monies from the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act for $511,617 for FY 1997- 98, and WHEREAS, these monies must be used to fund services for the target populations identified in the Act which include CHINS (Children in Need of Services), CHINSUP (Children in Need of Supervision), Delinquent, Diverted, and First Offender children, and WHEREAS, the County staff has coordinated with the Director of the Court Service Unit and the Judges of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court to determine the services necessary to address the needs of the children appearing before the Court and before the intake officers, and WHEREAS, the services of Electronic Monitoring, Intensive Probation, Community Services programs, Probation Aide Services, and the purchase of services for Outreach Detention, Crisis Intervention, group residential care, non-residential services, and a supplement to Youth Haven II have been identified as the highest priority needs for the targeted population of Roanoke County appearing before the court and the intake officers. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that the VJCCCA monies are hereby accepted in the amount $511,617 for FY 1997-98 and are hereby appropriated for the above referenced programs. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 2. Request to transfer funds from the Court Service Unit to Youth Haven II as maintenance of effort for VJCCCA Monies (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) A-062497-2 Mr. Chambliss advised that one of the requirements of the VJCCCA program is that grant funds could not supplant other state funds, and could not be used to reduce the local maintenance of effort (local funds). The maintenance of effort identified by the • June 24, 1997 377 a facility and services to be offered. The third phase would be any architectural and engineering work for the specific facility. Mr. Chambliss explained that the County issued a request for proposal for professional consulting services to develop a needs assessment for Roanoke County, the City of Salem and Franklin County, and recommends awarding the contract to MMM Design Group for $8,500 plus the cost of printing the report. The costs will be shared with the other localities with the County's share at $6,000. The funds will be transferred within the Court Service Unit budget to cover the cost. Supervisor Johnson moved to award the contract to MMM Design and transfer funds. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 4. Request to adopt a resolution to abandon a section of an unopened road known as Castle Rock Mining Road in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District Arnold Covey Director of Engineering ~ Inspections) R-062497-4 Mr. Covey advised that Radford and Company is requesting that the Board abandon a portion of an unopened right-of-way known as Castle Rock Mining Road. The right-of--way was donated to the Board for a road to be known as Castle Rock Mining Road. In 1948, the Board requested that the state accept the road into the State secondary . ~ ~ i June 24, 1997 379 __ 3. That pursuant to Section 33.1-163.1 of the 1950 Code of Virgmia,~as amended, a certified copy of this resolution of abandonment shall be recorded and indexed in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, al! of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. Supervisor Eddy moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 5. Request for appropriation of State Compensation Funds and additional County funding for two emergency funded positions in the Sheriff s Office (Gerald Holt Sheriff] A-062497-5 Major Mike Winston advised that the State Compensation Board has granted and funded two correction deputy positions for jail overcrowding. The total financial impact is $61,579. The State Compensation Board will fund $45,980 leaving a difference of $15,599 to be supplemented by the County. Major Winston requested that the Board approve the appropriation of $45,980 and requested additional funds of $15,599 from the Board Contingency Fund. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve additional funds from the Board Contingency Fund and to appropriate the State Compensation Board funds. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ~ 1 ~ 1 June 24, 1997 381 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 ~aetition of Stephen D. and Marie Freeman. 5 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. 6. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow a private kennel. located at 1529 Dalmation Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Sara Cole and Kit Davis IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to exercise an option with Koppers Industries, Inc to obtain two sanitary sewer easements and to purchase approximately 0.226 acres of right of way on the west side of the private portion of Garman Road as part of the Kroger Project (Timothy Gubala. Economic Development Directorl Mr. Gubala advised that Roanoke County has negotiated an option to purchase agreement with Koppers Industries, Inc. Kroger has requested that the County exercise the option so that they may acquire the property for road construction purposes. Staff has contacted Koppers about amending the option to purchase agreement in order to obtain two sanitary sewer easements and an additional 0.056 acres of land for the Garman Road right of way. The appraisal value is $2,800 for this 0.17 acre parcel. ~, June 24, 1997 383 r _ _ __ __ -_ . _ _, __. _w_ ,. __ _ ~ __~ ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062497-6 AUTHORIZING THE RENEWAL OF A LEASE OF REAL ESTATE FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO TOWER SITE ON TINKER MOUNTAIN BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the acquisition of any interest in real estate, which includes a lease of real estate, shall be accomplished by ordinance and pursuant to the authority found in §§ 15.1-262 and 15.1-897 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 10, 1997, and the second reading was held on June 24, 1997, concerning the lease of real estate for a public safety radio tower site on Tinker Mountain; and 3. That this lease is with Lee C. Hartman, Jr. for a parcel of land described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance, together with a non-exclusive right of access to and from the premises by way of the private road connecting with Frontage Road, said lease commencing the 1st day of July 1997, and ending the 30th day of June, 2000, for an annual rental of $2,300.00 payable on the first day of each yearly period during the term of the lease. 4. That the lease agreement setting forth the terms and conditions of this lease is incorporated herein by reference. ,5. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is authorized to execute this lease on behalf of the County of Roanoke and to execute such other documents and take such other actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 2 Ordinance authorizing acquisition of 0 368 acre parcel of real estate in Montclair Estates Section 9 (Arnold Covey, Director of En4ineering ~ Inspections) 0-062497-7 ,- June 24, 1997 385 ,_v,_ .,~.~_ w_~._~.,_. __. G.._ __._~ ..v_.__~._._.,.,... -- upervisor o nson nominated Richard Cox to serve another three year term which will expire June 30, 2000, and asked that the confirmation be placed on the Consent Agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-062497-8; R-062497-8 a Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the Consent Agenda after discussion of Item 4. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None '. ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 062497-8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 10, 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 Items 1 through 8, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes for May 13, 1997 2. Confirmation of appointments to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals, the Clean Valley Council, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. 3. Appropriation of Federal and State Funds for reimbursement of ._ expenditures related to Hurricane Fran. 4. Authorization for write-off of Utility Bad Debt. ,~ ~~ June 24, 1997 387 __ ~___ .._ _ _ ~ ~._ , ~ -~___ ~ __ ___. _ ~~_ _ ~ . _w_ . ~_~ _ __ __. AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS ..:~ Supervisor Harrison: (1) He announced that there was a severe flood throughout the Salem area particularly in Montclair Estates. He thanked the Utility Department staff for their assistance. (2) He advised that a work session will be held on July 8, 1997 on storm water detention and also requested that the issue be discussed at the joint meeting with Roanoke City Council. (2) He asked whether the County had any control over the horse areas at Green Hill Park because the area needs mowing badly. Parks and Recreation Director Pete Haislip will contact the appropriate people. (4) He announced that his star softball player had four wisdom teeth removed and wished her a speedy recovery. Supervisor Eddy: (1) He congratulated Supervisor Harrison for his state championship softball team. (2) He asked staff about the new recycling program. Mr. Hodge responded that the program should be in place by the July 8, 1997 meeting and that the current program will continue until the new program begins. Supervisor Eddy suggested that active communication be made to the residents about the changes. (3) He asked about progress on completing the Policy Manual. Mr. Mahoney advised that there had been no progress. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Mahoney to have the manual complete in six months. (4) He asked whether Mr. Mahoney had checked on whether the Planning Commission is required by law to review the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mahoney 1 ` 1 June 24, '1997 389 __ _ __ ~_ . ~._ _ ~ _~~ _ ._ _~_ _ _ _~ _ _N _.__. m ~ _ ~__ . _ _ _ __ Claire English, Goodwill Industries, 1489 E. Main Street, Salem, spoke and requested that the Board of Supervisors participate in a Citizens' Transportation Advisory Committee that is being developed, and that a Board member serve as liaison. Chairman Johnson agreed and announced that the Board has also established a task force to look at issues affecting the disabled and senior citizens, and asked for her involvement in the County's task force. Supervisor Eddy suggested that John Chambliss serve as liaison to the committee. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Minnix moved to receive and file the following reports after discussion of Item 7. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote with Supervisor Nickens absent. 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid -May 1997 5. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures as of May 31 1997 6. Review by Planning Commission of acquisition of 34 acres on Green Ridge for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 7. Report on revisions to the National air quality standards dealing with levels of ozone and particulate matter ~~ June 24, 1997 391 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 Boar" 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, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS. 1. Presentation by the Roanoke Moose Lodge of 52,500 donation to be used by the Police Department for a laptop computer for criminal/traffic investigations David Simmons, Roanoke Moose Lodge, presented the check to Supervisor Harrison, Chief of Police Ray Lavinder and Police Officer Tim Wyatt. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1 9rdinance rezoning 17 5 acres from ~R-3 to C-2 att~d obtain a ~pecia! Use Permit with conditions to construct a home for adults. located east of Airport Road, north of the terminus of y June 24, 1997 393 i District, upon the petition of Coy L. And Deanna H. Weaver. jJanet Scheid, Planner. 0-062497-10 Planner Janet Scheid reported that the petitioner, Mr. Weaver, has had five dogs for eight years and had no problems with his neighborhood. He has no interest in getting any more dogs than five, but might watch his neighbor's dog for a few weeks this summer. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the number of dogs limited to five and that the Special Use Permi# shall not be transferable to any future property owner. Supervisor Eddy noted that the proposed ordinance did not include the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. County Attorney Paul Mahoney recommended that the Special Use Permit be limited to a specific time. Supervisor Eddy moved to adopt the ordinance with the following conditions: (1) limit of five dogs; (2) special use permit for five year. period; and (3) permit limited to current owner only. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062497-10 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO COY AND DEANNA WEAVER TO OPERATE A PRIVATE KENNEL AT 1905 MAYFIELD DRIVE (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 79.03-5-59), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Coy and Deanna Weaver have filed a petition to operate a private kennel located at 1905 Mayfield Drive (Part of Tax Map No. 79.03-5-59) in the y June 24, 1997 395 Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioner is requesting to expand their parking lot to the lower level. The only change from the original conditions would be an amendment to condition #3 allowing additional parking. The Planning- Commission recommended approval. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062497-11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.231-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 3390 COLONIAL AVENUE (TAX MAP NO. 77.11-1-57) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF DR. WILLIAM F. BALL AND EUGENIA H. BALL WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 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 zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1.231 acres, as described herein, and located at 3390 Colonial Avenue, (Tax Map Number 77.11-1-57) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District, to the zoning classification of ~C-1, Conditional, Office District, with amended proffers. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Dr. William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball. June 24, 1997 397 0 owing recor a vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 5. Ordinance to rezone approximately 2.75 acres from R-2 to C-2 to construct a drugstore, located at the corner of Route 419 and Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of C8~C Development, L L C (Janet Scheid, Planned 0-062497-12 Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioner proposes to remove the gas station canopies and pumps of the AMOCO station and raze a total of 4 houses, build a 11,060 square foot Rite-Aid drugstore, and a 6,000 square foot retail building possibly to be leased to a video rental business. The total area to be purchased is 5.4 acres with the rezoning request 2.75 acres. The majority of the parking on this site will be located in between the two buildings. Substantial grading and excavation will be required, but there will be no blasting. Access to the site will be from both Route 419 and Route 221. Anew entrance constructed north of the existing median on Route 221 will allow turning movements in both directions. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Mike Pace, attorney for the petitioner, was present and announced that Rite- Aid is developing six stores in the area. The rezoning wil not generate additional traffic, and the proposed buffering on the site exceeds the County Code requirements. None of the adjoining property owners were opposed to the proposal. In response to a question from Supervisor Johnson, County Attorney Paul June 24, 1997 399 L.L.C. 3. 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: (A) The Property which is the subject of the rezoning -will be developed in substantial conformity with the revised rezoning site plan dated April 16, 1997, revised May 21, 1997, subject to any modifications required or agreed to by Roanoke County. (B) The hillside that remains after the necessary grading and excavation will be planted in some type of vegetative cover. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at the true point of beginning, said point being the point of intersection of the northeastern right-of-way line of Virginia Route 419 and the southeastern right-of-way line of Brambleton Avenue; thence proceeding along the right-of--way line of Brambleton Avenue N. 23° 36' 20" E. a distance of 16.74' to a point; thence N. 13° 30' 20" E. a distance of 281.51' to a point; thence N. 85° 33' 38" W. a distance of 5.75' to a point; thence N. 18° 41' 11 " E. a distance of 55.23' to a point; thence N. 05° 43' 36" E. a distance of 22.20' to a point; thence N. 14° 33' 46" E. a distance of 89.16' to a point; thence leaving the right-of--way of Brambleton Avenue and running S. 80° 26' 46" E. a distance of 168.15' to a point; thence S. 75° 06' S6" E. a distance of 39.15' to a point; thence S. 75° 06' 56" E. a distance of 62.85' to a point; thence S. 04° 40' 01" W. a distance of 130.02' to a point; thence S. 04° 40' 01" W. a distance of 147.56' to a point; thence S. 84° 19' 25" W. a distance of 171.87' to a point; thence S. 15° 13' 30" W. a distance of 116.17' to a point; thence S. 00° 00' 30" E. a distance of 111.57' to a point lying on the right-of--way of Virginia Route 419; thence running along said right-of-way N. 63° 04' 20" W. a distance of 24.62' to a point; thence N. 49° 10' 35" W. a distance of 168.35' returning to the true point of beginning, and containing 2.753 acres. 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. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ~ .. June 24, 1997 401 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-73. General prerequisites to _grant of Division 3. Exemption for elderly and disabled persons of Chapter 21. Taxation be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to grant. Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: *~** (2) That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth, including all equitable interests, exceeding sev~entve ....................................................................................4.............._...:.:..... as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one acre of land. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect with the 1998 tax year. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 1N RE: ADJOURNMENT At 7:50 p.m., Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting to July 7, 1997, at 12:15 P.M., at the Virginia Museum of Transportation for a joint meeting with Roanoke City Council. Submitted by, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Approved by, Bob L. Johnson Chairman July 7, 1997 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 7, 1997 403 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Virginia Museum of Transportation, 303 Norfolk Avenue, this being an adjourned meeting from June 24, 1997, and a joint meeting with Roanoke City Council. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson and Mayor Bowers called the meeting to order at 12:20 p.m. The roll call was taken for the Board of Supervisors and Roanoke City Council. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None COUNCIL PRESENT: Roanoke City Mayor David Bowers; Council Members, Nelson Harris, Carroll Swain, William White, James Trout COUNCIL ABSENT: Roanoke City Vice Mayor Linda Wyatt, Council Member John Parrott _ STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, .Community Relations, Diane Hyatt, Finance Director, Arnold July 7, 1997 an oral history of African Americans associated with the N&W Railroad. 405 2. Update on Roanoke Regional Airport Jacqueline L Shuck, Executive Director. Ms. Shuck described future improvements planned for the airport including the new cargo apron project, new turning lanes , and a new air traffic control tower. She advised that the ban on passenger facility fees (PFC) had been lifted and they are discussing the possibility of instituting a PFC which would stay with the airport and could be spent only on specific types of projects. She presented to the Board and Council drawings describing the future plans for the airport. Ms. Shuck requested time on the October joint meeting agenda to update the governing bodies on other issues such as fares and services. 3. Update on the Higher Education Center (Requuested by Roanoke Cit Mayor Bowers presented a written update on the proposed higher education center which highlighted the activities taken so far and future plans. Mayor Bowers also announced that he will discuss a financial proposal for funding at the City Council meeting and plans to request participation from other Roanoke Valley governments. July 7, 1997 ~O-, There was no discussion on this issue. County Administrator Elmer Hodge and City Manager Bob Herbert were directed to bring back a written report to the October meeting. 7. Update on Storm water Management Project on Peters Creek Road. (Reques#ed by Roanoke County) There was no discussion on this issue. County Administrator Elmer Hodge and City Manager Bob Herbert were directed to bring back a written report to the October meeting. 8. Consideration of a Regional Teen Center similar to the Brambleton Teen Center. (Req_uested by Roanoke Coun~l Mr. Hodge reported on the success of the Brambleton Avenue Teen Center. Supervisor Nickens reported that teens had told him they wold like a similar Teen Center in the market area of downtown Roanoke. County Administrator Elmer Hodge and City Manager Bob Herbert were directed to bring back a written report to the October meeting. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 1:40 p.m., Mayor Bowers recessed the Roanoke City Council until 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. July 8, 1997 409 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 8, 1997 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday; and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 1997. N RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Fenton F. ""Spike" Harrison, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. , July 8, 1997 411 at the Orange Market at Routes 311 and 419 has been withdrawn, and an additional facility for the Hollins area will be identified. Mr. Rand requested approval of the locations and authorization to execute the contract with Waste Management. The contract will go into effect on August 1, 1997. Supervisor Johnson requested that Walrond Park be eliminated as a potential site in Hollins. In response to questions from Supervisor Eddy, Mr. Rand advised that a postcard will be sent to every County household informing them of the drop-off centers; that the area will be kept clean by Waste Management; and that pickup will be at least once a week. In response to questions from Supervisor Nickens, Mr. Rand advised that the $85,000 excludes savings; and that they are still looking for space in the Mount Pleasant area. Supervisor Nickens also indicated that he felt that there should be no locations in Roanoke City unless the County could make money from them. Mr. Hodge asked that the Board give the staff flexibility to find drop-off areas within each geographic area. Supervisor Johnson requested that any site changes be brought back to the Board. Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the agreement contingent upon (1) receipt of the final contract; (2) Staff to bring back new sites and changes in sites; and (3) staff to bring back a report to the Board on the program in three months. The motion carried by the following recorded- vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson July 8, 1997 413 NAYS: None ORDINANCE 070897-2 AUTHORIZING EXERCISE OF AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH KOPPERS INDUSTRIES, INC. TO OBTAIN TWO SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS AND TO PURCHASE APPROXIMATELY 0.226 ACRES OF RIGHT OF WAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PRIVATE PORTION OF GARMAN ROAD (BEING IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL 55.03-2-11) FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THE KROGER PROJECT WHEREAS, by Resolution #012897-12, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County authorized and approved an economic development project, known as the Kroger Project, authorized execution of a Performance Agreement with the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, ("IDA"), and the Kroger Co., and appropriated the sum of $1,780,000 to pay for the County's and the IDA's performance obligations under the Agreement; and, WHEREAS, by Resolution #031197-4, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County approved the Option to Purchase Agreement dated March 3, 1997, with Koppers Industries, Inc., for 0.17 acres of proposed right of way and 0.15 acres of grading, slope and construction easements on the west side of the private portion of Garman Road, being further shown on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map Number 55.03-2-11 ("the Property"); and, WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the purchase price for the Property is $2,800 and the option must be exercised on or before July 31, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the agreement provides for settlement within 30 days of the notice of exercise of the Option; and, WHEREAS, the property is necessary for construction of a cul-de-sac at the terminus of the improved Garman Road, and the funds are available in the Kroger Project account as appropriated by the Board on January 28, 1997; and, WHEREAS, as construction plans have progressed, it has been determined that revisions to the "the Property" are. necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation for acceptance of the improved Garman Road into the state secondary road system; and, WHEREAS, by Amendment to Option to Purchase Agreement dated June 19, 1997, Koppers Industries, Inc. agreed to the changes in the proposed right-of-way and easements to be acquired in connection to the road improvement project at no additional cost to the County; and, . WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 24, 1997; the second reading was held on July 8, 1997. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: July 8, 1997 415 - ~~emporary construction easements of an additional ten .._. feet (10') on each side of the permanent easements hereinabove described for use as a temporary work space and to allow for necessary grading during any phase of construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of the sanitary sewer facilities or related improvements. 3. 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 are necessary to accomplish the exercise of the option and acquisition of the property which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Harrison and the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1 Ordinance rezoning 17 5 acres from R-3 to C-2 with conditions and obtain a Special Use Permit with conditions to construct a home for adults. located east of Airport Road, north of the terminus of Woodbury Street, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Villages (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 10 1997 AND JUNE 24, 1997 (Terry Harrington. Director of Planning & Zoning 0-070897-3 Mr. Mahoney advised that this petition was continued from June 10, 1997 to June 24, 1997, and then to July 8, 1997, so that several issues could be addressed. Shenandoah Homes has added a condition to the ordinance that identifies portions of the project which are taxable, and those that could be designated as tax exempt would be July 8, 1997 417 OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS AND TO GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS TO CONSTRUCT A HOME FOR ADULTS, UPON THE APPLICATION OF SHENANDOAH HOMES RETIREMENT VILLAGE, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 25, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held April 22, 1997; and WHEREAS, this matter was reconsidered by the Board of Supervisors on May 13, 1997, and a public hearing and reconsidered second reading of this ordinance were held on June 10, 1997; June 24, 1997; and July 8, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law; and, WHEREAS, a letter from Ottis L. Burgher dated 6/17/97 reciting the Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village Mission Statement regarding "providing housing and health care options for the elderly of all race, creeds, and financial positions"; and stating that it is the policy of the Church of God (to which the Petitioner is affiliated) to help any resident experiencing financial reversals, and further stating that it would not evict or bring legal action against a resident for nonpayment of rent is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit 3. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 17.5 acres and located east of Airport Road north of the terminus of Woodbury Street, designated as Tax Map Number 38.14-1-5, in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Villages, Inc. 3. 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: (A) Development of the property shall be generally in accord with the conceptual site plan entitled "The Village at Shenandoah" prepared by E. T. Boggess and dated 6/9/97. The conceptual site plan indicates the phased construction of the project and Exhibit (1) sets out the time line projections for each phase. Minor revisions to the concept plan shall be allowed to accommodate zoning compliance and storm water management needs, provided such changes do not fundamentally change site circulation, or the overall development concept that is depicted on the concept plan. (B) Public vehicle access to the property shall be limited to only the Airport Road access as shown on the conceptual site plan; which public acce"ss will be constructed during Phase 1 of the development. Restricted emergency vehicle access July 8, 1997 419 Street or through the existing Shenandoah Homes property. (E) Afire suppression system shall be installed in all residential units. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with providing the adequate fire flows required for this fire suppression system. (F) The property owner shal I pay real estate taxes on that area of the property designated on the conceptual site plan as Independent Living (9.75 acres) and that area of the project identified as Congregate Care Facilities (1.75 acres). The area of the project designated as Assisted Living (6 acres) shall be tax exempt with the provision that the property owner shall pay a service charge in lieu of taxes on said portion of the project at the rate of 20%; except retail areas in Galleria, which area shall be taxed at 100% of the value of the prorata share of space utilized by the retail- business. Payment of said service charge in lieu of taxes shall be conditioned. upon the adoption of a resolution by the Board of Supervisors and the enactment of legislation of the General Assembly to provide for such pursuant to Section 30-19.04. (See Exhibit 2 -Total Estimated Real Estate Tax Generated by the Project.) 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance as amended and approve the Special Use Permit by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-070897-4 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None RESOLUTION 070897-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K CONSENT AGENDA Juiy s, 1997 421 Recreation Club Presidents' Committee a request to consider allowing any rising senior to participate in youth sports who previously participated. Supervisor Eddy suggested that Parks and Recreation provide a report to the Board on the advantages and disadvantages of changing the policy. Supervisor Nickens responded that soccer practice begins August 1 and that waiting for a report would exclude these rising seniors. He suggested allowing them to play now and that the Presidents' Committee review the entire age policy. Supervisor Eddv: (1) He asked whether the citizens present to talk about stormwater were planning to speak at the Work Session. Chairman Johnson advised that they would speak under Citizens Comments. (2) He announced that the Dedication Ceremony for the Garst Mill Greenway would be Saturday, August 2 at 10:00 a. m. and invited everyone to attend. Supervisor Minnix• He announced that his appointee, Guy Byrd, had resigned from the Industrial Development Authority because he plans to run for office in Roanoke City. The Economic Development staff has recommended Neil A. Gallagher. He asked the Clerk to forward the resume to the other Board members, and asked for any other recommendations for appointment. Supervisor Johnson• He announced that there a joint meeting with the Roanoke City Council was held on Monday, July 7, 1997. He has received reports on several projects including the Regional Airport. He asked for some publicity on the government access N channel about all the new projects going on at the airport. IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS July 8, 1997 423 ~~ ~___ .__._ ~ _ _~_~_~ _ _~~_~ _._~~.~~~n.~ .~~__ ~~~~ .._~~_._w___ ~._ . __.. At 4.50 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to go into Executive Session following the work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to actual litigation, Ohio State Cellular vs. Board of Supervisors; 2.1-344 A (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to probable litigation, Belle Grove Development Corporation's appeal; 2.1-344 A (3) acquisition of real estate for public school purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Stormwater Management Facilities The work session was held from 4:50 p. m. until 5:35 p.m. It was presented by Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections; George Simpson, Assistant Director of Engineering & Inspections; Wayne Strickland (Fifth Planning District Commission), Tim Lormand (Dewberry & Davis), and Fernando Pasquel (CHM2 Hill). The Board was updated on the Stormwater Management Plan and were advised that the following had been accomplished: (1) completed detailed study of 16 priority watersheds; (2) identified and developed costs for 120 projects that will solve flooding and erosion problems; (3) formed a Citizens Advisory Committee; and (4) developed master plans for each watershed that will minimize future problems. The Technical Advisory Committee has completed the initial steps towards implementation, including identifying and evaluating funding options. There were four funding options July 8, 1997 425 .~_ . _ ~__. - _ - -_ _~_ , __m __ __ ._._..._ ___ _ ~. _. ~ . _._, _ _ ~ ,_ Following additional discussion, the Board of Supervisors requested that the School Board bring back a report with projects totaling under $48 million, and to include in the report estimated operating costs for informational purposes only. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7:40 p.m. the Board of Supervisors returned to Executive Session to discuss those items included in the previous motion. IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-070897-5 At 8:10 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to return to open session, that the Executive Session was held from 5:35 p.m. to 6:35 p.m. and 7:40 p.m. until 8:1.0 p. m., and to adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None RESOLUTION 070897-5 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: July 22, 1997 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 22, 1997 427 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 1997. N RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Fenton F. ""Spike" Harrison, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Phillip Whitakerr Brambleton Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. July 22, 1997 429 Mr. Hodge presented Chairman Johnson with a plaque of appreciation from, Virginia Amateur Sports and advised that he was requested to present the plaque because they are still occupied with the games. A record number of athletes totaling 10,000 to 11,000 participated in the Commonwealth Games this year. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Presentation on Glenn-Marv Project (Melinda Cox. Economic Development Specialist) Ms. Cox explained that for the past five months, the County has been working with civic and business leaders searing on the Community Advisory Committee to share their concerns and vision for a proposed business park in western Roanoke County on the Glenn-Mary farm. The process was facilitated by a design team under the direction of team leader David Hill and project manager John Schmidt of Hill Studios. The goal was to collect information, conduct a design workshop this past June, and to produce a preliminary concept plan for a qualified site. The Board members have been provided with a copy of the Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan dated July 17, 1997. The Advisory Committee has endorsed the concept plan; asked that the membership and role of the Design Review Board be clarified; and a zoning code implemented that will guarantee the agreements made in the community meetings. She introduced the consultants, pavid Hill, Hill Studios of Roanoke, and Carlton Abbott, Abbott & Associates, of Wiliamsburg, who gave a slide presentation of the contents of the Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan. This was July 22, 1997 431 has been done. Mr. Frank Martin of Martin Research, Inc. presented the results of the survey of 500 completed interviews. The questionnaire was designed by Martin Research, Inc. under the supervision and approval of County staff. It was also reviewed by members of the Board. The citizens gave Roanoke County a report card of "B -Honor Roll" on services provided. The areas where a problem is perceived by County residents are: storm water drainagefflood control; greenways; public transportation; affordable housing; planning and zoning services; and street lights. Supervisor Nickens asked that the next survey look with more detail and refinement at the areas of concern for citizens. Supervisor Johnson asked how Roanoke County compares with other communities in the statistics of watching the government access channel. Ms. Green will get this information for the Board. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve amended 1997-1998 operating budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director R-072297-1 Ms. Hyatt advised that on April 8, 1997, the Board approved the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority operating budget for the year ending June 30, 1998. Since the 1997/98 budget was approved, the Authority has seen an additional decline in tonnage received from the commercial haulers. They have taken the following actions: (1) reduced their budget by $529,960 to reflect the .lost revenue; and (2) expenditures have been July 22, ~~97 433 ~. _-- _~__ .___z._ ~~~__.:_ ,M __.. ~.. _ .:a.h _~_ ~.__~.~- ~._.~_n 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. 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 2. Resolution approving option to purchase agreement with David E. Harris and Wanda L. Harris. Dorothy Harris Miller and James B. Miller and Carol Hams Likens for approximately 1 83 acres of real estate. (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) R-072297-2 Mr. Chambliss advised that the Board directed staff to develop a master plan for the Merriman and Starkey Park and that the Harris property is one of the tracts suitable for access. The agreed upon price is $113,000. He requested that the Board advance this to a first and second reading of ordinance by adopting a resolution to authorize the County Administrator to execute the option agreement to purchase the 1.83 acre site and house, and authorize staff to continue with the environmental assessment, survey and other legal documentation necessary to complete the transaction. He also advised that $5,000 is necessary to cover the costs related to the environmental audit, survey and title. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the i following recorded vote: AYES: ~ Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None July 22, 1997 435 IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS Supervisor Eddy requested a work session on outdoor advertising signs at a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Mr. Hodge advised that a work session will be scheduled for August 19, 1997. IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for August 19, 1997 The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 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 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 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 July 22, 19:97 437 potential to affect many commercial and industrial activities, a second proposed change gives the Board the right to grant a waiver in specific instances for specific business activities. These changes give authority and flexibility to the Board to permit by wavier certain types of noises that have been deemed to be disturbances. He asked that the first reading be approved, a work session scheduled, and set the second reading and public hearing for August 19, 1997. There was no consensus to have a work session. After discussion, Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for August 19, 1997 The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 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) Mr. Chambliss advised that at the December 17, 1996 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 amendments to the Virginia State Wide Fire Prevention Code which address the administrative appeal July 22, 19:97 439 Specialist) Ms. Cox was present but there was no staff report made. Supervisor Harrison moved to approve the staff recommendation which was to adopt the ordinance and concept plan, and set the second reading and public hearing for August 19, 1997. Supervisor Eddy expressed his concern that the concept plan would eliminate the alternative of using Glenvar Heights Boulevard to get past I-81, and wanted to leave all alternatives open for consideration. He also wanted to know the attitude of c;itizens regarding not using Glenvar Heights Boulevard. Chairman Johnson asked that Supervisor Eddy's inquires be answered by the staff. Supervisor Nickens asked for future review of Glenvar Heights Boulevard for access. Mr. Hodge advised that the decision not to use Glenvar Heights Boulevard was a major point in discussions with the citizens in the area. Supervisor Eddy made an amended motion to approve the purchase of the site without any further restrictions at this time. Chairman Johnson ruled that this was a substitute motion and not an amended motion. Mr. Hodge advised that the planning process through the Planning Commission still has to be done, and that the concept plan provisions will be included in the rezoning request. During meetings with the citizens in that area, the County staff assured them that they would support not using Glenvar Heights Boulevard for access but believed that Dow Hollow Road and the existing frontage road would be used. Supervisor Johnson moved to_ approve the prepared ordinance. Supervisor Eddy withdrew his substitute motion since the prepared ordinance ., July 22, 19.97 441 Supervisor Harrison nominated Ed Wold to represent the Catawba District to serve another four year term which will expire August 1, 2001. Supervisor Minnix nominated Betty Lucas to represent the Cave Spring District to serve another four year term which will expire August 1, 2001. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Johnson advised that the consent agenda was withdrawn since the only item was to confirm the appointment of Allen Simpson to the Social Services Advisory Board, and that item has been withdrawn. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Eddy: (1) He advised that the County has a supply of the Citizens Handbooks and they can be mailed to the citizens or picked up. (2) He asked for the status of revising the ordinance to allow three dogs instead of two. Mr. Hodge advised that this will be brought to the Board on August 19, 1997. (3) He requested that recycling be discussed. With the consensus of the Board, Chairman Johnson advised that a discussion on the recycling program would be last thing on the evening agenda. (4) He received a memorandum from Mr. Mahoney concerning the Planning Commission's role in the development and approval of the Capital Improvement Plan, and recommended that the Planning Commission should be involved. Mr. Hodge advised that he will bring back a report. (5) He received a memorandum from Mr. Hodge on the bikeway plan which asked for comments. Mr. Hodge will draft a letter of support to the Fifth Planing District July 22, 1997 443 . ~_ w _ ~ _ ~. ~ _ . ~ ~._ e_ ~ _ ~~__~~.w_ ~..~ ~,~ ~~ ~__~ ~~ Supervisor Nickens moved to receive and file the following reports after discussion of Items 5, 6, and 8.. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 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. Supervisor Eddy asked that the Board members be provided with a copy of the CIRCLE brochure. 6. Report on the Task Force to review solutions to problems encountered by the disabled, physically challenged and senior citizens of Roanoke County. The staff was asked to bring back a formal document for approval of the Task Force including the mission statement, costs and funding proposals. Supervisor Eddy asked that a similar group be considered to address the needs of the 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 conceminct funding for Phase I of school construction projects. July 22, 1997 IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-072297-3 445 At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to return to open session and adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 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'~nd 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 IN RE: JOINT MEETING WITH SALEM CITY COUNCIL Chairman Johnson announced that the joint meeting scheduled for July 29, 1997, with Salem City Council has been postponed. July£22, 1997 447 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; Gerry Brittain; and Dennis Layman for their athletic ability, their team spirit, and their commitment to each other; anal 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 2. Resolution of Congratulations to the William Byrd High School Baseball Team for winning the 1997 Division AA State Championship. R-072297-5 Chairman Johnson presented the resolution to Coach Rodney Spradlin. Coach Spradlin accepted Certificates of Recognition for each member of the team. Team member Scott Wise and Assistant Coach Gary Walthall were present, and Coach Spradlin advised that most of the team members were playing in the state tournament in Bedford or in Salem at an American Legion game. Supen~isor Nickens moved to approve the resolution. _ The motion carried by •~ July 22, 1997 449 Chairman Johnson presented the resolution to Ms. Rebekah Woodie. Ms. Woodie presented Certificates of Appreciation to those students present. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 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 swell-rounded curriculum and dedicated teachers; anal 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 fo 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. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Mi.nnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ~ ~ July 22, 1997 451 evaluated the request and felt that the site was appropriate for this use. No citizens spoke at the public hearing, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request and special use permit. Supervisor Eddy suggested that a condition be placed on the special use permit that would not allow storage of inoperative vehicles. Mr. Ellis, petitioner, was present and responded that he would have no problem with the condition being added. Supervisor Harrison moved to adopt the ordinance and approve the special use permit with the condition that no storage of inoperative vehicles shall be allowed on the site. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 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 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 July 22, 1997 453 __ _ ,_ _ ~ ~~.a __ _ ~ ,. __ _,__ - __ . ~~uw~ t .r m..~ _~~ ~u~~._.~. ~ e~ ~~e__~ _,~~~.~ ~a.~~.M._.~...v._~._~_..~_. ~._~ ~._ __~ ~_ __ ~~ Church. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning] 0-072297-8 Mr. Harrington advised that this is a request for a special use permit for an addition of approximately 24,000 square feet for a facility for religious assembly on Brambleton Avenue. Part of the expansion, a 9,400 square foot family life center, would be built on church-owned property which is zoned R-1 residential which requires a special use permit. The concerns expressed by citizens at the Planning Commission public hearing related to storm water management and the buffer yard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with the condition that a swale shall be constructed along the western property line to direct storm water into a detention facility. Mr. Jeff Parkhill, Hughes & Associates, architect for the church, advised that the church held a community meeting and felt that they had adequately addressed the neighbors' concern about water and flooding by the putting in a 15 foot buffer zone and 6 foot opaque fence. He described the design details of the project. Associate Pastor Glenn Pierce responded to questions concerning the safety of children going to the church activities versus the safety of children going to a proposed convenience store. He advised that the expanded facilities are for the members of the congregation only; that they do not plan any after school activities or open gym; and any activities with the schools will be coordinated with the school officials. Supervisor Eddy moved to adopt the ordinance and approve the special use , . , t July 22, 1997 455 is nc ~ u on ~ e _ e i ion o ara ~~o a an~ i avis. er Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning~ 0-072297-9 Mr. Harrington advised that this is a request for a special use permit to allow a private kennel in a R-1 low density residential zoning district. The petitioners who are moving to this area currently have three Golden Retrievers. At the Planning Commission meeting several citizens from an adjacent subdivision expressed concerns about existing loud barking and dogs running loose: Because of the controls that can be placed on a private kennel, the Planning Commission recommended approval with three conditions: (1) that the private kennel shall be for a maximum of four dogs; (2) that the kennel permit shall be issued for a ane year period; and (3) a kennel silencer shall be installed in any outdoor pen or run constructed to confine the animals. Supervisor Johnson advised that the Board has asked staff to amend the Roanoke County Code to allow citizens to keep three dogs instead of two. Ms. Sara Cole, 2215 Maple Street, Virginia Beach, VA, petitioner, advised that they are purchasing over three and one-half areas of land. They are planning to raise Golden Retrievers and had asked for a permit for more than four .dogs. Supervisor Harrison moved to adopt the ordinance and approve the special use permit with condition amended by Supervisor Eddy to permit six dogs instead of four. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ,, ~ C p July 22, 1997 457 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Stephen D. and Marie Freeman. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-072297-10 -DENIED Mr. Harrington advised that this is a request to rezone-0.94 acre from C-1, office, to C-2, general commercial, and obtain a special use permit to construct a convenience store located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest ..Road and Route 221. He advised that although the property is located in the neighborhood conservation district, after evaluation, the staff determined that the most appropriate designation for this site is transition which would include office use and limited commercial. The citizens expressed many concerns at the Planning Commission public hearing, and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request and the specia! use permit. By memorandum dated Juiy 17, 1997, Mr. Harrington advised that there was 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 height of 15 feet. He suggested that if the rezoning and special use permit are approved, that the Board not accept the freestanding signage proffer but attach to the special use permit that the freestanding sign be a monument type and not exceed 15 feet in height. By memorandum dated July 22, 1997, Mr. Harrington advised that Mr. ,. r July 22, 1997 459 of 3 inch caliper; (4) signage limited to 18 feet which can be dealt with in the special use permit conditions; (5) no off premise signs will be allowed on this property; and (6) if VDOT determines that a traffic Light is warranted, petitioner will pay towards the costs up to $20,000. Mike Pace, attorney for PMI, listed the various programs that they contribute to or sponsor to help promote Roanoke County. They plan to properly design and operate the store in a safe manner and fee! the use of land is appropriate. They will not sell tobacco or alcohol to minors. The store will provide convenience and not be a destination location so traffic will not increase. He described the results of a sight distance study done by T. P. Parker and traffic study by Johnson, Merriman & Thompson. The sight distance is above the requirements for VDOT and a trafi'ic Light could be justified by the existing traffic. They have been contacted by people who would welcome the store and he presented petitions signed by 516 people supporting this request. He suggested that the comprehensive plan for this area should be reviewed and feels that the cluster or general store zoning is appropriated in a transition zone. He disagreed that C-1 is the only zoning classification and that felt that C-2 was appropriate if it is properly developed and planned. The following citizens spoke in opposition to the rezoning and special use permit: 1. Ann Pfeiffer. 