HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/27/1994 - Adopted Board RecordsAT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
RESOLUTION 92794-1 OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF
TINA C. GREENE, SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene was first employed in January,
1975, as an Eligibility Worker with the Department of Social
Services; and
WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene has also served as a Senior
Eligibility Worker in the Department of Social Services; and
WHEREAS, Tina C. Greene, through her employment with
Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of
life for its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its
deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of
Roanoke County to TINA C. GREENE for over nineteen years of
capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County.
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best
wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
/ 41 v "vim^ " - -
Brenda J. HdIton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Resolutions of Appreciation File
D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
RESOLUTION 92794-2 OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF
WILLIAM E. POOLE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE
WHEREAS, William E. Poole was first employed in
December, 1979, as a Deputy Sheriff -Corrections Officer in the
Sheriff's Office; and
WHEREAS, William E. Poole has also served as a Deputy
Sheriff -Corrections Division Transportation in the Sheriff's
Office; and
WHEREAS, William E. Poole, through his employment with
Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of
life for its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its
deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of
Roanoke County to WILLIAM E. POOLE for over fourteen years of
capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County.
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best
wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Cu ,
Brenda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Resolutions of Appreciation File
D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
RESOLUTION 92794-3 OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF
GLORIA T. LOVELACE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE
WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace was first employed in April,
1984, as a Corrections Division Cook in the Sheriff's Office; and
WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace has also served as a Deputy
Sheriff -Corrections Officer in the Sheriff's Office; and
WHEREAS, Gloria T. Lovelace, through her employment with
Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of
life for its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby expresses its
deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of
Roanoke County to GLORIA T. LOVELACE for over ten years of capable,
loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County.
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best
wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Resolutions of Appreciation File
D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
RESOLUTION 92794-4 AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE
OF $10,100,000 SCHOOL BONDS
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Board and the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia ("County") have determined
that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue general
obligation bonds of the County in an amount not to exceed
$10,100,000 ("Bond") to finance certain capital improvements for
public school purposes ("Projects") and to sell the Bonds to the
Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA");
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. The County Administrator is authorized and directed
to submit an application to the VPSA in order to sell the Bonds to
the VPSA at the Spring 1995 bond sale.
2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens
NAYS: Supervisor Eddy
A COPY TESTE:
Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Dr. Deanna Gordon, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
ACTION NO. A-92794-5
ITEM NUMBER /
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Request from Walter Campbell for Funds to
Repair Melinda Lane
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: �J"
�J'4
/�,����e y;iQQ�i ire, � ���% _�„w,L•o
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached is a letter from Walter E. Campbell requesting that
Roanoke County make repairs to Melinda Lane.
Staff has visited the site on several occasions and discussed the
damage with Mr. Campbell. This is a one lane private lane serving
six families. It was initially paved approximately 14 years.
Since that time it was patched by the County in 1991 when damage
occurred from rear loader refuse trucks traveling on the lane.
Staff discontinued taking the rear loader on Melinda Lane in 1991.
Since that time, we have collected Mr. Campbell's refuse with a
pickup truck and took the refuse to the larger refuse vehicle on
another road. Other residents took their refuse to the rear
loader.
Staff has reviewed this request and does not feel that the County
should pay the entire portion because of the driveway has been used
for many years by the families living there. It has also not been
the practice of the County to pay for repairs of this type.
Otherwise, we would be repaving roads in subdivisions such as
Bridlewood.
Because of the circumstances involved, however, the County has
offered to pay one-third of the cost up to $1,000 toward repaving
of the driveway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board authorize payment of one-third of
the cost up to $1,000, with the funds appropriated from the
insurance reserves.
Submitted by
Robert Jern' an
Risk Manage
Appr ved by:
Elmer C. Hodqb
County Administrator
.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
VOTE
Approved (x)
Motion
by:
H. Odell Minnix
No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
motion
to
approve payment by
Eddy x_
Received ( )
County
of
75% and Campbell 25%
Johnson x
Referred ( )
of costs
for repair, not to
Kohinke x
To ( )
exceed
$3,400
Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Robert Jernigan, Risk Manager
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
V
Walter E. Campbell "
6188 Melinda Lane
Roanoke, Va. 24065
September 15, 1994
Mr. Gardner W. Smith, Director
Roanoke County General Services
1216 Kessler Mill Rd.
Salem, Va. 24153
Dear Mr. Smith,
BACKGROUND - After Roanoke County discontinued backyard service, garbage trucks
started picking up on Melinda Lane. After the service started in 1982, there was
deterioration of the road surface. At my request, the County had a contractor to come out
to spot -patch the road in 1985. I was told that they would be back to finish the repair but
they never came back.
COMPLAINT - Melinda Lane has deteriorated over the years partially due to the garbage
trucks and because the repair was never completed. There are six families living on this
road and it is our opinion that with my tax dollars supporting the County, that I should get
repairs to the road. To date, I have talked to ten or more employees of the County and
of the State with no help being received. I am a retired citizen on Social Security and I
am seeking the support of the County government to fix this road.
REQUEST - Request that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors take action to repair
Melinda Lane and bring it up to the standard to stop the deterioration. Estimates obtained
to repair the road have been turned over to Mr. Minnix. I am personally prepared to
appear before the Board on September 27, 1994.
Sincerely,
600
A�16
Walter E. Campbell
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-6 AMENDING AND REENACTING SEC. 21-16.
RETURNS OF ARTICLE II. TARES ON TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF CHAPTER 211 TAXATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF FILING RETURNS
FOR MOTOR VEHICLES.
WHEREAS, Sec. 21-16. Returns. of the Roanoke County Code
requires that a personal property return form be filed with the
Commissioner of the Revenue before February 1 of each year for
every motor vehicle, trailer or boat having a situs within the
county on January 1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, the 1994 session of the General Assembly of Virginia
has enacted a new § 58.1-3518.1 of the Code of Virginia to permit
the governing body of any locality to adopt by ordinance an
alternative method for the assessment and taxation of most motor
vehicles based upon a previous personal property tax return filed
by the owner or owners of such vehicle; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of such an alternative method of filing
returns for motor vehicles will both provide greater service to the
citizens of the County of Roanoke by eliminating thousands of
unnecessary personal property tax returns as well as free the
employees of the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue to focus
on more essential and productive matters.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance took place on
September 13, 1994; the second reading took place on September 27,
1994.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke as follows:
1. That Sec. 21-16. Returns. of Article II. Taxes on
Tangible Personal Property of Chapter 21, TAXATION, is hereby
amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 21-16. Returns.
(a) Returns for tangible personal property, (except tangible
personal property on motor vehicles, trailers and boats) tangible
personal property employed in a trade or business and machinery and
tools taxes shall be filed with the commissioner of the revenue on
or before February 1 of the year for which the tax is to be
assessed. Any person who shall fail to file such a return on or
before February 1 of the year for which the tax is to be assessed
shall, in addition to the tax to be paid, be assessed a penalty of
'? {b} Returns of tangible personal property on Meter
veh-rel s, trailers, boats and motors, and mobile homes with a situs
within the county on January 1 shall be filed with the commissioner
of the revenue on or before February 1 "`
tangible- persenal preperty en meter vehie-res, traijers andL..._t
„hieh-aeq�ee aSItUB- within -the -eeunty—ez
2
3
Fv*"
2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after October 1,
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Circuit Court
G. O. Clemens, Judge,
Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge
Roy B. Willett, Judge
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge
Richard C. Pattisall, Judge
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk
J Domestic Relations District Court
Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge
Philip Trompeter, Judge
John B. Ferguson, Judge
Joseph P. Bounds, Judge
Ruth P. Bates, Clerk
Intake Counsellor
General District Court
John L. Apostolou, Judge
George W. Harris, Judge
William Broadhurst, Judge
Vincent Lilley, Judge
Theresa A. Childress, Clerk
Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
R. Wayne Compton, Com of Revenue
Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry
Main Library
John H. Cease, Police Chief
0
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W.,
Rke 24016
Roanoke County Code Book
Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Asst Adm
Diane D. Hyatt, Dir, Finance
O. Arnold Covey, Dir, Eng & Insp
Terrance L. Harrington, Dir, Plan & Zon
Gary Robertson, Dir, Utility
Michael Lazzuri, Court Services
Don C. Myers, Asst Adm
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-7 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT
TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
EXTENDING ACROSS DARRELL SHELL MEMORIAL PARR OWNED BY THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) has requested an
easement for extension of underground lines across property owned
by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and leased by the School
Board of Roanoke County, located along Virginia Route No. 1723
(Commonwealth Drive) and known as the Darrell Shell Memorial Park;
and,
WHEREAS, APCO requires the easement in order to provide more
reliable service to the businesses and residences in the immediate
area; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed easement will serve the interests of the
public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare
of citizens of the County of Roanoke.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real
estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of
this ordinance was held on September 13, 1994; and a second reading
was held on September 27, 1994.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be
f conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made
available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power
Company for the provision of electrical service.
3. That donation of an easement, fifteen feet (1511) in
width, for an underground line(s) along the property lines of the
property known as Darrell Shell Memorial Park, as shown on APCO
Drawing No. R-3048, dated May 6, 1994, to Appalachian Power Company
is hereby authorized, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Appalachian's facilities shall be placed a minimum of
five feet (51) away from any County water line, facility, or
related improvements.
(b) Appalachian agrees to restore and repair any damage to
the County's property which may be caused by the construction,
operation, or maintenance of said easement, including but not
limited to restoration of the jogging/walking track to its
former condition, and replacement of stone and railroad ties
with material equal to or exceeding what is currently in
place.
(c) Appalachian agrees to accommodate use of the
walking/jogging track, to the extent possible, during any
phase of construction, reconstruction or maintenance of the
easement.
