5/26/2009 - RegularMay 26, 2009 367
County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
May 26, 2009
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May 2009.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Joseph P.
McNamara, Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Richard
C. Flora, Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; John M.
Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Becky R. Meador, Deputy Clerk to the Board;
Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Jason Forehand, Joshua Generation
Outreach Center. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
368
May 26, 2009
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Goodman requested the addition of a closed meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711.A.3 of the Code of Virginia to discuss or consider the acquisition of
real property for public purposes.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring May 29 and 30, 2009, as Relay for Life
Days in the County of Roanoke
Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Debbie Brown, Roanoke
Relay for Life Chairperson; Abby Barton, American Cancer Society; Lori Hancock and
Brenda Harris, Co-Captains, Roanoke County (RoCo) Cruisers employee team; and
Wendy Schultz, Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department.
The Board members expressed appreciation to those present for their
efforts on behalf of Relay for Life and to everyone who will participate in the event.
2. Resolution of congratulations to Keri A. Ostby for receiving the
Lyrasis NextGen Librarian Award for Initiative for 2009
R-052609-1
Chairman Altizer presented the resolution to Ms. Ostby. Also present was
Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services.
Ms. Rosapepe advised that Ms. Ostby has been with the County since
2006 and was employed after graduate school. She is an ideal manager, team manager
May 26, 2009 369
and colleague. She stated that Ms. Ostby deserves the award and she is pleased that
she was chosen to receive it.
Ms. Ostby expressed appreciation to the Board for the recognition. She
thanked Ms. Rosapepe; Michael Meise, Assistant Director; and the library staff for
providing her with the opportunity to be a more responsive part of the library system.
She also appreciated being able to work with innovative groups outside of the County to
provide information about the library system.
Members of the Board congratulated Ms. Ostby for receiving the award
and expressed appreciation for her efforts on behalf of the County.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052609-1 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO KERI A. OSTBY
FOR RECEIVING THE LYRASIS NEXTGEN LIBRARIAN AWARD FOR
INITIATIVE FOR 2009
WHEREAS, the Lyrasis NextGen Librarian Award for Initiative was created to
recognize rising professional librarians who have demonstrated outstanding ability to
utilize technology in the service of library patrons; and
WHEREAS, Keri A. Ostby, Technical Services Librarian for Roanoke County
Public Library, was nominated for this prestigious award by her co-workers and her
nomination was supported by her colleagues from every public library system
throughout the valley; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Ostby was the only professional librarian from a public library to
be chosen for this award; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Ostby has earned this distinction by repeatedly demonstrating
insight and initiative in using technology to reach out to younger audiences through the
library's web pages; transforming the Library's Technical Services department into a
370 May 26, 2009
responsive and team-oriented partner in customer service; developing a comprehensive
Library Technology Plan for the new South County Library; as well as other projects
which have helped position the Roanoke County Public Library as a leader in the
innovative use of technology to better serve its citizens; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Ostby was presented with this award in May 2009, and the
Board of Supervisors wishes to congratulate Ms. Ostby for being recognized as one of
the nation's rising professional librarians.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to KERI A.
OSTBY for receiving the Lyrasis NexGen Librarian Award for Initiative for 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors expresses its
deepest appreciation to Ms. Ostby for her dedication and service to the citizens of
Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing ~ Donald L. Hart, Jr., President, Vir inia Association of
Counties
Mr. Hart advised that Roanoke County is very important to the Virginia
Association of Counties (VACo), and as President of VACo, he brings greetings from
Accomack County. He advised that Supervisor Flora represents the County well at
VACo and the County should be proud of him. Mr. Hart advised that one of his goals
this year was to visit each county in order to be accessible to all county officials. He
stated that he was striving to keep VACo a professional organization that achieves
successes instead of preventing failures. He advised that if Roanoke County needs his
assistance concerning federal, state or local legislative matters, he would be glad to
meet with them if given sufficient travel time.
May 26, 2009 371
Mr. Hart stated that for the first time in a long time there were no unfunded
mandates from the General Assembly and they are striving to get every Governor to
commit to veto any unfunded mandates. He urged the County officials to stay current
with VACo benefits and services and subscribe to the communications and email list for
alerts. He requested that the Supervisors consider becoming more involved in VACo's
committees. He expressed appreciation to Chairman Altizer for allowing him to speak
and thanked Supervisor Flora for coming to the Eastern Shore a few weeks ago. He
requested that the Supervisors contact him or VACo if they have any suggestions,
concerns, solutions or criticisms.
Supervisor Flora expressed appreciation to Mr. Hart for his commitment to
visit every county in Virginia, which is a tremendous undertaking, since there are 95
counties. He stated that he had the pleasure of serving for the last two years on the
VACo Board with Mr. Hart and he hoped that the County will get more people involved
in VACo activities.
Mr. Hart suggested that the County should be represented at all VACo
meetings so they will have a voice in the proceedings. He indicated that he had to leave
the meeting at this time to travel home.
Chairman Altizer thanked Mr. Hart for attending the meeting to introduce
himself to the County and for his remarks about VACo.
372 May 26, 2009
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt a resolution establishing op licy criteria for the
evaluation of Low Income Housing Tax Credit applications Phili
Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin
R-052609-2
Mr. Thompson advised that the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Program is a federally funded program sponsored by the U.S. Treasury Department and
administered by the Virginia Housing Development Authority. It was established by the
Tax Reform Act of 1986 to encourage positive investment in affordable housing. This
program is authorized under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The
competitive LIHTC Program is administered annually resulting in award of tax credits for
proposed low-income, multi-family developments. The program serves as an incentive
for private investors to participate with developers in construction and rehabilitation of
low-income housing. Developers of low income, multi-family developments are required
by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to provide localities an opportunity to comment
on developments under consideration for the LIHTC Program. Favorable comments
supporting the program receive the highest number of points while opposition results in
a range depending upon the premise of the opposition.
Mr. Thompson advised that the Board reviewed the LIHTC Program at a
work session on May 12, 2009, and suggested that criteria be established for evaluating
proposed projects. He reviewed the eight categories of policy criteria for the evaluation
May 26, 2009 373
of applications for the LIHTC Program as follows: (1) Zoning; (2) How does the project
conform to the Comprehensive Plan? (3) What is the current use of the property? (4)
What are the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood? (5) Will the proposed
development place a substantial burden on area schools? (6) Does the proposed
project renovate or rehabilitate existing apartments or elderly housing? (7) Does the
developer propose to rent a percentage of the units at market rate? (8) What income
limits is the developer proposing?
Mr. Thompson noted that it is staff's recommendation that the Board adopt
a resolution that outlines the criteria for the review of LIHTC Program applications. He
advised that Nicole Pendleton, Planner II, was present to respond to technical
questions.
In response to inquiries from Supervisor Flora concerning the proposed
policy criteria, Mr. Thompson responded that Neighborhood Conservation is the
designation in the County's plan that sets out the stringent criteria for impacts to the
land use category. Staff also wanted to consider the development mix, how long the
neighborhood had been established and evaluate the application and its impact on the
neighborhood in a similar manner as a rezoning request. The intent is to look at the
totality of the project and its impacts to the surrounding area and to evaluate each of the
projects using all of the criteria and not evaluate the project using only one element of
the criteria.
374 May 26, 2009
Supervisor Flora advised that he was sensitive to this issue because some
neighborhoods and schools in North County were negatively affected when an
excessive number of low-income housing units were located in a specific, concentrated
area. Mr. Thompson stated this is why the criteria concerning whether there are low-
income or subsidized apartments nearby was suggested. Part of the evaluation process
is to review and judge the impact on the neighborhoods.
In response to Supervisor Flora's inquiry, Mr. Thompson replied that the
intent is to spread the low-income housing within a development project and throughout
the communities. He continued that low-income housing would not be concentrated in
one area and would not be in close proximity to nearby neighborhoods.
Supervisor Altizer asked if the intent was to spread the low-income
housing throughout the community, what impact would there be if an application was
received to locate slow-income housing project close to another low-income housing
project.
Mr. Thompson responded that if the project meets the criteria for the
zoning and Comprehensive Plan, staff would move forward to review the next set of
criteria and he cannot say that one part of the criteria would be more important than
another. Staff needs to review the total package and the goal is to have mixed income
projects that are properly zoned and meet the Comprehensive Plan spread throughout
the County. They are trying to develop the criteria to review the entire project and this is
the reason for suggesting eight different measures for recommendations on the
May 26, 2009 375
projects.
Mr. Thompson explained that last year the Blue Ridge Club submitted an
application for low-income housing and the County was opposed to the project because
it was located in the area of an existing LIHTC project. However, it met the requirements
of the zoning and Comprehensive Plan and was 100 percent LIHTC, so it had no
market rate. That application from last year was the impetus to try and develop the
criteria being recommended for approval. He explained that the County can be opposed
to a project, but if the project meets the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, the
application still gets points and when they meet all of the points, the credits will be
divided on an area by area basis.
Supervisor Flora inquired if it is correct that the County has no criteria now
for evaluating these projects. Mr. Thompson affirmed that this was correct and nothing
has been formally adopted by the Board.
Supervisor McNamara advised that staff is on the right track and these
projects can be beneficial or disadvantageous to a community depending on how they
are done and the concentrations. He advised that a lot of thought process went into the
evaluation criteria and, although they are not using an objective type of scale, the
criteria are good, thought-provoking items and this is a job well done.
376 May 26, 2009
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052609-2 ESTABLISHING POLICY CRITERIA FOR THE
EVALUATION OF LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT
APPLICATIONS IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) is a federally
funded program sponsored by the U.S. Treasury Department and administered by the
Virginia Housing and Development Authority (VHDA); and,
WHEREAS, this program serves as an incentive for private investors to
participate with developers in the construction and rehabilitation of low-income housing;
and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan addresses housing
namely in the vision statements for 2010, among the Goals and Objectives for
Neighborhoods, and within the discussion of future land use recommendations and
design guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County intends to adopt policy
criteria for the evaluation of applications for the LIHTC.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That there is hereby established the following policy criteria for the evaluation of
applications for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program:
A. Zoning
a. Is the project currently allowed by the zoning district?
b. Does the project fall in or below the requirements for maximum
density at X units/per acre?
c. Does the project meet all of the required Use and Design
Guidelines?
d. Does the project have access to public water and sewer?
B. How does the project conform to the Comprehensive Plan?
a. Is the proposed used compatible with the Future Land Use
designation?
b. Are there existing sensitive neighborhoods in close proximity which
are intended to be protected by the Neighborhood Conservation
District?
May 26, 2009 377
c. Does the project adhere to other guidelines/goals or objectives in
plan policies?
C. What is the current use of the property?
a. Is the property currently developed or vacant?
D. What are the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood?
a. What are surrounding and nearby property uses?
b. Are there natural, historic or cultural resources in proximity to the
site which could be threatened by development or impact the
environment of these resources?
c. Are any low-income or subsidized apartments nearby?
E. Will the proposed development place a substantial burden on area
schools?
F. Does the proposed project renovate or rehabilitate existing apartments or
elderly housing?
G. Does the developer propose to rent a percentage of the units at market
rate?
H. What income limits is the developer proposing?
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to respond to requests for
comment from the Virginia Housing and Development Authority based upon these
criteria.
3. That this Resolution is effective May 26, 2009.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Request to appropriate funds for fiscal year 2009-2010 to maintain
library hours and set aside funds for the Glenvar Library rp oject
Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer
A-052609-3
Ms. Hyatt advised that the fiscal year 2009-2010 budget, which the Board
will be asked to adopt later, contains reductions in most of the County departments.
These budget reductions included closing the libraries on Wednesday nights and the
419 Library on Sundays. At a work session on May 12, 2009, the Board directed staff
378 May 26, 2009
not to reduce library hours and to maintain hours at the current schedule. In order to do
so, the library would require funding of $45,000 be added to their budget for fiscal year
2009-2010. At the work session, the Board also directed staff to add funding of $25,000
for the Glenvar Library project, which was reduced in the original 2009-2010 budget.
The Glenvar Library project had been cut substantially to balance the fiscal year
budgets for 2009-2010 and 2008-2009.
Ms. Hyatt stated that the budget the Board will be asked to adopt later in
the meeting is the original version from the May 13, 2009, meeting. Staff is requesting
approval of the funding for these two items as an individual item to amend the original
budget. She confirmed that $45,000 will be added to the library budget and $25,000 to
the Glenvar Library budget and staff recommends transferring these funds from the
budget for the open Assistant County Administrator position that will not be filled. Ms.
Hyatt advised that Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services, was present to answer
questions.
Supervisor Church commented that he thought it was the consensus of
the Board at the work session to transfer the additional funding from the Board
Contingency Fund.
Ms. Hyatt advised that staff heard at the work session that the Board's
direction was to balance the budget and find the funds in next year's budget. She stated
that if it was the Board's preference, they could take the necessary funds from the
Board Contingency Fund.
May 26, 2009 379
Supervisor Church stated that he would agree to take the funds from
either account and was only asking for clarification of the discussion at the work
session. Supervisor Altizer commented that the Board Contingency Fund for this year
would not cover the amount of the needed funds.
Supervisor McNamara expressed appreciation to the Board and staff for
bringing up the potential problems with reducing the library hours and advised that he
had not thought of some of the impacts of this action on families. He concluded that,
since there are funds from the vacant Assistant County Administrator's position, he
thought it would be appropriate to take the funds from this account.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation and
transfer $45,000 to the library budget and $25,000 to the Glenvar Library project from
the Assistant County Administrator's budget for fiscal year 2009-2010. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
3. Request to authorize execution of an updated contract with the
Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. to rovide
the CORTRAN services for Roanoke Countv for the ep riod May 1
2009 =April 30' 2010 John M. Chambliss, Jr.' Assistant Countv
Administrator)
A-052609-4
380 May 26, 2009
Mr. Chambliss stated this is a request for Board approval of the renewal of
the contract for CORTRAN services, which is provided by Unified Human Services
Transportation System. The RADAR vans not only provide services for CORTRAN, but
a similar program called STAR in Roanoke City and other public transportation services
throughout this region of the state. The CORTRAN program provides pars-transit
services for County residents age 60 or above or with physical or mental conditions that
qualify them under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The client would need to
originally qualify with Roanoke County and meet the eligibility criteria. The service
provides transportation Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and the rider
pays $3.50 per one-way trip.
Mr. Chambliss advised that the updated contract increases Roanoke
County's rate to RADAR to $38.00 per hour for service. Last year's contract was $37.50
per hour. The increase is primarily due to fuel and insurance costs, operating expenses,
software and other items. This is a curb-to-curb service, meaning that they pick the
client up at the street level and return the client in the same fashion. There are some
services that are called door-to-door that actually go up driveways or to the building or
office; however, the County's service has been the curb type of service since its
inception.
Mr. Chambliss advised that $550,000 was included in next year's budget
for this service for County residents. He pointed out that CORTRAN takes riders to any
destination inside the outer perimeter of Roanoke County including inside Roanoke City,
May 26, 2009 381
Salem or Vinton, wherever their destination may require them to be taken. The
destinations for the STAR program for Roanoke City residents or those that are
supplemented by the other localities are primarily Roanoke City or within three quarters
of a mile where a Valley Metro route would happen to go. Mr. Chambliss requested that
the Board authorize the new contract.
Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to Mr. Chambliss for his
participation with CORTRAN. He stated that his mother, before she passed away, was
able to use this invaluable service. This is a service that can be found nowhere else and
the cost for the participants has stayed where it should.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation and
renew the CORTRAN contract based on a $38.00 per hour rate for the May 1, 2009,
through April 30, 2010 period. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. First Reading of an ordinance authorizing the 2 year lus 1 year
option to extend lease of the commercial property on Rt. 116 for
the temporary Mt. Pleasant Branch Library, and the appropriation
of funds Due to time constraints, it is requested that, upon a
four-fifths vote of the Board, the second reading be waived and
the ordinance adopted as an emergency measure.) Diana
382
May 26, 2009
Rosapepe, Director of Library Services
0-052609-5
Mr. Mahoney advised that staff is requesting the Board take the following
actions: (1) approve a lease with atwo-year term and an additional one-year option
extension for a temporary library facility at 2914 Jae Valley Road; (2) approve using
funds in the amount of $3,200 from the current year's budget because the lease would
commence next month, and approving funds in the amount of $15,600 from the fiscal
year 2009-2010 budget; and (3) adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure and
waive the second reading under the County's charter that adoption as an emergency
measure requires afour-fifths vote by the Board.
Mr. Mahoney continued that staff is requesting adoption of the ordinance
after the first reading due to the emergency nature of this activity and the immediate
impending renovations to Mount Pleasant Elementary School. He advised that Ms.
Rosapepe, Director of Library Services, was present to answer questions.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he supported the request and did not want
the citizens to be without a library for an extended period of time.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading, waive the second
reading as an emergency measure and adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
May 26, 2009 383
ORDINANCE 052609-5 AUTHORIZING THE TWO YEAR (PLUS ONE
YEAR OPTION TO EXTEND) LEASE OF THE COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY (TAX MAP NO. 079.01-04-22.00) ON ROUTE 116 FOR THE
TEMPORARY MT. PLEASANT BRANCH LIBRARY AND THE
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Mt. Pleasant Library has been located in Mt. Pleasant
Elementary School since 1985; and
WHEREAS, the Mt. Pleasant Elementary School is currently under-going
extensive renovations that necessitate the relocation of the public library for a period of
approximately two (2) years; and
WHEREAS, the contractor's construction schedule requires the immediate
vacation of the library space in the Mt. Pleasant School building on or about June 9,
2009, to remain on schedule; and
WHEREAS, the county has obtained agreement to sublease a portion of a parcel
located at 2914 Jae Valley Road, Tax Map #079.01-04-22.00-000, in the Mt. Pleasant
community currently under lease, with a purchase option, to Zoe Horsley from Kenneth
and Nancy McNeil; and
WHEREAS, an emergency exists due to the need to immediately obtain a new
location for the public library for the Mt. Pleasant community to avoid the cost of moving
and storage of library books and furnishings and the loss of access to a library and
inconvenience to residents of this community and other Roanoke County residents; and
WHEREAS, a first reading of this Ordinance was held on May 26, 2009, a
second reading having been waived by afour-fifths vote of the Board due to an
emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the disposition of the herein-described real
estate was held on May 26, 2009; the second reading and public hearing are waived
due to an emergency; and
2. That this property to be leased consists of a building with approximately
1,500 square feet and appropriate parking area, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A",
and is located at 2914 Jae Valley Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke, Virginia
24014 and is further identified as Roanoke County Tax Map No.079.01-04-22.00-000;
and
3. That it is in the County's best interests to lease this property from Zoe
Horsley in order to provide a temporary location for the Mt. Pleasant Library. This
lease is subject to the provisions of Section 2.03 and 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter. That funds in the amount of $18,800.00, $3,200.00 for the fiscal year 2008-09
and $15,600.00 for the fiscal year 2009-2010, are hereby appropriated from the Board's
Contingency Fund; and
384 May 26, 2009
4. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary
to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon a form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, waiving the second
reading as an emergency measure, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BUDGET AND SECOND READING OF
ORDINANCE
1. Resolution adopting the fiscal year 2009-2010 budget, including
the fiscal year 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan, for Roanoke
County, Vir inia Brent Robertson, Director of Management and
Bud et
R-052609-6
Mr. Robertson advised this action is to request Board approval of a
resolution adopting the fiscal year 2009-2010 budget for Roanoke County. The
resolution is detailed by fund and includes unappropriated balances for the general
government fund. The overall County budget includes the school budget and totals
$371,307,730. Prepared in conjunction with the fiscal year 2009-2010 budget, the
Capital Improvements Plan for fiscal years 2010-2014 is included in the resolution.
Adoption of the budget is being requested at this time to fulfill the legal requirements of
having a first and second reading of the appropriation ordinance before July 1, 2009, to
allow adequate time for County and school staff to prepare and disperse employee
contracts and other administrative tasks necessary for final budget implementation.
May 26, 2009 385
Mr. Robertson stated that approval of the County budget is for
informational and fiscal planning purposes only and does not actually commit or
appropriate funds for expenditure. The commitment of funds will not occur until the
second reading and approval of the fiscal year 2009-2010 appropriation ordinance. Staff
recommends adoption of the fiscal year 2009-2010 budget resolution and Capital
Improvements Plan.
There was no discussion.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052609-6 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010
BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual
budget; and
WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only; and
WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all
contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing
fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the
provisions of Section 15.2-2506 of the State Code, and the public hearing as required
thereon was held on May 12, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. That there is hereby approved the annual budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 for
Roanoke County, Virginia, as shown on the attached Schedules.
2. That the preparation and approval of this budget is for informative and fiscal
planning purposes only.
386
May 26, 2009
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
County of Roanoke
Adopted FY 2009-2010 Budget
May 26, 2009
Revenue Estimates Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Property Taxes $ 115,643,000
Local Sales Tax 8,775,000
Telecommunications Tax 4,450,000
Business License Tax 5,800,000
Bank Franchise Tax 400,000
Utility Consumer Tax 3,625,000
Motor Vehicle License Tax 1,900,000
Recordation/Conveyance Tax 1,500,000
Meals Tax 3,500,000
Hotel/Motel 900,000
Other Local Taxes 686,000
Permits, Fees & Licenses 588,300
Fines and Forfeitures 782,000
Interest Income 607,500
Charges for Services 3,064,416
Commonwealth 9,223,125
Federal 3,490,000
Other 1,859,093
Total General Government 166,793,434
Emergency Communications Center 2,287,400
Comprehensive Services 7,079,647
Law Library 46,648
Public Works Projects 182,922
S B & T Building 444,580
Recreation Fee Class 2,954,856
Internal Services -Information Technology 4,758,751
County Garage 2,208,312
Total General Fund 186,756,550
Debt Service Fund -County 8,034,018
May 26, 2009
387
Capital Projects Fund
Internal Service Fund
School Operating Fund
School Nutrition Fund
School Debt Service Fund
School Grants Fund
School Capital Fund
School Textbook Fund
School Bus Fund
School Laptop Insurance Reserve
Regional Alternative School
Total Revenues All Funds
Less: Transfers
Total Net of Transfers
Proposed Expenditures
General Fund
General Government
General Administration
Constitutional Officers
Judicial Administration
Management Services
Public Safety
Community Services
Human Services
Non-Departmental
Transfers to School Operating Fund
Transfers to School Insurance -Dental
Transfers to Capital Fund
Transfers to Debt Service Fund
Transfer to Emergency Communications Center
Transfer to Comprehensive Services
Other
Total General Government
Emergency Communications Center
Comprehensive Services
Law Library
Public Works Project
S B & T Building
Recreation Fee Class
9,735,772
949,956
137,909,128
5,521,806
11,341,461
5,448,137
2,422,257
1,580,030
810,000
406,500
392.115
371,307,730
(103,468,215)
267,839,515
Amount
3,269,742
12,614,359
964,058
3,621,418
23,543,490
11,729,632
18,534,539
8,090,994
60,066,059
477,299
(74,836)
16,501,324
2,152,400
4,253,000
1.049.956
166,793,434
2,287,400
7,079,647
46,648
182, 922
444,580
2,954,856
388
May 26, 2009
Internal Services -Information Technology
County Garage
Total General Fund
Debt Service Fund -County
Capital Projects Fund
Internal Service Fund
School Operating Fund
School Nutrition Fund
School Debt Fund
School Grants Fund
School Capital Fund
School Textbook Fund
School Bus Fund
School Laptop Insurance Reserve
Regional Alternative School
Total Expenditures All Funds
Less: Transfers
Total Net of Transfers
4,758,751
2,208,312
186,756,550
8,034,018
9,735,772
949,956
137,909,128
5,521,806
11,341,461
5,448,137
2,422,257
1,580,030
810,000
406,500
3 92,115
371,307,730
(103,468,215)
267,839,515
In addition to the above revenues and expenditures, $2,000,000 from the Unappropriated Balance is
appropriated to a Reserve for Contingency for unanticipated or emergency expenditures; and funds allocated
to the Unappropriated Fund Balance must be appropriated by the Board of Supervisors before such funds
may be expended
May 26, 2009 389
2. Second reading of an ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal
year 2009-2010 budget and approval of the classification plan for
fiscal year 2009-2010 Brent Robertson, Director of Management
and Bud et
0-052609-7
Mr. Robertson stated that the total County budget is $371,307,730 and
there have been no changes to the ordinance since the first reading held on May 12,
2009. Staff recommends approval of the second reading of the fiscal year 2009-2010
budget appropriation ordinance and approval of the classification plan for fiscal year
2009-2010.