4616 Rosecrest Road 2. Donna M. Hamner. 4606 Rosecrest Road 3. Megan Smith, 4640 Rosecrest Road 4. Meg Davies, 5354 Doe Run Road ~. July 22, 1897 461 __ _ ~~_ _ ~ _. _ ~ r _ _. _~_ _ :_ . 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 IN RE: RECESS At 10:05 p.m., Chairman Johnson declared a five minute recess. IN RE: OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion of recyclinq issues Chairman Johnson advised that the Board has already decided not to expand the source separation recycling program. The issue is where the drop off sites will be located for the citizens to use. Supervisor Nickens referred to Mr. Hodge's memorandum of July 16, 1997, with the suggestion that if the objective is to .recycle county-wide with as little expense as possible, the six drop off sites should be located at libraries, schools, fire stations, and parks as near as possible to the residential areas. He asked that this be considered a motion. In response to questions, Mr. Hodge advised that within the next few days, staff will choose sites throughout the County, contact the Board members to get their approval, and put together an informational program for the citizens. He wil-I try to get this i ~-081997-9. a ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER 1~.~ '~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and Social Services Advisory Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The following nominations were made at the July 22, 1997 meeting, and should now be confirmed. Supervisor Minnix nominated Neil Gallagher to complete the unexpired four year term of Guy Byrd who has resigned. The term will expire September 26, 1999. Social services Advisory Board Supervisor Johnson nominated Patricia W. Thompson to serve a four year term, representing the Hollins Magisterial District. The term will expire August 1, 2001. Supervisor Harrison nominated Ed Wold to another four year term, representing the Catawba Magisterial District. His term will expire August 1, 2001. Supervisor Minnix nominated Betty Lucas to another four year term representing the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Her term will expire August 1, 2001. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Jt . ~ . Respectfully submitted, ~. J Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board ~+ Approved by, ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) ~bbrove Eddy ~ Received ( ) Harrison _~L Referred ( ) Johnson _~ To ( ) _ Minnix ~_ Nickens .~ cc: File Industrial Development Authority File Social Services Advisory Board A-081997-9. b 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Approve Courthouse Maintenance Funds Expenditures COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~=u-~ ~~~ ~ BACKGROUND: In 1991, a courthouse maintenance account was established by the Board of Supervisors when the General Assembly authorized localities to receive $2.00 per criminal or traffic case filed. As of June 30, 1997, there was approximately $40,770 available in this account. We normally receive $37,000 in revenues per year and the only on-going expense coming from the account is the $10,363 rental for the parking lot. Staff has occupied the Roanoke County Courthouse facility for nearly 12 years and only minimal repairs and cosmetic improvements have been made. Some of the carpeting is in need of replacement and other areas need repairs and painting to the walls and trim. The Department of General Services has obtained pricing for this type of renovation and suggests that up to $65,000 be appropriated from the Courthouse Maintenance Account to begin the needed painting and carpeting. Judge Willett has met with the Constitutional Officers located at the Court complex and they concur in this prioritized list of improvements. FISCAL IMPACT: The Courthouse maintenance account had a balance on June 30, 1997 of $40,770, should receive $37,000 this fiscal year, and only has $10,363 obligated for the rental of the parking lot. The Board of Supervisors can appropriate the needed monies of up to $65,000 to begin the painting and carpeting project from this account. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Appropriate the $65,000 from the Courthouse Maintenance Account and authorize the Department of General Services to proceed with the needed repairs, subject to the approval of the Judge and his committee. -: .~ L- 3 2. Do not appropriate this amount and hold the repairs until they are prioritized in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1 to appropriate the $65,000 from the Courthouse Maintenance Account and authorize the Department of General Services to proceed with the needed repairs, subject to the approval of the Judge and his committee. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~~..-~. ~ C9-~ John M. Chambliss, r. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by:_Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) approve Eddy ~ Received ( ) Harrison x Referred ( ) Johnson ~ To ( ) Minnix ~ Nickens X cc: File John M Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Roy Willett, Judge, Circuit Court William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court Gerald Holt, Sheriff Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney •~ ~ A-081997-9.c 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Increase the Number of Vehicles in the County Fleet by One to Allow Read Mountain Fire and Rescue to Acquire an Ambulance and Become a Transporting Agency COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~ BACKGROUND: Read Mountain Fire and Rescue began its operation strictly as a fire department operation until its members could be adequately trained in the provision of emergency medical services. As their membership became trained and certified, they began operating as a First Responder agency to provide immediate medical care until an ambulance arrived on the scene. Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department is now in the process of obtaining its state licensure as an emergency medical transporting agency. Currently, Read Mountain Fire and Rescue is an agency licensed only to respond to the scene of a medical emergency, and not transport to a hospital. As an insured and registered ambulance is necessary before Read Mountain can be officially licensed to transport to a hospital, Blue Ridge Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad has agreed to lease an ambulance to Read Mountain Fire and Rescue until their new ambulance arrives. The costs associated with this lease are the sole responsibility of Read Mountain Fire and Rescue. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Read Mountain Fire and Rescue has applied for and received a grant to purchase and equip their own ambulance and all matching monies will be raised by their organization. This is the same practice followed when Back Creek began operating its own ambulance several years ago. It is requested that the County of Roanoke increase the number of authorized vehicles for the Department of Fire and Rescue by one adding the ambulance to the County's insurance policy. L- -~ Until such time as the vehicle is insured and registered by Roanoke County, Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department is unable to apply for its state transporting license. FISCAL IMPACT: Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department will be responsible for all costs incurred in connection with the use and operation of the ambulance during the lease term. Maintenance costs for the ambulance will be paid with funds from the operating budget of Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department. Read Mountain will also pay for the matching monies required to acquire and equip the new ambulance. Insurance expenses for the ambulance will be paid from the Risk Management budget. No additional appropriations are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the lease agreement of the said ambulance, allowing Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department to apply for its state transporting license and increase the County Fleet by one. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Richard E. Burch, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Fire and Rescue Chief County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) approve with the understanding Eddy _~ Received ( ) that the lease agreement does Harrison ~ Referred ( ) not need approval by the Board Johnson ~_ To ( ) of Supervisors Minnix ~ Nickens ~_ cc: File Richard Burch, Fire & William J. Rand, III, Rescue Chief Director, General Services L..- ~-~ AGREEMENT OF LEASE made and entered into this day of , 1997, by and between the BLUE RIDGE VOLUNTEERFIRE DEPARTMENT AND RESCUE SQUAD, INC., hereinafter called Owner, and the READ MOUNTAIN FIRE & RESCUE DEPARTMENT, INC., hereinafter called Lessee. WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt of which is herebyacknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. LEASE OF VEHICLE The Owner hereby leases to the Lessee,and the Lessee hereby hires from the Owner, the vehicle, more fully degribed as a 1982 Ford Ambulance, License No. 5757, Identification No. 1FDKE30L1CHB16296 to be picked up by the Lessee under the terms as hereinafter provided. The vehicle leased hereunder shall be titled and/or registered in the name of Owner or its designee. The Lessee shall at no time have any right, title or interest whatsoever, legal or equitable, in orto the said vehicle except the right to use it under the terms hereof. 2. LEASE TERM The lease term of said vehicle shall be one (1) year, beginring on the other party. and ending when either party gives one month notice, in writing, to 3. USE OF VEHICLE: The Lessee, or any other legally qualified person authorized by him, shall use the vehicle leased hereunder only for lawful purposes within the United States. The Lessee shall comply (a) with all applicable requirements, and (b) with all conditions of the policies of insurance on said vehicle. The Lessee shall not sublease 1 ~. f ~~ / the said vehicle leased hereunder; nor shall the Lessee except with written consent of the Owner, assign this lease or the Lessee's rights or interest in said vehicle. All equipment currently available on this vehicle (Botetourt County Low Band Radio, stretcher, oxygen regulator) will remain with the vehicle and will be returned with the vehicle at the end of the agreement. 4. RENT: The Lessee shall pay Owner a sum of money as rent for the said vehicle payable in advance at the commencementof the lease in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00). The Lessee shall pay all costs, expenses, tolls, fees, andcharges, including any fines and penalties, incurred in connection with the use and operation of the slid vehicle during the lease term. The Lessee shall maintain the said vehide in good operating condition and appearance at all times during the lease period. The Lessee shall pay all costs connected with normal fuel and all usage and routine servicing. The Lessee shall pay all damage or injury to the said vehicle caused by neglect,negligent driving, parking and operation of tl~ said vehicle during the term of this lease. Normal maintenance and repairwork caused by normal wear and tear will be completed by Lessee at the Lessee's expense. At the end of any termination of the lease term the Lessee shall surrender the vehicle in as good conditirn as received, ordinary wear and tear expected. 5. INSURANCE: The Lessee will provide, in accordance with the State Code, collision and comprehensive, and primary liability insurance coverage. A certification of insurance will be provided to the Owner. The Owner of the said vehicle will accept the offer made by the Lessee's insurance company if the said vehicle is inwlved in an accident and the said vehicle is beyond repair. 2 6. WARRANTIES: The Owner makes no warranties, either expressedor implied as to the condition of the vehicle leased hereunder. 7. INSPECTION BY LESSEE: The Lessee herein acknowledges that he has inspected the vehicle leased hereunder and accepts the said vehicle as is and acknowledg6 that the said vehicle is in good and safe operating condition, and agrees to accept all r~k or loss occasioned by the operation of said vehicle. 8. INDEMNITY: Lessee agrees to indemnify Owner from all losses and expens6 insured on account of the negligence or claims of negligence committed by Lessee, Lesee's employees, or agents. 9. AGREEMENT: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement bet~neen the parties hereto and no modification is expressed in a written instrument signed by the partie hereto. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: READ MOUNTAIN FIRE & RESCUE DEPARTMENT, INC. BLUE RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT AND RESCUE SQUAD, INC. By Approved as to form: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney C:\OFFiCE\ W PW IIJ\ W PDOCS\ FORMS\ AMBULANCUSE By 3 w --- J THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 081997-9.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF AFTON LANE AND APRIL LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Supervisor Johnson Seconded By: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Eddy, Harrison, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson Nays: None Absent: None A Copy Teste: .~. Q.L.-~-~~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation ~i~ NORTH 140, ~ / Ilt, •f .s .. .: i " !3 ,p a - 47*~ `~ \ I 2.13 Ac R t Il1p _ ~ ~• ~ •p4 ~ M t q ~ ,f i ~ 8 •"•b~lzs + IS 126 AC _ IT '~ ~; •°• 1.07AC i 42 A : . 18 ~ 7 t I . c y ti ~ 171! •~7 '++ Cpl! °iO 41~~ 17. 2 1716 1711 ~~ ~. / 4 P '~>c e Ac s .•° ~ ~ "777 ; c~ t1 aS. .. 2 ,,. ~ 1.40 > >rr ~~, N P, ~ ' a:> ~ >ar P . ~ . 2.49AC ' T 3.C0 Ac ~ 27 ° ' .+ ~~ ~~.••• 2 >P' + 29 ' r ~ al / > ~J ~ ~ 3.91 AG ~ i lI - . •. 29 (p r Loy ~ ~~ ~ ~~oe . Rcp s 2 -~~;: ~ RI •ni SO •'~-'--~ ~ so zsoa~rn . . _ .. oee PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) Afton Lane - From State Route 606 to the south intersection with Layman the Road, , east cul-de-sac. 2) April Lane -From th e east intersection with Afto L north cul-de-sac. n ane to the LENGTH: (1) RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 0.27 MILES (2) 0.12 MILES PAVEMENT WIDTH: (1) 50 FEET 32 (2) 50 FEET SERVICE: (1) FEET (2) 26 FEET 3 HOMES (2) 3 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY • ~ - ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT APRIL'S MEADOW ~'~ ""' ~I ^ I Ct C L m Q E c r a U Q d _~ 0 d N !n ^ i Q ~ o O ^ U d € t E 2 O c N ~` C m O ti ~ ~ V Q a N ¢ O O ~ ~ n a a ~ J ~ y c H Q ~ MM~ ~ ~ '1i^ VI O ~ .y i .~ L ~ _O ~ O L ~ ~ EU E Q < Z ~, >_ N ~ N O O V; ~ t N O ;: Z C V ~"' W n • o n N N ^ U O O P 8 _ O H Z a n 3 ~ ~~ 0 0 [-~ ~.a o P m P m O m P m P m 01 o P v a° a° i a° a° a a° ai c c r ^ v .. ~ .. 0 ~ x Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o D o o a ~ F C N C C ~ ~ Oj 1 V F ¢-;+ ~ 1 b L ~ j Ol ~ W ~C.7 o m m m ' q ~ m ~ ~ O O m O 5i O ai O C W a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d v m m E O ¢ tl O ¢ E ~ Q O ~ Q 4 ¢ O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ lL C H d {L ~ H d IL p F- d tL ~ H C. O lL p F ~ O (L Q F Q, tL ~ !- d U x a 3 z z ~ , a t ~ a o H ~ O H ~ o E"~ CG 6 U~ m ~ Z •- N~ f7 t N f0 P gym.. O Z 9 a u a r- E Z ~ w 2 ~ ~ L ~'" O t C LL ~ O a 0 O e, U r- v Q n W '- U L a h aq e ITEM NUMBER L- S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Afton Lane and April Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION L. T. McGee and Company, the developer of April's Meadow, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requesting that they accept 0.27 miles of Afton Lane, from the south intersection of Layman Road, State Route 606, to the east cul-de-sac, and 0.12 miles of April Lane, from the east intersection of Afton Lane to the north cul-de-sac. The staff has inspected these roads along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the roads are acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Afton Lane and April Lane into the Secondary Road System. 1 t~ "" ~ 7 BMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspe ACTION Approved ()Motion by:. Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ns APPROVED BY: .~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs 2 L ~. ~; THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 1997, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF AFTON LANE AND APRIL LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote a Copy Teste: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: Mary Allen, Board Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors c: Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering and Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation File ~ _ ~~ _ NORTH ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING & APRIL'S MEADOW INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ~. ~~. O i~ -, ~ U ~I W x O c Z m ~ E ~ L U _ I f6 3i Q d r ~c C d ~.+ N ~ N i R O o O O a ~ L E •-' 2 O .,,, c N '" = m O _ N ~ ~CC Q O ~ ~ O O ~ d n O '~ 4. ~ ~ ~ N O H a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c O ~ .y Y •~ L ~ O_ ~ O D L ~ o ~ ~ Q < Z t%~ >_ N ~ N O C v, ~ Q .~.. O N i; 2 •m n N N ^ O O o, ~ _ O 1- Z O n _ 3 o ~ 0 0 ¢~ m m ro m m p ~ ° H ~n ~ a° a° a a a i a m c ~ c c ~ C ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ o w o o 0 0 0 o z ~ I W rn rn ~ ~ ~ ~ tl H m m m m m .d.. .~.. p ~ ~ O ~ ~ O O ~ H i ~ ~ $ °a a °a °a a V Q Q Q V ; ~ b ~ a ~ a ~ o a ~ o 6 a ~ o 2 a ~ o e ii o F- a ~L o ~- a ~ o ~ a ~ r- a ~ t- a ~i ~ a ~ r- a ; W W i z z 7 a a ~ S h ~ ~ ~ H i E i ZO ~ ~ m ~ [[ 2 r N l7 f 1L1 m ~ . 0 0 u ~: E z W U t s r LL a O o O °a, U LL ~. u w U L u e °c • ~1 A-081997-9.e ACTION # ITEM NUMBER L^ ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Summerfield, Section 2 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of Summerfield, Section 2, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The water and sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Lang Engineering entitled Project #93-SB-01092.2, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The water and sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: The value of the water and sanitary sewer construction is $35, 520.00 and $12,132.00 respectively. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving Summerfield, Section 2 along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. ~-G SUBMITTED BY: Gary Robe son, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) abbrove _ Eddy ~ Received ( ) Harrison ~_ Referred ( ) Johnson ~ To ( ) Minnix ~_ Nickens ~_ cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections L- (o THI5 CHATTEL DEED, made this 15th day of Ap r i 1 , 199 ? by and between: Fralin & Wal~o,~„ Inc. ,hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," party of the first part; and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, its successors or assigns, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part. :WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits accruing to the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Developer does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all water and/or sewer lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, sources of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto belonging, in and to the water and/or sewer systems in the streets, avenues, public utility, easement areas, water and sewer easement areas that have been ar may hereafter be installed by the Developer, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown, described and designated as follows, to wit: As shown on the plan entitled Summ,~jd -- Section II ~ made by Bert ~. ~antl~y. Ind. ,and on file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department. 4 Page 1 of 3 L. - (v The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the Baard of Supervisors of Raanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 19 WITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals: Dcvclopcr: ~rC~GLir1__~~ ~~i~/,,,_ By: As: State o£ Virginia County/City of Roangke , to wit: The fore~aing instrument was a knowledged before me this: f ~ ,day of 19 ~, ~.% ~~ By: ~ •~utJ and 1u-~ Duly authorized\of~ficer Title on behalf of `~~ ~-~n- ~, _ Public My Commission expires: ,~°.~0- q~ Page 2 of 3 1.- W Approved as to form: Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia By (SEAL) County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Slate of: Vi~~ni~ County/City of: ~~olse , to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this: day of 19 , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My Commission expires: Page 3 of 3 ~ 56 ~~ wRr:nE idE cnEEl a CF 25 \ - vti C~~~:~E SEa ' V ~ i I I i~ ~ `"~ SEC 1 26 SEC 1 80 <I i _ - ~=•- LOT '27 SFC 1 LOT 25 ~~~ I I ' I 57 , i :.~'~ LOT 36 aj I ~ SEC 2 56 ~ i 59 60 61 - - 562 ~, 29 a°. ~ :: ~., 1 '?~ LOT ti SF.C 2 St:C 'L SEC 2 SFC 2 SFC •L SEC I 8r.' 0~" 81 ~ ~ ~ c`~9 LOT 5 ~ ~ LOT a LOT 3 LOT 2 a'.: 3'= .~ ~ c,,e w. ~ LOT 1 LOT 28 ~t~ LOT 7 ~ ''I ~t, ~~- ~ x _ _ 1 ="- - - - .. - ~ ~ ..sue` ..a `~ vet ~~i - - ''~.' ~_ .~-•~ ~u.n $ C~n ~ -- ~ - 1 _ SF.C2 I ~~~I -- --.--:x rem ~~ -L_~°-c- _-- t'1 -.n rec +,.~ I: s.~_. .. LOT B I s' ~ j - : c:.~ ~ ~.~ [ I ...`I ZS 127 128 129 .:~nl3o 9 I~. ;' ~ , ~ .. 3l ~~ I' ;:~ 30 SF.C t I a SFC 2 SFC 2 SFC 2 SFC 2 St:C 'L SEC 2 1= t LOT 30 Sti ~ 2 '1x II • I e LOT I 0 LOT I I LO'f 12 LO'C 13 IAT ! a LOT 15 -1 R .I ~ = 1 - SEC 1 LOT 9 i I jg I I ~I LOT 29 ~ Ir ~ ; III ~ ~; ~ .3 , .,~o f ~_y.c:.. I I I; ~ I I n t -•p r.~;,•. I i I I 131 `; 8a ~ J I'LS'c SF.C 'L .~c~: r ~ I' ~- LOT 22 I I 1 "_ . ~ ~ laa LOT 16 ,.. ..` I i .r. ~~ _- 13 _...... la3 i ~I~k 'j~- -r; ~~ I i ~I Iza /~- ~~ ~6-`-~ ~I(3z -- N ~- kn -'I;;e:o` • Ilsvy- -----'-- 85 I ~ j ~ I ~/ SFC 2 $ II - j ~N ~ I\ LOFT 21 ~ I I `~ I Ia5 ~ \\ ~~. ~ LOT 17 I \ I 5 Cl \ ~ • "~ \ t\ SEC 2 -I$ ~- es I I Iza \ l ~ la 133 ~J\ \ ~:~\ Lor 20 1 ~ i I ~ i~ st:c z \ \:. I LOT 18 ~ -.\ ---i-------- ~ I las 5 _ _ 5.x,55 I I lat ::K-.y \ ~ ` ~ c sr. 5 l I i `:', e7 I -~ izz I ~, ~ I I 13a \ \ ~ ' ql SEC 2 ~~\ ~ / / I 9. I j ~I I Ia0 LOT 19 \ may/ I \Y 12l 147 I `_'"° ,\' I 1 I I r.K \~ \ .=, - / V 120 ~ ~~~~ ~a l39 l38 / / / ~~~~~~ / ._ ~ ~ 1as _ I o ' I B9 ~~ + 119 I ~ I 137 •• _ / I~f / \ ~~ 1 18 I i I 138 / / / / I02 ~~ 3 \ ~\ i ~ I ~y~-~~ // 101 ;~~~ ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES SERVING UTILITY SU!rL^~RFIELD - SECTION 2 DEPARTMENT A-081997-9. f 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of additional State Compensation Board funded position in the Commissioner of the Revenue's Office and increase the number of full-time positions In 1996, the State Compensation Board developed a position reallocation policy for Commissioners of the Revenue Offices to determine the appropriate level of Compensation Board funded positions required for each commissioner's off ice. Thirty offices required one or more additional full-time positions and 16 offices have one or more positions in excess of the staffing standards. The Compensation Board also asked for input from the Commissioners of the Revenue Association of Virginia regarding the reallocation of positions from offices which exceeded the staffing standards to offices which showed a need for additional positions. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Based upon the 1996 policy adopted by the Compensation Board, Roanoke County's Commissioner of the Revenue's Office has been allocated one additional full-time position. This position will be funded by the State Compensation Board. Before the position can be allocated to Wayne Compton's Office, the Compensation Board requires that the Board of Supervisors concur with the additional position in writing. It will also be necessary to approve increasing the approved number of County full-time positions by one to 743. FISCAL IMPACT: This position will be funded by the State Compensation Board so no additional funds are required. L- "~ Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors concur in writing to the State Compensation Board that the Commissioner of the Revenue's Office be allocated one additional position and that the total number of full-time County employees be increased to 743. Respectfully Submitted by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) apFrove Eddy ~ Received ( ) Harrison ~_ Referred ( ) Johnson ~_ To ( ) Minnix ~ Nickens ~ cc: File R Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Bruce W. Hayes, Executive Secretary, State Compensation Board L.- r7 JUNE R. FUNKHOUSER ,~ ~ BRUCE W. HAYNES ~,ulRy~,r EXECUTIVE SECRETARY DANNY M. PAYNE JAMES W. MATTHEWS W. J. KUCHARSKI EX-OFFICq MEMBERS ~®~~ r®~~~~~~~ ®~ ~~T~~_ +~~ `n./~ IY~,T~ N ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY COMPENSATION BOARD P. 0. BOX 710 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23218-0710 August 1,1997 The Honorable R. Wayne Compton Commissioner of the Revenue County of Roanoke .. P. O. Box 20409 Roanoke, VA 24018-0513 Dear Mr. Compton: I write regarding the Compensation Board's Position Reallocation Policy and its effect on your office. As you may know, the Compensation Board requested the input of the Commissioner of the Revenue Association of Virginia regarding the reallocation of positions from offices which exceeded Compensation Board staffing standards to offices which showed a need for additional positions. Your association and the Compensation Board find it difficult to justify to the General Assembly the need for additional positions when your own workload -based staffing standards show some offices as having excess positions. Based upon the input of the Commissioner of The Revenue Association of Virginia, the Compensation Board adopted the attached policy, effective July 1,1996. Based upon this policy, and the Compensation Board staffing standards, your office has been allocated an additional position as follows: 1 Full-Time Equivalent Position All position allocations will be contingent upon the written concurrence of the governing body. Please contact Charlotte Luck, James W. Matthews, or me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce W. Haynes ~~~ Executive Secretary Copy to: Governing Body James W. Matthews, Assistant Executive Secretary Charlotte W. Luck, Senior Fiscal Technician h:\word\realctn pos gain.cr kml-8/1/9'7 FAX (804) 371-0235 ADMINISTRATION (804) '36-0786 (V;?DD) (804) 786-0786 L--'7 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE COMPENSATION BOARD'S POSITION REALLOCATION POLICY FOR COMMISSIONERS' OF THE REVENUE OFFICES MAY 1, 1997 The mission of the Compensation Board, as set out in §14.1-51, Code of Virginia, is to "...fix and determine what constitutes a fair and reasonable budget for the participation of the Commonwealth toward the total cost of the office. " In order to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of the Commonwealth's limited resources (i.e., positions) amongst the 650 offices, the Compensation Board requested each association to develop workload based staffing standards. Each of the five associations responded, and the Board adopted the standards verbatim, as recommended by each association. These standards did not consider all duties performed by all Constitutional Officers. Instead, the standards considered duties mandated by the Code of Virginia. In commissioners' offices, for example, the standards do not consider multiple billings or utility collections. When we calculated the appropriate level of Compensation Board full-time equivalent positions required for each commissioners office this year, we found that 30 offices require one or more additional Full-Time Equivalent (F.T.E.) positions, and 16 offices have one or more F.T.E. positions in excess of Compensation Board staffing standards. Herein lies the fundamental question addressed by the proposed reallocation policy: how should the Compensation Board address this apparent inequitable distribution of resources? In 1995, the Compensation Board proposed a position reallocation policy to address this issue, and asked your association for input. The executive board approved the policy proposed by the Compensation Board. ' No one should consider the offices in excess to be "overstaffed. " Instead, based upon a fixed number of duties, these offices have Compensation Board reimbursed positions in excess of other offices having the same duties. As previously noted, the staffing standards do not address duties which are discretionary on the part of the commissioners, and funding is not appropriated to the Compensation Board to provide_ positions for discretionary duties . Consequently these duties, while performed by many commissioners' offices, are not considered in the staffing standards. Likewise, positions have been provided over the years to commissioners' offices to perform tasks that are now automated. While the positions were certainly justified 10 or 15 years ago, it certainly appears logical to revisit the allocation of positions as conditions change. There are some alternatives to the proposed reallocation policy. (Over) ~'~ The Compensation Board has been required by law for some years to reallocate jail overcrowding positions in sheriffs' offices each year. On May 1 of each year, the Compensation Board notifies the sheriff or sheriffs that as of July 1, Compensation Board funding for a position or positions will terminate and the position will be abolished. Unless the local government agrees to fund the position, the employee is laid off. This legislative remedy could be applied to all Constitutional Officers and not just the sheriffs. Instead of the proposed policy, which allows for amulti-year "grace period," excess positions could be eliminated. We are all aware of the private sector response to a decline in work-flow: employees are laid off. Simply put, ignoring the offices in excess status will invite the attention of other parties (e.g., the legislature or the Department of Planning and Budget) and is a disservice to the 30 commissioners' offices which clearly need one or more additional Compensation Board funded ;~ positions. `~ Let's make a number of assumptions so that the "outcome" of the proposed policy can be better explained. Let's assume that the data used to calculate workload is verified as correct, the commissioner has a vacancy during FY98, and the commissioner's argument based upon "unique situations" is not accepted by the Board. The commissioner would then have the option of not filling the position which becomes vacant, not filling another position of a lower ``grade, or i-educing his or her hourly wage budget equivalent to the salary of a full-time equivalent position. No matter which option is chosen, the commissioner's budget would not be reduced in the fiscal year in which the vacancy occurs.. In February of 1998, the commissioner would submit his or her workload for CY97. If the latest workload data showed a continued need for the position, it would not be abolished in FY99. If the workload data resulted in the office remaining in excess status, the position would be abolished by the Compensation Board, effective July 1, 1998, and reallocated, in priority order according to "staffing standards, to the commissioner's office having the greatest need. Commissioners who wish to verify their workload data should call Charlotte Luck at 804-786- 0777. Questions regarding the policy should be directed to Jim W. Matthews or Bruce W. Haynes at 804-786-0786. H:\WORD\REALCTN.CRFY98 L--'] Compensation Board Policy Position Reallocation Preface: The General Assembly, through Chapter 853 Item 80, has recognized the value of staffing standards for constitutio:~.:l officers, mandating that all new positions be allocated using established standards. The next step in the equitable allocation of the Commonwealth's limited resources is the establishment and implementation of a policy on the reallocation of positions in offices with positions in excess of the number specified by the staffing standards. Purpose: To establish policy which institutes the procedures for the reallocation of _ positions exceeding the number speci5ed by staffing standards. Effective Date: July 1, 1996 Genera] Policy: Positions which become vacant after July 1, 1996 in any office in which the number of F.T.E. positions exceeds the position count by one or more positions based upon the Compensation Board's adopted staffing standards shall not be filled. For the remainder of the fiscal year in which the vacancy occurs those vacancy savings maybe transferred within the office according to standard transfer procedures. Positions shall be held unfilled in the order in which vacancies occur. The Compensation Board may, with the concurrence of the specific constitutional officer, provide for the vacancy of an ::,:::alternative position of a lower grade within the office. Officers losing positions in - .:: accordance with this policy may request the Board's reconsideration ofthe decision to . .. __ ..::~>~:: reallocate the position(s) on the basis of unique, office. specific_ situations. Prior to :: ~;~.. abolishing any permanent positions, the Compensation Board-will remove from an affected :-:;:~ ,~,;_ officea's approved budget, a full time equivalency of temporary funding for each position to be abolished. Any vacant positions held open by the Compensation Board will be abolished and reallocated during the next budget cycle and will be available to be filled on or after July 1 of the following fiscal year in the office identified by the staffing standards as having the highest need. AQ,nlication: Constitutional Officers with full time equivalent positions which exceed the Compensation Board's staffing standards by one or more positions will be notified of that excess on May 1 of each year. When any Compensation Board funded position in the office becomes vacant, the Constitutional Officer will notify the Board through a Form CB 10 of the vacancy. The position will remain vacant and unfilled in that office's budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Compensation Board will abolish the position(s) in the fiscal year budget following the year in which the vacancy occurs. r val: This policy shall remain in eS'ect until further amended by the Compensation $ d. June R Funkhouser ate Chairman Compensation Board A-081997-9. g ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER ~~~~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ~E~'.~~,~ DATE : August 19, 1997 A(TENDA STEM: Request to Donate Surplus Metrocall Pagers to Commonwealth Search and Rescue ~QUNTY AnMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS ~ ~~~y~.r'y~~y,~,~,ti~Q~~"„" 'i~~~,~ E ~~~~ a~f BACKGROUN,S_ Commonwealth Search and Rescue (formerly Botetourt Mounted Search and Rescue, Inc.) has requested that the County of Roanoke donate surplus Metrocall pagers to their organization to assist in alerting their members of need for their service. This organization has assisted the County on several occasions and has night vision equipment, ground searchers, air scent search dogs and mounted searchers to provide help as needed. The County of Roanoke has 20 of the older style Metrocall pagers which have been turned in as surplus property for disposal. Since this is the same system of pager used by the CSAR group, staff is suggesting that these items be declared surplus by the County and that staff be authorized to donate these 20 units to Commonwealth Search and Rescue. These units cost $49 each when new and would not bring more than a few dollars each at a surplus auction. While the dollars will nat be realized through the surplus auction, the benefit from the services provided to the County of Roanoke by CSAR more than offsets the value. 1. Donate the 20 surplus pagers to Commonwealth Search and Rescue. 2. Retain the surplus pagers and dispose of them at the normal auction of surplus property item. L-S Staff recommends Alternative 1 to declare the pagers surplus and to donate them to Commonwealth Search and Rescue. Respectfully submitted, Approv by, ~ m ~~~ John M. Chambli s, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) apgrove Eddy ~ Received ( ) Harrison _~ Referred ( ) Johnson ~ To ( ) Minnix ~ Nickens ~ cc: File John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement Rick Burch, Chief of Fire & Rescue William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services Roger L. Marcum, President` Commonwealth Search and Rescue O~ -RpANp~~ L ~ ~ ~ ` ' c> 2 ~~ „v ~a~ rags ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR August 1, 1997 Mr. Roger L. Marcum, President Commonwealth Search and Rescue P. O. Box 568 Daleville, Virginia 24083-0568 Dear Mr. Marcum: This is to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter asking that Roanoke County donate to your organization the Metrocall pagers that we are replacing. As you are aware, we normally auction off surplus property but, by copy of this letter, I will ask that these pagers be put aside until the method of their disposal has been decided. A report regarding your request will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 19, and you will be advised promptly of the action taken by the Board. If they approve donation of the pagers, we will make them available to you forthwith. If you have any questions about this transaction, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, ~~~~~ John M. Chambllss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator meh cc - Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator Ms. M. Elaine Carver, Director; Procurement Department Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk; Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2002 FAX (540) 772-2089 ® Recycled Paper W f BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Roger Marcum, President Ernie Ward Vice President Chris Laing, Secretary Sarah File, Treasurer James Latchford Operatiau Officer Harold Chrimes, Trauiueg Officer Parliamentarian wauyReed COMMITTEES: By-Laws / S.O.P. Bob WhrgJleld Chairpoton Chris Laing '~, JmnesLlrehjard ' Ltoneaa LIlehjord Mike Moore Roger Mareum Fund Raising Sorah File, Chairperson Roger Mareum Handbook Lisa Dyg Chairperson Judy Burleson Thoresa Denson Roger Marcum Historical Jamey LUchjord Chal~poson Micholle Fisherpojj Roger Marcum Hug-A-Tree Mike Moore, Chairpnson TTicrcra Deruon Ernie Ward Bob Wbtg/tcld Marketing /Public Relations Don Johnron, Chairperson Michelle F7sherpojf Roger Mareurn Memberslilo Ltra Dyti Chairpuson Donna Johruon DJck Rudolph Roger Marcum Nmninating Lisa Dye, Chairyarson Bob Wtn~eld Wally Read Training Harold Chrhnes, CHairpaton Bob Wireg/(dd Roger Marcum Commonwealth Search and Rescue P.O. Box 568 L- g Daleville, VA 24083-0568 July 29, 1997 County of Roanoke Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., County Administrator 5204 Bernard Drive, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Hodge; Commonwealth Search and Rescue is die Former Botetourt Mounted Search and Rescue, Inc. that has been in existence since the late 1970's. When the unit was originally formed, it was done so wide the idea of providing mounted searchers to help the local Sherifffind lost persons in Botetourt County only. Today, we are a diverse search and rescue group drat provides horse teams, air scent dog teams and numerous ground teams to any location in Virginia and the surrounding states. We are all certified by the Department of Emergency Services in Richmond at many different levels of search skills. Enclosed is an informational sheet that will explain our capabilities. I might add that we are the ONLY multi-disciplined unit in the state of Virginia, and CSAR is based in Roanoke. Our membership comes from as far away as Chesapeake, but the majority are from the Roanoke Valley, Martinsville and New River Valley area. We are a member of the Virginia Search and Rescue Council that meets quarterly in Richmond. We are also incorporated and have 501(c)(3) non-profit tax status. Our mondily training and business meetings are held the third Wednesday of every month at the Hollins College St<lble Lounge. - As a County employee (Solid Waste Coordinator), it is my underst<Znding that there are several County owned pagers that have had service provided by Metrocall and are being exchanged for pagers from Bell Atlantic, as a cost saving measure for the County. These pagers will not work with any service oilier than Metrocall and are therefore headed for surplus. Commonwealth Search and Rescue is currently under contract wide Metrocall to provide statewide paging service to dispatch our members to the scene of a search anywhere in the State. It would benefit our organization greatly if you would consider donating all of the surplused Metrocall pagers to our non-profit group. Commonwealth Search and Rescue has assisted Ro~rloke County authorities with several incidents within die County where persons were lost in the wilderness. It is our responsibility to respond when needed, where needed, to any part of the sti<zte, and especially in our own back yard. If more of our 35 members were afforded the opportunity to carry pagers, we could reduce our response times and stay informed of a search progress by die codes drat we have developed. Thank you in advance for your consideration and please feel free to contact me, at 387-6072 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Roger L. Marcum, President Commonwealth Search and Rescue pc: William J. Rand, III, Director General Services Enclosures (1) Emergency Unit Pager 1-540-201-0514 VA D.E.S. Emergency Operations Center 1-800-468-8892 ~ T I ~ r ~ C.. '" t,t)~I~It)~ `I I.1~~.1 I~ Sl:t~l~t;II .'~ ll.l:St;IJI: Formerly: Botetourt Mounted Search and Rescue, Inc. P.O. Box 568, Daleville, VA 24083-0568 CONTACT: D.E.S. - 1-800-468-8892 (Request the resources you need) CSAR PAGER - 1-540-201-OS 14 (Dispatcher will contact you) 1-800-767-3393 Pin # 0831(Dispatcher will contact you) PRESIDENT - 1-540-201-0899 (Roger L. Marcum -digital pager) DESCRIPTION: Commonwealth Search and Rescue (CSAR) is a state resourcz and member organization of the Virginia Search and Rescue Council, an advisory group to the Department of Emergency Services (DES), Richmond. The organization is 501(c)(3) and incorporated as a volunteer search and rescue group dedicated to providing assistance to lost or injwed persons in the out-of- doors. Members will respond to emergencies anywhere in the Commonwealth of Virginia where wilderness, mountainous or wban areas require specialized techniques and equipment. Each member supplies and carries their own provisions and gear. Depending on the location and time of alert, teams can be in route within two hows with horses or considerably less without horses. CSAR's members are covered by Sections 2.1-526.8 and 44-146.23 of the Code of Virginia protecting them from liability the same as a State employee, and also, Section 65.2-101 of the Code of Virginia affording them the opportunity to be covered under the State's Worker's Compensation in the event of an injury while responding to, or participating in, and authorized search. CAPABILITIES: BASE OF OPERATIONS: Upon rec~est, CSAR can provide trained Incident Command Staff to establish a base of operations and set up a strategy for the search. They operate from USGS Topographical maps and have the necessary maps to cover the surrounding areas of the Roanoke Valley - up to a 50-mile radius. It is stressed that they are here to ASSIST you, and will only run the search at YOUR request! COMMUNICATIONS: CSAR is licensed by the FCC to operate up to 30 units on frequencies 155.16000 and 155.20500 under the call sign WNRW534. They currently have a base station capable of transmitting up to six miles, and posses several hand held portables for field use. Also, some of the members own their own mobile radios and can setup relays when necessary. CSAR has the ability to interface communications with other local agencies when needed. NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT: CSAR is the bats test unit for ITT Night Vision and has 6 night vision units that can be utilized at any search called upon. Use of the night vision units are restricted to night vision trained CSAR members for liability reasons. However, CSAR team members will work with local volw~teers or trained searchers as necessary to insure the night vision units are used to their full potential. GROUND SEARCHERS: Members of CSAR have been trained in SAR operations, land navigation, orienteering, victim evacuation, technical (rope) rescue, wildemess survival, wilderness medical care, radio protocol, CPR and basic first aid and many of the members are EMT's. Some members carry their search gear with them at all times and can be in route immediately upon notification. AIR SCENT SEARCH DOGS: CSAR has dogs that are in various stages of training and can respond to local wilderness searches. The dogs do not require a scent article as they alert on any human scent. All handlers have the same training and qualifications as the above listed Ground Searchers. MOUNTED: CSAR's mounted teams are TRAINED searchers on horseback that will provide rapid mobility, increased scope of operation, and an elevated vantage point. All horses have been tested and certified by state standards to be "safe" and a qualified resource for search and rescue. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: CSAR works closely with D.E.S. and all other search goups in the state. At yow request, CSAR will contact additional trained resowces from elsewhere in Virginia to provide the assistance needed to locate the lost person as quickly as possible. OUR SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE! C~ - / 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 August 19, 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\B oard\Gen97. WK4 4- ~ CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIlZGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1997 (unaudited) $1,113,043.00 Balance at August 19, 1997 $1.113.043.00 I 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 0 --3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 1997-98 Original Budget $143,000.00 Balance at August 19, 1997 $143,000.00 Respectfully Submitted, ~~~ ~. ~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board97.WK4 ~ ,~ ACTION # • • ITEM NUMBER (/ '' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -June 1997 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: Payroll: $1,271,512.45 6/13/97 $653,055.28 6/27/97 669,885.46 1,322,940.74 $2,594,453.19 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: 7~~~C,airrAJ ~J. ~Y2-t.~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance C~ ~ ~~ o_~ Approved Denied Received Referred To () Motion by No Yes () Eddy () Harrison () Johnson () Minnix Nickens Abs • • r r ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER O"' .5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Report of Claims Activity for the Self-Insurance Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In accordance with the Self-Insurance Program, Ordinance #61494-4, Section 2-86.C, attached is the 4th Quarter (April, May and June- claims activity and status report. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respectf Ily subm C .- . Robert C. Jernigay Risk Manager ~ Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( 1 Eddy Received ( ) Harrison Referred ( 1 Johnson To ( ) Minnix Nickens g:\riskmgmt\trustees\board. rpt 6-~ ~ O O O O O O O M O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z W O ~[) O O OD O O O 0 O O ~ ~ ~ O 0 ~ N ~ O n O Q O ~ N a O ~°C E E E E E E E N ~ ~ m m ~ a~ m a~ ~ m m m Q J ~ ~ '~ ~ O1 O) '"7 O) m '~ ~ ~ O? Y C Y Y C C Y C C Y Y Y U O U U . f0 ~ U ~ ~ ~ U U ~ U 0 3 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 3 3 Q 'p Y _O 'p Y Y _O Y Y J ~ 'O 'O ~ C: ~ ~ C: ~ ~ C: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ -° -o -o -o -o ~ -o a ~ -o -° v ~ Q a~ a~ a~ ° a~ m a~ a~ a~ d a~ a~ ° ~ N fA N VJ fq N N N N y N N td N o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O U U U U U U U U U U U U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O j O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ W W ~ I~ ~ ~ T ~ r Q ~ M a = W z ~ ~ ~ ~ n. O LL ~ °' ~ U ~ U U ~~. F" ~ O ~ 7 Y ~ C ° > ~ _ 7 ~ Z - C . m U y ~ a W ~ C U C ~C T to -+ a y r 7 5 .N c -o W ~ ~ a+ O C to N - W ~ (~ 3 N E y ~ ~ +U+ "O ~ O O N ~ N w C a 3 ~o fO ~ ~, ~ ++ :~ •~ - O z W ~ T L ~ ~ C o~ ~ -C U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ O ` T L N C ? r J T O L N N L U U V m W 0 L ~ f0 ~ ~ O N L N ~ U O) O) Y d Q d U O) C ~ C - 'O Q J V °' `° ~ -° ~° c ~ 3 ~ ° o N c U m `° -o y ° a~ y a i ~ ° c °o ° E ~ Q Q ° 7 m ~ ~ ~ T ~ LL LL fA W N ~ Z ~ ~~ U Y O ` i ~ y ~ Z ~ a y d ~ L W 7 li. W U O) a C 7 ~ W J V• y 7 Y la 7 C c0 3 - -Y Y N ~ ~ O N O U = ~ m ~ Vl N m L N O O 1 L L t ~ L .C ~ '~ w C aL-I C J y N N y y a ~ N Y ~ N N N Q _ 2 O U In ~ ~ 2 U U ~ (n Vl r H Z CW U ~ N c ~ ~ N ~ - -~yf d Y N Y Y i~ ? N f' N ~ ~ W _ Y - Y _ ~Y ~~+ ~Y ~i~ i~ ~fJ fC ~Y N .Y ~~+ O > > > ~ > > a ~ a > > cn ~ (O (O CO CO (O CO ~o CO (O N f0 CO CO Z m ~ ~ m m m m m ~ ~ m ~ ~ W p H 1~ N M ~ M N W N ~ _ d _ d U Q O ~ O N M O ~ N ~ O O O N O ( 1 n n n n n W O 00 ~ m ~ O . Q O O O O O O O O O O O N y ~ O C ~ O ^ ~ M O Q O O O O N M ~ M ~ U J Z O O O O O O O O O T O O O rn (~ M m a rn o- .~ ~ o o o ~ o o z W O 00 O O O O M (O ~ N O N ~ M N W Q ~ N ~ a O F- N Q aNi aNi ~ ~ E E a N J 7 O) ~ ~ O) M V~ Yj C C C C U 0 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 Q -0 Y Y Y Y ~ O N_ fA N N_ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y Q 'O N 'O N ~ N 'O N 'O N ~ N ~ N O O O O O O U U U U U U O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O W ~ P W ~ ~ T ~ r a M a = W ~ a.+ C _ ' ~ ~ ._ U O ~ ~ ~° 'D c LL (O N ~4 T ~- L O Y O 0~C ~ ~ ~ `° U a~~i ~ a O ~ Z ~ y a ~ w o 0 5 E ~ ~' m m` ~ J N O~ C ~ d O O t ~ O) ~ d W 7 V _ N -~O C Y ~ N N W ~ O 'O '70 ` a Z Q ~ ~ ~ N ? C L ~ Z d r ~ V m Q W D -moo a ~ ~ ~ o~ a Q J V y n ~ m ~° m ~ A Q Q 3 y O ~ U ~ y H ~ o ~ O f0 N ~ W Z ; R ~ V C W C7 O ~ U ~ ++ W W y ~ °' N ~, ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ac ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ aci Q C C ~ ~ ~ Y C ~ O U O ~ _ N ~ Y (n `O 00 ,O. }+ U ~F F Z W r ~ y C O ~ d +-' +-' ~ U 'O d ~ Z m rn co m co rn n rn ~ rn ~ rn W Q H CO Q1 O N M U Q ~ O M N O D U ~ ~ o ~ a Q O ~- O O O 0 ~ H ~ v oo a a u~ m Q J Z ~n O ~n O c O ~ O rn O rn O ~ U m d /'~ , ~ O O [t N O O O M N O) O ~ c0 n Z O O O ~ ~ O O n W ~ O ~ ~ W O O 00 M M O to M LO O ~[) 1~ O M ~ ~ N n O 40 n O W ~ CO ~ I~ N N N Q) ~ O Q •-- M ~ D) a O fA N fn N N N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ ` ~ N ~ Q N N O7 N O) is ~ m ~ m O) O) ca '7 m ~ a ~ 01 Q1 07 m ~ J U~ f0 C N C y y t~ C (D C f0 C Y y fO C fQ C f0 C y U U . U U ~ U o ~ ~ 3 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 Q Y Y -~ -~ Y Y Y -~ -0 Y Y Y -0 (p N_ N N y N N O N U y _N d N H 'O 'o ~ 'D "O -O 'O 'o 'D -O 'O "o -O Q N N N N G7 N N N N N N N N ~ N fA o N o N O V1 o tq 0 y 0 N 0 N 0 N o N O y o N 0 (~ 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W N W ~ a o d o ~ 2 M H - f0 m ~ ~ ~ W ~ z 3 ~ f0 E ~ L ~ O y -O N (0 ~ N > 'O ~ U U O N U ' -o j ' L ~ U N L -0 O O C . 'D > tq t p > O U "O N ~ ~ 0 ~ "O ~ - > U N O C N - O7 N y N ' W r O y O ~ O Y O ~ O ~ a:+ ~ o a a ~ o ai ~ c ~° -o C m -0 3 W } ~ U ~ L CO O) C 'O ~ >, ~ y H Q N ~ m ~ p ~ a> ~ ~ ~ ~ > Z Q ' D y ~ ~ h 'O U Y C > > L f0 Q7 U N t, W J m W d -C O U -O d U > 'O .a L U 3 O N d U Q D N O ~ t+ Y C N L N -_ O 07 O Z Q J V O) ~ Y V/ °' O. C E° ` w ,., ° O f0 E L 3 c U m C ~ O U Q Y • m ~~ ~ y U N m~ O ~ +.'~ 'O O '° N H ~ a + N ~ C ~ ~ N U -O U p N Y y U W Z Q ~ `~ N O O y a N f0 N _O U N ~ O O N U U O) ~ > N > 7 ~ ` +, > W J W 7 'O d +• L ~ O C N O O7 C ~ N O U 'o N O ~ ~ ~ 'O N ~ W O > O) ~+ C N p ~ U j N C N Q Y U O •+ C c0 C 7 -O > O C ~~ U O O m ~ Y U l0 ~ m ~ ~p O t O t0 ++ ~ C ~ N 7 O N Q H Z W ~ ~ O O) N 07 t~ N d N N U N C C C C N N N N ~ o o Q ~ O N O G7 ~ ~ ~ ~ °2j W U 'O U C a +~' U C D U ~ U 'O "O ~ "o Y _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ Q O O N C ~+~ C N O O O O O ~++ O t0 a cn w ~ ~ w ~ n. to a cn ~ ~ cn d ~ co cD co co ~ n ~ n ~ r~ ~ ~ n W W ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ M M ~ ~ ~ m m M Q H ~ N ~ ~ N m CO n N M (O N O V Q N '- N O N O O ~ O ~ ~ O M (~ Q n W _ O N M M M ~ to ~ CO _ LO Q O O ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O N D 00 N I~ W M O ~ Q N M M ~[') N C O Q ~ Z O O N O ~ O ~O O I~ O W O OD O ~ 6) O O '- O ~ ~ ~ N rn U O m a -- z ~ W W ~ O Q ~ a O ~~ ~ ~ a Q N J ~ ~ U ~ c m O ~ a ,~ N _ N H ~ N N ~- O W O O ~ O W p O N W W ~ Q 01 ~ ~ a o ~ M W ~ ~ z ~ O LL ~ H ~ ~ ~ a ~ z w ~ ~ ~ ~ o H a w ~ U N ~ I- ~ fn ~ tq W Z W ~ ~ H ~ U m ~ N Qa Z Q Q J U n c ~ ~ ~ U Q K a w y a z .