4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on
form approved by the County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the
date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
K
A COPY TESTE:
Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Ruth Wade, Clerk, Roanoke County School Board
Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
3
RT 6/3
�N
5L
h16
DARRELL
MEMORIAL
PENN FOREST
EL EMENTARY
Z
HCl.
v
�a
EXIST I NG
POLE
349 -1086
DATE ' REVISION
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANI
ROANOKE , VIRGINIA
Incl N A I^f/r,
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
ON PROPERTY OF
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY
9MAWM wv G.O. P oArt 5-6-94
AM .. J. B.A. III ScALs 1'- 200'
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VA- CAVE SPRING MAG. DIST.
suacT ri aMsrn
T. D. 665000 MAP 348C3,349AI
DRAWING Nth. R - 3045
GTO 49WF/6M12-69
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
RESOLUTION 92794-8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board
of Supervisors for September 27, 1994 designated as Item L -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes for August 23, 1994, and
September 12, 1994.
2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the
Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and
Grievance Panel.
3. Request for Acceptance of 0.12 Miles of College
View Court into the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System.
4. Resolution to the Virginia Department of Education
Requesting Certain Changes to the Regulations
Concerning Literary Loan Fund Applications.
5. Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant
from the Virginia Commission for the Arts.
6. Approval of Raffle Permit from Junior Miss Local
Organization, Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festival.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and
directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items
the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this
resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Consent
Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Q - Z��2�
Brenda J. Hol n, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Dr. Deanna Gordon, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
ACTION NO. A -92794-8.a
ITEM NUMBER L -a
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the
Building Code Board of Adjustments and
Appeals, and Grievance Panel.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following nominations were made by at the September 13, 1994
meeting.
1. Buildinq_Code Board of Adjustments and Aubeals
Supervisor Eddy nominated Richard Williams to another four-
year term. His term will expire October 21, 1998.
2. Grievance Panel
Supervisor Eddy nominated Henry H. Wise to another three-year
term, as an alternate member. His term will expire October 21,
1997.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that these appointments be confirmed by the Board
of Supervisors.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
Brenda J."Holton Elmer C. Hodge
Deputy Clerk to the Board County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Eddy x
Johnson x
Kohinke x
Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals File
Grievance Panel File
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING
ON THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1994, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING:
RESOLUTION 92794-8.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF COLLEGE VIEW
COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
ROAD SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form
SR -5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described
on the attached Additions Form SR -5(A) to the secondary system of
state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this
resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote
Moved By: H. Odell Minnix
Seconded By: Not Required
Yeas: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
Nays: None
A Copy Teste:
Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Virginia Department of Transportation
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Resolution 92794-8.b requesting acceptance of College View Court
into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary Road
System adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by a
unanimous recorded vote on Tuesday, September 27, 1994.
ZU4J,a--) 0. 4e -No,
Brenda J. H61ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
o.
43
7974
• 7973 7ez•
4^ 7966 _ 4
�• 7961 .7
7ej6 f
61 7998 5 '
/ yc;' 7913 6
r
7910 _
\ 40 7950 ..
r y
10
� 7e17
39 f .e 38 i
71, tEe7
\37
e 32
7784 '4084 �779J ie9° of 14
36 i 33 7879 !\�
7776 •: e.._. X78 ; ••. 31
7871 !!!
7706 , V
PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY
DESCRIPTION:
1) College View Court from end of cul-de-sac (south of Hollins
Court Rt. No. 2010 to end of cul-de-sac (north of Hollins
Court) .
LENGTH: (1)
RIGHT OF WAY: (1)
ROADWAY WIDTH: (1)
SURFACE WIDTH: (1)
SERVICE: (1)
0.12
MILES
50
FEET
30
FEET
26
FEET
4
HOMES
ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF COLLEGE VIEW COURT INTO THE
ENGINEERING & VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT SECONDARY SYSTEM
3
E
2
cc
v
5
N
JCC
Lm
n 9
a
< v
N
O
N
O
O
O
m
rn
g
Z
n
m
V
O
I
3
U Q
d �
m
a
a°
ai
cm
am
al
ao
am
ai
0
am
ai
tf
am
ai
a
a
a
a
ai
}y(
of
m
c
p
a
v
c
m
C_
H
O
a
N
C
<
b
h
F
di
Z'
N
h
O
O
�
❑
�
�
ym
O
c
C
11.
H
a
IL
V-
a
LL
H
a
IL
F
a
IL
F-
a
LL
F-
d
LL
�-
V
x
y
m
3
t
�
(39
C QZ
N
N
Z
5
L-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
RESOLUTION 92794-8.0 TO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REQUESTING CERTAIN
CHANGES TO THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING LITERARY
LOAN FUND APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the School Board for
Roanoke County have reviewed the capital needs of the citizens of
Roanoke County, and in particular, the educational needs of the
children of the county, and have adopted a Capital Improvements
Program to address these needs; and,
WHEREAS, the County has embarked upon an extensive program of
school capital improvements, including both renovation of existing
facilities, as well as new construction; and,
WHEREAS, the Department of Education is considering certain
changes with respect to the regulations governing literary loan
applications in order to provide increased funding to local school
divisions for school construction.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia:
1. That the Commonwealth of Virginia, through its elected
officers and appointed officials, must allocate greater funding to
the Literary Fund; and authorize an increase in annual expenditures
from this Fund for school construction purposes.
2. That proceeds from the Literary Fund must not be diverted
for purposes other than school construction.
3. That the regulations governing the Literary Fund be
amended to increase the amount available for a project from $2.5
Million to $5 Million.
4. That the regulations governing the Literary Fund be
amended to increase the total amount available to a local school
division be increased from its current limit of $20 Million.
5. That the regulations governing the Literary Fund be
amended to expedite the review, approval and disbursement of monies
to local school divisions and local governments, thereby reducing
the inordinate delays in the actual receipt of money from the
Literary Fund.
6. That the clerk to the Board of Supervisors is hereby
directed to mail a certified copy of this Resolution to the
Department of Education, members of the General Assembly
representing the Roanoke Valley, and the Clerk to the School Board
for Roanoke County.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Q/
Brenda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Kathryn S. Kitchen, Division Chief, VA Dept of Education
Ruth Wade, Clerk, Roanoke County School Board
Roanoke Valley Legislators
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Resolution 927924-8.c requesting certain changes to the regulations
concerning literary loan fund applications adopted by the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors by a unanimous recorded vote on
Tuesday, September 27, 1994.
&Lile� -
Br—x�—Lj�
enda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
ACTION NO. A -92794-8.d
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: September 27, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia
Commission for the Arts.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION• Roanoke County applied for a Local Government Challenge Grant
from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. The Commission will match up to $5,000, any donation
the County makes to qualified art organizations in the valley.
In the FY 1994-95 Budget, The Board of Supervisors approved an appropriation of $3,000 for the Arts
Council of the Blue Ridge, $8,500 for Mill Mountain Theatre and $7,500 for the Roanoke Symphony
Orchestra. Staff therefore, applied for the maximum grant allocation of $5,000. Roanoke County was
awarded $2,910 for FY 1994-95. This amount is less than the maximum due to the budget cuts
suffered by State agencies over the last several years.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff recommends dividing the $2,910 grant evenly between the Arts Council of
the Blue Ridge, Mill Mountain Theatre and the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra. Combined with the
County's appropriation, the following amounts would be available to the organizations referred to
above:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends acceptance of the Local Government Challenge
Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $2,910 to be distributed as indicated
above.
County
VCA
Organization
Appropriation
Grant
Total
Arts Council
$ 3,000
$ 970
$ 3,970
Mill Mountain Theatre
8,500
970
9,470
Roanoke Symphony
7,500
970
8,470
19 000
$ 2.910
21 910
STAFF RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends acceptance of the Local Government Challenge
Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $2,910 to be distributed as indicated
above.
ti
Respectfully submitted,
�). e�� 2'(�
W. Brent Robertson
Budget Manager
Approve,4 by,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved Motion by: H. Odell Minnix No Yes Abs
Denied () Eddy — x —
Received () Johnson — x —
Referred () Kohinke x
To () Minnix — — —
Nickens x
cc: File
W. Brent Robertson, Budget Manager.
ACTION NO.
A -92794-8.e
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: September 27, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Request for Approval of a Raffle Permit from the
Junior Miss Local Organization, Blue Ridge Junior
Miss Festival
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Junior Miss Local Organization, Blue Ridge Junior Miss
Festival, has requested a permit to hold a raffle in Roanoke
County on November 8, 1994, and has submitted an application.
This application has been reviewed with the Commissioner of Revenue
and he recommends that it be approved. The application is on file
in the Clerk's Office. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit be
approved.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
6b�& 9. ex
Brenda J. Holton Elmer C. Hodge
Deputy Clerk County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: H_ Odell Minnix No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred ( ) Kohinke x
To ( ) Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Bingo/Raffle Permit File
RAFFLE PERMIT APPLICATION 4_4
Application is hereby made for a raffle game permit. This
application is made subject to all County and State laws, rules,
ordinances, and regulations now in force, or that may be enacted
hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the undersigned
applicant and officers of the organization and which shall be
deemed a condition under which this permit is issued.
Raffle games are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. sea. of
the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 et.
sea. of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize the County
Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to
granting a raffle permit. The Board has sixty days from the filing
of an application to grant or deny the permit. The Board may deny,
suspend, or revoke the permit of any organization found not to be
in strict compliance with county and state law.
Name of Organization Junior 'hiss Locals- Blue Ridge Junior Miss Festiva.-
Mailing
estiva=
Mailing Address
Route 2, Box 192
City, State, zip Code
Vinton, Va. 24179
When was the organization founded?