Supervisor Altizer requested that Mr. Robertson explain the difference
between the County budget of $371,307,730 and the budget net of transfers of
$267,839,000. Mr. Robertson advised that $267,839,000 is the amount of cash coming
into the County government and school system to perform their operations and the
$371,307,730 is the total budget, which contains inter-fund and intra-fund transfers.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
390 May 26, 2009
ORDINANCE 052609-7 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE 2009-2010
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was
held on May 12, 2009 concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke
County for fiscal year 2009-2010; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 26, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 12,
2009, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 26, 2009, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective
funds for the period beginning July 1, 2009, and ending June 30, 2010, for
me runcrions ana purposes inaicarea:
County of Roanoke
Adopted FY 2009-2010 Budget
May 26,
2009
Revenues:
General Fund
General Government $ 166,793,434
Comprehensive Services 7,079,647
Emergency Communications Center 2,287,400
Law Library 46,648
Public Works Projects 182,922
SB&T-Social Services Building 444,580
Recreation Fee Class 2,954,856
Internal Services 4,758,751
County Garage 2,208,312
Total General Fund $ 186,756,550
May 26, 2009
391
Debt Service Fund -County $ 8,034,018
Capital Projects Fund 9,735,772
Total Capital Projects Fund $ 9,735,772
Internal Service Fund -Risk Management $ 949,956
School Funds:
Operating $ 137,909,128
Nutrition 5, 521, 806
Capital 2,422,257
Debt 11,341,461
Bus 810,000
Regional Alternative School 392,115
Laptop Insurance Reserve 406,500
Grant 5,448,137
Textbook 1,580,030
Total School Fund $ 165,831,434
Total All Funds $ 371,307,730
Expenditures:
General Government:
General Administration
Board of Supervisors $ 353,780
County Administrator 284,636
Public Information 317,662
Chief Information Officer 155,420
Asst. Co. Administrators 347,687
Human Resources 723,409
County Attorney 547,279
Economic Development 539,869
Total General Administration $ 3,269,742
Constitutional Officers
Treasurer $ 821,830
392
May 26, 2009
Commonwealth Attorney 1,008,533
Commissioner of the Revenue 783,299
Clerk of the Circuit Court 1,029,351
Sheriff s Office 3,140,211
Care & Confinement of Prisoners 5,831,135
Total Constitutional Officers $ 12,614,359
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court $ 242,191
General District Court 44,378
Magistrate 1,655
J & DR Court 18,429
Court Service Unit 657,405
Total Judicial Administration $ 964,058
Management Services
Real Estate Assessments $ 1,012,033
Finance 1,345,901
Public Transportation 550,000
Management and Budget 276,296
Procurement Services 437,188
Total Management Services $ 3,621,418
Public Safety
Police $ 11,036,761
Fire and Rescue 12,506,729
Total Public Safety $ 23,543,490
Community Services
General Services $ 1,146,328
Solid Waste 4,646,556
Community Development 4, 577,110
Building Maintenance 1,359,638
Total Community Services $ 11,729,632
May 26, 2009
393
Human Services
Grounds Maintenance $ 2,237,675
Parks and Recreation 2,299,063
Public Health 523,935
Social Services 9,048,103
Contributions-Human Service, Cultural, Tourism,
Dues 1,203,708
Library 2, 829, 875
VA Cooperative Extension 93,758
Elections 298,422
Total Human Services $ 18,534,539
Non-Departmental
Employee Benefits $ 2,109,103
Miscellaneous 1,516,500
Internal Service Charges 4,465,391
Total Non-Departmental $ 8,090,994
Transfers to Other Funds
Transfer to Debt -General & Schools $ 16,501,324
Transfer to Capital (74,836)
Transfer to Schools 60,066,059
Transfer to Emergency Communications
Center 2,152,400
Transfer to Schools -Dental Insurance 477,299
Transfer to Internal Services 949,956
Transfer to Comprehensive Services 4,253,000
Total Transfers to Other Funds $ 84,325,202
Unappropriated Balance
Board Contingency $ 100,000
Total General Government $ 166,793,434
Comprehensive Services $ 7,079,647
394
May 26, 2009
Emergency Communications Center $ 2,287,400
Law Library $ 46,648
Public Works Projects $ 182,922
SB&T-Social Services Building $ 444,580
Recreation Fee Class $ 2,954,856
Internal Services
Management Information Systems $ 4,109,894
Communications 648,857
County Garage 2,208,312
Total Internal Services $ 6,967,063
Total General Fund $ 186,756,550
Debt Service Fund -County $ 8,034,018
Capital Projects Fund $ 9,735,772
Internal Services Fund -Risk Management $ 949,956
School Funds
Operating $ 137,909,128
Nutrition 5, 521, 806
Capital 2,422,257
Debt 11,341,461
Bus 810,000
Regional Alternative School 392,115
Laptop Insurance Reserve 406,500
Grant 5,448,137
Text Book 1,580,030
Total School Funds $ 165,831,434
May 26, 2009 395
Total All Funds $ 371,307,730
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of
the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one department to
another.
3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at
June 30, 2009, are re-appropriated to the 2009-10 fiscal year to the same department
and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of
the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project or until
the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the
appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the
project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies
to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 2009, and appropriations in the 2009-
10budget.
5. That all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 2008-09 fiscal
year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Fund in fiscal year 2009-
10 as follows:
a.) Two-thirds of the year end balance in the school operating fund will be allocated
to the Major School Capital Reserve;
b.) One-third of the year end balance in the school operating fund, not to exceed
$1,000,000, will be allocated to the Minor School Capital Reserve;
c.) If the one-third allocation to the Minor School Capital Reserve exceeds
$1,000,000, the excess will be added to the Major School Capital Reserve.
6. That all General Fund unexpended appropriations at the end of the 2008-09
fiscal year not lapse but shall be re-appropriated, as provided by Resolution 122104-4,
as follows:
a) 40% of these unexpended appropriations shall be transferred to the un-
appropriated Minor County Capital Fund Reserve;
b) 60% of these unexpended appropriations shall be re-appropriated to the same
department for expenditure in fiscal year 2009-10.
7. That all General Fund revenues collected in excess of appropriated revenues
shall be re-appropriated, as provided by Resolution 122104-5, as follows:
a.) Revenues in excess of budget will first be allocated to the General Fund Un-
appropriated Balance, until the maximum amount for the current year is met, as
specified in the General Fund Un-appropriated Balance Policy, as adopted by
Resolution 122104-2;
b.) The remainder of revenues in excess of budget will then be allocated to the
Major County Capital Fund Reserve
396 May 26, 2009
8. Rescue fees collected by the Fire & Rescue Department in excess of
budgeted amounts will be re-appropriated and allocated to the Fire and Rescue Capital
Reserve.
9. That Two Million Dollars from the Unappropriated Fund Balance is hereby
appropriated to a Reserve for Contingency for unanticipated or emergency expenditures
that may arise during the 2009-10 fiscal year; and money allocated to the Reserve for
Contingency must be appropriated by the Board of Supervisors before such money may
be expended.
10. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2009.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance approving a residential lease at
Happy Hollow Park, Windsor Hills Magisterial District Mark
Courtright, Assistant Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
0-052609-8
Mr. Courtright advised this is the second reading of an ordinance to
approve a residential lease for the cabin located at Happy Hollow Park. The only
change since the first reading of the ordinance on May 12, 2009, has been the addition
of the names of the proposed tenants. He requested that the Board adopt the
ordinance.
There was no discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
May 26, 2009 397
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-8 AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF THE HOUSE
AND ONE ACRE OF REAL ESTATE, EXCLUDING THE GUEST
HOUSE, (TAX MAP NO. 75.00-2-36) LOCATED AT HAPPY HOLLOW
PARK
WHEREAS, the County acquired a single-family dwelling as part of the
acquisition of Happy Hollow Park, which dwelling has been leased for the last ten years.
WHEREAS, the house which is located at 6697 Mt. Chestnut Road was
unoccupied this past winter and major renovations were accomplished including
installing a vapor barrier and updating the kitchen and bath and the house is now ready
for lease again.
WHEREAS, pursuant to County policy this property was advertised for lease in
the Roanoke Times for one week; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the disposition of the herein-described real
estate was held on May 12, 2009; the second reading was held on May 26, 2009; and
2. That this property consists of approximately one acre of real estate with
improvements, excluding the guest house, identified as Roanoke County Tax Map No.
75.00-2-36; and
3. That it is in the County's best interests to lease this property to Joshua
and Stephanie Shelor in order to safeguard the valuable improvements thereon and to
receive fair market value lease payments until such time as it may be necessary to
utilize said property in connection the Happy Hollow Park. This lease is subject to the
provisions of Section 2.03 and 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. That funds
generated through the rental of this property be placed in the Parks Ground
Maintenance Budget; and
4. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary
to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon a form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
398
May 26, 2009
2. Second reading of an ordinance repealing section 13-14. Unlawful
accumulations of trash and rg owth of weeds; ublic nuisances
and abatement thereof and adopting a new Article IV. Entitled
0-052609-9
"Weeds and Trash" of Chapter 13. "Offenses-Miscellaneous"
Paul Mahoney, County Attorne
Mr. Mahoney explained this is the second reading of an ordinance that
would change the enforcement methodology for violations of the accumulation of weeds
and trash from a criminal approach to a civil penalty approach. After the Board's first
reading of this ordinance, he met with the judges of the General District Court. He
stated that he wanted an opportunity to explain to the judges the proposed change in
the County's methodology and approach for dealing with these issues, although judges
are not authorized to give advice or opinions on the validity of ordinances, statutes or
laws. He noted that the new approach would have an impact on the judges' calendars
and dockets because the cases would move from the criminal to the civil docket.
Mr. Mahoney commented that the ordinance has been modified in two
ways from the first reading. The first change is minor and is an incorrect cross reference
in Section 13-157. He changed the cross reference on the second line from Section 13-
155 to 13-156. The more substantive change is found at the end of Section 13-158,
which is the exemption section. After some discussions with other individuals and
Chairman Altizer, he added the phrase at the end of that section, which reads "or which
May 26, 2009 399
are required by State or Federal Agency." Mr. Mahoney explained that the intent of
adding that phraseology was to anticipate any regulatory approach at the state or
federal level in the future. The regulatory role that the state and federal governments
play in protecting wetlands is a key element. He advised that if the appropriate state or
federal agency issues additional mandates for localities, the County would then have
the opportunity to address and accommodate those mandates through the exemption
section. Mr. Mahoney requested that the Board approve the ordinance.
Supervisor Moore inquired if there are any guidelines as to what
constitutes debris or trash or how much trash has to accumulate before a violation
occurs.
Mr. Mahoney replied that there are some guidelines contained in the
definition of trash on page 1 of the ordinance. He stated that in terms of how much a
citizen can accumulate before enforcement action is triggered, there is no specific
quantity, amount or size suggested. As a practical approach when dealing with junk
cars, it is believed that one car would be enough for a violation. The impact on the
neighborhood would be another approach for the enforcement of violations of garbage
or trash accumulation. He stated that almost all of the County's enforcement efforts are
triggered in large part by citizen complaints and the prevailing norm or standard in a
neighborhood or community. He stated that garbage could be a health issue and a fairly
small quantity could trigger enforcement action. Old stoves and appliances that are in
front yards could trigger an enforcement action. Staff would use the same approach as
400
May 26, 2009
in the past that ties into the same size limits that General Services utilizes for bulk and
brush.
Mr. Mahoney informed Supervisor Moore there are no specific numerical
guidelines for the accumulation of trash or garbage. Staff plans to use common sense in
the enforcement action and approach it on a neighborhood or community norm basis.
Using the court system for enforcement will be a double check on whether or not the
County's approach is working.
Supervisor Moore inquired if this ordinance, which pertains to
subdivisions, would also pertain to agricultural and rural property.
Mr. Mahoney responded that the ordinance attempts to address different
situations, defines a parcel in the definition section and contains a corresponding tie-in
or link to subdivisions. He confirmed that the ordinance applies to developed or
undeveloped vacant property and to owner-occupied residential property.
Supervisor Altizer stated for clarification that the ordinance now gives staff
the ability to issue an exemption or exception in the event a state or federal agency
designates stormwater areas as wetlands. Mr. Mahoney advised this was a correct
statement.
May 26, 2009 401
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-9 REPEALING SECTION 13-14. UNLAWFUL
ACCUMULATIONS OF TRASH AND GROWTH OF WEEDS; PUBLIC
NUISANCES AND ABATEMENT THEREOF AND ADOPTING A NEW
ARTICLE IV. ENTITLED "WEEDS AND TRASH" OF CHAPTER 13.
"OFFENSES-MISCELLANEOUS"
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County finds that
amendments to Chapter 13 "Offenses-Miscellaneous" are necessary and appropriate in
order to better serve the public health, safety and welfare of the County and to address
public nuisances; and,
WHEREAS, modifying the penalty provisions to eliminate criminal sanctions for
violations of the accumulation of weeds and trash and to substitute civil penalties would
be more efficient and effective; and,
WHEREAS, these amendments are authorized by Sections 15-2-901 and 15-
21215 of the Code of V1950, as amended; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12, 2009, and the
second reading of this ordinance was held on May 26, 2009.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Section 13-14. entitled "Unlawful accumulations of trash and growth
of weeds; public nuisances and abatement thereof" be repealed.
2. That a new Article IV. entitled "Weeds and Trash" be adopted to read and
provide as follows:
Article IV. Weeds and Trash
Sec. 13-151. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
Abatement cost: The County's cost of labor, equipment and supplies for, or the
contract price of, and any charges to, the county, with respect to the removal and
disposal of weeds or trash from a parcel.
Enforcement agent: The county administrator or his designee.
402 May 26, 2009
Owner: Any person shown by any public record to have an interest in real estate
lying in the county upon which a public nuisance exists as of the date of the abatement
of the public nuisance under this section. Owner shall also mean the occupant of any
parcel of real estate, including but not limited to, any person in possession thereof
having charge thereof as an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or agent, and the
beneficiary of any easement or right of use thereof.
Parcel: Any real estate or any interest therein, situate, lying and being in the
county in any areas zoned for residential, business, commercial, or industrial uses or in
any subdivision.
Public nuisance: Any act or activity the causing or maintaining of which is such
an inconvenience or troublesome matter as to annoy, injure or damage the public at
large or a substantial portion of the community or a considerable number of persons,
and from which any resulting damage is not specifically apportionable to any one
member of the community.
Subdivision: Any tract or parcel of land divided into two (2) or more lots or
parcels, for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership or
development, as otherwise defined in the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance.
Trash: Abandoned personal property, garbage, refuse, rubbish, litter or debris.
Weeds means grass, weeds, bushes, poison ivy, poison oak or any other
vegetable growth, other than trees, ornamental shrubbery, flowers and garden
vegetables.
Sec. 13-152. Penalty.
(a) Any owner who violates section 13-153(a) or any other provisions of this
article pertaining to section 13-153(a), or who violates Section 13-154, shall be subject
to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.00 for the first violation, or violations arising from the
same set of operative facts. The civil penalty for subsequent violations not arising from
the same set of operative facts within 12 months of the first violation shall not exceed
$200.00. Each calendar day during which the same violation is found to have existed
shall constitute a separate offense. In no event shall a series of specified violations
arising from the same set of operative facts result in civil penalties that exceed a total of
$3,000.00 in a 12 month period.
(b) Any owner who violates section 13-153(b) or any other provisions of this
article pertaining to section 13-153(b) shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100.00.
Sec. 13-153. Cutting of weeds and grass required.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any owner of any vacant developed or undeveloped
property, including such property upon which buildings or other improvements are
located, within the boundaries of platted subdivisions or any other areas zoned for
residential, business, commercial or industrial use, to permit weeds of more than 12
inches in height within 250 feet of property developed for residential use.
May 26, 2009 403
(b) The owner of occupied residential real property shall cut the grass or lawn
area of less than one-half acre on such property when growth of such grass or lawn
area exceeds 12 inches in height.
Sec. 13-154. Removal of trash required.
It shall be unlawful for the owner of any parcel or property to allow the
accumulation of trash on any parcel or property. The owner of any parcel or property
shall maintain all exterior property areas in a clean, safe condition free from the
accumulation of trash. Failure to comply with this provision shall also constitute a public
nuisance.
Sec. 13-155. Report of violation.
Any person aggrieved by the presence of weeds or grass in violation of section
13-153 or the accumulation of trash in violation of Section 13-154 may report such
presence to the enforcement agent.
Sec. 13-156. Inspection of site of violation: notice to cut weeds or remove trash.
Upon receipt of a report as referred to in section 13-155, the enforcement agent
shall cause the site of the reported violation to be inspected pursuant to applicable
constitutional and statutory provisions. When the enforcement agent has determined
from such reports and inspections or otherwise that a violation in fact exists, he shall
notify the owner of the land or parcel upon which the violation exists to cut or cause to
be cut the weeds or grass complained of, or to remove the accumulation of trash, within
ten (10) calendar days of the delivery, mailing or posting of the notice. Such notice shall
be in writing, shall be delivered by hand or mailed to the last known address and if the
owner of the property cannot be found within the County after a reasonable search,
notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address
of the owner and a copy of the notice shall be posted on the property in a conspicuous
place, and shall be complied with by such owner.
Sec. 13-157. Performance of work by county; collection of costs.
If such weeds or grass are not cut, or the accumulation of trash is not removed,
within the required time as provided for in the notice under section 13-156, the
enforcement agent shall cause such weeds or grass to be cut, or the trash to be
removed, and the abatement cost and expense thereof to be assessed against the
owner of such property. The assessment shall be collected by the county as taxes and
levies are collected. Every charge for cutting grass on vacant property or removal of
trash which the owner of any property shall have been assessed and which remains
unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property on parity with liens for unpaid taxes.
404 May 26, 2009
Sec. 13-158. Exemption.
The Director of Community Development or his/her designee may exempt from
the application of this Article any parcel which is owned by the County or upon which
the County has an easement for stormwater management facilities, and includes
riparian buffers, reserved open space, floodplain preservation areas, or other
environmentally sensitive areas as defined in the Roanoke County stormwater
Management Ordinance and Design Manual, or which are critical to the environmental
health of the ecosystem, or which are required by a state or federal agency.
3. That this ordinance shall become effective from and after its adoption on
May 26, 2009.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Roanoke Regional Partnership
Chairman Altizer stated it was the consensus of the Board to appoint B.
Clayton Goodman III to replace John M. Chambliss, Jr. He requested that confirmation
of this appointment be placed on the Consent Agenda.
2. Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission
Chairman Altizer advised it was the consensus of the Board to appoint B.
Clayton Goodman III to replace John M. Chambliss, Jr. He requested that confirmation
of this appointment be placed on the Consent Agenda.
May 26, 2009 405
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-052609-10
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052609-10 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K -CONSENT
AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 26,
2009 designated as Item K -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 3 inclusive, as follows:
1. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of
$25,000 for the Adult Education Program
2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Clean Valley Council, Roanoke
Regional Partnership, and Roanoke Valley-Allegany Regional Commission
3. Donation of a new 15' private stormwater management access easement on
property of John W. Hancock, Jr., LLC, d/b/a New Millennium Building
Systems (Tax Map No. 055.02-02-01.00), Catawba Magisterial District
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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
406
May 26, 2009
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
3. Accounts Paid =April 2009
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability der Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of April 30' 2009
5. Comparative Schedule of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances for the month ended April 30' 2009
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues and
Encumbrances for the month ended April 30' 2009
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:15 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following
the work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1) Section 2.2-
3711.A.7. Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff regarding specific legal
matters, namely amendments to the performance agreement for Integrity Windows,
requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel; (2) Section 2.2-3711.A.7.
May 26, 2009 407
Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff regarding specific legal matters,
namely consideration of the Jack Smith Industrial Park, Blue Ridge Library and Read
Mountain Fire Station agreements, requiring the provision of legal advice by such
counsel; and (3) Section 2.2-3711.A.3 Discuss or consider the acquisition of real
property for public purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 4:25 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review and discuss Green Ridge Recreation
Center Business Plan, Operating Pro-Forma, including fees and
charges Pete Haisli Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
The work session was held from 5:31 p.m. to 6:26 p.m.
Staff from the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department presented a
PowerPoint and distributed a handout containing operating assumptions, operating plan
summary and pricing plans. Mr. Haislip introduced the facility's new manager, Matt
Henke, and advised that Mr. Henke and his family moved from South Dakota.
Members of the Board suggested that an increase be made in the
differential between the fees for County and non-County residents and a minimum initial
commitment period be considered. There was discussion of the pricing structure for
408 May 26, 2009
Splash Valley. Several Board members expressed their opinions that the pricing was
too low for use of the outdoor water park when compared to the pricing for other local
public pools. It was the Board's direction that another work session be held on this
subject at the June 9, 2009, meeting.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-052609-11
At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052609-11 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
May 26, 2009 409
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation to Kenneth M. Brooks, Circuit Court
Clerk's Office, upon his retirement after more than five years of
service
R-052609-12
Chairman Altizer presented the resolution to Mr. Books. The Board
members congratulated Mr. Brooks and thanked him for his service. Mr. Brooks, his
wife and Steve McGraw, Clerk of Circuit Court, were present for the recognition.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052609-12 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO KENNETH M.
BROOKS, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Kenneth M. Brooks was employed by Roanoke County on May 23,
2003, as a Deputy Clerk in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brooks retired from the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's
Office as Deputy Clerk III on May 1, 2009, after five years and eleven months of service;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brooks' patience, calm and deliberative demeanor, and quiet,
subtle sense of humor, were very much appreciated and of great benefit to himself, his
co-workers, and the patrons of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brooks exhibited exemplary customer service while providing
assistance to citizens utilizing the record room in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brooks, through his employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County.