`° ~ ~ LL J ~ W W N C W ~ ~ N J Q Y H O m z W H a W ~ U 0 O a H Z W ~ Q Q U ~ ~ U ~ a ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Z U r- a~ m d r •, /~d.. Z`PpyB~ ~ M1 I ~~ e ~~ ,y~ ~ ~ as t"'i^ex 7vs" ~ b- ~ DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219-1939 JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONOARV ROADS ENGINEER August 7, 1997 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: The enclosed report contains a list of all changes to the Secondary System of State Highways in your county approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer in July 1997. All additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System are effective the day they are approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer. This date appears in the far right column of the monthly report. These changes will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its monthly meeting on August 21, 1997. If you have any questions or comments about this report, please call Martin Law at 786-7399. James S. Givens State Secondary f ads Engineer JSG/MII WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ,~ ~ >_ ~ o, ~ o~ ~ a ~ a ~ a w ~ i ~ i i w W ~ o O :+ ~ o, ~ o~ ~ o, ~ a ~ o, '~ ~ ~ M M C~ O ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v1 ~n ~n N N Aa y" ~ oo M M oo ~-+ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O O ~--~ p ~+ O O O O O C M ~. M 'O G , ~ ~ ~ O G O~ ~ ~ ~ i s 3 U ~ ~ ~ ° O a z ~ N N M d ^. ~ Y Y ~ Y ~ d. o ~ o 0 0 o z H o rx rx rx a! M N _ N .N. ~ _ N ~ ~ N 7 Ri Y . . ~ LYi u C ~ a+ 3 ~ ~ 3 r ' ~ ~ ~_ t o _ ~ ~ ~ z O N .~ . ~ 4 : ~ r ~ + Q L 00 O ~ O M O 00 O _ ~ W C Chi O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ p M .N-~ Nr .N. .N... a w `~ ~ ~ a ~ ° b b ~ z b ~ ~ o ~ o ~ p ~, °o w~ ~q a t«: j ~ ~ o ~ ' °p b o ~'' v 3 as ~ ca Lr M M ~' ~ ~ ' N C O O O O ~ = •~ .~ N N N N U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' V] N TJ N b b N b b N N O ~ ~. ON O N N + ~ a as ~ ~ ~ ~ -. ° V x U ~ o 0 0 0 0 C 'l0 ~ ~~ :~ ~~ :~ '.r b b b b b ~, to Q Q Q d Q ~~ 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on the Regional Sewage Treatment Plant COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This time has been set aside for Utility Director Gary Robertson to update the Board on the status of the wastewater treatment facility, the Tinker Creek interceptor replacement and the Roanoke River interceptor replacement. Respectfully Submitted by: ~rYt-.C~C~ .~p~~ Q ~GZ_ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Harrison Referred ( ) Johnson To ( ) Minnix Nickens lam':" ROANOKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT Tinker Creek Interceptor Update • Contractor for project is Bryant Electric Co. • Contracts "A" and "B" awarded for total of $5,595,895 • Approximately 3,000 feet of 54-inch sewer pipe installed to date • Inverted siphon across Roanoke River has been installed • Contract period is 540 calendar days • Estimated completion date is July 8, 1998 • Project is on schedule CATEGORIC BIAGE~' ESTIMATE TO DATE ees Land Acquisition $50,000.00 $5,000.00 $775.00 aty Internal Charr~.es $99,628.00 Miscellaneot.rs $5,000.00 Construction $4,192,893.00 $6, 241,895.00 $392,063.00 TOTALS $4y621,893.00 $6,751,523.00 $733,238.00 Percerrt Project Cost Project Cott Project Cost Jurisdiction Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation ou o . Roanoke City 45.9% $2,121,448.89 $3,098,949.06 $977,500.17 Roanoke County 32.9% $1, 520,602.80 $2,221,251.07 $700,648.27 ary of Salem o.0% $o.oo $o.oo $o.oo Town of V nton 1.1 % $50,840.82 $74,266.75 $2:i, 425.93 Roanoke River Interceptor Update T • Project is divided into five phases (A, B, C, D, & E) • Bids were received for Contracts A1, A2, Bl, and B2 on June 26, 1997 • Apparent low bidder is Alex E. Paris of Atlasburg, PA with bid of $18,632,063 • Contracts for Sections Al and A2 will be awarded on September 2, 1997, for bids of $4,270,642 and $4,615,283, respectively • These contracts provide for installation of approximately 14,000 feet of 66-inch sewer pipe between Walnut Avenue bridge and headworks of Roanoke Regional WPCP • Technical staffs of Roanoke City, Roanke County and City of Salem have been meeting to explore alternatives to reduce cost of project and/or extend construction phasing CATEGORY AGREEMENT BUDGET CURRENT ESTIMATE EXPENDITURES TO DATE A& E Fees $1,595,000.00 $1,668,235.00 $1,147,755.00 Land Acquisition $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $55,490.00 City Internal Charges $469,550.00 Mscellaneous $5,000.00 Construction $16,012,295.00 $29,635,117.00 $123,753.00 TOTALS $17,807,295.00 $32,177,902.00 $1,326,998.00 CONTRACT REVISED VARIANCE OF Percent Project Cost Project Cost Project Cost Jurisdiction Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Botetourt Co. 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Roanoke City 36.7% $6,535,277.27 $11,809,290.03 $5,274,012.77 Roanoke County 29.6% $5,270,959.32 $9,524,658.99 $4,253,699.67 City of Salem 33.7% $6,001,058.42 $10,843,952.97 $4,842,894.56 To~nm of Vinton 0.0'% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Tonal WPCP Und Tinker Creek Interceptor -Roanoke Re ig onal WPCP Interconnect • Project provides for installation of pipe to connect Tinker Creek Interceptor to Roanoke Regional WPCP headworks, increase influent pump capacity and install new electrical substation • Bids were received on March 19, 1997 • Contractor is Crowder Construction Co. with bid of $1,865,800 • Completion date is latter part of November 1997 Roanoke Regional WPCP Up rg ade • Bids were received on July 8, 1997 • Contractor is Danis Heavy Construction Co. with a .bid of $16,690,000 • Roanoke City Council has voted to award contract • Execution of contract is still pending CATEGORY AGREEMENT BUDGET CURRENT ESTIMATE EXPENDITURES TO DATE A Fees 1,996,338.00 2,028,338.00 1,305,955.00 Land Acquisition $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 City Internal Charge $0.00 $310,445.00 $0.00 Miscellaneous $5,000.00 Construction $17,074,475.00 $18,700,000.00 $187,694.00 TOTALS $19,070,813.00 $21,043,783.00 $1,493,649.00 N A RE I Percent Project Cost Project Cost Project Cost Jurisdiction Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Botetourt o. 7.0% 1,334,956.91 1,473,064.81 138,107.90 Roanoke City 37.3% $7,113,413.25 $7,849,331.06 $735,917.81 Roanoke County 29.2% $5,568,677.40 $6,144,784.64 $576,107.24 City of Salem 20.9% $3,985,799.92 $4,398,150.65 $412,350.73 Town of Vinton 5.6% $1,067,965.53 $1,178,451.85 $110,486.32 ROANOKE REGIONAL SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS Roanoke County Cost Allocations $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 ~ ~ ~ U ~ L^` W ~ j L c ~ C Y Y ~ L O L ~ > c a U O ~ tr Y .Y c o H ~ c~ 0 tr ^ Tinker Creek Int. -CONTRACT- Tinker Creek Int: -REVISED ^ Roanoke River lnt. -CONTRACT D Roanoke River Int. -REVISED ®Roanoke WWTP -CONTRACT O Roanoke WWTP -REVISED PROJECTED SOURCE OF FUNDS REVISED BUDGET TOTALS PROJECTED SOURCE OF FUNDS Monies Borrowed through State Water Quality Loan Program $13,100,000 Funds Saved in Debt Payments (through 6-30-97) $ 3,431,300 Funds Available for Project $16,531,300 REVISED BUDGET TOTALS Roanoke County Share -Tinker Creek Interceptor $ 2,221,251 Roanoke County Share -Roanoke River Interceptor $ 9,524,659 Roanoke County Share -Roanoke Regional VVPCP $ 6,144,785 Revised Estimated Budget $17,881,351 PROJECTED BUDGET SHORTFALL ($1,350,051) ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS PROJECTED FUNDING SHORTFALL '3,~'~ Alternative No. 1 • Borrow additional funds through State Water Quality Loan Program • Reduce number of sewer repair and replacement projects to make debt payments • Annual repayment of debt will be approximately $100,000 Alternative No. 2 • Delay sewer repair and replacement projects for four years • Current annual funding level is $380,000 Alternative No. 3 • Evaluate feasibility of using combination of large gravity interceptor sewer lines, rehabilitation of existing gravity interceptor sewer lines and sewage pump stations with pressure force main sewer lines • Total cost has not yet been determined Alternative No. 4 • Implement a protracted phasing schedule for repair and replacement of the remaining sections of the Roanoke River interceptor sewer line ROANOKE REGIONAL WPCP Construction Progress Photos +i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION 081997-10 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: ~. Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session z . .. A-081997-11.a 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: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Petitions of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. and Shenandoah Homes, Inc. for tax exempt status pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Petitions of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. ("SHRV") and by Shenandoah Homes, Inc. ("SH") are seeking tax exempt status in accordance with the Constitution of Virginia. The real estate owned by Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. consists of 17.5 acres located east of Airport Road north of the terminus of Woodbury Street (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-5). The current assessed value of this undeveloped real estate is $385,000 and the real estate taxes are $4,350.50. Anticipated development of this property owned by "SHRV" is estimated to increase the assessed value of the property to approximately $11,541,203; real estate taxes, should the exemption not be granted, would approximate $130,415, depending on the actual assesed value. .The real estate owned by Shenandoah Homes, Inc. consists of 5 acres ' located at 5300 Hawthorne Road, N.W. (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-34) The current assessed value of this real estate is $3,767,300; if this proeprty were taxable, the real estate taxes would be $42,570. Shenandoah Homes, Inc. is not currently paying any real estate taxes on this property. "SHRV" and "SH" and the County have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement whereby: 1. "SHRV" and "SH" agree that the portion of the property to be exempt from taxation is their personal property and their buildings and as much land as is reasonably necessary to the use of their buildings, provided such personal and real property shall be used by "SHRV" and "SH" 1 ~~ exclusively for charitable and benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis. The parties agree that all of the property of "SH" shall qualify for such tax exempt purposes. "SHRV" and "SH", non-profit organizations, will petition to the General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia to be designated a charitable and benevolent organization within the context of Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia for such agreed upon property. 2. In consideration of the County's adoption of a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Section 30-19.04 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, and the County's support of "SHRV"'s and "SH's" petitions to the General Assembly designating a portion of the property of "SHRV" and all of the property of "SH" exempt from local taxation, "SHRV" and "SH" agree to pay to the County an annual service charge in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the County's real property tax levies, which would be applicable to the designated property of "SHRV" and "SH" in the County of Roanoke, were "SHRV" or "SH" not exempt from local taxation, for so long as "SHRV" or "SH" is exempted from state and local taxation. In the event approval of this legislation is not received from the General Assembly, "SHRV" and "SH" may, at their option, void this agreement, and in such event the parties will revert to their status immediately prior to this Agreement. It is expressly understood that once the tax exemption is accorded "SHRV" and "SH" under the terms of this Agreement, "SHRV" or "SH" shall not have any right or remedy available to it at law or in equity to treat this Agreement or any part thereof as a nullity, unconstitutional or otherwise contest by any means the validity hereof. This agreement to pay is subject to the following: A. "SHRV" shall pay real estate taxes and any other applicable local taxes on that portion of the Project designated on the 6/9/97 conceptual site plan (Exhibit 1) as Independent Living (9.75 acres), and that portion of the Project identified as Congregate Care Facilities (1.75 acres). B. "SHRV" will accept assessment for payment and pay when due, without contest, a service charge to be assessed in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the County's real property tax levies on that portion of the Project designated as Assisted Living and the "Galleria" (6 Acres), except any retail areas in the Galleria, which retail area shall be taxed at 100% of the value of the prorata share of space utilized by the retail business, as to the total square footage of the Galleria, as shown on Exhibit 1, which would have been assessed against it if said property were not to be designated exempt from taxation. 2 S-1 BACKGROUND: The Constitution establishes the requirements and qualifications of tax exempt organizations. Section 30-19.04 of the State Code establishes the procedural requirements for organizations seeking tax exempt status by designation from the General Assembly. This procedure includes a public hearing, adoption of a resolution, and certain findings by the local governing body, before action by the General Assembly. "SHRV" and "SH" have submitted petitions to the County for tax exempt status, which are attached. This matter was considered by the Board on July 8, 1997, during the rezoning request of "SHRV." SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The applicable provisions of the Constitution are as follows: Section 6. Exempt property. - (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the following property and no other shall be exempt from taxation, State and local, including inheritance taxes: (6) Property used by its owner for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes, as may be provided by classification or designation by a three-fourths vote of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly and subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed. The Board shall conduct a public hearing on these requests before adopting resolutions supporting or refusing to support such exemptions. Before adopting any such resolution the Board shall consider the following questions: 1. Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to Section 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2. Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to such organization, for use on such property; 3. Whether any director or officer of the organization is paid compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or 3 . S_1 other compensation for personal services which such director or officer actually renders; 4. Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion of the service provided by such organization is generated by funds received from donations, contributions or local, state or federal grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the providing of personal services or the contribution of in kind or other material services; 5. Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the public; 6. Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and whether the organization participates in, or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office; 7. No rule, regulation, policy, or practice of the organization discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin; 8. The revenue impact to the locality and its taxpayers of exempting the property; and 9. Any other criteria, facts and circumstances which the governing body deems pertinent to the adoption of such resolution. FISCAL IMPACTS: If all of the real estate of "SHRV" and "SH" were taxable, then local real estate taxes would be approximately $172,985. It is estimated that the 20% service fee will generate approximately $13,705 for the "SHRV" property and $8,514 for the "SH" property. It is also estimated that the taxable portion of "SHRV" will generate approximately $61,885 plus any real estate taxes generated in the retail area of the Galleria. ALTERNATIVES: After the public hearing the Board may decide to support these exemptions by the approval of the attached resolutions; or it may decide to refuse to support these exemptions. 4 S-~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached Resolutions. It is also recommended that the Board approve the Memorandum of Agreement and authorize the County Administrator to execute same on behalf of the County. espectfully submitted, (M.cJ~ 1 -1. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) cc: File ACTION VOTE Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Absent mntinn to approve memorandum Eddy ~L_ cif understanding Harrison _~ Johnson ~ Minnix _~L Nickens ~ Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer John W. B~rckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Ed Natt, Attorney for Shenandoah Homes, Inc. And Shenandoah Retirement Village, Inc. 5 S- ~ 1 s/i2/9~ 2 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 3 This Memorandum of Agreement made and entered into this 4 day of August, 1997, by and between The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke 5 County, Virginia, (hereinafter "County") acting by and through the County 6 Administrator, party of the first part, and Shenandoah Homes Retirement 7 Village, Inc. (hereinafter "SHRV") acting by and through its President, 8 party of the second part, and Shenandoah Homes, Inc. (hereinafter "SH") 9 acting by and through its President, party of the third part. 10 W I T N E S S E T H 11 WHEREAS, "SHRV" is a Virginia corporation which has qualified under 12 Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) as a non-profit entity whose 13 primary purpose is to provide residential facilities and medical and 14 nursing care to the citizens of the Roanoke Valley and elsewhere; and 15 WHEREAS, "SH" is a Virginia corporation which has qualified under 16 Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) as a non-profit entity whose 17 primary purpose is to provide elderly or handicapped housing on a non- 18 profit basis to the citizens of the Roanoke Valley and elsewhere; and 19 WHEREAS, "SH" operates an existing facility (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-34) 20 for elderly or handicapped housing in Roanoke County without the payment 21 of real estate taxes, and it does not provide the County with payments 22 in lieu of taxation ("service charge") as some other similarly-situated 23 non-profit exempt institutions providing care and housing for the elderly 24 in the County of Roanoke so provide; and 25 WHEREAS, "SHRV" has petitioned the County to rezone 17.5 acres of 1 S- ~ 1 real estate (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-5) to the zoning classification of C-2 2 (General Commercial) and has voluntarily proffered certain conditions 3 with this petition, and has petitioned the County to grant a special use 4 permit to construct a home for adults (the "Project"); said petitions 5 having been granted and approved on July 8, 1997; and 6 WHEREAS, the County and "SHRV" agree to settlement of litigation 7 over the zoning of the property and all other matters in dispute with 8 reference to the local taxation status of "SHRV" and its real and 9 personal property; and 10 WHEREAS, the County and "SH" agree to resolve all matters in dispute 11 with reference to the local taxation status of "SH" and its real and 12 personal property. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and 14 covenants contained herein, the parties in their official capacities 15 agree to the following: 16 1. "SHRV" and "SH" agree that the portion of the property to be 17 exempt from taxation is their personal property and their buildings and 18 as much land as is reasonably necessary to the use of their buildings, 19 provided such personal and real property shall be used by "SHRV" and "SH" 20 exclusively for charitable and benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis. 21 The parties agree that all of the property of "SH" and that portion of 22 the "SHRV" property as is hereinafter described shall qualify for such 23 tax exempt purposes. "SHRV" and "SH", non-profit organizations, will 24 petition the Board of Supervisors for adoption of a Resolution to be 25 presented to the General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia by 2 ~'" 1 which "SHRV" and "SH" will be designated a charitable and benevolent 2 organization within the context of Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the 3 Constitution of Virginia for such agreed upon property; it being agreed 4 that not all of the property of " SHRV" shall be exempt. 5 2. In consideration of the County's adoption of a resolution in 6 accordance with the provisions of Section 30-19.04 of the Code of 7 Virginia, 1950 as amended, and the County's support of "SHRV"'s and 8 "SH's" petition to the General Assembly designating a portion of the 9 property of "SHRV" and all of the property of "SH" exempt from local 10 taxation, "SHRV" and "SH" agree to pay to the County an annual service 11 charge in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the County's real 12 property tax levies, which would be applicable to the designated property 13 of "SHRV" and "SH" in the County of Roanoke, were "SHRV" or "SH" not 14 exempt from local taxation, for so long as "SHRV" or "SH" are exempted 15 from state and local taxation. In the event approval of this legislation 16 is not received from the General Assembly, "SHRV" and "SH" may, at their 17 option, void this agreement, and in such event the parties wi ll revert 18 to their status immediately prior to this Agreement. It is expressly 19 understood that once the tax exemption is accorded "SHRV" and " SH" under 20 the terms of this Agreement, "SHRV" or "SH" shall not have any right or 21 remedy available to it at law or in equity to treat this Agreement or any 22 part thereof as a nullity, unconstitutional or otherwise contest by any 23 means the validity hereof. This agreement to pay is subject to the 24 following: 25 A. "SHRV" shall pay real estate taxes and any other 3 S- ~ 1 applicable local taxes on that portion of the Project designated on the 2 6/9/97 conceptual site plan (Exhibit 1) as Independent Living (9.75 3 acres), and that portion of the Project identified as Congregate Care 4 Facilities (1.75 acres). 5 B. "SHRV" will accept assessment for payment and pay when 6 due, without contest, a service charge to be assessed in an amount equal 7 to twenty percent (20%) of the County's real property tax levies on that 8 portion of the Project designated as Assisted Living and the "Galleria" 9 (6 Acres), except any retail areas in the Galleria, which retail area 10 shall be taxed at 100$ of the value of the prorata share of space 11 utilized by the retail business, as to the total square footage of the 12 Galleria, as shown on Exhibit 1, which would have been assessed against 13 it if said property were not to be designated exempt from taxation. 14 3. This service charge is a payment in lieu of taxation or for 15 certain necessary and essential governmental services provided by the 16 County to and for the property of "SHRV" or "SH". 17 4. This service charge from "SHRV" is due and payable at the same 18 times and under the same terms and conditions as other real estate 19 levies. This service charge shall commence January 1, 1999, and shall 20 continue for succeeding years for so long as "SHRV" is exempted from 21 state and local taxation. "SHRV" and "SH" shall retain their existing 22 tax status until December 31, 1998. 23 5. This service charge from "SH" is due and payable at the same 24 times and under the same terms and conditions as other real estate 25 levies. This service charge shall commence January 1, 1999 and shall 4 S- ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 continue for succeeding years for so long as SH is exempted from state and local taxation. 6. "SHRV" shall pay all real estate and personal property taxes as assessed until January 1, 1999, at which time the service charge shall become effective. 7. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent "SHRV" or "SH" from contesting the assessed value of its properties in accordance with procedures established by law and available to taxpayers generally. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY By By R. Wayne Compton Commissioner of Revenue, Roanoke County SHENANDOAH HOMES RETIREMENT VILLAGE, INC. By SHENANDOAH HOMES, INC. By, Approved as to form: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney 5 ~"-. ! State of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August, 1997, by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. Notary Public My commission expires: State of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August, 1997, by R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue for Roanoke County. Notary Public My commission expires: State of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of August, 1997, by on behalf of the Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. Notary Public My commission expires: State of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August, 1997, by on behalf of Shenandoah Homes, Inc. Notary Public My commission expires: G:\ATTORNEY\SHEN.VIL 6 ..~ 5--1. ~. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION 081997-11.c TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY SHENANDOAH HOMES, INC. WHEREAS, Shenandoah Homes, Inc. has petitioned this Board for support of a bill to be introduced at the 1998 Session of the Virginia General Assembly to exempt certain property of Shenandoah Homes, Inc. from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; and WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to Shenandoah Homes, Inc.'s request was held by the Board on August 19, 1997; and WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and considered by the Board; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follow: 1. The County supports the petition of Shenandoah Homes, Inc. seeking exemption from State and local taxation. In adopting this Resolution the Board has examined and considered the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. The assessed value of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes, Inc. is $3,767,300; if this property were taxable, the property tax would be $42,570. The Tax Parcel No. is 38.14-1-34. 1 3. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly considering the designation of property to be exempt from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia and to the Institute. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Ed Natt, Attorney for Shenandoah Homes, Inc. 2 S-( AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY SHENANDOAH HOMES, INC. WHEREAS, Shenandoah Homes, Inc. has petitioned this Board for support of a bill to be introduced at the 1998 Session of the Virginia General Assembly to exempt certain property of Shenandoah Homes, Inc. from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; and WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to Shenandoah Homes, Inc.'s request was held by the Board on August 19, 1997; and WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and considered by the Board; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follow: 1. The County supports the petition of Shenandoah Homes, Inc. seeking exemption from State and local taxation. In adopting this Resolution the Board has examined and considered the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. The assessed value of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes, Inc. is $3,767,300; if this property were taxable, the property tax would 1 S-I be $42,570. The Tax Parcel No. is 38.14-1-34. 3. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly considering the designation of property to be exempt from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia and to the Institute. C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\GENERAL\SH.RSO l 2 ~' °~.f3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION 081997-11.b TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY SHENANDOAH HOMES RETIREMENT VILLAGE, INC. WHEREAS, Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. has petitioned this Board for support of a bill to be introduced at the 1998 Session of the Virginia General Assembly to exempt certain property of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; and WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc.'s request was held by the Board on August 19, 1997; and WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and considered by the Board; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follow: 1. The County supports the petition of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. seeking exemption from State and local taxation. In adopting this Resolution the Board has examined and considered the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. The current assessed value of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. is $385,000; the property tax is $4,350.50. The Tax Parcel No. is 38.14-1-5. Anticipated development of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. is estimated to increase the assessed value of the property to $11,541.203. Real estate taxes, should the exemption not be granted, would total $130,415.00. 3. The property to be designated as exempt from local real estate property taxation is that portion of the real estate designated as "Assisted Living" and the "Galleria° (except that portion of the Galleria utilized for retail commercial purposes) as shown on a conceptual site plan dated 6/9/97, which is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The "Independent Living" and "Congregate Care Facilities" shall not be exempt from taxation. 4. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly considering the designation of property to be exempt from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia and to the Institute. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Ed Natt, Attorney for Shenandoah Homes Retirement, Inc. 2 S-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 RESOLUTION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY SHENANDOAH HOMES RETIREMENT VILLAGE, INC. WHEREAS, Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. has petitioned this Board for support of a bill to be introduced at the 1998 Session of the Virginia General Assembly to exempt certain property of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; and WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc.'s request was held by the Board on August 19, 1997; and WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and considered by the Board; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follow: 1. The County supports the petition of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. seeking exemption from State and local taxation. In adopting this Resolution the Board has examined and considered the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. The current assessed value of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. is $385,000; the property tax is 1 S-I $4,350.50. The Tax Parcel No. is 38.14-1-5. Anticipated development of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. is estimated to increase the assessed value of the property to $11,541.203. Real estate taxes, should the exemption not be granted, would total $130,415.00. 3. The property to be designated as exempt from local real estate property taxation is that portion of the real estate designated as "Assisted Living" and the "Galleria" (except that portion of the Galleria utilized for retail commercial purposes) as shown on a conceptual site plan dated 6/9/97, which is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The "Independent Living" and "Congregate Care Facilities" shall not be exempt from taxation. 4. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly considering the designation of property to be exempt from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia and to the Institute. C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\AGENDA\GENERAL\SHRV.RSO 2 •` . _ S t .+ .s ~s ~• f_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE 081997-12 TO AMEND CONDITIONS ON A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY CONSISTING OF 38.22 ACRES LOCATED AT MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD AND WOLF RUN (ORIGINALLY TAX MAP N0.50.04-3-73 NOW COMPRISED OF TAX MAP NOS. 50.04-4-1 THROUGH 50.04-4-37, INCLUSIVE, 50.04-3-73, AND 50.04-3-73.1) IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF WOLF CREEK, INC. WHEREAS, by Ordinance 102495-10 the zoning classification of a 38.22-acre tract of real estate located at Mountain View Road and Laurel Glen Lane, north of the Blue Ridge Parkway (Tax Map No. 50.04-3-73) was changed to PRD, Planned Residential Development District; and WHEREAS, the owner voluntarily proffered in writing, and the Board accepted, conditions which were made a part of the rezoning ordinance and were set out in detail in "A Rezoning Application: Planning and Design Documents for Wolf Creek Planned Community, County of Roanoke, Virginia, Roanoke County's First Planned Residential Development (PRD), Wolf Creek, Inc., Owner & Developer, Hill Studio, P.C., Planner & Landscape Architect, June 23, 1995, updated September 13, 1995, September 29, 1995, and October 17, 1995." WHEREAS, Wolf Creek, Inc. has now made application to amend these conditions, said amendments being attached to this ordinance and entitled "Wolf Creek One-Year Check-Up, Revised July 31, 1997' ;and WHEREAS, the owners of various lots in this PRD have joined in this application to amend these conditions; and i WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held August 19, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 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 attached amendments entitled "Wolf Creek One-Year Check-Up, Revised July 31, 1997," to the Planned Residential Development known as Wolf Creek located at Mountain View Road and Wolf Run, originally consisting of 38.22 acres (Tax Map No. 50.04-3-73) now comprised of Tax Map Nos. 50.04-4-1 through 50.04-4-37, inclusive, 50.04-3-73, and 50.04-3-73.1 in the Vinton Magisterial District, are voluntarily proffered by the Owners, are hereby accepted by the Board of Supervisors, and are hereby made a part of and incorporated into "A Rezoning Application: Planning and Design Documents for Wolf Creek Planned Community, County of Roanoke, Virginia, Roanoke County's First Planned Residential Development (PRD), Wolf Creek, Inc., Owner & Developer, Hill Studio, P.C., Planner & Landscape Architect, June 23, 1995, updated September 13, 1995, September 29, 1995, and October 17, 1995." 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Wolf Creek, Inc. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Tax Map Nos. 50.04-4-1 through 50.04-4-37, inclusive, 50.04-3-73, and 50.04-3- 73.1. BEGINNING at comer #1, said point located on the northerly right-of-way of Virginia 2 Secondary Route #651, said point also being the southeasterly corner of Lot 1, Section 7, Falling Creek Estates (PB 12, page 170); thence leaving Route #651 and with Section 7, Falling Creek Estates, N. 14 deg. 41' S2" E. 1043.04 feet to corner #2, said point located on the southerly boundary of Section 3, Falling Creek Estates (PB 9, page 71); thence continuing with Section 3, Falling Creek Estates, N. 67 deg. 14' 20" E. 779.21 feet to corner #3, said point located on the westerly side of Section 5, Falling Creek Estates (PB 9, page 146); thence continuing with Section 5, Falling Creek Estates, S. 16 deg. 54' 06" E. 491.70 feet to corner #4; thence with the new boundary lines of Lot 6 for the following three courses comprising the southerly portion of Lot 6, Section 5, Falling Creek Estates, S. 89 deg. 15' 46" W. 20.00 feet to corner #5; thence S. 16 deg. 42' 00" E. 224.60 feet to corner #6; thence N. 73 deg. 05' S4" E. 20.00 feet to corner #7, said point located on the original Lot 6 boundary line; thence continuing with the southerly boundary of Lot 6, S. 16 deg. 54' 06" E. 312.03 feet to comer #8, said point being the northwesterly comer of Cindy F. Ross property; thence leaving Lot 6 and with Ross S. 16 deg. 54' 06" E. 514.98 feet to corner #9, said point located on the northerly right-of-way of Laurel Glen Lane, said point also being the southwesterly corner of property of Cindy F. Ross (DB 1376, page 943); thence leaving Ross and with Laurel Glen Lane for the following three courses, S. 66 deg. 28' 05" W. 203.72 feet to corner #10; thence S. 47 deg. 43' 04" W. 29.58 feet to corner #11; thence S. 63 deg. 22' 10" W. 514.79 feet to corner #12, said point located at the intersection of Laurel Glen Lane and Virginia Secondary Route 651; thence leaving Laurel Glen Lane and with Virginia Secondary Route 651 for the following four courses: thence with a curve to the left which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 13 deg. 05' S5", a radius of 577.37 feet, a chord of 131.71 feet and bearing N. 75 deg. 18' 09" W. to comer #13; thence with a curve to the right which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 27 deg. 18' 49", a radius of 481.01 feet, a chord of 227.14 feet, and bearing N. 68 deg. 11' 43" W. to corner #14; thence N. 47 deg. 52' 47" W. 362.91 feet to comer #15; thence N. 49 deg. 26' 32" W. 202.61 feet to corner #1, the place of beginning and containing 38.22 acres. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: 3 AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: „~ ~I.~C.C~~J Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the 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 4 ,... ... 5 I OKRLOC< •~ ~ \ j_'r~l~ ~ l.n C_ J I a~ ~ • f~ ~ i ... ~ ~,/ ' ~ ~ ;~ ~ r i _ . ; ~ra~ _ '~j~ YlC1N1TY MAP ~;~~ _ ._.. q ~ ,°~ u ~. ~.~., i '~3./ ! ~V~ !'~ ~~ L~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~4.. •.'`•.~V ~~~~ o ~• ri. ~ SIJ ~ }rz~ ~~~ ~. 6'S A~ O j i`.~' F, _ ~~ ° ~'" ~ I' s~„~ ~,._ ~~-~ _ +~* DEPARTl`~.~I'I' OF PLANNING WOLF CREEK, iNC. AND ZONING ~ 50.04-3-73 .~, .• R-1 TO PRD ,,, p TI NORTH 4 REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~,~„ WOLF CREEK ONE-YEAR CHECK-UP 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. 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 double underlined: PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 14,17,20 Master Plan Base Map REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The masterplan will be revised to show changes to lots 8, 36 and 37. Lot 8 has a retention pond and 36 and 37 have been redivided to have three attached deckhomes worked around the lame oaks. Note this update will also affect the subtotals on the chart, page 18. Please see attached concept plan and elevation. 15 Modeled after Williamsburg dwellings, substantial houses X1650 to 2150 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 dwellings, substantial houses_{1650 min. sf) of 1 to 2 stories above grade are placed closely creating courtyards and motorcourts; with large blocks of common open space adjacent. COMMENTS The sizes of houses will change over completion of the project. People are requesting all single floor houses. Note this also applies to the first drawing following page 54. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines ,,'.One-Year Check-up Page 2 REVISED -July 31, 1997 1 '' PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 16 All major park amenities are built by the Developer, durine Phase I of the Project.The lands will be conveyed for the meadow as adjacent construction is complete and outside edge details complete, at the conclusion of Phase IV. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE All major park amenities are built by the Developer during the construction of each related phase, and prior to conveyinQ lands to the National Park Service The lands will be conveyed for the meadow as adjacent construction is complete and outside edge details complete, at the conclusion of Phase IV. COMMENTS The final size and location of structures in the village and deck home neighborhoods (Phases 3,4, and S) will effect the final alignment of park property boundaries, and the location of trails and other park amenities. It makes sense not to construct these items until their final location can be tied down. Note this change also applies to page 21. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 20 The map shows the words "shaded playground" under a revision calling our "Picnic Grove.' REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Picnic Grove is correct. COMMENTS This is a clarification. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 20 In the legend: 1. A wildflower meadow in the front of the property, surrounded by a low drv-lay stone wall adiacent to Mountain View Drive. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE In the legend: 1. A wildflower meadow in the front of the property, is adjacent to Mountain View Drive. .. COMMENTS The stone wall is not desired in the project. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines •One Year Check-up Page 3 REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~~ 1 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 23 These guidelines are not meant to beall-inclusive, and approval will be based on auality of construction as well as materials used. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE These guidelines are not meant to cover all site-specific adaptations nor should then be used as a substitute for common sense, and in each case should be applied to better the obiective, described above. The Architectural Review Committee shall review desie*+ solutions taking into consideration the overall quality of the desi>;n materials and colors to be 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 topo~raphy allows. COMMENTS The previous guideline was too specific. The final size and location sidewalks and trails should vary according to specific topography and site resources. For example, the boulders found during road construction in this area allow for a trail varying 3' to 6', which is a much better design than a standard S' trail. Note this change also applies to pages 19, 20, 25 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 25 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. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The variable-width 3' to 6' walk, an extension of Meadow and Streamside trails, will be on one 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 clarificatio~z to better coordinate with the plan on page 20. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines • One Year Check-up Page 4 REVISED -July 31, 1997 7~ 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 nationally, there is not a reliable construction process of pebble and resin. Specifications are now being finalized for an asphaltic pebble construction, which will produce similar visual results. Note the same change applies to pages 19, 31, 46, 27 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 28 The opposite side will have have bank garages... REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The opposite side may have some bank garages... PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 30 The house plans and elevations have been supplied to the planning team by the developer. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The house plans and elevations have been supplied to the planning team by the developer. A company or subcontractor of the developer plans to build all of the villase homes. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 30, 31 Materials and Architectural Considerations Materials and architectural considerations proposed for the Village and Deckhomes are listed below Predominant first-phase materials are underlined. 1. Exterior walls materials: 1. board and battten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood siding, 2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding, 3. wood shingles, featured colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark gray, grayish-brown, dark gray-brown, garvish-buff or soft mutted earth colors. 4. native stone with gray or dark mortar, Wolf Creek Design Guidelines .One Year Check-up Page 5 REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~~~ ' S. synthetic or simulated composite building products that approximate the wood patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum), 6. gray brick with gray mortar, 7. brick that is grayish-brown, gray, reddish-brown and other dark or grayish earth colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars. 2. Chimneys shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar. 3. Roof materials: 1. wood shakes or shingles, 2. standing seam copper, 3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture . Colors include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish-brown, grayish-buff or dark brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptble, 4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents will match the color of the roof, or will be black, dark gray or bronze. 5. skylights will have black, bronze or gray trim, 6. dormers will be featured on some 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are 1 1/2 story wings. Architectural Elements Building Mass and Shape -the following guidelines apply: 1. gable roofs. _ 2. hip roofs. ~ ~ - 3. chimneys, 4. porches, , 5. roof overhangs, 6. garage doors which open away from the front, 7. multiple plan roofs, 8. breaking the laree mass of one cable roof into several gable roofs. 9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope Landscape Architectural Elements 1. Site appurtenance details -_the following guidelines apply: poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details will be black, gray, grayish-brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright colors and other visually intrusive materials will be avoided. 2. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened. 2. Site details and landscaping -the following guidelines apply: 1. motorcourts and parking will be dark in color, with pebble and resin 2. utilize natural landforms and exisitnQ vegetation to screen building from neighbors. Wolt Creek Design One Year Check-up Page 6 3. designed drainage ways to blend with natural landforms, 4. use plant materials native to the area. Avoid exotic plant materials. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Materials and Architectural Requirements T- ~ Materials and architectural requirements proposed for the Village and Deckhomes are listed below. Predominant first-phase forms, materials and colors are underlined. Exterior walls 1. board and batten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood siding, 2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding, 3. wood shingles, featured colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark gray, grayish-brown, dark gray-brown, grayish-buff or soft mutted earth colors, shown in the palette below, 4. native stone with gray or dark mortar, 5. synthetic or simulated composite building_products that approximate the wood patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum), 6. gray brick with gray mortar, 7. brick that is grayish-brown, gray, reddish-brown and other dark or grayish earth colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars. . 8. Colors for the exterior walls will be from or .equal to the Williamsburg Palette of Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints the Original Color Palette of Cabot's O.V.T. solid color stains, or the Palette of Semi-transparent or semi- solid stains, by CabotStains, as edited and included as an appendix to this book No more than 35% of the houses in each phase will be of one color 9. Trim will be the same or a compatible tertiary color to the exterior wall colors chosen from the included color palettes. 2. Where used, chimneys shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar. 3. Roofs: 1. wood shakes or shingles, with colors natural or as shown on the Palette of Semi- transparent or semi- solid stains by CabotStains as edited and included as an appendix to this book. 2. standing seam copper, 3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture . Colors include medium to dark gray,. charcoal, grayish-brown, grayish-buff or dark brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptable, 4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents will match the color of the roof, or will be black, dazk gray or bronze. 5. skylights will have black, bronze or gray trim, 6. dormers will be featured on some 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are 1 1/2 story wings. Wolf Creek Design ,One Year Check-up Page 7 Architectural Elements Recommendations REVISED -July 31, j ~'."° Building Mass and Shape -the following guidelines apply. (illustrated in the sketches accom an in the single family home guidelines pages 39-44) Where applicable the village homes and deckhomes will feature• 1. gable roofs, or hip roofs and breaking the large mass of one gable roof into several gable roofs. 2. chimneys, 3. porches, 4. covered entries, S. garage doors which open away from the front, 6. multiple plan roofs, 7. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope Landscape Architectural Requirements 1. Site appurtenance details poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details will be black, gray, grayish-brown or natural earth tone colors. White, galvanized metal, bright colors and other visually intrusive materials will be avoided, and where required by code, screened by vegetative buffers. 2. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened. 2. Site details and landscaping _: 1. motorcourts and parking will be darker than ~ray #3 in color with brown pebbles as a finish on the paving,, 2. Utilize berm landforms andlor existing vegetation to partially screen deckhomes and village homes from adjacent single-family neighbors 3. designed drainage ways to blend with natural landforms, 4. use plant materials in compliance with the palette pages 51 53 COMMENTS A company or subcontractor of the developer plans to build all of the village homes and deckhomes, so there will be more thorough control over the guidelines. Since these areas are the most visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway, strictest compliance will be necessary. The additional material written in the guidelines will provide clear rules for compliance. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 31 The following five pages illustrate the proposed homes for village and deckhome neighborhoods... Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~, One Year Check-up Page 8 r--r -- REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The following five pages illustratethe design guidelines applied to demonstrate the qualit~of proposed homes for village and deckhome neighborhoods... COMMENTS The house facades will vary, depending on new products available for future phases. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 37 Colonial precedent is required. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Colonial precedent is required in the form material and color of houses 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 guidelines are divided into two categories Requirements illustrate the basic level of minimum acceptability and unacceptability The Recommendations are encouraged to provide an overall sense of community. The list of recommended guidelines is not meant to be all-inclusive. Approval of the Architectural Review 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 37, 38 Materials and Architectural Considerations Exterior walls -Acceptable materials: 1. board and battten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood siding, 2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding, 3. wood shingles, Preferred colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark gray, grayish-brown, dark gray-brown, garyish-buff or soft mutted earth colors. 4. native stone with gray or dark mortar, 5. synthetic or simulated composite building products that approximate the wood Wolf Creek Design Guidelines i ; • One Year Check-up Page 9 6 7 8. REVISED -July 31, 199'7 7~ patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum), gray brick with gray mortar, brick that is grayish-brown, gray, reddish-brown and other dark or grayish earth colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars. stucco or synthetic stucco utilizing the above color schemes. Unacceptable materials: 1. brick that is bright red, orangish-red, pink, light red, white or other colors which would be visually out of character with traditional architecture, 2. siding that is white, whitish-g~y, pink, bright silver, red, bright green, blue or other colors that would draw attention or be otherwise visually out of character with the surrounding properties, 3. white mortar 4. exposed concrete block, exposed concrete or parged cement foundations. 2. Chimneys shall be brick or native stone with ~ray or dark mortar 3. Roof -acceptable materials: 1. wood shakes or shingles, 2. standing seam copper, 3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture. Preferred colors include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish-brown, grayish-buff or dark brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptble, 4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents should match the color fo the roof, or should be black, dark gray or bronze. 5. skylights should have black, bronze or gray trim, 6. dormers will be allowed on 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are 1-1/2 story wings. Unacceptable materials: 1. shiny metal roofs, whether metal, aluminum or galvanized metal, 2. metal shingles or stamped metal decorative roofing panels, 3. flat roofs or primary roofs with a Ditch of less than 8.12 Architectural Elements: 1. Building Mass and Shape -the following guidelines are encouraged: 1. gable roofs. 