Purpose and Type of organization Scholarship program - to provide high
school senior girls with scholarship for college
Has the organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two
continuous years? YES X NO
Is the organization non-profit? YES X NO
Is the organization exempt under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code? YES X NO
Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption Letter. (If applicable)
Does your organization understand that any organization found in
violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or Section 18.2-
340.10 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is
subj.ect to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder,
agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the
above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? yes
Does your organization understand that it must maintain and file
complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to Raffle
games and that such records are subject to audit by the
Commissioner of the Revenue? yes
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409
COADUSSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018
1
Officers of the Organization:
President: Kathy Wheeler - Chairman Phone: 890-3299 1
- {D
Address: Rt. 2. box 192, Vinton, Va, 24179
Vice President: Bootie Bhewning-Co-Chairman Phone: 342-4171
Address: 888 Colbourne Ave., Vinton, Va. 24179
Secretary: Vickie Daulton - Co -Chairman Phone: 389-1107
Address: 348 Pennsylvania Ave., Salem, Va. 24153
Treasurer: Linda Waybright - Co -Chairman Phone: 890-3569
Address: 318 Missimer Land, Vingon, Va. 24179
Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle operations:
Name: Kathy Wheeler
Home Address Rt. 2, Box 192, 9*0 Vinton, Va. 24179
Phone 890-3299 Bus Phone same
Member responsible for filing financial report required by the code
if your organization ceases to exist:
Name: Kathy Wheeler
Home Address Rt. 2, Box 192, Vinton, Va. 24179
Phone 890-3299 Bus Phone same
Does your organization understand that it will be required to
furnish a complete list of its membership upon the request of the
Commissioner of the Revenue? yes
Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit fee in
the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke? X
IF ALL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION.
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409
COMAUSSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018
3
Does your organization understand that it is a violation of law to
enter into a contract with any person or firm, association,
organization (other than another qualified organization pursuant to
§ 18.2-340.13 of the Code of Virginia), partnership, or corporation
of any classification whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing,
managing, or conducting Raffles ? yes
DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES:
Article Description Fair Market Value
7 night stay at Myrtle Beach $850.00-$900.00
accommadations for 4
Carribean Resort
DATE OF RAFFLE Drawing - November 81 1994
Raffle ttcketr, to be sald starting October 109 1994
If this application is for an ANNUAL RAFFLE PERMIT, list below all
dates raffles will be held.
Specificlocation where Raffle drawing is to be conducted?
William Byrd High School
NOTE: This permit shall be valid only for the above location.
Any organization holding a -permit to conduct bingo games or raffles
shall use twelve and one-half percent (12.5`k) of its gross receipts
from all bingo games or raffles for those lawful religious,
charitable, community or educational purposes for which the
organization is specifically chartered or organized. (County Code
§4-101) State specifically how the proceeds from Raffle(s) will be
used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds.
Use estimated amounts if necessary.
Raffle will be sold by candidates and members of the Junior Miss
Organization. All proceeds will go into the Scholarship fund for
the 1995 Junior Miss Locals - Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem,
Vinton, and Bedford County. The entire scholarship fund will be
divided evenly to the candidates of these locals ( each local will
be given the same aibount of scholarship money - projected disbursement
is $750.00 with the winner receiving $500 and each division winner
receiving $50. If more money is disbursed, then the division winners
will receive more money.)
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409
COIVEMSSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018
2
us"M A IM
THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS:
I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set L_
forth in §18.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above
statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and
beliefs. All questions have been answered. I further swear that
I have read and understand the attached copies of Sec. 18.2-340.1
et. sec. of the Code of Virginia and Section 4-86 et. sea. of the
Roanoke County Code.
Si ned by:
' Z d.
Na Title Home Address
Subscribed and sworn before me, this 21 day ofS,:,t,1994-_ in the
County/City of Bedford , Virginia.
J`\ My commission expires:
Notary Public
NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED
F- 3/ 192�0
The above application, having been found in due form, is approved
and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of
this calendar year.
Date Commis ioner�if the Revenue
The above application is n-ot approved.
Date Commissioner of the Revenue
M
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018
4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
RESOLUTION 92794-9 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to
an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions
of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia
requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in
conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to
the best of each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified
in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed
or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Resolution,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE•
Brenda J. Ho ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Executive Session File
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 271 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-10 AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 22-
82, et se . , "RATES AND FEES", et seg., OF CHAPTER 22
"WATER", ARTICLE II. "WATER SYSTEMS", DIVISION 2. "COUNTY
WATER SYSTEM", OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR
CHANGES IN THE UTILITY BILLING FEES, CHARGES, DEPOSITS,
AND PROCEDURES FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE IN THE COUNTY
OF ROANOKE.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
has determined that certain changes in the utility billing fees,
charges, deposits, and procedures for water and sewer service in
the County of Roanoke are necessary in order to accurately reflect
the cost of providing the services, particularly for disconnection
and reconnection fees; to require security deposits from seriously
delinquent customers in amounts that are equitable to all customers
and adequately protect the County's interest; and to clarify and
specify procedures for utility service billing and collection of
unpaid bills; and,
WHEREAS, the provisions of this ordinance are adopted pursuant
to the authority found in §§ 32.1-167, et sea., and Chapter 9,
Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).
WHEREAS, legal notice of these amendments has been published
in a newspaper of general circulation within Roanoke County on
September 13, 1994, and September 20, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
September 13, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing on
this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994.
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia:
1. That Division 2. County Water System of Article II. Water
Systems, Chapter 22 WATER, of the Roanoke County Code is hereby
amended and reenacted as follows:
a. Re -check reading of meter . . . . $10.00
(No charge if original reading was in error)
b. Investigation/verification of leakage in customer's
line . . . . $20.00
C. Meter accuracy test . . . . $25.00
(No charge if meter fails accuracy test)
e . Reset meter if pulled due to non-payment . . . .
$25.00
€q. Special request to discontinue or turn -on service
for other than non-payment . . . . $10.00
g-r—'Fewram=-estruetien mete . . $!99.04
water and se
ifeL
...............................................................................
2
as security
-er sewer
c2)
xr»::::::::::.::::::::::::.:::::::::::
.:......................................... .
If any utility customer at any time c``t failed
to keep his account current, resulting'"Iri`"c�rMash
discontinuance of service, that customer`s%a1""payan
additional deposit aeeerdincite the sam=e— fe=
3
..:..:`o
(4) The deposits
discontinuance
and
(Code 1971, § 20.1-27; Ord. No. 84-108, § 1, 6-26-84; Ord. No.
62486-147, §§ 1, 2, 6-24-86; Ord. No. 81286-169, § 1, 8-12-86; Ord.
No. 121686-259, § 1, 12-16-86; Ord. No. 101387-5, 10-13-87; Ord.
No. 62591-7, § 1, 6-25-91; Ord. No. 52593-9, § 1, 5-25-93)
Cross reference(s)--Schedule of charges for wastewater
disposal, § 18-168; adjust to utility charges for filling of
swimming pool, § 18-168(d).
Sec. 22-83. Inspection and reading of meters; bills; refunds.
The director shall cause
inspected and read at least once
to be
fiA,'}4't;:::•,.'S'w.LLQ:;;i�JS;i,.rw;G;:;:Ci:7F:GY.i.:;:yj1t4S:J3:i:;'i�Y:F::y;:yi:;vtl:s2i'�W1ft3L�Ci:7yit.Q;:yi'i;:•,:•,:;fiJ,.ii�,'a?, i1iG MiiGVYVi
sali'ave'te `authority"` to estimate'"usage `if"`"fie"`cI"et. ermines that a
meter reading cannot be obtained. '` L ` ' r Water bills shall
be paid at the utility `tiiti 'oice or atsuch other places
designated by the director•: ••••7�1I" deposits or advance payments for
water, refunds to depositors of advance payments, or other refunds
on account of errors shall be made at the utilitxoffice.
•:::f �•::>��h•::�;:;::;:.:;••.:::<.;::;:,.:;.r.:;:.::••.:;:;:.:.;,.... tom, :: •.. fxy
Bills shall be due and payable
(Code 1971, § 20.1-28)
Sec. 22-84. Calculation of charges --Generally.
All water passing through a meter shall be charged for,
whether or not used; provided, where leaks occur in water pipes or
metered services, and the owner, agent or tenant shall have
promptly made all necessary repairs, the director may rebate the
amount in excess of double the amount of the average monthly bill
for the premises. Such average monthly bills shall be determined by
averaging monthly bills for the preceding six (6) months.
(Code 1971, § 20.1-29)
Sec. 22-85. Same --When meter fails.
5
L
In the event a water meter fails to register properly for any
cause, and the consumer has received the usual or necessary supply
of water during the time of such failure of the meter to register,
the consumer shall be billed for such amount as is shown to be the
average monthly amount of water consumed on his premises for the
preceding six (6) months or a longer period, as determined by the
director.
(Code 1971, § 20.1-30)
Sec. 22-86.x. Unpaid bills.
EM —
(Code 1971, § 20.1-31)
0
s
Sec. 22-87. When water may be turned off.
The water shall be turned off when necessary for the
protection of the water system or when a recognized cross
connection is discovered and corrective action is not taken in
accordance with the director's instructions.
(Code 1971, § 20.1-32)
Sec. 22-88. Connector's responsibility when moving from premises.
(Code 1971, § 20.1-33)
2. That the provisions of this Ordinance shall be effective
on and from October 1, 1994.