410 May 26, 2009
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to KENNETH M. BROOKS for more than five years of capable,
loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Recognition of students and coaches at Cave Spring High School:
Chairman Altizer advised that Dr. Lorraine Lange, School Superintendent;
Steve Spangler, Principal of Cave Spring High School; and H. Odell Minnix, School
Board Member, Cave Spring District, were present for the recognitions.
~ Certificate of recognition to Ali Horn for winning State Group
AA Championships in swimming
Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Ms. Horn.
Coach Huray advised that Ms. Horn is a sophomore and this is her third
state championship as she won two this year and one last year. She is a great student
and team member and he is looking forward to having her compete for two more years.
Dr. Lange, Mr. Minnix and the Board members congratulated Ms. Horn for
winning the state championships.
Certificate of recognition to Andy Huray for being named All
Timesland Coach of the Year for Boys Swimming
Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Coach Huray.
May 26, 2009 411
Mr. Spangler, Dr. Lange, Mr. Minnix and the Board members
congratulated Coach Hurray upon being named All-Timesland Coach of the Year.
~ Resolution of congratulations to the Boys Basketball Team for
winning the State Group AA Championship
R-052609-13
Chairman Altizer presented the resolution to Coach Hicks and the
members of the team who were present.
Dr. Lange, Mr. Spangler, Mr. Minnix and the Board members
congratulated Coach Hicks and the members of the team for winning the state
championship.
Supervisor Moore moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
412 May 26, 2009
RESOLUTION 052609-13 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE CAVE
SPRING HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM FOR WINNING A
STATE GROUP AA CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, the Cave Spring High School Boys Basketball Team won the
Virginia High School League State Group AA Championship at the Stuart C. Siegel
Center in Richmond on March 14, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Knights defeated the team from Brunswick in an overtime
victory, with a final score of 39-33; and
WHEREAS, the team finished their season with an outstanding record of 25
wins, 6 losses, claiming the River Ridge District and Region IV titles; and
WHEREAS, the Knights are under the dedicated leadership of Head Coach Billy
Hicks and Assistant Coaches Tim Myers and Bob Hicks.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
members of the CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM:
Michael Avila, Arin Brenner, R. J. Burns, Quentin Dill, Adam Hager, Scott
Harriman, Josh Henderson, Erik Jacobsen, Matt Knuppel, Clay Lacy, Greg
Mackey, Taylor Moore, Daniel Neighbors, Mark Overstreet and Justin White for an
outstanding performance, their athletic ability, their team spirit, and their commitment to
each other; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to the members of the team, the coaches, and the school in their future
endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
Certificate of recognition to Josh Henderson for being named
to the Group AA First Team All-State for basketball
Chairman Altizer advised that Mr. Henderson was unable to attend.
~ Certificate of recognition to Boys Basketball Coach Billy Hicks
for being named State Coach of the Year ~ the Vir inia High
School Coaches Association
May 26, 2009 413
Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Coach Hicks.
Dr. Lange, Mr. Minnix and the Board members congratulated Coach Hicks
upon being named State Coach of the Year.
Coach Hicks expressed appreciation for the Board's recognition of him
and the team members. He noted that the championship could not have happened
without the great group of guys on the team and their parents. He recognized that they
have a tremendous support system at Cave Spring. The team worked very hard
together this year and was able to accomplish all of their goals, which is very rare.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Public hearing and adoption of a resolution on the Secondary
System Six-Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2009-2015 and
the allocation of Revenue Sharing funds for fiscal year 2009-2010
Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Phili
Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning; Teresa Becher,
Transportation Engineering Mana er
R-052609-14; R-052609-15
Mr. Thompson advised that the six-year plan and the Revenue Sharing
Program were reviewed at the work session held May 13, 2009. In the current fiscal
year for the six-year plan, $3.76 million was allocated for secondary roads and for fiscal
year 2009-2010, the amount allocated is $1.58 million, which is a decrease of $2.1
million. In the six-year plan, there are County-wide incidental improvements of $80,000
414 May 26, 2009
for fiscal years 2009-2015 and numbered projects of approximately $1.5 million. The
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is not allocating any funds to the County
for the Rural Addition Program because there is a balance in that account of more than
$500, 000.
Mr. Thompson stated it was discussed at the work session about
removing Catherine Drive and Southview Drive due to the lack of interest by the
residents in speculative interests and granting rights-of-way. There are only seven
numbered projects in the six-year plan and the five that received funding in this fiscal
year are McVitty Road, Old Cave Spring Road, Colonial Avenue, Catawba Creek Road
and Rocky Road. He advised that the John Richardson Road project did not receive
funding and the project has approximately $400,000 or $500,000 fund balance, which
should be sufficient to complete that project once it is re-scoped. The other project that
did not receive funding was Cotton Hill Road, which is scheduled for funding starting
next year.
Mr. Thompson stated that the County listed the five projects of Merriman
Road, Washington Avenue, Farmington Drive, Forester Road and Halevan Road for
participation in the Revenue Sharing Program totaling $1,000,500, which is comprised
of a $500,500 County match and a $500,000 State match.
Mr. Thompson continued that staff is requesting the Board adopt two
resolutions as follows: (1) adopt the six-year plan and approve the allocation of funds,
and (2) approve the revenue sharing project list.
May 26, 2009 415
Supervisor Altizer inquired if staff was present from VDOT. Mr. Thompson
advised that Scott Woodrum, VDOT Staff Engineer, was present.
Supervisor Altizer commented that he understands funds will be taken
from some road projects that will not be funded for many years, if ever. Mr. Thompson
stated that the two projects of Shadwell Drive and Hardy Road currently have revenue
sharing funds. The County has approximately $1.8 million funds already allocated for
revenue sharing, which could be reallocated to a six-year road plan project or another
revenue sharing project. However, the Merriman Road and Route 24 or any other road
project would have to be established as a revenue sharing project by VDOT. Once the
project has been established, future action can then be used to re-allocate those funds
for Shadwell Drive, Hardy Road or any other project that has not been closed out or
constructed. Mr. Thompson advised that the revenue sharing is a separate process
from the six-year plan and the County funding of $500,500 establishes these projects.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he has serious concerns because, under
former rules for the revenue sharing plan, there was an allotment made whether the
County allocated funding of $500,000 or $1 million. He continued that previously after
VDOT approved the projects, Roanoke County would be allowed to use the allocated
funds to complete their list of projects until all of the funding was used. He explained to
Mr. Woodrum that he was not being critical of the local VDOT officials and was
speaking to the people in Richmond and the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB). He advised that under VDOT's tier system now the County does not know the
416 May 26, 2009
amount of the allocation from the CTB.
Mr. Thompson agreed that at this point the amount of funding from the
CTB is uncertain.
Supervisor Altizer continued that funds have already been allocated by
VDOT for Hardy Road and the County wants to use those funds for cleft-hand turn lane
at William Byrd, which is badly needed. He described how, under the new tier system,
VDOT will consider all of the number-one projects of every locality initially, and then all
the funds may be gone before they move to the number-two projects. He explained that
if the left-hand turn at William Byrd was the number-two project and all of the State
money has been used, that project would not be approved. He does not understand
why the County cannot get a project approved by VDOT when the County has funds
already allocated.
Mr. Woodrum suggested that the County staff should review the Hardy
Road and Shadwell Road projects, which have accumulated revenue sharing funds
because the projects could not be brought to fruition due to many factors. He stated that
counties are experiencing reductions in funding of approximately sixty to sixty-five
percent for the six-year plan. He stated that every county had to make decisions on the
priorities of their projects and that list was provided to the Board on May 12, 2009. He
surmised that if the funding situation were not so serious at this time, VDOT would not
consider the reallocation and removing previous revenue sharing funds from other
projects.
May 26, 2009 417
Supervisor Altizer stated that he does not have a problem with reallocation
of funding for projects that cannot come to fruition. However, he has a problem when
the County cannot use funds already allocated to complete a necessary project
because VDOT has changed the rules for revenue sharing. He does not think that the
new allocation by the County of $500,500 and the State match of $500,000 should
affect funds that the County already has. He surmised there is something wrong with
the system when the County cannot get a project approved when they have funds
allocated from three to six years ago. He advised that he sees the problem as the
creation of bureaucracy and making rules in Richmond that do not make sense.
Mr. Thompson explained that the direction staff received from VDOT is
that the projects have to be established and put into a competitive process. There is no
guarantee that the projects would be established. The County cannot allocate funds to
projects that are not established by VDOT, which causes frustration.
Mr. Woodrum advised that the alternative for Route 24 would be to
compete with other primary routes for funding and the likelihood of it succeeding as
another project is low. He felt that extending the turn lane would be the most practical
approach. The alternative for the Merriman Road roundabout would be to create it as a
six-year plan project through a resolution by the Board. He advised they could allocate
funding to that project on the six-year plan in the future.
418 May 26, 2009
Supervisor Altizer felt that the project would not be an alternative when the
County has the funds, but cannot get the project approved by VDOT due to the change
in the rules. He stated that if the $228 million shortfall in April budget projections for the
State holds, the General Assembly will have to go back and decide where to get funding
and there will not be money for revenue sharing. He restated his opinion that when
VDOT is not flexible enough to allow getting a project approved when the County
already has funding, something is wrong with the road system.
Supervisor McNamara noted that one of the problems is referring to the
plan as a six-year road plan because the road projects cannot be completed in that
amount of time with limited funds. He advised that the Colonial Avenue project, which
was placed on the list prior to 1994, has been on the list for approximately 18 years. He
advised that with State allocations being cut by two-thirds, the plan should be for 20 or
50 years. The County citizens should be made aware that this is the new reality and
environment for road situations. He stated that VDOT cannot be blamed because they
have limited funds approved by politicians and the County roads will be drastically
affected over time with the State revenue shortfall. He advised that, even though the
roads are in good shape now, the State and County will have to evaluate how to handle
roads for the long-term. He stated that with those comments, he would move approval
of the six-year plan.
May 26, 2009 419
Chairman Altizer advised Supervisor McNamara that the revenue sharing
plan was not asix-year plan. He stated that the funding being cut is not money that is
being given to the County now, but funds allocated to the Hardy Road project for the
previous seven years. He advised that VDOT in Richmond is not allowing the County to
create a project to spend funds already allocated and it is not about a reduction in
funds.
In response to Supervisor Flora's inquiries, Mr. Woodrum advised that the
John Richardson Road project has not been officially re-scoped; however, after
speaking with County staff, the thought was to remove the existing deficient vehicular
bridge and replace it with a bicycling and pedestrian bridge and build a cul-de-sac on
the Hollins Road side of Plantation Road. Mr. Woodrum advised the re-scoping could
take place in the next couple of months and previous allocations on that project of more
than $500,000 could pay for demolishing, dismantling, removing the existing bridge and
replacing it with a cul-de-sac and pedestrian and bicycling structure.
Supervisor Flora asked if the Board approves the six-year plan, does this
also approve the pedestrian bridge.
Mr. Woodrum replied that the Board would be approving the pedestrian
bridge to stay on the list in the order of priority. He stated that VDOT would need
correspondence from the County that they want to move forward with this project as a
pedestrian and bicycle structure, versus replacing the vehicular bridge.
420
May 26, 2009
Supervisor Flora asked if the pedestrian bridge was not included, would
that change the demolition of the existing bridge and whether or not the abutments
would be removed. Mr. Woodrum responded that he did not know whether the
abutments would be removed, but the super structure would be removed.
Supervisor Flora stated he was concerned about using the abutments for
the pedestrian bridge. He was not opposed to the pedestrian bridge; however, since it is
located half in the County and half in Roanoke City, there should be more discussion on
this subject. He understands there are bikeways and other long range plans for Carvins
Creek and Tinker Creek; however, the property along the creeks is all private property
and he wants to ensure that the County's funds are used wisely.
Chairman Altizer advised that Supervisor McNamara had earlier moved
approval and he asked if the motion was for approval of the six-year plan or revenue
sharing projects since they were two separate resolutions. Supervisor McNamara
advised that he moved approval of the six-year plan.
Note from Deputy Clerk: The resolution approving the six-year plan was
numbered (R-052609-15) and the revenue sharing resolution was numbered (R-
052609-14) in the Action Agenda; therefore, the resolutions are not numbered in
sequence in the minutes.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution for the Six-Year
Improvement Plan and allocation of secondary road funds ordinance. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
May 26, 2009 421
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052609-15 REQUESTING APPROVAL AND ADOPTION
OF THE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT
PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-2015 AND APPROVAL OF THE
ALLOCATION OF SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009-2010
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 26, 2009 to receive comments for
the adoption of the Roanoke County Secondary Road System Six-Year Improvement
Plan for Fiscal Years 2009-2015 and the adoption of the secondary road funding for
Fiscal Year 2009-2010; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the adoption of the
Secondary Road System Six-year Improvement Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal
Years 2009-2015 and the allocation of secondary road funds for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly
attested to be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem
Residency Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Roanoke County
Secondary Road System Six-Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2009-2015 by the
Clerk to the Board.
Recorded Vote:
Moved by: Supervisor McNamara
Seconded by: None Required
Yeas: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
Nays: None
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution approving the
revenue sharing projects. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
422 May 26, 2009
RESOLUTION 052609-14 REQUESTING APPROVAL AND ADOPTION
OF THE REVENUE SHARING PROJECTS AND FUNDS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at a work session on May 12, 2009,
reviewed the projects identified in Roanoke County Revenue Sharing Program for Fiscal
Year 2009-2010; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to submit an application for an
allocation of funds of up to $500,500 through the Virginia Department of Transportation
Fiscal Year 2009-2010, Revenue Sharing Program; and
WHEREAS, $500,500 of these funds are requested to fund the projects identified
in Roanoke County Revenue Sharing Program for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the Revenue Sharing Project list for Fiscal Year 2009-
2010 and supports this application for an allocation of $500,500 through the Virginia
Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator is authorized to
sign the Letter of Intent and defer appropriation of the funds ($500,500) until July 1,
2009.
Recorded Vote:
Moved by: Supervisor McNamara
Seconded by: None Required
Yeas: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
Nays: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance upon the etition of Anne
Johnston to obtain a Special Use Permit in an R-1, Low Density
Residential District, to ac uire a multiple doh ep rmit for four
dogs on 4.33 acres, located at 2287 West Riverside Drive,
Catawba Magisterial District Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of
Plannin
0-052609-16
May 26, 2009 423
Mr. Thompson explained this is a request for a special use permit for a
multiple dog permit. A multiple dog permit is defined as the keeping, breeding, raising,
showing or training of four or more dogs over four months of age for personal enjoyment
of the owner or occupants of a property and for which commercial gain is not the
primary objective. There are three use and design standards associated with a multiple
dog permit as follows: (1) The minimum lot size has to be one acre. (2) The multiple dog
permit is an accessory to a single family dwelling. (3) The exterior runs, pens and other
confined areas shall be set back at least 25 feet from any property lines.
Mr. Thompson described how the request for the permit is the result of the
consolidation of two households through marriage and each are bringing two dogs to
this new household. They are proposing to have an enclosed area of 8,200 square feet
adjacent to a detached garage on the property. Two of the dogs would use the outdoor
area when the property owners are present and weather permits and the other two dogs
would stay indoors. The surrounding zoning is all R-1, Low Density Residential, and the
surrounding land uses are single-family homes and vacant land. The future land use is
neighborhood conservation and the use is consistent with the County's Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Thompson advised that the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on May 5, 2009, and no citizens spoke on this item. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the special use permit by a vote of five to zero with two
conditions: (1) the multiple dog permit shall be for a maximum of four dogs, and (2) the
424 May 26, 2009
special use permit shall be issued to Anne Johnston only and shall not be transferrable
to any other subsequent property owner.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if there are any provisions stating that
when one dog dies, the limit reverts to three dogs instead of four. Mr. Thompson
answered that, since the permit is valid for four dogs, they could purchase another dog
if one dies and in the event that they only want to have three dogs no permit would be
needed. Mr. Thompson continued that there was some discussion at the Planning
Commission concerning this issue and Ms. Johnston stated that if one of the dogs dies,
they are not looking to replace that dog. Staff did not pursue this as a condition because
there could be difficulty enforcing the condition.
Supervisor McNamara questioned whether the permit should be granted
for four dogs until such time one of the four dogs dies for whatever cause, and then the
permit is revoked so the dog could not be replaced. Mr. Mahoney answered that, while
the County has the capability to add that provision, the problem is enforceability. The
animal control officer would have to determine whether they have a new dog or have
replaced a dog that died. Mr. Mahoney stated that he did not think that such a condition
could be enforced as a practical matter. Supervisor McNamara agreed that it would be
an enforcement issue.
No citizens spoke on the item.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
May 26, 2009 425
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-16 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MULTIPLE DOG PERMIT ON 4.33 ACRES LOCATED AT 2287 WEST
RIVERSIDE DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 55.04-1-1.1) CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF ANNE
JOHNSTON
WHEREAS, Anne Johnston has filed a petition for a special use permit for a
multiple dog permit to be located at 2287 West Riverside Drive (Tax Map No. 55.04-1-
1.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
May 5, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on April 28, 2009; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on May 26, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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 Anne
Johnston for a multiple dog permit to be located at 2287 West Riverside Drive in the
Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community
Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse impact on the
surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is hereby
approved with the following conditions:
(1) The multiple dog permit shall be for a maximum of four (4) dogs.
(2) The special use permit shall be issued to Anne Johnston only, and shall
not be transferable to any other subsequent owner. It shall be the responsibility
of Ms. Johnston to notify the Zoning Administrator, in writing, of the transfer of
ownership of the property within thirty (30) days of the transfer.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
426
May 26, 2009
2. Second reading of an ordinance upon the etition of Shannon and
Cameron Smith to obtain a Special Use Permit in an R-1, Low
Density Residential District, to operate a rivate stable on 7.371
acres, located at 3847 Harborwood Road, Catawba Magisterial
District Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin
0-052609-17
Mr. Thompson advised this is a request for a special use permit for a
private stable with a maximum of two horses on approximately two fenced acres. The
petitioners propose to construct arun-in shelter for the horses and erect a fence along
portions of their property. Most of the existing vegetation would remain. The surrounding
zoning is R-1, Low Density Residential, and the future land use designation is Rural
Village. The surrounding land uses are single family homes and agricultural uses and
the use is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. There was a public
hearing at the Planning Commission on May 5, 2009, and no citizens to spoke on this
issue. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit by a
vote of five to zero with one condition: (1) a maximum of two horses shall be permitted
with the private stable.
There was no discussion and no citizens spoke on the petition.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
May 26, 2009 427
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-17 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A PRIVATE STABLE ON 7.371 ACRES LOCATED AT 3847
HARBORWOOD ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 65.00-2-19) CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF SHANNON AND
CAMERON SMITH
WHEREAS, Shannon and Cameron Smith have filed a petition for a special use
permit to operate a private stable on 7.371 acres located at 3847 Harborwood Road
(Tax Map Nos. 65.00-2-19) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
May 5, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on April 28, 2009; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on May 26, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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 Shannon
and Cameron Smith to operate a private stable on 7.371 acres located at 3847
Harborwood Road (Tax Map Nos. 65.00-2-19) in the Catawba Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
that it shall have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or
community, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following
conditions:
(1) A maximum of two (2) horses shall be permitted with the private stable.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
3. Second reading of an ordinance upon the etition of Timothy and
Angela Ramsay to obtain a Special Use Permit in an R-1, Low
428 May 26, 2009
Density Residential District, to operate a rivate stable on 8.16
acres, located at 1718 Mayfield Drive, Vinton Magisterial District
Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin
0-052609-18
Mr. Thompson advised this is a petition for a special use permit for a
private stable on 8.16 acres with fencing of 6.5 acres, which is mostly existing fencing.
They have an existing 36 x 48 metal building that would be used as a run-in shelter for
the horses. Prior to 1993, this property was zoned residential estates, which at that time
allowed private stable by-right. Most of the existing vegetation on the northeast corner
of the property will remain as well. The surrounding zonings are R-1 and R-2, Low
Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and it is surrounded by single-
family homes. The future land use designation is Development, which consists of areas
suitable for conventional or residential land use, and the area development policies do
not specifically address private stables.
Mr. Thompson advised that the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on May 5, 2009, and there were no citizens to speak on this issue. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit by a vote of five
to zero with three conditions. Those conditions are: (1) A maximum of two horses shall
be permitted with the private stable. (2) The area set aside for stable use shall be
secured per the concept plan and the fence will not physically adjoin the adjacent
May 26, 2009 429
parcel. (3) Existing tree coverage and foliage along the property lines shall be
maintained excluding maintenance of the fence.
Robert Younger, 1427 Lori Drive, advised that he has been friends and
neighbors with the petitioners for a number of years and they have always kept their
property well maintained and fenced. He requested that the Board approve the request.
There was no discussion.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-18 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A PRIVATE STABLE ON A 8.16 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED
AT 1718 MAYFIELD DRIVE (TAX MAP NOS. 79.03-2-18 AND 18.01)
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY
AND ANGELA RAMSAY
WHEREAS, Timothy and Angela Ramsay have filed a petition to operate a
private stable to be located at 1718 Mayfield Drive (Tax Map Nos. 79.03-2-18 and
18.01) in the Vinton Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
May 5, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on April 28, 2009; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on May 26, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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 Timothy
and Angela Ramsay to operate a private stable to be located at 1718 Mayfield Drive in
the Vinton Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2005
Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the
1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse impact
430 May 26, 2009
on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is hereby
approved with the following conditions:
(1) A maximum of two (2) horses shall be permitted with the private stable.
(2) The area set aside for stable use shall be secured per the concept plan
(identified as the Maxey Survey prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, dated March 23,
1993) and that area shall be fenced so as to not physically adjoin Tax Parcel No.
79.03-2-17.
(3) Existing tree coverage and foliage along property lines shall be maintained
excluding brush and briars requiring removal due to fence repair.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
4. Second reading of an ordinance upon the etition of Sam L.
Hardy, Jr. and Mercedes P. Hardy to rezone approximately 81.81
acres from PRD, Planned Residential Development District, to AR,
Agricultural/Residential District, for the purpose of constructing
single family residential dwellings on large acreage tracts of
approximately 66.3 acres and 15.5 acres, located at the 7800
Block of Whistler Drive, Windsor Hills Magisterial District Phili
Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin
0-052609-19
Mr. Thompson explained this request is basically a down zoning. In 2004,
97 acres were zoned from AR, Agricultural/Residential, to PRD, Planned Residential
Development, for the Mercedes Heights Development, which included 13 housing units
May 26, 2009 431
and 36 acres of preserved open space. The petitioners are now proposing to combine
two existing parcels of 79 acres and 1.84 acres, rezone the acreage to AR,
Agricultural/Residential, then subdivide the 81 acres into a 66 acre tract and a 15.5 acre
tract. The additional 15.72 acres, which was part of the original rezoning, will remain
PRD.
Mr. Thompson stated that according to the master plan in the application,
there is only one lot of the development that has an existing house and nothing will
change unless the petitioners come back and change the master plan. The Blue Ridge
Parkway staff supports the proposed rezoning as it will result in a more rural and
agricultural designation and provide greater protection for the wildlife and visual
impacts. All of the surrounding zoning is AR, Agricultural/Residential, and AG-3,
Agricultural Rural Preserve. The property is surrounded by single-family homes and
vacant land. Future land uses will be Rural Preserve and Rural Village, which require
protection to preserve agricultural, forestry, recreational and remote residential areas.