2. hip roofs. 3. chimneys, 4. porches, ." Wolf Creek Design Guidelines 1Jne Yeaz Check-up - Page 10 REVISED -August 8, 1997 S. roof overhangs, 6. garage doors which open away from the front, 7. multiple plan roofs, 8. breaking the large mass of one gable roof into several gable roofs of different sizes. 9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope rather than force unnatural excavation or platforming of the lot, 2. Building details -the following guidelines are encouraged: 1. awnings should be medium to dark earth color. Avoid white, stripped patterns and colors that attract attention, 2. greenhouses, storage buildings and fences should be oriented so that entrances do not face the front or the neighbor's front. 3. all outbuildings, including attached garages should match the color, texture and material of the main house. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Materials, Colors and Architectural Requirements Exterior walls will be constructed out of the following list of acceptable materials: 1. board and batten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood siding, 2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding, 3. wood shingles. Colors for the wood materials is described in the palette below 4. native stone with gray or dark mortar, 5. synthetic or simulated composite building product' that approximate the wood patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum), 6. dark earth-tone brick. 7. stucco or synthetic stucco utilizing the above color schemes. 8. Colors for the exterior walls shall be from or equal to the Williamsburg Palette of Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints the Original Color Palette of Cabot's O.V.T. solid color stains or the Palette of Semi-transparent or semi- solid stains, by CabotStains, as edited and included as an appendix to this book No more than 35% of the houses will be of one color 9. Trim shall be the same or a compatible tertiary color to the exterior wall colors chosen from the included color palettes 10. gray brick with gray mortar 11. brick that is grayish-brown gray reddish-brown and other dark or grayish earth colors. All of these should have buff or gray mortars Unacceptable materials: 1. brick that is bright red, orangish-red, pink, light red, white or other colors which would be visually out of character with traditional azchitecture, 2. siding that is reflective, pink, bright silver, bri ht red, bright green, b_ right E wolf Creex Design ciuiuettnes One Year Check-up - Wage 11 REVISED -July 31, 199'7 blue or other colors that would draw attention or be otherwise visually out of character with the surrounding properties, 3. white brick and/or mortar 4. exposed concrete block, exposed concrete or parged cement foundations. 2. Exterior appurtenances - a minimum of S% of the house square footaee will be required to be added in stoops, covered decks, patios. porches. 3. Chimneys, where used, shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar 4. Roofs: 1. wood shakes or shingles, with colors natural or similaz to or as shown on_the Palette of Semi-transparent or semi- solid stains. by CabotStains, as edited and included as an appendix to this book. 2. standing seam copper, 3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture. Preferred colors include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish-brown, grayish-buff or dark brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptable; 4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents should match the color of the roof or should be black. dark gray or bronze. S. skyli~hts should have black, bronze or ~ray trim Unacceptable roof materials and forms for all single family houses: 1. shiny metal roofs, whether metal, aluminum or galvanized metal, 2. metal shingles or stamped metal decorative roofing panels, 3. Flat roofs as the predominant component of the roof system Architectural Elements Recommendations: Building Mass and Shape -the following guidelines are encouraged, illustrated on pages 39-44: 1. gable roofs, or hip roofs and breakinsr the IarQe mass of one gable roof into several gable roofs of different sizes. 2. dormers are encouraged on 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are 1-1/2 story wings. 3. Roof slopes 6:12 or >rreater 4. chimneys, 5. porches, 6. covered entries, 7. garage doors which open away from the front, 8. multiple plan roofs, 9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope rather than force unnatural excavation or platforming of the lot. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines One Yeaz Check-up Page 12 2. Building details: REVISED -July 31, 1997 T- 1. awnings should be medium to dark earth color. Avoid white, str~ patterns and colors that attract attention, 2. greenhouses, storage buildings and fences should be oriented so that entrances do not face the front or the neighbor's front. 3. all outbuildings, including attached garages should match the color, texture and material of the main house. COMMENTS The major concerns have been addressed by these changes. There is a clear list of required and desired traits. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 39 1. Building Mass and share -the following guidelines are encouraged: REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The followin>y sketches on rages 39-44 are provided to illustrate the architectural desi~rl recommendations enumerated on pie 38. 1. Roofs: PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 40 A minimum of 5% of the house square footage will be required to be added in stoops, covered decks, patios, porches. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE (This requirement has been moved to the requirements section). PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 41 Roof overhangs are never used in proper Colonial dwe~. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Roof overhangs are never used in proper Colonial facades. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE ~,~ 43 Platform fills of >;reater than 8' or remainin>; cut-sloped banks higher than 8' are not permitted. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 199'7 ,~ ,One Year Check-up • Page 13 ~' .~ REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE This statement u moved to the revised landscape architectural elements section of the report. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 44 14. Building details -the following are encouraged: REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Delete this section. It it repetitive of the one on page 38. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 44 -•45 Landscape Architectural Elements 1. Site Structures 1. tennis courts should use dark green or dark tan colors. 2. tennis court fencing should be black vinyl-clad chain-link, 3. swimming pools should be hidden to the extent possible. Site plan orientation, landscape plantings and board fencing should be used to visually screen the swimming pool from neighbors. Also swimming pool equipment, pumps, utilities and service areas should be screened. 4. poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details should be black, gray, grayish-brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright colors and other visually intrusive materials should be avoided. 5. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened. 2. Setback and the Landscape Protection Zone 1. Houses will be setback 30' from the edge of right-of-way for public roads, 20' from the sideyard, and 20' from the rear yard. No site or landscape structures may be built in the back 20' of rearyard. 2. No tree with a girth of over 6" caliper shall be removed unless necessary for construction of the primary residence. Virginia Pines may be excluded from this rule. A tree survey is required to be reviewed by the Architectural Committee, with all 6"cal. and over trees denoted. 3. No tree above 6" cal. will be removed in the front of the house between house and roadway, except fora 12' swath for a driveway. This should be delineated on the tree survey, mentioned above. _ 3. Site details and landscaping -the following guidelines are encouraged: 1. driveways should be dark in color, 2. utilize natural landforms and existing vegetation to screen building from neighbors: M., Wolf Creek Design Guidelines One Year Check-up Page 14 REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~r 3. 4. design drainage ways to blend with natural landforms, use plant materials native to the azea. Avoid exotic plant materials. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 44 - 45 Landscape Architectural Requirements Site_~radin>i, materials and amenities requirements 1. Platform fills of greater than 8' or remaining cut-sloped banks higher than 8' are not permitted 2. Where used, tennis courts should use dark green or dark tan colors. 3. Tennis court fencing will be black vinyl-clad chain-link, 4. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened. S. poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details shall be black, gray, grayish-brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright colors and other visually intrusive materials should be avoided. 2. Setback and the Landscape Protection Zone 1. Houses will be set back 30' from the edge of right-of-way for public roads, 20' from the sideyazd, and 20' from the reaz yard. No site or landscape structures may be built in the back 20' of rearyard. 2. No tree with diameter over 6" caliper shall be removed unless necessary for construction of the primary residence. Virginia Pines and other hazard trees may be excluded from this rule. A tree survey with all 6"cal. and over trees denoted is required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and the Roanoke County planning staff prior to the issuance of a buil"ding permit Trees which are so__close to the house as to be compromised during construction or present a possible dancer after construction despite careful and prudent construction activity, may be excluded from these requirements after review and approval of the Architectural Review Committee and county planning staff 3. For those lots situated in the woods, no tree above 6" cal. will be removed in the front of the house between house and roadway, except for a swath the desired width for driveway paving with as much as 3' allowed on each side beyond the edge of pavement. This shall be delineated on the tree survey, mentioned above. Landscape Architectural Recommendations 1. Site~radin>s. materials and amenities recommendations 1. swimming pools should be hidden to the extent possible.- Site plan orientation, landscape plantings and board fencing should be used to visually screen the swimming pool from neighbors. Also swimming pool equipment, pumps, utilities and service areas should be screened. 2. Site details and landscaping -the following guidelines are encouraged: Wolf Creek Design Guidelines .~.OneYear Check-up Page 15 REVISED -July 31, 1997 "]=1 1. driveways should be darker than grey #3 in color, 2. utilize natural landforms and' existing vegetation to screen building from neighbors. 3. design drainage ways to blend with natural landforms, 4. use plant materials native to the azea. Avoid exotic plant materials. 5. Colors for site appurtenances should be compatible with the architectural palettes. Colors should be from or equal to the Williamsburg Palette of Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints, the Ori>;inal Color Palette of Cabot's O VT solid color stains. or the Palette of Semi-transparent or semi- solid stains by,,. CabotStains, as edited and included as an appendix to this book. COMMENTS By arranging these into recommendations and requirements, there is a clearer set of rules. Many of these points are clarifications, rather than revisions. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 46 Each public pedestrian walkway shall be lined with plantin bg eds. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Each public pedestrian walkway shall be punctuated with planting beds in areas that do not already feature natural amenities. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 47 ...pockets of 2' wide planting beds... REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE pockets of var~ng_width planting beds... PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 47 Single Family Home Landscape Guidelines REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 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. . Wnlf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~; One Year Check-up ~ °~ Page 16 ~"..1 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 51 Seventy-five percent of the plants chosen for the individual landscapes will come from this list. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Seventy-five percent of the plants chosen for the individual landscapes will come from a revised and expanded list, to be a part of the revised document COMMENTS The small plant list is too prohibitive, with the variety of plants available locally, and conditions of the site. SPELLING and GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING The following spelling, syntax, and/or typographical errors are hereby proposed to be amended: PAGE ERROR 2 on the following page. 41 ameteurs 46 orcrds accomodates aveeaging responsibiity 47 landsape responsibiiry CORRECTED following page 14... amateurs orchards accommodates averaging responsibility landscape responsibility Following approval of the proposed amendments by the Board, updated pages will be supplied to the County for the inclusion into individual Wolf Creek PRD Rezoning Application 3 ring binder books. T- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE TO AMEND CONDITIONS ON A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY CONSISTING OF 38.22 ACRES LOCATED AT MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD AND WOLF RUN (ORIGINALLY TAX MAP NO. 50.04-3-73 NOW COMPRISED OF TAX MAP NOS. 50.04-4-1 THROUGH 50.04- 4-37, INCLUSIVE, 50.04-3-73, AND 50.04-3-73.1) IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF WOLF CREEK, INC. WHEREAS, by Ordinance 102495-10 the zoning classification of a 38.22-acre tract of real estate located at Mountain View Road and Laurel Glen Lane, north of the Blue Ridge Parkway (Tax Map No. 50.04-3-73) was changed to PRD, Planned Residential Development District; and WHEREAS, the owner voluntarily proffered in writing, and the Board accepted, conditions which were made a part of the rezoning ordinance and were set out in detail in "A Rezoning Application: Planning and Design Documents for Wolf Creek Planned Community, County of Roanoke, Virginia, Roanoke County's First Planned Residential Development (PRD), Wolf Creek, Inc., Owner & Developer, Hill Studio, P.C., Planner & Landscape Architect, June 23, 1995, updated September 13, 1995, September 29, 1995, and October 17, 1995." WHEREAS, Wolf Creek, Inc. has now made application to amend these conditions, said amendments being attached to this ordinance and entitled "Wolf Creek One-Year Check-Up, Revised July 31, 1997"; and WHEREAS, the owners of various lots in this PRD have joined in this application to amend these conditions; and 1 ~~ WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held August 19, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 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 attached amendments entitled "Wolf Creek One-Year Check- Up, Revised July 31, 1997," to the Planned Residential Development known as Wolf Creek located at Mountain View Road and Wolf Run, originally consisting of 38.22 acres (Tax Map No. 50.04-3-73) now comprised of Tax Map Nos. 50.04-4-1 through 50.04-4-37, inclusive, 50.04-3-73, and 50.04- 3-73.1 in the Vinton Magisterial District, are voluntarily proffered by the Owners, are hereby accepted by the Board of Supervisors, and are hereby made a part of and incorporated into "A Rezoning Application: Planning and Design Documents for Wolf Creek Planned Community, County of Roanoke, Virginia, Roanoke County's First Planned Residential Development (PRD), Wolf Creek, Inc., Owner & Developer, Hill Studio, P.C., Planner & Landscape Architect, June 23, 1995, updated September 13, 1995, September 29, 1995, and October 17, 1995." 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Wolf Creek, Inc. 2 / -~ V 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Tax Map Nos. 50.04-4-1 through 50.04-4-37, inclusive, 50.04-3-73, and 50.04-3-73.1. BEGINNING at corner #1, said point located on the northerly right- of-way of Virginia Secondary Route #651, said point also being the southeasterly corner of Lot 1, Section 7, Falling Creek Estates (PB 12, page 170); thence leaving Route #651 and with Section 7, Falling Creek Estates, N. 14 deg. 41' 52" E. 1043.04 feet to corner #2, said point located on the southerly boundary of Section 3, Falling Creek Estates (PB 9, page 71); thence continuing with Section 3, Falling Creek Estates, N. 67 deg. 14' 20" E. 779.21 feet to corner #3, said point located on the westerly side of Section 5, Falling Creek Estates (PB 9, page 146); thence continuing with Section 5, Falling Creek Estates, S. 16 deg. 54' 06" E. 491.70 feet to corner #4; thence with the new boundary lines of Lot 6 for the following three courses comprising the southerly portion of Lot 6, Section 5, Falling Creek Estates, S. 89 deg. 15' 46" W. 20.00 feet to corner #5; thence S. 16 deg. 42' 00" E. 224.60 feet to corner #6; thence N. 73 deg. 05' 54" E. 20.00 feet to corner #7, said point located on the original Lot 6 boundary line; thence continuing with the southerly boundary of Lot 6, S. 16 deg. 54' 06" E. 312.03 feet to corner #8, said point being the northwesterly corner of Cindy F. Ross property; thence leaving Lot 6 and with Ross S. 16 deg. 54' 06" E. 514.98 feet to corner #9, said point located on the northerly right-of-way of Laurel Glen Lane, said point also being the southwesterly corner of property of Cindy F. Ross (DB 1376, page 943); thence leaving Ross and with Laurel Glen Lane for the following three courses, S. 66 deg. 28' 05" W. 203.72 feet to corner #10; thence S. 47 deg. 43' 04" W. 29.58 feet to corner #11; thence S. 63 deg. 22' 10" W. 514.79 feet to corner #12, said point located at the intersection of Laurel Glen Lane and Virginia Secondary Route 651; thence leaving Laurel Glen Lane and with Virginia Secondary Route 651 for the following four courses: thence with a curve to the left which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 13 deg. 05' 55", a radius of 577.37 feet, a chord of 131.71 feet and bearing N. 75 deg. 18' 09" W. to corner #13; thence with a curve to the right which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 27 deg. 18' 49", a radius of 481.01 feet, a chord of 227.14 feet, and bearing N. 68 deg. 11' 43" W. to corner ##14; thence N. 47 deg. 52' 47" W. 362.91 feet to corner #15; thence N. 49 deg. 26' 32" W. 202.61 feet to corner #1, the place of beginning and containing 38.22 acres. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty 3 ~/ (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\WOLFCRK.AMD 4 ~i I PETITIONER: WOLF CREEK CASE NUMBER: 26-8/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 5, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 19, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Wolf Creek Inc. to amend conditions on a Planned Residential Development consisting of 39 acres, located at Mountain View Road and Wolf Run, Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Eleanor Dillard wanted to know how the proposal would affect the viewshed from the Blue Ridge Parkway. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Robinson announced that he would be abstaining from all discussion and action on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Ms. Scheid presented the minor revisions to the design guidelines including the new color palate. She explained that this palette has been approved by the Blue Ridge Parkway office in Asheville. Petitioner has proffered that no color in the palette will be repeated on more than 35% of the homes. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS All submitted materials constitute proffered conditions (see attached document) E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Ross moved to recommend approval of the petition with proffered conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Thomason, Hooker, Ross NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Robinson F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ ~ ff Repo _ Othe~ f Terrance arrin, Secretary Roano Coun y Planning Commission REVISED -July 31, 1997 WOLF CREEK ONE-YEAR CHECK-UP 7~' ! 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. 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 double underlined: PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 14,17,20 Master Plan Base Map REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The masterplan will be revised to show changes to lots 8, 36 and 37. Lot 8 has a retention pond and 36 and 37 have been redivided to have three attached deckhomes. worked around the lame oaks. Note this update will also affect the subtotals on the chart, page 18. Please see attached concept plan and elevation. 15 Modeled after Williamsburg dwellings, substantial houses (1650 to 2150 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 dwellings, substantial houses_(1650 min. sf) of 1 to 2 stories above rg ade are placed closely creating courtyards and motorcourts, with large blocks of common open space adjacent. COMMENTS The sizes of houses will change over completion of the project. People are requesting all single floor houses. Note this also applies to the first drawing following page 54. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~~ ~, One~Year Check-up Page 2 ~~ PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 16 All major park amenities are built by the Developer, during Phase I of the Proiect.The lands will be conveyed for the meadow as adjacent construction is complete and ourside edge details complete, at the conclusion of Phase IV. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE All major park amenities are built by the Developer during the construction of each_ related phase and prior to conveying lands to the National Park Service. The lands will be conveyed for the meadow as adjacent construction is complete and outside edge details complete, at the conclusion of Phase IV. COMMENTS The final size and location of structures in the village and deck home neighborhoods (Phases 3,4, and S) will effect the final alignment of park property boundaries, and the location of trails and other park amenities. It makes sense not to construct these items until their final location can be tied down. Note this change also applies to page 21. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 20 The map shows the words "shaded play>;round" under a revision calling our "Picnic Grove.' REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Picnic Grove is correct. COMMENTS This is a clarification. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 20 In the legend: 1. A wildflower meadow in the front of the property, surrounded by a low dry-lay stone wall adjacent to Mountain View Drive. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE In the legend: 1. A wildflower meadow in the front of the property, is adjacent to Mountain View Drive. COMMENTS The stone wall is not desired in the project. ' Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~; One Year Check-up Page 3 ?=1 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 23 These guidelines are not meant to beall-inclusive, and approval will be based on Quality of construction as well 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 shall review desisrrl solutions taking into consideration the overall Quality of the design, materials and colors to be used. COMMENTS This is a clarification. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 24 The S' 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 guideline was too specific. The final size and location sidewalks and trails should vary according to specific topography and site resources. For example, the boulders found during road construction in this area allow for a trail varying 3' to 6', which is a much better design than a standard S' trail. Note this change also applies to pages 19, 20, 25 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 25 The S' 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. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The variable-width 3' to 6' walk, an extension of Meadow and Streamside trails, will be on one 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 REVISED -July 31, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 4 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 26 ... the 20' resin and pebble road is aligned with rusticated curbs. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE . the 20' brown Debbie road is aligned with rusticated curbs. COMMENTS After searching nationally, there is not a reliable construction process of pebble and resin. Specifications are now being finalized for an asphaltic pebble construction, which will produce similar visual results. Note the same change applies to pages 19, 3I, 46, 27 PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 28 The opposite side will have have bank garages... REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The opposite side may have some bank garages... PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 30 The house plans and elevations have been supplied to the planning team by the developer. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The house plans and elevations have been supplied to the planning team by the developer. A company or subcontractor of the developer plans to build all of the village homes. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 30, 31 Materials and Architectural Considerations Materials and architectural considerations proposed for the Village and Deckhomes are listed below Predominant first-phase materials are underlined. 1. Exterior walls materials: 1. board and battten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood siding, 2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding, 3. wood shingles, featured colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark gray, grayish-brown, dark gray-brown, t;arvish-buff or soft mutted earth colors. 4. native stone with gray or dark mortar, Wolf Creek Design Guidelines One Year Check-up Page 5 REVISED -July 31, 199'1 T- S. synthetic or simul__ated composite building products that approximate the wood patterns described above (vines or aluminum), 6. gray brick with gray mortar, 7. brick that is grayish-brown, gray, reddish-brown and other dark or grayish earth colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars. 2. Chimneys shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar. 3. Roof materials: 1. wood shakes or shingles, 2. standing seam copper, 3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture . Colors include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish-brown, grayish-buff or dark brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptble, 4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents will match the color of the roof, or will be black, dark gray or bronze. 5. skylights will have black, bronze or gray trim, 6. dormers will be featured on some 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are 1 1/2 story wings. Architectural Elements Building Mass and Shape -the following guidelines apply: 1. gable roofs, 2. hip roofs, 3. chimneys, 4. porches, , 5. roof overhangs, 6. garage doors which open away from the front, 7. multiple plan roofs, 8. breaking the lame mass of one gable roof into several gable roofs. 9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope Landscape Architectural Elements Site appurtenance details -the following guidelines apply: poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details will be black, gray, grayish-brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright colors and other visually intrusive materials will be avoided. 2. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened. 2. Site details and landscaping -the following-guidelines apply: 1. motorcourts and parking will be dark in color, with pebble and resin 2. utilize natural landforms and exisitng vegetation to screen building from neighbors. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -August 8, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 6 I 3. designed drainage ways to blend with natural landforms, 4. use plant materials native to the area. Avoid exotic plant materials. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Materials and Architectural Requirements Materials and architectural requirements proposed for the Village and Deckhomes are listed below. Predominant first-phase forms, materials and colors are underlined. Exterior walls 1. board and batten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood siding, 2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding, 3. wood shingles, featured colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark gray, grayish-brown, dark gray-brown, grayish-buff or soft mutted earth colors, shown in the palette below, 4. native stone with gray or dark mortar, S. synthetic or simulated composite building_products that approximate the wood patterns described above (vines or aluminum), 6. gray brick with gray mortar, 7. brick that is grayish-brown, gray, reddish-brown and other dark or grayish earth colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars. 8. Colors for the exterior walls will be from or equal to the Williamsbure Palette of Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints, the Original Color Palette of Cabot's O.V.T. solid color stains, or the Palette of Semi-transparent or semi- solid stains, by CabotStains, as edited and included as an appendix to this book. No more than 35% of the houses in each phase will be of one color. 9. Trim will be the same or a compatible tertian color to the exterior wall colors chosen from the included color palettes. 2. Where used, chimneys shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar. 3. Roofs: 1. wood shakes or shingles, with colors natural or as shown on the Palette of Semi- transparent or semi- solid stains, by CabotStains, as edited and included as an appendix to this book. 2. standing seam copper, 3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture . Colors include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish-brown, grayish-buff or dark brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptable, 4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents will match the color of the roof, or will be black, dark gray or bronze. 5. skylights will have black, bronze or gray trim, 6. dormers will be featured on some 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are 1 1/2 story wings. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 7 ~~ Architectural Elements Recommendations Building Mass and Shape -the following guidelines apply. (illustrated in the sketches accompanying the single family home guidelines, pages 39-44). Where applicable, the village homes and deckhomes will feature: 1. gable roofs, or hip roofs, and breaking the large mass of one !?able roof into several gable roofs, 2. chimneys, 3. porches, 4. covered entries, 5. garage doors which open away from the front, 6. multiple plan roofs, 7. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope Landscape Architectural Requirements Site appurtenance details poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details will be black, gray, grayish-brown or natural earth tone colors. White, galvanized metal, bright colors and other visually intrusive materials will be avoided, and where reQUired by code, screened by vegetative buffers. 2. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened. 2. Site details and landscaping 1. motorcourts and parking will be darker than gray #3 in color, with brown pebbles as a finish on the paving: 2. Utilize berm landforms and/or existing vegetation to partially screen deckhomes and village homes from adiacent single-family neighbors. 3. designed drainage ways to blend with natural landforms, 4. use plant materials in compliance with the palette, pages 51-53. COMMENTS A company or subcontractor of the developer plans to build all of the village homes and deckhomes, so there will be more thorough control over the guidelines. Since these areas are the most visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway, strictest compliance will be necessary. The additional material written in the guidelines will provide clear rules for compliance. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 31 The following five pages illustrate t_he proposed homes for village and deckhome neighborhoods... Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 8 '"i'~ REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The following five pages illustrate the design guidelines applied to demonstrate the quality of proposed homes for village and deckhome neighborhoods... COMMENTS The houre facades will vary, depending on new products available for future phases. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 37 Colonial precedent is required. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Colonial precedent is required in the form, material and color of houses. 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 guidelines are divided into two categories. Requirements illustrate the basic level of minimum acceptability. and unacceptability The Recommendations are encouraged to provide an overall sense of community. The list of recommended guidelines is not meant to be all-inclusive. Approval of the Architectural Review Committee will be based on the quality of construction, site specific problems and adaptations, as well as materials used. COMMENTS 77tis is a clarification. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 37, 38 Materials and Architectural Considerations Exterior walls -Acceptable materials: 1. board and battten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood siding, 2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding, 3. wood shingles, Preferred colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark gray, grayish-brown, dark gray-brown, garyish-buff or soft mutted earth colors. 4. native stone with gray or dark mortar, 5. synthetic or simulated composite building products that approximate the wood Wolf Creek Design Guidelines One Year Check-up Page 9 REVISED -July 31, 1997 T1 patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum), 6. gray brick with gray mortar, 7. brick that is grayish-brown, gray, reddish-brown and other dark or grayish earth colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars. 8. stucco or synthetic stucco utilizing the above color schemes. Unacceptable materials: 1. brick that is bright red, orangish-red, pink, light red, white or other colors which would be visually out of character with traditional architecture, 2. siding that is white, whitish-~ray, pink, bright silver, red, bright green, blue or other colors that would draw attention or be otherwise visually out of character with the surrounding properties, 3. white mortar 4. exposed concrete block, exposed concrete or parged cement foundations. 2. Chimneys shall be brick or native stone with i?ray or dark mortar. 3. Roof -acceptable materials: 1. wood shakes or shingles, 2. standing seam copper, 3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture. Preferred colors include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish-brown, grayish-buff or dark brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptble, 4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents should match the color fo the roof, or should be black, dark gray or bronze. 5. skylights should have black, bronze or gray trim, 6. dormers will be allowed on 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are 1-1/2 story wings. Unacceptable materials: 1. shiny metal roofs, whether metal, aluminum or galvanized metal, 2. metal shingles or stamped metal decorative roofing panels, 3. flat roofs or primary roofs with a pitch of less than 8:12. Architectural Elements: Building Mass and Shape -the following guidelines are encouraged: 1. gable roofs, 2. hip roofs, 3. chimneys, 4. porches, 'Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -August 8, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 10 ,.~ 5. roof overhangs, 6. garage doors which open away from the front, 7. multiple plan roofs, 8. breaking the large mass of one gable roof into several gable roofs of different sizes. 9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope rather than force unnatural excavation or platforming of the lot, 2. Building details -the following guidelines are encouraged: 1. awnings should be medium to dark earth color. Avoid white, stripped patterns and colors that attract attention, 2. greenhouses, storage buildings and fences should be oriented so that entrances do not face the front or the neighbor's front. 3. all outbuildings, including attached garages should match the color, texture and material of the main house. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Materials, Colors and Architectural Requirements Exterior walls will be constructed out of the following list of acceptable materials: 1. board and batten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood siding, 2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding, 3. wood shingles. Colors for the wood materials is described in the palette below, 4. native stone with gray or dark mortar, 5. synthetic or simulated composite building products that approximate the wood patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum), 6. dark earth-tone brick, 7. stucco or synthetic stucco utilizing the above color schemes. 8. Colors for the exterior walls shall be from or equal to the Williamsburg Palette of Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints, the Original Color Palette of Cabot's O.VT. solid color stains, or the Palette of Semi-transparent or semi- solid stains, by CabotStains, as edited and included as an appendix to this book. No more than 35% of the houses will be of one color. 9. Trim shall be the same or a compatible tertiary color to the exterior wall colors chosen from the included color palettes. 10. gray brick with gray mortar, 11. brick that is ravish-brown, gray, reddish-brown and other dark or grayish earth colors. All of these should have buff or gray mortars. Unacceptable materials: 1. brick that is bright red, orangish-red, pink, light red, white or other colors which would be visually out of character with traditional architecture, 2. siding that is reflective, pink, bright silver, bright red, bright green, b Wolf Creek Design Guidelines One Yeaz Check-up Page 11 REVISED -July 31, 1997 blue or other colors that would draw attention or be otherwise visually out of character with the surrounding properties, 3. white brick and/or mortar 4. exposed concrete block, exposed concrete or parged cement foundations. 2. Exterior appurtenances - a minimum of 5°10 of the house square footage will be required to be added in stoops, covered decks, patios, porches. 3. Chimneys, where used, shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar. 4. Roofs: 1. wood shakes or shingles, with colors natural or similar to or as shown on the Palette of Semi-transparent or semi- solid stains. by CabotStains. as edited and included as an appendix to this book. 2. standing seam copper, 3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture. Preferred colors include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish-brown, grayish-buff or dark brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptable; 4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents should match the color of the roof. or should be black, dark gray or bronze. 5. skylights should have black, bronze or f;ray trim, Unacceptable roof materials and forms for all single family houses: 1. shiny metal roofs, whether metal, aluminum or galvanized metal, 2. metal shingles or stamped metal decorative roofing panels, 3. Flat roofs as the predominant component of the roof system. Architectural Elements Recommendations: Building Mass and Shape -the following guidelines are encouraged, illustrated on pages 39-44: 1. gable roofs, or hip roofs, and breaking the large mass of one cable roof into several gable roofs of different sizes. 2. dormers are encouraged on 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are 1-1/2 story wings. 3. Roof slopes 6:12 or greater 4. chimneys, 5. porches, 6. covered entries, 7. garage doors which open away from the front, 8. multiple plan roofs, 9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope rather than force unnatural excavation or platforming of the lot. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines One Year Check-up Page 12 2. Building details: REVISED -July 31, 1997 T- ~ 1. awnings should be medium to dark earth color. Avoid white, str~ patterns and colors that attract attention, 2. greenhouses, storage buildings and fences should be oriented so that entrances do not face the front or the neighbor's front. 3. all outbuildings, including attached garages should match the color, texture and material of the main house. COMMENTS The major concerns have been addressed by these changes. There is a clear list of required and desired traits. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 39 1. Building Mass and shave -the following guidelines are encouraged: REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE The following sketches on pages 39-44 are provided to illustrate the architectural design recommendations enumerated on page 38. 1. Roofs: PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE ' 40 A minimum of S% of the house square footage will be required to be added in stoops, covered decks, patios, porches. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE (This requirement has been moved to the requirements section). PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 41 Roof overhangs are never used in proper Colonial dwe~. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Roof overhangs are never used in proper Colonial facades. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 43 Platform fills of ~r_e_ater than 8' or remaining cut-sloped banks higher than 8' are not permitted. ' Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 13 REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE This statement is moved to the revised landscape architectural elements section of the report. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 44 14. Building details -the following are encouraged: REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Delete this section. It is repetitive of the one on page 38. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 44 -~45 Landscape Architectural Elements Site Structures 1. tennis courts should use dark green or dark tan colors. 2. tennis court fencing should be black vinyl-clad chain-link, 3. swimming pools should be hidden to the extent possible. Site plan orientation, landscape plantings and board fencing should be used to visually screen the swimming pool from neighbors. Also swimming pool equipment, pumps, utilities and service areas should be screened. 4. poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details should be black, gray, grayish-brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright colors and other visually intrusive materials should be avoided. 5. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened. 2. Setback and the Landscape Protection Zone 1. Houses will be setback 30' from the edge of right-of-way for public roads, 20' from the sideyard, and 20' from the rear yard. No site or landscape structures may be built in the back 20' of rearyard. 2. No tree with a girth of over 6" caliper shall be removed unless necessary for construction of the primary residence. Virginia Pines may be excluded from this rule. A tree surve is required to be reviewed by the Architectural Committee, with all 6"cal. and over trees denoted. 3. No tree above 6" cal. will be removed in the front of the house between house and roadway, except fora 12' swath for a driveway. This should be delineated on the tree survey, mentioned .above. 3. Site details and landscaping -the following guidelines are encouraged: 1. driveways should be dark in color, 2. utilize natural landforms and existing vegetation to screen building from neighbors. ' Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 14 ~+' ' 3. design drainage ways to blend with natural landforms, 4. use plant materials native to the area. Avoid exotic plant materials. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 44 - 45 Landscape Architectural Requirements 1. Site grading, materials and amenities requirements 1. Platform fills of greater than 8' or remainin>; cut-sloped banks higher than 8' are not permitted 2. Where used, tennis courts should use dark green or dark tan colors. 3. Tennis court fencing will be black vinyl-clad chain-link, 4. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened. 5. poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details shall be black, gray, grayish-brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright colors and other visually intrusive materials should be avoided. 2. Setback and the Landscape Protection Zone 1. Houses will be set back 30' from the edge of right-of-way for public roads, 20' from the sideyard, and 20' from the rear yard. No site or landscape structures may be built in the back 20' of rearyard. 2. No tree with diameter over 6" caliper shall be removed unless necessary for construction of the primary residence. Virginia Pines and other hazard trees may be excluded from this rule. A tree survey with all 6"cal. and over trees denoted is required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee, and the Roanoke Count planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Trees which are so close to the house as to be compromised during construction or present a possible dans?er after construction despite careful and prudent construction activity, may be excluded from these requirements after review and approval of the Architectural Review Committee and county plannin>; staff. 3. For those lots situated in the woods, no tree above 6" cal. will be removed in the front of the house between house and roadway, except for a swath the desired width for driveway paving, with as much as 3' allowed on each side beyond the edge of pavement. This shall be delineated on the tree survey, mentioned above. Landscape Architectural Recommendations Site ~radine, materials and amenities recommendations swimming pools should be hidden to the extent possible.- Site plan orientation, landscape plantings and board fencing should be used to visually screen the swimming pool from neighbors. Also swimming pool equipment, pumps, utilities and service areas should be screened. 2. Site details and landscaping -the following guidelines are encouraged: Wolf Creek Design Guidelines One Year Check-up Page 15 REVISED -July 31, 1997 ~~ 1. driveways should be darker than grey #3 in color, 2. utilize natural landforms and existing vegetation to screen building from neighbors. 3. design drainage ways to blend with natural landforms, 4. use plant materials native to the area. Avoid exotic plant materials. 5. Colors for site appurtenances should be compatible with the azchitectural palettes. Colors should be from or equal to the Williamsburg Palette of Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints, the Oris;inal Color Palette of Cabot's O.V.T. solid color stains or the Palette of Semi-transparent or semi- solid stains, by CabotStains as edited and included as an appendix to this book. COMMENTS By arranging these into recommendations and requirements, there is a clearer set of rules. Many of these points are clarifications, rather than revisions. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 46 Each public pedestrian walkway shall be lined with planting beds. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Each public pedestrian walkway shall be-punctuated with planting, beds in areas that do not already feature natural amenities. PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 47 ...pockets of 2' wide planting beds... REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE pockets of varying width planting beds... PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 47 Single Family Home Landscape Guidelines REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 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. Wolf Creek Design Guidelines REVISED -July 31, 1997 One Year Check-up Page 16 (i PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE 51 Seventy-five percent of the plants chosen for the individual landscapes will come from this list. REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE Seventy-five percent of the plants chosen for the individual landscapes will come from a revised and expanded list, to be a part of the revised document COMMENTS The small plant list is too prohibitive, with the variety of plants available locally, and conditions of the site. SPELLING and GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING The following spelling, syntax, and/or typographical errors are hereby proposed to be amended: PAGE ERROR 2 on the following page... 41 ameteurs 46 orcrds accomodates avreaging responsibiity 47 landsape responsibiity CORRECTED following page 14... amateurs orchards accommodates averaging responsibility landscape responsibility Following approval of the proposed amendments by the Board, updated pages will be supplied to the County for the inclusion into individual Wolf Creek PRD Rezoning Application 3 ring binder books. T-~ MEMORANDUM Date: July 31, 1997 To: Planning Commission From: Janet Scheid, Plann ^ Re: Revisions to Wolf Creek Planned Residential Development Design Guidelines In October 1995 the Board of Supervisors approved the Planning and Design Document for Wolf Creek. Over the past year and a half the County staff, the developers, the builders, the property owners and the design team have had the opportunity to work with this document and experience first hand the elements contained within that can be successfully implemented and those that either can not be implemented as written or that in hindsight make no sense to implement. While there are many small revisions that constitute "house cleaning" and are grammatical in nature the following four areas of revisions warrant your attention: 1) Design of the Village Homes Previous plan: 1 '/z to 2 stories (1650 to 2150 sf) Revised plan: 1 to 2 stories (1650 sf minimum) above ground This is the area of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) that is closest to the Blue Ridge Parkway and Mountain View Road. The developers are sensitive to the height of structures in this area and are proposing a lower minimum height to respond to market demand while allowing the flexibility to construct these homes with below grade basements. 2) Park Amenities Previous plan: Park amenities are built by the developer during Phase I of the project. Revised plan: Park amenities shall be built by the developer as each phase of development that contains those park amenities is completed. The developers are committed to construct the park amenities contained in Phase 1 (and each subsequent phase) of Wolf Creek when Phase 1 (and each subsequent phase) is completed. They want to avoid being obligated to develop park amenities in Phase 4 at the completion of Phase 1 because those Phase 4 amenities may have to be moved or may be destroyed by heavy equipment as Phase 4 is developed. 3) Pedestrian Walkways Previous plan: Five foot wide walkways, constructed of pebble and resin, shall be lined with planting beds. Revised plan: Variable width (3'-6') walkways constructed of brown pebble shall be j I punctuated with planting beds in high exposure areas where natural landscape features do not exist. The Developers have found that in particular areas the 5' wide requirement would necessitate the removal of significant trees or rock outcroppings and request the flexibility to be able to vary the width of the walkway to accommodate these scenic features. In addition, the design firm has not been able to locate a reliable source and supply of pebble and resin material. The requested revision would allow the walkways (and private courtyards) to be constructed of an asphalt and pebble material with a layer of brown pebbles imbedded on the surface. This will achieve the same visual affect as pebble and resin. Finally, the developers would like to revise the "lined with planting beds" statement to clarify their intent to construct landscaped beds in those areas that are highly visible and receive a lot of foot traffic. 