On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
'6" . 16��
Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Circuit Court
G. O. Clemens, Judge,
Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge
Roy B. Willett, Judge
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge
Richard C. Pattisall, Judge
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk
Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court
7
Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge
Philip Trompeter, Judge
John B. Ferguson, Judge
Joseph P. Bounds, Judge
Ruth P. Bates, Clerk
Intake Counsellor
General District Court
John L. Apostolou, Judge
George W. Harris, Judge
William Broadhurst, Judge
Vincent Lilley, Judge
Theresa A. Childress, Clerk
Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry
Main Library
John H. Cease, Police Chief
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016
Roanoke County Code Book
Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Paul E. Grice, Assistant Director, Finance
O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Michael Lazzuri, Court Services
Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
8
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-11 AMENDING AND REENACTING
ORDINANCE 81490-6 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN
INCREASES IN FEES FOR SERVICES FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted
Ordinance 81490-6 imposing certain fees for parks and recreation
activities; and
WHEREAS, in July 13, 1993, the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission and the Board of Supervisors met in a work session to
discuss inequities and inconsistencies in this ordinance and to
discuss recommendations to improve the fee structure, including the
recovery of a greater portion of indirect costs, particularly in
the area of adult athletics; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 1994, both the Commission and the Board
concurred in certain staff recommendations to establish a new fee
policy and directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on
September 13, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing on
this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Director of the Roanoke County Department of
Parks and Recreation is hereby authorized to establish fees for
parks and recreation services, programs, and activities, subject to
1
the approval of the County Administrator, and subject to the
following standards:
a) Definitions:
Indirect costs include the general fund appropriation for
X
each of the cost centers associated with the . recreation
area based on the previous fiscal year budgetkrr___ ____
alleeatien ef the eentral administrative eests fer the Departme
ef Parles and Reereatien, and in the ease ef athleties, the share
the balifield maintenanee, whieh -'- --.-ded by the Parks Divislen
ef the Department-.
Direct costs relate to the specific costs of instructors,
I
b) Standards:
The standards, which were approved by the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission, are as follows:
...............
.... ......
......... ..
the
. ................
............. . ....
.................... .
K
arts,leisure
Per aetivities
ineluded
under
eem -nity
i
-1 edue _}----_
the fee shall
the indireet
199%
the direct
in the
eest,
pregrams- ef€eredby
plus
these
ef
-divisi
e—s
eest..
€er youth
any ef
under 3:8 -
8years—efage,
years ef age, there
shall
be ne
p-marily
$5 per pa tie-ipant—fee-
:; .»
•;;:;;:.;::........................................................................................................:.............................................................::
.::..........................................................
.................................................................................................................................................. .
..............................
youth athletic t':.'; Rin lieu eta $5 registratien
:E[s :.: ' .> i:
�— That the Director shall develop guidelines for the
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix
NAYS: Supervisor Eddy
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
8V'a"& Q xqe-�
Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Pete Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-12 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF A .409 ACRE TRACT OF REAL
ESTATE LOCATED AT 5449 FRANKLIN ROAD (TAB MAP
NO. 98.02-2-9) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AV,
CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
C2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF KINGERY BROS.
ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
August 23, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing were
held September 27, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as
required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real
estate containing .409 acre, as described herein, and located at
5449 Franklin Road, (Tax Map Number 98.02-2-9) in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning
classification of AV, Conditional, Village Center District, to the
zoning classification of C2, General Commercial District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Kingery
Bros. Associates.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron pin in the west line of
Route 220 at the northeast corner of the
property of John M. Davis; thence with the
west line of Route 220 and a curve to the left
whose arc distance is 88.01 feet and radius is
1,352.39 feet and chord bearing is N. 41 deg.
20' 41" W. 87.99 feet to an iron pin, the true
point of beginning; thence leaving Route 220
and with the division line between Tracts "A"
and "B" S. 44 deg. 16' 49" W. 161.89 feet
crossing a branch to a point in the east line
of the property of Inez Simmons; thence with
the said line N. 25 deg. 23' W. 136.27 feet to
a point at the division line between Tracts
"B" and "C"; thence with said line N. 44 deg.
16' 49" E. 115.83 feet to an iron pin in the
west line of Route 220; thence with said line
S. 45 deg. 43' 11" E. 68.53 feet to a point of
a curve to the right whose arc distance is
59.26 feet and radius is 1,352.39 feet and
chord bearing is S. 44 deg. 27' 52" E. 59.25
feet to the true point of beginning and
containing .409 acre and known as Tract "B" as
shown on a survey of the division of property
of Donald F. Taylor, by Jack G. Bess, C.L.S.,
dated June 21, 1985, a copy of which is
attached.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts
of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be,
and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is
directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in
zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix
NAYS: Supervisor Eddy
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
$
ALIC�I�IN r... 19Q41
ro► 6T9� /// l/�•ael m-- PC I
d' Ac ny �� �6 wr 74 5
V.
as c
b
� n � r Nsystac >
I•ao t� O . •oo M;n. EST HTS.
•�.. �ROANOKE , VICINITY MAP NORTH
0
` ¢
i, 0 y+Aot •` !\ 17 s.:�f
w .
by L:9As
705Ac 19.1 79 L2 �
s.ts s430Av sao
_-�
vo
24 25 .ssys>!s
0 2 92 C DI Lac
toOAe'°• . ae Ac
1 4 \ 4 •• r
6.53 Ac 2 \� J��r 3 LSOAc101 !A= : 22 • ••• • 28
Lt2AcC `r`• 9A= 34 _` 91 •Sft4
AL29Ac a ,.••
\vr3. •:4 '� \ g5 �. 79A~2 Py444 � � solo
01.02 Ac 01 �
/. cl
41r.. t
\ i. zr • 3T, w 40 t yelt • 6Mr* �afo
12 03459: 42.•
13 �• /� as�r
L29Ae °�"•q3••'• i�
• �i i •' • 48
sc►7 ` "9� 44 12.34Ae
14 L74 Ac 47 �e
��.It SA9A � 1.74Ac
i 9000
' 996.
v
d••s 45 49
31 \Yb ' j • + 2 38Ae �'°` 240As
s.s •106' \ ✓\� � �yo9 2
� �ylo� I.Soae
/ 3 qu
I.OSAs
AFN •�� 12 sy 4 Is
f •�!,�; ` ss°s31 1. AC as 10
Shy 9sy1 IAO/ie 5 off j '•.
42.64Ac t ssts 8 • • ;'`•�
N 52 ••.., as
O
f
s ?••Mr
O 69�
N 9 sMb 6 t
0531 �� ass i %
15 ""' a
96� ' �~ s - b9.3 .
3699 Ar 01 16
4579Ac(q \ 54 r ="'• eso
71 ' S
.r 692
I 67
y 55
$566
4IN
1 ' iSTr63
.11
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING �,ETlr'io.�.• k/A/4jFkj/ NFOS. ASSOCIATES
AND ZONING -M,e MAP :• � 98.0,?- .?- 9
• if1F2?UES7-: nZWE- F oM AVc fa CZ oR AV
n
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY#
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-13 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
A 10 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND DENT ROAD (PART OF TAB
MAP NO. 27.17-4-13) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R3, CONDITIONAL, TO THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C1 UPON THE APPLICATION OF
FRIENDSHIP MANOR APARTMENT VILLAGE CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
August 23, 1994, and the second reading and public hearing were
held September 27, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on September 6, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as
required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real
estate containing ten (10) acres, as described herein, and located
at the intersection of Airport Road and Dent Road, (Part of Tax Map
Number 27.17-4-13) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R3, Conditional, Medium
Density Multi -Family Residential District, to the zoning
classification of C1, Office District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of
Friendship Manor.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
From a highway monument on Airport Road
located as position #19 on a plat prepared by
Lumsden Associates for Friendship Manor
Apartment Village Corporation, 97.51 acres
dated 27 February 1979, and being the point of
beginning thence N. 15 deg. 00' 40" W. 180.63
feet; thence N. 14 deg. 57' 20" W. 57.98 feet;
thence N. 56 deg. 51' 00" E. approximately 975
feet to a drainage Swale; thence southerly
following the line of said drainage swale
approximately 800 feet to Dent Road and
intersection with position #14 on the above -
referenced plat; thence N. 45 deg. 08' 00" W.
232.70 feet; thence following curve "A" and
"B" to position #16; thence S. 69 deg. 57' 35"
W. 149.84 feet; thence N. 73 deg. 52' 30" W.
90.48 feet; thence N. 27 deg. 24' 00" W. 64.78
feet to position #19, the point of beginning,
and containing, subject to survey,
approximately 10 acres.
4. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following condition which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts:
i:: .?::{: {?:v::; ;: •v: •: v: •. i?x:4?}v+.i �i.:v: }: p• •.ih: ..::::0:4i: '.i:• .: .. :. .: •:: n:. :::: ••im:::i::inii:•:y:: •i::•::::: •}}}.;..: ...: ...i::: •:: •:?:yi.. •:' :.. :.
��.yy��..yy(� •: <?:::Nis':':'"''''y%> �i'::;rr,:•;+:r..:i
g:ka::?•{: kk:Li::,`'t};I,.::::.:�Y„�.�,.�,►,.7;7:;::�Wi�GZ:1:;:
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 with
proffered condition (1) added, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
(J
Brenda J. H61ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
�.
------------
"°canoe__. r �e std�g p+•!`O"...•� +��'` r�, `#
;J,•�,, ,rtctns �••-
\ I 'b,�l.)YQQDlAN05 �_ � � . ytr �.�
t - � ttr ��45� trw.va^..•...,.y� r SUNNY!
y ' ♦ s��ti1t°+a? I O
"' .* ���p�1,
at4999,
7775 .• '� Z I �Ew ' j
�% o t.��tf`. •tw � � dPiS y� IL
o
V
e.. ..vim �• / _, -con)
VICINITY MAP
♦ 0�0 ,, 000"
5-� f
NnRTH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNII'G Iter '/ONo-?: Fclsvn j1p MsWv,e .4,pr v1z.LAax-
AND ZONING 7AX MA P: # Z7.17.#-19 CP/o )
0
er-Ove: OEZ041F FeoM fc Cl
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-14 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION
LOCATED ON KIRK LANE OFF COTTON HILL ROAD (TAX
MAP NOS. 96.01-3-2 AND 2.1) CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company has filed a petition to
construct and operate an electric substation (utility services,
major) located on Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road (Tax Map Nos.
96.01-3-2 and 2.1) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter on September 6, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
held a first reading on this matter on August 23, 1994; the second
reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27,
1994.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use
permit to construct and operate an electric substation (utility
services, major) located on Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road (Tax Map
Nos. 96.01-3-2 and 2.1) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended.
2. That the Board hereby grants a Special Use Permit to
Appalachian Power Company to construct said electric substation on
01
Kirk Lane off Cotton Hill Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District subject to the following conditions:
(a) The disturbed area will be stabilized with grass and
natural vegetation --not riprap.
(b) The existing trees on the site will be retained as
much as possible.
(c) The substation will be designed sensitive to the
environment.
3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts
of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be,
and the same hereby are, repealed.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance with
Conditions (b) and (c) as suggested by Supervisor Eddy, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
&44_ZL (Q 9&hlrn"
Brenda J. Hd1ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
01
LEPARTHERr OF PLANK Special Use Permit Request:
AND ZON= - Appalachian Power Compare
-
'TX Xap -# 96.01=3-2, 2.1 Y '
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-15 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT TO NORTH VALLEY SEVENTH -DAY ADVENTIST
CHURCH TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING FOR RELIGIOUS
ASSEMBLY INCLUDING CLASSROOMS, OFFICE, AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LOCATED ON NORTHRIDGE
LANE APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTHWEST OF
PETERS CREEK ROAD (TAX PARCEL 37.14-1-1)
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Trustees of the North Valley Seventh -day
Adventist Church have filed a petition to allow the construction of
a building for religious assembly including classrooms, office, and
recreational facilities to be located on Northridge Lane
approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek Road in the
Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter on September 6, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
held a first reading on this matter on August 23, 1994; the second
reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27,
1994.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use
permit to allow the construction of a building for religious
assembly to be located on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet
northwest of Peters Creek Road in the Catawba Magisterial District
is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan
1
pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended.
2. That the Board hereby grants a Special Use Permit to the
Trustees of the North Valley Seventh -day Adventist Church to allow
the construction of a building for religious assembly to be located
on Northridge Lane approximately 700 feet northwest of Peters Creek
Road in the Catawba Magisterial District, subject to the following
conditions:
a) Vehicular access to the site will be located on
Northridge Lane. No vehicular access to the site
will be located off of Craun Lane for church
activities and other activities held at the church.
This would allow a parsonage only to access Craun
Lane.
On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
84" Q ki�
Brenda J. Hol on, eputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
K,
r o / nvn twat \- u• ' —
�6 16 to
ES 9 NNN q
-7.<, Art -A
MO / v'`£X/ 2%
ESrN, p NCa H U �e�
'COUNTI' 0.�' PO k 4% '�
CUii17lONAL i ib 1 °A �' %HRIfTY
ooc 1 F rn ��� P our�cstx 1Ni':.+ -I
16
e 9 %
23
L30Ae
GO
e � 4
13
` t,•
30 X11
4 A
J a
31
0A 4
4 �
32 J�>
29 i
Cdr �j3
i
33 o i
li 311 p'
�0! V •
•
"�
)MAS
'Its $
,►
31
•s!/ ' 4
= 13 i
37
19
ass
24
°d •
.'.9
Ml.n
4.33 AC
.4940
23
•!t!
I6 i2
1`tao.
OSt
• A40
ad
S AlA2a2
1
di.
IT
PaulEpn0pedca/
.�
•
21
LwAM•l. chama
41�£•
fyf •'A!1• Alla
r y�.""IF. W.I.
.. O fll
.
Af0!
�� �
20 o
•: <pf AaA� r i8
10 +
42 i
• i.. 4. Ig - . Awa
4935
•
'• t
�A •at Of.
43
•.••�
�A!
A �
• /
w.w • w
WOO
Ra
=
4746
•!•a •f3Z
Ao 43 �� •
10 44 '+
S
`Lhl
'%, s
�
Pro 3213.4.1
a
0
1•• 100'
• co
0
• 49 Ito
NORTH
2z
Atimr ea°r1a/ claacA
I f.I Ae
2 it
LooaeIol
asBAa{ta
AaA0
3
L&A4
s
A;30
I
6
P/O 3
1�
Y�Ma,
' DEPARTXEW OF-PLANNIh'G Special Use Permit Request:
AND ZONING North Valley Seventh -day Adventist Church
Tx Map # 37.14-1-1
•
J�
GO
' DEPARTXEW OF-PLANNIh'G Special Use Permit Request:
AND ZONING North Valley Seventh -day Adventist Church
Tx Map # 37.14-1-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-16 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT TO TACOMA, INC. TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE AND WESTMOR-
ELAND DRIVE (TAX PARCELS 77.13-4-14, 15, 16,
17), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Tacoma, Inc. has filed a petition to allow the
construction of a fast food restaurant located at the intersection
of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter on September 6, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
held a first reading on this matter on July 26, 1994; the second
reading and public hearing on this matter was held on September 27,
1994.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use
permit to allow the construction of a fast food restaurant located
at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland Drive in
the Cave Spring Magisterial District is substantially in accord
with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions
of § 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
2. That the Board hereby grants a Special Use Permit to
Tacoma, Inc. to allow the construction of a fast food restaurant
located at the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Westmoreland
1
Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, with the following
conditions:
1) Access to the property shall be limited to single
point of ingress and egress from Westmoreland Drive of a
width no greater than 30 feet. Direct access from
Brambleton Avenue shall be prohibited.
2) Approval of the special use permit shall be condi-
tioned upon the acquisition of the additional property
from VDOT shown on the concept plan submitted and dated
7/19/94.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson
A COPY TESTE:
&Y±7� �)6�
Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
2
�t/�• n% \:S'`a�,.aT ~1CAEST L / ttl ; •j [ •\?/-
-` s:, ARti[Av i o• *osr4wo [�cH s d
ry"f.(a.d••419 '6!7 der .`�y.��t�� r`���'fi,i:,�• -tw
u,t ^'.w c._ 2 rt;• 'Ll., r\ ♦ Yi'♦ ! (�/2.p() ►E9a.T
y
=r=, ; �/2Ft, tl?� • y�"r• \-• +'SSR
' R `�0 Trrr'Lp\ HQ lOr°rir ui� vi�[e� �`�� : � J•/ ` C'•r''='ta ��s' ''QLcF/�. r /�• `1atV[i�+/ [•'.? .. .
�+�,,,,,..-0_,.�r�A,a 4 �'e�i `i._ r,•-� Mi:°4T4LHq•� $� �''b ..: .: '': .
as (- �Y �a '•.CS' r ', x191 ' \ -^ •r0/ }• ..y �:. iw n� �.
yy 47, ty.u:-V�•i�• "''. `• 0 1i a�%S s1.~ L\:09 ['• •. ,\.
C,t4fLEROCIt fM4• fiA. < ,�•�/ Y ��•�"S`� u�(�a.\v %' :� ��,i \�a �; a�•vy i
.:- •-cavi Y ;$° r,•,�yµ�cron.� • t �~.rc � rte. i �•\a �(� Y ! t'be.,�l
?10TTI.. M c h, 'eoyi INCCIi+e�Pi ? ♦ �`° 1./ 4 �G. •�.�ay7E kf►X_aCf�icY'' /•'•.
Hi.TS. Cm I"-- MtNCq` s,�a, ,/• fi�� 4.�q, "0.: cr` ars [C �� 1`b,,�%�ii
r. l� O�'.G'✓� �� � �4r d��
\+ ' � \ •, / �to�n4'��/��/
r` ,/ t�•wTOf V�.L r� W`' I t���a ^ V�VON MILL
HIj� �SZ� VICINITY MAP d,9� .l,/ H�
„i,
3109 (Tl -01 (61-771
6
6.91 Ac
S. eek
(13
X101
3301
w
S 00 1
I6.SZAc 1 " O '
4"
r, qT 1O° J,�•
r so 58 ST 36 a 31
s!n + ,e r
MILLS / r 7 ` 4, .�61
rI Is 50
~
1+� 18 4;+, ay7 62 . r!/ a`t sr A. a'
y ! als 19,a � p o ArI
ap� 5 a q ` ar 64 t �—
77s
40jb
��
,,, ,
23
• ha / ��� , 372! ' . � � � ' � • 4*w
t �
•r[4 7704[
as 29 ; 4� 3343 401
023 / 3914g ` b J ' ♦ ; 0! 30
34 28 41 s
'' 3' 40 , •
d 3100 v -. ail! 36WR
f , , 21 say +, / • t
26 -34W 34fer
J�36 / 25 3407 / 3!
I 24
4o39 SS , .23 7a// i ` 7 3
40 / Ac 90) 22 3
1 AC(C) rr , 21 3_/ O `
7f9• 20/
Aj
LZ;Ac(038
h/ rs
4047 LIS At K) asMt s,
_ ♦' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNmr. Petitioner. Tacoma, Inc.
1 • AND ZONING Tax Map #: 77.13-4-14, -15, -16, -17
Request Special Use Permit for Fast Food Restaurant
`
3743
/
\
J!r•T
S2
/
x"pz"
• I .
•c
�e•
P
� an•
6
S
J,
SI
oRCBS
4'11-'p
RCI
Idwrt!/rinr!
Ceutry C.
2.40Ae (0
O 3. ?SAG lC
8
a �� 7 = 332 =
"tRA T
V
' /
\
eeA • ;
_ t
12 „ T` •
�
8 Ston
3rA1 1y
(ssi H 4;
�t u
lsal9
� / 1 s rn
!!?sd4
p/ 11 -
5 izz/
7 3 1 2
9
`
I /
I6.SZAc 1 " O '
4"
r, qT 1O° J,�•
r so 58 ST 36 a 31
s!n + ,e r
MILLS / r 7 ` 4, .�61
rI Is 50
~
1+� 18 4;+, ay7 62 . r!/ a`t sr A. a'
y ! als 19,a � p o ArI
ap� 5 a q ` ar 64 t �—
77s
40jb
��
,,, ,
23
• ha / ��� , 372! ' . � � � ' � • 4*w
t �
•r[4 7704[
as 29 ; 4� 3343 401
023 / 3914g ` b J ' ♦ ; 0! 30
34 28 41 s
'' 3' 40 , •
d 3100 v -. ail! 36WR
f , , 21 say +, / • t
26 -34W 34fer
J�36 / 25 3407 / 3!
I 24
4o39 SS , .23 7a// i ` 7 3
40 / Ac 90) 22 3
1 AC(C) rr , 21 3_/ O `
7f9• 20/
Aj
LZ;Ac(038
h/ rs
4047 LIS At K) asMt s,
_ ♦' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNmr. Petitioner. Tacoma, Inc.
1 • AND ZONING Tax Map #: 77.13-4-14, -15, -16, -17
Request Special Use Permit for Fast Food Restaurant
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-17 AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE A PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
August 23, 1994; the second reading and public hearing was held on
September 27, 1994.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the following amendments be made to the Zoning
Ordinance of Roanoke County.
ARTICLE III DISTRICT REGULATIONS
SEC. 30-57 PCD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Sec. 30-57-1 Purpose
(A) The intent of the Planned Commercial Development (PCD)
district is to promote the efficient use of commercial land by
allowing a range of land uses and densities and the flexible
application of development controls. This may be accomplished
while also protecting surrounding property, the natural
features and scenic beauty of the land.
E!
The Planned Commercial Development district is provided in
recognition that many commercial, office and residential
establishments seek to develop within unified areas, usually
under single ownership or control. Because these
concentrations of retail, service and office establishments
are generally stable and offer unified internal arrangement
and development, potentially detrimental design effects can be
recognized and addressed during the review of the development.
For these reasons, the provisions for the PCD allow greater
development latitude. Districts should be proposed and
planned for areas that provide for adequate development and
expansion space, controlled access points, landscaped parking
areas and public utilities. Development of the PCD will take
place in general accordance with an approved Master Plan,
which may allow for clustering of uses and densities in
various areas of the site.
Planned Commercial Development districts should be a visual
asset to the community. Buildings within the district are to
be architecturally similar in style and the relationship among
individual establishments should be harmonious. The site
should be well landscaped and parking and loading areas are to
be screened.
Sec. 30-57-2 Permitted Uses
2
(A) All of the residential, civic, office and commercial use types
listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the
PCD. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than
30% of the gross square footage of the other use types in the
PCD. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the
uses specifically included in the final Master Plan approved
pursuant to Section 30-57-6. Other permitted uses are listed
below:
1. Industrial Uses
Custom Manufacturing
Recycling Centers and Stations
Warehouse & Distribution
2. Miscellaneous Uses
Broadcasting Tower
Parking Facility
Section 30-57-3 Site Development Regulations
(A) Each Planned Commercial Development shall be subject to the
following site development standards.
1. Minimum district size: 5 acres of contiguous land.
2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front
3
on existing public streets external to the PCD shall be
located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public
right-of-way.
3. Lots in the PCD district shall comply with the buffer
yard requirements of Section 30-92-4 of this ordinance.
4. Lot coverage:
a. More than one principal structure may be placed on
a lot.
b. Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through
the preliminary development plan process but in no
case shall exceed 75%
5. Public streets in the PCD district shall be built in
accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In
reviewing the PCD preliminary master plan, the Commission
may recommend, and the Board may approve, one or more
private streets within the proposed district. Private
street standards, specifications and a proposed
maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the
preliminary Master Plan.
6. The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of
4
parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use
type, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with
consideration given to potential future uses of the site,
parking demand and expansion potential.
7. Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property
zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical
equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided
each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a
Residential district is increased two feet for each foot
in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured
from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet.
In all other locations the height is unlimited.
8. Utilities shall be placed underground.
9. Arrangement of areas:
a. The location and arrangement of structures,
parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs and
other uses and developments within the PCD, in
addition to achieving these development standards,
shall be accomplished in accordance with an
approved final Master Plan to assure compatibility
with the existing and future land use in the
vicinity.
0
b. Areas designed for future expansion or not intended
for immediate improvement or development shall be
specified as reserve areas on the preliminary
development plan. The future use and the
limitations on future use of such area shall be
specified, or else such areas shall not be included
as part of the PCD application. Reserve areas
included in the PCD shall be landscaped or
otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner.
Section 30-57-4 Site Development Recommendations
(A) The Planned Commercial Development district should be designed
and developed to be a visual asset to the community of Roanoke
County. Since the relationship of the development to the
community and the prospects for economic success of the
project have much to do with the physical character of the
development, these factors shall be considered in reviewing a
Planned Commercial District application. For this reason the
following site development recommendations are made.
(1) The principal entrance into the PCD district should be
sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of
this district. In addition, the first one -hundred linear
feet of street, leading through this principal entrance
into the PCD, should have a landscaped median of
0
sufficient width and planting density to meet the
purposes of this district.
(2) Parking within the PCD should be located to the side or
rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever
feasible. During review, consideration will be given to
topographical constraints, innovative site design,
buffering and landscaping factors.
Section 30-57-5 Relationship to Existing Development
Regulations
(A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the
PCD district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in
the approval of the final Master Plan.
Section 30-57-6 Application Process
(A) The timeframes outlined in this Section are the maximum
timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County
will make every reasonable effort to complete the application
process within a shorter timeframe.
(B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and
approval under these provisions, the applicant and county
staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section.
7
The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding
of the application requirements and process. The applicant is
encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of
the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the
proposal in advance of this meeting.
(C) Any application to rezone land to the PCD designation, shall
constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to
Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted
by the applicant as part of the application process shall
constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this
ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the
final Master Plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute
conditions pursuant to Section 30-15.
(D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a
rezoning application packet. This information shall be
accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall
constitute a preliminary Master Plan. All information
submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly
and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of
the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall
include:
1. A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries,
and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements.
8
2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel
proposed for the district.
3 . A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved
by the PCD district, including a description of the
character of the proposed development, the existing and
proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the
development is oriented, and objectives towards any
specific human -made and natural characteristics located
on the site.
4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions,
including information on topography, historic resources,
natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural
features, tree cover areas, known archeological
resources, etc.
5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures
within each land use of the proposed development.
6. The gross square footage for each use type proposed in
the PCD.
7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of
the tract, including landscaping and parking.
8. A traffic circulation plan, including the location of
access drives, parking and loading facilities, pedestrian
walks and the relationship to existing and proposed
external streets and traffic patterns. General
information on the trip generation, ownership,
maintenance and proposed construction standards for these
facilities should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis
may be required by the Administrator.
9. If a reduction to the number of parking spaces is
requested, a justification for this request shall be
submitted. Based on adequate justification, the
Commission may recommend, and the Board may approve such
a reduction.
10. Reserved.
11. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum,
the schedule should include an approximate commencement
date for construction and a proposed build -out period.
12. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design
principles and guidelines shall be submitted in
sufficient detail to provide information on building
designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage
plans, landscaping, etc.
10
13. Signage in the proposed PCD shall be in accordance with
this ordinance.
(E) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary
Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall
review this information and make a report of its findings to
the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its
review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of
the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall
be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the
Commission public hearing.
(F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the
Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the
materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an
extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall
recommend approval, approval with modifications, or
disapproval of the preliminary Master Plan. Failure of the
Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of
Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission
recommendation of approval.
(G) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master
Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if
requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the
11
applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary
Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall
be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for
review.
(H) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master
` act to approve e or
Plan and � �>'d��:>:�" ":L�<:�:.:.......................... PP
deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary
Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's
provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15
of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of
Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the
PCD. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the
Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official
zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PCD district.
Section 30-57-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan
(A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and
approved following the procedures and requirements of Section
30-57-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to
changes such as:
1. Any significant increase in the density of the
development;
12
2. Substantial change in circulation or access;
3. Substantial change in grading or utility provisions;
4. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses;
5. Substantial change in architectural or site design
features of the development;
6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major
divergence from the approved final Master Plan.
(B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered
minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a
written request of the owner, may approve such minor
amendments.
1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a
minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar
days, it shall be considered approved.
2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall
be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to
the approval process outlined above for such amendments.
Section 30-57-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site
13
Development Plans
(A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant
or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit
preliminary and final site development plans for approval.
Final site development plans for any phase or component of the
PCD that involves the construction of structures or
facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a
building and zoning permit, and the commencement of
construction. Standards for preliminary and final site
development plans are found in a document entitled Land
Development Procedures, available in the Roanoke County
Department of Engineering and Inspections.
(B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under
the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with
the review of a PCD under this section. The plans required
under this section shall be submitted in a form which will
satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as
determined by the Administrator.
(C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for
review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall
review and approve or disapprove any final site development
plan within 60 days of its submittal.
14
(D) No Planned Commercial Development district shall be approved
and no work shall be authorized on construction until all
property included in the final Master Plan is in common
ownership.
Section 30-57-9 Failure to Begin Development
(A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure
of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan
for at least one portion of the Planned Commercial Development
district within 24 months of the approval of the final Master
Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant
to rezone the PCD to the district designations in effect prior
to the approval of the final master plan.
Section 30-57-10 Control Following Approval of Final
Development Plans
(A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site
and review all building permits issued for the development to
ensure compliance with the submitted development schedule.
ARTICLE III DISTRICT REGULATIONS
SEC. 30-63 PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
15
Sec. 30-63-1 Purpose
(A) The Planned Industrial Development (PID) district is
established primarily for light and medium industrial uses.
Supporting accessory uses and facilities, such as office and
commercial establishments, are also permitted. The PID
district is intended to be designed with a park -like
atmosphere that complements surrounding land uses by means of
appropriate siting of buildings, controlled access points,
attractive and harmonious architecture, and effective
landscape buffering. The district is intended to provide
flexibility in design and site lay out, allow latitude in
combining different use types within a single development, and
provide the developer with incentives to create an
aesthetically pleasing and functional planned development.
In addition, the intent of the Planned Industrial Development
(PID) district is to provide certain industries that are clean
and environmentally efficient the opportunity to locate in an
area of like industries, in what is generally known as an
industrial park, developed under a complete, comprehensive
Master Plan. Standards are provided for landscaping,
buffering and open space to encourage high technology
industries and to ensure a park -like atmosphere. Important in
determining the location and size of a PID are the
accessibility of the location, the availability of public
16
utilities, public safety services and the suitability of the
topography for industrial purposes.
Sec. 30-63-2 Permitted Uses
(A) All of the residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial
and miscellaneous use types listed in Article II of this
ordinance are permitted in the PID district. Residential use
types shall be limited to no more than 15% of the total gross
square footage. No use shall be permitted except in
conformity with the uses specifically included in the Final
Master Plan approved pursuant to Section 30-63-6.
Sec. 30-63-3 Site Development Regulations
(A) Each planned industrial development shall be subject to the
following site development standards.
1. Minimum district size: 15 acres of contiguous land.
2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front
on existing public streets external to the PID shall be
located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public
right-of-way.
3. Lots in the PID district shall comply with the buffer
17
yard requirements of Section 30-92-4 of this ordinance.
4. Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be determined
through the preliminary master plan process but in no
case shall exceed 75%.
5. Streets in the PID district shall be public in accordance
with VDOT and Roanoke County standards.
6. The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of
parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use
type, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with
consideration given to potential future uses of the site,
parking demand and expansion potential.
7. Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property
zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical
equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided
each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a
Residential district is increased two feet for each foot
in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured
from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet.
In all other locations the height is unlimited.
8. Arrangement of areas:
18
a. The location and arrangement of structures,
parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs and
other uses and developments within the PID, in
addition to achieving these development standards,
shall be accomplished in accordance with an
approved final master plan to assure compatibility
with the existing and future land use in the
vicinity.
b. All areas designed for future expansion or not
intended for immediate improvement or development
shall be specified as reserve areas in the
preliminary master plan. The future use and the
limitations on future use of such area shall be
specified, or else such areas shall not be included
as part of the PID application. Reserve areas
included in the PID shall be landscaped or
otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner.
9. Accessory structures shall not exceed forty percent of
the gross floor area of the principal structure.
10. Every structure in the PID shall be a fully enclosed
building of permanent construction. Any outside storage
area shall be fully screened so that no materials so
stored are visible at any lot line or public right -of -
19
way.
11. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with Section 30-94 of
this ordinance.
12. Utilities: Utilities shall be underground unless the
type of service necessary for normal activities of the
industry or business shall prohibit underground
installation.
Sec. 30-63-4 Site Development Recommendations
(A) The Planned Industrial Development district should be designed
and developed as an industrial park with high standards for
landscaping, buffering and open space. To ensure a park -like
atmosphere the following site development recommendations are
made.
(1) The principal entrance into the PID district should be
sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of
this district. In addition, the first one -hundred linear
feet of street, leading through this principal entrance
into the PID, should have a landscaped median of
sufficient width and planting density to meet the
purposes of this district.
20
(2) Parking within the PID should be located to the side or
rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever
feasible. During review, consideration will be given to
topographical constraints, innovative site design,
buffering and landscaping factors.
(3) Loading areas should be screened from public view and
should not be placed in front yards.
(4) Fences should not be placed in front yards except as
necessary for security purposes. Fencing should be
uniform and well kept.
Sec. 30-63-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations
(A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the
PID district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in
the approval of the final master plan.
Sec. 30-63-6 Application Process
(A) The timeframes outlined in the Section are the maximum
timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County
will make every reasonable effort to complete the application
process within a shorter timeframe.
01
(B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and
approval under these provisions, the applicant and county
staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section.
The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding
of the application requirements and process. The applicant is
encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of
the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the
proposal in advance of this meeting.
(C) Any application to rezone land to the PID designation, shall
constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to
Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted
by the applicant as part of the application process shall
constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this
ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the
final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute
conditions pursuant to Section 30-15.
(D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a
rezoning application packet. This information shall be
accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall
constitute a preliminary master plan. All information
submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly
and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of
the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall
include:
22
1. A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries,
and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements.
2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel
proposed for the district.
3. A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved
by the PID district, including a description of the
character of the proposed development, the existing and
proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the
development is oriented, and objectives towards any
specific human -made and natural characteristics located
on the site.
4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions,
including information on topography, historic
resources,natural water courses, floodplains, unique
natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological
resources, etc.
5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures
within each land use of the proposed development.
6. The gross square footage for each use type proposed in
the PID.
23
7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of
the tract, including landscaping and parking.
8. A traffic circulation plan, including the location of
access drives, parking and loading facilities, pedestrian
walks and the relationship to existing and proposed
external streets and traffic patterns. General
information on trip generation, vehicle classification,
ownership, maintenance and proposed construction
standards for these facilities should be included. A
Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the
Administrator.
9. Reserved
10. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum,
the schedule should include an approximate commencement
date for construction and a proposed build -out period.
11. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design
principles and guidelines shall be submitted in
sufficient detail to provide information on building
designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage
plans, landscaping, etc.
(E) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary
24
Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall
review this information and make a report of its findings to
the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its
review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of
the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall
be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the
Commission public hearing.
(F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the
Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the
materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an
extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall
recommend approval, approval with modifications, or
disapproval of the preliminary master plan. Failure of the
Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of
Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission
recommendation of approval.
(G) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master
Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if
requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the
applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary
Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall
be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for
review.
25
(H) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master
Plan, n
and
► ; :f��� ... a ..�� .����z� act to approve or
........................
deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary
Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's
provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15
of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of
Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the
PID. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the
Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official
zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PID district.
Sec. 30-63-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan
(A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and
approved following the procedures and requirements of Section
30-63-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to
changes such as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Any significant increase in the density of the
development;
Substantial change in circulation or access;
Substantial change in grading or utility provisions;
Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses;
26
5. Substantial change in architectural or site design
features of the development;
6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major
divergence from the approved final master plan.
(B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered
minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a
written request of the owner, may approve such minor
amendments.
1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a
minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar
days, it shall be considered approved.
2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall
be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to
the approval process outlined above for such amendments.
Sec. 30-63-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site
Development Plans
(A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant
or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit
preliminary and final site development plans for approval.
Final site development plans for any phase or component of the
27
.
PID that
involves the construction of
structures
or
facilities,
shall be approved prior to the
issuance of a
building and zoning permit, and the commencement
of
construction. Standards for preliminary and final
site
development
plans are found in a document
entitled
Land
Development
Procedures, available in the
Department
of
Engineering
and Inspections.
(B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under
the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with
the review of a planned industrial development under this
section. The plans required under this section shall be
submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the
subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator.
(C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for
review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall
review and approve or disapprove any Final Site Development
Plan within 60 days of its submittal.
(D) No Planned Industrial Development shall be approved and no
work shall be authorized on construction until all property
included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership.
Sec. 30-63-9 Failure to Begin Development
28
(A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure
of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan
for at least one portion of the planned residential
development within 24 months of the approval of the final
Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of
applicant to rezone the PID to the district designations in
effect prior to the approval of the final Master Plan.
Sec. 30-63-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development
Plans
(A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site
and review all building permits issued for the development to
ensure that the development is in general compliance with the
submitted schedule.
2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after January 1, 1995.
On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance, and add
"after holding a public hearing" to Section 30-57-6 (H) and Section
30-63-6 (H), and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
- 112 Q. k��a�
Brenda J. A61ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
29
cc: File
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Circuit Court
G. O. Clemens, Judge,
Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge
Roy B. Willett, Judge
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge
Richard C. Pattisall, Judge
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk
Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court
Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge
Philip Trompeter, Judge
John B. Ferguson, Judge
Joseph P. Bounds, Judge
Ruth P. Bates, Clerk
Intake Counsellor
General District Court
John L. Apostolou, Judge
George W. Harris, Judge
William Broadhurst, Judge
Vincent Lilley, Judge
Theresa A. Childress, Clerk
Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry
John H. Cease, Police Chief
Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Michael Lazzuri, Court Services
Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Thomas C. Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue
Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Main Library
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, SW, Rke 20416
Roanoke County Code Book
r!
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF. SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
ORDINANCE 92794-18 VACATING THE FOLLOWING
PORTIONS OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED
ON CERTAIN LOTS IN SECTION 5 OF WATERFORD (PB
161 PAGE 21)
WHEREAS, Strauss Construction Company has requested the Board
of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate the following
portions of public utility easements located on certain lots in
Section 5 of Waterford in the Hollins Magisterial District as shown
in Plat Book 16, at page 21 of record in the Clerk's Office of the
Roanoke County Circuit Court; and,
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption
of an ordinance by the governing body; and,
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1-431
of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of
this ordinance was held on September 13, 1994; and the second
reading of this ordinance was held on September 27, 1994.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, that portions of the following public utility easements
located in Section 5, Waterford in the Hollins Magisterial District
of record in Plat Book 16, at page 21, in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby
are, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended:
(1) 150 -square feet of a public utility
easement located on Lot 1 (Tax Map No.