This proposal is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on May 5, 2009, and no citizens spoke on the
petition. The Planning Commission recommended by a vote of five to zero to approve
the rezoning request.
There were no citizens present who wished to speak on this item.
432 May 26, 2009
Supervisor McNamara remembered when this property was originally
rezoned and it is very rural and steep in a lot of areas. He advised that there will be two
nice acreage lots for houses and he was happy to move approval.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-19 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF AN 81.81 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 7800
BLOCK OF WHISTLER DRIVE (TAX MAP NOS. 95.03-2-19 AND 19.1)
IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PRD TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF AR UPON THE APPLICATION OF SAM L.
HARDY, JR. AND MERCEDES HARDY
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 28, 2009, and
the second reading and public hearing were held May 26, 2009; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on May 5, 2009; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
I aw.
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
81.81 acres, as described herein, and located in the 7800 block of Whistler Drive (Tax
Map Numbers 95.03-2-19 and 19.01) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of PRD, Planned Residential District, to the
zoning classification of AR, Agricultural/Residential District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Sam L. Hardy, Jr. and
Mercedes P. Hardy.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Map Numbers 95.03-2-19 and 19.01 containing 81.81 acres.
4. That the provisions of Ordinance No. 072704-4 are hereby repealed for
the real estate described in paragraph 3 above and which is the subject of this change
in zoning classification.
May 26, 2009 433
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 McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
5. Second reading of an ordinance upon the etition of the Roanoke
County Public Schools to obtain a Special Use Permit in a AR,
Agricultural Residential District, to construct an addition and
renovation to the existing school on 9.4 acres, located at 3244
and 3250 Mount Pleasant Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District
Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin
0-052609-20
Mr. Thompson advised that the proposed addition and renovation of the
existing school needs a special use permit for an expansion of 11,694 square feet. The
addition and renovation would add new administrative space, new classroom space,
new dining and kitchen facilities, new HVAC services, upgraded electrical services, a
renovated and relocated library with improved access and safer bus, vehicular and
pedestrian access. They are also proposing 120 new parking spaces to be built in two
phases. The current capacity of the school is 325 students and the addition will add
space for 400 and capacity expandable up to 600 in the future. The Blue Ridge Parkway
staff recommended leaving a 100 foot buffer to protect the views from the Parkway. All
434
May 26, 2009
the surrounding zoning is AV, Agricultural Village, AR, Agricultural Residential or AG-3,
Agricultural Rural Preserve. The surrounding land use includes a park, the Blue Ridge
Parkway and single-family homes. It is designated Suburban Village and the proposal is
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Thompson indicated the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on May 5, 2009, and no citizens spoke on the petition. The Planning Commission
recommended by a vote of five to zero to approve the special use permit with one
condition: (1) maintaining a 100-foot buffer along the Blue Ridge Parkway.
There were no citizens who wished to speak on this item and there was no
discussion.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-20 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, PRIMARY/SECONDARY IN A AR,
AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT AN
ADDITION AND RENOVATION TO THE EXISTING MOUNT PLEASANT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON 9.4 ACRES LOCATED AT 3244 AND 3250
MOUNT PLEASANT BOULEVARD (TAX MAP NOS. 79.04-1-4 AND 4.1)
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF
ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, Roanoke County Public Schools has filed a petition for a special use
permit for educational facilities, primary/secondary in a AR, Agricultural Residential
District to construct an addition and renovation to the existing Mount Pleasant
Elementary School on 9.4 acres located at 3244 and 3250 Mount Pleasant Boulevard
(Tax Map Nos. 79.04-1-4 and 4.1) in the Vinton Magisterial District; and
May 26, 2009 435
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
May 5, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on April 28, 2009; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on May 26, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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 the
Roanoke County Schools for educational facilities, primary/secondary in a AR,
Agricultural Residential District to construct an addition and renovation to the existing
Mount Pleasant Elementary School on 9.4 acres located at 3244 and 3250 Mount
Pleasant Boulevard (Tax Map Nos. 79.04-1-4 and 4.1) in the Vinton Magisterial District
is substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding
neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the
following conditions:
(1) A 100-foot wooded buffer for screening purposes shall be maintained
adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Altizer declared afive-minute recess.
6. (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 24, 2009) Second reading of an
ordinance upon the etition of Edward Rose Properties, Inc. to
rezone approximately 16.3 acres from R-2, Medium Density
Residential District, to R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential District with Conditions, and C-2C, General
436
May 26, 2009
Commercial District with Conditions, and to rezone approximately
0-052609-21
11.2 acres from C-2, General Commercial District, to R-3C,
Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with Conditions,
for the purpose of constructing a mixed-use development
consisting of an apartment complex and commercial uses located
at the 6200 and 6300 blocks of Cove Road and Green Ridge Road,
Catawba Magisterial District Phili Thompson, Deputy Director
of Plannin
Mr. Thompson reviewed the proposal and updated the Board of what had
taken place since the March 24, 2009, Board meeting. He stated that six parcels make
up the 31.4 acres and there are 16.3 acres zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential
District, and 15.1 acres zoned C-2, General Commercial District. The petitioner is
requesting to rezone 23.6 acres to R-2C, Medium Density Residential District with
conditions, and 7.8 acres to C-2, General Commercial District. They are proposing 12
apartment buildings, 252 apartment units and three-story buildings. The general break
down of one-bedroom apartments is approximately 35 percent, two bedrooms
approximately 50 percent and three bedrooms approximately 15 percent. Also proposed
are a management office, clubhouse and two entrances are off Cove Road. The
entrances will be 24 feet wide with two-way traffic aisles and there will be approximately
500 parking spaces associated with the apartment buildings.
May 26, 2009 437
Mr. Thompson continued that there are two commercial sites and
originally they were proposed at 3.9 acres and he would speak about a change in the
concept plan later. There are three existing homes on the site that will be demolished.
There is an existing Appalachian Electric Power line that runs through the property with
a 50 foot wide easement. The surrounding zoning is R-1, Low Density Residential, and
R-2, Medium Density Residential, to the north and east, and C-2, General Commercial,
to the south. The surrounding land uses are residential to the north and east, vacant
land to the south and the VDOT right-of-way to the east. Future land use is Core and
Transition. The proposal would proffer conditions to conform to the future land use plan.
Mr. Thompson advised that three community meetings were held on the
dates of November 19, February 12 and May 21, 2009. The majority of concerns
expressed dealt with traffic and safety, screening and buffering and the impact of
development on adjacent properties.
438 May 26, 2009
Mr. Thompson continued that there was a public hearing before the
Planning Commission on March 3, 2009. There were eight citizens who spoke in
opposition. Issues and concerns raised included storm water runoff, exterior lighting,
lighting installation heights and intensity, the volume of crashes in the vicinity of Cove
Road and Green Ridge Road, traffic generated by the new Public Safety Center,
pressure on the local road network when problems occur on Interstate 81, the backup of
cars on Cove Road making a left onto Route 419, traffic impacts on the local road
network, especially after the multigenerational center opens, advancing commercial
zoning on Cove Road and screening and buffering adjacent to nearby residences. The
Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the recreational amenities, the
existing traffic conditions at Cove Road and Electric Road, proximity to emergency
services, the use of corporate apartment leases, background checks, wording of the
road improvement proffer, impacts to the septic systems, signage and lighting of
commercial sites, dumpsters, green building concepts, use of C-2 zoned properties and
improvements on the six-year road plan. Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning
Commission at their March 3, 2009, meeting voted three to two to recommend denial of
the request.
Mr. Thompson stated that at the March 24, 2009, meeting there were
seven proffered conditions and the Board has been provided with a signed copy of
twelve proffered conditions being offered by the petitioner. He advised that he would
review these conditions later.
May 26, 2009 439
Mr. Thompson explained that since the March 24, 2009, Board meeting,
there have been a few changes. On the concept plan for the commercial site, which is
attached to the amended proffers, the one-half acre they have now designated as open
space does allow 7.8 acres zoned for C-2, and in actuality only 7.3 acres is usable.
Even though 7.8 acres will be zoned C-2, it is being shown as open space. They have
amended proffer four dealing with the commercial building design features. The
petitioners met with VDOT regarding a traffic light and he referred to a letter from VDOT
that detailed the two analyses VDOT offered on a traffic light at Cove Road and Route
419. In order for VDOT to justify a traffic signal, eight warrants must be met. Without
any improvement at Route 419 and Cove Road, only one of the eight warrants is met.
With the proffered improvement at Route 419 and Cove Road, none of the warrants are
met. Therefore, VDOT has stated that a light would not be justified at this location. The
second analysis they did regarding a traffic light at Route 419 and Cove Road was an
access management and looked at the spacing requirements. VDOT requires 2,640 feet
between signalized intersections and the Cove Road intersection is approximately 470
feet from an intersection at Interstate 81. Therefore, on the spacing standard, a traffic
light would not be justified at that location.
Mr. Thompson stated that Supervisor Church requested a speed reduction
study and met with VDOT representatives and the County Administrator. The first
analysis by VDOT looked at the full length of Cove Road and it was decided that
reducing the speed limit on Cove Road was not justified. VDOT next analyzed the
440 May 26, 2009
section from the Public Safety Center back toward the City of Roanoke limits and it was
justified for a reduction in the speed limit from 40 to 35 miles per hour. VDOT is moving
forward with that recommendation. In addition, the petitioner conducted a sight distance
analysis at the entrances and added a proffer providing bike racks at the clubhouse.
The petitioner conducted an internal analysis of Green Ridge Road. Although the
petitioner is not responsible for Green Ridge Road, the analysis showed that within the
existing right of way a turn lane could be built at Green Ridge Road. The petitioner
provided architectural renderings.
Mr. Thompson briefly reviewed the twelve proposed proffers. The first
proffer, which has been amended, reflects that they are going to build the project in
conformance with the Concept Plan dated May 21, 2009. The second proffer states the
residential part of the rezoning will only be used for multi-family dwellings, basically
apartments. Proffer three refers to the 7.8 acres zoned C-2, General Commercial, and
lists a variety of residential, civic, office and commercial uses. It does prohibit some of
the uses that are allowed by-right. Only those uses listed in that proffer would be
allowed on the C-2 portion of the property and this is the same proffer that existed on
March 24. Proffer number four is probably the most significant change and deals with
the commercial buildings and design elements that would be incorporated. It details the
design type, roof type, roof material, massing, exterior materials and finishes, colors,
dumpster screening and building signage and establishes covenants to cover these
design elements. Proffer five deals with the buffer along the eastern boundary of the
May 26, 2009 441
property and, although a type A buffer is required, the petitioner has agreed to a type B
buffer for the full length of that eastern property line. Proffer six states the exterior
appearance will be constructed in substantial conformance with the renderings of
February 25, 2009, which are attached to the ordinance. Proffer number seven limits the
amount of signage for the apartment complex to one 30 square foot monument sign, no
more than six feet in height. Proffer number eight deals with the signage on the
commercial properties, limiting them to eight feet in height and 75 square feet. Proffer
nine deals with limiting the lighting for the commercial area to 15 feet in height and
directed downward. Proffer number 10 deals with limiting the multi-family dwellings
lighting to 15 feet and it shall be shielded and turned downward. Proffer number eleven
deals with the construction of an improvement to Route 419 and Cove Road to
construct aright-turn lane approximately 200-feet in length with a 150 foot taper in
accordance with VDOT standards and specifications for an urban collector road. Proffer
number twelve states there shall be a bike rack at the clubhouse to hold a minimum of
six bikes. Mr. Thompson reported that the petitioner wished to make a presentation.
Supervisor Flora inquired for clarification that VDOT could justify changing
the speed limit between the Public Safety Building and Roanoke City limits, but could
not justify changing it between the Public Safety Building and Route 419. Mr. Thompson
affirmed that this was correct.
Ms. Laurie Corley, Project Manager, Edward Roses Properties, advised
that Mr. Thompson went through most of the changes. She displayed visuals prepared
442 May 26, 2009
for some of the proffered conditions in the sight distance. Ms. Corley stated they heard
the concerns from the neighbors and from the last Board meeting on March 24, 2009,
which were safety, traffic, the appearance of the commercial area, the safety of existing
turns on Cove Road and location of the entrances into the proposed development. She
referred to visuals showing the entrances and described the sight-distance study their
engineers conducted. The study determined that the minimum requirement on this road
for site distance would be 445 feet for a designed speed of 40 miles per hour. They
agreed to have a sight distance of 500 feet for the western entrance if you are looking to
the north and for the northern entrance if you are looking to the west. Those two
entrances were mostly covered by vegetation and needed better sight distance. The
sight distances already exceed 500 feet for the other directions on the western entrance
looking to the south and the northern entrance looking to the east. This new visual line
of sight will be created by doing more grading and also clearing existing vegetation on
those curves. The petitioner is still including a proffer to build and construct the right-
turn lane on Cove Road onto Route 419.
Ms. Corley referred to another visual of the 0.58 acre of green space they
are proposing, which will not only reduce some of the impact of the commercial, but
provide a physical and a visual buffer for those existing neighbors that live along Cove
Road. For cars approaching Cove Road on Green Ridge, there will be a visual impact to
screen from any commercial buildings as well. The petitioner is agreeing to create a
covenant document that, before any commercial building is built on the commercial
May 26, 2009 443
pads, Edward Rose Properties will retain the right to approve the use, landscape plan,
and architectural plans. Edward Rose is a long-term holder that cares about neighbors,
the use and the look of the building. They looked internally to add some environmentally
friendly options on the site. They have proffered a bike rack and agreed to do some
recycling, whether through the County, or with recycling areas on the property and staff
physically take recyclables to County locations. She advised that the landscape buffer
along the eastern property line was discussed at length at the May 21 neighborhood
meeting. She advised that Type A buffer is required in R-1 to R-3 zoning; however, the
petitioner agreed to do a Type B, Option 1 buffer on the majority of the eastern property
line and she described the impact of this from a visual. Since the landscaping was
difficult to describe in words, she displayed pictures of their existing community,
Sunscape, showing areas that would be similar to the landscape area being discussed
as far as distance from improvements to the property line.
Supervisor Moore inquired if they are still planning on installing the fence
around the Connors' property off of Plainview. Ms. Corley replied that they are
proposing to install the fence on Mr. Connors' property at the southern edge of their
property, which will be a black vinyl coated four-foot fence.
Cindee Garst Hensley of 6043 Cove Road advised that she lives half a
block from Plainview. She requested that asix-foot fence be installed on her father's
property, which she pointed out on the map, since a fence will be installed on the
Connor's property. She stated that she is concerned about the impact of the additional
444 May 26, 2009
traffic that will be generated on the road since VDOT has no funding for roads. She
expressed concern that the developer will have to grade the property quite a bit to get
the sight distance. She also wanted to mention that the property next to the three
houses being demolished will be affected by a drop in their locations.
Steve Amrhein, 6253 Hinchee Lane, wanted to reiterate Ms. Hensley's
concerns about the additional traffic and the fact that VDOT does not have the money to
improve the roads in the County. He understands that improvements are being done on
Colonial Avenue partly because of the additional traffic from Sunscape. When
properties are developed, it seems that utilities and the roads are the first things that get
developed before everything moves in, and in this case, Cove Road is not very wide
and he does not think it can handle the traffic. The left hand turn lane from Route 419
onto Cove Road was not addressed and that can be a big problem. He is also
concerned about the location of the commercial property and feels that there are too
many buildings for the area unless something is done with Cove Road first. From the
Public Safety Building down to the Roanoke City line, it is basically residential and those
houses are very close to Cove Road. He does not feel the traffic problems have been
addressed and more should be done.
Supervisor Church expressed his appreciation to Mr. Woodrum on behalf
of the community of Cove Road for his efforts to help with the potential speed reduction.
Supervisor Church stated that the reduction of the speed limit from the Public Safety
May 26, 2009 445
Center back to the Roanoke City limits will have no effect on the other end of Cove
Road. Mr. Woodrum confirmed that this was correct.
Supervisor Church stated that he wanted a speed limit of 25 miles per
hour all the way, but this was denied. He questioned Mr. Woodrum if the reduction
would solve anything because it really is not far away from the potential building site.
Mr. Woodrum responded that the 40 miles per hour speed limit would be
in place back to the intersection. He stated that once the site is developed, a Supervisor
or citizen who lives on the road can request another speed study. If another speed
study justifies a lower speed limit to match the 35 miles per hour, that data could
support a reduction.
Supervisor Church signified that he wanted to go on record thanking Mr.
Woodrum for his efforts on behalf of the citizens in the area and to make a clarification
that making the speed limit change from the Public Safety Building back down to the
Roanoke City line is irrelevant to this project. However, the change is appreciated by the
people on the lower end of the road who have little or no driveway.
Supervisor Church advised that he believes that Edward Rose Properties
are very reputable and have a longstanding good history of building quality projects. His
concerns are exactly those that some of the neighbors have mentioned tonight. Many
other families not present at this meeting have contacted him and members of the
Board and those citizens have acted professionally with good intentions. Many citizens
have lived in this area for thirty-plus years and everyone knows that the traffic can be
446 May 26, 2009
backed up due to Virginia Tech's ballgames or accidents on Interstate 81 and
unfortunately VDOT does not have an immediate or short-term fix.
Supervisor Church noted that earlier today, the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit Federally funded program was a new business item and during the discussion
Mr. Thompson commented about concerns and characteristics of the surrounding
neighborhood being one of the factors involved. Supervisor Church stated that Mr.
Thompson had indicated that the concerns of the immediate surrounding neighborhood
should be considered as one of the factors involved in the process. Supervisor Church
surmised that concern for a surrounding neighborhood should be considered because
the Rose project will adversely impact the traffic and safety of a neighborhood. He
advised that the traffic from the multigenerational center will drastically affect the
neighborhood in the future regardless of the Edward Rose Properties project. He
concluded that most of the families who have talked to him personally are more
concerned about the additional traffic and safety concerns than the Rose project itself.
Supervisor Church noted that he requested a fence be put around the
border and Ms. Corley emailed back that Edward Rose Properties could not do that. He
understands that a fence would not impact the traffic; however, there was a pond
involved and children's safety. He advised that he cannot support the rezoning and it is
not because of the Edward Rose project. He cannot support it because of the concerns
of people already living on Cove Road and Green Ridge Road. The petitioner has cut
down a half of an acre on the commercial side and the input he has received from
May 26, 2009 447
citizens report that Edward Rose is not the issue. He is concerned about the lack of
funding that VDOT has for roads. He did not vote for a Wal-Mart on Route 220 because
of the anticipated increase in traffic and there is an elementary school less than 100 feet
from the roadside. He advised Chairman Altizer that he would not support the request at
the present time.
Supervisor Flora inquired about the capacity of Cove Road based on the
40 miles per hour two-lane road, the current vehicles per day on that road and the total
after this project is added.
Mr. Woodrum responded that the current average daily traffic (ADT) is
approximately 3,600 between Route 419 and Green Ridge Road, and between Green
Ridge Road and the Roanoke City limit approximately 2,500. He does not know the
capacity of a two-lane road by textbook definition but there are much higher traffic
volumes than that on other two-lane roads in the area. Supervisor Flora advised that he
thought the number was more than 3,600 and Mr. Woodrum replied that he may be
right. Supervisor Flora questioned the volume on Route 419 at Cove Road. Mr.
Woodrum estimated it might be between 20,000 and 30,000.
Supervisor Flora stated that the ability for Cove Road to carry more than
3,600 vehicles is significant since there are two and three-lane roads carrying two and
three times that number. He does not think that Cove Road is carrying the amount of
traffic that a divided highway is carrying. He was surprised by the speed limit study
because he would have thought that the section between the Public Safety Building and
448 May 26, 2009
Route 419 would have qualified as opposed to the section between the Public Safety
Building and the Roanoke City limit. He thought the alignment going towards the
Roanoke City limit was fairly straight with many driveways, and Route 419, which is a
four lane divided highway, has a 35 mile per hour speed limit. Mr. Woodrum advised
that the speed limits are being re-evaluated.
Supervisor Flora stated that the point he was making is that Cove Road
carries its share of traffic but the alignment and the curvature permits a fairly significant
amount of traffic. He surmised that if they waited for VDOT to make improvements to
the roads before approving developments, all development would stop in the County.
He deemed this an incredibly positive improvement in terms of housing for this end of
the County and it is a great project. He is very familiar with the project on Colonial
Avenue, Sunscape, and that was a great project. He would like to see the project
completed and knows there will always be traffic, storm water and other issues with
rezonings. He intends to support the request if the opportunity presents itself.
Supervisor Church commented that he did not know where Supervisor
Flora was getting his numbers on how many vehicles Cove Road could handle since
Mr. Woodrum with VDOT could not provide the answers. He deemed it an arbitrary
thing and felt no one sitting on the Board could give a vehicle per day count and know
whether or not it could be handled and that it would be mere speculation. He again
advised that this is not about how the Rose complex will be developed as he is sure
they will do a good job.
May 26, 2009 449
Supervisor Moore commented that she used to live on Cove Road and
has traveled that road for many years. She thinks the developer has done a good job on
trying to create a safer Cove Road by putting in a turn lane onto Route 419, improving
the sight distance and reducing the speed limit. With those improvements she feels it
will be safer and she does not think it is fair to the developer that the County has added
so much traffic to this road over the years with other buildings.
Supervisor McNamara added that the issue is coming to a vote and he
commented that it is a great project and will provide quality housing for citizens, which is
a positive thing. All developments affect traffic and the County cannot wait to improve
roads before approving developments. He thought that spending an extra four weeks on
this project has resulted in an improved project and it will be a great addition to the area.
Chairman Altizer advised that the County is aware of the traffic that will be
generated from the multigenerational center; however, there are other directions for that
traffic and a lot of it may go out at Valley Pointe. He stated that Rose Properties is a
quality company and builds good projects. The question to him seems to be how the
Board can best represent the citizens who support or oppose the project. He noted that
things could be done in this project by-right, which would create traffic. By accepting
proffers, the Board can have some control of the development and the impact of the
issues and concerns of the citizens. He inquired if Supervisor Church wished to make a
motion.
450
May 26, 2009
Supervisor Church advised Chairman Altizer that in lieu of making a
motion to deny, he would not make a motion.
Supervisor Flora moved approval of the project with the conditions
proffered by the developer.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisor Church
ORDINANCE 052609-21 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 16.3 ACRES
FROM R-2, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO R-3C,
MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH
CONDITIONS (APPROXIMATELY 12.4 ACRES), AND C-2C, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS (APPROXIMATELY 3.9
ACRES) AND TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.2 ACRES FROM C-2,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO R-3C, MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AMIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX (APPROXIMATELY 23.6
ACRES) AND COMMERCIAL USES (APPROXIMATELY 7.8 ACRES)
UPON APPLICATION OF EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES, INC.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 24, 2009,
and the second reading and public hearing were held March 24, 2009 and continued to
May 26, 2009; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on March 3, 2009; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
I aw.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of certain tracts of real estate as described
below and located in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed as follows:
May 26, 2009 451
(a) Tax Map No. 36.11-02-04 containing 10.350 acres is hereby changed
from the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to the zoning
classification of R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with Conditions.