4) Colonial Design and Colors Previous plan: Colonial precedent is required. Permitted colors include gray, dark gray, grayish-brown, dark gray-brown, grayish-buff and soft muted earth colors. Revised plan: Colonial precedent is recommended in Phase 1 (the single-family detached houses) of Wolf Creek. The Architectural Review Committee will review, advise and make recommendations to homebuilders in Phase 1 to assist in achieving the colonial features desired. Phase 1 colors shall not include white. Phases 2-5, under the control of the developers, shall strictly adhere to Colonial precedent in design and color selection. Colors, including white, in Phases 2-5 shall be selected from the attached Williamsburg Palette of Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints. The developers have been consistent in their desire to develop a community with the characteristics of Williamsburg. White houses and structures are inherent in Williamsburg design. The developers are committed to achieving the Williamsburg "look" through house design, exterior colors, etc. in those phases of Wolf Creek (Phases 2-5) that they will be building themselves. In Phase 1, the developers will use exterior color selection, amenities such as light posts, signage and landscape features and to a more limited extent house design to emphasize Williamsburg precedent. The proposed minor revisions to the Wolf Creek Design Guidelines constitute improvements to the project in the following areas: 1)the revised guidelines draw a clearer distinction between those design elements that are required to be implemented and those that are recommended to be implemented. The current guidelines, as written, are at times nebulous in language and intent. The revisions suggested herein will make the project easier to manage and the guidelines easier to enforce from an administrative stand point; 2)the revised guidelines provide the developer with more flexibility in areas such as the minimum number of stories the houses can be, exterior colors and the location of walkways and planting beds. In staff's opinion, this additional flexibility does not compromise the integrity of the project in any way but does allow for more site specific creative solutions that will, in the end, provide for a better product. For staff use only COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr.~_ P.O. BOX 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540' 772-2068 Fr.X (540) 772'21 OS Proposed Zoning: ~~~ Proposed Land Use: ~ES~ ~,J~-~ 1 For' Staff Use cniy Use Type: Does the p rcel meet the minimum lot area, 4vidth, and frontage requirements of the requested distr;c:? YES ~ NO IF N0, A V~.~I?.NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. . / Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fcr t`~e requested Use Type? YES / NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. (f rezoning request, are conditions being prcffe~e~ with this request? YES NO ~'~ ::::t..: Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in cr:;=_r to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclcsed. APPLICATION WILL rtOT BE ACCEPTED 1= ,^-.~`:Y OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLE T i=. ws ~ ws v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 i " concept plan Application fee` ~: NSF Application ->~~ Metes and bounds description - Proffers, if applicable .~„ Justification =~;f Water and sawer application Adjoining property o~v~ers l hereby certify that / am either the o~~ner of the property or the owner' agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knov~~ledge and consent of the owner. dater ceive :' received by: ~} n (ee: i o applic PC/ A dz;e: A c ~ ~- placards issued: BOS~.'a:e: , ~ CV Case Number: ~ (~ G7 l Owner's Signature: :.,:,..:.~:,..:,,,. - ~I . ~ ~~~~' ~R t ~ ~_ %~ ~-~ '~'`; ~~ 0v wC~ /`P ~~ O -.._ 'o- ~ ~~~ c~~w,. s-n..wr woe OKwiDCw ~t1w~ ~J~ rJ . Q OP 1 ? p, lr.~n+ ~ ~ ~Fl ~ ~/ ~ / r I ~ ~ ~ ~(5 G ~~ ,~~sa~~_~:cc o ~ 4.~?~~ '~~~ ~ VIC1NlTY MAP ~a q ^ 1 r .; •. . ~. DEPARTf~~t'I' OF PLP.NNIi\'G AND ZONING 'o ~ I ~ - ~ f .,1 .~ /~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ,~ .~~,~ ~'yJ~s U I - r ~' s `~~ ~ ~ ~' ~v. 6~ ~~ ~ 6 9 ;..y: 1= _ ; NORTH ~_ -. ~ ~ _ ~ g I WOLF CREEK, INC. 50.04-3-73 R-1 TO PRD ,...- _ . a - S-f~\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 081997-13 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CHRISTOPHER POLLOCK TO OPERATE A CAMP WITH DAY CARE FACILITIES AND A PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR GATHERINGS LOCATED ON YELLOW MOUNTAIN ROAD ONE-HALF MILE OFF OF ROUTE 220 SOUTH (TAX MAP N0.99.00-2-6.2), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DIS- TRICT WHEREAS, Christopher Pollock has filed a petition to operate a camp with day care facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings located on Yellow Mountain Road one- half mile off of Route 220 South (Tax Map No. 99.00-2-6.2) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 22, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on August 19, 1997. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: On motion of Supervisor Minnix to denv granting the special use permits, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 7rYyL.«'~2.-c.~~-. ,~ Clerk to the 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 PETITIONER: CHRISTOPHER POLLOCK ~~~ CASE NUMBER: 24-8/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 5, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 19, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Christopher Pollock for a Special Use Permit to operate a camp with day care facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings, located on Yellow Mountain Road'/ mile off of Route 220 South, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Deborah Smith expressed the following concerns: increased traffic on Yellow Mountain Road and the traffic impact on Route 220; environmental impact with the loss of the trees with construction of the sports fields; effect on Back Creek; noise from large gatherings; and, safety factor. Jack Peay raised the concern that other residents with large parcels might utilize their properties the same way if this is approved. Carolyn Holland presented a prepared statement along with a petition signed by over 80 residents opposed to the project. Some concerns: security; loud outdoor music; overflow of traffic and parked cars along Yellow Mountain Road; alcohol; gatherings other than sports related; excess litter; staffing ratio. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission inquired as to whether the 3 year limit was reasonable and how important the overnight lodging was to the viability of the project. Mr. Pollack responded by stating that the overnight lodging would occur only during the summer period and is not intended as part of the year round use. The Commission explored at length with staff and the petitioner the exact limits of potential commercial uses of the property. The basic conclusion was that any special events would be directly related to the sports camp/day care use, with no unrelated use, commercial leasing or rental of the facilities. Site specific activities discussed included outdoor lighting of play fields, use of alcohol at special events (gatherings), fencing of the site and the petitioner's comment that the day care children would be outside only under supervision in a controlled space. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Day care center: 1) The day care center shall be limited to a maximum of 200 children. 2) The special use permit shall be issued for a three year period ending October 31, 2000. 3) A 100 foot natural vegetative buffer shall be left intact between the proposed facility and Back Creek. 4) No alcoholic beverages will be consumed on the site. 5) There will be no outdoor lighting of any athletic fields or courts. Incidental security lighting of appropriate spaces not to exceed 15 feet in height shall be permitted provided it is otherwise in compliance with the zoning requirements. 6) No motorized vehicles shall be used in conjunction with the use of the property, other than incidental maintenance vehicles. ~~ Outdoor gatherinQS: 1) The special use permit shall be for camp related sports functions only. No commercial outdoor sports and recreation, commercial outdoor entertainment, commercial indoor amusement, commercial indoor entertainment, commercial indoor sports and recreation, as defined in Section 30-29-5 of the zoning ordinance, shall be allowed. 2) The special use permit shall be valid annually only from March 1 through October 31. 3) The special use permit shall be issued for a three year period ending October 31, 2000. 4) The applicant shall be responsible for complying with all use and design standards for outdoor gatherings as stated in Section 30-87-3 of the zoning ordinance. Strategies for compliance with the use and design standards shall be as generally outlined in the application materials dated 6/19/97, or as otherwise limited by conditions of the special use permit. 5) A 100 foot natural vegetative buffer shall be left intact between the proposed facility and Back Creek. 6) No alcoholic beverages will be consumed on the site. 7) There will be no outdoor lighting of any athletic fields or courts. Incidental security lighting of appropriate spaces not to exceed 15 feet in height shall be permitted provided it is otherwise in compliance with the zoning requirements. 8) No motorized vehicles shall be used in conjunction with the use of the property, other than incidental maintenance vehicles. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the request for day care with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Robinson, Thomason, Hooker, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the request for outdoor gatherings with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Robinson, Thomason, Hooker, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Terrance Har ' gton, S ary Roanoke unty Planning Commission ~~~ STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Christopher Pollock PREPARED BY: David Holladay CASE NUMBER: 24-8/97 DATE: 8/5!97 PART! A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request for a special use permit to operate a day care center, and a request for a special use permit for outdoor gatherings. The two special use permits are requested in association with a proposed sports and adventure camp on Yellow Mountain Road, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Camps are permitted by right in the AG3 zoning district. Some of the proposed activities and programs of the camp will require the special use permits. The requests are generally consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Rural Preserve land use designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. B. DESCRIPTION Chris Pollock plans to construct and operate a sports and adventure camp in the 5400 block of Yellow Mountain Road. Camps are permitted by right in the AG3 zoning district. Mr. Pollock's business plan describes anticipated camp facilities and programs. The business plan also describes "year round" activities, beyond the scope of a typical summer camp. After-school and pre-school camps are proposed which would operate concurrent with the school year. These activities fit the zoning ordinance definition of a day care center, which requires a special use permit in the AG3 zoning district. Also proposed in the business plan are sports clinics and games. These events would be sports related and accessory to the camp programs. According to the applicant, these activities will generally attract approximately 200 participants, but occasionally the events could draw greater than 500 participants. Planned events which exceed an attendance of 500 people require a special use permit for outdoor gatherings. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS - Day care centers require a special use permit in the AG3 zoning district - Outdoor gatherings require a special use permit in the AG3 zoning district Use and design standards for outdoor gatherings require that: "As part of the special use permit the petitioner shall submit information indicating the individuals and/or parties sponsoring the event, the nature of the gathering, the events, displays and/or entertainment scheduled, the number of tickets to be sold, an estimate of the total number of people to attend, and the dates for which the permit is requested." -Site plan review is required -Virginia Department of Transportation approval is required for an entrance permit - een a roved and issued b the Vir inia De artment of Well and septic permits have b pp Y 9 P Health/Roanoke County Health Department ~'~ 2 PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Location -The property is located in the 5400 block of Yellow Mountain Road, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District TopographyNegetation -The topography slopes down to the south from Yellow Mountain Road into the flood plain of Back Creek. Vegetation includes open meadows, wooded areas, and the riparian (stream bank) area along Back Creek. Surrounding Neighborhood -The applicant owns the adjoining property to the east and south. It is a 49.7 acre wooded tract which is zoned AG3. Adjoining property to the southwest, across Back Creek is wooded and zoned AG1. Adjoining property to the west is zoned AG1 and contains a single family residence and wooded areas. Property to the north is zoned AG1 and contains a single family residence. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Rising Stars Sports & Adventure Camp -The proposed camp will be served by a central access drive which generally follows an existing driveway into the property. The camp would be developed in three phases. The first phase would include development of the summer camp designed to serve 100 campers. The second phase would include development of the pre-school and after-school camp programs designed to serve 200 campers. Phase three would include the addition of overnight summer camp facilities for 100 campers. Proposed sports facilities include basketball courts, tennis courts, sand volleyball courts, swimming pool, playing fields, ropes course, climbing wall, and a mountain bike trail. Proposed structures include a 100' X 200' field house, locker rooms, first aid room, a picnic shelter, office/reception area and snack bar, and cabins for overnight campers. Development of the camp is permitted by right in the AG3 zoning district. Site development plans must satisfy all applicable Roanoke County development standards. Additional development standards for camps require that outdoor activity areas, swimming pools, ball fields or courts which adjoin a residential use type shall be landscaped with one row of small evergreen trees. Where night-time lighting is proposed, large evergreen trees shall be required in a location appropriate to screen adjoining residences. Day Care Center -During the second phase of the camp development, the applicant proposes apre-school and after-school sports camp. The program would operate concurrent with the school calendar. This aspect of the proposal expands the land use beyond the scope of a typical summer camp. In order to develop the pre-school and after- school programs, the applicant needs a special use permit for a day care center. Per the zoning ordinance use and design standards, in order to operate a day care center, the camp must comply with the Minimum Standards for Day Care Centers established by the Virginia Department of Social Services. In addition, a license to operate a day care center, issued by the Virginia Department of Social Services, is required. T- a Outdoor Gatherings - Mr. Pollock's business plan describes proposed special events in the form of sports clinics and games. The events would be sports related, and accessory uses to the camp. The events would not be land uses defined in the zoning ordinance as commercial outdoor sports and recreation, commercial outdoor entertainment, commercial indoor amusement, commercial indoor entertainment, or commercial indoor sports and recreation. As is the case with the day care center, the special event land use is beyond the scope of a typical summer camp land use. In order to hold the sports clinics and league games, the applicant must obtain a special use permit for outdoor gatherings. In his application for a special use permit, Mr. Pollock addressed the use and design standards for outdoor gatherings. Mr. Pollock anticipates that the number of people attending/participating in the events would usually not exceed 200, but occasional events could draw a larger crowd. The applicant is requesting an outdoor gathering permit to be valid annually from March 1 through October 31. Any events held from November 1 through February 28 would be held inside the proposed field house. The information provided demonstrates an understanding and willingness to comply with the standards, but some further clarification is needed of the type of games that are proposed, and the frequency of both the clinics and games. Are the games for campers only, or would local leagues use the fields for several hours each evening? Would the clinics be held weekly, monthly? Community Meeting - Mr. Pollock organized a community meeting to introduce his proposal to the neighborhood. The neighbors expressed interest and/or concern about the following: -the intensity and scale of the development in a rural area - the number of vehicles traveling to the site - maintaining the privacy of the neighbors/keeping the campers on the camp property - restricting the property from use with leagues and organized recreation clubs - limiting the potential for noise and light - limiting the size, number and type of gatherings, only sports related, no music events or alcohol -limiting the number of children in the day care -what is the ratio of counselors to children AccessRraffic Circulation -Access would be via an existing entrance along Yellow Mountain Road. At the time of this report, this section of Yellow Mountain Road is under construction. The new road design should adequately serve the proposed camp. Anticipated traffic to the camp would vary based on daily programming. The summer day camp with 100 campers could add 200 vehicle trips to Yellow Mountain Road each morning and evening. Each round trip to the center would generate 2 vehicle trips on Yellow Mountain Road. Traffic impacts from the after-school program with 200 campers would vary depending on the type of transportation used to bring children from schools to the camp. The number of round trips to pick up children from the center, combined with round trips for the pre-school program would likely generate several hundred vehicle trips per day. If a special event filled the proposed 150 space parking lot, the result would be a minimum of 300 additional vehicle trips. 4 • 1994 VDOT~traffic counts for Yellow Mountain Road are as follows: From To Vehicles per day U.S. 220 Rt 915, Cox Hopkins Rd 615 Rt 915 Rt 667, Mayland Rd 583 Floodplain/Back Creek -Some of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain and within the 100 year floodway as defined by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Limited recreational development could take place within the floodway. Virginia Department of Forestry staff have recommended that a 100 foot natural vegetative buffer be left intact between the proposed facility and Back Creek. Fire & Rescue/Utilities -Fire and rescue service would continue as currently provided. Well and septic permits for the camp have been approved and issued by the Virginia Department of Health/Roanoke County Health Department. Mr. Pollock plans to use portable toilets during special events. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposals conforms generally with the policies and guidelines of the Rural Preserve land use designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Preserve designation encourages parks and outdoor recreation facilities which require large land areas, and that serve regional as well as rural residents' needs, and may protect environmentally sensitive areas from more intense uses. Policy RP-4 encourages the establishment of parks and outdoor recreation areas for the permanent preservation of the county's most valuable and irreplaceable natural resources. PART III A. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Day care center - In order to comply with the use and design standards for day care centers, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary state licenses prior to obtaining a Roanoke County Business License. Adequate access and parking is shown on the concept plan to serve the proposed pre-school and after-school camps. During a community meeting held by the applicant, some neighbors suggested limiting the number of children in the day care program. The applicant has stated in his business plan that the day care programs would be limited to 200 children. If the special use permit is granted, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following condition: -The day care center shall be limited to a maximum of 200 children. Outdoor atherin -The applicant states that anticipated attendance at the proposed sports clinics and games will usually not exceed 200 participants, but occasional events could exceed 500 participants. The planned events would be sports related, and not commercial recreation or entertainment land uses. .~ In his application fc~r the special use permit, the petitioner has addressed the use and design standards fur outdoor gatherings. The information provided demonstrates an ``" understanding and willingness to comply with the standards, but some further clarification is needed of the type of games that are proposed, and the frequency of both the clinics and games. Some of the neighbors have expressed concerns about local recreation leagues using the facilities for their games. In addition, neighbors have suggested limiting the size, number and type of outdoor gatherings. Concerns about keeping the campers and activities within the camp property boundaries have also been expressed by the neighbors. Prior to the Planning Commission acting on these petitions, staff recommends that the applicant clarify the following: - proposed methods to keep campers and participants within the camp property -the types of games proposed - the frequency of the proposed games and outdoor gatherings. If the special use permit is granted, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following conditions: - The special use permit shall be for camp related sports functions only. No commercial autdoor sports and recreation, commercial outdoor entertainment, commercial indoor amusement, commercial indoor entertainment, commercial indoor sports and recreation, as defined in Section 30-29-5 of the zoning ordinance, shall be allowed. -The special ~.:se permit shall be valid annually from March 1 through October 31. - The special use permit shall be issued for a three year period ending October 31, 2000. -The applican# shall be responsible far complying with all use and design standards for outdoor gatherings as stated in Section 30-87-3 of the zoning ordinance. Strategies for compliance with the use and design standards shall be as generally outlined in the application materials dated 6/19/97, or as otherwise limited by conditions of the special use permit. - A 100 foot natural vegetative buffer shah be left intact between the proposed facility and Back Creek For staf use only ~' COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard t~r.~. P.O. Box 29800 .yK~,; Roanoke, VA 24018 ~? ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (5401 772-2108 date receive ceived b•/: applicat' n fee: PC/EZA da:eQ y .plat tl :~OS da;_. :=ray-. .:Sfi- Case ~~mber: .~ Owner's name: ~ Phone: Address: . ,' ~"'= Zip Code: r - Location of property: ? ;„:; ,:.~ Tax Map Number: ~lw~ ;_~; -' - ; E(Irw ;'',.:-,,~.~t"'~ ~~~~ '~~` `~~~ "" "Magisterial District: / ,, .J~; ~~ 54;, j!-~ Community Planning Area: ;"''"-r r'.~.; ,,,,~,_ Size of parcel (s}: Existing Zoning: >~~ ~ -' ' ~-~ i ~ = - acres Existing Land Use: _ ;~,,,,,~~v ;.~1-°tt"°; sq.ft. ::::::: Q :::: .::::::: :::: :::{'~ § /'f. r Pro ~i - ti ....~ .)', i/'- ~ './'ice' ~ ~ -~ _:...iNt ~ _.s~:' %' ~ r.--;.~,::~' ... ........ . posed Zoning: ~ ~ For srarf use c.~;;: Proposed Land Use: `,~.u.., - - • ;~ ~; _ "=.et:,~ `'-1 ~'.^zf'''~; I^ -''".~? =c Use Type: ~~ V1 Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, ~viCth, and frontage requirements of the requested cis:::c:? YES NO IF N0, A VA'I~.NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fcr t:~e requested Use Type? YES NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being preffe'_d with this request? YES NO VarlanCe of Section(s) Oi the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance In c:~~- to:t Is the application complete? Please check if enc;csed. APPLICATION WILL rtOT EE ACCEPTED IF ~.~~Y OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLE T E- ws v ws v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x i i ' concept plan '~ Application fee '~ Application •/ ~~~ Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable / Justification'""` Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners µ~ l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent of contract purchaser and am acting with the know/edgeand~co~nsent of the o4lner. 8~iner's Signature: ~^+tiu'C=-~~t-t,~'`~ `+~1 i 'ter ~.Li `'L . J ~ 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 50 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. • 7- ~ July 6, 1997 Christopher Mark Pollock 413 High Street Salem, Va. 24153 (540) 389-4331 David Holladay P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 DearDavid: ~ ti i ~ ; i ~ ?7y ' ,~ ll :., _ r~ `I „- , ,. My purpose in writing to you is to introduce a sports camp project that I am proposing to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. The property that I own on Yellow Mountain road is zoned Agricultural-3, which allows for the type of summer camps that I am proposing. However, in order to fully utilize the facility I would also like to have special weekend sports clinics, after school sports camps and other various sports clinics throughout the winter months. These additional activities I have mentioned require a special use permit within the Agricultural-3 district. I have applied for the special use permits and there will be two meetings regarding this project. The first meeting will be August 5th with the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the second meeting is on August 19th with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. These meetings are open to the public and I welcome your thoughts and comments. On July 22nd I will hold a special informal meeting to allow you, the neighbors to this property, to come learn more about the project, voice any concerns and ask any questions. It will be held at The Clearbrook Elementary School from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the school cafeteria. I will be there to answer your questions and I will also be at the meetings on August 5th and August 19th. The proposed project is designed and intended to better serve the Roanoke Valley community from a recreational stand point. I hope that you will come meet with us to discuss the many wonderful opportunities that this facility could offer. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please call me if you have any questions. I look forward to meeting you in the near future. Sincerely, ~. P~~ Christopher Mark Pollock j- ~ Pollock Sports Camp Special use Permit Application Sec. 30-87-3 Outdoor Gatherings (A) General Standards 1. The proposed project will be developed on Chris and Elizabeth Pollock's property on Yellow Mountain road. Any scheduled events would be sponsored by the Pollock sports camp and other potential local business sponsors. The nature of the gatherings would be special clinics and games. An example of a possible event might be a soccer clinic held with Roanoke Wrath or Roanoke College Soccer players. The indoor facility would be used in the winter to hold a variety of sports clinics and games. No tickets would be sold to watch these clinics, however participants would pay a fee. The estimated number of people expected to attend would for the most part not exceed 200. However, there may be an occasional event that might draw a larger crowd and the Pollock Sports camp management is applying for this permit to allow for such an occasion. The dates for which the permit is being requested is for March through October. 2. a. The facility will use a private sanitation company to dispose of all garbage and trash. The facility will provide outdoor portolets, including one that is accessible to people with disabilities, which would be contracted for the day of the event and would be removed the day after. The facility will also have indoor toilets and will also offer facilities for the disabled. Water will be provided by a private well located on the premisses or by a beverage distributor. At some point in the future the Pollock project plans to have vending machines, a snack bar, and eventually a cafeteria. However, for large outdoor gatherings the event would probably be catered. Overnight lodging is not necessary. b. The Pollock Sports Camp Management thoroughly believes in providing a safe environment for these gatherings. There will be an athletic training room and first aid station on the premises. Several members of the Management and the staff will have received Emergency Medical Training. The facility will be designed according to the fire safety codes required by Roanoke County. The Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Department is located by the Clearbrook Elementary school approximately 1.5 miles away in the event that on-site personnel are needed. Security will be privately contracted as needed. Off duty Roanoke County Sheriffs Department personnel will be used when the need arises. c. Parking for the events will be located on-site. There will be 150 paved parking spaces and there is overflow parking on the practice field. There will be volunteers to help safely navigate the flow of traffic. The main entrance and driveway will not be blocked in the case that an emergency vehicle needs to enter. d. The Pollock Sports Camp is to be located on Yellow Mountain road. Yellow Mountain road has recently been widened to accommodate a larger and better flow of traffic. The entrance to the camp has been made commercial allowing traffic to flow T-a Page 2 ' ~~ Pollock Sports Camp freely. off duty Roanoke County Sheriff s Department deputies will be hired if needed. 220 is near the site and provides for additional traffic movement. e. The outdoor gatherings expected to be held on the property would be conducted for the most part during the daylight hours when lighting will not be needed. If lighting is necessary the facility will have it on-site. It will be directed away from adjoining properties and public right of ways. All lighting will be installed according to the proper guidelines. f. The Pollock Sports Camp Management will hold events so that any noise created by the gathering will be directed away from any adjoining properties. The fields where the events would be held faces a wooded area which would help absorb that sound. • ~~~ RISING STAR SPORTS & ADVENTURE CAMP ,~- Project # 95-SP-00109 PROJECTED BUSINESS PLAN I. INTRODUCTION II. PHASE ONE A. SITE PLAN B. INTENDED USE III. PHASE TWO A. SITE PLAN B. INTENDED USE IV . PHASE THREE A. SITE PLAN B . INTENDED u SE V. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED VI. QUESTIONS PRESENTED e -1- Pag ~~ I. INTRODUCTION This is a Projected Business Plan proposed by the organizers of the Rising Star Sports and Adventure Camp (hereinafter "Rising Star"). This Plan is in response to February 11, 1997 letter of Bill Richardson of the Development Review Office for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and is intended to address the issues raised therein. The Plan is divided into three phases and it is anticipated that the third phase will be completed within ten years of the commencement of the project. II. PHASE ONE ~. SIT= The site plan at the initial stages would consist of • Two Playing Fields • Male and Female Locker Rooms with Toilet Facilities • First-Aid Room • Two Sand Volleyball Courts • One Outside Covered Picnic Area • One Unfinished Field House • Reception Area • Office • Snack Bar • Hiking Trails and Camp Sites B. INTENDED USE Phase one of Rising Star would consists of an eight week summer camp. The enrollment at this stage would be limited to 100 campers. The camp would run i~ionda~~ through Friday. Rising Star's focus at this stage would be that of providing individualized instruction in a wide variety of sporting activities. The individual campers wouid be responsible for brin_in :::e'r c'.v^- li~nr.h and Rising Star would provide beverages. In addition to the eight week summer session Rising Star would also offer weekend sporting activities available both for non-campers and for campers at an additional fee. III. PHASE TWO A. SITE PLAN The site plan at phase two would consist of: (in addition to phase one) • ~~ Finishing the Field House Page -2- • Two Outside Basketball Courts ~~,,~ • Two Outside Tennis Courts • Mountain Bike Trail • Rope Course • Climbing `Fall B. INTENDED USE In addition to the activities contained in phase one Rising Star will expand to encompass an after school camp. The enrollment at the after school camp would be limited to 200 campers. The after school camp would run concurrent with the 37 week school calender. The camp would operate. As with the summer session the after school camp would consist mainly of indi~zdualized instruction in a wide variety of sporting activities. In addition to tre spoi<ii.? activities, there ~~vould alse be a stu y center where campers could prepare school work if they chose. As with the summer session, Rising Star would offer weekend sporting activities available both for non-campers and for campers at an additional fee. IV. PHASE THREE A. SITE PLAN The site plan at phase three would consist of: (in addition to phases one & t<vo) • Cabins for Overnight Campers • Kitchen Facilities B. INTENDED USE In addition to the activities in phases one and two, phase three would consist of the addition of an overnight camp during the summer session. Campers would have the option of enrolling in either the day camp or the overnight camp. The overnight aspect would run Monday through Thursday and would be limited to 100 overnight campers. V. OL~STIONS ADDRESSED A. The concession/cafe will provide snacks and soft drinks for campers and visitors. B. The field house will be approximately 100 yards by 200 yards. There will be a. playing surface, male/female locker rooms, afirst-aid room, reception area, office and storage facilities. C. The pool, tennis courts and other facilities would be available for camp participants as well as for weekend activities. D. There are no plans for a caretakers's residence. Page -3- is -:.: E. The.parking needs would be minimal due to the fact that the campers would be dropped off and picked up. Rising Star anticipates providing approximately one "~"~,, hundred parking spots. / VI. QUESTIONS PRESENTED In addition to the activities presented herein Rising Star is interested in exploring additional activities and would appreciate the committees consideration. A. Rising Star in interested in the possibility of developing both children and adult recreation leagues. Page -4- • f, to ~10RiH .~ '. Scale: 1" = 1000' Date: June 24, 1996 r .~ DEPAP.'Ii~~I'I' OF PLP.NNIh'G P.ND ZONING SPECIAL USE PERMIT 99.00-2-6:2 T~ PROPOSED SPORTS CAMP , YELLOW MT. ROAD ROANOKE COUNTY We the citizens of Yellow Mt. Road, surrounding area, and concerned parties DO NOT approve of the application for a special use permit to Christopher Pollock for pre- school and after-school camps and also for an outdoor gathering permit. We strongly recommend this special use permit application be denied. After meeting with Mr. Pollock, we feel that there are several unanswered concerns. Some of the concerns are as follows: 1. Mr. Pollock stated that this would be a business and went onto say that it would be day care. A day care must have a permit and be licensed by the State of Virginia with review through Social Services. To run this camp without these guidelines is unfair to other private child care centers in Roanoke County who abide by these regulations. 2. Mr. Pollock stated that there would be approximately 200 children per day. This would generate approximately 400 additional trips on Yellow Mt. Road, and with employees and commercial vendors it would be approximately 450 additional trips per day. As the camps continue to grow, these numbers will obviously increase. This does not include the outdoor gatherings which could be 500 people or more. We feel this is unacceptable for this rural location and serves only the need of non-rural residents. If this is commercial recreation, it is not acceptable in a rural location. 3. We feel that Mr. Pollock is proposing too many activities for such a small track of land. Please keep in mind that the proposed sports camp is located on only 15 acres -not 15 of 60 acres. Of the 15 acres, certain parcels are for parking and a 100 foot by 200 foot field house. 4. Security is a concern to local residents because of the numbers of children and there being no fence to prevent them from wandering to adjacent land owners and possibly being injured. This would create a liability for these land owners. 5. Mr. Pollock stated that there would be cabins built for overnight camping and lighted fields for night play. This would have a major impact on the rural setting and invade the privacy of local residents. 6. Mr. Pollock was unclear concerning questions on the outdoor gatherings. The citizens can only go on past history when two such gatherings were held and the police were called for excessive noise. We feel that outdoor gatherings would promote the following: 1. Loud outdoor music 2. Overflow of traffic and cars parking along Yellow Mt. Rd. and increased traffic congestion on Route 220 entering Yellow Mt. Road 3. ALCOHOL being allowed at events and gatherings 4. Unlimited number of gatherings allowed 5. Gatherings other than sports related 6. Excess Litter/Trash on Roadside We feel that this Sports complex is unacceptable in this rural setting and totally out of character with the neighborhood. It will negatively impact local residents by the loss of privacy, disruption of the peaceful rural setting, and potential for lowering property values in the area. Again, we urgently request this special use permit application be denied. Signed: (see attached) Concerned Citizens on the Yellow Mt. Rd. and Surrounding Area Sports Camp T-~- If this special use permit application is approved regardless of the rural environment and the concerns of the citizens, we request the following restrictions. ~~. 1. Location can not be used for a music festival or music related activity 2. Limit capacity to prevent overflow of traffic and cars backing up and parking along Yellow Mountain Road and overflow of cars onto Route 220 at the intersection of Yellow Mountain Road 3. NO ALCOHOL ALLOWED 4. Limit the number of gatherings to 3 per year. 5. Gatherings should be limited to sports related activities 6. No outdoor lighting of facility allowed with a curfew of 8:00 PM 7. Limit activities to Monday through Saturday - No Sunday activities 8. Do not allow property to be rented for usage by anyone other than Mr. Pollock 9. Entire fifteen acres should be fenced with a chain linked fence at least eight feet high and a main gate entrance guarded at all times the camp is open 10. Advertising sign limited to property owners land Other Concerns 1. How will the facility/site be managed? 2. Staffing Ratio to campers 3. Limited space (15 acres) for the campers projected 4. We feel too many activities on such a small tract of land (Sports Camp will only be 15 acres- not 15 of 60 acres) 5. We would like to stop the physical changes to the rural area and the environment before this becomes a larger problem 6. Charging for events would indicate this is a commercial business 7. Turning lane from Route 220 will only handle approximately four cars, and we feel the overflow on Route 220 would create hazardous conditions for motorists 8. There is plenty of other space for special events in the area (Example: Rivers Edge) TELEPHONE i ~ ~ NAME ADDRESS NUMBER ~(,,.C'~twZ 51 `fe~~~o~ ~.+ ~ -------- ~__~_ S4a - ~8°~-63}$ ~ ~~~~s~~.~ ,~-~-Aso Q~~ u ~ ~ ' 1 L ~ .~.A ~~ ~. ~~~,~ ~ G/L/ ~~y~ ~~ ~ ~J~ C'z ~11.J-~~~<.~- ~..-___ ~ ud `~ ~~y `~~~ y _ ., ~ ~ ~U -- ~~1_ ~~~G'_`~L~G.Z~ ~~ ~S~ ,S"4U ~ 7 ZG ~~~ d~~d~~ ~ ~ y ~~ , _ s~ia ~-~~---- ----- ~=e'~=~ --- /~ 5 ~g~~- ~ a~~ X10 ~ > ~ ~ y~ 5~ ~9 ~ _ '' o ~v ~~r r1 HO ' Sic - ~z ~ -~ ~ -y~ ~ .~ .~ ~` _ _ _ _ _ - ~~ 0< ~ s~ ~{ 2 ~- ® S ~ © ~~6L-~ C~ _ T~ ~1 - TELEPHONE° " ~ NAME ADDRESS NUMBER ~ ~. ~L. -~,~~~t ~~ ~-- Ij 1.~~ I ~ ~ V ~ yyy~~~/~7J '// \~T..\i /~ / ~ ~ t / ~c yL ~ ~''~'~ ~- _ „ r ~ ~ :~ ~'' /z ~ ~f ~ ~~~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~1~ ~'~ ~Y' (_ U ~ (, f ~1, ~l ' ------ ~ W'~~V '~ ' ~I~~ ~ ,(iL V~.i ~ ~ , - ' " ~~1__~~~_~ ~ ~ ------- ~2~ ~ ~o ~~ ~ ~ J ! ~-~ ~, ~ ~- ~ ~tc.~ ,~~r l , , .~ ~r -~ i~ L~<._ 1 ,~, ^ G ~ ~ ih J ~~ / ' ~ ~. fJ.,R.~° far ~ fi r`'G -~---- --1~~-- --- L G -----~~- A--- -_. -------------------------- ~n~ _ 7O~, ~ ,. ;~ . rN ~,~ ~ , ,~. ~~~ Y ~,~. ~ ~ 7~S __ C~~ w'~J1__~ ~..~ ~1 ~l .~ ~ l t~5~ ~ dce'C~ ~ r ~ )1 T~ TELEPHOI'iL NAME ADDRESS NUMBER SGS c~ ~_e.~1d c_J_~_ ~_---- ~ ~ ~i ~g ~ S6 ~.' . ~~ Y ~' i ~ is ~ J ~'-~ ~ I ~ S ~ r OI P_ ~ C~ -~ GC! - - - -- - .~l ~~ ~~ ~o~~ z~ai~ 7 7 - / ~ pia ~ a ~ ~r~~r ~ s ~ ~ _ '~~1~co c~ /L'l_~~---- -- ~ S~Co ~t ~ " d _ .5_~ j 7_ f-~,_~ I s e !~~. ~S,sl -- u L~rt.'zoWY-i K /~ (.,LQ~~ 11 ' / n cc~nG~ V /T J~ ~ {~/ n p n G ~7 J `7 - o~ ~ ~ ~..! 6`C'o y_7 ~{, L C.s,~ e ~~ A-~----- `~ ~ ~~-L r.~~-~ ~ ~ Z y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 5~Q__(~ a1'l ~_~.~--~-Ps~~~ .~ ,~ o ~?~oi~ '~~ 7-1595 n ~ JIG' Gl 7_ ~ll~lJ ~~ ~ _ ~'~`"i p~~ p ,~ y/~ u~Pd c UP ~~ ~j- ~ ~~ v ~Gt~~ /~~4 yci,~'.a/ O / ~ ~~ ~y q 89 -~'8`~ I ~ ~ -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ~~ . - TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS NUMBER m~~Y ~ ~~~Y~s~yy - ~ .,~ L% 4 (1 L' L (' 1 r " , ~ ~, L. A ~/o P vcr o Z "" ~ ~ G ~it,Q1 -~ ---~~.-----s- : -- ------- ~-Ofi~/' ' ~~ ~ ct f ~~C ~~l ~T~ ~~ ~ ~l - . f ; t'f ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k%~ ~~~ , 11 _,~ ~~. J Q , ~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ,~, ~;~ -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- •~ ~~ NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER ~~~~ / ~/'~a f L~ ,~ ~~ Yl2ec ~-- o,~ __ ~ ~~ ------ ~ ,~' ~.z ~ E ~/fl. ~'G'/ ~~~ C ~u~u~~2t ~_-- ' ----- ~a • o~ OJ `~ Lea . ~ ~ ° ~ y . 1 ~`~ L - 7 7 ~ - B3 ~ 7 ~ C 7 ~' ~/~ ~ ~~ ~ _,'x_2_7`! ? '' .: . L/'l' ~ ~ oZ U 1~0 ~' ~ I r,( ~O ~AcL~' ( ` pA C IBC • 1~ Z~C -/ ~~/ _~e~aw J~-n _~~C------ v p 7r ~ ?/D / -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER -------- ~- ------------- ~~~ a~ 2yoi~ 77y= ~~2~ _ R' ~~/ ~ 7 i ~ j 7 ~~ _ ~_~,~ ~~r~~ ~ ~QsfO~~--- ~ ~ fib! ~---- U. .. _ ~~l- yob ~ ~:~~.~ ,~ ~~ e Q. a~o~ 77~ - ~f`1~.~ s'~g ~~ l~-_D_P~~~S ~ _.--- ~o~NOx~ Z yo ~ ~ 77 - yy 73 -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- T- a NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE= NUMBER S32o~uRr~~i}' /'~;DC~ mod, -------------------------- .SS~D..zl~7 U 5 ~ g / ~ ~ ,~ .. „~ ~ r ~--~ t~ 3 ~ 1 _~n,~v~E ~_~~~---- ~. 3sGy ~~~~Lw ~.~!~ ~~--- 20 ~a ~6 ~A z o 72S "SZg -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ?s G ~~ NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER t- ~c~„-. ~ ~oc ,..mac ~ °~ I ' ~- p r ~d t _ _~ ~~ _ --- ~ f -- - 2 ~- ' Z ~ /S S -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ~''-~ -~• a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CHRISTOPHER POLLOCK TO OPERATE A CAMP WITH DAY CARE FACILITIES AND A PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR GATHERINGS LOCATED ON YELLOW MOUNTAIN ROAD ONE-HALF MILE OFF OF ROUTE 220 SOUTH (TAX MAP NO. 99.00-2-6.2), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Christopher Pollock has filed a petition to operate a camp with day care facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings located on Yellow Mountain Road one-half mile off of Route 220 South (Tax Map No. 99.00-2-6.2) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 22, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on August 19, 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 Christopher Pollock to operate a camp with day care facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings located on Yellow Mountain Road one-half mile off of Route 220 South (Tax Map No. 99.00-2-6.2) in the Cave Spring 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 '~ Day care center 1) The day care center shall be limited to a maximum of 200 children. 2) The special use permit shall be issued for a three year period ending October 31, 2000. 3) A 100 foot natural vegetative buffer shall be left intact between the proposed facility and Back Creek. 4) No alcoholic beverages will be consumed on the site. 5) There will be no outdoor lighting of any athletic fields or courts. Incidental security lighting of appropriate spaces not to exceed 15 feet in height shall be permitted provided it is otherwise in compliance with the zoning requirements. 6) No motorized vehicles shall be used in conjunction with the use of the property, other than incidental maintenance vehicles. Outdoor gatherings: 1) The special use permit shall be for camp related sports functions only. No commercial outdoor sports and recreation, commercial outdoor entertainment, commercial indoor amusement, commercial indoor entertainment, commercial indoor s ports and recreation, as defined in Section 30-29-5 of the zoning ordinance, shall be allowed. 2) The special use permit shall be valid annually only from March 1 through October 31. 3) The special use permit shall be issued for a three year period ending October 31, 2000. 4) The applicant shall be responsible for complying with all use and design standards for outdoor gatherings as stated in Section 30-87-3 of the zoning ordinance. Strategies for compliance with the use and design standards shall be as generally outlined in the application materials dated 6/19/97, or as otherwise limited by conditions of the special use permit. 5) A 100 foot natural vegetative buffer shall be left intact between the proposed facility and Back Creek. 6) No alcoholic beverages will be consumed on the site. 2 Ta 7) There will be no outdoor lighting of any athletic fields or courts. Incidental security lighting of appropriate spaces not to exceed 15 feet in height shall be permitted provided it is otherwise in compliance with the zoning requirements. 8) No motorized vehicles shall be used in conjunction with the use of the property, other than incidental maintenance vehicles. 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. 3 C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\POLLOCK.WPD Illillllllllllliillllllll~lllllllllllllillllllllililllllllllllllliiilllllill lillillllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllillllllllil~j) ~ _ 1_ - s 1 ~' \4 ~1 1 ~ ~ ...~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a~ "'~J ~ o ~ ~ _ ~ °" AGENDA ITEM NO. "' ,~ ~ _ - ,r - _ _ APPE CE REQUEST • ~ ;_ ,_ _ ;_ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~ CITIZENS COMMENTS ~_ __ SUBJECT: 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. 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. • _ - ,_ 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 w 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 = with the clerk. __ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP - SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP .= ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. S NT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c _ PLEA E PRI _ i ~ ~~ ~ a ~. • ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ r~ ~1111Illlillllllllliilililllllilllllilllllll{llilllllllilil11ililllilllllllllllll{llilllllllllllllilllllllllliilitillllliiiilllllm U1111!!llitiliil{{1{t{lll!lIII{1{1{{{lll{{1{111{t{{{{{{11ill{{{{I~{{{{{{iiiliillllliliiiiii!li11111iilllillilllilllllill111111iii,j,~ _, e ~ a _ ~. ~s s ~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~ c A~pE C~ REQ~E-ST ~_ ~_ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS 'c c SUBJECT: ~ o? ~ ~~t'll ~ ~ .M ~(~1 ~C~v~ ,~~ IIC~- ~1~~~~ Ca~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. WfIEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY~~ THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: e ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment r whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will "" decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, c and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority o~the Board to do otherwise. - `~ - ~. s ® Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c c ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. i ~ s s.r sv s Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ® Speakers are requested to Leave any written statements and/or comments e wath the clerk. - ® INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GR 0 UP "' SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP °- ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. a PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK .; o ~' ~. ~~ s~ i ~~ ~~ a~ ~ s ~ ~~ s ~ ~ ~~ ^~ ~~ mIt1111i1111111111illllilill111l11i11i11111111111illiilllliiillill111111t11i1liltillillii1111111111111111111illlilllllllf111111iim Uillli!lI111111111l1111111lillllilllilllllllllllllilillllliliiillsiilllll1111111111illllllllllllllllllilllllllillllllllllltllllll,IlJ s = ~. _ ~. ~e ~~ O" AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~ _. APPE CE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS s ~ ~~ v s SUBJECT: ~,L ~ d u~ YY1 f. ~~ ~ ~~o r ~~ C D ~ ~ ~~ x 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 v 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 s whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will c decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority otgthe Board to do otherwise. _ ~.. __ ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. s e ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized o 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 v with the clerk. v .._ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GRDUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. °_ ~~ _ ~ ~~ a. ~~ a ~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK -- i ~~ _ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~. = .~ = of ~ - = t~ ~. ^~ ~ mltlliltllllllllllllllllltllllliltlllllllllllllllltliltlilillll1111111111(Itltlllllililllttllttllilllllllilitlllllllllilfllllllli~ u~~~~~~~111~~0'~~~»~~~~'li~l~ll~l~lli~s~ist~e~~lt~~i~lil~lill~l~~ll~iliiiliiiliii1i11iliiiiiiflllliiillliiiiliiillillllillllllil,~,~ _ _ =_ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. ^ Z _. APPEA]~ANCE REQUEST ./ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~' CITIZENS COMMENTS c c ~ %' ~~ ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~, _ SUBJECT: ~/' i; ~~ - q ~ ~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY~ THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment c e 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 majorifiy ot~the Board to = do otherwise. _ _ _.. _. o ® Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. v s ® 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 with the clerk. _ .~ m ® INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP ,s SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. e = ,= PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ~.. _ -- _ 1.~ O ~ NAME / ~ 1{~ ~ ae ~ a ADDRESS c D 7 C~ _ _s ~_ ~ _ /7 ~ ... ~ _ ~ ~ ~v f ~ _ PHONE ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~1- l Illilillliilllilllllllltllilllillliilllililllllliiliillllillli111lIIIIIIiIIIlilllililill111111111illllllilllllilllliillliil11111m ull1llllltltttttttttttttttlttttttttttttttttttttttttttti1111lttttttttlllilltlllfllilillllllllillfl11111111Illlllllllllllllllllllllj,~ s - _ - .~--- ° _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ c _.. APPE CE REQUEST ~_ ~_ LIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS 'c s ~~ ~~ r ~~ ~ r~ (~ ~~ -- SUBJECT: ..~ s ~~ ~~ ~~ I would like the Chairman of the t3oard of gupervisors 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 o FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY~~ THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: c .o ° ~ ~~ ar ~~ ~ ~~ ^ 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 majorifiy 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. ~ _s ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. a~ - s o ~~ ^ 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. _ _ ° ® _ 'c ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. ..~ ° -_ a ~~ s ~ ~~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ° _. i = _ ° ° ° ° _, - - ~ ~ ._ ° - ° e ,.. ° s n, ~ ~~ ~~ _.. ° NA "' ~.. ~. ° ..~.. .