1
26.16-12-1) and shown on a plat prepared
by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated 17
August 1994, and
(2) 329 -square feet of a public utility
easement located on Lots 19 and 20 (Tax
Map Nos. 26.16-12-20 and 26.16-12-21) and
shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P. C., dated 17 August 1994,
and
(3) 149 -square feet of a public utility
easement located on Lot 21 (Tax Map No.
26.16-12-22), and shown on a plat
prepared by Lumsden Associates, P. C.,
dated 17 August 1994, and,
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts
of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be,
and the same hereby are, repealed.
3. That Strauss Contruction Company shall record a certified
copy of this ordinance, along with the attached three plats dated
17 August 1994, prepared by Lumsden and Associates, P. C., with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to
accomplish this transaction and in addition, shall be responsible
for all costs and expenses associated herewith.
4. That as a further condition to the adoption of this
ordinance, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
2
shall be indemnified of and held harmless from and against all
claims for damages to any improvements or structures within the old
easement area by it, its heirs, succesors, or assigns.
5. That pursuant to § 15.1-485 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended, the Circuit Court Clerk shall write in plain legible
letters across the part of the plat vacated, the word "vacated" and
also make a reference on the same to the volume and page in which
the instrument of vacation is recorded.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
&Lelt-e& I �j A -
Brenda J. H lton, Deputy Clerk
cc: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
3
o? o �II
�o
� P I
EX. 5' PRIVATE
�O` 0 W.L. k S.S.E.
P.B. 16, PG. 21
CHORD = N 41°21'00"W
43 64'
LOT 20
IS 47'00'00" W 54.06'
120.01' —
I
.I
ARC = 43.67' Z
2 II 4
ni
Va L
1.
PORTION OF EXISTING i
20' P&E, TO BE VACATED
EX. 20' P.U.E. I
P.B. 16, PG. 21 If 3 f 2
LEcan
P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
R/W RIGHT OF WAY
W.L. do S.S.E. WATERLINE k SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT I
P.B. PLAT BOOK
TAX #26.16-12-22
LOT 21
EX. 15' UTILITY
EASEMENT
Z SECTION No. 5
u� "WATERFORD"
U I P.B. 16, PG. 21
0
0
r*
EX. 1 STORY I
BRICK & FRAME a,
TOWNHOUSE `i
CARPORT
11
c i Ir
n
I LENGTH
TANGENT
z
BEARING
r4--6:30'1 E
C-2
20.46'
BLACK WALNUT COURT
30' PRIVATE R/W
LOT 22
EX. 5' PRIVATE
W.L. do S.S.E.
P.B. 16, PG. 21
—EX. PUBLIC
W.L. do S.S.E.
P.B. 16, PG. 21
NOTES:
I. THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY.
2. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT
TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH
AFFECT THIS PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON.
3. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VACATING A PORTION
OF THE EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY.
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
C-1
RADIUS
I LENGTH
TANGENT
I CHORD
BEARING
DELTA
C-2
151.03'
5.00'
39.86'
7.92'S
20.05'
75
39�*jl
N 54'03'58 E
15'07'19"
C-3
315.00
96.71'S
73'00'00" E
90'44 45"
335.00'
3003'N
3625'20" E17'35
35 02'51" W
24'C-4
05'08 09'
C-51
29.57'
1 S 35'02'51" E
05'08'09"
PLAT SHOWING
PORTION OF EXISTING 20'
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
TO BE VACATED
TH Op D� ACROSS TAX #26.16-12-22, BEING LOT 21
g'
Is- 4 4c SECTION No. 5, "WATERFORD" (P.B. 16, PG. 21)
B. LEE �Z i PROPERTY OF
HENDERSON, JR. "_
STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORP.
No. 1480 ;
SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: 17 AUGUST 1994
t•�,D ��04
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ENGINEERS—SURVEYORS—PLANNERS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
S
..
5- y
BID PROTEST DENIED
ACTION NO. A-92794-19
ITEM NO. 77-01 _
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: September 27, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Bid Protest: Water Line Materials
American Cast Iron Pipe Company
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
J
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This bid protest is made by American Cast Iron Pipe Company
pursuant to Section 17-129 ("Protest of award or decision to
award") of the Roanoke County Code, challenging an award of the
South Loop Transmission Main Water Line Materials, Bid CP94-107 to
Griffin Pipe Products and United States Pipe and Foundry Company.
Edward A. Natt, Esq. is local counsel for American Cast Iron
Pipe Company. Counsel for the successful bidders are also expected
to be present.
BACKGROUND:
On August 19, 1994, Procurement Services for the County of
Roanoke issued an invitation to bid water line materials for the
south loop transmission main water line. A pre-bid conference was
conducted on August 26, 1994. Bids were received and read on
September 1, 1994. Notice of bid award split between Griffin Pipe
Products and United States Pipe and Foundry Company was issued
September 9, 1994. American Cast Iron Pipe Company ("ACIPCO")
protested this award by letter dated September 16, 1994.
This bid is for water line materials (approximately 38,000
feet of 24 inch D.I.P, 61,800 feet of 30 inch D.I.P., 24,700 feet
of 36 inch D.I.P., an undetermined amount of 18 inch D.I.P., and
associated fittings, "D.I.P." means ductile iron pipe) with prices
to remain firm through August 31, 1995.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
ACIPCO asserts that it is the low bidder, and should therefore
be awarded this contract for water line materials. Its bid
1
included a discount subject to certain contingencies with respect
to minimum quantities and order dates. It has evaluated the bid
prices solely on volume discounts, which apparently are not now
contingent on required minimum quantities or shipping or order
dates.
County Procurement and Utility staff reviewed all of the bids
and have evaluated these bids based on realistic estimates of
anticipated quantities of both push -on and restrained joint pipe,
as well as fittings, in accordance with the bid unit prices
received and read on September 1, 1994. This evaluation shows that
the split award is the low bid. This evaluation is also based upon
the timing of the seven phases of this project, with a deadline for
completion of December, 1995 (reference is made to the Board's
September 13, 1994 work session on the water projects). It is
staff's determination that the County's best interests are served
by the split award to Griffin Pipe Company and United States Pipe
and Foundry Company.
By letter dated September 8, 1994, ACIPCO asserted that its
two discount conditions attached to its bid were incorrectly
interpreted by the County. These conditions required the County
to issue or provide "an order released by 12/31/94" for certain
minimum tonnages of various sizes of pipe. Apparently these
contingencies are no longer applicable. If these conditions are no
longer applicable, then what purpose is served by the unit bid
prices in ACIPO's bid? Are the unit prices applicable, with no
contingencies, or are the discount prices applicable?
The practical effect of ACIPCO's position is to violate both
the letter and spirit of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, by
allowing negotiations after receipt of sealed bids with respect to
conditions contrary to the bid request.
Attached for Board review are the following documents:
1) ACIPCO bid,
2) Letter from Gary M. London, Esq. (counsel for ACIPCO) to
Paul M. Mahoney dated September 8, 1994, explaining the
contingencies of the bid,
3) Spreadsheet analyzing the bids
4) Notice of Bid Award dated September 9, 1994,
5) Letter from Edward A. Natt, Esq. to Elaine Carver dated
September 16, 1994, bid protest,
6) Memorandum from Gary L. Robertson to Paul M. Mahoney
dated September 9, 1994 (this memorandum was prepared at
the request of the County Attorney in anticipation of and
2
preparation for possible litigation)
ALTERNATIVES•
If it is determined by the Board of Supervisors that the
decision to award the bid was arbitrary or capricious, then the
relief is as follows:
If after an award of a bid has been made, but performance of
the contract has not yet begun, performance of the contract may be
terminated.
If the award has been made and performance has begun, the
Board may declare the contract void, upon a finding that this
action is in the best interest of the public.
Where a contract has been declared void, the performing
contractor shall be compensated for the cost of performance up to
the time of such declaration.
In the event of a timely protest, no further action to award
the contract will be taken, unless there is a written determination
that proceeding without delay is necessary to protect the public
interest or unless a bid or offer would expire.
The Utility Department has provided a written determination
that it is necessary to proceed without delay with this contract to
protect the public interest. The timely completion of these water
projects is necessary to provide water to the citizens of south
County. Bids for the various phases of the construction of the
south loop transmission water line are being requested. Delay in
the acquisition of the pipe materials will delay these construction
contracts, as well as the entire project, and jeopardize the
December 1995 deadline for completion of the water projects.
If the Board rejects this protest, then ACIPCO may challenge
this decision in circuit court. The circuit court shall review
this decision, which shall be reversed only if the bidder
establishes that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
If ACIPCO seeks an injunction, then the court shall require the
posting of reasonable security to protect the County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board consider the arguments of the
representatives of ACIPCO in support of its protest, as well as the
responses of the successful bidders. Staff is available to respond
to the arguments raised, as well as any questions of the Board.
Staff further recommends that the Board reject this protest,
and authorize staff to proceed with the award of this contract for
3
i- I
south loop transmission main water line materials.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
4
Paul M.
Mahoney
County Attorney
Action
Vote
No
Yes Absent
Approved (x) Motion by Edward
C- Kohinke
Eddy
x
Denied ( ) to approve staff
recnmmenria+inn
Johnson
x
Received ( ) to deny protest and
mn re
Kohinke
x
Referred fnrward
Nickens
x
to _
Minnix
x
lit.pipe.rpt
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
4