BEGINNING at a point located on the southerly right-of-way of Cove Road
(Virginia Secondary Route 780), said point also being northwesterly corner of Tax
Parcel 36.11-02-05; thence leaving Cove Road and with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-05, S 37°
24' 22" W 438.65 feet to a point, said point, said point being the southwesterly corner of
Tax Parcel 36.11-02-05; thence continuing with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-05, S 39° 21' 23" E
passing the southwesterly corner of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-06 at 90.00 feet, in all 276.91
feet to a point, said point being the southeasterly corner of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-06; said
point also located on the westerly boundary of Plain View Subdivision and on the
westerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-09; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-06
and with Plain View Subdivision, S 43° 25' 00" W 959.48 feet, said point located on the
westerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.15-01-01, said point also located on the easterly
boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.15-01-01 and with
Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36, N 07° 04' 26" E passing the southeasterly corner of Tax Parcel
36.11-02-01.01 at 740.04 feet, in all 916.97 feet to a point, said point located on the
southerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-
01.02 and with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03 for the following 2 courses: thence S 84° 39'
30" E 120.66 feet to a point; thence N. 17° 28' 30" E 550.84 feet to a point, said point
located on the southerly right-of-way of Cove Road; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-
02-03 and with the southerly right-of-way of Cove Road for the following 4 courses;
thence with a curve to the right which said curve is defined by delta angle of 34° 18' 12",
a radius of 531.23 feet, an arc distance of 318.05 feet, a chord of 313.32 feet and
bearing S 64° 11' 35" E to a point; thence S 44° 27' 17" E 28.55 feet to a point; thence N
45° 32' 43" E 30.00 feet to a point; thence S 44° 27' 17" E 40.50 feet to the place of
beginning.
(b) A portion of Tax Map No. 36.11-02-03 containing 1.173 acres is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to
the zoning classification of R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with
Conditions.
BEGINNING at a point located on the southerly right-of-way of Virginia
Secondary Route 780 (Cove Road), said point also being the northwesterly corner of
Tax Parcel 36.11-02-04; thence leaving Virginia Secondary Route 780 and with Tax
Parcel 36.11-04-04 for the following 2 courses; thence S 17° 28' 30" W 550.84 feet to a
point; thence N 84° 39' 30" W 120.66 feet to a point, said point located on the easterly
boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-04 and
with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01 for the following 2 courses; thence N 07° 50' 30" E
131.31 feet to a point; thence N 03° 36' 30" W 7.73 feet to a point; thence with new
zoning line through Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03 N 09° 45' 10" E 12.15 feet to a point; said
point located on the southerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-02; thence with the
boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-02, S 84° 28' 30" E 77.16 feet to a point; thence N 14°
452 May 26, 2009
49' 30" E 390.82 feet to a point, said point located on the southerly right-of-way of
Virginia Secondary Route 780; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-02 and with Virginia
Secondary Route 780 with a curve to the right which curve is defined by a delta angle of
09° 39' 36", a radius of 531.23 feet, an arc length of 89.57 feet, a chord of 89.46 feet
and bearing S 86° 10' 29" E to the point of beginning.
(c) A portion of Tax Map No. 36.11-02-03 containing 17 square feet is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to
the zoning classification of C-2C, General Commercial District with Conditions.
BEGINNING at the southwesterly corner of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-02, said point
also located on the easterly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01; thence leaving Tax
Parcel 36.11-02-02 and with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01, S 03° 36' 30" E 12.27 feet to a
point; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01 and with the new zoning line through
the property of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03, N 09° 45' 10" E 12.15 feet to a point, said point
located on the southerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-02; thence with Tax Parcel
36.11-02-02, N 84° 28' 30" W 2.84 feet to the point of beginning.
(d) A portion of Tax Map No. 36.11-02-02 containing 0.81 acres is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to
the zoning classification of R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with
Conditions.
BEGINNING at a point located on the southerly right-of-way of Virginia
Secondary Route 780 (Cove Road), said point also being the northwesterly corner of
Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03; thence leaving Virginia Secondary Route 780 and with the
westerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03, S 14° 49' 30" W 390.82 feet to a point;
thence continuing with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03, N 84° 28' 30" W 77.16 feet to a point;
thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03 and with the new zoning line through Tax Parcel
36.11-02-02, N 09° 45' 10" E 362.10 feet to a point, said point located on the southerly
right-of-way of Virginia Secondary Route 780; thence with a curve to the right, which
said curve is defined by a delta angle of 09° 22' 17", an arc length of 83.08 feet, a radius
of 507.96 feet, a chord of 82.99 feet and bearing N 81 ° 46' 29" E to a point; thence
continuing with a curve to the right, which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 03°
35' 54", an arc length of 33.36 feet, a radius of 531.23 feet, a chord of 33.36 feet and
bearing N 87° 11' 45" E to the point of beginning.
(e) A portion of Tax Map No. 36.11-02-02 containing 0.342 acres is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to
the zoning classification of C-2C, General Commercial District with Conditions.
BEGINNING at a point located on the southerly right-of-way of Virginia
Secondary Route 780 (Cove Road), said point also being the northeasterly corner of
Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01 and with the southerly
right-of-way of Virginia Secondary Route 780 with a curve to the right, which said curve
is defined by a delta angle of 10° 04' 56", a radius of 507.96 feet, an arc length of 89.38,
a chord of 89.27 feet and bearing N 72° 02' 52" E to a point; thence with a new zoning
line through the property Tax Parcel 36.11-02-02, S 09° 45' 10" W 362.10 feet to a
May 26, 2009 453
point, said point located on the boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03; thence leaving new
zoning line and with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03, N 84° 28' 30" W 2.84 feet to a point, said
point located on the easterly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-2-01.01; thence leaving Tax
Parcel 36.11-02-03 and with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01 N 03° 36' 30" W passing the
southeasterly corner of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01 at 251.45 feet, in all 329.74 feet to the
point of beginning.
(f) Tax Map No. 36.11-02-01 containing 0.133 acres is hereby changed from
the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to the zoning
classification of C-2C, General Commercial District with Conditions.
BEGINNING at a point located on the southerly right-of-way of Virginia
Secondary Route 780 (Cove Road), said point also being the northwesterly corner of
Tax Parcel 36.11-02-02; thence leaving Virginia Secondary Route 780 and with Tax
Parcel 36.11-02-02, S 03° 36' 30" E 78.29 feet to a point, said point being located on
the northerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-
02-02 and with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01, S 89° 36' 20" W 133.69 feet to a point, said
point located on the southerly right-of-way of Virginia Secondary Route 780; thence
leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.02 and with Cove Road with a curve to the right which
said curve is a delta angle of 17° 06' 22", a radius of 507.96 feet, an arc length of
151.66 feet, a chord of 151.09 feet and bearing N 58° 27' 13" E to the point of
beginning.
(g) A portion of Tax Map No. 36.11-02-01.01 containing 3.436 acres is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to
the zoning classification of C-2C, General Commercial District with Conditions.
BEGINNING at a corner located on the southerly right-of-way of Virginia
Secondary Route 780 (Cove Road), said point also located on the southerly boundary
of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01; thence leaving Cove Road and with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01,
N 89° 36' 20E E 133.69 feet to a point, said point located on the westerly boundary of
Tax Parcel 36.11-02-02; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-01-01 and with Tax Parcel
36.11-02-02, S 03° 36' 30" E 263.72 feet to a point; thence with a new zoning line
through Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01, S 09° 45' 10" W 313.61 feet to a point; said point
located on the northerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36; thence with said tax
parcel N 72° 48' 44: W 339.60 feet to a point, said point located on the southerly right-
of-way of Virginia Secondary Route 780; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36 and
with Virginia Secondary Route 780 for the following 2 courses; thence N 16° 34' 12" E
243.87 feet to a point; thence with a curve to the right which said curve is defined by a
delta angle of 32° 34' 20", an arc length of 288.77 feet, a radius of 507.96 feet, a chord
of 284.90 feet and bearing N 33° 36' 52" E to the point of beginning.
(h) A portion of Tax Map No. 36.11-02-01 containing 0.054 acres is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to
the zoning classification of R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with
Conditions.
454 May 26, 2009
BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36, said point
also located on the westerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-04; thence leaving Tax
Parcel 36.11-02-04 and with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36, N 72° 48' 44" W 14.56 feet to a
point; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36 and with a new zoning line through Tax
Parcel 36.11-02-01.01, N 09° 45' 10" E 313.61 feet to a point, said point located on the
westerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03; thence continuing with said parcel for the
following 2 courses; thence S 03° 36' 30" E 7.73 feet to a point; thence S 07° 50' 30" W
131.31 feet to a point, aid point being the northwesterly corner of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-
04; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-03 and with said Tax Parcel 36.11-02-04, S 07°
04' 26" W 176.93 feet to the point of beginning.
(i) A portion of Tax Map No. 36.11-02-36 containing 11.199 acres is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, to the
zoning classification of R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with
Conditions.
BEGINNING at Corner #17 located at the intersection of Electric Road (Virginia
Highway Route 419) and Cove Road (Virginia Secondary Route 780); thence leaving
Virginia Highway 419 and with Cove Road for the following 2 courses; N 59° 18' 46" E
148.84 feet to Corner #18; thence N 40° 45' 50' E 137.08 feet to Corner #19, the actual
point of beginning; thence continuing with Cove Road for the following 2 courses; N 09°
38' 23" E 201.81 feet to Corner #20; thence N 17° 19' 42" E 103.41 feet to a point;
thence leaving Cove Road and with the new zoning line through Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36
for the following 3 courses; thence S 80° 14' 50" E 252.67 feet to a point; thence with a
curve to the left which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 90° 00' 00", a radius of
120.00 feet, an arc length of 188.50 feet, a chord of 169.71 feet, and bearing N 54° 45'
10" E to a point; thence N 09° 45' 10" E 347.20 feet to a point, said point located on the
southerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01; thence continuing with said tax
parcel, S 72° 48' 44" E 14.56 feet to Corner #2, said point located on the westerly
boundary of Tax Parcel 36.11-02-04; thence leaving Tax Parcel 36.11-02-01.01 and
with Tax Parcel 36.11-02-04, S 07° 04' 26" W 740.04 feet to Corner #3, said corner
located on the westerly boundary of Tax Parcel 36.15-01-01; thence leaving Tax Parcel
36.11-02-04 and with Tax Parcel 36.15-01-01, S 37° 42' 00" E 833.90 feet to Corner #4,
said point being the northeasterly corner of Tax Parcel 36.15-01-02; thence leaving Tax
Parcel 36.15-01-01 and with Tax Parcel 36.15-01-02, S 48° 59' 59" W 301.96 feet to
Corner "A"; thence with the new zoning line through Tax Parcel 36.11-02-36 for the
following 2 courses and leaving Tax Parcel 36.15-01-02; thence N 25° 24' 03" W 49.86
feet to Corner "B"; thence N 00° 04' 02" E 17.36 feet to Corner "C"; thence N 04° 10' 45"
W 27.70 feet to Corner "D"; thence N 33° 44' 23" W 11.51 feet to Corner "E"; thence N
86° 25' 51" W 24.46 feet to Corner "F"; thence N 47° 13' 00" W 12.97 feet to Corner "G";
thence N 12° 09' 46" W 17.94 feet to Corner "H"; thence N. 44° 16' 58" W 18.99 feet to
Corner "I"; thence N 31 ° 31' 45" W 25.78 feet to Corner "J"; thence N 32° 45' 55" W
23.40 feet to Corner "K"; thence N 54° 43' 48" W 23.99 feet to Corner "L"; thence N 32°
39' 14" W 34.16 feet to Corner "M"; thence N 34° 35' 40" W 30.95 feet to Corner "N";
May 26, 2009 455
thence N 72° 32' 26" W 28.05 feet to Corner "O"; thence N 52° 54' 46" W 21.46 feet to
Corner "P"; thence N 40° 17' 28" W 34.99 feet to Corner "Q"; thence N 51 ° 20' 49" W
163.16 feet to Corner "R"; thence N 60° 52' 05" W 225.23 feet to Corner "S"; thence N
36° 18' 10" W 176.40 feet to Corner "T"; thence N 18° 58' 08" W 144.44 feet to Corner
"U"; thence N 05° 30' 08" W 113.00 feet to Corner 19, the actual point of beginning.
2. A portion of Tax Map No. 36.11-02-36 consisting of 3.895 acres, which is
currently zoned C2, shall remain in the zoning classification of C2.
3. That this action is taken upon the application of Edward Rose Properties,
Inc.
4. That the owners, Baldwin-Swift Properties LLC, Roanoke Airport Business
Park LLC, Melvin L. and Pauline J. Ronk, and Estelle H. Ronk, Lowell E. Bower, Eileen
B. Edwards, and Alan A. Huffman, Trustee, of the property have voluntarily proffered in
writing the following amended conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby accepts:
(1) The property will be developed substantially in accord with the
Edward Rose Properties, Inc. concept plan dated May 21, 2009, attached hereto,
subject to any changes required by Roanoke County during development plan review.
(2) As to the 23.6 acres to be rezoned to R-3 Multi-Family Residential
District, the property will be used only for Residential Uses, Multi-Family Dwelling.
(3) As to the 7.8 acres to be rezoned C-2, General Commercial District,
the property will be used only for one or more of the following purposes:
Residential Uses: Accessory Apartment, Home Occupation-Type I, Multi-
Family Dwelling.
Civic Uses: Administrative Services, Clubs, Cultural Services, Day Care
Center, Educational Facilities - College/University, Educational Facilities -
Primary/Secondary, Guidance Services, Post Office, Public Assembly, Public Parks and
Recreational Areas, Safety Services, Adult Care Residences, Life Care Facility, Nursing
Home, Religious Assembly.
Office Uses: Financial Institutions, General Office, Medical Office,
Laboratories.
Commercial Uses: Antique Shops, Bed and Breakfast, Business Support
Services, Business or Trade Schools, Commercial Indoor Entertainment, Commercial
Indoor Sports and Recreation, Communications Services, Construction Sales and
Services, Consumer Repair Services, Hospital, Hotel/Motel/Motor Lodge, Personal
Improvement Services, Personal Services, Restaurant -General, Retail Sales, Studio -
Fine Arts, Veterinary Hospital/Clinic, Mini-warehouses.
(4) Edward Rose Properties, Inc. or any other affiliated entity which may take
title to the Property ("Developer") will cause a Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(the "Covenants") to be recorded with respect to those parcels of the Property which are
contemporaneously herewith being zoned C-2 (the"Commercial Parcels"). The
Covenants will provide that, in addition to any requirements of applicable law and
recorded proffers, the Commercial Parcels' use, site plan, landscaping, and architecture
456 May 26, 2009
(collectively, "Plans") must be approved by Developer before any building is erected or
modified. The Covenants will require that the exterior design of the commercial
buildings will be consistent with the exterior design of the multi-family dwellings to be
constructed by the Developer and in harmony with the overall development. Any
approval of the Plans shall be in writing.
Furthermore, the appearance of the proposed commercial buildings shall
incorporate design elements from the proposed multifamily buildings and shall include
the following design features:
(A) Design Type: Craftsman-style/inspired to the extent practicable
without prohibiting specific architectural features that are necessary for the Commercial
Parcels' marketing or branding efforts.
(B) Roof Type: Gable or Hipped roofs are encouraged. All rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the design of the roof.
(C) Roof Material for Gable or Hipped Roofs: Asphalt shingles or a
similar material, dark gray or black in color
(D) Massing: All exterior building walls shall be articulated and vertically
split into multiple sections so as not to present any long, continuous, solid walls.
(E) Exterior materials and finishes: Mixed materials, textures and
finishes shall be used throughout the building. Prohibited exterior materials and finishes
include:
1. Unpainted or bare metal panels
2. 4x8 plywood or composite panels
3. Bare, exposed concrete that is not exposed aggregate,
hammered, sandblasted or covered with acement-based
acrylic coating
4. Concrete block
5. Unfinished wood other than cedar, mahogany, teak or
redwood
(F) Colors: Earthy, natural tones (browns, red-browns, greens, soft
blues and grays); cedar shakes shall be stained
(G) Dumpster Screening: If dumpsters are utilized, the dumpster
screening shall be constructed of the same materials as and with similar details as the
building.
(H) Building Signage: If building signage is desired, one sign shall be
permitted per business. Sign design and colors shall complement the building design
and colors. Box signs, exposed neon, exposed raceway and digital signs are
prohibited.
The Covenants will also include a provision that the permits for temporary
signage on the Commercial Parcels shall expire within six months of construction
completion for each Parcel.
(5) The required buffer yard along the eastern boundary of the
property, between the area to be zoned R-3 and the single-family residences in the
May 26, 2009 457
areas zoned R-1 and R-2 to the east, will be landscaped at the Type B, Option 1 or 2
level, as Type B is prescribed in Section 30-92-6(A) of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance as in effect on the date of this Proffer of Conditions.
(6) The exterior appearance of the multi-family dwellings to be
constructed on the property will be substantially in accord with the drawings dated
February 25, 2009, and attached to this Proffer of Conditions.
(7) Apartment complex identification signage shall be limited to one
maximum 30-square foot monument sign located at/near each of the two proposed
vehicular access points on Cove Road, and those signs shall be no taller than six (6)
feet.
(8) Any free-standing (pylon or monument) commercial site
identification sign shall be no taller than eight (8) feet and no larger than seventy-five
(75) square feet, and shall be placed within seventy-five (75) feet of the southernmost
vehicular access point onto Cove Road.
(9) The poles carrying lighting for the commercial area shall be a
maximum of fifteen (15) feet in height, and the light fixtures shall be directed downward.
(10) The poles carrying lighting for the multi-family development shall be
a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in height, and the light fixtures shall be shielded and/or
directed downward.
(11) The applicant will construct aright-turn lane on Cove Road, at the
intersection of Route 419 and Cove Road, as permitted by VDOT that is approximately
200 feet in length with a 150-foot taper, in accordance with VDOT standards and
specifications for an urban collector road.
(12) The applicant shall provide bike racks to service a minimum of six
bikes at the clubhouse.
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 Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisor Church
7. Second reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County
Zoning Ordinance to revise or add regulations in the ordinance
dealing with open space in Single Family Dwelling, Attached and
Detached Cluster Subdivision O tion developments, Section 30-
458
May 26, 2009
82-13.1; the addition of regulations for portable temporary storage
containers; Signs, Section 30-93, specifically temporary signs;
Section 30-92, Screening, Landscaping and Buffer ay rds; and
Section 30-91-2, Off Street Parking, Stacking and Loading; and
0-052609-22
related sections Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin
Mr. Thompson advised that staff has been working with the Planning
Commission to identify areas that need updating in the ordinance. These areas included
the open space for cluster developments, temporary signage, landscaping and buffer
guard standards, parking requirements and standards for portable temporary storage
containers, typically known as PODS. Mr. Thompson briefly described each of the
amendments. He advised that the Planning Commission held several work sessions to
finalize these amendments. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 7,
2009, at which no citizens spoke on the proposed amendments. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of these amendments by a vote of five to zero.
The Board held the first reading and work session on May 12, 2009.
No citizens present spoke on this item and there was no discussion.
Supervisor Flora moved approval with a comment. He specified that
definitions are a critical part of interpreting a zoning ordinance and, without adequate
definitions, much is open for interpretation. The more definitions you have, the tighter
the ordinance is, and the easier it is to actually enforce. He expressed his appreciation
May 26, 2009 459
because the ordinance will make it easier for developers to know more about what the
County requires of them.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-22 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE INCLUDING OPEN SPACE
FOR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, TEMPORARY SIGNS, LANDSCAPING
AND BUFFER YARD STANDARDS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND
STANDARDS FOR PORTABLE TEMPORARY STORAGE
CONTAINERS
WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice requires the amendment to Chapter 30 of the Roanoke County Code (Zoning
Ordinance) by the adoption of these amendments; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission and planning staff have
identified several areas of the zoning ordinance to review and update; and
WHEREAS, these sections include open space for cluster subdivisions,
temporary signs, landscaping and buffer yard standards, parking requirements and
standards for portable temporary storage containers; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 7, 2009, on
these amendments.
WHEREAS, the first reading of the ordinance was held on May 12, 2009, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on May 26, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the following sections of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance be
amended to read and provide as follows:
ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES
SEC.30-28. DEFINITIONS.
(A) The following rules for general construction of language shall apply to this
ordinance:
460 May 26, 2009
The specific shall control the general.
Addition: an extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or
structure.
Berm: A mound of earth designed to perform the function of a buffer,
especially when used in conjunction with landscape plantings between adjacent
parcels.
Bioretention Planting Island: A planting island designed to collect
stormwater via curb cuts and gradually remove pollutants from the water through
the natural processes of the plants located within the island. Treated water is
then naturally allowed to infiltrate into the surrounding soil, or is collected by an
underdrain system and discharged to the stormwater system.
Carport: a space outside a single-family or two-family dwelling, and
contiguous thereto, wholly or partially covered by a roof but without side
enclosure(s), used for the shelter of motor vehicles.
Change of use: means any use which substantially differs from a previous
use of a building, structure or property.
Conservation areas~ra~aaar~: Areas within the one hundred-year floodplain,
slopes greater than twenty-five (25) percent, lands within designated view sheds and
pan,asa~°~ea greenway corridors shown on the Ggreenway Cconceptual Pplan.
Conservation areas include, but are not limited to the following: healthy
woodlands, locations of species listed as endangered, threatened or of special
concern, historic structures and sites, riparian zones outside the FEMA study
area and productive agricultural and forested lands.
(`nn~~~o~ p~ n ~rea_S~c nrJ~r~i 4r nri4h clnn°c h~~c°~n_f~_f~c°n /~r_r_`~~~__~~ccn4~
+ ,
,~n.d--lvl~Fe n 4~ r _f i~ r° l '~ r-,1 n ~~~nd~~-tic t-~-o-r~ S of s-p~c~e~~ ~.rt~°~C}s
Crown Coverage: The amount of ground area covered by tree crowns
looking from above the trees.
Ground Cover: Low growing plants, which are generally horizontal in
nature, used to cover the ground to prevent erosion and weeds.
Landscaped Median: Planting areas which generally run the length of
parking aisles in a parking area.
Low Impact Development: A land planning and engineering design
approach to managing stormwater runoff emphasizing conservation and use of
on-site natural features to protect water quality.
Mass Transit: Transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and
continuing general or special transportation to the public, but not including
school buses, charter or sightseeing service.
May 26, 2009 461
Mixed use: a development that provides multiple compatible uses in close
proximity to one another. And/or a land use pattern that seeks to increase
concentrations of population and employment in well-defined areas with a mix of
diverse and compatible land uses.
Net Floor Area: The gross floor area of a building excluding hallways,
stairwells, utility rooms, and other areas not meant for habitation or public
service. For the purpose of this chapter, net floor area shall equal seventy-five
(75) percent of the gross floor area
Open space: Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved prior to
the cluster request and set aside, dedicated or reserved for common
emu,{se or enjoyment of the residents of the development. , nr fnr +ho ~ ~~o onr-1 onin~imon+
Ci-_ewr}e.rsa. nd~EEU~-~t~ ~-g-~-~~} ~ h h n r i n n c i i r~ h_ no~ n~o O p e n
space may include, but is not limited to, recreation centers, swimming pools, tennis and
basketball courts, community gardens and similar facilities.
Parking, shared: when parking spaces are shared among different
structures or uses or among mixed uses, and can include properties with
different owners.
Planting Island: Planting areas located within parking areas. These islands
can also be designed as bioretention planting islands.
Planting Strip: A landscaped area typically located between parking areas
and adjacent right-of--way intended to screen parking areas from the right-of--way.
Portable sign: Aself-supported sign that is designed to be moved easily, and is
not permanently affixed to the ground, including but not limited to step stake signs,
portable changeable message cabinets and sandwich signs.
Row: An alignment of landscaping where plants are spaced so that they
will touch at maturity.
Temporary use: A use that is established for a fixed period of time with the
intent to discontinue such use upon the expiration of such time; and does not
involve the construction or alteration of any permanent structure. Temporary
uses may include but are not limited to Christmas tree sales, indoor and outdoor
art, craft shows, plant shows, other similar exhibits and sales and other uses as
approved by the Zoning Administrator
Trail: A bicycle and pedestrian path separated from motorized vehicular
traffic by an open space, barrier or curb. Trails may be within the highway right-
of-way or within an independent right-of--way, such as on an abandoned railroad
bed or along a stream valley park. They are typically surfaced in asphalt or
concrete, but may have hard-packed/all weather gravel or dirt surfaces as well.
Tree, Deciduous: A tree which loses all of its leaves at some time during
the year.
Tree, Evergreen: A tree which retains some or all of its leaves throughout
the year.
462 May 26, 2009
Turf Grass: Grasses that, when regularly mowed, form a dense growth of
leaf bIdes suitable for a lawn or recreation areas.
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS
SEC. 30-32. AG-3 AGRICULTURAL/RURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-32-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified
or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
2. Residential Uses
Temporary portable storage containers*
3. Civic Uses
SEC. 30-33. AG-1 AGRICULTURAL/RURAL LOW DENSITY DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-33-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified
or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
Temporary portable storage containers*
SEC. 30-34. AR AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-34-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified
or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
2. Residential Uses
Temporary portable storage containers*
SEC. 30-36. AV AGRICULTURAL/VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-36-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified
or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
2. Residential Uses
May 26, 2009 463
Temporary portable storage containers*
SEC. 30-41. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-41-2. Permitted uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified
or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
Temporary portable storage containers*
SEC. 30-42. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-42-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified
or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
1. Residential Uses
Temporary portable storage containers*
SEC. 30-45. R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-45-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified
or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
1. Residential Uses
Temporary portable storage containers*
SEC. 30-46. R-4 HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-46-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified
or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
1. Residential Uses
Temporary portable storage containers*
EC. 30-47. PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
464 May 26, 2009
Sec. 30-47-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted in the planned residential development district.
However, no use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically
included in the final master plan approved pursuant to section 30-47-5. An asterisk (*)
indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and
design standards, for those specific uses.
1. Residential Uses
Temporary portable storage containers*
SEC. 30-58. CVOD CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT
Sec. 30-58-6. Special Regulations in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District.
The following special regulations shall apply within the Clearbrook village overlay
district:
(F) Parking. All off-street parking, stacking and loading areas within the Clearbrook
village overlay district shall comply with the provisions of 30-91 of this ordinance;
nnr ir-~inn ~n~a~nn c4~nrl~rrl nrn~iicinnc fni inr-~ in co~ n `2(1_Q'I _C./411
(Ord. No. 121900-11, § 1, 12-19-00)
ARTICLE IV. USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
SEC. 30-82. RESIDENTIAL USES.
Sec. 30-82-3. Home Occupations, Type I and Type II.
10. Temporary portable storage containers shall not be used in conjunction with a
Type I or Type 11 home occupation or used as a principal use or principal building
or structure.
Sec. 30-82-13.1. Single Family Dwelling, Attached and Detached (Cluster
Subdivision Option).
(A) Intent.
7. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to consider the
appropriateness of open space and conservation areas on individual site plans in
terms of such factors such as location, size, shape and topographic
characteristics to meet the intent of this ordinance.
(B) Applicability.
(E) Open space and conservation area requirements.
1. Minimum open space: Thir+„_fi„o ~~~~ Forty-five (45) percent of the gross acreage
of the tract. If the gross acreage of the tract is comprised of conservation areas
May 26, 2009 465
equaling or exceeding fifty (50) percent, no more than fifty (50) percent of the
open space and conservation areas shall be required to be conserved. If +hrr~@
III nrimoni onr-~ cc nrloni ~TnTC~onio+~~inon_ g~ea_S~holl ho nroconior! i in +n o rorvi iiror~l
r~nnconio+inn orooc in ovr~occ of +hnco roni iirorJ
v
2. To the greatest degree practicable, open space and conservation areas shall
be designed in large blocks, connected wherever possible and designed to
constitute a contiguous and cohesive unit of land. Open space and conservation
area exemptions include-has:
a. No minimum or maximum lot size,
b. No public or private road frontage requirements or
c. No lot width requirement regulations.
For lots with no public or private road frontage, a minimum twenty (20) foot
access easement shall be provided for maintenance, pedestrian and emergency
access.
nor~on+ movimi im nnon cnor~o
~~~~n~pr~chin onrJ moin+o~n_gn o~nf nr~pn_~nFr~o droll ho nno of +ho fnlln~niinn~
~h ~q~prp_ j_n_ y~~rr~~$}~~ol~~~_ h~o ~~nn~Q~-{_ h.~i +`h.e Beni, _~in9 _~o r^Iminic+ro+nr in
c~~~en~o~ ogtron ea~e~~-}~n+ nr foo cimnlo r~nn~io~ionr~o
3.~ Open space and cSonservation lots may be created in compliance with the
terms of this ordinance and the Roanoke Ccounty Ssubdivision Oerdinance;
artEc~ III of +hic nrr-linon~ Any such lot proposed for platting shall be clearly designated
on a subdivision plat reviewed and approved by the county. This plat shall contain
notations and covenants that clearly forbid, in perpetuity, the use of the conservation lot
for any type of residential dwelling, or other use or structure as prohibited by these
provisions.
4. ~. A sidewalk or trail shall be provided to and through the provided open space
or conservation areas except for the following areas:
a. Environmentally sensitive areas that may include locations of species listed as
endangered, threatened or of special concern; historic structures and sites;
delineated wetlands or riparian zones outside the FEMA study area;
466 May 26, 2009
b. Unsafe areas including but not limited to sink holes, cliffs and areas prone to
rock slides; and
c. Other areas if approved by the Zoning Administrator.
The location of any such trail shall be clearly marked, and the trail shall be
constructed of a surface material that is appropriate to the terrain, and
distinguishable to the user.
5. 4. Ownership and maintenance of open space and conservation areas shall
be one of the following:
a. Common land owned in perpetuity by the owners of lots in the development,
through a homeowners, condominium or similar association. Provisions for the
maintenance of the open space in perpetuity shall be approved by the Zoning
Administrator in conjunction with plat approval.
b. Open space or conservation areas privately owned and maintained shall be
allowed in order to preserve those attributes that qualify as open space or
conservation areas. Deed restrictions and/or covenants shall encumber the
property to prohibit further subdivision, development, or any other use of the
open space. The following uses may be permitted in privately owned open space
or conservation areas:
1. Agricultural uses in existence prior to application for a cluster subdivision as
determined by the Zoning Administrator; and
2. Forested areas.
6. ~ If required open space is located within a mapped greenway corridor, as depicted
on the Ggreenway Conceptual Pplan, as amended, at the time of submittal of the
preliminary plat, then a greenway easement shall be dedicated to the CEOUnty or their
designated agent. The Zzoning Aadministrator, in consultation with the Roanoke Valley
Greenway Commission, shall determine the exact location and dimensions of the
easement to be dedicated.
7. Historic structures or sites may be included in open space or conservation
areas. A plan shall be submitted detailing how the historic structure or site will
be preserved and maintained in perpetuity.
8. 6. No building, building addition, structure, stormwater management area, street,
driveway, parking area or any other type of physical land improvement shall be located
within a required primoni nr connnr-loni conservation area. Notwithstanding the above,
gazebos, benches, or other sitting areas and trails may be developed in, and
historic structures may be located within, prim„„g;~ -,°~ccendQ y conservation
areas.
9. During the site review process, the Zoning Administrator shall consider the
appropriateness of open space and conservation area configuration in terms of
such factors as location, size, shape and topographic characteristics.
Sec. 30-82-15. Two-family Dwelling.
May 26, 2009 467
Sec. 30-82-16. Temporary Portable Storage Containers.
(A)Intent. Temporary Portable Storage Containers provide residential property
owners
temporary storage space for home remodeling, relocating, fire and/or water
damage; and cleaning out attics, basements, garages or other attached storage
areas.
(B) General standards:
1. Temporary Portable storage containers shall only be permitted on lots with a
principal building or structure.
2. Temporary portable storage containers shall not be used in conjunction with a
Type I or Type 11 home occupation or used as a principal use or principal building
or structure.
3. All temporary portable storage containers shall display the container
provider's contact information. Signs shall not contain any other advertising for
any other product or services.
4. Temporary portable storage containers shall not be inhabited.
5. Temporary portable storage containers should be located on a property in
accordance with Section 30-100-8, and shall not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian
traffic, or be located within any required landscaped area. Placement on Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) right of way property shall require written
approval from VDOT.
6. Due to the temporary nature of temporary portable storage containers,
location in a driveway or yard maybe acceptable.
7. Temporary portable storage containers shall be permitted on a lot for a period
not to exceed thirty (30) consecutive days within a six (6) month period. For
extensive construction projects a written extension maybe granted by the Zoning
Administrator.
8. Maximum cumulative size of temporary portable storage containers on a
property shall not exceed 130 square feet.
9. There is a limit of one (1) portable temporary storage container per lot.
10. A zoning permit shall be required to be obtained prior to the placement of a
temporary portable storage container by the Department of Community
Development with sufficient information, as determined by the Zoning
Administrator, to determine compliance with all applicable regulations such as:
a. size of container
b. location
c, delivery date
d, removal date
e, purpose of container
f. container provider contact information.
SEC. 30-85. COMMERCIAL USES.
468 May 26, 2009
Sec. 30-85-3. Automobile Dealership, New.
(A) General standards:
1. Outdoor display areas in conjunction with automobile sales shall be constructed of
the same materials required for off-street parking areas as required in Section 30-19-
4.3, Parking Area Surface Standards. p,, -Up!~-~~~~~ °nr~l DorliinrY I-l°cirYn c r~l~n-Ic
2. A ten-foot planting strip shall be provided adjacent to any public street right-of-way.
~mnl" ~n,i+h +h° I~n~a-.~rr~~ncaPn9 ~pp.~_LjGe~~-}enr cs~nr cai~TOr~lilc~ n_Co~c~innvrrov°Q~
Sec. 30-85-4. Automobile Dealership, Used.
(A) General standards:
1. Outdoor display areas in conjunction with automobile sales shall be constructed of
the same materials required for off-street parking areas as required in Section 30-19-
4.3, Parking Area Surface Standards. p,, -Up!~-~~~~t °nr~l D~rliinrY (l°cirYn_C~ r~lon-Jc
2. A ten-foot planting strip shall be provided adjacent to any public street right-of-way.
Sec. 30-85-9. Campground.
(A) General standards:
5. The primary access road shall be surfaced as required in Section 30-91-4.3,
Parking Area Surface Standards. pa~e~ ~^~~+h ~ r~+~r,,~ _I_~a~~~c~~~
cn°nifin~finno. Such paving shall extend from the public street right-of-way to the
entrance station. Interior roads and access to individual sites shall consist at a minimum
of an all weather gravel surface. All interior roads shall be eighteen (18) feet minimum
width for two-way travel or ten (10) feet minimum width for one-way travel. No campsite
shall have direct access to a public street.
Sec. 30-85-12. Construction Sales and Services.
(A) General standards:
1. A ten-foot planting strip shall be provided adjacent to any public street right-of-way.
I~ g n d ~r~ ~ n~ P _n 9 app. ~_Lj ~e~}e r~ t~ ~~t~ ~ r}CG~1~dcc~1 n r'vr r o v°~
Sec. 30-85-14. Equipment Sales and Rentals.
(A) General standards:
May 26, 2009 469
1. A ten-foot planting strip shall be provided adjacent to any public street right-of-way.
I~ g n g ~n o~ P n 9 ~e~_u ~ rei~}e C1 t~C~n t~ l r}~d-I C1-S ~c~l n'~vr r vv°~
Sec. 30-85-19. Mini-warehouse.
(A) General standards:
4. All interior driveways shall be at least twenty-six (26) feet wide when cubicles open
onto one side only and at least thirty (30) feet wide when cubicles open onto both sides
to accommodate loading and unloading at individual cubicles. Adequate turning
radiuses shall be provided, where appropriate, for athirty-foot long single unit truck or
moving van. Materials and design shall otherwise conform to the standards contained in
Section~+ 30-91-4.3, Parking Area Surface Standards. °~, -Up!:~~~ee~ ~n~l p~rlinr
Sec. 30-85-20. Manufactured Home Sales.
(A) General standards:
1. A ten-foot planting strip shall be provided adjacent to any public street right-of-way.
~mnl~i ~nii+h +ho I~n~a-.~rr~~ncaPn9 ~pp.~_Lj~e~~-}enr cs~~}t~~r}°r~l '~vcc~nnvrrov°Q`~
Sec. 30-85-21. Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service.
(A) General standards:
1. A ten-foot planting strip shall be provided adjacent to any public street right-of-way.
~ m n I ~ i ~ n r i + h + h o I ~ n~ a-.~rn ~ n~ P ~ n 9 ~pp_~_~_j_~e~}p nri.~Ce {~t~ ~ r}° r! 'air v~c~ n nvr r-~vvn°Q'c
ARTICLE V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SEC. 30-91. OFF STREET PARKING, STACKING AND LOADING.
Sec. 30-91-1. Purpose.
monnor onr-1 +n minimi~o ov+ornol offor~+c nn or-lionon+ IonrJ i icoc
~~~
(A) The purpose of this Section is to set forth off-street parking, stacking and
loading requirements for permitted land uses in accordance with the intensity of
such uses, in a manner that:
1. Provides for the accommodation of vehicles in a functionally and aesthetically
satisfactory manner;
470 May 26, 2009
2. Minimizes external effects on adjacent land uses;
3. Provides options for the provision of adequate parking and alternative modes
of transportation;
4. Is consistent with environmental goals such as stormwater management, clean
air and preservation of open space.
Sec. 30-91-2. General Parking Regulations f^r °,r~;n^
Sec. 30-91.2.1. Applicability
(A) New Buildings, Change of Use, and/or Change of Occupancy Limit:
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided for:
1. Any new building constructed,
2. Any change of use, or
3. Any change in occupancy in an existing building that exceeds the minimum
parking requirements specified in Section 30-91-3-3.
(B) Change of Use:
When there is a change in use where the new use has the same or lesser parking
requirements than the previous use, no additional parking shall be required.
(C) Expansions with No Change of Use:
When an existing structure and/or use is expanded, off-street parking shall be
provided for the expansion in accordance with the provisions of this Section,
except for a parking increase of less than ten (10) percent or as provided in
Section 30-91-3-5, Shared Parking.
(D) Mixed-use:
Where uses with different parking requirements occupy the same building, the
parking spaces shall equal the sum of the requirements of the various uses
computed separately, except as provided in Section 30-91-3-5, Shared Parking.
(E) Site Redevelopment:
When a structure or building is constructed on a property on which an existing
structure has been demolished and the parking area is to remain, the parking
area shall meet the requirements of Section 30-91 and Section 30-92 of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
Sec. 30-91-2.2 Recreational Vehicle and Commercial Vehicle Parking.
(A) In the AR district and in all residential districts:
1. Except for vehicles parked within multi-family developments all recreational
vehicles, shall be parked behind the front building line, unless space is provided in a
completely enclosed garage or other building. For the purposes of this section only, a
corner lot that fronts on two (2) streets shall have only one (1) front building line in
accordance with section 30-100-7. In the case of a unique house configuration the
May 26, 2009 471
zoning administrator shall determine the parking location for the recreational vehicle,
based on having no interference on sight distance in accordance with section 30-100-8.
2. No truck or commercial vehicle with, or designed to have, more than two (2) rear
wheels shall be parked except while loading or unloading on such premises. No
construction machinery shall be parked overnight unless the machinery is incidental to
improving the premises. These provisions shall not apply to pickup body type trucks, or
to vehicles essential for an agricultural use associated with the premises.
(B) No recreational vehicle shall be used for living or business purposes, or connected
to utility services except for maintenance purposes or as otherwise provided for in this
ordinance.
Sec. 30-91-2.3. Location of Parking
(A) Off-street parking spaces that are located on the ground and open to the sky
may be located in any required yard unless otherwise required for screening,
buffering, landscaping or other provisions in the adopted Roanoke County
Zoning Ordinance.
(B) Parking structures and carports shall be subject to the minimum yard and
setback requirements applicable in the zoning district in which the structure is
located.
2. Such required spaces are within five hundred (500) feet walking distance of a
building entrance or use and such spaces do not require pedestrians to cross a road
with a speed limit of thirty-five (35) miles per hour or greater. miner or+orio~ nr
r-rroo4or hinh~nro~r
y
3. Contiguous lots providing off-street parking for more than one (1) use shall provide
sufficient spaces to comply with the parking requirements for all usages, except as
provided in Section 30-91-3-5, Shared Parking.
~~~n~~orc~ ~~n~nc~nf~~ic4i~~nfnrminn hi iilrlinn~~r fei- n~____I~rrtioment5__o~e~ic,~~~_nn~
con ir~Ta~a °~-.~r "~ ~~`^~ ~
rF~- Fqr °nl~eF~-}entS~~e~~s+in'cr'v}~ n~ _u-.sic°-S ~fhFvh r-!~ i _g nono~~nfnrm 4n 4hoco
r+r-Ir-li4innr+l i ico r+ror+
(Ord. No. 42694-12, § 22, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 111108-
13 § 1, 11-11-08)
Sec. 30-91-3. Number of Parking Spaces Required.
Sec. 30-91-3.1. Computing Required Spaces.
(A) Multiple uses: in cases of mixed use or where a combination of uses are
developed on a site, the minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be
472 May 26, 2009
the cumulative total of the requirements for each of the uses on the site, except
as provided in Section 30-91-3-5, Shared Parking.
(B) Fractional space computation: when the computation of the number of off-
street parking spaces required by Section 30-91-3-2 results in a fractional parking
space requirement, any fraction less than one-half (1/2) shall be disregarded and
any fraction equaling or exceeding one-half (1/2) shall be construed as requiring
one full parking space.
(C) Number of employees computation: where parking is based on the number of
employees, the number of employees shall mean the maximum number of
persons working on any one shift.
(D) Square footage: all references to square feet (sq, ft.) in the parking
requirements shall mean the square footage of net floor area, unless specifically
stated otherwise.
(E) Maximum occupancy: all references to maximum occupancy shall mean the
maximum occupancy as determined pursuant to the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code.
(F) Unlisted Use Types: the Zoning Administrator shall determine the parking
requirement for use types not listed in Table 30-91a. In such instances, the
administrator shall determine the number of spaces to be provided based on
requirements for similar uses, location of the proposed use, expected demand
and traffic generated by the proposed use, and appropriate traffic engineering
and planning criteria and information. Determination of requirements may be
appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Sec. 30-91-3.2. Spaces for Disabled Parking.
(A) Generally, the number of n^^r°~~,~°^+~°' parking spaces reserved for the disabled,
except for single- and two-family dwellings, shall comply with the following table and
shall count toward the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required.
(B) Disabled parking aisle and space dimensions shall comply with the current
edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
(Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08)
May 26, 2009 473
IonrJc r nth nc in +ho (~ni in4~i (~nrJo
rcrr~~
re~u~reFY}°n}r~hlo in Oho ~enin~4 inn- oo[h~~h 4~zh~ ~~rar~4i i~~ ~_i~_~nQCa~~~
Sec. 30-91-3.3 ~. Minimum Parking Required.
TABLE INSET:
USE TYPE PARKING REQUIRED
(A) Agricultural and Forestry
Use Types
Agriculture No requirement
Commercial Feedlots No requirement
Farm Employee Housing 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Forestry Operations No requirement
Stable, Private No requirement
Stable, Commercial 1 space per employee cn moinr chif+ plus 1 space
for every 4 animals stabled
Wayside Stand 1 space per 100 sq. ft., 3 spaces minimum
(B) Residential Use Types* * Guest parking maybe constructed with
ermeable or pervious pavers
Accessory Apartment 1 additional space
Home Beauty/Barber Salon 1 space per chair
Home Occupation, Type I &
Type II
See Section 30-82-3 (B) 5.
Manufactured Home 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Manufactured Home,
Accessory 1 additional space
Manufactured Home,
Emergency No requirement
Manufactured Home Park 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Multi-family Dwelling 2 spaces per dwelling unit
cnr_r~_ae~rnnm iinitc ~_~~PFrp_~_r~o~r_go~~inrr~9 `:n_~
""'
h
T~nin ~nr-1 4hroo horJrnnm i ini4c ~
Frp_~_r
o
r_go~~inn
`n_~~
P
~
~~
474
May 26, 2009
~ni it nr mnro horJrnnm i ini4c '~ F cno i ini4
Ee~
e~
hF
~~~,~
~
~
~~ ~ , ~~-
nn~ it+i_fomil~i olrJorl~i hni icinn
1 mono nor '~ r-~~nrollinn i ini4 nL is 1 cnor+o nor
i inr-lor Inns +orm r~nn4ror~4 ~nii+h o '
~~^~' ei"II II"}e~e n C~ I
~m~t~~c~e{~- ~~}~~~{~ - Si-11-Y-t--
Multiple Dog Permit No Requirement
Residential Human Care
Facility 2 spaces per facility
Single Family Dwelling 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Townhouse 2 spaces per dwelling unit
~ n, r_r°-a ~--F.~~.~. FraCe S-~°i! i -a vie N i n n~9 ~ n
T~nin onrl 4hroo hor~lrnnm i ini4c ~
Arp_~_~o
~ _ao~~inn
~n~~
F,
~
~~
N
~ni it nr mnro horJrnnm i ini4c '~ F cno
i ini4
Ee~
e ~
~
F
~. z . ~~~,~
~
~
E
~~a i rrr-
Two Family Dwelling 2 spaces per dwelling unit
(C) Civic Use Types
Administrative Services 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, plus 1 space per
vehicle based at facility
Camps See Schedule B
Cemetery See Schedule B
Clubs 1 space per 3 persons based on maximum
occupancy
Community Recreation See Schedule B
Correction Facilities See Schedule B
Crisis Center 1 space per 2 persons of residential capacity
Cultural Services 1 space per 300 square feet
Day Care Center 1 space per employee cn moinr chif4 plus 1 space
per 20 students, plus 1 space for each vehicle
associated with facility
Educational Facilities,
College/University See Schedule B
Educational Facilities
'
Primary/Secondary See Schedule B, but no less than 1 space per
employee sn mao~, plus 1 space per each 4
students in 11th and 12th grades
Family Day Care Home 1 space per non-resident employee
Guidance Services 1 space per 250 sq. ft.
May 26, 2009 475
Halfway House 1 space per 2 persons of residential capacity
~F
e r `Z
re-
i ~
~~~~ach
C
Nn~mo_fnor Dim cdas ~
i
i o
CYIt~~ r a ~~P
•
"" h'
emnln~ioo nn moini ~hif~~~
Life Care Facility See Schedule B
Nursing Home 1 space per ~ 4 residents, plus 1 space for each
employee cn moinr ch~f+
Park And Ride Facility No requirement
Post Office See Schedule A
Public Assembly 1 space per 4 seats or similar accommodations
provided
Public Maintenance And
Service Facilities See Schedule A
Public Parks And Recreational
Areas See Schedule B
Safety Services 3 spaces per vehicle based at facility
Religious Assembly 1 space per 4 seats in principal place of worship
Utility Services, Minor No requirement
Utility Services, Major See Schedule B
(D) Office Use Types
Financial Institutions 3.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., plus required stacking
spaces
General Office 3~ spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
Medical Office 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.? cnonoc nor
~Eti+~~
er-1-s
~~
°~~Oo-s
f~~c"e~~e~-~s
~
p
~
;.
p
fir-eater--
Laboratories 1 space per 1.5 employees based on maximum
occupancy load, plus 1 per company vehicle
(E) Commercial Use Types
Agricultural Services See Schedule A
Antique Shops 1 space per 490 600 square feet
Automobile Dealership, New See Schedule A
Automobile Dealership, Used See Schedule A
Automobile Repair Services,
Major ~~p-aces 1 space per service bay, plus 1 space per
employee en m-ao
476
May 26, 2009
Automobile Repair Services 1 space per service bay, plus 1 space per
,
Minor employee
See-c~ChorJ„tia~,'~° o
Automobile Rental/Leasing See Schedule A
Automobile Parts/Supply, See Schedule A
Retail
Bed And Breakfast 1 space per guest accommodation, plus 2 spaces
per permanent residence
Boarding House 1 space per guest accommodation, plus 2 spaces
per permanent residence
Business Support Services 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. ~ cnor~o nor inn cn f+
Business Or Trade Schools See Schedule B, but no less than 1 space per 4
students
Campgrounds 1 space at each campsite, plus spaces required for
other uses
Car Wash 1 space per employee era mao~ plus required
stacking spaces
`2 cnor~oc nor ovomino+inn nr +roo+mon+ rnnm nli is 1
~I'~.,',,
~YYYii~ cnor+o nor omnln~ioo nn moinr chif+ innli ir-linn'r-~nr++nrc
Commercial Indoor 1 space per 3 persons based on maximum
Amusement occupancy load
Commercial Indoor 1 space per 4 seats or similar accommodations, plus
Entertainment 1 space per 2 employees en m-ao
Commercial Indoor Sports And
Recreation
Bowling alley 4 spaces per alley, plus 1 space per employee e~
moinr chif+
~ ~ ~u~vi ~rrrrc
Swimming Pool 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of water surface
Tennis and Other Court 3.5 4 spaces per court
Games
1 space per 3 persons based on maximum
Other indoor sports occupancy load, plus 1 space per employee e~-~aajer
b
Commercial Outdoor 1 space per 3 persons based on maximum
Entertainment occupancy load, plus 1 space per employee e~-~aajer
b
May 26, 2009 477
Commercial Outdoor Sports
And Recreation
Miniature Golf 1.5 spaces per hole
Swimming Pool 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of water surface
Tennis and Other Court 3.5 4 spaces per court
Games
1 space per 3 persons based on maximum
Other outdoor sports occupancy load, plus 1 space per employee e~-~aajer
s h+ft
Communications Services 1 space per 300 square feet, plus 1 space per
company vehicle
Construction Sales And See Schedule A
Services
Consumer Repair Services 1 space per 300 square feet
5 spaces pe~r(~1,000 sq. ft.
1 cnor~° n°r (1 cr-~i ior° f°°+ fnr 'I c+ 'I nnn cn f+ nli is
Convenience Store ~pcrc~Fr~i zz'°~c~~arc ice.. ~~:; pru~~
f
~ ~
oh_~
Fce-fe~°~ch orJrJi+innol ~7F~
~
q
~
'
p
innli ir+° on~i noc ni imn cnon°c nrn~iirl°r-! F n+h°r
cnor+°c or° f, irnich°rJ
1 space per 3 persons based on maximum
Dance Hall occupancy load, plus 1 space per employee e~-~aajer
s h+ft
Equipment Sales And Rental See Schedule A
1 space per 4 seats in main chapel, plus 1 space per
Funeral Home 2 employees en mao~, plus 1 space per
company vehicle
Garden Center See Schedule A
Gasoline Station 1 space per employee, plus required stacking
spaces
5.5 spaces per hole, plus spaces as required for
Golf Course other auxiliary uses
r~ ° c ~ c r° rv i i i r°
.i. o c
FC'_G_C_Y_le r Q
_h.n
~
~
d_ f o.r
o
~~J~p.a
,
p
~ ~
c
Hospital 1 space per 2 beds, plus 1 space per employee ~
moinr chif+ inr~li ir-linn r-Inr~+nrc
~ ~ ~'aJ °
Hotel/Motel/Motor Lodge 1 space per guest accommodation, p'~ ~~ " ~n°~°°
p r Fn ni ~°~+ rnnmc plus spaces as required for
478
May 26, 2009
other uses
Kennel, Commercial 1 space per 600 X99 sq. ft.
Laundry 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. ~~ ~~er399-sq
Manufactured Home Sales See Schedule B
2 spaces for live-in manager, p'~~P~ ~tc~e~ch
Mini-warehouse emn',,,P~oy~°- plus 2 for the first 100 storage spaces
plus 1 for each additional 100 storage units e~-pert+sr~
+h°
Pawn Shop 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Personal Improvement 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Services
Personal Services 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Recreational Vehicle Sales See Schedule A
And Service
1 space per 4 seats, plus 1 space per 2 employees
Restaurant
General ~n moinr chif+; or, with night-time entertainment or
, non-fixed seating, 1 space per 3 persons based on
maximum occupancy load
Restaurant, Drive-in Or Fast
Food
With seats 1 space per 4 seats, plus 1 space per 4 employees
en maJc~t, plus required stacking space
Without seats 1 space per 100 69 sq. ft., plus required stacking
space
Retail Sales
Shopping center 44.4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
~i irni4i iro ('~rno4 ~nr-1
~nrc~piia fees
~F~ce-~5~~~
All others 1 space per 300 ~~9 sq. ft.
Studio, Fine Arts See Schedule B
Surplus Sales 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of sales area accessible to the
public
Truck Stop See Schedule B
Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. ~~ ~~errvvv-sq
(F) Industrial Use Types
May 26, 2009 479
Asphalt Plant See Schedule B
Construction Yards See Schedule A
Custom Manufacturing See Schedule A
Industry, Type I 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Se~~c"edule-,4
Industry, Type II 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Se~~c"edule-A
Industry, Type III See Schedule A
Landfill, Construction Debris See Schedule B
Landfill, Rubble See Schedule B
Landfill, Sanitary See Schedule B
Meat Packing Industries 1 space per employee era m-ao
Railroad Facilities See Schedule B
Recycling Centers/Stations See required stacking spaces
Resource Extraction 1 space per employee s~ m-ao
Scrap And Salvage Services See Schedule A
Transfer Station See Schedule B
Transportation Terminal See Schedule B
Truck Terminal See Schedule B
Warehousing And Distribution See Schedule A
(G) Miscellaneous Use Types
Aviation Facilities, Private See Schedule B
Aviation Facilities, General See Schedule B
Broadcasting Tower 2 spaces per tower
Outdoor Gathering See Schedule B
Parking Facility,
Surface/Structure
No requirement
Shooting Range, Outdoor See Schedule B
Schedule A
The schedule sets forth minimum parking requirements for uses with elements
having different functions or operating characteristics.
TABLE INSET:
480 May 26, 2009
~~ inr~+inn of GI°m°n+ FUNCTION OF ELEMENT R°n. iir°m°n+ REQUIREMENT
Office or Administrative Activity 3 spaces per 1,000 sq, ft.
~ cn°~ °r ~~n f+
~p,~ce~ ~ ..., q : -~ ~ -
Indoor Sales, Display or Service Area 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Motor Vehicle Service Bays 2 spaces per service bay
Outdoor Sales, Display or Service Area 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft.
General Equipment Servicing or Manufacturing 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.
Indoor or Outdoor Storage or Warehousing 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft.
Schedule B
Specific requirements shall be determined by the administrator based on
requirements for similar uses, location of proposed use, expected demand and traffic
generated by the proposed use, and appropriate traffic engineering and planning criteria
and information. Determination of requirements may be appealed to the board of zoning
appeals.
(Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 072605-7, § 1, 7-26-05; Ord. No. 042208-16, §
1, 4-22-08)
Sec. 30-91-3-4. Maximum Off-Street Parking.
(A) To avoid excessive surpluses that increase development costs and
impervious surfaces, impervious parking shall not be provided in quantities
greater than ten (10) percent above the required minimum, unless any parking
above the ten (10) percent threshold is permeable or pervious, or is provided
through the use of structured parking.
(B) The maximum number of off-street parking spaces permitted, as established
in Section 30-91-3.4, shall not apply to parking areas utilizing a permeable or
pervious paver surface or to parking structures.
(C) Parking that exceeds the requirements below shall comply with the following
standards:
Increase in
uantit
over Additional Standards
q
y
minimum Landscaped Landscaped Islands Parking Surface
requirements Medians
Up to and Contain small, Comprised of at least None
including deciduous trees 10% bioretention
10% planted every 20 planting islands in
May 26, 2009 481
linear feet accordance with
Roanoke County's
Stormwater
Management Design
Manual (or)
Contain 3 small
shrubs in addition to
requirements of
Section 30-92-3b.
Required every Comprised of at least Parking spaces
other parking aisle 20% bioretention provided above the
planting islands in 10% maximum
accordance with shall be surfaced
Roanoke County's with a permeable or
Stormwater pervious paver
Management Design ~~ surface or
Manual (or)
--------------------------- other low impact
Contain small, ---------
Contain 6 small
design alternative
Over 10% deciduous trees shrubs in addition to in accordance with
planted every 20 requirements of Roanoke County's
linear feet Section 30-92-3b. Stormwater
Management
Design Manual or
other permeable or
pervious surface as
approved by the
Zoning
Administrator.
Sec. 30-91-3-5. Shared Parking
(A) Shared parking is encouraged for different structures or uses, or for mixed
uses, in any zoning district. At the applicant's request, shared parking may be
provided, subject to the following conditions:
1. A reciprocal deeded agreement has been executed by all the parties concerned
that assures the perpetual joint use of such common parking, a copy of which
has been submitted as part of the Site Plan Review Process.
2. A parking study has been submitted that supports a reduction in parking
spaces provided. The study shall include but is not limited to:
a. The type and hours of operation and parking demand, for each use,
482 May 26, 2009
b. A site plan displaying shared use spaces in the lot and walking distance to the
uses sharing the lot,
c. A description of the character of land use and parking patterns of adjacent land
uses, and
d. An estimate of anticipated turnover in parking space use over the course of 12
to 24 hours at the site.
3. Parking spaces to be shared must not be reserved for individuals or groups on
a 24-hour basis.
4. Uses sharing the parking facility do not need to be contained on the same lot,
but shall be a maximum of five hundred (500) feet from the closest parking space
in the parking lot which is to be used and allow for safe, convenient walking for
most parkers, including safe pedestrian crossings, signage, and adequate
lighting.
5. If the conditions for shared parking become null and void and the shared
parking arrangement is discontinued, this will constitute a violation of zoning
regulations for any use approved expressly with shared parking. The applicant
must then provide written notification of the change to the Zoning Administrator
and, within sixty (60) days of that notice, provide a remedy satisfactory to the
Zoning Administrator to provide adequate parking.
(B) Where shared parking is provided among a mix of land uses, the Zoning
Administrator may allow the following, at the applicant's request:
1. Up to thirty (30) percent of the parking spaces required for the predominant use
on a site may be shared with other uses operating during the same time of day
and days of the week. The predominant use is considered to be that which
requires the most parking of those sharing the parking facilities. The predominant
use, identified for parking calculations, may not necessarily be the primary use as
defined in this ordinance .
2. Up to fifty (50) percent of the parking spaces required for uses such as
theaters, public auditoriums, bowling
alleys, nightclubs, movie theaters, and similar predominantly evening uses may
be shared with uses such as banks, offices, and similar predominantly daytime
uses.
3. Up to sixty (60) percent of the parking spaces required for uses such as
churches and other uses predominately in operation during the weekend may be
shared with uses such as medical offices, banks, and other similar uses
predominantly in operation on weekdays.
Sec. 30-91-3.6. Temporary Parking.
(A) Parking during construction: Temporary parking lots for non-required parking
are permitted where new building construction is planned. Temporary lots are
permitted for up to two (2) years and shall be removed prior to final Zoning
Compliance.
May 26, 2009 483
(B) Parking for a temporary use: Temporary parking lots are permitted for a
period of no more than sixty (60) consecutive or non-consecutive days per
calendar year, in accordance with the following criteria:
1. The parking area shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of and have the
same zoning classification as the site which it serves.
2. The lot shall include adequate land to accommodate parking spaces, drives
and a circulation pattern that complies with Section 30-91-4, Parking Area Design
Standards.
3. Plans for a temporary parking lot shall be submitted for site plan review to
Roanoke County Department of Community Development and include a timeline
and signed documentation of event information to be reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator.
4. All temporary parking lots shall:
a. Use an unimproved or gravel surface, with sufficient dust control measures
1. If a temporary gravel surface is provided, such gravel shall be removed and the
off-street parking area shall be returned to its prior condition immediately upon
cessation of the temporary use.
Sec. 30-91-4. Parking Area Design Standards.
Sec. 30-91-4.1 ~. Access.
(A) In general all off-street parking areas shall:
1. Provide safe and convenient access to a street;
2. Be designed to minimize on-site and off-site traffic hazards and conflicts;
3. Be designed to reduce or prevent congestion on public streets; and
4. Facilitate the provision of emergency services.
(B) Except for spaces serving single family, two-family and townhouse dwellings,
no parking space shall be designed that will require backing into a public street.
(C) Parking maneuvers shall not restrict or impede the ingress and egress flow of
traffic from the highway.
(D) {~} Whenever a development abuts a street which is included in the State System of
Primary Highways or a road d~s+g~ed designated as "Arterial" in the
r'.,,,n~„ Troncn,t;~ p--. -,an~or- the latest Statue Highway Plan, the following
conditions shall be met:
1. A r°~~ frontage and/or c^ shared access concept shall be utilized such
that no site has exclusive access to the arterial highway at intervals of less than one
access point every five hundred (500) feet, measured from the center line of the
entrance(s).
484 May 26, 2009
2. If r°%rs~ frontage or c^shared access cannot be provided, the site shall be
limited to one exclusive access point, or for shopping centers, one exclusive access
point per five hundred (500) feet of road frontage.
c4~n~a_gg~ i~n_Coc~n~n~~7 (1ST of +h° Di~hlin C~cr~°f ~nrJ D~rliinrr I-l°cirrn C rJ~rrJcpn~
dF ~~Catf~EE~-~:
(E)BB) Parking lot access driveways leading to and from the street where no parking is
provided on either side shall meet the following width requirements:
1. For driveways serving thirty (30) or less parking spaces, the minimum width shall be
eighteen (18) feet, exclusive of curbs.
2. For driveways serving more than thirty (30) parking spaces, the minimum width shall
be twenty (20) feet, exclusive of curbs.
3. For one-way drives specifically designed for only one-way use, the minimum width
shall be ten (10) feet, exclusive of curbs.
(F) (~} Whenever parking is proposed adjacent to a structure, an emergency access
aisle shall be properly marked in accordance with Chapter 9, Code of the County of
Roanoke, Titled Fire Prevention and Protection.
Sec. 30-91-4.2. Circulation.
(A) In general, parking areas shall be designed to facilitate unimpeded flow of on-
site traffic in circulation patterns readily recognizable and predictable to
motorists and pedestrians. Parking areas shall be arranged in a fashion to
encourage pedestrian access to buildings, and to minimize internal vehicular
movements.
(B) Sidewalks measuring at least five (5) feet in width shall connect all parking
areas to building entrances. Sidewalks shall also be located around buildings.
(C) Facilities and access routes for deliveries, service and maintenance shall be
separated, when practical, from public access routes and parking areas.
(D) Aisles between rows of parking spaces shall comply with the geometric
design standards in the Roanoke County Design Handbook.
Sec. 30-91-4.3. 6. Parking Area Surface Standards.
(A) All off-street parking and stacking areas ~~;+~e°n /~ ~~ nr mnr° norLinn cnor~°c
,inC'~ ir-linn °i~' ~~Eki„-,9 ~-pFces °ek~s, except for those required for single
family and two family dwellings, shall be graded for drainage and surfaced with
concrete, asphalt, bituminous pavement, brick or stone pavers, or a permeable
or pervious~a-v~r~„ surface in accordance with the Roanoke County
Design Handbook. ce~c~e~a n dn~° i°~d- ~ ^ ~~~C~e~e r~, ~ ! u~^~n
D~rliinrr I-l°cirrn C rJ~rrJc ~nrJ Cn°ccif~~i~:c, where permeable or pervious pavers
are used, when required by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code ADA-
compliant pavers shall be utilized.
May 26, 2009 485
1. Within the Clearbrook village overlay district, any parking areas or parking spaces
provided in excess of the minimum requirements of this ordinance, shall be constructed
with a pereus permeable or pervious pavement material in accordance with the
Roanoke County Stormwater Management Design Manual. ,apedby'--+~
or-~rr,ir,ic+r°+„r Gravel shall not be accepted as an approved pe-r-eu-s permeable or
pervious surface rn°+.
(Ord. No. 121900-11, § 4, 12-19-00; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08)
Sec. 30-91-4.4. ~ Parking Space Dimensions.
(A) All off-street parking spaces and areas shall comply with the geometric design
standards as specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. ~Y-, c°~+.,,r, ~n~ nsz
of +h°D~~hli~ ~'fr°°f ~nrJ D~rliin 11~i n ~'f~nrJar~ anrJ ~'n°r~ifi~~fi~f~_S
VTZTfGT~ri'TT~ Tr~i GTTITTC~~~PTI'~~-~ T~TT TLITrQ~r ~QTrC~ Fi~~+GIT~GQT~
(B) Where parking spaces lie adjacent to a planting island or other physical
separation (but not a sidewalk), '°n~'°~°°°~' °r°°°, the paved depth of all stalls may
be decreased by two (2) feet to provide for a vehicle overhang area.
(C) Compact vehicle parking will be permitted under the following criteria:
1. Compact spaces shall be located in groups of five (5) or more contiguous spaces,
be appropriately identified by markings and be located in a manner affording the same
convenience as standard spaces.
2. Dimensions for compact space are set forth in the Roanoke County Design
+h°Diihlir+ °f ~nrJ D~rliinrY I-l°oirvn C onrJ
Handbook. Eti~~~:98e~-~~T~, -~,p„~ t~e~ mar-~s~ -a.,a
~ec~#+c~t{eE~~.
3. The number of compact spaces shall not exceed:
a. Twenty-five (25) percent of the spaces provided if the total minimum
requirement is twenty (20) to one hundred (100) spaces, or
b. Thirty (30) percent of the spaces provided if the total minimum requirement is
greater than one hundred (100) spaces.
(Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08)
Sec. 30-91-4.5. Parking Structures. RESERVED
486 May 26, 2009
Sec. 30-91-5. Alternative Modes of Transportation.
Sec. 30-91-5-1. Bicycle Parking Standards.
(A) In lots with greater than fifty (50) spaces, a minimum of one (1) bicycle parking
space shall be provided on-site for each twenty (20) off-street automobile parking
spaces.
(B) Bicycle parking spaces shall have minimum dimensions of six (6) feet in
length and two (2) feet in width.
(C) Fractional space computation: when the computation of the number of bicycle
parking spaces results in a fractional requirement, any fraction less than one-half
shall be disregarded and any fraction equaling or exceeding one-half shall be
construed as requiring one full parking space.
(D) When bicycle parking is required, there shall be a minimum of two (2) spaces
provided but not more than twenty (20) bicycle spaces will be required at a single
site.
(E) For every four (4) bicycle parking space provided above the minimum
requirement, the number of impervious vehicular parking spaces required by
Section 30-91-3-3 may be reduced by one (1). The number of impervious
vehicular parking spaces shall not be reduced by an amount exceeding five (5)
percent.
(F) If the vehicular parking area is lighted, the required bicycle parking shall also
be lighted.
(G) Bicycle parking shall be located within fifty (50) feet of an entrance to the
building or within a building if the location is easily accessible for bicycles and
shall comply with the design standards set forth in Roanoke County's Design
Handbook.
May 26, 2009 487
(H) Bicycle parking shall be accessed by an aisle that is a minimum of five (5) feet
wide.
(I) Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and
reserved for bicycle parking only.
(J) Bicycle racks shall be provided for all bicycle parking areas and shall hold
bicycles securely by the frame and be securely anchored to the ground or to the
building structure to prevent the racks from being removed from the location.
See the Roanoke County Design Handbook for bicycle rack recommendations.
(K) The Zoning Administrator may grant exemptions to bicycle parking
requirements in connection with temporary uses or uses that are not likely to
generate the need for bicycle parking.
Sec. 30-91-5-2. Motorcycle Parking Standards.
(A) Motorcycle parking is permitted subject to the following conditions:
1. A motorcycle parking space shall be no smaller than four (4) feet wide and
eight (8) feet deep.
2. Motorcycle parking spaces shall be located according to the same siting
criteria and standards that are applicable to other types of vehicle parking.
(B) The minimum number of vehicular parking spaces required may be reduced
by one space for every three (3) motorcycle spaces provided, up to a maximum
reduction of five percent (5%) of the total required vehicular spaces.
Sec. 30-91-5-3. Mass Transit Options.
(A) The minimum number of parking spaces maybe reduced upon the approval of
a mass transportation or alternate transportation plan, which details
arrangements for the mass or alternate transit of potential visitors to the site,
including residents, employees and customers. Such plans shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, prior to the reduction of the
number of required parking spaces.
(B) The Zoning Administrator may allow for a reduction in the number ofoff-street
parking spaces otherwise required by this Section if the site is:
1. In close proximity to an existing or planned mass transit station, or
2. Along a corridor served by mass transit.
Sec. 30-91-6. ~ Stacking Spaces and Drive-Through Facilities.
(A) Stacking spaces shall be provided for any use having adrive-through facility or
areas having drop-off and pick-up areas. The following general standards shall apply to
all stacking spaces and drive-through facilities:
Sec. 30-91-7. ~. Off-Street Loading, Generally.
(A) General Provisions.
1. All required off-street loading spaces shall be located on the same lot as the
structure or use.
488 May 26, 2009
Sec. 30-91-7.1. ~ Minimum Loading Spaces Required.
SEC. 30-92. SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, AND BUFFER YARDS.*
Sec. 30-92-5. Standards and Specifications.
(B) Buffer Yards. ~ v~h°r~r°-buff°r ~iorr~lc or° r°~or~l h~i +hic nrr~linonCe thL fnlln~niinn cho~ll
1. Buffer yards shall be reserved solely for screening and landscaping. No proposed
building, building addition, structure, parking area or any other type of physical land
improvement shall be located in a buffer yard. Not withstanding the above, a driveway
entrance or a public road may cross a buffer yard if it is necessary for safe and
convenient access to the building site. In addition, buffer yards may be used for
greenways.
2. When a proposed buffer yard has a variation in elevation of greater than six (6)
vertical feet at any point, the required screening or landscaping within the yard shall be
placed to maximize the effectiveness of the screening or landscaping, as determined by
the administrator.
3. The maximum slope of any required buffer yard shall be 3:1 (horizontal:vertical).
Sufficient vegetation and ground cover shall be established and maintained on any
slope to ensure stabilization and re-vegetation. In areas where extreme slopes exist,
retaining walls no greater than four (4) feet in height may be used. If more than one (1)
retaining wall is used, a planting area at least six (6) feet wide with a slope no greater
than 3:1 must be left between the retaining walls.
4. Existing vegetation within buffer yards shall be considered as a substitute for
otherwise required screening, if in the opinion of the administrator, the type, size, and
density of the existing vegetation complies with the following standards and the intent of
this section. Any existing trees to be incorporated into the landscape must be
adequately protected during construction to insure their survival (fencing around the drip
line perimeter).
5. Where deemed appropriate by the county zoning administrator, buffer yards may be
allocated for the present or future use as a greenway.
(C) Screening.~e,~c~eni~gism°~re~+ h~ -p~ ~hi: nc~~lln~n,,~,;9 ~;-
a~p~~
1. Screening shall be visually opaque, and constructed of a durable material. It shall be
installed within a required buffer yard and shall be continuously maintained so as to
meet the intent of this section.
May 26, 2009 489
2. Acceptable screening materials include stockade fences, decorative masonry walls,
brick walls, earth berms, and/or a mix of evergreen/deciduous vegetation. See the
Roanoke County Design Handbook for examples of these screening materials.
Alternative materials may be approved, if in the opinion of the administrator, their
characteristics and design meet the intent and standards of this section.
(D) Berms.
1. Berm height shall be measured from grade elevation to the top of the berm.
(See diagrams in the Roanoke County Design Handbook for more detail.) Where a
berm is located between different grades, the berm height shall be measured
from the base of the higher grade elevation. Berms are recommended for
screening between adjacent parcels in different zoning districts.
(E) {-B} Landscaping. /"ere-I~n~c-ap+~-~s-r~~gaire~ h„ +h~~ nrr-Iin~nC~ th~~fno~~nnoooi~_ng
~h~ii ~nni„~
~,~ aPP~~
1. Existing vegetation shall be considered as a substitute for otherwise required
landscaping, if in the opinion of the administrator, the type, size, and density of the
existing vegetation complies with the following standards and the intent of this section.
Any existing vegetation to be preserved and incorporated into the landscape must be
adequately protected during construction to insure their survival, as specified in the
protection and preservation methods section (Section 30-92-4(E)).
2. All plant material must meet American Association of Nurserymen Specifications for
No. 1 grade. Native plantings are encouraged when compatible with the surrounding
land use. Every effort should be made to incorporate healthy existing trees into the
landscape and avoid the use of highly invasive species. (See Recommended
Native/Naturalized Plant List in the Roanoke County Design Handbook.)
3. All plant species chosen shall be suitable for planting and growth within the
proposed environment and shall meet the size requirements in the following table.
Plants used for screening purposes shall be planted in accordance with the on-center
requirements of the table. If spacing requirements are not specified, required
landscaping shall be arranged within a buffer yard to achieve the intent of this section.
TABLE INSET:
Size/Spacing/Number/Minimums
Height At Screening and
Planting Final Height Spacing
Requirements
Small Shrubs 12" 2' minimum 2' on center
Large Shrubs (Evergreen 24" 6' minimum 5' on center
or Deciduous)
490 May 26, 2009
G~iornroon/~oni~i ini is
chr
Small evergreen trees 5' 15' minimum 15' on center
Large evergreen trees 6--8' 50' minimum 20' on center
Small deciduous trees 1 1/2
caliper 15' minimum 15' on center
Large deciduous trees a-1 /~ 2"
caliper
50' minimum
30' on center
(F) {€) Protection and preservation methods.
1. Vegetation designated for protection and/or preservation shall be enclosed in a
protection zone which establishes limits of construction disturbance to the root area of
designated plant material. All protection zones and measures shall be established to the
satisfaction of the zoning administrator. During construction, plastic or wood fencing
shall be installed at the perimeter of all protection zones.
Vegetation of specimen quality, historic designation or cultural value: Provide
extraordinary measures to ensure complete protection/preservation
Type of material specified may vary due to site-specific determinants. Silt, erosion
control, or geotechnical fabric materials are not acceptable for use as vegetation
protection.
2. Areas designated for protection and/or preservation shall not be violated throughout
the entire construction period by actions including, but not limited to:
a. Placing, storing, or stockpiling backfill or construction related supplies.
b. Felling trees into the designated area.
c. Burning within or in close proximity.
d. Modifying site topography in a manner which causes damage by collection/ponding
or flow characteristics of site drainage.
e. Trenching or grading operations.
f. Operating equipment or machinery.
g. Parking of construction vehicles.
h. Temporary or permanent paving or impervious surface installation.
i. Temporary or permanent utility construction installation.
j. Disposal of construction debris or chemical pollutants.
3. Work or construction related activities within areas designated for protection and/or
preservation of existing vegetation shall be accomplished only with prior approval of the
zoning administrator.
(Ord. No. 111301-10, §§ 1, 2, 11-13-01; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08)
Sec. 30-92-6. Applicability of Regulations and Requirements.
(A) Screening, landscaping and buffer yards.
May 26, 2009 491
1. Requirements of screening, landscaping and buffer yards between zoning districts
shall be determined by using the following charts. See the buffer yard illustrations
in the Roanoke County Design Handbook for more detail. chart '~
2. The Zoning Administrator shall have final review of all buffer yards and will
determine whether more screening is necessary based on site specific
information such as terrain.
3. If the buffer yard area is smaller than the typical buffer yard section denoted in
the following illustrations, the landscaping required shall equal a proportion of
the typical buffer yard landscaping. Where a fraction is calculated, the number
shall be rounded up to the next whole number..
u~T
TABLE INSET:
Ad
i
i
Z
i Site Zoning
jo
n
ng
on
ng
R-3
R-4
C-1
C-2
I-1
I-2
AG-3 D D D D D E
AG-1 D D D D D E
AR B B B or C B or C D E
AV A A A A D E
R-1 A A B C D E
R-2 A A B C D E
R-3 B B B D E
R-4 A B D E
PRD D E
NC B C
C-1 B C
C-2 B B
TABLE INSET:
Type Option 1 (Large Buffer, Minimal Option 2 (Smaller Buffer With More
Landscaping) Landscaping/Screening)
A 20' buffer 15' buffer
For every 75' consisting of: For every 75' consisting of:
One row of large deciduous trees One row of small deciduous trees (5)
(3) One row of large evergreen shrubs
492
May 26, 2009
One row of lar
e ever
reen shrubs (ln° ~orn° onr-1 ~z cmoll 4r°°c fnr °„°r„
g
g
(12-14)
a~ eOne row of large deciduous 6' screening
shrubs (16-18) ,°a ;.g_Z~°rn° chri the fnr °„°r„ 'I n'
B 30' buffer 20' buffer
For every 100' consisting of: For every 100' consisting of:
One row of large evergreen trees One row of large deciduous trees (4)
(5) One row of large evergreen shrubs
urn,-9~ ~r~e~ (16-18)
One row of lar
e ever
reen shrubs ~ n° ~orn° onrJ ~ cmoll +r°°c fnr °„°r.,
g
g
(16-18) 5~
and a One row of large deciduous 6' screening
shrubs (22-24) °nr~ ~ chn the fnr °„°r„ 'I n'
C 40' buffer 30' buffer
For every 100' consisting of: For every 100' consisting of:
One row of large evergreen trees One row of large deciduous trees (3)
(5) One row of large evergreen shrubs
One row of small deciduous trees (16-18)
(6) One row of large deciduous shrubs
~ orn° onr-~ cm°~~ +r°°~ (22-24)
One row of large evergreen shrubs ~ n° '~,~ ,Q 9° ~r~e~~°r~~ ~ -o~'
(16-18) 6' screening
and-a One row of large deciduous °n,~ ~ chn the fnr °„°r„ 'I n'
shrubs (22-24)
D 50' buffer 35' buffer
For every 100' consisting of: For every 100' consisting of:
One row of large evergreen trees One row of large deciduous trees (3)
(5) One row of small evergreen trees (6-
Two rows of small deciduous 7)
trees, two different species (6-7 ~ n° ~orn° 4r°° fnr ~~°r,~r~ _v~'
per row)
I orn° onr-1 cmoll 4r°°c
~e~a
~~
e~
~ec+d~~s~#ru b~ 6' screening
onrJ R chn the fnr °"°r~, 1 n'
~
-
-
E 75' buffer 50' buffer
For every 100' consisting of: For every 100' consisting of:
One row of large deciduous trees One row of large deciduous trees (3)
(3) One row of small evergreen trees (6)
One row of large evergreen trees One row of small deciduous trees (6-
(5) ~)
May 26, 2009 493
One row of small deciduous trees ~ n° ~orn° +r°° onrJ ~ cmoll +r°°c fnr
~~ e~~rj~-~~
~°,,.,rn° °n,~ ~m°~~ +r°°~ 6' screening
+..~e~ea~~t~e~d ~c~d~e~}s~~ ru b~ ~ n rJ S2 c h r i i h c fnr ° ~ i ° r~ i 'I (1'
(g) l7°rvi iir°m°n+c fnr ~ gdjacent right-of--way/street side plantings.
1. Where a new or expanded development, or reconfigured parking area is proposed
adjacent to a public street right-of-way, a planting strip shall be established between the
parking areas and the adjacent right-of-way. The planting strip shall have a minimum
width of ten (10) feet.
2. Within this planting strip a minimum of one (1) large deciduous tree shall be planted
every thirty (30) linear feet along the public street right-of-way. Small trees planted
every twenty (20) linear feet, may be used where an overhead power line or other
obstruction is present. In addition, a minimum of two (2) large shrubs shall be placed in
the planting strip for every five (5) linear feet of frontage. This should not be construed
as meaning that the plants must be uniformly planted. See the Roanoke County
Design Handbook for illustrations.
(C) Parking areas.
1. New parking areas shall include '~n~~e~+a~s~en~u,~~; -p;ante~s
planting islands and landscaped medians in combination with low impact design
techniques that are planned, designed and located to channel traffic, facilitate storm
water management, improve the appearance of parking areas and define and
separate parking areas and aisles. In addition to accommodating vehicles, parking
areas shall also provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
2. The integration of low impact design alternatives, including but not limited to
bioretention areas, infiltration devices, grass swales, vegetated filter strips and
permeable or pervious pavers are encouraged to address stormwater quality and
quantity and to improve the appearance of the parking area, in accordance with
the Roanoke County stormwater Management Design Manual, as amended.
er n~_of_non.~,~nr-1 nn°_holf /1 'I/'~1 inChe_S ~+ +h° +im° of nl~n+inn in ~c~r~g_gnr~~~~_th
3. Islands. (See the Roanoke County Design Handbook for additional detail)
a. ~ Rows of parking shall be separated by a '°n~'°^°n°~' planting island or
bioretention planting island at least every fifteen (15) spaces and ~~r,r+~^°n°~ islands
shall also be placed at the end of each row. ~ ~nrr~^on°,~ norLinn +Islands shall be
spaced throughout the parking area and have a minimum dimension of e1nh+, nine
(9) feet in width by nineteen (19) feet in length of planting area. To protect the plant
material from vehicular damage, the island must be delineated by a clear physical
barrier such as concrete curbs or set landscaping timbers.
494 May 26, 2009
b. 4. A minimum of one (1) aar-ge small deciduous tree with surrounding turf grass or
other ground cover shall be required in all p°rU~~n9 -lot planting islands.
4n 4h° norl~inn or°~
4. Landscaped Medians. (See the Roanoke County Design Handbook for
additional detail)
a. ~ Where double rows of parking are planned, large parking areas shall have
one landscaped median for every fifty (50) parking spaces to provide visual relief.
Each landscaped median shall run the length of a parking aisle and shall measure
at least fifteen (15) feet wide. Where possible, landscaped medians shall be
designed for every other parking aisle. ~ rLinn orees~iioll h° hrnL°n in4n
~~c~vii.~i r"~ rv oe~v°°~ nn° hi inrJrerJ ~'I nn~ n~rLinn c ~Ce_S. car~h_ ~c~v~ 4~no_ hoc
~p.~~.r~4 ~inr I~ _rand.~rc~r~p~°.-d_hr~uffpr~~ nrn°~/~suc~i_r°~i°r
b. Each landscaped median shall be planted with one (1) small deciduous tree
and six large shrubs per 30 linear feet with a minimum caliper of two (2) inches at
the time of planting.
c. Landscaped medians shall include sidewalks measuring at least five (5) feet
wide to facilitate safe pedestrian circulation to and from destination(s).
d. Wherever possible, parking area lighting shall be installed in landscaped
medians. Lighting shall not conflict with required trees.
5. Additional Landscaping.
In addition to the above requirements, three (3) large shrubs for every fifteen (15)
parking spaces shall be planted around the perimeter of and/or adjacent to the
parking area.
6. Large Paved Areas.
Paved areas greater than five hundred (500) sq. ft. such as loading areas, that are not
necessarily striped parking lots shall place one (1) 'onr~lcnon°~ planting island, as
specified above for every seven hundred fifty (750) sq. ft. of area and at least one (1)
landscaped median. Landscaped medians and planting islands they shall be
located to screen the paved area from the public right-of-way or from adjacent
properties, to channel traffic, and/or to define separate parking areas. The
landscaped median shall not be required to have a sidewalk.
e~noncinn in~inl~i°c~h.e~r-Ir-li4inn of on ore ~pp_~_~_j_a~_a_~en4~_i< <no_ ~ n /'I n1 nr mnr° norLinn
4h° n°~ni norLinn or°o nnl~i
7. Parking Area Expansions.
Any expansion of a parking area shall require compliance with the requirements
above for both the existing parking area and the proposed parking expansion.
Exceptions are listed as follows:
May 26, 2009 495
a. Expansions of ten (10) percent or less calculated by existing parking area
square footage.
b. The existing parking area may remain unchanged if all proposed parking
spaces meet the landscaping requirements and are constructed of permeable or
pervious pavers. See the Roanoke County Stormwater Management Design
Manual for standards and specifications.
(D) Parking Structures.
1. Parking structures located underground shall not be required to provide
planting islands or landscaped medians within the parking structure.
2. Parking structures located above-ground shall not be required to provide
planting islands or landscaped medians within the parking structure but shall
provide:
a. Landscaping around all sides of the structure for screening, or
b. Integrate landscaping into all exposed structure walls.
(E)~83 Landscaping requirements for new and expanded developments. Adequate
minimum landscaping shall be provided as follows:
1. The area coverage of trees and shrubs to be planted, together with the existing
crown area of those retained shall occupy at least thirty-five (35) percent of the total
land area of the proposed project. Total land area for purposes of this paragraph shall
be the area shown on the site plan as the area of the site plan under consideration.
2. The approved crown coverage allowances are listed below. They are based upon
the anticipated size at maturity when located in a built environment.
TABLE INSET:
Type Minimum Height at Crown Coverage Allowance
Maturity
Large deciduous trees 50' min. height 1,250 square feet each (35')
Large evergreen trees 30' min. height 500 square feet each (22')
Small deciduous trees 15' min. height 250 square feet each (15')
Small evergreen trees 15' min. height 250 square feet each (15')
Large shrubs 5' min. height 10 square feet each (3')
Small shrubs 2' min. height 5 square feet each (2')
496 May 26, 2009
3. Shrub planting which apply toward crown coverage allowance requirements shall
not exceed more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total crown coverage allowance
requirements. Shrub plantings proposed for use as screen plantings (such as related to
refuse service areas, outdoor storage areas, mechanical equipment, etc.) do not apply
toward crown coverage allowance requirements.
4. Groundcovers, perennial plantings, or turf grass do not apply toward crown
coverage allowance requirements.
5. Trees and shrubs used in bioretention areas and in other low impact design
alternatives maybe used to count towards crown coverage requirements.
6. Landscaping shall be provided around the base of any freestanding sign
proposed. The size of the landscaped area shall not be less than one and one-half
(1.5) times the square footage of the sign.
7. Landscaping shall be provided along the main entrance facade of all buildings,
providing a vegetative area between the building and parking areas. The
landscaped area shall be professionally designed and planted with a mixture of
small trees, shrubs, and groundcover.
(F) {€~ Additional screening requirements.
1. All refuse service (dumpsters/containers) and outdoor storage areas in all zoning
districts shall be screened from surrounding views per section 30-92-5. Height of
screening must be a minimum of six (6) feet.
2. Ground level and roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened or landscaped
per section 30-92-5.
3. Commercial and industrial use types shall screen from surrounding views all articles
and materials being stored, maintained, repaired, processed, erected, fabricated,
dismantled, or salvaged. Articles and materials available for retail sale by a commercial
use type shall be exempt from this requirement.
SEC.30-93. Signs
Sec. 30-93-3. Exempted Signs.
(A) The following signs shall be exempted from regulation, and may be displayed
within the county without obtaining a sign permit. However, an electrical permit shall be
required for any sign requiring or incorporating electrical service:
4. Directional signs provided that each such sign does not exceed three (3) square feet
per sign, and is limited to one (1) per access to a public street.
7. Signs displayed on a truck, bus, or other vehicle while in use in the normal conduct
of business. This section shall not be interpreted to permit the parking for display
purposes a vehicle to which a sign is attached or the use of such a vehicle as a e
sign.
11. Political campaign signs provided that they are located outside of the public right-
of-way, °nrJ oro romn~ior-1 ~nii4hin fni ir4oon /'I /11 rJo~ic of4or Oho r~omnoinn
May 26, 2009 497
15. Signs that are displayed by or promote civic, religious, educational or charitable
organizations or causes, provided such signs are displayed no longer than thirty (30)
consecutive days per calendar year, are placed on-premises and shall meet the
existing size standards and number limit for temporary signs. Portable signs
shall not be permitted as part of this exemption.
Sec. 30-93-4. Prohibited Signs.
(A) The following signs are prohibited within the county:
15. Any sign displayed on a stationary motor vehicle or trailer when the vehicle or
trailer is parked or oriented for the purpose of serving the function of a sign,
except when such vehicle or trailer is parked in the operator's driveway or when
the vehicle is parked to the side or rear of a commercial building and is not
visible from adjacent public roads or is loading or unloading.
Sec. 30-93-8. Temporary Signs.
(D) Any temporary sign secured to a temporary fixture or post must have a
minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet behind from the property line, adjacent to the
right-of--way.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
8. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the development and
adoption of a Design Handbook to assist in the implementation of
various features for chapter 30 of the Roanoke County Code
Zonin Ordinance) Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of
Plannin
0-052609-23
Mr. Thompson advised that this ordinance authorizes the creation of a
Design Handbook to compliment the Zoning Ordinance by illustrating certain design
concepts. The Design Handbook is intended to be useful for County citizens, design
Ogg May 26, 2009
professionals, County staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
The Design Manual shows examples of site layouts, graphics showing screening,
buffering and landscaping, recommended lists of plants and trees and transportation
concepts with parking graphics and illustrations for impervious and permeable paving
surfaces. It is intended to be updated with additional information as needed. Eventually
staff hopes to have all standards in this type of format so when a development comes
through and they want to proffer something, they can refer to the standards in this
handbook. The Planning Commission worked with staff to develop this and held a public
hearing on April 7, 2009. There were no citizens present to speak at the public hearing.
The first reading of the ordinance and work session was held on May 12, 2009.
Supervisor Flora advised that he thought this was a good idea. He
inquired if a public hearing would have to be held every time there are changes or could
the action be adopted by resolution with the same enforcement.
Mr. Mahoney advised that he, staff and Mr. Thompson struggled with
wanting to provide this "picture is worth a thousand words" while giving weight to the
action. He suggested that the Board look at the second page of the ordinance,
paragraph three, where the intent is to authorize the creation of the design manual by
ordinance and provide that once the design manual is authorized by the Board, it can be
amended, updated or modified from time to time by resolution. Mr. Mahoney advised
that he would not be able to use the design manual for prosecution to enforce a
violation; however, he could use it as evidence before a judge or the Board of Zoning
May 26, 2009 499
Appeals. He advised that they are laying the foundation with the ordinance but
recognizing that it will be changed from time to time and will do that by resolution.
Supervisor Flora commented that he will ask Mr. Mahoney to inform him
privately how an ordinance can be amended by a resolution.
No citizens spoke on this item.
Supervisor Moore moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052609-23 AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT AND
ADOPTION OF A DESIGN HANDBOOK TO ASSIST IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS FEATURES FOR CHAPTER 30 OF
THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE)
WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice requires the amendment to Chapter 30 of the Roanoke County Code (Zoning
Ordinance) by the adoption of a Design Handbook; and,
WHEREAS, this Design Handbook provides graphic illustrations and diagrams of
various elements and features of the Zoning Ordinance, including site design,
landscaping, screening and buffering, transportation, parking, and other features; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on
April 7, 2009; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a first reading on this ordinance on
May 12, 2009, and a second reading and public hearing on May 26, 2009.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That there is hereby established a Design Handbook for the County of
Roanoke Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the County of Roanoke will utilize the policy, criteria and information
including specifications and standards of the County of Roanoke Design Handbook for
the proper implementation of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This document
shall include illustrations and diagrams of acceptable elements and features, including
the specific design criteria for various amenities, improvements and features.
500 May 26, 2009
3. That the County of Roanoke Design Handbook may be updated and
revised from time to time, based on improvements in design, landscaping, engineering,
science, monitoring and local maintenance experience. The Planning Commission
may recommend and the Board of Supervisors shall authorize and approve any
updates, supplements, or modifications to the County of Roanoke Design Handbook by
Resolution,
4. That the elements, amenities, improvements and features that are
designed and constructed in accordance with these design criteria will be presumed to
meet the n~iinimum zor~ing ordinance performance standards.
5. That this ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its
adoption.
an motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES of BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore: ~1 } She thanked the veterans, especially Jesse
Glowers, who gave the ultimate sacrifice for us. ~2} She wished a Happy Birthday to her
mother.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by:
~C, ~. ~C"u~tic,'
Becky R. e or
Deputy Clerk o the Board
Ap roved by:
Michael W. Altizer
Chairman