- s ~ r. ADDRESS ° ° _ - ° ~. -_ ... PHONE _'~ ~, ~ /' / ~f Cn ~ mlllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllti1111111111llllllllllillll11111111111llllllllllllilllllillllllllllllllillllllllll llllllllllim PROPOSED SPORTS CAMP YELLOW MT. ROAD ROANOKE COUNTY We the citizens of Yellow Mt. Road, surrounding area, and concerned parties DO NOT approve of the application for special use permits to Christopher Pollock for pre- school and after-school camp and also for an outdoor gathering permit. We strongly recommend these special use permit applications be denied. Based upon the recommendations approved by the Planning Commission on August 5th, we feel that additional concerns-have not been fully addressed. Among them are: 1. There are too many activities planned for a small tract of land. Please keep in mind that the proposed sports camp is located on only 15 acres -not 15 of 60 acres. Of this 15 acres, certain parcels will be for parking and a 100 foot by 200 foot field house. We realize that day care facilities now in operation may not have 15 acres, but they are not designed to be a sports camp. 2. The basic conclusion of the Commission was that any special events would be directly related to the sports camp/day care use, with no unrelated use, commercial leasing or rental of the facilities. We want to redefine the term day care use to be incidental day care use. 3. If the special use permit application is approved regardless of the rural environment and the concerns of the citizens, we request the following conditions to be added to the recommended conditions of the Planning Commission: (a.) The entire fifteen acre camp should be fenced with a chain link fence at least eight feet high and a main gate entrance guarded at all times the camp is open. An adjacent landowner has livestock that are fenced with an electric fence. For the safety of the children and the possible liability incurred by property owners, we feel fencing the entire camp is essential. (b.) The special use permit should be issued for one to two years and if violations occur during this period that it would return to the Planning Commission for review. (c.) Limit capacity at gatherings to prevent overflow of traffic on Route 220 at the intersection of Yellow Mt. Road. (d.) Limit the number~of gatherings to six per year. (e.) Limit activities to Monday through Saturday - No Sunday activities (f.) Advertising sign limited to property owners land. (g.) Security at all times during activities. (h.) A 200 foot natural vegetative buffer left intact between the proposed facility and Back Creek. We are requesting that the afore mentioned conditions be implemented if the Board approves the applications; however, we as neighborhood citizens still feel the sports complex is unacceptable in the rural setting and request denial of the applications. T3 PETITIONER: MICHAEL PRUDEN FOR CFW WIRELESS CASE NUMBER: 21-7/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 5, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 19, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless for a Special Use Permit to construct a communications tower, located at 6332 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS R. A. House asked about the frequency to be used on the tower and whether it might interfere with the one and only tv channel he now receives at his residence. Ron Harrison wanted to know where the tower will be located? Leroy Hurt asked about the access on Red Hill Road, the type of road surface and how it will be maintained, with staff indicating that it was to be an all weather gravel road. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to Commission inquiries, the applicant indicated that the antenna would consist of 4' X 6' panels and would not include any dishes at this time. CFW indicated they had explored the GTE site on Murray's Knob and determined that it would not cover the area between the Franklin-Roanoke County line and their other antenna on the water tank near the Blue Ridge Parkway. Copies of the radio frequency modeling were provided to staff. The Commission discussed at length the issues of co-locating, increasing the height of the tower to provide additional space for co-locating (each provider needing 15-20 foot separation), and what public and private policies were needed to encourage co-location. Also discussed was the general visibility of the proposed site, what color the structure should be to best blend with the mountainous backdrop (galvanized, buff, or dark color). D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Prior to approval of this site, CFW shall submit to the County radio signal modeling for the existing GTE site located just inside Franklin County on Murray Knob for evaluation by the County's Radio Frequency Engineering subconsultant. Further development of the Red Hill Road site shall only move forward upon written confirmation from the County's subconsultant that the Murray Knob site will not reasonably provide coverage for the Route 220 South corridor otherwise covered by the proposed site. 2. The height of the tower structure, excluding any antenna attached to the structure, shall be at least 160 feet, but not more than 175 feet. No microwave or other dish type antenna shall be allowed on the tower. 3. The tower structure and all attached support hardware, including any microwave dishes shall be painted a flat matted color so as to better blend into the landscape and reduce visibility and light reflection. ?-3 4. No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure or equipment building except for security lighting not to exceed a height of 25 feet in height. 5. This tower shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading and the site developed to accommodate the additional buildings necessary to accommodate co- locating of communications equipment of at least one other vendor/provider in order to minimize the proliferation of towers in the vicinity of this site. In addition, by executing the special use permit requested, the applicant agrees to make the tower available for lease within the structural capacity of the tower and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and maintenance costs of the tower location required for the additional capacity. 6. If the use of the tower structure for wireless communications is discontinued, the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the County and the special use permit shall become void. 7. Any damage to the existing road, resulting from the construction or operation of the tower, which renders the road impassable shall be repaired at the expense of the petitioner. 8. Public emergency communications equipment shall be accommodated at no expense to the County. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the request with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Robinson, Thomason, Hooker, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other .~ Terrance H ngton cretary Roanoke ounty Planning Commission y ,. STAFF REPORT PART PETITION: M. Pruden for CFW Wireless PREPARED BY: Jon Hartley A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T3 FILE NO.: 21-7/97 DATE PREPARED: 8/1 /97 CFW Wireless is proposing to erect a 150 foot lattice tower on a minor ridge just off of Route 220 South at the end of Red Hill Road to provide wireless communications services primarily to the traveling public along this major transportation corridor. This tower, while the first in Roanoke County along this corridor, would join an existing tower just erected in Franklin County, with a third tower now proposed 100 feet from this second towerin Franklin County. Where co-location is technologically feasible, no new tower should be erected. Where a new tower is necessary to provide service, accommodations for future wireless providers to co-locate should be required. B. DESCRIPTION Petition of Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless to obtain a special use permit to construct a 150 foot wireless communications tower. The tower would be erected on a leased area 40' by 60' located a the end of Red Hill Road. The leased plot is part of a 35 acre parcel that is zoned AG-1 . It is located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Local Regulations: In the AG-1, Agricultural zoning district, a special use permit must be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the installation of a communications or broadcasting tower. The exact height is to be established as a condition of the permit. Additional design standards address lighting, if required by FAA, notification of the FAA and local airport control tower, and setback requirements. In addition to these requirements, site plan review and approval will be required, and approval by VDOT for the commercial access may be necessary. Federal Regulations The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 was adopted by Congress to accelerate the development of a wireless communications system in this country. In addition to the two existing cellular communications companies allowed in each market, the Act provided for as many as six additional digital communications companies in each market. Recognizing the potential for conflicts with local public policies and regulations, the Act also provided guidance on local zoning authority. The Act preserved local zoning authority in the siting of broadcasting towers, with Section . ~...` 704 setting the following constraints that local regulation: "I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." In adopting this language it was the legislative intent to "provide localities the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements." The Act also clearly maintains the FCC's jurisdiction over radio frequency emissions and any radio interference. Finally, the Act requires substantial written evidence in a written record for any decision to approve or deny a cell site. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Topoaraphy and Vegetation: The site proposed for the tower is located in a mountainous area of the County just east of Route 220 South. The actual tower compound would be located on a minor ridge with main Blue Ridge in the background. The area is heavily wooded with a mixture of mature deciduous and coniferous trees ~" - with heights of approximately 40 to 60 feet tall. Adjoining and Surroundings Uses: The site is located at the end of Red Hill Road, a gravel road serving four single family residences. An old logging road actually leads to the tower site from the terminus of the gravel road. The adjoining and surrounding area is rural, with widely scattered single family residences along Route 220, and to the north, Crowell's Gap Road. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Wireless Network Proposed: CFW Wireless, unlike U.S. Cellular and GTE Cellular, is one of as many as six new wireless communications companies to be licensed by the FCC in this area. Where the two "cellular" companies operate as an analog radio system, much like traditional radio systems, CFW will provide a digital service at a higher radio frequency than used by cellular systems. This digital signal allows the receiver to handle voice, beeper and voice mail as an integrated system. This also means that the equipment is smaller, more compact and ..more computerized. However, this requires that power outputs are lower, and the resulting size of each "cell", that area surrounding each antenna, must be smaller. Where antenna for the Petition: M. Pruden for CFW Wireless 2 File No.: ~- _ analog cellular systems are usually spaced between 12 and 15 miles apart at initial installation; the digital systems rely on a separation of only 5 to 7 miles. Over the past few months, CFW Wireless has established eight of ten sites necessary to initially cover the Roanoke Valley. All of these sites have been co-locations using existing structures including buildings, water tanks, and AEP electric transmission line towers. The two remaining sites needed will require the construction of a tower. One will be a replacement of an existing tower. The only new tower site needed at this time is the site proposed. This site would serve as the southern most "cell" proposed at this time and would cover the Route 220 South corridor. Proposed Site Layout: The proposed tower consists of a 150 foot lattice type structure that would be located just below the crest of the ridge at a base elevation of approximately 1,200 feet. The area to be fenced measures 40 feet by 60 feet, with the long side running parallel to the ridge. The tower would occupy a triangle shaped footprint with approximately 20 feet on each side. The equipment building would occupy a space of approximately 10' by 16'. The entire site would be surrounded by a chain link fence for security purposes. (See attached concept plan.) CFW Wireless has indicated a willingness to work with Roanoke County in developing this site, including erecting alternative pole styles, such as a mono-pole style structure rather than the lattice structure presently proposed. Other measures, such as requiring a non-reflective color for the structure, could also reduce the visibility of the structure. Access: Access to the site is provided by Red Hill Road, which is maintained by VDOT for approximately 400 feet. Beyond this point it is a private road shared by three existing residences. Beyond the last residence it is further reduced to essentially an old logging road. Improvements to this access will be necessary in order to construct and maintain the tower and communications equipment. However, no new road construction will be necessary to access this site. Visibility and View Sheds: The location proposed consists of a minor ridge at a base elevation of approximately 1 ,200 feet with the main Blue Ridge Mountain behind the property at an elevation in excess of 1,900 feet. The 150 foot tower would be surrounded by trees with heights of 40 to 60 feet, leaving 90 to 1 10 feet potentially visible. At the request of staff, the Fifth PDC has prepared a viewshed analysis using a computerized digital terrain model. This analysis shows that the proposed site would be visible, without consideration of vegetation, from just south of Suncrest Heights down Route 220 to as far south as Webb Road (Rt. 615). While modeling shows the site would be visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Parkway. is 2.6 miles north of the proposed site. Field inspections indicate that the site and proposed tower would likely be visible along Route 220 from Yellow Mountain Road south to Red Hill Road and would also be seen from Crowell's Gap Road. Petition: M. Pruden for CFW Wireless 3 File No.: r Impact on Community Resources: Other than the theoretical visibility of this proposed tower and site being visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway mentioned above, there are no known community, historical or cultural resources that will be adversely impacted by the construction of the proposed tower. Alternative Sites: One other site was seriously considered. It is located on the main ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountain at an elevation of approximately 1,900 feet and is owned by Bill Otey. This alternate site, according to CFW, would require construction of a new road and power line which would be more visible than the improvements needed to make the Red Hill Road site work. The proposed site was also selected because it provides better coverage of the Route 220 corridor. Staff has also observed another wireless communications tower located 2.9 miles south of the proposed site just inside Franklin County at an elevation of 2,094 feet. According to Franklin County officials, this tower was recently erected by GTE Cellular and is 165 feet tall. A second tower is now being proposed by U.S. Cellular within 100 feet of this existing structure. Co-locating with other existing structures is not always feasible because of basic requirements for establishing a wireless cell site. Each site must first be accessible by an all weather road in order to accommodate installation and routine maintenance of the sensitive equipment. Each site must also be served by power and have access to the existing telephone network. Finally not all radio frequencies are compatible with ~~ each other and require some separation on the tower structure. The combination of these factors, along with establishing/preserving a "line of sight" which is essential for cellular and PCS systems to function are all essential to making a co-location work. Thus, if an AEP tower has no road access or (ironically) no usable electric power at the site, co-location may not be feasible. , C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND POLICIES The site is located in the Rural Preserve land use category. The policies that apply in this areas do not address communications/broadcasting towers. However, the policies are generally supportive of preserving the rural character. While not officially part of the Comprehensive Plan, preliminary studies have pointed to an increased awareness and concern with the quality of the County's visual resources and the need to protect critical view sheds. In addition, in considering other proposals for communications towers, the Board of Supervisors has strongly encouraged exhausting all other opportunities to collocate before approving new towers. PART I I I Petition: M. Pruden for CFW Wireless 4 File No.: -~- 3 STAFF CONCLUSIONS Consistent with previous actions by the Board, prior to approving the site proposed by CFW on Red Hill Road all opportunities to co-located should be exhausted. Should co- location not be viable, the development of the Red Hill site should only be undertaken in a way that promotes and insures co-location by a future wireless provider along the Route 220 South corridor. The following conditions are proposed with these objectives in mind. 1. Prior to approval of this site, CFW shall submit to the County radio signal modeling for the existing GTE site located just inside Franklin County on Murray Knob for evaluation by the County's Radio Frequency Engineering subconsultant. Further development of the Red Hill Road site shall only move forward upon written confirmation from the County's subconsultant that the Murray Knob site will not reasonably provide coverage for the Route 220 South corridor otherwise covered by the proposed site. 2. The height of the tower structure, excluding any antenna attached to the structure, shall not exceed 150 feet. 3. The tower structure and all attached support hardware, including any microwave dishes shall be painted a dark tone color (grey, green or blue) so as to better blend into the landscape and reduce visibility and light reflection. 4. No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure or equipment building except for security lighting not to exceed a height of 25 feet in height. 4. This tower shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading and the site developed to accommodate the additional buildings necessary to accommodate co-locating of communications equipment of at least one other vendor/provider in order to minimize the proliferation of towers in the vicinity of this site. In addition, by executing the special use permit requested, the applicant agrees to make the tower available for lease within the structural capacity of the tov~ier and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and maintenance costs of the tower location. 5. If the use of the tower structure for wireless communications is discontinued, the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the County and the special use permit shall become void. Petition: M. Pruden for CFW Wireless 5 File No.: • COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 BeCnard Or. _ _ P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-21 08 . ~ , For staff use only date recei eceived application fe, PC/BZA date• placar ~• BOS date: Case umber. ~ /'7' Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ^ REZONING ~ SPECIAL USE ^ VARIANCE Applicant's name: (V`\G1aAEL ~~ ~~- C-~t,J C~~r.ECESS Phone: ~~o~5~t-$S53 Address: Zip Code: 2Z9~ ~to~ Se ~ta6 LPn~E Su~TE 30o t>J RYNESQoQ.o , ~A . 22~ao Owner's name: I~~cHatE~. P. l,Je.Ry Phone:(~o> `18j-~ Zip Code: 240~~-1 Address: ~ SD yeta.ow t~to~.w-r,~iN '~c. P_ot~-r.c~:. r ~t~ . Location of property: Tax Map Number: ~0~ ~1 Z- ~~ Magisterial District: Cb~IE Je~~N~S s~~ a~~~~~ ~~ Community Planning Area: C.LEAfC6pcak Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: a(T_ ~ 35. SS' acres Existing Land Use: ~as~ sq.ft. i~i~~€>Ei<h ti1~~`~ a~'t ~~Y't f ~* ~'fi ~`L?:J€4f ~'s~~~'p;~f ~t l'~~ `~' ~' lRl~,"#~s's' Proposed Zoning: A~ - ~ ~r scarf use oily Proposed Land Use: (p,~5i~noN i ~ ~ O~ n /So` Conn-~nw~~~aT,ous T°f^'~- Use Type: PE-2P[T'ti n Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES _~ NO IF NO, A VARI?.;JCE 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 proffer~~ with this request? YES NO 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. ws v ws . v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 i " concept plan Application fee Application yf Metes and bounds description ~<>.s: Proffers, if applicable Justification ~%~ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the know/edge and~con~sent~of the owner. Owner's Signature: ~G:~`~'/ T..u~ - .JUSTIFICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PER~tiIIT REQUEST: 7 !~ The Virginia PCS Alliance is a conglomeration of eight telecommunications providers in the state of Virginia. In the recent FCC auctions, VA PCS vas 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 afrer exhausting all co-location possibilities that CF~VW has requested this special use permit to build a tower. • • • n x c n :~~ ~, YY~u ~~1'= I I I •I I I I i I I I i I I I t.~ I NI O to I ~I GI ~. ... , 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 T- 3 N 0 - Z • \~ Z n- Q = -~ ~-- ,~ ~ Z ~Q: U: o~~, Z Q O ~~~ U ~' ~:::, .%~ ~~ `_ ~, :.:. .~ C ~~~ ~ ~~ Z ~- \~~ J ~`~ r 1 \~ ~' r ~,~ ~ .~ `+ -S \\ T, `\r. ~ \, J. ~SZ ~: ~.:-. :~:~:Q~ ~;::>: ~~:~.0.::::':: ::~: J ;:;:::: .0. O Q U, O. ,.: ~: -- o ~>_ Z~QTO ~- ~U-'~U ;`~ , ~ >.% ,\ r- 3 '•~:F•: .•.ti•.-:.-.......~: '~'::. •:. ~ .':.... ~::.'. . l :. .~..: ~~ ~'~ 1 .•.l~ ~ - ` Y.~ \Q ~~ ~ ~~ f.~ lI_/ //~' C. VI1 V/ ~~~p w, ~~~~ ~ W :.~Z~O~- ~~Q.' c0.. Cfl Cn ~ ~ `1`'I '. ~ ~, i V >~ ; ~ if i1 i ,~~ ,~_ ~ _~ ~.~ / \ -/ I ~~~`~ ~. r- 3 ;~ .;~ • r i ~. I `.~\ I C C n _- .~ .~,~ ~~ -- 30' A CCESS EASEMEN ~ ~~'•'' - _ _ T , 539'04 --- 19' y -~-~ / ' / ~g ~ - p ,~ ~ ~ ~~gS ~ ~ ----- ----__. ~~~ ~~ 4f8p5~~------ 114_82-----~ ~ '`f 86 ~ ---~" -"~'/ , i ~~ p~ ~ , ~ o , . , -__gz - ~ - , d. --- ~ ,~~ M~ - -- y ~ p,/ , ~ ,i' ~ O nui sp. 9. ,~~~~,~6~5,' ~ u ~ ~ ~ /i ;~''L i ~ ce ~ ~ i "~/ / , / ~~ / , , ' ' / / Vii ,' /~t~/ //' ~ _ _ _ _ / / .a N w n: ~ W J ~ / //% ~ / ~¢ ,~,// ~ C7 nj n G7 ~ ~ C7 Z vrnmamm~mm~m wm~Z I If h/ lm/l I,°i1 ~ -mcn =min mcn 'm~o~mG) -~0~-1pm~OS~m OsD ~ Z v ~~ ~ ~ --i 1 d! al / ~ m m m m I~TS ° i~ ~ ~ i ,m~ymw~c~m~n~p~ Nmo'~ it I I III ~ ~ .rnN jN - cnzm u,o O O m O~ 10 II I l C~m C rC~m ~=' m m'~ O ri ~ I il tnl g~-~Sm_-~S 2 D V O D ~ I II~~I m I~Il~ai X h / i.~ov ~ov i ~cn-i~2m~s0 _~m-iTcD-a~ -~Scam~z-~ fTl o m I I io l in I~il iul `o ~ m ri m ~...°z~°za,~n~cnz rs I ~~ ~ I p ~mmOmmOmma$D~~o~ l r i it I j ~ ~ ~zZ 0~~=~='{=~~s zz z I I I ~ _ >-awe-acna,~oo°c''zmz0~ 1 111 ! " " m°'z ~zAwzrn'A ~O z m ° N . . IJrll j > p ~I c~pwn~Om~ m ~ >T Ill i g342, E 'mz =m=om~ ~mcn~mvi I I~ ' ' o'~=i ~~~n-is~~wsmz 1 1 1561'S6 S3 E m y -' N s ~ 2 W m z ~ xl III I 42.30' Ozrwi~ZC~~Z~ow°z~c11mOS n " 'D ~ ,I "I ~C )NOnAN 'r1 "'I ~ ~l`~ `~~~\~ ~ zOw~ONwO~mO~mm~~ ~ , O F /• F~ 1 s $' ~~ ` C 0 ` /~ ~~ ` ~ ~ I ~ 2 f'l '9s \ `~~ ~ I~~ O U' / / ' Je I~qo 3 O ~ . d q7 ~ '/ ~ 1j726•E ' ~~ , , i / u ~~ ~, i , ___ _ _.~ .s ~ ,,. o ._ -~ 6, 0 N ...C ~ 0. ld p W ~! tT J ~ N >u r~ ~. u. ~~ NV: ~ V A f mC c '~c _mc~zOm I ~=~m~i>m~m'is~mm a fTl N ~~~{ ~ (D!1 -~ > ~ ~ .\ °'~'°``°f' ~ u ~ ~ WRAY SITE ~ ~ b w < C . Red Hill Road, Roanoke, VA u ~ ~G' I~fIG~L~~~ -~ m '~ .. NNfnO~.Lm N '~~ ~ ~1 ~ .p ~ ~ I . C.~ u~ >cn z m ~°' ~;umm amZ m~7WtD ~ y ~°'-m~f~1~D frrlZZZ Z ~ n~ rnN~~ m <C~DC~ ~ AN . o~c wZ~ ~ II D N ~wZZ O O ~Z'A . .i o a~~mmm ~~0~~ _ . mow m{ ''•o T~~~ O = I O ~°cn w Orn~cz70~~ D ~ N ~~Dmao$o zz ~ z C i N r m-+--i0-gym ~ \ ~o z~N~ o~Z 1 \ m _ ' oy ;~ z z ' o p \ `.' ~ o~~z ~.. J o 0 0 ~ op--~rnz T ~ I 'mO~ -~zmNN~m I m .C O 'd _ a .~ ^z~mm O P, \~ a Z~>-NizD~ ~ ~ I. \\ "yam ZZZO~~~ ~ O~~~I,pS ~ ~,~, .. z',zmzp ~I ~ h~~,Z9Z~ ~\ z ~~mm '1, v, mznOrn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~i.?. \ ~ ~ noz="~a ~ ~ 'O ~' ~ ~ ~ ~' etiR O, / 0 o ~~~.., ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ o~~ ~ ~~ ,~~ / / / ~ "~'! SIX3 ? --- ~v~, o ~ ~ ~_ _~Z'gz _~ / -- M,~ti,9l.Z~S ~ _~- ----~ C C ( --< Contractor. h ro o ~ u ~ N ~ \ ~ Zarn ~~ ~Z~~ ~y <o s '~; n ~ .idjRAY SIT ~~ -3 s ~o ~,i~ . Antenna Systems T- 3 . PCS Panel antenna 1850 - 1990MHz Printed stripline construction 90° sector antenna PCSA090-19- * series Mechanical downtilt adjustable from -10° to +10° UV-stabilised polystyrene radome • COMSAT-BSI's design is based on the use of stripline techniques and employs a linear array of radiating elements fed from a corporate feed network. This method of construction provides accurate repeatability for quantity production and very high reliability in use. Electrical components are sealed by a lamination process and the whole antenna is protected by a radome which covers all internal components. The standard pan/tilt mounting hardware allows the antenna to be mounted to vertical walls, or to poles of various diameters. Electrical specifications Frequency Gain Input impedance VSWR Polarization Elevation sidelobes above main beam Electrical downtilt (*) Electrical null fill Azimuth beamwidth Elevation beamwidth Front /back ratio Input power Intermodulation products Lightning protection Mechanical specification Input connector Radiating element material Radiating element housing Mounting interface Survival wind speed Wind load at 100mi/h (45m/s) • Temperature Humidity 1850 - 1990 MHz 18.0 ± 0.5 dBi (15.9 ± O.SdBd) 50 ohms 1.4:1 maximum Vertical < -19dB for all lobes less than 20° above elevation main beam maximum 0,2or5° Level of first null below elevation maximum ~-25dB 90° + 5° 4.7° ± 0.5° ~ 30dB 250W at 40°C (Continuous rating) < -153dBc for 2 x 2DW carriers Direct ground; optional lightning finial available 7/16-DIN Copper Chromated aluminium chassis, UV-stabilised polystyrene radome Sin (76mm) Pole mount, or optional wall mount 125 MPH (56m/s) Front 441bf 195 N Side 631bf 280 N -40°F (-40°C) to 140°F (60°C) Up to 10096, condensing COMSAT-RS! Antenna Systems ntenna ode PC. SA090-19- =,o• j ~ ~ Radiation patterns =~ • tiVhen orderings replace this asterisk with the required electrical down tilt as follows: PCh1/PCS For 0.2 and 0.4m models: 0° only For models 0.6m to lm: 0° or 5° For models 1.2m and longer. 0°, 2° or 5° GSM 0° and 4° Additional down tilt variants may be available for some antenna models. :~- • r~ =t°• -~ '~. "fi- , .~~ leo- ~ - , !"~SII 120• • ~ s0'• ~o• ON / ~. •.: .%~ ~ '• i /. z~ ~ i i ~ ,Q' Typical azimuth radiation pattern, plotted at the peak of the elevation pattern i ~ ! ~~ ~ ~ 1 i 1 ~ 1 ! ~ ~ I ~ '! I 1~ ~ 4 ~ ,I 1 ~ 1 ti i I 1 i ~ it I ~ i ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~_. ~ , I ~ i i i I ~ 1 t~~_ -r3 ~ - 1 1 1 1 I i ~ i ~ 1 ~ I ~ 1 i -r0 ~ i j , I 1 ~ j it i = ~ I ~ ~ 1 I ~!0 -i0 -TO i0 -SO -a0 -r0 -=0 -t0 0 10 20 30 40 SO GO 70 60 9C Elevation pattern with 0° beamtilt, plotted in polar and Cartesian coordinates. Product weights and dimensions Overall dimensions (h x w z d) 1905 x 240 x 160mm (75 x 9.4 x 6.3in) Weight ~ Antenna 10.9kg (23.91b) Mountings 4.4kg (9.61b) Shipping weight 22kg (48.41b) Shipping dimensions (h x w x d) 2100x340x390mm (82x13x15in) (Multiple packs are available which reduce slopping weight and volume) CRSI reserves the right to modify the data contained in this publication v 2.0, Febniary 20th 1996 USA - COMSAT RSl Antenna Systems, 1757 South Winthrop Onve. Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 Phone: +1 847 298 9420 Fax: +1 847 635 7946 E-Mail: 103236.2676®eompuserve.eom UK -COMSAT RS/ Antenna Systems, Knight Road, Rochester, Kent. England. ME2 2AX Phone: +44 1634 715544 fax: +44 1634 71574? E-Mail: 101353.23650'compuserve.com • r~ ~~ L • was SS3~3aIM AA ~~ a3M01 SS ~56L ~~IW S3N008 9Z~-Na q I V, ~ ~ ~ ' w o ~ ~ w A H ~ o W e 0 h 8 ~ e ~ r h 0 0 1 N i K'-0• g Z a 3 r-3 ' x//96 ~f~'~~- ~~~, ~~ ~~C r _ ~ ~~~ - ~~~ ~~ ~~ /~ / ~ ~ Il~~ ~~ ~ /'' ~~~ 516 ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~\ ,~ ^~ \ ~ ~ ~ --~- r ~~~ li ~ , ~ ~ .~1~ <~ P I : ~, 1~ ~.~ ~~~ X/333 ~ L ~~~ ~`~ ~/ ~. ' ti~ ~.~ .~ J ~~ ~ ~ i ~Rl 538 ~_~~, _~~. !/'7 ,~ ~~~~ ~_ . "~ /~ _~ ilk ~~~ _r• ~,~~~~~ ~ cry \~~ ~~~~;~~= _ a V A 8 ~ ~ -~ ~ ~~ ~: lli A l ~~ 1 -~~° ~=~ .:; ~-~ iii' ~~ si ~~~ ~: ,\ / ~` , ,~ x~d_x~t_-.r ~'~'~~ t~~ j ~~~ I _~_,, ~~ c.~~ ~~ h ~ ~ ~~ ~h / > \_. ~~- .1~", ~-~ L •~ ~1 I~~ ,l lip ..A~ ~J ~ tai ^,~~ ~\ X11 ~r ~ -~, ~ ~\~i' i-~ / <~oo ~1~_ ~~\ ~~ '~~. k-c'', / ~ ~~' I! t x/ ~ ~~ ~ a'~, ~ -~ ' > ~ ~ ~ I '~ ~z _ ,~ ~ ~, ~ %~ `~ ~ ~,I llf ~ i ,~ ~, it '~ < ~~ -~ ~~~i;~'i ( ~ 18 :-~,~~ ~~.,~--, ,~ '~I > >~~ ~ ICI ~„~,e,. _~~-~1i'~l~ ~\ ~..\~ I %l .~~1,;;-,, '~~~~" ~ .~//~ ~ --, ~~ I ''~ Ir~~ x,11; ~~`. J, ~:''~~, -.~. ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ - Imo. r /i~'~ ` ~ --, ' ~, ~ l ~ ~ <_ >,-,~ .~ ~~ C~ ,)~7 j ~ -- BOONES MILL 0.8 M!. ~7~30~~ s93 ~ 594 ~ (BOONES MILL) 595 .6 5J ROCKY MOUNT l l Ml. ~ 5058 /lI SW 1 SCALE 1:24000 : ~,~~_ ~ ~ ~ _~ 657 ~ • CR ~ ..~ 657 r v `~ ~/ ~._ /~`~. - ms's o nor , Kin9~n' r/ l 19A _ c ~1 (/ ~ ~`` / J- ( r y84 ~ US.G.5.14AP GARDEN GTY" :~ 11 /~ \ _i Y _~~ Rc~F~~£xizoe ~~` `_---. ~~ ~~ ~ -- -_ - . d ~ I . ~ D' I` ~'~. ~ ~~ NORTH / , ~,~.~ - t.to~ap.ic~ / 3 ~.. 1 ~ e Back Cr 4.47Ac S'P 5•lOAc °° 6 2 36.58 Ac(Dl ' 45.3 \ ^ ~ 6`~. - - - l ~ 63/` _ / 31.57 Ac(Cl r" 1 62 / - ~ / 7 6460 (~ 7 ~ Ad N7// d~pr/rl n ~ ~ ~.~ 1 x 645"• ! 645/ ~O' ~ ..-~ I R1. -~ o~~ Cn:+rcn 3.74 Ac .., 13 ~~~~ ~-,~..~ ~ 6300 P`~ •5A 6456 a .i ~ t.00ac ~ II Qrive 'a„ c ~ ~Z p II • 6440 454 ~~ l 2,.82 Ac~(7~ / C,~ 642c 9 ,°o ~ ~ 6449 I _ ~,~~\ ~ooa 6332 ~°~ 3.50 ActD) g~.•: ~~~~ Road ,4r 6 I \-^1`~ ~~... ~ l ~ ~ y n 19 6347 "'~' ~ I 0 0.~ b = •.6345 / J .°• - ,ro•' '" ~•~ 6362 r 35.85 Ac .7 ~:`„ ssos 9 'p 16 D9 5433 66 II .~:s.. 1.13Ac / ., • ~ ~\ 6 S.I1 Ac(ClD) i ~3 6653 7..c ~ .b4 -~P 2.94 Ac ~ 6 ( 3.50 Ac LOO Ac ID) / `c 23 **` ~°.^ 2Ct6356 8.99 AC -e,t, »" ~,"~~ L22..c (C) ~ ~• l1 ~{ 6465 0 ~, . 43,9 r'1 ' °' 2 ~ , 25 i ~~ ~ ~. 4 s, 7.3t ac ~ 6 r ~D9 27 6~ti8 16 35 ,Ac 6357 t~"c 1.20Ac 6667 ~~ I ~ ~ a' 3 ,rxs ~ 26 \ 66 c.~ t ~ s•± I . 9 .36 Ac ~y~. 9 a'6 3.94 Ac (D) 6705 fli ,3 V a ra: ~,n.as G+T o .°, 6510 3.26 Ac 3 ~,~ 6~ ~ ~C _~ . ,g 76.09Ac ie,w _ ~'~l~= 7 ' 3 ~ ~ h ,,_ ~7i t.6~C`' .;2a ^t.52cc~ ~ 34.1 ~ ~ ~3 "l7 :.c '.270cC s' s9u .~ ,~ -e.u, 6308 ~~ •~' I ,°,, ~6 ao 3 4 ' .~'°°' p 37.8 9 C< ~..• , 6~ ~: 1 ~ 3 -~... L•. i '0 53~ ~ 73~ ~ ~i 2 7.82 Ac g.43Ac ~ ° 36.21 :.c ",~,. 66610 666 ~ ~ ,~~,.., ~ .. ,. 3.4 I 40 do ~ ~ zo I r .:. c,1 42 st3 ~~ MICHAEL PRUDEN FOR CFW WIRELESS ''•, DEPA??Ti~u'T OF PLA~II~TII~G SPECIAL USE PERMIT - p1'vD zortlrrG .. 107.00-2-19 :~ ,,, . . AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO MICHAEL PRUDEN FOR CFW WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 6332 FRANKLIN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 107.00-2- 19), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless has filed a petition to construct a communications tower located at 6332 Franklin Road (Tax Map No. 107.00-2-19) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 22, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on August 19, 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 Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless to construct a communications tower located at 6332 Franklin Road (Tax Map No. 107.00-2-19) in the Cave Spring 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. Prior to approval of this site, CFW shall submit to the County radio signal modeling for the existing GTE site located just inside Franklin County on Murray Knob for evaluation by the County's Radio Frequency Engineering subconsultant. Further development of the Red Hill Road site shall only move forward upon written confirmation from the County's subconsultant that 1 ~'~ the Murray Knob site will not reasonably provide coverage for the Route 220 South corridor otherwise covered by the proposed site. 2. The height of the tower structure, excluding any antenna attached to the structure, shall be at least 160 feet, but not more than 175 feet. No microwave or other dish type antenna shall be allowed on the tower. 3. The tower structure and all attached support hardware, including any microwave dishes shall be painted a flat matted color so as to better blend into the landscape and reduce visibility and light reflection. 4. No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure or equipment building except for security lighting not to exceed a height of 25 feet in height. 5. This tower shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading and the site developed to accommodate the additional buildings necessary to accommodate co-locating of communications equipment of at least one other vendor/provider in order to minimize the proliferation of towers in the vicinity of this site. In addition, by executing the special use permit requested, the applicant agrees to make the tower available for lease within the structural capacity of the tower and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and maintenance costs of the tower location required for the additional capacity. 6. If the use of the tower structure for wireless communications is discontinued, the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the County and the special use permit shall become void. 7. Any damage to the existing road, resulting from the construction or operation of the tower, which renders the road impassable shall be repaired at the expense of the petitioner. 8. Public emergency communications equipment shall be accommodated at no expense to the County. 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, 2 r ` . ~"' '~ 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\CFW.WPD 3 Uttttttttttttttttlttttttttltttttttttttttttttttttttttttillllilllliililiiillili111111i111111111111111!l11111111111111i11lllilllllltj~ s ~ = ~. ~ ~ ~ = ~~ r. AGENDA ITEM NO. _~~ =, ._ ~P~ CE ~QUE~~ ® c t~UBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS CONIlY~NTS c ... = ~ s s ~ ~~ SUBJECT: ~~d Lc. ~ L ~ ~ P "' :. ~. .... 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 GT'~E MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY~~ THE GUIDELINES LISTED ,_ BELOW: ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of~the Board to ~; do otherwise. - _ - e ® Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. s c ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. _. ® Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ®_ ~ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments Wlth the Clerk. ° ® INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP '° SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO ,REPRESENT THEM. , c . _. .= a ~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK _.. c o = ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ t. i. ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ s~~ - ~ ~~ ~~ t~ ~~ mttlllltllliltllllillllllllllllllllltl111111111ilitllllllttllllilllltlttlllllt1111111111111111llilllllllllllllilllllll lllllllllli~ ~~. ~ f AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE 081997-14 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 14.69-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE AND TO GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT MINI WAREHOUSES LOCATED IN THE 5000 BLOCK OF BENOIS ROAD WEST OF THE RAILWAY TRACKS (TAX MAP NO. 87.10-2-4) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF RON KNUPPEL WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held August 19, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 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 zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 14.69 acres, as described herein, and located in the 5000 block of Benois Road west of the railway tracks (Tax Map Number 87.10-2-4) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I-2, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of I-1, Industrial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Ron Knuppel. 3. 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) Vegetation shall be maintained on any cut slopes. (2) The buildings shall be of neutral, earth tone colors. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin corner on the westerly side of Va. State Route 633 (formerly Route 753) which is the southeasterly corner of a two-acre parcel designated as Parcel II in the deed from Robert S. Brown and Mary M. Brown to Old Dominion Homes, Inc., dated June 5, 1969, and of record in Deed Book 877 at page 226 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; thence with the line of the Beasley & Place .80 acre parcel for a distance of 278.00' N. 35° 04' 13" W. a total distance of 746.48' to an iron pin corner; thence S. 62° 55' 47" W. 715.21' to an old pipe corner; thence S. 28° 23' 44" W. 475.10' to a pipe corner; thence S. 66° 05' 20" E. 582.52' to an iron pin corner; thence N. 45° 06' 40" E.636.18' to an iron pin comer which is the northeasterly corner of the PAL Finance Co. property (Deed Book 732, page 429); thence with the line of the PAL Finance Co. property aforesaid, S. 35° 15' E. 238.18' to a point; thence S. 45° 10' 20" W. 40' to a point; thence S. 35° 15' E. 41.75' to a point on the westerly side of Va. State Route 633; thence with the said westerly line of Va. State Route 633, N. 45° 10' 20" E. 208.20' to a point of curve; thence continuing with the westerly side of Va. State Route 633 with a curve to the left the radius of which is 875.40' and the delta angle of which is 2° 39' for an arc distance of 40.52' to the place of Beginning; and, LESS AND EXCEPTING that certain parcel of land conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County by deed dated November 17, 1978, which is more particularly described as follows: Starting at a point on the southerly side of a 20-foot wide easement to Meadowlark Road which is the southeasterly corner of the property now or formerly owned by Gramco, Inc.; thence with the southerly side of said 20-foot wide easement N. 62° 24' E. 192 feet to a point which is the southwesterly corner of an existing well lot, property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, the Actual Place of Beginning; thence with the well lot N. 59° 35' 10" E. 100 feet to a point; thence with three new lines through the property of Old Dominion Homes, Inc., S. 59° 35' 10" W. 100' to a point; and N. 30° 24' S0" W. 100 feet to the Place of Beginning, and containing 0.23 acre, and being known as the reservoir lot as shown on plat made by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C. dated 10 November 1978; and 5. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Ron 2 Knuppel to constnact mini-warehouses located in the 5000 block of Benois Road west of the railway tracks (Tax Map No. 87.10-2-4) in the Cave Spring 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. 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. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~'YL,~t~~, .~ . Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the 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 F 7 . Y~ D r- v ~ ~ ~ .w ~~~/ CA/fI Q R-2 :~~ ~.,, IV ~, i ~~ no e~i~ i•. is i~~' n \ I \ _ ' T DEPAP.ZI~~I'I' OF PLANNIl~G RON'~ KNUPPEL AND ?RIVING I-2 TO I-1 •: ~ 87.10-2-4" .,, NORiH C/ 1 ,,.~, ,~ ~;_ ~ ~,. , I I ~rn I 33 w ~~ 1' ' 1 J PETITIONER: RON KNUPPEL f CASE NUMBER: 25-8/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 5, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 19, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Ron Knuppel 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. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to the Commission, Mr. Knuppel commented as follows: the building facade, where visible, will be brick or stone; there will be storage for commercial use; the property will be terraced; building heights will be approximately 10 feet to 12 feet. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1) Vegetation shall be maintained on any cut slopes. 2) The buildings shall be of neutral, earth tone colors. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Robinson, Thomason, Hooker, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other - ;~ Terrance Harr~tigton, Sec ary Roanoke 06unty Plann' g Commission % ~ RE: Tax Map # 87.10-2-4 The following conditions are proffered: 1) Vegetation shall be maintained on any cut slopes. 2) The buildings shall be of neutral, earth tone colors. :-/ , __ Ron uppel 8' ~ ~- s ~ ate AUG-13-1997 15 15 MANOP. HOMES INC 540 366 6187 P.01/01 Statement of Proffers r-y I, Darold Rose, representing Employees Profit Sharing Plan for Ward 1~-Iomes Inc,, do hereby voluntarily proffer the following conditions associated with the 12 to I-1 rezoning request for Tax paree187,10-Z-4 that is currently pending before the Board of Supervisors. 1. Vegetation sha!! maintained on any cut scope. 2. The buildings shall be of neutral, earth tone colors. Signed, 13arold Rose Title ~ -% Date ~~ 3 TOTAL P.01 STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: ~ RON KNUPPEL PREPARED BY: TIM BEARD A. Executive Summary CASE NUMBER: 25-8/97 DATE: AUGUST 5, 1997 PARTI r-y This is an unconditional request to rezone a 14.69 acre tract from I-2 Industrial to I-1 Industrial and obtain a Special Use Permit in order to construct and operate mini- warehouses. The project site represents one of the largest single undeveloped industrially zoned parcels remaining in the Starkey area. The subject property and adjoining tracts to the northeast, east and south are presently zoned industrial with R-2 and PRD zones to the north and west. The proposed development is consistent with the Principal Industrial designation of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Description Petition of Ron Knuppel 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. C. Applicable Regulations Mini-warehouse facilities are permitted only by Special Use Permit in the C-2 and I-1 zoning districts. Use and design standards are numerous and include a minimum lot size of two acres, a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, the prohibition of security fencing or gates within the required front yard setback or buffer yard, and the prohibition of any cubicle doors facing residentially zoned property. Also forbidden are the following uses: tenant or commercial auctions or garage sales; servicing of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers or other similar appliances; the operation of power tools, spray-painting equipment, table saws, lathes, compressors, welding equipment, kilns or other similar equipment; the storage of combustible, explosive or hazardous materials and operating a transfer/storage business. Site design standards include minimum 26-foot wide interior driveways when cubicles open onto one side only and minimum 30-foot wide interior driveways when cubicles open onto both sides to accommodate loading and unloading at individual units. Adequate turning radiuses shall be provided for vehicles at least 30 feet long. A 10-foot wide landscaped area consisting of small evergreen trees and shrubs bordering the outdoor storage of motor vehicles, trailers, and recreational vehicles shall be provided. Accommodations for a live-in manager shall be permitted. A commercial entrance permit will be required by VDOT. Site plan review will be conducted to ensure compliance with County regulations. 2 A. Analysis of Existing Conditions PART II ry Location: The applicant's property is situated 0.20 mile west of the Starkey Road (VA 904)/Benois Road (VA 633) intersection overlooking the Norfolk Southern Railroad and numerous industrial facilities to the east. The site is in the Cave Spring Community Planning area and urban services are available. TopographyNegetation: Apaved entrance (approximately 50 feet long) at the southeast property corner leads uphill to a combination of exposed earth, a dense blend of deciduous and evergreen trees and scrub growth. Heavily eroded steep slopes are also present; predominantly in the central portions of the site. The VA Department of Forestry recommends that a professional landscape plan be implemented on this site. Surrounding Neighborhood: High density residential (Ruxton of Roanoke/Stonehenge) borders the subject parcel on the north and west. One single family residential dwelling and a church (Clearview Baptist) also border on the west. To the south and east are vacant and developed industrially-zoned tracts (Phelps Landscaping, Gandolf Designs and Holt Automotive). A major American Electric Power right-of-way and overhead electric installation skirt the southwest property corner. On the north stands a existing mini-storage facility, Storage Bins Inc. Benois Road and Norfolk Southern Railway tracks adjoin on the northeast. A broadcasting tower also stands near the northeast boundary of the applicant's site (permitted by right at the time of installation). B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture: The applicant proposes eight separate buildings containing a total of 242 storage units enclosing a grand total of 28,050 square feet. Six different cubicle configurations (5'x5', 5'x10', 10'x10', 10'x15', 10'x20' and 10'x25') and outdoor parking for boats and recreational vehicles will be offered. Exterior materials on the one-story mini-warehouses are expected to be concrete block for end units and metal for interior units. Stone or brick facades are planned to improve the visual effect. The storage use would occupy the northwest five to six acre portion of the overall 14.69 acre tract. Type D screening and buffering is proposed along residentially-zoned boundaries. Access: The concept plan proposes a lengthy 30-foot wide extension of the existing entrance uphill from Benois Road. This location appears to be within VDOT grade limits (maximum 5 percent) at the property line for acquisition of a commercial entrance permit. Much of the remainder of the private drive leading to the proposed facility may approach 20 percent grade. The 30-foot wide interior .drives indicated on the concept plan comply with ordinance requirements. • r- ~l Traffic Generation: The 1994 ADT on Benois Road was 823 vehicles. In the four-year period from * January 1990 through December 1993, no accidents were reported (0.35 mile). Traffic generation is not expected to exceed 300 vehicle trip ends per day. Ordinance construction standards requiring a Category I (paved) surface is applicable to driveways, traffic aisles, stacking spaces and parking areas of 15 or more spaces. Fire & Rescue/Utilities: The Utility Department reports that public water is available to this site and public sewer is not available. The Fire Department advised in 1994 that hydrants are needed in the immediate area although the existing water line size is inadequate for hydrant connections. A four-to-eight minute trip can be expected for emergency vehicles. C. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is designated Principal Industrial by the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. This designation encourages warehousing/storage uses. The proposal is consistent with policies I-1 (maximize opportunities for Industrial Development), I-2 (cluster industrial sites within Principal Industrial areas), and I-3 (expand new locations for industrial growth). D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD • The proposed project will comply generally with the zoning ordinance. Review and approval of site and building plans, erosion and sediment control and stormwater management will also be required. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The applicant intends to and by right will be permitted to develop the remainder of the 14.69 acre parcel for I-1 district standards. No conditions are proffered nor suggested at this time. Land use impacts on adjoining properties are expected to be manageable. Minor traffic impacts are anticipated. • • COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr. . P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 Fax (540 ~ 772=2 ~ 08 G' G/= `: For st ff use only dater c ed•' rece applic tion ~ PC/8Z~ a' ,. placards issu BOS date: Case Numb r: T • Proposed Zoning: I_1 Proposed Land Use: Mini-warehouse i-o~ Star," Usa G~:y Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, ~•~::::~, and frontage requirements of the requested dis::ic;? YES X NO IF N0, A `/~=.~~.NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fcr ..`.e requested Use Type? YES X ~ti'0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being preff=::~ with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in cr~~r to: Is the application complete? Please check if er,c:csed. APPLICATION WILL 'N'OT EE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEi~1S ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v wa v ws v Consultation 8 1/2" x i i" concept plan Application fee• Application ~~'~~ Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification ~? Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am e' the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting N~ith the k wledge nd conse}~t of tie owner. iv y• Ov~~ner's Signature: r-~~ 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. • T-v Thank you for your time and consideration. ~-... n Knup el mlc/RK atch. application list of adjoining property owners application fee ($1280.70) Check#3757 deed 9/14/92 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, parksJrecreation, 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. ~v • ~ a.o ao.ou v my .~~~ ~.~e • • uuold P»7'~~~ lal~ •Op ~UjJ000j6U0 -JN`d1- z3aanxx xoa tiO~I ]~.i.TII~V3 39V2IO,LS IxD( av~ ~xixozax ~ ~ oa° ~ ~ ` ~? 1 o^ \ }>Y 1 ~ 1 24 ~ y:" ' 1 1 w ~~ 1 1 ~ 1 I ~ _ TM ~ ., __ ._,_ ~ -_ ._ _ I _______~__~ ~ ,_ I l; OQ~ ~ /, b ~ !~ a" 3 y n ~id.; o ~ 'r iF;~ „ eN ~ / : 4 q / a4 ~ ~' /: ' 2 ~' ~ ~ ~: / i ~' B o ~~ H Q r~ _~ , 8 ;~ ~ :~ _ i ~ i 6 ~ i ~ ~. ! i ~ i~ :i CC~ gN0. ~ ~l A ~ y~1a QZ ~~pq~ ,. ~ _\ 6L~iMeo iii;q4 • / \w ~~ ci ~ ~~,~y ~o a q ge~VN ~r f : / \ ~ a : / ~f :~ / ~q 8 , G I oy.,4 :ems 9 $zxo ~ ~a `~ Y v~ a w o H .~ ~„~~ --"-----•---- i x °a h 40 ~; 4 U~ +i ~ ~ ~ a ~ °a l :'i ~ ~ • : / ty ~ :/ ~x '' ~~ ~i b~ • l ~i ~~ ~~ ~~ .l `\ , `\ . `\ a \ •~ \\ {~ 'f ` , \\ oq e q ~ ~~6~ • ~ 1t ~~ \0 ~• \~ eM '.\ `F ,~~ ~ ~ `~ ~~, ~` ~~ `\ ~. ,\ ,1 ~ ^ 1 '. 1` 1 _ _xn ~ l ~ o~ ~ c y - =Z- -- _._ a n q ` ~` __ _- - ~O t,j0' ~ \ '~`,, `~ q e `.', d 4r ~~ op ti ~/ ~ ~ 4 / ti ~1 V~1 ~ ,e:. i ~ ~~Y ~ ~ , °'9 ~ ` 0 3 i ~ z~~ ~ _ q ~` ha oh 0 O ^ a ~~_ ~~^U'zgo .. ii~~ ozpu yy _.~^o qy C~zi1e 11am~ ~e~~~~~au` •~°~ G~~F~i61L-0 y~.am 1 I d4 ~~f CC 6 i 1 N ~~ SSA qz 4 5 °~' ~a T ~# a ~ 3' i d 4 ~ 1 i O 0 i= I ~ Io z a i i q ' I ~{ $4A ~ <0 I ~ oZ c I O M+ 1 y~ 1 I to y'o 1 1 3~ e, 4 ~ ~ ' e2 4 GH ~ y 4 ~ ~! r- y NORiH f rr 't •L . ~/ . 1r 3atiY Cwirww."r ~ ~ ' s« wo sza Yvl ~A~ ~ ~. ~ ~. y ~t~ u °°~., c..... _~~ RZ ,.,. :~ e. ~~ 10 ~ ~ 7 ,~ -A ll `--~ J DEPAP,Ti~IT OF PLPNNII~G RON'' KNUPPEL I-2 TO I-1 A~ zo~nvG ~ 87.10-2-4~ T-Y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 14.69-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE AND TO GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT MINI-WAREHOUSES LOCATED IN THE 5000 BLOCK OF BENOIS ROAD WEST OF THE RAILWAY TRACKS (TAX MAP NO. 87.10-2-4) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF RON KNUPPEL WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held August 19, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 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 zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 14.69 acres, as described herein, and located in the 5000 block of Benois Road west of the railway tracks (Tax Map Number 87.10-2-4) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I-2, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of I-1, Industrial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Ron Knuppel. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\KNUPPEL.FRM 1 .. ~~ writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) Vegetation shall be maintained on any cut slopes. (2) The buildings shall be of neutral, earth tone colors. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin corner on the westerly side of Va. State Route 633 (formerly Route 753) which is the southeasterly corner of a two-acre parcel designated as Parcel II in the deed from Robert S. Brown and Mary M. Brown to Old Dominion Homes, Inc., dated June 5, 1969, and of record in Deed Book 877 at page 226 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; thence with the line of the Beasley & Place .80 acre parcel for a distance of 278.00' N. 35° 04' 13" W. a total distance of 746.48' to an iron pin corner; thence S. 62° 55' 47" W. 715.21' to an old pipe corner; thence S. 28° 23' 44" W. 475.10' to a pipe corner; thence S. 66° 05' 20" E. 582.52' to an iron pin corner; thence N. 45° 06' 40" E.636.18' to an iron pin corner which is the northeasterly corner of the PAL Finance Co. property (Deed Book 732, page 429); thence with the line of the PAL Finance Co. property aforesaid, S. 35° 15' E. 238.18' to a point; thence S. 45° 10' 20" W. 40' to a point; thence S. 35° 15' E. 41.75' to a point on the westerly side of Va. State Route 633; thence with the said westerly line of Va. State Route 633, N. 45° 10' 20" E. 208.20' to a point of curve; thence continuing with the westerly side of Va. State Route 633 with a curve to the left the radius of which is 875.40' and the delta angle of which is 2° 39' for an arc distance of 40.52' to the place of Beginning; and, LESS AND EXCEPTING that certain parcel of land conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County by deed dated November 17, 1978, which is more particularly described as follows: Starting at a point on the southerly side of a 20-foot wide easement to Meadowlark Road which is the southeasterly corner of the property now or formerly owned by Gramco, Inc.; thence with the southerly side of said 20-foot wide easement N. 62° 24' E. 192 feet to a point which is the southwesterly corner of an existing well lot, property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, the Actual Place of Beginning; thence with the well lot N. 59° 35' 10" E. 100 feet to a point; thence with three new lines through the property of Old Dominion Homes, Inc., S. 59° 35' 10" W. 100' to a point; and N. 30° 24' 50" W. 100 feet to the Place of Beginning, and containing 0.23 C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\KNUPPEL.FRM 2 T-y acre, and being known as the reservoir lot as shown on plat made by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C. dated 10 November 1978; and 5. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Ron Knuppel to construct mini-warehouses located in the 5000 block of Benois Road west of the railway tracks (Tax Map No. 87.10-2-4) in the Cave Spring 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. 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\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\KNUPPEL.FRM 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE 081997-15 THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 35.69-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED BETWEEN MERRIMAN ROAD AND THE INTERSECTION OF STARKEY ROAD AND BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 97.01-1-5j IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3 AND I-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1, WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF JOE R. BLACKSTOCK WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997, and, August 19, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 1997, and August 5, 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 zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 35.69 acres, as described herein, and located between Merriman Road and intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road, (Tax Map Number 97.01-1-5) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, and I-1, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Joe R. Blackstock. 1 1 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditins which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: (1) The subdivision shall have no more than 29 lots. (2) All lots shall be served by public water and sewer. (3) All lots shall have frontage on a state maintained road. (4) Only one street connection shall be made to Starkey Road. Driveway connections to Starkey road shall be prohibited. (5) A 20 foot pedestrian easement shall be created adjacent to Starkey Road. A six foot wide mulched walkway shall be constructed in the easement. (6) Type °D° screening, as described in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall be provided along the western boundary line where existing I-1 zoning is rezoned to R-1 zoning. (7) Grading of the site shall generally conform and be limited to that portrayed on the Preliminary Layout for °Summerplace", prepared by Lumsden Associates and dated June 16th, 1997. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at Comer #1, said Corner #1 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, property of Rodney W. McNeil and Norma M. McNeil as recorded in DB 1263, page 1311 and the southerly right-of-way line of Starkey Road (Virginia Secondary Route 904); thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said Starkey Road the following courses and distances: N. 60° 30' S2" E. 233.44 feet to Comer #2; thence N. 70° 40' 26" E. 191.71 feet to Corner #3; thence N. 75° 05' 04" E. 99.40 feet to Corner #4; thence N. 78° 00' 29" E. 350.00 feet to Corner #5; thence N. 80° 39' 47" E. 25.02 feet to Corner #6; said Corner #6 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, property of Eugene B. Knighton, recorded in DB 1328, page 731 and the southerly right-of--way line of said Starkey Road; thence along the line commor to said 35.69 acres and property of Eugene B. Knighton the following courses and distances, 236.21 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, whose radius is 212.50 feet, central angle is 63° 41' 15", whose tangent is 131.98 feet and chord bearing and distance is S. 20° 09' S1" W. 224.23 feet to Corner #7; thence S. 52° 00' 29" W. 20.54 feet to Corner #8; thence N. 78° 00' 29" E. 108.18 feet to Corner #9; thence N. 80° 39' 47" E. 211.54 feet to Corner #10; thence N. 71 ° 58' 27" E. 160.07 feet to Comer #11; thence N. 75° 30' 29" E. 67.70 feet to Corner #12; said corner #12 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of 2 2 Eugene B. Knighton and property of G.H. Board as recorded in DB 1038, page 240; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres, said property of G.H. Board and Graceland Subdivision as recorded in PB 9, page 350, the following course and distance, S. 03° 25' 40" E. 1203.54 feet to Corner #13, said Corner #13 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said Graceland Subdivision and property of T.R. Hackley and recorded in DB 291, page 214; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and property of T.R.Hackley, the following courses and distances, N. 88° 03' 12" W. 100.50 feet to Corner #14; thence N. 68° 46' W. 264.00 feet to Comer #15; thence S. 85° 28' 11" W. 237.60 feet to Corner #16; thence N. 72° 01' 49" W. 330.00 feet to Corner #17, said Corner #17 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of T.R.Hackley and property of the County of Roanoke, as recorded in DB 1288, page 1003; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said property of County of Roanoke the following courses and distances: N. 48° 46' 49" W. 150.00 feet to Corner #18; thence S. 41° 13' 11" W. 150.00 feet to Comer #19; thence S. 48° 46' 49" E. 150.00 feet to Corner #20, said Comer #20 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of County of Roanoke and said T.R.Hackley; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said property of T.R.Hackley the following courses and distances: S. 41° 13' 11" W. 180.00 feet to Corner #21; thence S. 69° 58' 11" W. 313.50 feet to Comer #22; thence S. 80° 58' 11" W. 211.20 feet to Corner #23; thence N. 12° 13' 11" E. 211.20 feet to Comer #24, said Comer #24 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of T.R.Hackley and said property of Rodney W. McNeil and Norma M. McNeil; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said McNeil property the following courses and distances: N. 81° 58' 11" E. 52.14 feet to Corner #25; thence N. 15° 04' 13" E. 845.49 feet to Corner #26; thence N. 27° 55' 30" W. 158.62 feet to Comer #27; thence N. 17° 29' S6" E. 59.78 feet to Corner #1, the point of Beginning, containing a computed acreage of 35.69 acres. 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 Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson 3 3 NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~. ~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the 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 4 4 ~~ ~ n • Pam ~ 6' sr.~•Qx~Y ~ ~,. ~ ,/ \' o~ oR ~ ~a V R. ~ ~~~e ~ Rrsos ~ a •J r i3oo ~ _ ,, `'~ ~ ~ ~>~ r''9ir • • R ~ ~r3c~ ~ I ~ `~e.• .. ' ~ 1 9 Y ~. ~~~ 3 at NOR i ~, . .- i ' i ••. •.. ••• } .............q..,• 1 ¢ t ~ ~ _ • i .• F ~, ~ 1 , i _ ~t~ S Q i v x p „~' . • r \ • ~ a ~4~~a~r~< ,m .. ~' ~ ~ j• /.ice l _ ~ ~.~ ~'~`,~ ~,. '~ ,I ... . _t. C .. f, ••_ . • /bow. Gary _ ~ _ _ ~ ~% ~ _!^ -_ _ ~ `` 7; • - - = f•!~ ~ ~ - ~ _ / - ._ - ~~ Y~~T JOE R. BLACKSTOCK • '" T DEPPLz?Ti~i'r OF PLP~`iNI3~G X7.01-1-5 - PND ZONING R-3 & I-1 to R-1 :~ ,,, ' T_ 5 PETITIONER: JOE BLACKSTOCK CASE NUMBER: 12-6/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 5, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 19, 1997 A. REQUEST Petition of Joe R. Blackstock 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. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Michael Blankenship stated that he has no objections to the proposal; prefers R-1 zoning (single family homes) rather than apartments. He said that has been aproblem/noise area for some time with kids riding dirt bikes. Several adjacent residents asked to look at the proposed plan. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Witt asked staff to explain the Type "D" screening requirements. Mr. Robinson asked if PRD zoning had been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Welch, representing Mr. Blackstock, said that the PRD option was discussed early in the process as a way to use the higher portions of the property as open space. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. The subdivision shall have no more than 29 lots. 2. All lots shall be served by public water and sewer. 3. All lots shall have frontage on a state maintained road. 4. Only one street connection shall be made to Starkey Road. Driveway connections to Starkey road shall be prohibited. 5. A 20 foot pedestrian easement shall be created adjacent to Starkey Road. A six foot wide mulched walkway shall be constructed in the easement. 6. Type "D" screening, as described in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall be provided along the western boundary line where existing I-1 zoning is rezoned to R-1 zoning 7. Grading of the site shall generally conform and be limited to that portrayed on the Preliminary Layout for "Summerplace", prepared by Lumsden Associates and dated June 16th, 1997. ~~ E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt commented that his concerns have been addressed and moved to recommend approval of the request with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Robinson, Thomason, Hooker, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance Ha mgto cretary Roanoke unty PI Wing Commission T5 T, Jc~e B1acS:sfrsc!c, hereby volc~ntariiy offer jiie following proffers associated with my StarS:cy Ttoad rezanin~ request (R-3~ a~:d I-1 to R-1) curre;ltty pending before the Bo1rd of Supervisors: 1. The sG~bdivisic~n shall have no more than 29 Lots, 2.. All lots sha(I be served by pubf~crvater and sewer. 3. ell tots shall have fron±age on a state maintained road, 4. Only one street ccnnectlon shalt be made to Starfcey Road. Drivewa;~ connections fo Starfcey Road shall b2 prohibited. 5, A 20 foot pedestrian easement shaft be created adjacent to 5tar'-cey Road. A six foot wide mulched walkway shall be constructed in the easement.. 6. Type "p" screening, as descrii/2d in th8 Roanoke County Zoning 4rdin2nce shall be pro~~Ided along the western boundary line where existir~g I-' zoning is rezor.zd to R-1 zoning. 7. Grading ct the site shall generally conform and be limited to that portrayed cn the Preliminary ~aycut for "Summerplace', prepared by Lumsden Asscciates and dated ,tune 16th, 1997. _ Signed: ~-~ I• ,) r %~ R. B acl:stock: ._ - ~ --- ~ ~' Roanoke County Department of Planning Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP ~'~ Director of Planning DATE: July 30, 1997 RE: Revisions to Rezoning Petition of Joe R. Blackstock; R3 and Il to Rl; Starkey Road The Planning Commission evaluated this rezoning request in June and recommended denial to the Board. At their June 24 meeting, the Board referred the request back to the Commission advising the applicant to attempt to address your concerns. During July, I met with Mike Webb, to discuss additional information needs/proffers. As a result of our meeting Mike has prepared the following revised information for the Commission to consider. 1. A series of six proffers has been offered. The proffers are enclosed. They address number of lots, public water and sewer, road layout and street grades, the provision of a pedestrian easement along Starkey, and the installation of Type D screening along the property line where the Il zoning (lot 26) is proposed to be R1. 2. The enclosed concept plan has been revised to show proposed road grades and grading plans. Although not proffered at this time, It is my understanding that the applicant also wishes to proffer this conceptual plan. 3. The route of the proposed sewer connection has been shown. 4. The proposed stormwater management area has been moved to a location adjacent to the proposed access road. After considering the Commission's discussions, the applicant has decided to proceed with the request to rezone the Il portions of this site. In June the Commission discussed the pros and cons of including this parcel. • Please let me know if you have any questions. LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C. 7- ~ ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS . KIRK LUMSDEN, L.S. 4664 BRAi~[BLETON AVENUE, S.W. B. LEE HENDERSON, JR., P.E., L.S. P. O. BO:C 20669 TIMOTEIY HOELZLE, L.S. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 MICHAEL S. WEBB, P.E. PI IONS (S40) 774-4-311 JAMES L. JENKINS, L.S. FA;t (S40) 772-9445 BUFORD T. LUMSDEN, L.S. July 23, 1997 Mr. Terry Harrington Roanoke County Planning Department P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Va 24018 Re: Dear Terry: ..- r ,~ s ~, .: ': ~~ r er,• / ~ ~. - ~ _. _.. - '. - „'~ ~?.... .. -.. _._.~. _.. _i S umme rp Yace ~8e z~ ~i-si,~'~i~ '~' Comm: 97-54 Ten (10) full size and one (1) reduced size copies of the revised preliminary layout for Summerplace, property of Joe Blackstock along with a list of proposed proffered conditions for rezoning the 35.69 acres of property from I-1 and R-3 to R-1 are enclosed to provide additional information for the zoning request. The preliminary plan has been revised as follows: 1. Existing contours are shown. 2. Proposed contours are shown to indicate the amount of grading that will be necessary to construct the streets. 3. The proposed grades of the streets are shown. 4. The proposed location of water and sewer lines are shown on the plan. 5. A proposed buffer yard is shown on Lot 26 to screen the lot from the adjacent industrial zoned property. 6. The stormwater management area has been moved to be adjacent to the subdivision entrance. The proposed proffered conditions for rezoning address concerns of the Planning Commission which were discussed when the rezoning request was previously presented to them. • :' 1 Mr. Terry Harrington July 23,~' 1997 Page 2 ~~ If you need additional information or copies of plans, please let me know. Very truly yours, LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C. Michael S. Webb, P.E. Director of Engineering MSW:mgs Enclosures Copy to: Dr. Joe Blackstock • • • • • -J-`--- ~ s w o ~ ~ ~ I ~ U F ~ 8 ~sm~ o~ I I ~ ~~00y~ ~ ~ o ~ I ~ a' L st om say ~ ~ nr ~ i i N ~Y U o n ^5 O. il~~ti~ E. °i U In I,~ ~ O ~ ~ O S O ~ <]8W< F~ (/~ aa77 nUVZ~rn> ~ 6~fe I <ZOa~~ ~~i , o z ~ cvi~orca? ~~~g~ m~ m^V1~3Sj G ~7 Q i ~JFa3_~O'- ~~o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~o-z3 r~uir~=~ <wa~sc~ ° ,~~~qv ~~ ®.a~.a I I I 1 I I I _ I d `'1 ```_` 1 TS~11 \ .- -yam 1 ` ~--- ~ ~ ~ ~j~~~ 8 --'T ' '~\ ` 1~\\` `~\~\\\ `~` 96-~\`\ \ 5 ~ 1 I' l jp lj Jl Ij 1 F ~~~ ~ _ ' Id ` ~ 9 II ~ ~U'< ~' i \ .i ' ~, '1 \ \ \ 1 1 ~j j JI I~ I I I I I i t ~ ~~ i~ ` a -- ]~~a : , ~~ i ~~ - ~ I I ~ I~E I III I ; ~ I I ! J ~. ~ 1 /^ `~ _ 3i5+ I 3ig~ I 3a~A I 3y§~ I '~i§~ 3 =~ \ fe a i / .?~ -r 5 • • STAFF REPORT PART I PETITION: Joe R. Blackstock PREPARED BY: T. Harrington A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Case # 12-6/97 DATE PREPARED: May 26, 1997 B. DESCRIPTION 1. This is a petition of Joe R. Blackstock to rezone 35.69 acres from R-3C (Residential Multi-family Conditional) and I-1 (Industrial) to R-1 (Single Family Residential). Approximately four acres are industrially zoned, with the residual zoned residential. The purpose of the rezoning petition is to allow the petitioner to develop the property for up to twenty-nine (291 single family homes. Two new public streets are proposed as part of the development. 2. The property is located on the south side of Starkey Road near Merriman Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. The R-3 portions of this property were conditionally rezoned to this multi- family designation in 1987. At that time an apartment project was proposed for the site. Conditions proffered and accepted at that time require that the property be developed for apartments in accord with the proffered concept plan, and that a single access be provided to Starkey Road. Although the R-3 district allows the construction of single family homes, the conditions on this property prohibit such uses. 2. The I-1 portions of this property that front on Starkey Road have existed since at least the 1970's. This I-1 designation was placed as part of a general rezoning of the County and was retained in the 1992 general rezoning. 3. Section 30-41 of the zoning ordinance contains the permitted uses and development standards for single family residential development in R-1 zoning districts. With public water and sewer service, the minimum lot size allowed in the district is 7,200 square feet with a minimum of 60 feet of frontage. 4. A subdivision plat will need to be approved by Roanoke County prior to the ~~ sale of any'lots in the proposed subdivision. Road development and utility plans will need to be approved before the construction of these facilities, and erosion control and stormwater management plans will need to be approved before any grading is begun on the property. 5. VDOT will need to also approve all plans for the proposed public roads, including the proposed connection to Starkey. • • 2 • PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Topography -T 5 The 35 + acre site, which rises sharply above Starkey Road, is a significant land form that is highly visible in this portion of SW county. The property is characterized by several ridges and steep slopes. In the immediate area, views of the property are most prominent from the Starkey Road, Commonwealth Drive, Meadowlark Drive, and Merriman Road areas. 2. Vegetation The site is forested; completely covered with significant vegetation. The Virginia Department of Forestry has advised that merchantable timber is present on the site. 3. Existing Physical Development The only apparent development on the site is a private road constructed by Roanoke County to provide access to a water tank lot at the top of the property. Although two public water lines/ access easements converge at this tank site, no tank has been constructed on the property to date. 4. Access Access to the property is only from Starkey Road (Route 904). The 1994 traffic count for this section of Starkey between Merriman Road and Crescent Heights Blvd. is approximately 4,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Site visibility along this section of Starkey appears to be excellent. This section of Starkey Road is used heavily by industrial vehicles from the surrounding industries. 5. Surrounding Neighborhood/Zoning A mixture of land uses and zoning are in the surrounding neighborhood. Closest to the property are industrial and heavy commercial uses such as the Rockydale Quarry site, and the Lionberger Construction and McNeil Roofing properties. (I-1 and I-2). A +/- five acre vacant commercial site is west of and adjacent to the site along Starkey. Penn Forest school (C-1) and the industries along Merriman Road and in the SW Industrial Park (I-1) are in the immediate • 3 File No.: j- 5 area. Residential uses in the immediate area include the Branderwood Subdivision near the intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road, and homes within the Crescent Heights subdivision. (R-1) 6. Public Utilities Public water is available at the site. A 20" water line, within a public easement traverses the property. There are currently no public sewer lines at the site, but a sewer line is located in the general area. The closest sewer lines are located behind Lionberger Construction, near the SW Industrial Park and the Rockydale Quarry Site. Information pertaining to the adequacy of these lines, or plans for extension have not been provided the staff. 7. School Capacity Property is located within the Penn Forest Elementary attendance zone. The 1997 Roanoke County Public Schools Comprehensive Facility Studv indicated this school was 66 students over capacity, based upon a four year growth projection. The report recommends that 80-100 Penn Forest Students be transferred to the Clearbrook district upon the completion of the recommended improvements at Clearbrook. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Site Layout Twenty-nine single family lots are proposed ranging in size from one-half acre to approximately six acres. The lots are arranged along two proposed new cul-de-sacs that would be public streets within the VDOT system. Five of the lots also have frontage, and potential access to Starkey Road. A stormwater management lot is proposed for the lower SW corner of the site. Information on the resultant topography of these lots is not available. The two public roads will extend toward the higher elevations of the property, but will not extend to the ridgeline. The Department of Engineering and inspections has expressed a concern about the steepness of the proposed roads. Although no grading information has been provided significant grading will be needed to construct these roads. Staff expects, that because of the topography of the property, significant grading outside of the R/W's will be required. • 4 File No.: l 5 3. Traffic Generation and Access The twenty-nine lots proposed can be expected to generate approximately 290 vehicle trips per day. Based upon the 1994 Starkey Road traffic volumes, this would represent approximately a 7 percent increase in Starkey Road traffic volumes. If the property was developed under its existing R-3/I-1 zoning, significantly higher volumes could be expected. VDOT has advised that access to the site may require that the developer construct right and left-hand turn lanes on Starkey Road. In addition, any existing private right-of-way or access easements on the property must be abandoned, if they are located within the proposed public road right-of-ways. 4. Amenities No site amenities have been incorporated into the conceptual plan. The recently adopted green way plan encourages the provision of pedestrian walkway systems within and between proposed residential developments. 5. Utilities • Ten of the proposed lots will be encumbered by the existing public water line easement. Because of the size of the proposed lots, it appears that the easement location will not affect a building site on any lot. As a result of this development, portions of this easement may need to be relocated to ensure continual access to the tank site. Additional water and sewer easements will be necessary to provide these services to each lot. At this time, no information is available on the location of these easements, or how they might affect building on any lot. Any new water or sewer easement/line that is outside of the proposed road right-of-ways will necessitate the removal of additional vegetation. As stated above, water is available to the property, but sewer service is not available. 6. .Fire/Rescue Fire and Rescue has advised that the development of the property will not affect the provision of fire and rescue services to the area. • 5 File No.: .r 7. Ecoribmic Development Issues The Department of Economic Development has recommended that the I-1 portions of this site (" 4 acres) not be rezoned to residential. Their recommendation is based upon the limited supply of industrial land in the County, and the continual suitability of the frontage property for small light industrial users. 8. Drainage The proposed stormwater management area will be designed to address on site drainage issues in accord with County regulations. The Department of Engineering and Inspections has advised that downstream drainage systems may be inadequate to accommodate the runoff from this development. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. The 35+ acres-are designated Development in the current Comprehensive Plan. This designation advocates residential development but contains many policies and land use determinants that advocate clustering, preservation of environmental resources and appropriate densities based upon the natural capacity of the land to accommodate development without adverse environmental impacts. Development within these areas is encouraged when public utilities are available, and public facilities such as fire and rescue and school services are available in sufficient capacity to accommodate the service needs of the additional population. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 1. The proposed conceptual plan shows lot sizes that greatly exceed those required in R-1 zoning districts. Prior to subdivision approval, the developer will need to demonstrate the developability of the proposed lots based upon water and sewer capacity, and the resultant topography of the lots. In addition, road designs will need to be submitted that comply with VDOT standards for public roads. PART III This proposed development is located within a mixed use area characterized by a range of land uses from heavy industrial to residential. If developed as proposed, residents of the subdivision are likely to experience the noise, dust and traffic associated with these industrial uses. The future development of the • 6 File No.: T- 5 adjacent five acre commercial site has the potential to further impact these future residents. The Department of Economic Development's recommendation that the four-acre industrial site be excluded from this request, will preserve a small industrial site in Sw county. Conversely, the industrial development of this site will create the potential for industrial impacts for the future residents of this development. Staff is concerned about the lack of information regarding the proposed road grades, and the amount of grading that will be required on-site to accommodate the public roads and the creation of developable home sites. Necessary grading may result in significant loss of trees on the property, and the resultant viewshed impacts on the surrounding community. Similarly, information is needed on how public sewer service will be provided to the site. If sewer is not technically feasible, septic service may be necessitated with the further impact on the vegetation on the site. Also, information is needed on the adequacy of downstream drainage systems, and how such systems will be designed to accommodate this development. Finally, information from the developer on any type of proposed pedestrian system in the development would be helpful to ensure the project conforms to the adopted greenway plan. The staff recommends that the Commission review this request at your June meeting and continue the request to July to receive information on specific grading proposals, road grades, lot contours, water, sewer and stormwater designs. This information will assist the staff and Commission in more adequately evaluating this proposal for the intended use, vis-a vis its location in a mixed use area. 7 File No.: Bruce E. ti~elch ~ Anorney at Law • 302 Second Street S.W. Southwest Yrginia Savings Bank Building Suite 4A Roanoke, V'irginia' 24011 ~4~ 344-1902 • Fax (540)-345-8936 ~~ROANOKE INNING AND ZONING )r.• 018 Fax (s-:o~ 772-z1o8 •~~ :~r,~ For staff use only - date received:' receivcd ,,~/ applieatyon (eea ----~a 11.3 PClBZA a;c: _ I .y:f23• Fr placards is ued: `r' i30S da;e: /~ Wt Y' ^ `'1 . 1 1~. Case Number: / /y ` Y // Check type of application filed (check all that apply}: © REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: toe R. Blackstock Phone: 774-!!507 Address: 2405 Carolina Avenue, S . `.; . ~. Zip Code: 2 ~~U1L oanok Vircini ' Owner's name: same as above Phone: Address: Zip Code: Location of property: ' Va. Sec . Rte . Tax Map Number: 97.01-1-5 904 between Merriman Road and intersection of Starkey Road an Magisterial District: Cave Snrin~ Buck Mountain Road Community Planning Area: Cave Spring Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: R 3 ~ ; : _ 1 ' ~S, 69 acres Existing Land Use: +; ac ant and undeveloped sq.rt. ... .: ::I ~~:.:.~ roposed Zoning: Rl ...... .. ~ ~/ S[ar";" Use Cr:: j P .t ~ Pro osed Land Use: Single i anvil- to ; cep s i t~ residential j use ~ va~~ 1 .. f Coes the parcel meet the minimum lot area, viiCt`~, and frontage requir=_ments of the requested dis;,-;"? YES x NO IF N0, A V;~=.i~.~~CE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fcr ;=. __ r=_quest=d Use Type? YES %~ NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. 1-" rezoning request, are conditions being prof;_'a~ ':.rh t~~is r2~uest? YES NO ::.::r ::::..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: t :' i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::~::::: :~ :; a.~ ' S of tie Roanoke County Zoning Ordina,^ce ir, cr~a~ :o: ~, Variant.. ct ection(s) I is the application complete? Please check if enc'.csed. APPLICATION WILL T~tOT 6E ACCEPTED IF A.~tiY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMFLE T E. .. ws v ws '. v Consultation - 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan _.- x Application x `.^'~'~ Metes and Bounds description x Justification x ' Water and sewer application .. /hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the o+~ am acting with the know/edgy and consent of to owned Owner's Signature: ws v x Application fee Proffers, if applicabte~ x Adjoining propery owners ~ner's agent or contract purchaser and :s __ ~ 1 ~. Fv~ StaN Use On/y: Case IJumber ant Joe R. Blackstock ... - --~ ..r i he Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need ane justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the fol;o~::ing questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. lease explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as t:~~ curpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. ''-he project will be located with an area. of residenti a1 development designating up to three C3) units per acre. Summer~Place will provide t:aenty-nine (29) lots in an area of 35.69 acres. Consequently, Sum~«er ?lace rill be significantly less dense th.n the maximum allowable number o=:.nits per acre. Tti e R1 designation will allow the controlled and orderly development c= the rural setting. The property is presently zoned R3 but is undevelope~ and axes in the land use program. ase explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanek_ Ccur,ty prehensive Plan. project is a conventional resicential development of~single iamil~: ached housing on conventional Acts . There are Twenty-nine (29) ___.._~r_dua _ats ranging from 0.51 acre (Lot 1) to 6.0~ acres (Lot 23). The praject gill not 1mDaCt On an e:C1Sting lOCa_' street network Of an adj Oi ni ng ^ei ghbOrhOOd, f?aVl.ng dlreCt access t0 Starkey R02d. The project t~;ill ~otec I~.^_e inteorlty Of existing natural ,_:_enltie5 wlth lOw i?r:pact On =~vi ronmental resources . I Please describe the impact(s) of the request cn the pr,,pery itself, the adjoining properies, and the sur.-c::~cing aria, 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 =nto existing neighborhoods. Two r_e; roadways will be. constructed from Starkey Road intc the.. project. Presently Roanoke County maintains a water tank and lot on the top of the property. Construction of the new. roads within the project will allow easier access to the Coun.ty's site. The project 'v;ill require water and sewer hoo'_~cups to °a.ch lot. project would not significantly impact the existing schools, park/ eation and fire/rescue: ~-' ~.'~ I 1 i Z ~' 1 ~1 1 1 `1. e c,x ~; .•I '1~ :~ i .r: :y~``~ :rte ` ~ Y;~_~ \ \ ~\,' \:~ \ii. O .J 7 O \ U W N ~, 7 1 O O G W Y 6 ~= 1 T 1_ =_i t .:l .y ~1 ~_ .. = j.,, ~ ,`l` t i 1\ ~~\ I'1 1 1 II _ r p : ~_ I U ~'~ - i _ n i'f I ~,.~• zs.]J~+3 _ 1~ . ~ i ~.: ~_ ~.~ ~ , t 1.-_ ~ i~== j I _I ~! i Izr'> l i ~ ~. ~I I JI 'l.ZZ1 ' I ~5 ~I ~` ~:~ SI - _ ~~- Y~ ~ i t' ' ~ 9 < Y a I ~, . 7 ~ ~ ~ o ~ 7~ ~ ~ I -~ ~`. '~' '- ~ ' ~~ WI /~ 0 i ~ ` ~ ~~ z G6 O W 3 oaoSn°onaa~$gr ~ W ~a ..33u~u333~u3 ' < g ~~rO°r°~Sn 8$R$ Cw/ e$~~n An n n F..W 2= Z2 zx Zxzzv,zv,2 Zen WJ VW t = mu M1O~.V2- Y.~a xo KmUU, 12=iY 3 .r~6 Yx2 ~cr ~~. 'e ~a'e p WT d N ~~1 / ' ~~ r ° ~ ~ x :~ n J N x e ' z~' ~ •C h 7 ° i _ Y~ 8 4R °b~YP k L~~~°~ - y ° ff Y - ~~S^ ~ ~~ .. ~~$~Y~~ \' ° ~~ ~1 ! - - - ~~ Qn ~ ~S ~~~ ~ 3 : ,, ~, ~?_:; r ~. /~ ~' ^ R~#:- ad ° f= i• ~ vJ 1 _vo >/ ~ L F -:oe~ ?~ «_StaR iL - ~ W W` 33uuu J Z+,~~ cao ^~R WO ~P-. =V'm +. i.onn WU ",„.n ~n v< y om~wu O H ~iOS„ ti _ '^ i \. P{~ ;;., ~I i nl Y $ ~~; ~R :; R • '~... :~ s a = ~ a ox ~m~ N < # ~ 3 i o` `~ ~ ~ w = < - < ~/l y a ~ ~ ' n ~/ 1 ~7 v~ v: ~ < Y - ~ S a _ ~~ ~Va ;~,~„ > ~ ---+ a U ; ~ " o < s >" = ¢~~ ~~ U o off' -`~aR= o z ~ r ~ o ;, __ ._ U~..> i-aa i° rya u3" ~ u ~'}-~ ~', 3 :. (~... :,1 ~Y a _$oy tai 3 i = Y~ x = ec y ,_, < r. _ ^ z O d~yVl oi`~tu in ~ ~ V (, Cl1C ~~~=z>~=ate a Z ~ < ~ ~ ' - o _ }-; . . ? _ aJ ~7iO ~ -- y _-b`.d~ ~ < J •~~ 1 W >~~ \~ ~ S'o 1~r~$ ~$t ~'-~?V w~ .y~ \` S -~~ x ~~ X :~ ~N.,. OJa ~~ G =; tA.'.. .. ~~~ /~ . y ~ / ~~ '•1 z _ ~ i ~i~ ~i ~ ~~ ~ _ a~ r I e c°' o~ _° oaq~'. r c~y3 ~+lr`ea ! - S~ -~~o u~c~I i.w nt - e ] ~ ~~ aY e^ ~ -fis8ti,}~Y:J;§~jlrr=~a~R3 a-..i ~. _-~•~a`~a S.. -5:555 I, `,':z.,_~c~-i i~ ~~a~Ci;S'•=j.~r3s:.~a38iy~';:iT~~i .Z a55`$iiwRaic7f~~b~aO=j~A(2yCY~..;~ < I .-F o ~+ `~a~ii5Ts~3.~~~S~iSS~~; i;~~.;2F.. ., I °3°~ u~ .6. 9 ' ].iii 3 !?-:_~~ t. a :3a a:Y3tsi~~rp-x~,~3#8'~~S~.eY~R_~:^;; _ -99a; ~;. "„i.~g Y .cad.. -5-x"25 4v;~~i ~°' ~ ~i '.°i i ~~1Y ~-'8 ;aY 5Ci i;' ~ -~! ~e~iso~S;SS-aYa^i-..R;3aV?i-a;:53~ i a e,'~ K;~, Y _aj 3 2 ~ k .~a~-Y S_LC..: S_la: i::x__?C,si ~C:. '. u °88«:,"moo°~St8e8$$$$R~~===~ „ O m oo.~i $e$~P~$$p^P R1`O!nA, r, _nery Z^^~°. _____„„____„__„__~„„..„xxx== i 1 ~=tYi~~.~O,c ~' \ ~ ~~ c ... ~ 59 P~WvFOR£57'• PA &X `a~61 'x ., sr.~,4x..Y o R. ~ < ~/~~ : P ~ P i ' xr3c1 r a ` ~ to ~F, ..., '•` t~ 1 0 \ 3 A< ~~ •~• ~ j y ~ i } i ^. - - -_ + 4 • j 4 11~ O _ S 3 3 _~ .. L - r .. CT~ y~ CR ~, uC W < J~'. C X J 41 // ~~ ~a\Q ~ LRT . „ 13~ S ~ O ~ ,~O r v~ A ' ~P ~ ~ IofO ? ' r.y? ,. .rrr ufl~ i i! Q_1 I~I~I '. I 1) O = . ~ ~ •'O '• ' _4 u+ i r '~ ~ .. ~ - r+. _ _ •/ - .; . ." p , _ C" ~ ~ i _ ,~ ~ -r ~ ~.1~ \\~. ~ - . ~i/~ =- • - ~ , ., r c- rr r. .-~ __ _ _ ~ 1 ~ ` 1 ZIZ X~ 3D0Ii ~ _ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~\ ~ G ~ / -.- ~~s" . ,:, ' '' rv. ~ ~ ' nil •a -- _ _ai ^". .% ~': ~:.._~ - - >• DEPA°.T~T OF PLPNNIhG DOE R. BLACKSTOCK ' ,_ 97.01-1-5 p-I`~ 7AKIrrG ~ R-3 & I -1 to R-1 :; .,, •, /~ s AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 35.69-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED BETWEEN MERRIMAN ROAD AND THE INTERSECTION OF STARKEY ROAD AND BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD (TAX MAP N0. 97.01-1-5) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3 AND I-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1, WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF JOE R. BLACKSTOCK WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997, and, August 19, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 1997, and August 5, 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 zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 35.69 acres, as described herein, and located between Merriman Road and intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road, (Tax Map Number 97.01-1-5) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, and I-1, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Joe R. Blackstock. 1 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditins which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: (1) The subdivision shall have no more than 29 lots. (2) All lots shall be served by public water and sewer. (3) All lots shall have frontage on a state maintained road. (4) Only one street connection shall be made to Starkey Road. Driveway connections to Starkey road shall be prohibited. (5) A 20 foot pedestrian easement shall be created adjacent to Starkey Road. A six foot wide mulched walkway shall be constructed in the easement. (6) Type "D" screening, as described in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall be provided along the western boundary line where existing I-1 zoning is rezoned to R-1 zoning. (7) Grading of the site shall generally conform and be limited to that portrayed on the Preliminary Layout for "Summerplace", prepared by Lumsden Associates and dated June 16th, 1997. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at Corner #1, said Corner #1 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, property of Rodney W. McNeil and Norma M. McNeil as recorded in DB 1263, page 1311 and the southerly right-of-way line of Starkey Road (Virginia Secondary Route 904); thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said Starkey Road the following courses and distances: N. 60° 30' 52" E. 233.44 feet to Corner #2; thence N. 70° 40' 26" E. 191.71 feet to Corner #3; thence N. 75° 05' 04" E. 99.40 feet to Corner #4; thence N. 78° 00' 29" E. 350.00 feet to Corner #5; thence N. 80° 39' 47" E. 25.02 feet to Corner #6; said Corner ##6 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, property of Eugene B. Knighton, recorded in DB 1328, page 731 and the southerly right-of-way line of said Starkey Road; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and property of Eugene B. Knighton the following courses and distances, 236.21 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, whose radius is 212.50 feet, central angle is 63° 41' 15", whose tangent is 131.98 feet and chord bearing and distance is S. 20° 09' 51" W. 224.23 feet to Corner #7; thence S. 52° 00' 29" W. 20.54 feet to Corner #8; thence N. 78° 00' 29" E. 108.18 feet to Corner #9; thence N. 80° 39' 47" E. 211.54 feet to Corner #10; thence N. 71° 58' 27" E. 160.07 feet to 2 ~= S Corner ##11; thence N. 75° 30' 29" E. 67.70 feet to Corner #12; said corner #12 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of Eugene B. Knighton and property of G.H. Board as recorded in DB 1038, page 240; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres, said property of G.H. Board and Graceland Subdivision as recorded in PB 9, page 350, the following course and distance, S. 03° 25' 40" E. 1203.54 feet to Corner ##13, said Corner #13 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said Graceland Subdivision and property of T.R. Hackley and recorded in DB 291, page 214; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and property of T.R.Hackley, the following courses and distances, N. 88° 03' 12" W. 100.50 feet to Corner ##14; thence N. 68° 46' W. 264.00 feet to Corner #15; thence S. 85° 28' 11" W. 237.60 feet to Corner ##16; thence N. 72° O1' 49" W. 330.00 feet to Corner ##17, said Corner #17 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of T.R.Hackley and property of the County of Roanoke, as recorded in DB 1288, page 1003; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said property of County of Roanoke the following courses and distances: N. 48° 46' 49" W. 150.00 feet to Corner #18; thence S. 41° 13' 11" W. 150.00 feet to Corner #19; thence S. 48° 46' 49" E. 150.00 feet to Corner #20, said Corner #20 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of County of Roanoke and said T.R.Hackley; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said property of T.R.Hackley the following courses and distances: S. 41° 13' 11" W. 180.00 feet to Corner #21; thence S. 69° 58' 11" W. 313.50 feet to Corner #22; thence S. 80° 58' 11" W. 211.20 feet to Corner #23; thence N. 12° 13' 11" E. 211.20 feet to Corner #24, said Corner #24 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of T.R.Hackley and said property of Rodney W. McNeil and Norma M. McNeil; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said McNeil property the following courses and distances: N. 81° 58' 11" E. 52.14 feet to Corner #25; thence N. 15° 04' 13" E. 845.49 feet to Corner #26; thence N. 27° 55' 30" W. 158.62 feet to Corner #27; thence N. 17° 29' 56" E. 59.78 feet to Corner #1, the point of Beginning, containing a computed acreage of 35.69 acres. 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\BLACKSTO.REZ 3 u~1t~1Il~tttttttttttttttttlttttttttttttttttttttttttttillili11i1iiililiililtllllllllillllllllil1111111IIIIIlIIIII111111lIIIIiiIlil~,~J _ _ s ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~s ~ a AGENDA ITEM NO. ~" S = ._ c -' APPEAI~~CE REQUEST _ _ - -_ __ PUBLiC HEARING ORDINANCE ~ITIZENS COMMENTS ... e SUBJECT: __ s I would Tike the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the s meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GPVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS v FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY~ THE GUIDELINES LISTED o _ ,= BELOW: c ~_ _ c ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, c and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of~the Board to e do otherwise. - c ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. s e ~~ tea. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized c speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~ s ^ 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. e ~~ s r~ ~ ^ 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 i ~~ e~ ~ I~ ~~ r. = i. ~~ ~\ - ~1 ~~ = - ~ ^~ ~~ ~~ fillllllllllilllilllllllllllllllllllltllll ll111111111111111i111111111111111111l11111111111111111illlllllllili11111111111111111l~I~ (~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE 081997-16 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO JUNIOR L. CONNER TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CHURCH AT 7424 COVE HOLLOW ROAD (TAX MAP N0.82.00-1-7), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Junior L. Conner has filed a petition to replace an existing church located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road (Tax Map No. 82.00-1-7) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 22, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on August 19, 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 Junior L. Conner to replace an existing church located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road (Tax Map No. 82.00-1-7) 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. 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 carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~- Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the 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 it i~ NORTh K V r r ~ ~ ~ ~3 1 / • 9•J {` 17 ' 9.42 Ac T~~ 8 ' ' ~ _ 2.47Ac ~ ~ .4 T593 ~\ 122.00 a . 37. I I • _ ~~• / X DEPA.E:TMEN'I' OF PLANNZI~'G JUNIOR;Lo CONNER ` - _ SPECIAL USE PERP•1IT A~TD 7ANING ~ 82.00-1-~7 .~ .,, ~ ~ r\ , . ~ I 5 ~~ /F/0 72.00-I-I ~ ~ ^ 400 l ~" 4~' PETITIONER: JUNIOR L. CONNER CASE NUMBER: 27-8/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 5, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 19, 1997 A. REQUEST Junior L. Conner for a Special Use Permit to replace an existing church, located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to the Commission, Mr. Conner said that he has obtained a septic permit from the Health Department. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker commented that she is pleased that the existing church will remain. She moved to recommend approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Robinson, Thomason, Hooker, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map ~ _ St Report _ Other Terrance H rington ecretary Roanoke ounty anning Commission STAFF REPORT PART I • PETITIONER: Junior Conner FILE NO.: 27-8/97 Little Hope Primitive Baptist Church PREPARED BY: Terry Harrington A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DATE PREPARED: July 29, 1997 This is a request to construct a small church on a 1.75 acre parcel of land on Cove Hollow Road. The church will replace an existing facility on the property. The proposal conforms to the County's Comprehensive Plan, and should result in negligible land use impacts. B. DESCRIPTION This is a Special Use Permit petition of Junior Conner, representing Little Hope Primitive Baptist Church. The request is for a permit to allow the construction of a new church to replace the existing church located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road in the Catawba Magisterial District. The property, zoned AG-3, is approximately 1.75 acres in size. The new church will be located on the same lot as the existing church. The existing church building will remain, and will be used for fellowship/meeting activities. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Religious Assembly Facilities are allowed by Special Use Permit in AG-3 zoning districts. A site plan will be required prior to development. Site plan requirements will be minimal due to the small scale of the construction VDOT will require a commercial entrance permit for this use. • • PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ~-- lQ The property is relatively flat and is a combination of wooded areas and small clearings. Current development on the property includes a small one story (900sq.ft) single room structure used for worship, a small picnic shelter, and two privies. A small portion of the site has been graveled. This gravel area is used as a turnaround area for school buses, and for occasional parking for church members. Cove Hollow intersects with RT. 460/11 in Montgomery County. It is a dead end road, serving only the small rural residential community along the road. VDOT 1994 traffic counts indicate approximately 500 ADT on this road. There are no defined driveway entrances on the site. The church has twenty members that meet at the site monthly with members of other Primitive Baptist churches in the region. During services, attendees usually park on the grass near the existing church that is located close to the road. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by rural residential development. Homes in this area are generally adjacent to the road, with some located along private roads off of Cove Hollow Road. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A single story 1,800 sq. ft. building is proposed as a replacement to the existing church. The new building will be located near the center of the property behind the existing church. The new building will be served by well and septic, incorporate indoor plumbing, larger aisle areas, and a slightly larger worship area. The church is being designed to accommodate the needs of existing members/attendees, with some minimal room for membership growth. Traffic generation is not expected to increase as a result of this new construction. Depending on the seating capacity of the new church, the existing gravel parking area may need to be better defined and enhanced to meet current standards. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is located in a Rural Preserve land use area. Rural Preserve policies encourage the development of rural churches and clubs. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS No subdivision or resubdivision of land will be required for this project. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The proposal is a reasonable and appropriate use of the property. Staff recommends approval. ~~ 2 .7v 1 - ~ -~ A• n =c, Proposed Zoning: ;~~ - 3 ~ Foy Srar." usa c.~;:. Proposed Land Use: NF w C,uc~ 2r_L bu, ~~, ~ To Rt~l-~c_ 6~•_~". ^.~ usa Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, ~•~icth, and frontage requirements of the requested Cis::::? YES NO IF NO, A VA-1>-.~1CE 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 prc;'='== with this request? YES NO Is the application complete? Please checs< if e.^.c:csed. APPLICATION Y~/ILL (~tOT BE ACCEPTED IF r,\'Y OF THESE ITEiy1S ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLE"i E. • ars v ws v ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x i i " concept plan Application fee' ''.:`t$ Ntetes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Application ~•~~ Justification ~~t ,Water and sewer application Adjoining propery owners . . /hereby certify that l am either the o~~ne~ of the piope~ry or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of t::e owner. Owner's Signature: ;;:s:;::is;;:i€i .: ~ . ~ ~~~~~ R .. f .:.. `~~~~F - I r 3 -~~ ' m ~ d N °^' ~'° ~ ,14 J ' ~ ~w O J OI ~ ~'~ O ~ n ~ W _ `'~' z ~ ~ v_' . w w Z ~ '~ t? _ ~ a• z ao ~ o < ~ Y ~ <~ w~_ O H O V O J ~ O" 7 oz~ w'-~ d Q xm ~~O~Y00 z ,H wQ~ lY ao ~ a o . Sf g0. a ~'' a O •- ~ oo ~ S w~~ ~ U ~ O ~ •82'IOI ~ ~ a ~ 3 U 0 pw '-O'n M ' •OZ.90~ S ~ ~~., p o n N a .99'19( °w °' .= N t I JN O ~~ ~~ J a vwi I ..Z~` M .OL g= S a n. ~ ~ an '~tS' ~~ / ~ ~ - `~ Z W ! s[ , s: - ~ I .I b ^~ N h a' ti H K X77 O I ~ Z o `O ~ ati oa J N .il n ~ ~ o O- ~ zm X O Q r .tJ W h P i. O /~ h z ao z o~ ............... Z ......... . ........... aO z 00 C w V > O ~ O c T~ ( 3 ~' / ,G0/ ~ QC '~: ri n lY n y'"yam=\ ~d0 OL'8[Z 3 .6 t-~ 9£~ 'Jd '0££'l "8'0 91-t0-00'Z8 'ON Xyl N0113W •3 NOQ j0 ,t1M3dOad ~ ,~ N ~ ~ 3 t c ~•; w ~ O„ ~° _ z~ ~ z zJ0 CU C o ~ - J ~. ~n Or 7V ~ Q VW a7 f- _~ ry, ~ ia~ Cv w ` 3 \ °T _ ~ Q~ Inw ,~& Ov' r. .`z o a V o n ~ ~ ~ `~ m ~ a~ ~~ P c - r N -~'~ ~ ~ .s~G~ I.~ h Ci Z w ~ '3 ~vr a ~ o. K~ ~ ~.^ / Z1... w 3 vi w ~ h / o ,~ o ~ c vi ~n w O J ~ ~ .~ . l-~Zy 'Dd 'OL !'8'0 ~^ ~ ~ 1 ............... rlo /r. rj ........ @'0 ................. tLt '9d SZS;' 2 c ...... ~ .... i ~ Z .-.. wz /~ ! z .- ..... ~ - 1 _ :J C J Cam, ~ , ~~______~_____- -~~ _ G ~l ~- ~' w p •. i ~ ~ O Z Z~}- i ~ ?C ~ ~Z: it ?C II 4, gh. ? O~ i a C !I ~' J U <p ~^' ?C ( Z G .O ~~ li \\ ` C Y C ~ ~. C ~ C~ ~ G ~ ^ • p~ ' `~ "7ry y ! ~`` O~ Oi Q> Z ~ ~~ /h d N ~ ~~ 2 Z i ~ _n 4 O p ~` ° ~ ° ~ r J OI C7 ~ ~ W od ~ } ~ ~ c~i . ~,\ ~ Q ~ N ~ ~O z avwi ~ 3paN c W on `~ ~VZ a Z zm .....1\~ ~=tea O ~° UOW.N,~ h~ ~ ~ Y cV J o°wZ^ ~ - g r a m ~~oo y' Z~w J' rOiOVON _ . ~O d;~ . uv .~ 1 ~ \ .Ijll C ~,~ ;~ SPRING 1r~ nOCLO~' 1 /. a o \RESERWIR l ~ < ~ ~ A ... ) 1 ~1' / 1 / , ca,.. / ` // ~ , . .~~ _ CJ L y 3 C r~ ~ I '393 17 ' 9.42 Ac . T j ' ' ~ ? 4 7Gc - w" ,« -`~ ., _ }y - - c.,~r OP r ,..•. ~ ~ ~W? ~ ~` " ~ ( 1 ;lCert~ V ~ V)f}D o_ 4 ~~ nN '•'~ ~ III _ -/ Ai/ (V! ...... S ' ~~ 9 ~ "" _S\f`C~` .,soo l •, PRQPERTY \ `\ 122.00 i4 ~~j !~ OOAc 35 5i.59Ac(D) DEPAF?1ME~Ii 'I' OF PLANNING JUNIOR : L, CONNER - .~ T< SPECIAL USE PERP•1IT "• AND ZONING 82.00-T-7 .s ,,, ~~.~ .- 5 `~°\~ /P/O 72.00-I-I / I" - 400' ~ ~"~- G AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO JUNIOR L. CONKER TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CHURCH AT 7424 COVE HOLLOW ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 82.00-1-7), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Junior L. Conner has filed a petition to replace an existing church located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road (Tax Map No. 82.00-1- 7) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 22, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on August 19, 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 Junior L. Conner to replace an existing church located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road (Tax Map No. 82.00-1-7) 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. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) 1 C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\CONNER.WPD 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. 2 C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\CONNER.WPD u111111111111i11f1lilll!{illllllilll111llilllllllitlllS6111i111'11~lIIIIi11f11llllllilllllllli111111111111llllllilillllllllllllli~,(J ~. s ~~ = ~~ ~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~.~.- c .r . _. c APPE CE REQITEST _ ;_ e PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS CONIlVIENTS s ~~ ~ _~ v 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. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY~ THE GUIDELINES LISTED c BELOW: ® Each s Baker will be iven between three to five minutes to comment whethePspeakin~ 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. s Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. s s ~ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. c == ® Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _ .:. ® Speakers are requested to Leave any written statements and/or comments c vhth the clerk. _ v c ® INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP c SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK A UTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP c = ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. m- __ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ~ c ar. s _ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~~ ~~ mtlltllll1111111111iillillllllllllllillllllilllilillilllllllllllllllllilllllltllllll11111111111111111111111l111111111111tilllllli~l w ~ ROANp,,~~ a ~ ti' ~ z c~ ov .ate 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 August 20, 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. Allen M. Simpson 83 5 8 Cardington Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Mr. Simpson: The members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their sincere appreciation for your service on the Social Services Advisory Committee. Allow me to personally thank you for the time you served on this Board. Citizens responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. Roanoke County is fortunate indeed to have benefited from your unselfish contribution to our community. As a small token of appreciation, we enclose a Certificate of Appreciation for your service to Roanoke County. Sincerely, Bob L. Johnson, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Hollins Magisterial District BLJ/bjh Enclosure cc: Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services C~o~x~#~ a# ~.o~~x~~~E ® RecyGed Paper ~4~ w ~, =~-~ ~~ ~O~` Q z W~ Q V 2 Z N V O v W W V W OC O W W a z 0 a ., z w a a ~~ F~ ~~ ~~ p4 W~ ~~ ~ ~A ~ ~~ ~L W ~~ @~ ~~ ~a w~ ~a Oti r~1 <C, e~ O ~ ~ O o ,,~ m ~o a .c~ ~~ i 0~ AOANp~~ ~ ' ~ . 's~ z c~ ov ,ate rasa COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 C~~~tx~~~ o~ ~~~xxta~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 August 20, 1997 Mr. Guy Byrd 2324 Broadway Avenue Roanoke, VA 24014 Dear Mr. Byrd: (540) 772-2005 The members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their sincere appreciation for your service on the Industrial Development Authority. Allow me to personally thank you for the time you served on this Board. Citizens responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. Roanoke County is fortunate indeed to have benefited from your unselfish contribution to our community. As a small token of appreciation, we enclose a Certificate of Appreciation for your service to Roanoke County. Sincerely, Bob L. Johnson, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Hollins Magisterial District BLJ/bjh Enclosure cc: Tim Gubala, Secretary, IDA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN HOL11N5 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 ® Recycled paper 1 4~ ~~ ~' a ~, ~ F-~ 0~ ~~ ~~ Q Z W~ Q 0 4C Z V z N v 0 v W W V W 0 CG 0 W W a F E.i x oar ~~ Q ,¢ N F~ ~wH ~c wa~ ~~~ !~ ~ r-~ ~' A r°'` ~~o WF~ ~~ r r+'1 ?_ O 0 ~4 ~ ROANp,Y~ L ti 9 ~ ~ 2 ~ ; a~ 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 August 20, 1997 Mr. Ed Wold 3480 Alltree Trail Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mr. Wold: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Social Services Advisory Committee representing the Catawba Magisterial District. Your four year term will expire on August 1, 2001. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered rp for to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures cc: Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court ® Recycled paper 0~ ROANp~~ a ~' y z ,-~ J ; > ~~ rasa MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 August 20, 1997 Ms. Betty Lucas 3608 Parkwood Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear as: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Social Services Advisory Committee representing the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Your four year term will expire on August 1, 2001. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh - Enclosures cc: Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court ® Recyded Paper O~ POANp~~ a ~' ~ z c~ 2 ov _ .a, 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 August 20, 1997 The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell, Chairman House Finance Committee P. O. Box 459 Vinton, Va 24179 Dear Chairman Cranwell: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached are attested copies of Resolution 081997-11.b and Resolution 081997- 11.c to the General Assembly supporting tax exemption of property owned by Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. And Shenandoah Homes, Inc. These resolutions were adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, August 19, 1997. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, .~. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors MHA/bjh Attachment cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Ed Natt, Attorney for Shenandoah Homes Retirement, Inc. and Shenandoah Homes, Inc. (~~aix~t~ a~ ~ o~t~o~~e ® Recycled Paper O~ ROANp,1,~ ti ~ z G) z v a~ 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 August 20, 1997 Ms. Patricia W. Thompson 8160 Waterfall Drive .- Roanoke, VA 24019 ~~~ ~ ~ 3 ~' Dear Ms. Thompson: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Social Services Advisory Committee representing the Hollins Magisterial District. Your four year term will expire on August 1, 2001. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered rp for to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures cc: Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court ® Recyded Paper 0~ EtOANp,Y~ ~ 9 z c~ 2 ov a, 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 August 20, 1997 Mr. Neil A. Gallagher 5635 Village Way Roanoke, VA 24014 Dear Mr. Gallapher: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Industrial Development Authority to complete the unexpired four year term of Mr. Guy Byrd. This term began on September 26, 1995, and will expire on September 26, 1999. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, ~~ [,C.(.,c~.~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors MHA/bjh Enclosures cc: Timothy W. Gubala, IDA, Secretary Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court P.O. BOX 29800 ® Recyaad Faper 0~ ROANp,~~ ti z ~~ 2 OJ ~\ 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 August 22, 1997 Mr. Bruce W. Haynes Executive Secretary Commonwealth of Virginia Compensation Board P. 0. Box 710 Richmond, VA 23218-0710 Dear Mr. Haynes: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached is a copy of Action 081997-9.f approving an additional State Compensation Board funded position in the Commissioner of Revenue's Office and increasing the number of full-time positions. This action was approved by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, August 19, 1997. - If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors MHA/bjh Attachment cc: The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources P.O. BOX 29800 ® R Paper D[7TerrySteer-Classified Advertising 'Q 5401981-3415 n~iiHUg. Id, lyy~ osi 1319 7 The Roanoke Times Acct: 7722140Roan Name: Roanoke County Board of Equali NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ph: 772-2140 Class Rate: Dis Rate: p me Boars of supervisors of Roanoke County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, Att: Mary Allen, Clerk P.O. BOX 29800 ROaIlOke V 2401 $ CreditStatus: eplyRequest August 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Admin - istration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke County, Yirgin- ia, on the petition of Shenan - doah Homes Retirement Vil- Paytype BL Rate LE LeQals Rep: 31 lags, Inc. ("SHRY"> and the petition of Shenandoah Homes, Source FX Start 03114197 Class 10 Leryals Issues 1 Rate Iss ^ TFN 1 Stop Oi~~ 14r 97 Inc. ("SH") to adopt resoutions supporting their requests to the Virginia General Assembly to exempt from taxation certain property owned by "SHRY" and "SH" and situate m the County Words....... 210 price 84 80 of Roanoke. The current assessed value of the property owned by "SHRY" Lines........ De th....... p 53 4.61 Discount 0. GQ Free Da 0 y (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-5) in the County of Roanoke is 'x85,000. Real estate taxes, should the exemption not be Columns...... Graphic..... 0 0 Net ~,$~ St Tax O,QQ granted, would total x,350.50. Anticipated development of the Property owned by "SHRY" is estimated to increase the St Words. 0 FedTax 0.00 assessed value of the property t 03 R l ' 4 ^ l3oRedAd Total $4,80 . ea esta e to 11,5 1,2 taxes, should the exemption not be granted, would approxi - Copy Line NOTICE OF PUBLIC HE SortStrin~ Payment 0,00 App Cr. 0.00 $aWke 0.00 mate'130,415.00, depending The current assesseddvalue of the property owned by "SH" (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-34) in ^ ManualSort TearSheets 3,767 300 Real estate taxes, should the exemption not be ProductCode ^ Receipt PO # shenaizdoahho ^ Movable ^ OnHold ^ Iti11Ad granted, would total X42,570. Citizens are welcome to attend bed heard upon~ry~unityto Comments Reason for Discount resolutions. Paul M. Mahoney Roanoke County Attorney (619349) Editions DC, Adid: 619349 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless for a Special Use Permit to construct a communications tower, located at 6332 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: July 31, 1997 ~' ~ ~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, August 5, 1997 Tuesday, August 12, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Michael Pruden for CFW Wireless 401 Spring Lane, Suite 300 Waynesboro, VA 22980 (540) 942-8593 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, August 19, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Christopher Pollock for a Special Use Permit to operate a camp with daycare facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings, located on Yellow Mountain Road'/ mile off of Route 220 South (tax parcel 99.00-2-6.2), Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: July 31, 1997 ~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, August 5, 1997 Tuesday, August 12, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Christopher Pollock 413 High Street Salem, VA 24153 (540) 389-4331 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, August 19, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Ron Knuppel 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. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: July 31, 1997 ~. ~~J Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, August 5, 1997 Tuesday, August 12, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Ron Knuppel 5608 Penguin Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-8001 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 l~~ LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the pe'~~`rtion of Wolf Creek Inc. to amend conditions on a Planned Residential Development consisting of 39 acres, located at Mountain View Road and Wolf Run, Vinton 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 31, 1997 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, August 5, 1997 Tuesday, August 12, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Wolf Creek Inc. Steve Musselwhite, President 4346 Starkey Road SW Roanoke, VA 24014 (540) 989-4531 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, August 19, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Joe R. Blackstock 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. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: July 31, 1997 ~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, August 5, 1997 Tuesday, August 12, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Joe R. Blackstock 5148 Canter Dr Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 774-4507 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 I/ LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Junior L. Conner for a Special Use Permit to replace an existing church, located at 7424 Cove Hollow 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 31, 1997 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, August 5, 1997 Tuesday, August 12, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: Junior L. Conner 524 Doyle St. Salem, VA 24153 (540) 389-1024 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION T0: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 ,LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C. ENGINEL'RS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS V. KIRK LUMSDEN, L.S. B. LEE HENDERSON, JR., P.E., L.S. TIMOTIIY liOELZLE, L.S. MICHAEL S. WEBB, P.E. JAMES L. JENKINS, L.S. BUFORD T. LUMSDEN, L.S Mr. Terry Harrington Director of Planning & Zoning - County of Roanoke P.0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Terry: 4664 BRAMBLETON AVENUE, S.W. P. O. BOX 20669 ROANOKE, VIRGIMA 24018 PHONE (540) 774{411 FAX (540) 772-9445 July 3, 1997 4 ~~ ~ ~> Re: Ernest Clark Rezoning Comm: 97-94 On behalf of Ernest Clark, owner of Tax Parcels 37.05-1-1 and 37.05-1-2, I request that the petition of rezoning from R-1 Conditional to R-1 of property located on Woodhaven Road be delayed from consideration by the Board of Supervisors on July 22, 1997 to August 19, 1997. This delay is to allow preparation of Development Plans and to receive construction bids for the development. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~.s;.~,d~.~ Michael S. Webb, P.E. Director of Engineering MSW : mgs ~'~' _ Copy to : Mr . E ~ ` _ ( l Cc~~~.~.~..vti~.G~ Ceti- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ C "('~ ~ U~, .~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ .., J ~~ ~~ ~ ~-~ ~-~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke County, Virginia, on the petition of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. ("SHRV") and the petition of Shenandoah Homes, Inc. ("SH") to adopt resolutions supporting their requests to the Virginia General Assembly to exempt from taxation certain property owned by "SHRV" and "SH" and situate in the County of Roanoke. The current assessed value of the property owned by "SHRV" (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-5) in the County of Roanoke is $385,000. Real estate taxes, should the exemption not be granted, would total $4,350.50. Anticipated development of the property owned by "SHRV" is estimated to increase the assessed value of the property to $11,541,203. Real estate taxes, should the exemption not be granted, would approximate $130,415.00, depending on the actual assessed value. The current assessed value of the property owned by "SH" (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-34) in the County of Roanoke is $3,767,300. Real estate taxes, should the exemption not be granted, would total $42,570. Citizens are welcome to attend and will have the opportunity to be heard upon these resolutions. Paul M. Mahoney Roanoke County Attorney Please publish on August 14, 1997 Please send bill to: Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ~P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 '-~~-~~ ~ a : s~,oM C:\OFFICE\WP WIN\WPDOCSWGENDA\GENERAL\SE~NHOM.NOT To: "Susan Patterson-Bane" Copies to: adm01/ech Subject: Re: (~vd) Re: Wolf Creek Agenda Item Date sent: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:11:44 No problem to continue to September 23 but it would have to be continued AT the meeting since it's already been advertised in the newspaper. Mary alien -- 1 -- Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:11:45 From: "Susan Patterson-Bane" <ADMO1/SMP> To: adm01/ech, adm01/mha, adm01/tlh Date sent: Thu, 14 Aug 199715:18:40 + 0000 Subject: Wolf Creek Agenda Item Copies to: adm01/pmm This item on the agenda is to amend conditions on the PRD consisting of 39 acres on a petition by Wolf Creek, Inc. It references tax map no. 50.04-3-73 which originally contained 38.22 acres and, according to current tax records, now contains 11.05 acres. The changes to the proffers must be signed/agreed to by the property owners. I discussed this with Paul and Terry. Paul suggested that we either (a) get all the property owners to sign the amendments; or (b) have the amendments apply to only the property that Wolf Creek still owns. I talked to Terry this afternoon. He had left a message for Steve Musslewhite to call him so he could let him know what the problem is and ask how he might want to proceed. Terry said he would be out this afternoon at a 2 0' clock and 3 0' clock meeting. Either way it goes, there's a chance the information will not be ready for the agenda packet. Mary Allen suggested that we could fax the ordinance to the Board on Monday. Mary alien -- 1 -- Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:58:48 To: adm01/smp Copies to: adm01/tlh Subject: Wolf Creek Agenda Item Date sent: ~i, 15 Aug 1997 07:36:55 Elmer e-mailed me regarding the information for the ordinance not being ready for the above agenda item and the possibility of continuing the item. He said "Terry needs to make the call" about whether to continue the rezoning request or not. Mary alien -- 1 -- Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:36:56 From: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO1/ECH > To: "Mary alien" <ADMO1/NHIA> Date sent: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:59:40 + 0000 Subject: Re: (~vd) Re: Wolf Creek Agenda Item Terry needs to make the call. Mary alien -- 1 -- Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:34:10 AUG-~4-1997 1112 OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON NATT 1 S4a 774 x961 P.~1~13 fw y ~~ ~ ~ .-t rdut;~ h1~hl, ~E,. LA1Yr pPFICES t f a s ~STEfi~HOLibT, 4`la,\gLES H. OST ERhIOtJUi MICMA~,L G:, FERGV50N EDw~tiry ~, NATT MICHnE~ J. ArILROri G. STEVEN nGEE MA{fK D. KIDD KRiwTEri KONRAO JOM N51'QNL FF.RGU50N, NATT. a P(10PCSSIOrir,L 4c~RPOR~TIUN 191~j ELECTRIC RbAU, SIJI't'E I F`. O. Bc~k '?AGGB R,OA1~10KE. V1RC1'NIA 24018,0007 AHERC)N ~ ACEE ~ l ~~ TELEPMON{,; b40.774-I 197 SAX NO. 54 Q•7 74.0461 TELEFAX Cd~ER SHEET This transmittal consists TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of th~fB~~u~r~~ cover of Roanoke County rhea TELEFA~ NUMBER: 772-213 k'ROM: Edward A. Natt, Esq. OUR FILE NO,; PLEASE NOTIFY CTS IMMEDIATELY IF THIS TELEFAX IS NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY SY CALLING TIDE SENDER AT (540) 774-1197 SENDER: Lisa A. Feazell DATE SENT: August 4, 197 TIME SENT: The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and conf~.dential information-intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Tf the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy df this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify u$ by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address vxa the U.S. Postal Service. We will reimburse you fcrr postage, Thank you. • AUG-04-1997 11 13 05TERHOUDT FERGUSON NATT 1 540 774 ®961 P.Oc/13 LAVI/ OPPI~KJ OSTERHQUDT, FERGl1SC7N, NATT, AHERON £~ AGEE A PKOresstpNAl CoKVORAT1dN CH AfiLE~ u. p6TERHOUnr 1'31'J• ELEC.TRIL ROAD. StJ II't ( MICHAEL 5. PGkCU30N rCLEPHONi, t_owwRD A. NnTr P• U. 80% -00GQ 54p~77a-ItD7 MIC r,w~L J. AHERON ROANoKir, VIRGINIA - Fwx NO. U. 6TEVEN w4EE ~ G40.774-pg61 h1A i{{( O. KtDO 2401$+(1QQ7 KRI6TEN KONRwD JOHNSY'ONL August 4, 1997 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the $oard of Supervisors of Roanoke County A. 0. Sox 29804 Roanoke, VA 24018 , Gentlemen: Attached please find letters from Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village and Shenandoah .Homes, Znc., requesta.ng tax exemption pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia. It is my understanding that Mr, Mahoney is preparing the Notice of &ubl~,c Hearing and Resolutions for this matter. Should you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me, Very truly yours, ~;~'~~Ct,~~/ Edward A. Natt EAN/laf Enclosures cc: haul M. Mahoney, Esq. Reverend Otis Burgher pU~-04-1997 11 13 OSTERHODUT FERGUSON FJATT 1 540 774 0961 P.03/13 July 30, 1997 The Honorable Chairman And Members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County Roanoke, Virginia RE; Tax Exemption Shenandoah xomes, znc. Gent 1 eme~z This letter is written to advise of the above corporation's compliance with the provisions of Section 30-19.0 of the Code of virginia, 195fl, as amended, Legislative designation of associations. oraanizationss etc ,exempt from taxation; resolution. of local governing body re fired. - ,. Shenandoah Homes, Inc., is exempt from taxation pursuant to § 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. A copy of the determination letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "1". Shenandoah Homes, Inc., has never had, .and dose not expect, to request or receive an alcohaJ.ic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages on the property. Birector$ and officers of the Corporation are prohibited by the $y-laws from receiving any compensation from the Corporation for services as a member on the Board of Directors. Article 3, Section 3.10, of the 8y-i,~wa reads "no offacex or director of the Corporation shah. receive compensation for his services. ~vo part of the net earnings of the Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any individual. A significant portion of the services pxovided by the Corporation is not generated from donations, contributions or local, state ar federal grants. Shenandoah Homes, Inc.; wall provide aervicee for the common goad of the public throughout Roano}te County, Virginia. Tt will provide housing for the elderly in the form of assisted living facilities. 5300 Hawthorne Road, NW Roanoke, VA 24012 703-362-5412 AUG-@4-199? 11:14 05TERHOUDT FERGUSON NATT 1 54@ ??4 @961 P.@413 Shenandoah Homes, Inc., has not participated and does Wert intend to participate as an organization in carrying on propaganda or otherwise trying to influence legislation or intervene in any pQlita.cal campaign on behalf of any particular canda.date. Shenandoah Hermes, Inc., does not discriminate on admission or service to persons because of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin. Shenandoah Homes, Inc., has agreed to pay to the County of Roanoke a service charge in lieu of taxes in an amount equal to 20~ of the property taxes which would be assessed against the real and personal property of the Corporation. The pre8ent assessed value of the 5.04 acres identified as Tax Map 38.14-7.-34 is $3, 757, 300.00. None of the personal property has been assessed for personal property tax purposes. If you have any questions, we will be very happy to provide answers to them. EriClosur~ IRS 501(c)3 Letter cc: Edward A. Hatt, Esq. EAN/csb Sincerely, SHENANDOAH HOMES, INC. By + Y:\~iP50\L28A\SN.LET:laf07/30/97 AUG-04-1997 ~: _ 11 14 OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON NATT 1 54~ 774 0961 P.©Si13 ~iISIT "Z" . lntern~! ReYerttsa Service ~A'/w,l!ir~h~jj~ut~,~~~~'~~llj~l {1~}tl:'• ~~Y~U}~~'ii5:~lit r li..t, ~ li. wuly ••.L•. •.. ~~ ~ ~ »~~ ~ T: MS : l~U : R: 2-El~ld _.._. Gentlem4n: we have cons#,dered your Foderal ir-come tax underr tl~e of they 7nt ernal helvenue Code l.. Shenandoah llamas, Inc. 5008 ~Iildelyrand Aoad, N.W. Roanoke, Virgi~~ia 2~0~,;~ application far exemption franc provisions of secl~i+,n ~Ol (c) (3 } of 1954. the i.nfotmation submitted slows .that you were incor- porated on Novenibor 23,, 196q, as a corporat~.an, not or~ani~ed tar profit, in wlxich no capital stpck is rac~uir~od ar to ba issued, lJn~ler the statutes of V~,rgiM~,a, Your purposes, a~ sGt ~'or~:t~ in the Articles ot" Incorporation, are to prr~vi,de fbr older3.y or handicapped families and persons an a nonpro#'l.t t~asis rental, dousing and related facilities and serv3.ces and to cIo otl~ex~ things necessary and i.nci.dent thereto. It is also Stated that all Funds ~recei.v~d wii~, be directed baclc i,rtto t~ia lto«~sir~ !'m~r3,litiea to rocl~ce ttae ihiLl,a1 indoULo~ia~QSs a.nd ~:o inipraveliving condl,tions for .the residents. The •~rticlea of InCOrpora$iott a3so authorizes the corporation tc~ enter into a Regulatory A~reemetist with tl~e Secretary off` }lousing anA Urban 13ovOloZ~ntent to carry vul: C1~e provisions of Section 2Q2 of the ~roueing A~c~ of 1959 and any amenctmonts thereto. Upom execution, the Regulatory Agrear:~~nt shall be bindix~ upon the carporation~ its successors and assigns so ],one as any lean under Section 2C2 of the ~Iowsin,~ Act , of 1959: as anianded, ~.s outstalzcling and far such further period of time as may be agreed to by the corporation. 5oction 5t11(G)(~) of the Code provides 1`or the exemption of organisations that are porgani~ed and operated exclusively far religious, chari,table~ scientii'~,c, literary, or eduCationa~. pUrpOSeS• .. ~ AUG-04-1997 11 15 OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON NATT 1 540 774.0961 P.06~13 ~ ~ ~ Shan~.nrlonl~ Fiaq~a,a, lno. 2 - T~lo critc,riA ~:o Ue met by a k~ome i'or tl>t9 a~®d seek~.hg exemption, under tYkB provisions o#' section Q1 c Code are sob CUt in Fteve>ctue Ruling 61-72, Cumulativeof tx~e I3ul~.etin, '1962-.~., at page 183. .Chase may ba sUlnmarited as (Z~ `lita ~,C'(;u11~Y.61~.1i?11 .~~ iluti141dLuc! LU ;~st'L?lf,~i1~,11~,~, 111101 111 ~~U41. does provide, Care and hous~,ng to aged indivi,dual,s who wotiald Qtherwise be unabae to px'ovide for thetnselVos watl~lout hax'd, ships, (2) such serv~,ces era rend©red to all..or a reasonabl,o px~opartion off' its rosi,del~,t9 at a prico ~ut-stantia],ly below the actual, cost; the>"COf, to tits extent of the vrganizatiorl's financial ability, and minister to 1:hc needs and,t2zaerel,iefcot' ~drd3~ the type wlticl~ of aged' ~,ndividuals. iA ox distress rt is concluded, on the basil of the facts arld ev~,dence on file, that your proposed sct~.vities will not ~neet the opmratipnaZ part of the dual Last off' being operated exclusively far chara,tabie or for one or more of .the other exempt purpo,sQS specif~,ed 1n section S01(a)(3) of th® Code. The more provl,din,~ of z~ental chaxitablE within the scopo anduconternplationoofasectioni~0~ot tc)(3)• MoarQOVgr, it does not appear that you will be ro- viding care and serv,~ces of .the type which ntiinistor to the noeds and tYie x®lief of hardship or distress o#' p ed individuals. g 7n view of the f aregoing~ i,t is l~eid that you. are nAt ont~,~~,Qd tc oxonix~tlon ut-dar I:l~o pt~ovieions o~'_ yoaLiun ,~01 (o)t3) cf the Cede. Contributl,ons to your azgarl3xation arc not deductible under section 170 of the Code. However, bared upon the ev,ider~ce submitted in youz~ now ul,lr~,it;aLlort, ~C,L'}~1 1024, t!~~;ottter wit;~~ ;,~,~, L1x~ uLttur s~vldul~co on t',i,~o, at is hold .that you era ,exempt from Federal income 'tax 4ndor the provision9 0~' section SOl (c } (4) of the Code. Tlais r>rllinb is based on the undarstandxng that your o arat will conform to those proposed in P fans .. such operat~,ons are not your ruling application and profit, aarriad vn for the purpose of making a Any changes in yaux~ pra,posad operations #'rom those descr;bed, or in your characCer ox~ purposes, must be reported ieunediatoly to your D~.stri~t bisector for oor-siderat,ion of them' ®f,feot Upon your exempt status. You roust also ire art any change itl yo>ar hams or address. ~' AUG-04-1997 11 15 OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON NATT 1 540 7?4 0961 P.0?i13 .~ • . Sh$nand oall ttOAl85 , rric • r You era not rB.quirec~ ~ to f~.le Federal :Weems tax returns $o fang as you retain an exempt status. You are required, however, to fi~,e an informatxan return, Form g9o, annually, on pr before the 15th day 4f tih6 tif'th month after the close of your annual accounting period which ends June ~Oth. Yau are ~.iable t'or sa.aial security Laxes candor bYia ]federal Ynsut`ance Contributions Act and, if ybu em~alay four ar more individuals, ~"or the tax candor L-he FoderaZ Unemplvyme~-t Taz Act. Also, you are liable for withholding ~'etleraZ ~.ncomo taxes. Your niatrict Director sill be glad to answer any questi~,ons coricorning thas~r and other r©deral taxes. Any questions ovncerning excise, amplayment or other Federal taxes shouZa be submitted Co your District nirecf»or. every exempt or~a,nization is required to have an Employer Idontifa,oatxon Number, x'egardless of whether it has any employees. This nWmber should ba entered in the designatod space on ell b`ederax ~-eturns fixed and referred to on all carrsspondenca with the Ynternal Revenue Service, We 'a x'® advising your Aistriot Director of i:izis action. Very truXy yauxs, • , ~. ,~ 1, ~ ~• ~Chiaf, Rulings Section . Exempt Organiza~ians Bx`a~ch _ AUG-~4-1997 11 16 ;,..... VIRGINIA A9St=MBLY OF THE CHURCH OF GOD DIVISIONS: Chwcn Sendcc Evanflelk111 L:hrlatfart EduealWn ChUn~ PtflPertY FpundMiorl Qhun:h PrapeAy Mlnlsterl~ Follow-.hip SMw&tlehlp and rromotbn Q~.sint ~s CCMmm~lle Program Shenandoah komea, InC• Man of Vte Church al God iNornen of the Cnarch of Gad The Honorable Chairman And Members of the Soard of Supervisors of Roanoke County Roanoke, Virginia Re; Tax Exemption Shenandoah xomes Retirement Village, Inc. Gentlemen: 1 540 774 ©961 _ ,~ '~ P.©8113 This letter is written to advise of the above corporation s compliance with the provisions of Section 30-29.04 of the Code of Virginia, 7.950, as amended. Leaislativfr designation of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc., is e~cempt from taxation pursuant to ~501(c? of the Internal Revenue Code. A copy of the determination Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 'r1.". Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc., has never had, and does not expect to request or receive an alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages on the property. Directors and officers of the Corporation are prohibited by the By-laws from receiving any compensation-from the Corporation far services as a member on the Eoard of Directors. Article III; Section 3.1Q, of the By-law reads ''no director or officer of the Corporation shall receive compensation for his services." Reimbursement for travel or ~.odging shall follow the. rule of the Assembly Divisions and Organization. No part of the net earnings of the Corporation shall inure to the b®nefit of any individual:. A significant portion of the services provided by the Corporation is not generated from OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON haATT duly 30, 1997 AUG-04-1997 11 16 OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON MATT 1 540 774 0961 P.09i13 donations, contributions or local, statE or federal grants. Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc., will provide services far the common good of the .public throughout Roanoke County, Virginia. zt wild provide housing for the elderly in the form of independent, congregate and assisted living facilities. Shenandoah Domes Retirement Village, Inc., has not participated and does not intend to participate as an organization in carrying on propaganda or otherwise trying to influence legislation or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any particular candidate. . Shenandoah Homes Retirement village, Inc., does not discriminate on admission or service to -persons because of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin. Shenandoah xomes Retirement Village, Inc., has agreed to pay full real. estate taxes on that portion of its facility designated for use as independent laving and congregate care living. Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc., is requesting an exemption from real estate taxation on that part~.on of its facility to be used for assisted living facilities, including the galleria portion of its project. Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc., has agreed tv pay to the County of Roanoke a service charge in lieu of taxes in an amount equal to 20~ of the personal taxes. which would be assessed against the real and personal property of the Corporation on that portion of ite property which is tax exempt. The .present tax assessment on the property is ~385.OOO.o.o. If you have any questions, we will be very happy to provide answers to them. Sincerely, Enclosure IRS 501 (c) 3 Letter SHENAN170AH HQMES RETIREMENT 't?'ILLAGE, INC. av~~~~ Z;\WP50\LISA\HCMF.LTR:laf07/30/97 AUG-04-1997 11 17 OSTERHOULiT FERGUSON NATT 1 540 774 0961 P.10i13 rt8t #2er>*e~ue service EX~IIBIT +'1+' t)F:Gaartm~r3i tit [he ;'~::~St.ery ict director (August 31, 1983 ,s andoah Hotnas Ratizetaent Hawttturne Read, N.W. tyke, VA ?4012 f Applicant: Villegr~, Tnc. ~m~layer tdeM'ifirgt+at Number: 31 - 1030066 trseirrwl Revenue Cede ~+c:fon 501(e)i 4 ) Aaountinq f'>`rio~ EAdinlq: June 30 Rerwa to t„c~stac.: Taxpaper Sexvice D#~visian Contact Telapltone.Kuinbu: _~+ I-800-4Z4-1040 Based on information supplied, and'assuminq ycnr' operations will he as stated our application i'a; recogni.tion of exemption. ~xe ha•.e :..3termined you ate exempt Federal income tax under the provisions o~ rtes In:ern~til Revenue Ol~cie se>~tion 'seated above. Unless specifically excepted, you are liable for te.xea under the cederal relate Contrihution5 Act (social security t;~r_esi Por *a~_;t emp'ayee to whom pay $100 or mere during a calendar year. Acid, ur.:esc r~x^spted, you are also le for tax under the Federal Unemployment 'Tax Act fcr each amptoy~:e to whom pay X50 er more during a calendar quartet it, du:'ing t'~e current ur preced_ng actor .year, yeu had one or mare emglayees at any time in each of 20 calendar ,s or you paid wages az' ~1,."v00 or more in aay cal~ndar'que.rter, it' you have questions about excise, employment or other F'eder:>,t ta.~cas, ;lease address them his oFPioe. ' Yf yol~r purposes. :hlract.ar, or laethaci o~' ~,lact•;It;n;~ ci;:>.,t~e, p13;1•'•r~ le! la knew 'e can cons=der the affect of the chan•,e on ycnr :~xenlpt ~tar,l;~;. p!:,~•, yc:: should ~rtn us of all change.; in your name or add:aa:~ The olock checked at the tcp of this letter s'ttc.,~.r~ +I~he'.:er you au t t'i1+~ Fotta Return of :7rga.nization Exempt from Income Tax. Li the `ies GoX :s whacked. are only required to file Form 980 if you:- gross recei.r.s a~.:ch -e:::' era normally thizn X10,000. zi' a return is required, is r~u8t r,a i'i..=d b,• the '_~.i: ^:sy of fiftr laontt; after .he and of your annual zcr.:u~~f! :g p~:•:•~+i. T'•~'~ ' pl'cv"~z~ :~ pe.^..~1ty ni' Sic: ciay, up '.o A rrzximu:n.o:' ~ci.+',.,), 'vh:~~• •1 ;'E:.:, :;+.au t:: t3, ~ ~.:. t•.~ .`.: i'(`.l.l`'.G[Iati i.: CC111SB :•l)C' ! Ilr ~'t.7@~~~~l,y . ~'~i 1 ~:s a:C ~ L:l •.•~. ~. .^~i?f.'~ •C3"•. .• lc nit r~'!."?• ie:e. Sc. p.~,ea~e R1L:T~ SL2..F: V•.I... rdT .r•. c:.. ... _e .sr+?:'a ii 19 l*.• You ~1ce nog =_•equired to file Fades; inCnm~ cox :~atu:~:- uttie;3= ~: are suh~ect ..~e tax on unrelated business ircomQ under se~to~: 5.1 •• ~ '^~ In"~'-'Z1l Havgflue ' fC~~J) ~pkina otuzs. Baltimore. r+~~ 2't20t ; :it3r ~~(QQ) fB-791 AUG-04-1997 11 18 OSTERHQUDT FERGUSON NATT 1 540 774 ©961 P.11i13 . Its you erg subject to this tax, you must rile an inco~ge tax retatra on Form T. 1n this letter we are not detarm~.niag whether any`oC your present ar proposed ivities are unrelated trade or business as defined is Code section 513. You n$ed an employer iaeat3Pication number even ii' ycu have ao eraplogees. employer ideatiPication number was got .ntered on your application, a number be assigned to you end you will be adxrised of it. Plrase use that number on returY3s you Pile and in all correspondence with the Fnternal Revenue Service. 8ecausa this 1®ttar oanld help resolve any questions about your exempt status. should keep it iri your permanent regards. rP ycu have any questions, please coatact the person whose,aame and telephone r are shown in the heading of this letter. See caveat below. Siacere~lq yours, .. T dy R, Fern District Dzrector ~ effacti.ve~ date of this determination is February 27, 198Q, the date of pour orporation, a social weIlarc organization, contributioaa to ycu ar4 not deductible by donors. should advl,se your contributors to that effect. Le#tsr 94S(DO) (3-79) ,.AUG-04-199? 11 15 OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON NATT ~OPKINS~ Pl,AZ~ I?iO.REr HD 21.28.1 ' 'Eep•loyer Identiticatian Huebert OCT ~ 1 ]988 31-ia3aaab Contact Persont k gA2LEY AND4AH HOiit:S RETIREMEkT uILLAGt: Contact Telephone ti~reber t i3O1) 4bz-94x4 kA~iTHORKi: ROAD Hli OKEr VA ZfO12 tier Latter Qatedt Aukust 31, 1983 Caveat Appliasl Yes ApplicanOt 1 540 7?4 0961 P.12/13 This aadifies our letter of the above date in which ye crated that you d 'be treated as an organization y~hich is not a private foundation until expiration of your advance ruling period, Based an the infoetatian you 5ubeittedr ~+e have deterained that you are a private foundation eithin the teanin9 of section S091a) ai the internal enue Code because yav arq an oryanizat.ivn at the type described in section ta)tl) and t70tbltl}(A)lvi)- Your exegpt status under Code seetian 8O3ic)i31 still in et'tect, GrantarS and rantributors •ay•rely on this detersinatian`until the ernal Revenue service publishes notice to the rontrar,y~ Howeverr it you e yout section SO9ta)tl? Status: a yrantar or rantributar eay not y ao thi: detere•ination it he ar She ua5 in part rpspanaible fDrt or was to ot~ the act or failure to art that resulted in your loss of Such status, acquired knawled9e that the internal Revenue 5ervi•re had given•natice that yould be re3bved fro# clzss-ifieatian as a section S49ta)tl) organiwa, n. It the heading of this letter indicates that a caveat applies- the ca~reat a4 ar on the enciasure is an integral part of this letter, ' 8ecau3e this letter could help resolve any~questionS shout your private ndation status, please keep it in you persanent records Zt you have any questions, p1QaS4 contact the person ~hCSe naae and ephot-e nueber atr shown above. Sincerely yours? ' 4istrict Oirartor Letter 145at6O1CGf AUG-04-1997 11 19 OSTERHOUDT FERGUSON NATT 1 540 774 0961 P.13i13 • _Z. DOr1H HnhES REtYRE11EHT VYILACF • • ror kax-years ending Rrt• or after Decesber 3i, 1982, you are required to 'or^ 490 only if your gross receipts are normally ^vre than t25r400~ Far ice in determining yhether your gross receipts are 'nasally' more than Idr eee.the' instructions tat Fare 994. Yt a return is required, it must ~~•' ~~ed by the iSth day of the fifth eonth after the end of your annual ting periad~ Th4 lir.l^poseS a penalty of 310 a dyyr up to a• maxi^ue of" , yhen a return is filed late,.unle55 there is reasonable caasa far _. Lttie~ 1054t0a/CC) . , TOTAL P.13 August 8, 1997 (11:28am) MA Re: Mike Murray -Belle Grove and Letter ECH sent to him and others about items on 8/19 agenda 1. Mike Murray called and wanted to know when this would be heard. Later, ECH said 3 p.m. 2. Mike calledland I told him 3 p.m. and he said he preferred 7 p.m. and wasn't it a public hearing. ECH said 3 p.m but get with Vickie. 3. Vicki said that this is agenda item for Belle Grove and they (Belle Grove) have been notified to be here at 3 p.m. It is one item with three parts. George Assaid is working board report. She does not have copy yet. I called engineering and asked for a copy of the Board Report title and recommendations. George was in meeting but they were supposed to send me info. There will progably be a public hearing on condemnation concering Mr. Murray at another meeting but not this one. 4. Mike is going to call us Tuesday after the Monday agenda meeting to find out when it will be on the agenda. ~ O~ FtOANp~~ ti p ~ _ O z ov a, 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 July 17, 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 Mr. Terry E. Parsell Belle Grove Development Corporation 1007 First Street, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Ms. Nyna S. Murray 7920 Shadwell Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Ms. Murray and Gentlemen: (540) 772-2005 Mr. Mike Murray 7950 Shadwell Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Since none of the three of you agreed to the terms in my letter dated June 25, 1997, I discussed your situation last week with the Board of Supervisors in executive session. The Board supported the plan that I had put forward to you. This letter is to advise you that at the August 19, 1997, meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the following items will be on the agenda for their consideration and action: 1. Hearing on Belle Grove Development Corporation's appeal of County requirements under the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (and Subdivision Ordinance). 2. Review of Bonding Committee's recommendation regarding Belle Grove Development Corporation's default under the Land Subdivider's Agreement dated June 5, 1995, and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement dated June 5, 1995. 3. Authorization to proceed with acquisition, as provided by law, of the necessary easement across Murray property to existing drainage easement along Shadwell Drive. In her letter to me dated July 4, 1997, Ms. Nyna Murray did not provide the name of her attorney, so I trust that she will share this information with counsel. Very truly yours, Ci~~ '`' Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ECH/meh cc - Mr. G. Lyn Hayth, III, Bank of Buchanan Mr. O. Arnold Covey, Director; Engineering and Inspections Department Ms. Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk; Board ~•visors C~~ixx~#g ~# ~~~xx~~~E P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 From: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO1/ECH > To: "Brenda Holton" < ADMO1/BJH > Date sent: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:53:19 + 0000 Subject: Re: Bell Grove It will be 3:00. Thanks. ~~6 ~57 j ~~lf ~~~ ~ 0~~~ ~P/,/'. /J,6~v ~ ~- R+JS ~ 4 7~n. ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ , /~ °`~i ~~ ~~,,~.,r ~ .-G~ .3 p~ wa,~S, ~.~.-- - Brenda Holton -- 1 -- Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:34:46 From: To: Subject: Date sent: Self < ADMO1/BJH > Elmer Hodge Bell Grove Tue, 5 Aug 199716:45:19 Mr. Hodge -Mike Murray called me today and asked when the three items about Belle Grove are scheduled on the agenda for August 19th. I found the letter you wrote him in our meeting file. Told him that I did not know at this time as we have not started work on that agenda. He wanted to know if it would be 3 p.m. or 7 p.m. Could I tell him that? He is going to call me back tomorrow. I expect it will be 3 p.m. but wanted to ask you before I told him. Thanks Brenda Holton -- 1 -- Tue, 5 Aug 1997 16:45:32 -~. r From: "Terry Harrington" < ADMO1/TLH > To: "Mary alien" < ADMO1/MHA > Date sent: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:33:11 +0000 Subject: Re: Aug. 19 agenda item Thanks Brenda.. Just wanted to make sure I was not responsible for any other worksession... T. From: "Mary alien" < ADMO 1 /MHA > To: "Terry Harrington" < ADMO 1 /TLH > Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:45:22 +0000 Subject: Re: Aug. 19 agenda item Terry, there is a note in the 8/19 meeting file to schedule a work session for an update on the sewage treatment plant. Brenda Holton for Mary Allen Mary alien -- 1 -- Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:02:13 From: "Terry Harrington" < ADMO1/TLH > To: "Mary allen" < ADMO1/MHA > Date sent: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:08:43 + 0000 Subject: Re: Aug. 19 agenda item I'll be asking the PC today if they would like to attend the 8/19 worksession on signs. The Board said no to a worksession on the noise ord. Did they schedule any other worksession for that day? Terry From: "Mary alien" < ADMO l /MHA > To: "Terry Harrington" < ADMO 1 /TLH > Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:02:47 +0000 Subject: Re: Aug. 19 agenda item Terry, Mary Allen is on vacation this week. I will keep your message for her to have when she returns and prepares the agenda for 8/19/97. I did the meeting on 7/22 and it was my understanding that LBE asked for the work session on outdoor advertising signs at a joint meeting with PC. ECH said they would have it at the 8/19/97 meeting. Brenda Holton for Mary Allen Mary alien -- 1 -- Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:46:06 From: Self < ADMO1/MHA > To: "Diane Hyatt" < ADMO1/DDH > Subject: Re: Aug 19 Board Meeting Date sent: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:01:33 Diane, Mary Allen is on vacation all this week. I will keep your message for her. Thanks Brenda Holton for Mary Allen Mary alien -- 1 -- Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:06:04 T From: "Diane Hyatt" <ADMO1/DDH> To: adm01/mha Date sent: Tue, 5 Aug 199711:59:07 + 0000 Subject: Aug 19 Board Meeting I will be on vacation next week and the following Monday. In preparation for the Aug 19 board meeting, I am providing Gary Robertson financial information to go with his worksession on the Sewage Treatment Plant. He should have everything you need for this session. Mary allen -- 1 -- Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:00:22 From: Self < ADMO1/NIIIA > To: "Terry Harrington" < ADMO1/TLH > Subject: Re: Aug. 19 agenda item Date sent: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:02:47 Terry, Mary Allen is on vacation this week. I will keep your message for her to have when she returns and prepares the agenda for 8/19/97. I did the meeting on 7/22 and it was my understanding that LBE asked for the work session on outdoor advertising signs at a joint meeting with PC. ECH said they would have it at the 8/19/97 meeting. Brenda Holton for Mary Allen /~ ~ ~~ w~ ~~ , ~~ ~~~__.__ Mary alien -- 1 -- Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:03:27 From: "Terry Harrington" < ADMO1/TLH > To: adm01/mha Date sent: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:54:20 + 0000 Subject: Aug. 19 agenda item I' 11 have a first reading item for the AUG 19 agenda.... Revisions to the Kennel provisions in the code and ZO to allow more dogs by right. I'm doing BR and Pauls office is assisting with ordinance. Also... Worksession on Billboards right? coming out of tomorrows meeting. Plus all the PC stuff Terry Mary alien -- 1 -- Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:58:18 ~'` August 6, 1997 (5:09pm) ` MA Janet Scheid called and requested that we place Wolfe Creek public hearing No. 1 at August 19, 1997 meeting. She asked if we could do this. Told her I thought it would be OK and would tell you to put No. 1 but could be changed in the agenda meeting. Printed by Brenda Holton / ADM01 7/14/97 5:09pm --------------------------------------- From: Brenda Holton / ADM01 To: Gary Robertson / GUP01 Subject: Agenda Meeting for 7/22/97 BOS meeting --------------------------------------- ===NOTE________________________________ Gary, Elmer said to tell you that the work session on sewage treatment plant will be held August 19, 1997. (I had it on the agenda for July 22.) He said to let you know. Page: 1 a O~ pOANp,~.~ ~ A z c~ J` ~a2 rasa ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR August 1, 1997 C~~~tx~#~ o~ ~o~x~o~~ Mr. Roger L. Marcum, President Commonwealth Search and Rescue P. O. Box 568 Daleville, Virginia 24083-0568 Dear Mr. Marcum: This is to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter asking. that Roanoke County donate to your organization the Metrocall pagers that we are replacing. As you are aware, we normally auction off surplus property but, by copy of this letter, I will ask that these pagers be put aside until the method of their disposal has been decided. A report regarding your request will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 19, and you will be advised promptly of the action taken by the Board. If they approve donation of the pagers, we will make them available to you forthwith. If you have any questions about this transaction, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator meh cc - Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator Ms. M. Elaine Carver, Director; Procurement Department Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk; Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2002 FAX (540) 772-2089 ® Recycled Paper a tv f BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Roger Marcum, President Ernie Warm Vice President Clrris Lairrg, Secretary Sarah F7le, Treasurer James Latchford Operations Officer Harold Chrimes, Trairritrg Officer Parliamentarian Wady Reed COMMITTEES: By-Laws / S.O.P. Bob Wing/lclQ Chairpwson Chris Laing James LUehjard Ltoneao Ltrd~jard Mike Moare Roger Marcum Fund Raisine Sarah File, Chairyerson Roger Marcum Handbook Lba Dyg Cha4perron Judy Burleson Theresa Denson Roger Marcum Historical lames Llrchford Cbalrperron Michelle Flsherpo,8" Roger Marcum Hue-A-Tree Mike Moore, Chairperson Thercra Dcruon Entie Ward Bob Wh~gheld Marketing /Public Relations Danlohnsorti Chairperson Mithelte F7sherpoff Roger Marcum Memberslilp Lira DyF Chairperson DonnaJohruon Dlck Rudolph Roger Marcum Nominating Lisa Dye, Chuiryerson Bob Winfield Wally Recd Training Hwold Chrbnet, Chairperson Bob Wing/ield Roger Marcum Commonwealth Search and Rescue P.O. Box 568 Daleville, VA 24083-0568 July 29, 1997 County of Roanoke Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., County Administrator 5204 Bernard Drive, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 i, Dear Mr. Hodge; Commonwealth Search and Rescue is the Former Botetourt Mounted Search and Rescue, Inc. that has been in existence since the late 1970's. When the unit was originally formed, it was done so with the idea of providing mounted searchers to help the local Sheriff find lost persons in Botetourt County only. Today, we are a diverse search and rescue group that provides horse teams, air scent dog teams and numerous ground teams to any location in Virginia and the surrounding states. We are all certified by the Department of Emergency Services in Riclunond at many different levels of search skills. Enclosed is an informational sheet that will explain our capabilities. I might add that we are the ONLY multi-disciplined unit in the state of Virginia, and CSAR is based in Roanoke. Our membership comes from as far away as Chesapeake, but the majority are from the Roanoke Valley, Martinsville and New River Valley area. We aze a member of the Virginia Search and Rescue Council that meets quarterly in Richmond. We are also incorporated and have 501(c)(3) non-profit tax st<ztus. Our monthly training and business meetings are held the third Wednesday of every month at the Hollins College St<lble Lounge. As a County employee (Solid Waste Coordinator), it is my underst<znding that there are several County owned pagers that have had service provided by Metrocall and are being exchanged for pagers from Bell Atlantic, as a cost s<zving measure for the County. These pagers will not work with any service other than Metrocall and are therefore headed for surplus. Commonwealth Search and Rescue is currently under contract with Metrocall to provide statewide paging service to dispatch our members to the scene of a search anywhere in the State. It would benefit our organization greatly if you would consider donating all of the surplused Metrocall pagers to our non-profit group. Colnlnouwealtll Search and Rescue has assisted Roanoke County authorities with several incidents within the County ~vl~ere persons were lost in the wilderness. It is our responsibility to respond when needed, where needed, to any part of the st<Zte, and especially in our own back yard. If more of our 35 members were afforded the opportunity to carry pagers, we could- reduce our response times and stay informed of a search progress by the codes that we have developed. Thank you in advance for your consideration and please feel free to cont<ZCt me, at 387-6072 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Roger L. Marcum, President Commonwealth Search and Rescue pc: William J. Rarid, III, Director General Services Enclosures (1) Emergency Unit Pager 1-540-201-0514 (;tl~i ~It)~T~1'I:t~~.'1'II ~1:1~1~t;II .~ l~l:S(;~Jl~ Formerly: Botetourt Mounted Search and Rescue, Inc. P.O. Box 568, Daleville, VA 24083-0568 CONTACT: D.E.S. - 1-800-468-8892 (Request the resources you need) CSAR PAGER - 1-540-201-0514 (Dispatcher will contact you) 1-800-767-3393 Pin # 0831(DispatcherwiIl contact you) PRESIDENT - 1-540-201-0899 (Roger L. Marcum -digital pager) DESCRIPTION: Commonwealth Search and Rescue (CSAR) is a state resource and meu~ber organization of the Virginia Search and Rescue Council, an advisory group to the Department of Emergency Services (DES), Richmond. The organization is 501(c)(3) and incorporated as a volunteer search and rescue group dedicated to providing assistance to lost or injwed persons in the out-of- doors, Members will respond to emergencies anywhere in the Commonwealth of Virginia where wilderness, mountainous or wban areas require specialized techniques and equipment. Each member supplies and carves their own provisions and gear. Depending on the location and time of alert, teams can be in route within two hows with horses or considerably less without horses. CSAR's members are covered by Sections 2.1-526.8 and 44-146.23 of the Code of Virginia protecting them from liability the same as a State employee, and also, Section 65.2-101 of the Code of Virginia affording them the opportunity to be covered under the State's Worker's Compensation in the event of an injury while responding to, or participating in, and authorized search. CAPABILITIES: BASE OF OPERATIONS: tJnon request, CSAR can provide trained Incident Command Staff to establish abase of operations and set up a strategy for the search. They operate from USGS Topographical maps and have the necessary maps to cover the surrounding areas of the Roanoke Valley - up to a 50-mile radius. It is stressed that they are here to ASSIST you, anti will only run the search at YOUR request! COMMUNICATIONS: CSAR is licensed by the FCC to operate up to 30 units on frequencies 155.16000 and 155.20500 under the call sign WNRW534. They currently have a base station capable of transmitting up to six pules, and posses several hand held portables for field use. Also, some of the members own their own mobile radios and can setup relays when necessary. CSAR has the ability to interface communications with other local agencies when needed. NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT: CSAR is the bats test unit for ITT Night Vision and has 6 night vision units that can be utilized at any search called upon. Use of the night vision units are restricted to night vision trained CSAR members for liability reasons. However, CSAR team members will work with local volunteers or trained searchers as necessary to insure the night vision units are used to their full potential. GROUND SEARCHERS: Members of CSAR have been trained in SAR operations, land navigation, orienteering, victim evacuation, technical (rope) rescue, wilderness survival, wilderness medical care, radio protocol, CPR and basic first aid and many of the members are EMT's. Some members carry their search gear with them at all times and can be in route immediately upon notification. AIR SCENT SEARCH DOGS: CSAR has dogs that are in various stages of training and can respond to local wilderness searches. The dogs do not require a scent article as they alert on any human scent. All handlers have the same training and qualifications as the above listed Ground Searchers. MOUNTED: CSAR's mounted teams are TRAINED searchers on horseback that will provide rapid mobility, increased scope of operation, and an elevated vantage point. All horses have been tested and certified by state standards to be "safe" and a qualified resource for search and rescue. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: CSAR works closely with D.E.S. and all other search groups in the state. At yow request, CSAR will contact additional trained resowces from elsewhere in Virginia to provide the assistance needed to locate the lost person as quickly as possible. OUR SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE!