The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1/25/2005 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda January 25, 2005 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for January 25, 2005. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Reverend James Terry Penn Forest Christian Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits o~ the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. 1 1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone .68 acres from 1-1 C, Industrial District with Conditions, to C-2C, General Commercial District with Conditions, for the construction of a retail store located at the northeast corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Mid- Atlantic Realty, Inc. 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a multi-purpose facility for Ebenezer Baptist Church located at 7049 Thirlane Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jerome Donald Henschel, P.C. Architecture. 3. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the donation and conveyance of easements to the Western Virginia Water Authority to provide for the extension of sewer service in connection with the Crystal Creek sanitary sewer extension project, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation & Tourism) 2. First reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim, and release a portion of an existing 15 foot and 100 foot drainage easement on property owned by F&W Community Development Corporation, Hollins Magisterial District. (Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES I. APPOINTMENTS J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW-. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes - January 11 , 2005 2. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Stephen P. Huff, Sheriff's Office, following twenty-eight years of service 2 3. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $19,627.05 4. Request from schools to appropriate mentor teacher grant funds from the Department of Education in the amount of $13,797.36 K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Major Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 4. Board Contingency Fund 5. Future Capital Projects 6. Accounts Paid -December 2004 7. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended December 31, 2004 8. Report of claims activity for the self-insurance program for the period ended December 31, 2004 O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes; Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of a legal contract, more specifically, a performance agreement between Roanoke County and Hollins Hospitality, LLC. P. WORK SESSIONS (Training Room - 4th floor) 1. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2005-2006 budget development. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) . Budget calendar for fiscal year 2005-2006 . Review of projected increases in County expenditures for fiscal year 2005- 2006 3 · Discussion of proposed changes in the real estate and Business and Professional Occupancy License (BPOL) tax rates 2. Work session with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Review Committee to review results of the evaluation process 3. Work session with Dr. Mike Chandler to discuss the County's Comprehensive (Community) Plan. EVENING SESSION Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS S. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. First reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 15-foot drainage easement on plat entitled "Subdivision of The Orchards, Section 2, Applewood", Plat Book 9, Page 112, and further shown as "existing 15' drainage easement" in Plat Book 13, Page 59, Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) T. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Withdrawn at the reauest of the cetitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a private stable on 2.876 acres located at 861 Texas Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Billy D. Montgomery and Catherine R. Montgomery. 2. Continued until February 22, 2005 at the reauest of the Detitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and to obtain a special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 3. Continued until March 22, 2005 at the reauest of the Plannina Commission. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower located at 432 Bandy Drive near Windy Gap Mountain, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Nextel Partners, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 4 4. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 17.034 acres from R4C, High Density Residential District with Conditions, to R4C, High Density Residential District with Amended Conditions, for the development of single family housing located at Plantation Road at the intersection of Hershberger Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of M&M Developers, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 5. Second reading of an ordinance to amend Section 30-74-4 (A) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to change the reference date for the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (George W. Simpson, Assistant Director of Community Development) U. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt the Roanoke County Community Plan dated November 2, 2004. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Martha Hooker, Chair - Roanoke County Planning Commission) V. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS W. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Joseph B. "Butch" Church 2. Michael A. Wray 3. Richard C. Flora 4. Joseph P. McNamara 5. Michael W. Altizer X. WORK SESSION (4th Floor Training Room) 1. Work session with representatives of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern to discuss the feasibility studies to be performed for the proposed regional jail sites. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator) Y. ADJOURNMENT 5 ACTION NO. (\-3 ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for public hearing and first reading for rezoning ordinances- consent agenda SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Chief Planner APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ê. J-+- County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for February 22. 2005. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. The petition of Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. to rezone .68 acres from 1-1 C, Industrial District with Conditions to C-2C, General Commercial District with conditions for the construction of a retail store, located at the northeast corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District. 2. The petition of Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a multi-purpose facility for Ebenezer Baptist Church, located at 7049 Thirlane Road, Catawba Magisterial District. 3. The petition of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities, located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. Maps are attached. More detailed information is available in the Clerk's Office. 1 fl--3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reco'mmends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for Februarv 22, 2005. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1-3, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. 2 DEC-2B-2004 10:07 RKE CTY-COM DEV 5407722108 P~02/02 ~ -I Count)' or Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use OnI D3:tc: ra:c~: R.ccti vcd by: 5204 Bern.ard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 240 18- 0198 540 772-2068 FAX 540 776-7155 ALL A.PPLIC4NTS " ,...'. ~,',# . :.~J! ,~ ~ --.¡P"'. .~ - J . _. .:~ .~~:~ A'PPJi~riOQ r"c.: P CIB ZA date: Pl,Qt'ds issued: BOS ø.aJ&: C»e Numkc' Chcc.k type ofal'plicatioD. filed (cbeck IU thaI apply) zonm£ lj Spr:çial Use 0 Variance [! Waiver o Adminisuative Appeal Phon~ Work: Cell II: Fax No.: Magisterial Distric(; ~ 1í'l ¿Jß n Community PlilII1ÚDg area: E.xi.sting ZcmklCÚ n f Existing Land usc:9t.e:f . . REZONING SPEÇUL USE PERM:ITAND ~An:i"RÃI'PUCANTS~(RISIW) Proposed Zomng: C "" 2- Proposed Land Use: Dg~ th! parcel meet me minimum 10t area. width. and fIautage requirements of the requested w$1rict? Yes ~ No lFNO,A VARIANCEISREQVIREDFIRST. Does the perce1 meet tbe minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes V No IF NO, A V ARlANCE [S REQUIRED FIRST , lfrezoning request. are cooditions being proffered witb Ibis m;¡ucst? Yes No VA1U.4NCE, WAn'ER. AND lWMfNlS1&(rWz APP£Ci AP"'L1~ (YIWIAA) VarianceJV{aiver of Se'Ction(s) of the Roanoke C011J3ty Zani:Dg Ordinance in order to~ Appea.1 of Zoning AdministratOr"s decision 10 Appeù of lDtmpretatiOD af Sœtion(s ): AppuJ of Interpretation of Zoning Map ta of ¡he Roanoke County Zoning OrdiDance Is the applicatioð comple'tO? Please check if enclosed.. APPLJCA. nON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR L'iCOMPLET.E.. RJS/W V/AA RIS/W VIM RISIW V/AA œ Con,\aJ:a::ion Eii 8 tl2" .'C 1111 concept plan ~ AppUCl.tiOlL fee Applia::io':l Mc1cs and bounds dc:scriprion Prc~ if appl ¡cab 1e Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining fJ1't.1pcrTy o\l:ners 1 h~by cø1Ì fy th:1t T 11m either r.h~ OW'CK of the propetty or the owner' ¡ agent or contract purc.hue!' and am actillS with the kDowledge aDd c:onsent ofrrae owne.r-#IÞ-A1~U{!~ ~ .z:,(I¿:" . ¿}I'J~ I a . I ~. Owner s SL Uure .JUSTJ.FfCATION'FOR REZONING; spECIAL VSE=PERMIT·OR WAIVER REQUEST 2 TOTAL P.02 ?-a ~2nFì-2'tr9 Lll.. ~~tea~ ~~~Uet~y-p~W eLl:0t 'trD 82 ~aa F-- j Applicant IUIj) - A TZr-JnJTIC_ 7£;zJ'-1l1¡ .I71fC!. The Planning Commission wiU study rezoning, special use pennit or waiver requests to detennine the need and justification for the change in tenns of public h~alth, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the folIowing questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. lkAf6--5 -fk. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e-2-~ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. ¿uhf#\. ~ ~ r;:k M ~ fiifl!ðf2 /~, c..1/5kh~ ðu- bvJ!J!- ~ á ~ ~ .?Þ'I.,q- ~ Juyv- ¿:¿ 1/ ~ ~/ '2 ð/d!Þv h~ f I/'~ I~ (Þ-djð' fv k~~~) Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itsel~ the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. J {)J~ f ~ ~~¿fY1-t1~ ~ . t~w ~ f~wJ¿ ~k~~ rl ~- ~~ / ~ tMT W1t:A ¿V.f!! ~ ðJ1 (];ye ~. ~-~~. ~{þ~'Iø-tk 'Þf~ wiZ/,?-u:> ~~t/k ~. (?~~ ok 7~ I JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE REQVEST Applicant 3 F/ Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. P.O.Box 3247 Gettysburg, PA 17325 717/642-9794 Fax 717/642-9026 Via F edEx December 16, 2004 Mr. John Murphy Associate Planner County of Roanoke Department of Community Development Planning Division 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 RE: Rezoning Application Hubbard Property Peters Creek Parkway & Cove Rd Roanoke, VA Dear John: We are the contract purchaser of the Hubbard property located at the comer of Peters Creek Parkway and Cove Rd. Enclosed please find the following: 1. Application for Rezoning of Parcel 37.17-1-5 (.68 acres) 2. Site Plan showing the checklist requirements of the property to be rezoned as well as our proposed development 3 . Aerial of the property under consideration 4. Check in the amount of $977 for the application fee 5. Draft proffer I am also having our engineer forward to you two (2) full size plans and one (1) 8 !/2" X 11" for your use. We will also supply you with additional copies of the color aerial. As discussed I have enclosed a draft proffer. I hope to have the opportunity to discuss 1 f/ I this further with you before you distribute the package to all concerned. Thank you very much for your assistance. If: in the meantime, you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ð;;~Md1/ Susan Whaley cc: MI. Hubbard Ms. :Millie Moore 2 ~ . I. ' I 8illlltll lun II .......... .......... VNDM ~OY NY1d 3.US .)IO()' XJr1O. 'lYn.J.d3:)NCX) ~ .. (-I ............ - - ..............- --t-- ó ..............- - ~ .... ~ .... 2.!c1O(y - - ..............- - ............ - - I - -............. I -- I I I I. I I I I I I i~ _~I Iii! M~II -'C41 , , I , , ê" I!! 5 ¡ Ii I " Ii r ~ ~ 0 ~I <:) If ¡ .... ~ In ~ ~t ~ ~ a:: a: 0 t!! ~ ~ ~ ~ o en w 0 ~ 8 a; ~ 25 ~ ~ « -< t:S D.. D.. ~ . It) U ®~ a II ; ï~ I !.I 01 Q... « ~ w I-- (7j r-J f-I DRAFT PROFFERS RECORD OWNERS Thomas R. and Evonne R. Hubbard, Jr. December 15, 2004 The undersigned, Thomas R. and Evonne R. Hubbard, Jr., owners of parcel designated 037.17-01-05, ("the Property"), voluntarily agree for themselves, their agent, personal representatives, successors and assigns (collectively "the Property Owner") that, in the event the Property is rezoned from 1-1 to C2, the development and use of the Property shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The property is proposed to be developed as a retail building~ 2. The entrances onto Peters Creek Parkway shall be reduced to one (1) right-in and right-out. The entrances onto Cove Road shall be reduced to one (1) full movement entrance.. 3. All buildings constructed on the property shall have exposed exterior walls, whether the walls are front, side, or rear walls, (above finished grade) of face brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco, decorative split face block and/or glass, or of an equivalent, permanent, architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered with or have exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or conugated aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be asphalt shingle or standing metal seam, if a raised root: or if a flat roof system is used, then a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam, decorative split face block or brick shall be used. 4~ All lighting shall be shielded from direct view of adjoining residential properties~ 7. All roof mounted HV AC and similar equipment shall be shielded from public rights-of-way and adjacent property owners, to the extent reasonably possible. 8. All refuse shall be deposited in waste containers or dumpsters. Such containers or dumpsters shall be kept in a location approved at the time of site plan approval. Structures shielding dumpsters shall be constructed of materials similar to those of the building served. 9. The conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated August 25, 1992 and Ordinance 102291-10 dated October 22, 1991 are hereby removed. (SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] 1 f-I WITNESS the following signatures and seals:. (SEAL) Thomas R Hubbard, Jr. (SEAL) Evonne Hubbard STATE OF V1RGINIA: CITY/COUNTY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of December, 2004, by Thomas R. Hubbard, Jr.. Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF VJRGJNIA: CITY/COUNTY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of December, 2004, by Evonne Hubbard. Notary Public My commission expires: 2 J Zoning COve _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR _A V C1 _C2 _ C2CVOD 11 12 _PCD PRD '.. .: PTD R1 R2 R3 R4 Roanoke County Department of Community Development Rd I Site r r- «:-ò ~ ~QJ (j ~':J ~0 ~0 :Jl>~ ~ I . )II 'x x A ")I x )C )( ~ ~ ~ )(X -x ~ XXYX XXX XYYYX )( .JI( x x }f Y Y' . XJl X YX'V~~' ~~v ~ "-. ~ .. ")I JC 11/ )( 111 ~ ~ A~ 'JIll ^ ~ /x~ ~ ß.~ ~~ ~ . '-3Ii x ....... f)' ~ City of Roanoke City of Roanoke N A City of Roanoke Applicants Name: Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. Proposed Zoning: C-2 Tax Map Number: 37. 17-1-5 Magisterial District: Catawba Area: 0.68 Acres December 17, 2004 No Scale DI Variance o Waiver Phone: Work: 540 562 3174 Cell #: Fax No.: 540 562 4174 Phone #: 540 362-1306 Fax No. #: Magisterial District: Catawba Community Planning area: KiBgstWJnt... ii-a I {I '1- S Existing Zoning: Rl Church Facility County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Check type of application filed (check all that apply) o Rezoning . Special Use Applicants name/address w/zip Jerome Donald Henschel,PC Architecture 1317 Peters Creek Road, NW Roanoke Vir ¡nia 24017-2545 Owner's name/address w/zm Ebenezer Baptist L'hurch 7049 Thirlane Road n k Vir ¡oi 24019 Property Location 7049 Thirlane Road Tax Map No.: 037.06-01-13.00-0000 For Staff Use Onl F-Q Appli tion fee; ¿),cJO PCIBZA date: ~ ( ...:J S- P1acards issued: Case Number l{ Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: Construction of new Multi-purpose (Family Life) Facility Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements oCthe requested district? Yes I No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FmST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes II No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No 0 Variance/Waiver ofSection(s) of the Roanoke County Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W V RIS/W V RJSIW V rn Consultation Eji 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~ Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's a . t or contract purchaser and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature I.:<-/~ -Or THE EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH HISTORY FOUNDED AUGUST 19, 1881 f'~ In 1842, the Hollins Institute, now known as Hollins College, was founded by Dr. Charles Lewis Cocke. After the founding of this institution, Dr. Cocke was lead by the will of God to organize bible school to teach Negro Slaves God's holy word. But little did he know that some of the oldest churches in the Roanoke Valley would be born there. Out of this masterpiece of religious work came First Enon Colored African Churc~ in 1866 one hundred thirty three members founded this church which was located on Plantation Road near the ITT plant in Roanoke County. On August 18, 1866 the church was admitted to Roanoke Valley Association and on August 16, 1869 was dismissed to the Colored Baptist Association, which is now called the Valley Baptist Association. In August 1881 some of the people who lived in Kingstown saw the need to have a church close to home, so they fonned a trustee board to build their own church. In yeàrs prior to 1881 they would fellowship at Enon Colored Amcan Church. The name was later changed to Green Ridge Baptist Church. In late 1881 the new church at Kingstown was fmished, it was dedicated and named Ebenezer Afiican Baptist Church. Some years later the named was changed to Kingstown Ebenezer Church, in 1926 the name was changed to its present name Ebenezer Baptist Church. . In late 1908 or early 1909 the First Ebenezer Church caught fire and burned down due to a bad flue. On a Sunday morning while church was in service the flue caught on rITe and started the roof to bWll. Mr. Watt Jones who lived next door to the church saw the blaze and came to the church to tell the members. He got them all out, but the church was lost, it burned to the ground. On August 19, 1909 the new church was finished and service was started on August 22, 1909. Ebenezer Baptist Church over the years has had some very good ministers. They are known as Rev. F.C. Patterson, Rev. T.C. Curtis, Rev. C.C. Harvey, Rev. Crowder, Rev. H..P. Horn, Rev. E.T. Browne, Rev. R M. Owens, Rev. Taylor, Rev. O.N. Carter, Rev. E. Hopkins, Rev. A.T. Philpott, Rev. H.B. Henderso~ Rev.. T..B. Wright, Rev. G.T. Turner, Rev. A.T. Philpott, Rev. RC. Pasley and at the present time, Rev. H.L. Word Jr. When the new Ebenezer Church was built in 1909 the Rev. T.C. Curtis was the Pastor. Rev. T.B. Wright was pastor when the parish hall was built Rev. O.N. Carter was pastor when the electric lights were installed. Rev. G.T. Turner, Deacon C.C. Guerrant, Sister Mattie Young and Sister Rosa Newman were responsible for the pulpit furniture. The communion table was given to the church in memory of Sister Mattie Young, by her family. Due to ever increasing membership, in 1988 the third church was constructed on land purchased adjacent to the 1909 church. Today there is a need for a Family Life I Multi-Purpose Facility. Because of this we are asking for a special use penn it, waving the 15,000 maximum square feet and asking for 24,400 square feet. Our proposed Family Life I Multi-Purpose Facility hours and times of operation will be nights and weekends, for use by church members and families. Applicant Jerome Donald Henschel,PC Architecture c/o Ebenezer Baptist Church The Plarming Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in tenns of pub lie health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. This parcel of land is ~:c~ in size. The area of construction is .68 of an acre, this leaves considerable amount of land for conservation purposes. Please explain how the project confonns to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. Tbe use of this proposed facility will s~rengthen the bonding between community living through spiritual, clerical, theatrical, cultural and recreational activities. The younger generation as well as the older generation will benefit as space will be provided for these activities. Since aU of the activities will be peñormed indoon, no impact will affect the neighborhood. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itselt the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. This proposed multi-purpose/family life facility center will only complement the property, surrounding area, public/private senrices. Only minor impact will result on roads, water/sewer, schools, parks/recreation, fire and rescue. F-~ A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County pennitting regulati ons. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a buiJding pennit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless linúting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use pennit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent pennitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary,. depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staffma exem t some of the items or su est the addition of extra items, but the foIlowin are considered minimtuD: ALL APPLICANTS ./ a. Applicant name and name of development --L b. Date, scale and north arrow Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties All property lines and easements AU buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces -L- c. ~ d. -.:L e. ----L..... f. ..I' g. -..:....- ..L h. .....:L- i. ---.:L.... J. Additio71al information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS WJþ., k. -L L ../ yÞ t-J/Q. o. ~/¿,. p. !..J/A q. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connectjons at the site Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals 2' n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed Ifproject is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in th~hecklist above are complete. S' \ '7./1 lR/ '200 6r- , Date NDV-22-2004 15:43 RKE CTY-COM DEV 5407722108 P.07/09 r~ Planning Commission Application Acceptance Procedure The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning. Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if the new or additional infonnation is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at tbe scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referraJ agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additiona1 infonnation prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall a1]ow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shaH consult with planning staff to detennine ¡fa continuance may be warranted. Name of Petition Ebenezer Baptist Church new Multi-purpose (Family Life) Facility , A-/- Petitioner's Signatu IIZá/Y4t:uA.., ~ Date!'?- /¿ - óL( s~¿J~3f'r-L¡'~/7 A1111~V.:l 3S0d~nd 11.lnlAJ H~èinH~ ..lSJ..ldV8 ~3Z3N383 tLI£·t9~(oK) ~ LIon: VA "qc1llO}[ M.N 'pH ~ao IÞ12d un IDlflLJ3:.lIlDHY Jd 'PtpSD~H P[lUOQ ~mOJ;t M U ,.,..............._t.----·--........,.... .. II .....1.....".......·__·.. -.'44....._._...____~ rd Ioo"! II '-i'll dOl _..--.¡.~..... ~JJJ I I; I11II \ . -tf. j =j1 t i '1 ¡hid ~ i i! ... ~ ,:1 .... I~ I ¡Iii ... & t'~ =1' ·1 (~hl ~. ./ ¡~ . Ii , UIIII = - . .. II III IIi. ~ ~ II I~ il!1 I 0' ~¡ Q ¡~d I~I ~ tlf; II~ ill ~I II 1,-llth i Ii 'it ....-....~....... ~ IIII hi .#-...--- I iøl !'a .ø;·...·oÍ ... ~Iã Iii ._., .... .....;...... ö~:t-':····· ~ I" I! i iI 0 ~ Is I I ~I tr ...- ~ ~ ~-j ~ ~ -' -.---. ~ ~ Q "" ~ I;,J "": ~ .... --~ ~.. _._...__...~ t.:) ........ -.~~. olj~ ~q~ ~ I- WZ ~ I-W -::2 u CI) a.. a: a:: 0 ,...4 W-J tJ~~ ~ ~ c..~1 ~I ~ ~ at: Q ~ ~ .Q; ~ Zoning _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR _AV C1 _C2 _ C2CVOD 11 . 12 .PeD PRO r .~ -1 PT D R1 R2 R3 R4 r--~ Roanoke County Department of Community Development N Â Applicants Name: Ebenezer Baptist Church Existing Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: R-1 S Tax Map Number: 37.06-1-13 Magisterial District: Catawba Area: 10 acres December 20, 2004 No Scale County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onl F-3 Date received: I L I -, 0,- Received by: b /2-t( 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Applica: ion fee: I '10.00 PCIBZA date: Placards issued: BOS da.te: Case Number Check type of application file (check all that apply) o Rezoning Special Use o Variance o Waiver Applicants name/address w/zip I . . ) ce.Il c. 0 f',:¡( ~ l\ c.. (...s ).. i P (d nA If fp\ "7..ð I' 'oU ì , -("U- S ~ 3" ö 11)<....\ Q W S Co \ r { \ .(..., ~ oJ: \- -(... "L. 0 , \AI/ JI; ~~ \')\.N 3 . V A ¿) 11') Owner's name/address w/zip R G~1\) kG. Lad 'It.! N J · '2-"i''I I LO'1" { -; 2- '33 C' '" te. vu 1, ~ v:. fI ~ t.r~·v Go .5 ~ I <.or r"' I V ^ 7-'1, '.)3 Property Location t (:s Ø\ f\\G. c- 5 ~ \0 .;fV e.. ') Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 1Q4 -12'1- Ifl3'l ~A ~~.. 2.S1 - '15 7·~ Phone #: S·~ ð - 1<X ~ - 1 J 7:J-..Þ ;J ( J ú óf ~"a 1~t:..- Fax NOa #: Magisterial District: Tax Map No.: J{,. o)- 01- Ifl,. oö-òOO Community Planning area: Existing Zoning: A.R - C (J /" J ;' l' I' ¿ "C, , elJblLoJev Proposed Zoning: tJ i~ Proposed Land Use: J, cr I (f ,,-} M a f\ ~ ô J (., tel e.. { () r"\ t"\ \J^ ~ (. ~.-\- · tJ ^ ..f. ·~u Does thyparceI meet the minimum lot area, width, and ftontage requirements of the requested district? Yes eM' No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. / Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes 5)/" No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FffiST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No 0 . ..~ "'"?,''' . ·····,~~o', . . ;-f,~11~' "-:~ ....,~~~~,,: Variance/Waiver ofSection(s) of the Roanoke County Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION Wll.,L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W V R/S/W V " R/S/W V m" Consultation b3i 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~ Application fee ~ ..,.- Application Metes and bounds description ",tof'" .' ProffersJ ifapp1icable Justification Water and sewer app1ication Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ~ -- ..' f-~ Applicant ( e... n c.ö POl rt C:I~ 'h ~ r (J L b l r?J v~: LOI\ VJ\ ({.lA...S5) The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use pennit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare" Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance" (, P I v:..~ ).<..V 0.-\+ 6.L-kd s .~.) P1ease explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan" C P lL-" ~ ýl.V .?,..t-t PI ÜkJ ..s l.tÞ+) Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ( p u..,c..ýt.. ~ 4-t+,,~ s L..ul) Applicant The Board of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2..2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how th~ request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. / 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended sp)fit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. / / /' 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardsJÍip; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibiybr unreasonably restrict the use of the property. / / // / I / I I 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in ~'same zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the ¡g Ordinance. 4. The variance win not 'of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shaU graphically depict Ú1e land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance oía buildingpennit Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Urness limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use pennit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent pennitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staffma exem t some of the items or su est the addition of extra items, but the fol1owin are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS L a. Applicant name and name of development ~ b. Date, scale and north arrow ~ c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions .,¿ d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties ./ e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. -L f. The zoning and land use of all adj acent properties Jg. dh. -d i. ?J. All property lines and easements All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parkmg spaces and loading spaces Additional iriforTl1ation requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS / k. LL Lm. .(~n. L o. ~I1P. ..,e~ q. Existing utilities (water, sewer, stonn drains) and connections at the site ADy driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections Locations of al] adjacent fITe hydrants Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed Ifproject is to be phased., please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. I ¡/r~1 í; 4 Date f-3 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST For Roanoke Lodge No. 284, Loyal Order of Moose & Celleo Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) 3233 Catawba Valley Drive Salem, VA 24153 I. Please explail1. ftow tlte request furtlters tlte purposes for tfte Roanoke County Ordillance as well as tlte purposefoul1.d at tlte begil1.ning oftlte Agricultural/Residelttial (AR) ZOI'liltg district. The proposed Verizon Monopole promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the public by enhancing and promoting the following specific purposes articulated i11 SEC. 30-3: 1. The proposed telecommunications monopole will improve V erizon' s coverage in the vicinity and provide an opportunity for other wireless carriers to co-locate and provide improved coverage in the County. This enhw1ces the public's ability to communicate with a cell phone in case of an emergency such as a fire, flood, or car accident. 2. nla 3. The ability to communicate via cell phone creates a more col1venient community. The proposed site for the telecommunications monopole provides needed coverage along the Route 311 corridor. The site at the Moose Lodge property due to large setbacks and the terrain in the vicinity minimizes visual impact on the surrounding area which maintains an attractive community. This location also will benefit a key community service organization with a long history in the community. 4. Often times commercial wireless service is a key back up to prilnary police, fire and public safety communications systems. The proposed facility will enhance the number and ability of citizens to communicate in this area in case of public disaster or emergency. 5. The proposed monopole does not encroach upon any historic buildings or districts. 6. The proposed monopole is unmanned and involves the disturbance of a minimal ground area, and therefore places no burden on public facilities. 7. Quality wireless coverage and service enhances the ability of business owners to communicate wl1Ìch makes the community more attractive to business development and employment activities, thereby enhancing the county tax base. 8. The proposed site has no impact on existing agricultural or forestal lands. F~3 9. The proposed site does not interfere wit11 any approach slopes or safety areas of any licensed airports and will comply with all Federal Aviation Adlni11istration (FAA) regulations. 10. The proposed facility is unmanned a.t1d does not require water or sewer services and therefore will not burden grOU11d water resources. 11. n/a The proposed Verizon monopole at the Moose Lodge is consistent )11ith the purpose outljned in SEC. 30-34-1 of the Z011ing Ordinance for the AR zone: The proposed facility is an unmanned facility which requires no water or sewer services. Therefore, it will provide the agricultural and residential land uses in the area and the citizens driving through the Route 311 corridor with important wireless COll1ITIunications service without burdening public facilities or generating traffic in the AR zone. II. Please exp/ail! I,01V the project cOlifarms to tlte gelzeral guideJirles altd policies COlttail'Ied iI' tIre Roaltoke County COmn1UI'lity Pial!. The Roanoke County Comprel1ensive Plan ("Plan''') of 1998 lays out multiple guidelines to guide the process of land development in the County for both the present and the future. Of particular relevance to this application for Verizon Wireless is the section on Public Safety which states as a goal, "To provide the highest level of public safety services in the most cost effective manner." Verizon would submit that the proposed monopole in question, to be constructed at the expense ofVerizon Wireless, will provide not only a tower with the structural capacity to support the County's emergency services equ~pment (911), but also a location and a RAD center height that should significantly enhance the County's emergency services wireless network should their be a need in this particular area. In addition, and in the Plan's section on Economic Development, it states, as a goal, "To create a healthy, viable, diverse economy in Roanoke County, VA by: one, carrying out a coordinated program to target and attract compatible business and industry to locate in Roanoke County to increase the commercial and industrial tax base and related employment opportunities, and two, by increasing the number of visitors to Roanoke County, VA." Again, Verizon would submit that a comprehensive, seamless and cOlnpetitive wireless infrastructure is an essential col11pOnent for attracting modem business and industry to the Roanoke Valley. Moreover, with the paraIl1eters of a technologically advanced society, tourism is often quite dependent on the ability of travelers to maintain COffilTIUnications with both business and personal contacts. IlL Please describe tI,e impact(s) of tI,e request on tI,e property itself, tI,e adjoining properties, altd the surroundiltg area, as well as the ilnpacts on public services andfacilities, illcluding water/sewer, roads, scltools, park/recreation and fire and Rescue. J=- 3 While the proposed monopole will have a visual impact on both adjoining properties and the surrounding area, Verizon Wireless would SUbl11it that the location chosel1, botl1 in tenns of the parcel and the location on the parcel (with a wooded buffering on the rear property line), goes a long way toward minimizing that visual Ï1npact. In addition, the proposed tower poses no impact in tenns of water and sewer. In tenns of roads, the proposed tower will use the existing entrance for the Moose Lodge and will cause no Í11crease in vehicular traffic on Catawba Valley Drive. Finally, as space will be made available 011 the tower for County emergency services wireless systems, the proposed tower could very well serve as a bel1efit to fire and rescue and public safety. f-3 Applicant Name: 't ") Consultant Staff Member: t-l' 1/'- eJ {' V' (/ . I!r r / t)('-t/:.J 1-400Je - ~~~~~~1~!'''' BROADCASTING TOWERS AND ASSOCIATED ANTENNA PERMITTED BY RIGHT: · New and replacement broadcasting towers and associated antenna not exceeding thirty (30) feet in height and located within any commercial or industrial zoning district provided: a) the proposed tower is a monopole type design: b) the general area of the proposed tower is cUlTently served by above ground utilities including electric power and telephone poles: and c) all other use and design standards for the construction of the broadcasting tower and associated facilities are met. · Antennas may be installed on any existing structure within the County provided said antenna does not meet the definition of a broadcasting tower, does not increase the height of the existing structure more than ten (10) feet, and docs not result in the structure and antenna exceeding the maximum structure height for that zoning district. · Tern or towers erected for a eriod not to exceed twenty-one days. The following information shall be required as part of the Special Use Permit for a Broadcast Tower in addition to standard application requirements. Proposed Site Oualities Utilities that are currentl resent on site: 8l ~ -h-l v -;:f- Utilities required that are not currently present on site: Ex ected route of linka e: A Estimated noise level in decibels: "" "f,. r Broadcast Tower Structure Type: ~opole o Other (description) Proposed height of tower excluding antenna: o Lattice Tower o Guyed Tower o Stealth Design (description) /15 { Existing height of surrounding tree canopy and/or buildings: l (i fØ rD)l.., '10' S+OVi Construction material and finish of tower: Specific tower location Material:{t,,(v~,?-J J+t!~l Finish:-!ttJ- Longitude37 0 ~ I · 5-g :.\ Ground Elevation in mean sea level of the ·proposed tower site: l~s~.( I Tower has structural ability to accommodate: 0 One 0 Two Three h 1./ (' ) cA ~ Latitude. 0 C " 'gr) (.?~ Ltt. other providers. T es s of Antenna or Other De ices Attached to Tower o Omni-Directional Antenna Directional Panel 0 Parabolic Antenna 0 Whip Antenna o Other Material and finish of the proposed antenna(s). Dimensions of Antenna(s)-height/widthldepth Material: '1.. { v £.h ~ I'\. v'- Finish: ? r~ +l t4.t "t " I 'I I q 'I 1 The following information must be submitted separately in either a written or mapped format. F-~;;¿ -.....""I &YInformation on how the proposed site relates to the applicant's existing communication system including number of other sites within the Roanoke Valley, and the location of the antenna at each site. m map designating the specific coverage area(s) desired with any overflow areas denoted separately. 9' A list, with a map, of all the alternative sites considered or evaluated to serve the area of this proposed tower, including other existing tower sites in the vicinity. This should include any co-locations considered and the specific technical, legal or other reasons the other site(s) were rejected. B'Provide conceptual site plan drawn to scale, depicting the location of support structures, equipment enclosures, landscaped areas, fences, lighting, access, limits of disturbed land, average slope of the site, ownership and use of adj oining properties, etc. ~Provide accurate, to scale, photographic simulations showing the relationship of the proposed broadcast tower and associated antenna to the surroundings. Photographic simulations should include the relationships of any new or modified road or utility corridors necessary to serve the proposed broadcast tower site. Ea'Provide computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility of the proposed broadcast tower and antenna at the requested height and location. If new or modified road, access or utility corridors are proposed, the terrain analysis shall also show the visibility of these new or modified features. r1'Provide detail sheet for broadcast tower structure. ~ Provide an accurate description and photograph of the proposed tower s1ructure, including antenna. Er Provide detail sheet of any antenna or devises attached to tower including electrical and mechanical specificati ons for antenna systems. Notes: I hereby certify that: · All required submittals to the FAA, as required by Zoning Ordinance Section 30-87-2D.6, have been submitted. · A required on-site balloon or comparable test will be performed on the dates of for the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for , and on the dates of for the Board of Supervisors public hearing scheduled for · I, the applicant, shall be responsible for all fees associated with the filing of the application, including the reasonable cost of any independent analysis deemed necessary by the County to verify the need for the new broadcast tower. Signature: ~dLf!4~. / Þ Ve-r~ 'e.ë."\J Y 2 Date: /ZÞÞ4 I I I ,. ; Zoning _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR _AV C1 _C2 _ C2CVOO 11 12 .PCD PRO ----- .- PTO R1 R2 R3 '\, :"rI.. :'o.~ '" ~R4M Roanoke County Department of Community Development """- . ~ 't ... -', ~'T" """-0.: ; ..... l ·"1 L ~ ...... \ xx-x ~-- ~ IX r---.= x \ I III "~ 1. \ ~. ~..~."",. ... " \ \ ./ J 1 , , \ /1 \ I I ~ \ - . ---------=== - . N Â Applicants Name: Cel/co Partnership Existing Zoning: ARC Proposed Zoning: ARCS Tax Map Number: 16.03-1-46 Magisterial District: Catawba Area: 25 acres December 27, 2004 No Scale ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G -I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance authorizing the donation and conveyance of easements to the Western Virginia Water Authority to provide for the extension of sewer service in conn~ction with the Crystal Creek sanitary sewer extension project, Cave Spring Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Pete Haislip Director of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Elmer C. Hodge ~ fI~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Western Virginia Water Authority is requesting that the Board donate and convey the following easements for the purpose of the extension of sanitary sewer service in connection with the Crystal Creek Sanitary Sewer Extension Project across property owned by the County at Starkey Park: (a) A new 20' wide sanitary sewer easement containing 0.3471 acres across property owned by the County and designated as Tax Map No. 97.05-1-25. (b) A new 20' wide sanitary sewer easement containing 0.0231 acres across property owned by the County and designated as Tax Map No. 97.01-2-11. The Western Virginia Water Authority will be responsible for coordinating construction with parks and recreation so as not to impact activities in the park. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to this request. (;-1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached ordinance. Ç-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,2005 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING DONATION AND CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS TO THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY THROUGH PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NOS. 97.05-1-25 AND 97.01-2-11) TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF SEWER SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRYSTAL CREEK SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner of a parcels of land, containing 7.78 acres and 14.17 acres, off Merriman Road and Crystal Creek Drive in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map Nos. 97.05-1-25 and 97.01-2-11, respectively; and, WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Water Authority has requested the donation and conveyance of easements across this property to provide for the extension of sewer service in connection with the Crystal Creek Sanitary Sewer Extension Project; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including easements, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 25, 2005; and the second reading was held on February 8, 2005. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Western Virginia G- Water Authority for the extension of sewer service in connection with the Crystal Creek Sewer Extension Project. 2. That donation and conveyance to the Western Virginia Water Authority of sewer easements as shown and described as "New 20' Wide S.S.E. (0.3471 AC.) to be Conveyed to Western Virginia Water Authority" and "New 20' Wide S. S. E. (0.0231 AC.) to be Conveyed to Western Virginia Water Authority" on a plat entitled "Easement Plat for Western Virginia Water Authority Showing 0.3471 Acre Sanitary Sewer Easement to be Conveyed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke (D.B. 1242, Pg. 1457) and 0.0231 Acre Sanitary Sewer Easement to be Conveyed by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (D.B. 1634, Pg. 1852), Situate Crystal Creek Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District" prepared by Caldwell White Associates. dated November 9, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved. 3. That the County Administrator, or any assistant county administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 2 V¡~ ~:it -:--. ~(§ ,,~~ ~~~ e5a:: !I~ b~~Ød~ I~~ ...~::¡ ~ ~~z ~~-"'II:: ~ ~ ~ :-J~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ '-0.:.. ~~g ~~ ~~ I II ~~! ~I~ ~!~ ¡ ~~ I I I~ii ~ ~ "2 illill ..J ~~~x I ~P:~..... ;a: Jt I t:~ ~ I~~: ~~~ LU ~ ë§ §' V¡~ §ft ; ~ -:--. f; !5~ " ~ .... b~~I~¡~ ~I Q bl~1 'II I I Iii lri I~~ ~::¡ ~ Ii ~ -: - ... II:: I I~I I II I~b~i ~ ~ ":-J~~ o~ ~ ., b-J., ¡ili" ~ bbD ....~ ~~ i~ ~s ~~ ~~I'~ ~III ~I I I i bIl_ " lii~1 b, I"'b: ~~!; IiI! II¡! ì I I~~ . t III S 1 ì~ 1"1'': ... i~1 ¡g ill~~ libi~ ~ ~ ~Ii · 8 li~ i~; ~lfl::¡~~lil:i~! :J,: sc r¡ b I lID ..J~.... ¡...t I~I i'Il:I~~~I«~1 ~ 'I~ -< ~þt~ i~~"' I b~llJ; ~~¡I ~!i Ib~~ JII~~!I! I ~" :II~I ~ :s:.- -" ~~~ i..: ~ Þ01 l&J ~ ë§ (I')~ BI ~~ ~g~ b~;z: ;:U~ il!s§ilf~::, I~~ ::!~~ o:t --.1 ,,_ Q1(§ ':I -Dr.~ k.I Q:: ~"" a:~ . ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G-Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim, and release a portion of an existing 15-foot and 1 DO-foot drainage easement on property owned by F&W Community Development Corporation, Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize and approve the vacation, quit-claim and release of the remaining portion of an existing 15-foot and 100- foot drainage easement shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 13, page 59, on property of F&W Development Corporation designated on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map #40.01-1-4. F&W Community Development Corporation has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate, quit-claim, and release the remaining portion of the existing 15-foot and 1 DO-foot drainage easement through its property in order to allow it to complete its sale of this property. The portion of the 15-foot and 1 DO-foot easement to be vacated is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. An alternative drainage system has been established as part of the site development. FISCAL IMPACT: None G-~, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the first reading of the ordinance and schedule the second reading for February 8, 2005. 2 (;-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,2005 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 15-FOOT AND 100-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON 'PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE. . .', PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY F&W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by Deeds of Easem,ent dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1337, page 540, and Deed Book 1337, page 551, respectively, F&W Community Development Corporation, as owner of the property designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4, conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, a connected 100' and 15' drainage easement as depicted on 'Plat Showing New Drainage Easement Being Granted To County of Roanoke. . .' of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59; and, WHEREAS, F&W Community Development Corporation is the current owner of the said tract of land, and the subject property is located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District and is now designated upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner, F&W Community Development Corporation, is the current owner of the property and has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate, quit-claim and release the above-described existing 15' and 100' drainage easement on condition of the Petitioner deeding to the County a suitable replacement drainage G - ð\ easement acceptable to the County's Department of Community Development (as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto); and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on January 25, 2005, and a second reading was held on February 8, 2005. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate (portion of drainage easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses. 3. That, subject to the following conditions, the vacation, quit-claim and release of existing 151 and 100' drainage easement across property of F&W Community Development Corporation, located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, cross-hatched and designated as ("100' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED") on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been acquired by deeds of easement dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1337, page 540, and Deed Book 1337, page 551, respectively, shown and designated as 2 (J-),. "NEW 100' DRAINAGE EASEMENT" on plat entitled 'PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That Petitioner, F&W Community Development Corporation, shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to, all costs associated with the establishment of an alternative drainage system, surveys, publication, and recordation of documents; and, 5. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this vacation, quit-claim, and release, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 3 G-~ ¡, ~ T¡ICllY-fTY MAP,' NORTH J. '.-., "- ',,,- Stormwater Management Easement ('0- . ~ . . ~~ . ~ " . ~ \ ~ 1'>- -- _ . ... ~ ~ROP£RT'r o. \"11 ~ \ -<-<1, ;\ , -~ -____ ' Runi.!: 'MN,[ ¿. R lOW¡:Ll WINE' '2 ~ \ ,~~b ~' _ 1.... '.... ~01r. cg·~Ai4~1~~~~U. fH2 ~ ?\: ~ o.-:{ . ... ~~~ ::.:. f) ,.:a 'A\ " ,,\ .~ , " . ~ ~\ , ~ ~ ...." ~\'i;.. " ~ 'St~~~~ .. ~ . '0' '6-.) . , (~~'E. P r;-' , . 'ÇJ) ~~,.. I ". Ç(Í~ . \S ' 'f1\~ ~~... . ~,,,\,,~ 0'P.<f\;.. '.~' . .' . .' . . t;î~ ~!µ~) ~ I '. \tt. \ . . ' ~"",. II(~ ~J(5 (Rme, " ;i. 'ß . _' '_ "___ " {APPROX, L.OC." \*!:' '; '~ ..... ~ . \ ·vt--..1: ,(lr\" ':"':1'~~ ' , ,:';\\~r';' VAS' ,0( . . ' ,.~ec~, ·,er.., , . °l.¡te.¡,,¡ , '~oP... f¡' 10 "' ..po""~7("/; U3) ~IIQ~~~~}. . . C'~~%'f1,)r~ ' F. & W. COnll11lU1ity Developmel1t Corp. Tax Mal) # 40.01-1-4 , 100 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEI\1ENT \ T~ BE VACATED (HATCHED)- 15 FOOT DRAINAGE ~ EASEMENT TO BE i VACATED (HATCHED) -, I DFC Roallolce, LLC Tax Map # 40.01...1-4.3 DESCRIPTION: A 15 foot draínage easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112) and a combination of a 100 foot drainage easement and 15 foot drainage easement (D.B. 13, PG. 59) within the property (Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4) located between Crur¡1packer Drive (VA. See Rte #781) and Cortland Road (VA. Sec. Rte #1003). EXHIBIT "A" ROANOJ[E COr¡NTY ' DEP.ŒTMENT OF COMMUNITY. D:EJ/ß:LO~ME.lVT 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT .AND A IOO-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE \' ACATED. 3l-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,2005 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J. CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 25, 2005, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. 1. Approval of minutes - January 11, 2005 2. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Stephen P. Huff, Sheriff's Office, following twenty-eight years of service 3. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $19,627.05 4. Request from schools to appropriate mentor teacher grant funds from the Department of Education in the amount of $13,797.36 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J-Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Stephen P. Huff, Sheriff's Office, after twenty-eight years of service SUBMITTED BY: Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge ~ JI~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mr. Stephen P. Huff retired on January 1,2005, after twenty-eight years and two months of service in the Sheriff's Office. He has requested that his resolution be mailed since he will be unable to attend a Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and direct the Deputy Clerk to mail it to Mr. Huff with the appreciation of the Board members for his many years of service to the County. J" - C;-,." AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,2004 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF STEPHEN P. HUFF, SHERIFFJS OFFICE, AFTER TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Stephen P. Huff was first employed by Roanoke County in the Sheriff's Office on November 16, 1976 as a Corrections Officer; and WHEREAS, Mr. Huff also served as a Deputy Sheriff - Sergeant, and coordinated the opening of the Roanoke County/Salem Jail in 1980, as a Deputy Sheriff - Corrections Captain, before retiring as Deputy Sheriff - Lieutenant of Court Services and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Huff retired from Roanoke County on January 1, 2005, after twenty-eight years and two months of service; and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Huff t through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to STEPHEN P. HUFF for twenty-eight 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. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $19,627.05 SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Lorraine Lange Assistant Superintendent of Instruction Elmer C. Hodge t}! County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County Schools and Virginia Western Community College (VWGC) have an agreement whereby the college provides college level courses in English, U.S. History, AP Calculus and certain technical and science subjects. The courses are taught by Roanoke County teachers who meet the college's criteria for adjunct professors. Monies that have been collected exceed the expenses; therefore, there is a request for these additional funds to be appropriated. Roanoke County Schools collected $59,750 from tuition from 770 students. VWCC will reimburse $120,368.85 for services rendered (teachers, administrating expenses, rooms, utilities, and maintenance). Roanoke County Schools owes VWCC $160,491.80 for tuition and technology fees and college service fees. The difference between what was collected and what was spent is $19,627.05. FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: None S3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that $19,627.05 be appropriated to the Roanoke County Schools instructional program, budget code 797530-6501. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J -4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools to appropriate mentor teacher grant funds from the Department of Education in the amount of $13,797.36 SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Carol Whitaker Associate Director of Personnel and Staff Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge t]-i County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Division of Teacher Education and Licensure, Department of Education, has officially forwarded a request for mentor teacher program allocations to Roanoke County Schools. These funds are used to support new teacher induction programs for new teachers to Roanoke County Schools. The allocation is in the amount of $13,797.36 FISCAL IMPACT: This grant also requires a 500/0 local match in the amount of $6,898.68 which will be taken from the following personnel accounts: 732020-1100 and 732030-1100 AL TERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of mentor teacher grant funds in the amount of $13,797.36. GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Prior Report Balance Amount $9,738,285 Addition from 2003-04 Operations Audited Balance at June 30, 2004 2,050,000 11 ,788,285 July 1, 2004 Explore Park Loan Repayment 20,000 Balance at January 25, 2005 11 ,808,285 Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $11,808,285 $11,808)285 N-\ % of General Fund Revenues 6.61 % 8.02% 8.02% Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund ,Revenues 2004 - 2005 General Fund Revenues $147,255,793 6.25°~ of General Fund Revenues $9,203,487 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge ê H County Administrator Approved By Submitted By Approved By N -Q MAJOR CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED· BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Appropriation from 2003-04 Operations Amount $1,416,838.00 Balance at January 25, 2005 $1,416,838.00 Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge E.' /1 County Administrator ~ '2 N-J CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Audited Balance at June 30, 2004 $11,389,450.22 Remaining funds from completed projects at June 30, 2004 347,440.84 Transfer from Department Savings 2003-04 233,419.00 September 28, 2004 Appropriation for the Public Safety Building Project (6,110,540.00) October 12, 2004 Appropriation for Regional Jail Facility Study (85,922.00) December 712004 Appropriation for refund to PFC, LLC for PPEA review fees (50,000.00) January 11, 2005 Appropriation for tests and studies to review the Higginbotham (250,000.00) Farms and the existing Roanoke County Jail as sites for the Regional Jail Facility. Balance at January 25, 2005 $5,473,848.06 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 2004-2005 Original Budget $100,000.00 September 28, 2004 Appropriation for professional services provided by (9,000.00) Chandler Planning October 12, 2004 Appropriation for Special Assistant for Legislative (18,000.00) Relations October 26, 2004 Appropriation for participation in a libarary study (29,700.00) with the City of Roanoke Balance at January 25, 2005 $43,300.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ~ H County Administrator N-~ N-5 FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget $ 670,000 Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund 1 , 11 3,043 FY1997-1998 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund 321,772 FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,219,855) 780,145 Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund 495,363 FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,801 ,579) 198,421 FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (465,400) Savings from 2001-02 debt fund 116,594 1,651 ,194 FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,592, 125) (592,125) FY 2003-2004 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,202,725) (202,725) FY 2004-2005 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (4,192,701) (2,192,701) Balance at January 25, 2005 $ 6,242,387 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ê H County Administrator ACTION NO. ti..d () ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid-December 2004 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors $ $ $ 3,877,399.95 Payroll 12/03/2004 889,435.70 128,942.56 1 ,018,378.26 Payroll 12/17/2004 791 J 796.45 107,506.84 899,303.29 Payroll 12/30/2004 825,263.77 119,943.93 945,207.70 Manual Checks 59.11 59.11 Voids Grand Total $ 6,740,348.31 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. N -'1 8 ~ 0\ N lrI l'- - I l'- 0\ N 00 V l'- lrI \0 V r- oo 0 lrI 0 N r- \0 N V :! r- 0 M \0 I \0 0 0\ ~ 401 V ~ 00 N lrI r- ~ \0 V \0 \0 r-q 0 - ~ \0 0 '..c: 00 v: ~ \0 ~ V V) 0\ \0 t""': M V ~ M 00 ~ lrI ~ {I) '- oô ~ oô ~ v r---: -.D -.D N ~ a\ ~ ~ ~ c----: ~ N c----: M -.D ~ ~ 0 0 N ~ Q - M M N 00 M M N Q = ~ 'o::t 0\ M M 'o::t Ir\ ~ M 'o::t V V M V \0 r- M v M r- V Ir\ N 0-.. N M V :! N M r- e ~ ~ M N 4.1 4.1 .s <:¡, " ~ ð > œ = ¡:l.. a.. ~ {I) == = 401 CII: ~ N 0\ \0 00 0\ t'- M 00 r- M r- M tr) ~ ~ r- v Õ t'- \0 00 \0 tr) 'o::t 00 ~ N I tr) -.b v r- M 0\ V " M V 'o::t M M lrI N 0\ \0 0 N lrI V 00 N 00 0\ N \0 0 lrI N V lrI 0 N :: r- 0 0 ~ <"'i v lrI r- r- v "l 0 V N 00 0", N M V") 0 V") M lrI 00 r- 0\", r- \0 M V 00 'o::t \0", r-. "l 0-.. 0\ 0 tr) 00 .t: ~ v-) ..q: 0; a\ v'" r---: Ñ r-'" N lrI'" ~'" r-"' lrI'" ~ 0(' Ñ .q: ,.¿ Ñ M or.) 0'" v V) 00 v-) 0\"' r-" a\ 0" ~ - 0 M ("fj \0"" lrI r-'" - v) -; (j - 0 ~ 0\ 0 0 r- N ~"' M N \0 N - ~ 0\ M N - \0 N \0 M N - N 0\ 00 - 00 a,¡ = N - M \0 0\ V) \0 M M \0., M N 0 M... N N 'o::t t- v M 0\ \0 N r- a.. = M v)"' 'o::t "' M v)"' Ñ N M N 00 ~ N'" oô = -¡ ~ == M N 00 r- v N - M M ob M l'- M 0\ t- V) õõ 'o::t 0\ M \0 V M ~ N r- N r- N 0\ M tr) N \0 0 -g \0 ~ \0 0\ 00 V) 00 \0 v r- 0 M 0\ r- ~ r- V) \0 N M - 0 r- \0 0\ 00 r- 0\ r- r- M 0\ ("fj 0 r- M -.::t N N lrI 00", lrI II') r- - 0\ r- 'o::t - - N V) V) N N N - M 00 - \0", ~ lrI V") 00 t'- \0 \0 00 = M Ó v'" ~ =:"' 0'" 0 N'" r-: r-" \Ó N ~ v-) --- 00"' Ó M 0'" v)., M 0\"' \I:i r-'"' oô 00"' 0'" r-"' v) r-'" 0;, \Ó r:-: Q {I) M ~ M Q.i \0 \0 r- 0 0\ V) - V) v \0 M V :: V) M N 00 M N M 00 0 - V) \0 0 0 0 \0 ,S = N" M M N r- 0 N r- - lrI - N N., - N \0", Vl M - lrI - 00 M... N M 0 = N N'" M - N N M N'" .... <:¡, - - = > M 401 a,¡ ~ CI:: rIJ OJ 'o::t = ~ r- r- t- o 00 v 0 ~ N ::£ 0\ -.::t 0\ V) C"I V) V) M r- N 00 r- V) N V) ~ N v 0\ V = {I) v v 0\ N r- 0\ ~ \0 M 0 M 0\ N 00 N V) 0 0 r- 'o::t 0\ lrI r- tr) 00 lrI N N 4J ~ ..... <:¡, M 0\ r- oo \0 r- v N 00,", ~ N 0\ 0\ r- - 00 \0", V v Vi 0\", \0 0\... 0\ V) N \0 00 \0 ;;... t!'2 ::ë = Ñ Ó r-"' Ó 0(' M v:- 00", s£ N"' M ~ r-'" N"' ~ a\ M M Ó Ñ 00'" M'"' 0'" M"' v'" oô 0\'" a\ Ó ~ N = - ë <:¡, V) N 0 \0 V) M ~ N M - V) N ~ N N v r- r- \0 r- = ~ > \0 ~ V) V) :! N M N li"') v V) .= -; Q <:¡, M ~ 0: 'Sh = - .... .... ~ ;> -< "CI ~ 0; "'0 "CI = e ~ = ~ = "CI = "C Q = 4J 'C = .... <:¡, =: = ~ ~ .ª -= 0 \.0 0 0 0 0 r- 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 r- 0 0 0 V) 0 0 0 M r-- - 0 0 V) 0 r- 0 v r-. r- 0\ 0\ = .... ë - 0 v 0 0 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 r- 0 lrI V') M 0 0 0 M 0\ 'o::t 0 lrI - 0 M 8 V) r---- \0 0 - ~ rIJ Q <:¡, 0 00 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - r- \0", 0 M... 0 N 0 oq, \0 M 0 N - ~ 0 \0", r-", Ir) \0 ~ :; ~ v{ i ô ó ô ó v1 0'" Ó Ó v) 0 v) ó =:"' oô M M lrI'" 0\ Ó 0\ .¿ a\ r:-: ~ 0\'" Ó r-: 0( oô " M ("fj M M M = ~ = r- M 0 N 0 lrI Vi -.::t \0 ~ r-. N \0 N 0\ ~ v V) N 0\ 0 v 0 r- ""1' M r- \0 M r- 0"1 'o::t = = '" == v v V) \0 V 0\ 0 N... t-", V \0 00 - N N lrI V \0 0\ M V) N 00 0\", \0", \0 0\ N 00 = = => ~'" v) N r-: \Ó v) -'" N'" M N'" v'" - lrI N'" oô Ñ U CIJ N ë a,¡ OJ ;: .... a.. = .... ~ 00 "CI = = ~ -¡ .... ~ = ~ '" a.> p., 8 rJ) a.> ~ a.> tI) tI) C >< ~Æo~ ~~ ~ e-~~ E-o C'j tI) 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ è u Q.) ~ >< a" ~ tQ ~ ~_ë C':I..... c E-o -\J ~~~ 8 a.> e 'E Cd ..s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a.> rJ) - 11) t; ~ rJJ ..3 ë: ci5 E ~ ~ § ~ ~ Ë -e; ~ .Š ~~.g~~g§~ Q:::;~~~~~U¡::Q ~ ~ ~ d) ~cid ~ c = ,9 ~ '¡ :.:3"E >< IU 8 C':I u d) E-o:EQ:::; ~ d) C :.ë>o u S ~ ~ õ ~ ~~~ rJ) d) ><: ~ ~ E >< 0 C':I 0 E-oQ:::; ~ "i> c õ ,§ ~ ~Cd of' ~ ::; õ ~x rJ) ""=' o o ¡;,¡.. "'0 ~ C':I 0.. ~ ~ rJ) tU d) ~ õ ...; VJ E IU 0 ~ U 'E-oë; ~ [) e ~ð~ rJ) d) Q) ~ 0.0 C :9 'S ~ "'0 § ~ ª 'ê ~ "" d) tU ~~~ »€ E d) tU !U C c.. t; o 8 ~ rJJ :s ~ U rJ) d) 4.. ~ '> ~ =:s rJ) rJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bb G ~ ~ E ~ ~ .~ U 8 ~ ~ t:.2;g § ê~~~~ ~ 8~~~~~~~~~ ] <> "" ã =' ~Q.).b~ ~ Q.) ~ .~ ~ ~ .2 E"~ ¡¡J 8 O~~~~uuQ:::;~~ bû d) ~ u""=' ~ < 8 rJ) 'E B 'E ~ ~ ~ ~"§ ~ < 5 _ 0.0 _ ";j (/'J ~ ~ ,~ B '3 U OD .~ ~ 0 C':I 0 'ot:: .5 ""'0 a.> r 1"1 U r 1"1 U p., ..,.J ..,.J ~ C ~><Cd';Cd ~ ~ ~~ a.>ci5 ~ð£~ U]~ ~~ ~ [) ¡:g § ~rJ£ 1U£..t:: ('j z~¡::o~oõÞ = = ~ ¿ c., C". M I./") VI ~ ~ 0 ... ..¡...; "CI e = r.. o N~_VO-NMVlrl\Or-oo~O-N~r-ooO\O-NooO-~O v~O\ONM ooõoõ8~~888888888888~8~~~~~~~~88S~~g~ V) 0 0 ~-(7 ~ ~ ~ r,,) ~ C'II - Q,1 Q ~ = ~ = ~ ff c: ~ ø.. Õ .s ~ r"') "" ;;.. C'II C'II ~ r.f.I > øs r#> Q"I = ~ = e Q"I ~ Ø\ > ~ Qj N = ('1:1 ~ 0'\ ~ ¿- 'a -; k/j .~ = f'fl. ...... ~ ~ tJ ,....¡ ..( "CI i "'C ~ "'Ø = r:: e ~ ¡¡¡;¡ = "'C "C (1# Qj = e ...... ·C ~ = ~ .5 ~ '- '5 e ...... ~ "" r:: ~ = N = ... :E ~ = e ~ Q ...... '" ~ u = => ~ Q"I ~ e ~ r: '" ~ oS ~ (1# '"' ...... = rJJ. ~ QO '" ~ Ñ ...,. ~ ~ ~ ...... ...,. '" N Ñ I.( ~ '" 1./1 f4' 3 = ~ "'0 = øs '"' ~ " c ~ = ~ 8 Ë r<"\ 8 ~ ~ Ñ ;: ] ] -ö ~ ~ ë ë ~ ¡.¡¡ ~ ..c ~ ¡.L õ OQ = 0 õ .s = :s ""0' ~ 1:: -= ¿ ] ! t.L "CI ~ ø... c: i.ï: ~ 1""\ ~ : V) ] 0 ~ ~ 0 ¡.¡., V) u:: fY-1 ~ .= N 0\ II") co C"'j 0'\ ""It' r--- 0 \0 ~ ~ N C"'j 0'\ II") C"'j ~ ~ 0 00 0 II") N ~ tf') '- r--: ~ ~ = C"'j C"'! t' C"'j 0'\ II") N I.tì C"'j \0 0 C"'j 0 N (fj 0 0-, r--- r--: \0 tf') C'II "C e = 't ~ \.Ô .r: 0 = ; 00 N ; 111 0 ,0 0\ ~ N \.Ô ~ r--: d 0\ N ~ v-) .0 ~ = = \I'j 8- e,.¡ ~ b.Ð II") ~ II") ""It' ~ ~ ""It' ~ ~ ""It' II") ~ ~ II") II") ~ ~ DO II") ~ C"'j \0 0'\ C"'j "11' 0 .s = 0 "C 0 ... ~ ~ C'd = N \iIi; Ii') =. ~ C'II ~ C'd 1\1 ~ "C \0 r--- M \C Vî 0-, 0-, r--- 0 ~ Vî 00 0-, N 0 N \C N 0 N C"'j ~ 0 ~ ""It' = N ~ ~ N r--- ~ ~ \0 Q( IX? C"'! 0 DO = N N N r--- r- OO v: ~ M \C! ~ Vî \C ~ 1\1 Q., Õ .CI 1\1 0\ N N ~ d \CÌ V; C"'j M r...: C .r: ~ r...: \.Ô d ~ C"'j 111 .,) 0.: \CÌ 0-, 0 N If) e e,.¡ M \0 ~ r--- -.;T ~ r--- r--- r-.- tf') \0 \0 0 N tf') ~ 0 ~ ~ 00 0-, tf') ~ = r---., .0 .0 QO Vî 'V c V) 0 ~ M 0 N \0 "'1- 0 r--- 1.1") M ~ C"... N I(') ~ CII 0\" \0"' OÔ ..¿ v)" N N" 0-," v)" a\ \IS v)" ~'" ~ Ó Ó ~ 0-,- M M 0-,... ~ ëii M - r- 1\1 =. 00 M N ~ N M \C 0 M N CO M 00 V) ~ ; N r- N V) ; 0 := "11' = Vì r--- V) N", N 0 V) N =--. N r--- r---", N.. N \C N 0"1_ 0" t' ~ Vì" tñ ..... r-: v)"' M .n N'" \IS M \IS ..... C':I '= -Q .... ;; ~ ~ = = ~ ~ - = à = ::s = U rI'J = _51 .... ~ .t: Co Q .... Co Co -< ~ = C':I rI'J ~ C.J = ~ .... ,.Q e = C.J = ~ rIf' ~ .... ::s .... ;a = aì Co ~ ~ - Q ~ -; "'0 4,,) .c y rJJ 1\1 I'"J = E ~ ~ a e Q i e s Q"I = ", c. ~ C'd ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Q, I'"J ~ f :s .CI = 5 Ë ~ o ~ ~ 0\ t' t'NV) r...:r'M oor-r- ~,,~~ O\M\O ~ ~" OVìO 0000 dr....:o ~ Ó N ~O\ 6;::~ oo~r- O-.;TV) r---" r-: -q: N 0\ M Q, b.Ð "C = =. 0\00 000 r...:o\CÌ o M V'¡O\~ Ô có 0"1" 00 r- 00 MO\N 0\" <= \C aö tf') <= = = Q( ..; 00 \0 ~ dr' ON ::~ 0\ r- ~ C"'j ~ r...: N IF) r--: \C Q( r-NN\O 0\00\ \CÌ\Ó\CÌv) O\~N ~" M.. :.-. 00" ~...f¿~~ V'¡ ~ N'" r- r- ..; Q( r- N IF) tf') ~ ..... V'ì N 00 0 r--- oor---r;r;o-,oo 00 V)NoO OO\O\OM-O OM M-r- ~ -q: r--: ~'" -q: r---" M 0 00 r--- 00 00 N 0;. \0", ~" ~ tf') CO = \C r- ~ r- =--. .n ~.5Ç~~~~~ a\ \Ór...:Oo\M NO \ON V) 0\ ~r-O-\OM..N 00" 0\"' Ñ M r-: - 0\" N ~ ~" ~... \Õ" M V) ..... co v; Q( IF) ~ =--. IF) añ co ..... QÕ co \C co v; r- =--. N ..... ..... ...:: tf') "It' N N ..... añ tf') tf') N ..... ~ l: CI':I -a -ë "Ø -= ~ < 0 = u 00 00 ë r.n .9 U = '2 V) ~ u ~ ~ .9 ~ ~ « .. 'Ë ë; e = 1d .s ~ ::s V':I 'ü = e V':I Q¡ ~ .. = 0 'S IJ N « S t ~ .9 .... CI':I U .~ ~ GJ è c.:J 'ë .~ 0 ~ 0 ~ -= .:,¡: "; c ~ ~ ~ ... bl) "Ø 'ü ~ rJ 6 B ~ "'0 IJ 0 = CIS « Cf) IJ ~ ::s IJ r.n r.n ~ ~ «I = -; Cf) -¡ 11.) rJ'J IJ ~ 0.0 IJ IJ C3 "E 0 ] V) V) = ... ~ 'C 5 B .~ u r.n = ë.. .~ -s IJ ;;a- u IJ ~ "C ~ ~ 'E o .- -5 u .&; u = 1i: 0 Q 'ü :a 00 = :ë c.~ 0.0 E :ë ~ .~ V) -a .~ -; ::I I:: u ~ r.n ëa = 'V) G.) ~ ~ :.a .... = 0 = G.) r.n '3 = = 0 ::I ~ G.) = Qì '- .:: ~ rJ ::I c.S .9 u Cf) i5~ 'I: U G.) G.) ..s:::: V) G.) == "¡j ë g ~ ~ ~ G.) .9 =- ::t Cf) ~ < .9 Cf) ] "; V) = = u "; ë G.) G.) - G.) 3 .~ ", .... 0 p..: V) 1: = u 0.0 .~ ëa ~~ ëa ~ V1 t .... ~ ~ E G.) G.) c: 'bo IJ t) IJ ~ = c.2 '51 c. C3 <= = :a 'ü 'û <= = Q ::s ..s:::: = ~ ~ = .~ .... G.) o ~ ~ IJ 11.) 11.) = 0 = ~ 0 = IJ G.) = rJ'; C3 <= ::s 0 V) 0 = " ~ c.:J P3 ..... u Õ N ~ ~ U M 0 p::: ::E p..: ~ 0 "It' ¿ Q.. Cf) uæ ~ Cf) I(') <= = = <= <= ~ Q Q c.. ..... 0'\ N '<:t "C N ("I") N N ("I") 'lid'" N M ~ V) \0 ("I") -.:t' V) \0 r- oo ~ Vì = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :z 0 ::I - N N M M M ('I") ~ -.:t' -.:t' -.:t' ~ -.:t' Vì V) V) V) V) V) V) ~ Vì '- 0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ "CS = ~ "CS = .t: Q,I =- .; = e :; Ii') Q, a.. » .: :c =ë i = = Q, :; 8 \C = ~ f ", e '- IF) co r...: "It' ~ = N 00 0 ~o ~d ~ 0-,... ""It' Q( ...:: Q ..... ~ M "It' \00 V)-.:t' dd 00 00 t' 0\ ..¿~ r---- V) \C <= ~ IF) 00 r;,S ~ = ~ M V) \0 00 OM r-r- ~~ - N..,O\ ao "It' ~ "11' =--. ,.; ~;~~ r...:-.:t oö ~NN("'\'j -.:t'OON ~ 0\ N" ON N \C =--. = \C r- tñ tf') ..... \O-.:t'\Ooo oo~or- ~N~g O...~,,~~ NNNN r---C"t~ co "It' ~ "It' II) ~ N ...... N \OO\NO 0\000;0 O\O\C"'j\CÌ N\ONO\ Nvr'iO\ r--:ó6ó ~\ON 0\00 ~ Ño\\Ó trJ "It' N M \C aó "It' N \Ooooor---Or- ~:~~ó~ r----.;TNO 00 0" 0", ~'" ~... V) N- "It' tf') ...:: =--. = = <= "It' N ~~~~~~ o\NO~~v) ;;t~"'~S~~ 00" M 0\"' 0\" r-: M" N~V)~\O\O M N r- r- ~ ...... = ~ tf') f1, 0'\ N 000000\ OO~OOV) V)oOOO\CÌr...:M O'\NNMr-M V)~C"t¿~~ ~~;~~~ ~... M N"' \C ~ ad N tf') = =--. 8g~g888 cOoOOOÓO 00 N r- r...: = 0'\ Ñ ...... 0'\ O\OMM 00 VìO~ t'00 MOMOo\od o O",~S ("f"j V)'¿ 00" o 00 M V) N =--. IF) v; =--. <= ~ ~ N ~ 8~8~88~ v)M\oMOOV) r-ooor-oooo ~~V)~V) V) Ñ 0\ v)... ..¿ 0\ ~ 00" MV)O- M\O ~ 0\... \0 ("I")..,..)Ñ (V-7 ~ ,CI oc 'r) "'" N 'r) 0"1 \0 QC \0 0 0 0 0 0 ....-j r- \0 f'I") f'I") '- 0 M OC r- 0') ~ 0 M ....-j ~ 0\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'" OC N f'I") r- C!I "CI e Q ~ N r...: r-: .,; N ~ N ..¡ tr) ~ ("f"" = 00 00 Q\ ..¡ ~ C = ~ V) Q,I (,, <I:T "I:t \0 "'" M 'r) 0\ "'" N t.r) ....-j N 'r) N f"') 0 .s Q. = 0 "CI 0 ... :.< ~ C!I = N C!I ~ ~ = ~ Q,I ~ C!I ;.. "CI M 0 \0 OC \0 0 = M N 0 0 0 0 '.e \0 N ~ "'" QC '.e u u N OC 0 =' N 0\ ~ 0 M t.r) ~ 0 0 0 0 =" t.r) 0 'tì "'" ~ Q,I N ~ 0\ ,..; -D -D r---: M ...¿ ...¿ g 0 0 v) = ~ ~ aô Q.. Õ .c ~ M = e v 0\ OC 00 r- ~ \0 =" r- OC 0\ 0 0 OC "'" - t.r) r- M ::I = M" t.r) ~" """.. 0 N., tr) N = 0 N 0\ 0 0 M N =" N r- v C!I Ñ ~ ~ r-" .; 00 .¿ "I:t" Ó 0" ~ OÓ =- .¿ "I:t" Q aé c -; Õ ~ an M Q,Io = v:; N "I:t ~ V1 =' 0\ N N 0 ~ 00 $ 00 0\ CO ....-j = M N" '.e t.r) N =" r- M" v:; r-... 0", "I:t an f"') ';;I Ñ ~ .; M ~ 0; - ....-j t.r) 'tì =' ....-j ~ v = E .i ! .= e ~ i e .s Q,I = ... Q. ~ iN ~ ~ ;:: ~;:;g 0..00 t.r) v:; r-" r-" r- M~ ~"M ~ QC =" -.þ N M ..,.¡ f"') =" Ñ "I:tN"I:tO r-OOO NN~M M M 0"1 00 "I:t00t.r)r- r--: N'" r-" r-" t.r) \0 00 N M = QC -= ~ aó ....-j t'-- r-O\OOOOOO "I:tV:;000000 ~...¿OOOOO N r- r- N orS orS 0\" "I:t "I:t Vì., "'" =' r...: ....-j ....-j .¿ =' t'-- ~ "I:t00 "I:t0\ N~ ON OC 11")"' ~ "I:t 00 v:.. v:; N M "'" r...: M ~ "'" f'I") M Ñ M =" QC -= ~ '.e arr t'-- ~ aé an f#l ::: .S ~ "I:t N 0 '.e 0 0 0 0 =' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 8 0 i QC .... v 0 0\ 0 =" 0 0 0 0 =' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 = = "" ~ '" ~ r--: 0 ..þ 0 0 d d = d d 0 d d d d = 0 d Q oQ ï: = ... :a ,CI r- =" f"') ~ e t.r) I./') =' N ~ = v) .¿ r: "'" l! ::I .... v ....-j t'-- ~ ~ .:i = f"') c. ~ ::I ~ -< ~ 0 = "Q N ~ 'ë c .~ "" f#l ... ~ ;; C.J C "'CI a;- = 111 ... QJ ~ r- M 0 =' t'-- M 0\ 0 =" M 0 "I:t 0 0 0 0 t'-- 0 r- I"'-- an "'CI ~ "Q = .= "I:t r- 0 N I./') N r- 0 an 0\ ~ 0') 0 0 0 0 "'" 0 ~ ....-j ~ e ;¡J ..... ~ -D d -= ~ N g r....: ..¡ r---: 0 d d 0 ~ N ~ ,..: r..: c :¡ :a ~ = I./') \0 f"') 0\ r- oo t() t.r) I"'-- 0\ "" = "C ê: c N "'" N 0 \0 = ~ \0 an 0 "I:t ""'.. f"! ~ C.J Q c= Q,I M r--: = M 1./')"' ("<') f"i' N 0" "",'" .¿ r-" .¡: c. ~ ....-j ~ ::: QJ ~ :.< 0 0 ~ M M t'-- M f"') 0 t.r) QO - ~ ~ ~ N N "'" "I:t "'" 00 QO t'-- ~ ~ .c. Ñ Ñ QÓ Þ Qì ë ... Q ::: .e ~ = ~ :e u c '.e Qì =' C. QJ ~ ; ~ 't N 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 <= an - ... 0rI) ~ 0 0 =' 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 Q f"') = Q "CI ...¿ ~ OÓ ~ ~ ..0 d .,; ~ d r....: d d d v) OÓ N ~ ~ M '- = M Qì = "I:t 0 "I:t =" "I:t N 0 I./') f"') 0 0 \0 0 0 0 00 tI') N 00 = f"') -; M N., '.e "I:t 0" t'-- N 0 N 0 0 MO' N = N" 0\ N ~ "Q M .¿ = .¿ v:;" Ñ Ir) =' v:;" t.r)" ~ Ó 0" ("f"" 00" r-: M" v) "'" r- 0\ 0\ '.e 0 0\ N 0\ ~ "I:t M r- 0 "I:t 00 =" M 00 ....-j =" Qì 0\ M an 00 v:; '.e 0\ 00 v:; r-" ~ v:; - QO "'" ~ M" N" .¿ -: Ñ "I:t " -" ~ r: C.J - '.e rJ:J - ~ r- '.e ~ ¿ Q.. a-. ~ "Of' '0 v-i Z 0 ti: v-i "C = ::I '- f Q,I = ~ c= ë . 9 (,) êU ] ~ c..> g '§ " ~ ~ èë ~ e 2 - :-9 "3 &:HU = ~ "'CI = ::I '- N M ooc \0 v:; \0 ooc -¡ &. .e -; u ~ =: o ;: =: Q, &. ~ i &. =: =- OJ) ¡:: '2 o N ~ OJ) ¡:: '§ ~ s: E (j ~ u biJ 'E o (,) ~ en = c= ¡:: o (,) ~ 'r.;j E 8 ¡:: 0.. ::s £ .9 ~ ~ ~ 13 (,) Ö § . ~ c.> ..=: êU .- ::s .... E .&:J & g '~ 880 u~u = =' '.e = N ("f"" t.r) 0000 r- r- r- r- 0000 = Q, e c.. s ~ Q, Q .è ·a = 8 e Q U ~ c.> ~ = ~ ::I: ~ ~ ~c= V)~> ß§~ ].~ U "i) ~ (,) ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 0.. :;j ã (,) o iE "'CI ~ c= ~ .:çS (,) ~ ~ Ê CQ Q) (,) ;> (,) .:çS §~ E :8 wO (,) c.> (,) ã g ë; "*~ I::Q~ >.~ g .§. ~ 8 ¡:: 0.. ''=: 0.. ¡:: ~ 88 =' =' t'-- = N M "I:t \0 r- 00 0000000 OOOOOOOOoc 00 00 0000000 "¡i 1; ~ 8 t «I Q., ~ '? § z ::s ~ 00 ~ ~ ~~ V) V) ¡:: ¡::; .:çS .:çS ..... .... f-f- "'CI"'CI = ¡:: ~~ :š~ = = QC = N 00 0\ 0\ 00 rI:I '3 Q ~ "C = œ ... ~ -= o 1;1) &. ~ CI'J c: e ~ =' =' =" = ACTION NO. ITEM NO. (V- 8 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Report of claims activity for the self-insurance program for the period ended December 31, 2004 SUBMITTED BY: Robert C. Jernigan Risk Manager Elmer C. Hodge ~ j¡".t}t? County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In accordance with the Self-Insurance Program, Ordinance #61494-4, Section 2-86.C, attached is the Fiscal Year to Date claims activity report including the Second Quarter that ended December 31, 2004. Attachment A - Auto; Attachment 8 - General Liability. ~ M 0:: w m ..... :E cr: w o u a.. w w C cr: rn w ~ w 0 ..... 0 rn N ~ ~ ..... w U z ~ ~ w ~ ..... I <C LL C ...J 0 W ..... rn cr: <C w > ...J <C o rn u: \1 ¡: ~l-i ~I 8- ~I 1- ~ «> <C « <C « > > > + ~ o o N ~ o > ...J ~ ., o ..... ~ <C Q) Ü :E ~ ~ Q) ..c Õ ~I ! æ .3 to o ('I') (j) N 'V~ Q) 13 :ë ~ Q5 ..c Õ Õ ..c Cií 0- .s "~ :2 (i) "~ o a.. 'V o o N t:: or- ã; o ('I) N o J, ::;¡: o o Ó E .æ ~ jl ~I II Q; > o c co a::: c o ~ æ ~I ~ ~ ~ o co U) a.. 'V 'V o 0 o 0 N N ð Lõ or- 0 Õ5 ð o or- ('t) f'. Ó U') 0) ; ~I ~ \ ~ ~ } ~ en en ~I en 8 8_+ ~I ~ ~ II > ~ Q) ..c Õ -0 Q) C> co E C'I3 !I 2 en ~ u È E o J:: ~ u o e:::: 11 > Q) o .?:' "2 ::J E E o (j 'V o o N Lõ N 2; ~ 'V o o ~ C'\I or- Lõ o ~I "E co :J en Jo- Q) 0 u ~ ~I ! II i fJ) () ~ 1;) èï5 3 Q) 13 :ë ~ Q; ..c Õ ~ u .5 en ~ ~ u c) :§ c ~ 32 u ~ 2 cc èi5 LOI ~I 'V .~ o a.. Q) 1;) C'I3 il ~ 'V o o ~ o ~ o 'V o ~ èõ ~ 'V o cn~ ~I ~ 'V I ...... LO C") ...... 'V ~ I I f'{-~ « ë Q) E ..c u co ~ 'õ Q) 0> co a.. ~-~ CD 0 0 Q) 0 0 0 0 0 L() ë 0 0 0 0 ...r 0 0 CO 0 Ó Ó cO Ó ~ Q) 0 0 ó Ó E L() ~ Q) CO ..c -t+ T""" t-+ 0 CO :t:: « I I ~h "'C "'C "'C "'C "'C "'C ~ ~I ~ Q) Cl) Cl) Cl) «1 «1 Q) «1 Q) en en en en en en en en en J 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ü êJ Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Q> C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü CO IIII:t « « :; « « « :; :E 0 > > > > > ~ 0 en N æ ~ M 0:: w ŒI I- :E 0:: w 0 0 c. w w C 0:: Cl) 13 en :c Q) w IIII:t ~ 13 W 0 "'C :E I- 0 ø g! en N ~ ~ ::J CO 0 ~ c.. 2 'õ c::: 0 ~ en I- 0 >- ~ 2 ...... ø W ..J co en "æ C> (J a.. .c co ::J -c- ..c: 0 a.. Z ..., OJ êã ~ ~ ~ ::J Q) e ~ en "t :5 C) ::J ~ c: en w ~ "¡:: < Q) ::J Z ..c ~ -c ""i' en ro ro x 11. C ~ £ en 0 ~ ø 0 .c ..J 0 OJ .c:: c. 0) W Q) co "'êã CJ (/J > en I- CJ E en "ü) =ö 0 ro 0 0 æ 0:: E co c. ~ <C "'C (f) 0 ro "0 ro :s "'C en 2 ~ Q) W c: Q) en Cl) C) >- êii :s en co 8 0> "t "C: E ro "'C ..... <i! .¡:: co Q) co 3: ü: CD ü c::: 0 (J ë ~ Q) 11. E c c. 0 0 Q) :æ > ~ Q) 0 0 Q) Cl) «1 Q) Q) en ~ 1i) 1i) 1i) a:: co ·2 co co co oð 3: ::J 3: 3: 3: (/J E Q) ~ :9 i§ E ~ ~ :-ç .2 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 a.. en :5 ü en en en a.. ...r ...r ~ ~ ~ ~ C3 ...r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N Nl N ~~ <0 T""" co 0 N 0 T""" ~ ¡-\ Õ3 Lò ;a: õs 2; N 2; T""" T""" ("") T""" ("") ...r co ~ L() ~I ~ :3 ...r L() <0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ LÛ J> J, Lh J> ~ ~ ~ ;a: ;a: ~ ;a: ACTION NO. ITEM NO. P-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY , VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss fiscal year 2005-2006 budget development SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to discuss items related to FY2005-2006 budget development. The following items will be discussed in the work session: · Detailed Budget Development Calendar · Major FY05-06 Expenditure Issues: School and County · Analysis of BPOL and Real Estate Tax Rate Reductions ~ Real estate analvsis: The enclosed analysis portrays the fiscal impact of a $0.01 reduction in the current real estate tax rate for FY04-05 and FY05-06. ~ BPOL analvsis: The enclosed scenarios are based on the last detailed analysis of business license tax revenue that occurred in June, 2002. The Commissioner of Revenue provided information with which to prepare a current detailed analysis; however, the information was provided late in the week and the reports were still being scrutinized when information packets were distributed. A current analysis will be provided at the work session. r· \ . The 2002 BPOL analysis presented does provide a detailed view of the characteristics of the County's BPOL tax and also provides a generalized statement concerning the fiscal impact of proposed changes. It is anticipated the updated analysis will be somewhat higher, as BPOL revenues have increased 13% during this period. County of Roanoke FY 2005-2006 Budget Development Calendar 1>- I January 2005 · Revenue team meets to discuss preliminary revenue projections · Departmental budget development FY2005-2006 · January 25 - CIP Review Committee recommendation to Board of Supervisors February 2005 · Departmental budget presentations to the County Administrator · February 26 - General Assembly session ends March 2005 · March 1 - Special Board Meeting: Budget work session · March 8 - Public Hearing: Tax rates and tax assessments · March 8 - Joint budget work session with School Board · March 15 - Special Board Meeting: Budget work session · March 22 - Board adopts Tax Rates · March 22 - School Board submits budget to Board of Supervisors · March 22 - Work session: Contribution requests from human service agencies · March 29 - Work session: Contribution requests from cultural and tourism agencies April 2005 · April 1 - State code mandate for School Board to submit budget to Board of Supervisors · April 6 - General Assembly re-convenes (Governor's Veto Session) · April 12 - County Administrator presents proposed budget to the Board of Supervisors · April 26 - Board of Supervisors adopts School budget · April 26 - Public Hearing: Proposed FY2005-2006 budget May 2005 · May 1 - State code mandate for adoption of Schools Budget · First reading of appropriation ordinance · Board adopts FY2005-2006 Budget and CIP · Second reading of appropriation ordinance -f~ I Roanoke County Work Session - BPOL Analysis Scenarios (based on June, 2002 analysis) 1. Exemotina 1st $100.000 Gross ReceiDts- All Businesses Retail Merchant Wholesale Merchant Contractor Business Service Repair Service Personal Service Professional Service Commission Merchant Projected Revenue Loss .20/$100 GR .05/$100 GP . 16/$1 00 G R .36/$100 GR .36/$100 GR .36/$100 GR .58/$100 GR .36/$100 GR # Accounts 395 80 345 225 52 90 227 2 1416 Projected Revenue Loss $79,000 4,000 55,200 81 ,000 18,720 32,400 131,660 720 ($402,700) 2. ExemDtina 1st $50.000 Gross ReceiDts- All Businesses Projected # Accou nts Revenue Loss Retail Merchant .20/$100 GR 395 $39,500 Wholesale Merchant .05/$100 GP 80 2,000 Contractor . 16/$1 00 G R 345 27,600 Business Service .36/$100 GR 225 40,500 Repair Service .36/$100 GR 52 9,360 Personal Service .36/$100 GR 90 16,200 Professional Service .58/$100 GR 227 65,830 Commission Merchant .36/$100 GR 2 360 Projected Revenue Loss 1416 ($201,350) 3. Eliminatina $50 Filina Fee - Businesses < $1001000 Gross ReceiDts # Accounts Filina Fee Revenue Loss Retail Merchant 413 50 20,650 Wholesale Merchant 56 50 2,800 Contractor 643 50 32,150 Business Service 1 ,058 50 52,900 Repair Service 123 50 6,150 Personal Service 274 50 13,700 Professional Service 445 50 22,250 Commission Merchant 10 50 500 Projected Revenue Loss 3,022 50 (151,100) Roanoke County Work Session · BPOL Analysis 4. Eliminatina $50 Filina Fee · Businesses> $100.000 Gross Receiots Retail Merchant Wholesale Merchant Contractor Business Service Repair Service Personal Service Professional Service Commission Merchant Projected Revenue Loss # Accounts 395 80 345 225 52 90 227 2 1,416 FHina Fee 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Revenue Loss 1 9,750 4,000 17,250 11,250 2,600 4,500 11,350 100 (70,800) --P-l Roanoke County Work Session - Real Estate Tax Analysis January 25, 2005 Revenue Impact of $0.01 Rate Reduction: 2005 Assessment Current Rate June, 2005 Collection Reduced Rate Potential June, 2005 Collection Revenue Reduction 2005 Assessment Current Rate December, 2005 Collection Reduced Rate Potential December, 2005 Collection 2006 Assessment (Projected 6%) Current Rate June, 2006 Collection Reduced Rate Potential June, 2006 Collection Projected Revenue Loss 5,959,670,000 $1.12 33,374,152 $1.11 33,076, 169 5,959,670,000 $1.12 33,374,152 $1.11 33,076,169 6,317,250,200 $1.12 35,376,601 $1.11 35,060,739 FY04·05 ($297,984) ($297,984) y-I FY05-06 {$297,984} ($315,863) ($613,846) ACTION NO. ITEM NO. P-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Work session with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Review Committee to review results of the evaluation process SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a work session to hear the results and recommendations of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Citizens Review Committee for capital planning for FY2006-2010. The Committee began their process back in September by agreeing on procedures, objectives, guiding principles, and evaluation criteria. Work continued through the fall and winter with the Committee hearing presentations on submitted capital needs and conducting site visits to view requests for capital upgrades and replacements. Finally, in January a report outlining the Committee's prioritization of capital needs and recommendations was drafted and finalized. This time has been set aside to review the final report of the Committee and to discuss the findings and recommendations with Committee members. , r-,---), ((ountp of 3Roanoke FY2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee Evaluation and Recommendations January 2005 Roanoke County CIP Review Corrunittee Table of Contents I. Committee Appointments ....... ............. ......... ................ ......... .............. ............ ......... 1 II. Executive Summary... ...... ........... ...... ...... ....... .............. ........ ...... ...... ............ ........... ...... 2 III. Capital Project Recommendations Capital Project Prioritization.......................................................................... 4 Project Score Summary - By Category ..................................................... 6 Rec omm en dati ons . . . . . ... . ........ ... .... . .. ..... . . ... .. ... . ...... .... . ...... .. . ... .. .. .. . . .. ....... . . . .. .... 8 Footnotes on Specific Projects ..................................................................... 11 IV. Appendix Committee Goal & Obj ectives ............ .......... .......... ..... ..... ............ ........ ....... A 1 Proj ect Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................. A2 Evaluation Scoring Factors... ............ ............. ...... ...... ........ ........................... A3 General Committee Comments... ......... .... ...... .... ...... ..... ............ ....... ............ A4 Project Specific Comments... ....... ........ .............. ...... ........... ...........,.............. AS Project Score Summary - Category Breakdown..................................... A6 Project Score Summary - Cost Breakdown ............................................. A 7 Roanoke County CIP Review Cotntnittee Cormnittee Appointtnents In developing the FY2006-20 1 0 Roanoke County CIP, the Board of Supervisors approved a CIP Review Committee comprised of Board-appointed representatives for each magisterial district and members of County-appointed commissions and boards. This unique approach allows a diverse perspective in reviewing and prioritizing capital needs that exist throughout the county. The FY2005-2006 CIP Committee is comprised of the following appointed members: ÅDDointment: Ms. Pam Berberich Mr. Jason Perdue Mr. Michael Roop Ms. Barbara Bushnell Mr. Craig Sharp Ms. Sherry Ricci Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Todd Selkirk Mr. Jack Griffith Renresentine: Cave Spring Magisterial District Hollins Magisterial District Vinton Magisterial District Windsor Hills Magisterial District Industrial Development Authority Library Board Planning Commission Public Safety Parks and Recreation Commission Facilitated hv Roanoke Countv Staff: Mr. W. Brent Robertson Director, Management and Budget Mr. Chad Sweeney Budget Administrator Ms. Cathy Tomlin Budget Analyst Roanoke County CIP Review Corrunittee Executive Summary January, 2005 Backl!:round A Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is a multiyear management and fiscal planning tool to assist in financing and constructing public improvements. The Board of Supervisors selected a committee of citizens to evaluate and prioritize submitted capital projects and make recommendations for Board consideration in the capital planning process. The Committee agreed upon guiding principles, goals, and objectives (listed in Appendix); then interviewed departmental staff and conducted site visits to understand specific projects. Members committed approximately 35 hours to the evaluation, prioritization, and reporting process. It is important to note that the scope of the CIP Review Committee's evaluation did not include the capital needs of the Roanoke County school system. Results of Evaluation The Committee prioritized capital project requests by applying a set of evaluation criteria to each individual project. The Committee used 12 separate criterion to score projects using values important to the community that were derived from previously adopted plans, policies (i.e. Community Plan), and statements articulated by the Board of SupelVisors. After scoring was completed by committee members, each project's average score was calculated and listed in numerical order with the highest score representing the greatest priority. This listing was then presented in groupings based on natural "breaking points" in the average scores. The Level 1 projects represent needs that have the highest perceived community value. The Committee has identified Level I capital projects as follows: · Sheriff - Regional Jail Project · Fire & Rescue - EMS Data Reporting · General Services - New Garage at · Library Services - South County Kessler Mill Library · Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio · Park & Recreation - Garst Mill Park System Upgrade Improvements · Community Development - · Information Technology- VDOT Revenue Sharing Replacement of HP/3000 Platform The complete listing of prioritized projects follows the Executive Summary. 2 Committee Recommendations While charged with developing a citizen-based prioritization of existing capital needs, the Committee also discussed and reached consensus on a number of capital programming recommendations for the Board to consider: · Capital Financing. In order to meet on-going capital needs a significant, recurring funding stream is essential. o Dedicated Funding-current allocations for capital expenditures should be increased to realistically meet current and future capital requirements. o Debt Financing-Consider the possibility of a future General Obligation Bond issue to meet critical capital needs, increasing flexibility for current operational concerns. · Capital Maintenance. Continue to increase the funding of capital maintenance to a level that will not only protect the County's current capital investments, but will also reduce future capital requests (as deferred maintenance grows into' capital needs). · Long Range Capital Planning. Integration of planning processes must occur to adequately plan for capital needs of the community over the 5 year window of the CIP. In addition, funding should be identified over the 5 year period that indicates a fully developed CIP, not just a wish list of projects. · Land Banking. This idea would involve projecting capital needs into the future and then acquiring sites that would be used to locate future capital facilities. · Departmental Master Planning. Roanoke County has undergone significant demographic and service demand changes, and these changes are anticipated to continue into the future. As a result, the Committee suggests several departments prepare or update a facilities master plan in order to clarify future capital needs in their area of responsibility. Committee Rankine bv Catee:orv The ranking of individual projects was determined by over-all average score, where the highest score was the top ranked project and the lowest score was the bottom ranked project. Knowing the scoring criteria gives greater weight to community "needs" (i.e. public safety) when compared to community "wants" (i.e. library or parks and recreation), the Committee's opinion was that a healthy community provides its citizens with a good mix of both wants and needs. Page 9 of the report presents ranked projects in 4 categories: Public Safety, Technology, Quality of Life, and Service Infrastructure. Individual Committee Member Comments Information presented in the Capital Project Prioritization report represents the general consensus of the members of the CIP Review Committee. While consensus information related to the Committee's task is presented, Committee members' individual comments about specific projects and capital planning in general are included in the Appendix. 3 Roanoke County CIP Review COffill1ittee Capital Proj ect Prioritization Using the Committee's adopted evaluation criteria, total project scores were averaged and listed in descending order. The projects are presented in groupings based on the natural breaking points (scoring average), with Levell representing projects that have the greatest community value, as determined by applying the established criteria to each project. Succeeding levels were determined by grouping projects together that had successively lower scores; thus the project represents a need that is perceived to have less community value than projects with higher scores. The Committee's recommendations on capital priorities are as follows: Department - Project Average Total Total Capital Score Cost 89.0 $20,000,000 77.1 $1,180,000 75.4 $14,000,000 73.8 $2,500,000 72.3 $145,000 71.1 $13,078,000 69.8 $230,000 68.3 $1,000,000 64.3 $975,000 63.3 $2,130,000 62.4 $900,000 62.3 $5,750,000 61.4 $375,500 61.3 $7,500,000 61.0 $801,750 60.4 $100,000 60.0 $217,000 58.8 $857,000 58.7 $355,000 57.8 $265,000 57.8 $2,000,000 57.1 $330,000 56.9 $128,500 56.6 $225,000 56.3 $250,000 56.2 $320,000 Levell: Sheriff - Regional Jail Project General Services - New Garage at Kessler Mill Road PubHc Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade Community Development - VDOT Revenue Sharing Fire Rescue - EMS Data Reporting System Library - South County Library Parks & Recreation - Garst Mill Park Improvements Information Technology - Replacement of HP/3000 Level 2: Parks & Recreation - Parks & Recreation Land Bank Library - Glenvar Library Expansion Fire Rescue - New City/County Co-Staffed Station Economic Development - Center for Research Technology Parks & Recreation - Brambleton Center Community Development - Regional Storm Water MgtIFlood Control Library - Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation Community Development - GIS Phase II - Integration Parks & Recreation - Brookside Park Level 3: Library - Vinton Library Renovation Parks & Recreation - Burton Softball Complex Police - South County Police Precinct Fire Rescue - New Oak Grove Station Fire Rescue - Back Creek Station Addition Library - Bent Mountain Library Expansion Greenway Development - Roanoke River Greenway - East Parks & Recreation - Stonebridge Park Parks & Recreation - Whispering Pines 4 Fire Rescue... Hanging Rock New Station Parks & Recreation... Starkey Park Fire Rescue... Station Renovations Infoonation Technology - Server Replacement Parks & Recreation... Green Hill Park Phase III Parks & Recreation... Walrond Park Phase III General Services - Recycling Trailers Parks & Recreation.. Goode Park Information Technology - Disaster Recovery Hot Site Library - Circulation Self-Checkout System Information Technology - Enterprise Network Security Greenway Development - Mudlick Creek Greenway Parks & Recreation... Camp Roanoke General Services.. Renovations to Service Center Level 4: Parks & Recreation.. Hollins Park Information Technology.. Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade Parks & Recreation.. Vinyard Park Phase III Community Development... GIS - New Server Fire Rescue... Station Fuel Control System Parks & Recreation.. Northside High Tennis Court Restoration Police.. Bomb Disposal Unit Information Technology.. Voice Over IP Parks & Recreation.. Family Water Park Police.. In Service Training Facility Parks & Recreation.. Spring Hollow Park Community Development.. GIS.. New Color Scanner/Printer Information Technology - Lawson HR/Payrol1 Enhancement 55.9 55.8 55.3 55.1 55.0 54.7 54.2 54.2 54.1 54.0 54.0 53.8 53.6 53.3 52.1 51.9 50.7 49.0 48.9 48.8 48.7 48.4 47.9 47.7 46.2 46.0 44.3 5 $2,000,000 $1,386,000 $597,000 $772,500 $1,410,000 $489,000 $100,000 $122,000 $150,000 $146,000 $175,000 $608,250 $203,500 $1,200,000 $285,000 $657,500 $532,000 $50,000 $120,000 $180,000 $125,605 $300,000 $4,725,000 $147,024 $2,005,000 $50,000 $200,000 Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Project Score Summary - By Category Department - Project Average Total Score Total Capital Cost Cate!!orv A: Public Safety Police.. Bomb Disposal Unit Police.. In Service Training Facility 89.0 $20,000,000 75.4 $14,000,000 62.4 $900,000 57.8 $265,000 57.8 $2,000,000 57.1 $330,000 55.9 $2,000,000 55.3 $597,000 48.7 $125,605 47.7 $147,024 Sheriff.. Regional Jail Project Public Safety .. 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade Fire Rescue· New City/County Co-Staffed Station Police.. South County Police Precinct Fire Rescue· New Oak Grove Station Fire Rescue · Back Creek Station Addition Fire Rescue.. Hanging Rock New Station Fire Rescue.. Station Renovations Catee:orv B: Technoloe:v Fire Rescue.. EMS Data Reporting System Information Technology.. Replacement of HP/3000 Community Development - GIS Phase II.. Integration Information Technology.. Server Replacement Information Technology - Disaster Recovery Hot Site Information Technology.. Enterprise Network Security General Services.. Renovations to Service Center Information Technology.. Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade Community Development - GIS.. New Server Fire Rescue - Station Fuel Control System Information Technology.. Voice Over IP Community Development - GIS.. New Color ScannerlPrinter Information Technology.. Lawson HRJPayroll Enhancement 72.3 $145,000 68.3 $1,000,000 60.4 $100,000 55.1 $772,500 54.1 $150,000 54.0 $175,000 53.3 $ 1 ,200,000 51.9 $657,500 49.0 $50,000 48.9 $120,000 48.4 $300,000 46.0 $50,000 44.3 $200,000 Catee:orv C: Quality of Life Library - South County Library Parks & Recreation.. Garst Mi11 Park Improvements Library .. Glenvar Library Expansion Parks & Recreation.. Brambleton Center Library .. Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation Parks & Recreation - Brookside Park Library .. Vinton Library Renovation 71.1 $13,078,000 69.8 $230,000 63.3 $2,130,000 61.4 $375,500 61.0 $801,750 60.0 $217,000 58.8 $857,000 6 "Roanoke County CIP Review C0111111ittee Proj ect Score S·ummary - By Category Department - Project Parks & Recreation - Burton Softball Complex Library - Bent Mountain Library Expansion Greenway Development - Roanoke River Greenway - East Parks & Recreation - Stonebridge Park Parks & Recreation - Whispering Pines Parks & Recreation - Starkey Park Parks & Recreation - Green Hill Park Phase III Parks & Recreation - Walrond Park Phase III General Services - Recycling Trailers Parks & Recreation - Goode Park Library - Circulation Self-Checkout System Greenway Development - Mudlick Creek Greenway Parks & Recreation - Camp Roanoke Parks & Recreation - Hollins Park Parks & Recreation - Vinyard Park Phase III Parks & Recreation - Northside High Tennis Court Restoration Parks & Recreation - Family Water Park Parks & Recreation - Spring Hollow Park Cate20rv D: Service Infrastructure General Services - New Garage at Kessler Mill Road Community Development - VDOT Revenue Sharing Parks & Recreation - Parks & Recreation Land Bank Economic Development... Center for Research Technology Community Development - Regional Storm Water Mgt/Flood Control 7 Average Total Total Capital Score Cost 58.7 $355,000 56.9 $128,500 56.6 $225,000 56.3 $250,000 56.2 $320,000 55.8 $1,386,000 55.0 $1,410,000 54.7 $489,000 54.2 $100,000 54.2 $122,000 54.0 $146,000 53.8 $608,250 53.6 $203,500 52.1 $285,000 50.7 $532,000 48.8 $180,000 47.9 $4,725,000 46.2 $2,005,000 77.1 $1,180,000 73.8 $2,500,000 64.3 $975,000 62.3 $5,750,000 61.3 $7,500,000 Roanoke County CIP Review Cotntnittee Reco111Il1endations Long-term capital planning and the need to fund critical capital assets is one of the most important functions undertaken by local government. It is also one of the most challenging. In order to implement an effective capital plan, the CIP Review Committee recommends several options that should be considered by the Board of Supervisors and staff: Capital Project Financing Dedicated Funding The Committee is very encouraged with the work done to-date in developing funding alternatives for the County's capital requirements (policies adopted by the School Board on 12/09/04 and by the Board of Supervisors on 12/22/04); however, given the magnitude of current and projected capital needs over the next 5 years it is essential that the existing funding stream be increased. While existing expenditure savings have been re-allocated to capital projects over the past several years, a significant portion of revenue growth (or new revenue sources) should also be allocated to adequately fund the capital program. Given current economic conditions, this opportunity may not present itself again for some time. Concern exists among Committee members that a combined County/School funding proposal (reviewed during the Committee's capital project analysis) recommending a cycle of 2 years funding of School projects followed by 1 year funding of County projects may not address the most pressing capital needs of the (entire) County at that specific period in time. The Committee recommends establishing project funding selection criteria that is both equitable and flexible. Re- evaluation of projects based on current need should be conducted on a year-by-year basis and funded accordingly. Debt Financing While borrowing increases the overall cost of a capital project, long-term debt is a viable alternative in order to satisfy important capital needs by spreading the cost over a longer period of time. Considering the extensive capital needs observed throughout the county, the Committee believes serious consideration should be given to the possibility of a General Obligation Bond issue sometime in the near future, coupled with the appropriate master planning. The last GO Bond Issue in Roanoke County was 1992 and totaled approximately $10 million. Capital Maintenance As the Committee noted during last year's review certain projects, at first glance, did not look to be suitable for inclusion in a capital program. These projects had the character of on-going repair and maintenance requests that should be provided for in operational budgets. With service levels expanding over time and operating budgets remaining relatively constant, capital maintenance has been deferred until the operational need became a capital need. The areas exhibiting the most need were library facilities and fire and rescue stations. 8 The addition of supplementary capital maintenance funds in the FY04-05 County budget was a significant stride in protecting the County's investments in facilities. The Committee strongly recommends additional allocations for capital maintenance funds to address facility upgrades and repairs to alleviate safety concerns and protect current capital investments. Long Range Capital Planning The CIP is an important component of a locality's overall planning process and should be developed in conjunction with the comprehensive plan, annual budget process, strategic plan and other long-range planning initiatives. By definition, the CIP is a multi-year plan used to identify (and prioritize) capital projects to be funded during the planning period. Currently, the County's capital project needs are accumulated, prioritized, and funding is identified for a small number of projects-primarily only in the current budget development year (Year 1 of the 5 year planning period of the CIP). To be an effective planning and financial management tool, the Committee recommends identifying potential funding streams for all projects that are presented as part of the 5 year plan; thus, establishing a fully-funded CIP rather than a wish list of projects that mayor may not be funded. While projects and financing sources listed in the CIP for years other than Year 1 are not authorized until the annual budget for those years is legally adopted, Years 2-5 serve as a guide for future planning and are subject to further review and modification in subsequent years as the environment at that time dictates. Land Banking Given the scarcity of available undeveloped land in Roanoke County, long-range planning methods should be employed (in conjunction with the Community Plan) to identify opportunities to purchase land where future public facilities can be located. Population shifts and demographic changes will cause alterations in the level and types of services our citizens will demand in the future and the County must be in a position to deliver these services. Land suitable for schools, parks, and other purposes (i.e. watershed protection) is being developed for other uses. The cost of land is also increasing quickly. Consequently, sites on which to build schools, conserve open space for recreation, and protect the watershed will become increasingly difficult to identify and increasingly costly to acquire. Land banking can be a responsible, cost- effective way to ensure that the public agencies acquire future sites under the most desirable terms, without operating under a burden of tight time frames. The concept ofa land banking fund is to acquire land as soon as possible while the land is still available and relatively affordable even though it may not be needed for several years. With the use of land banking funds, the individual departments and their respective advisory or elected bodies would still be responsible for developing master plans, identifying potential sites that meet the master plan criteria, approving actual sites for acquisition, acquiring and managing the land, and eventually constructing and managing the facilities. While investments in real estate for future use produces few "short-term" benefits for public consumption, the possibility of realizing a current return on investment does exist. While land inventories are waiting for development of public infrastructure, alternative uses should be sought to generate income (leasing, fee-based recreational activities, etc.). This concept supports one of 9 the Committee's adopted Guiding Principles-to anticipate future facility and infrastructure needs to best leverage capital resources of the community. Departmental Master Planning Roanoke County has undergone significant demographic and service demand changes, and these changes are anticipated to continue into the future. These changes will have a direct effect on how and where services are provided to our citizens. In order to accurately anticipate the nature and extent of future capital needs, the Committee suggests (as it did last year) developing, or updating, master plans for some departments. Fire & Rescue, Libraries, and Parks & Recreation are departments that could greatly benefit from this undertaking. 10 Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Footnotes on Specific Capital Projects New Public Safety Center The new Public Safety Center was removed from the prioritization list due to the Board of Supervisor's appropriation of funds for the proj ect. Note from the facilitator (Budget Director) For a project to be considered "approved" and thus removed from the Committee's scoring consideration, an appropriation of funds for that project must be made. ] 1 Appendix Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Goal & Objectives Committee Goal The CIP Review Committee is a collaborative group established to evaluate and prioritize identified capital projects from a community perspective based upon countywide priorities articulated by the Board of Supervisors. Committee Obiectives 1. To be acquainted with the history of the County of Roanoke's Capital Improvement Program and the proposed process for the development of the CIP. 2. To become familiar with countywide capital needs identified by department heads through the review of proposals, participation in site visits, and interviews as needed. 3. To evaluate submitted capital projects based on criteria that support the County's mission and guiding principals. 4. To make recommendations on capital priorities for the Board of Supervisor's consideration by January 2005. Al Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Project Evaluation Criteria Providing effective and efficient services and improving the quality of life of its citizens is the County of Roanoke's mission and the foundation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Capital Improvement Review Committee has identified the following Guiding Principles for evaluating and prioritizing capital project requests in making recommendations to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. These principles are based on the stated priorities and approved plans of the Board of Supervisors. These principles are presented in no particular order of importance, as individual perspective will influence the relative value of each principle when compared to one another. The Guiding Principles are as follows: · Provide effective and efficient governmental services to the citizens. · Enhance public health, safety, and/or welfare issue(s). · Promote the safety and security of our citizens while at home, at work, and at play. · Consider solutions that extend beyond the County's boundaries in meeting future challenges. · Use public investment as a catalyst for economic growth in a manner consistent with the Community Plan. · Safeguard the environment and natural beauty for present and future generations. · Maintain and sustain effective land use planning. · Maintain or enhance cultural, recreational, educational, and social opportunities for all citizens. · Protect existing investment in facilities and infrastructure that are vital in delivering fundamental services to our citizens. · Anticipate future facility and infrastructure needs to best leverage capital resources of the community. · Comply with applicable state and federal mandates. A2 Roanoke County CIP Review COl11l11ittee Evaluation Scoring Factors Committee members scored each capital project using a point range of 1-10 for each of the following factors: Improve Public Safety or Public Health: Does the project address public safety, life protection, health, and welfare issues that benefit our citizens? Does the project mitigate an existing or potential liability issue? Improve Public Quality of Life~' Does the project directly address a major demand or meet a community obligation for cultural, social, educational or leisure services? Legal Requirements: Is the project required by law, regulation or mandate from local, state, or federal government? Economic Development Impact: Does the project directly or indirectly increase net community wealth/resources? Increases Tax or Fee Revenue: Does the project directly increase County's recurring revenues? Enhances Existing Services: Does the project maintain or enhance existing service levels that are at risk without the project? Benefit/Cost Factor: Does project implementation produce a community benefit that exceeds investment of resources or will the project generate resources/investments from outside sources (grants, donations, etc.)? Addresl.\~ Obsolescence: Does the project address requirements for asset replacement, due to age and wear, that supports essential setvices or addresses the need for a new or changing setvice demand? Investment to Reduce Future COl.ftS: Will investment in the project reduce/contain increased expenditures at a future date? Extent of Service Area: Does the project benefit a large population (i.e. a project that benefits a larger population/area will have greater value than a project that benefits a smaller population/area)? Project Support~\~ Existing County Plans or Policies: Is the project directly referenced in existing county plans or policies as a priority? Urgency of Need: Does the project meet an urgent need? A3 Roanoke County CIP Review Committee General Committee Comments In the process of evaluating proposals and subsequent discussions, the members of the CIP Review Committee commented on several ways to enhance the capital programming process. The following comments are not necessarily the consensus of the entire committee, but are important to be noted: · As the CIP continues to evolve as a meaningful planning tool for the County, it is important to constantly evaluate the components of the CIP to insure the right balance of infonnation is utilized to facilitate effective decision making. For example, the current cost for a project to be included in the CIP is $50,000. There was discussion on the merits of raising this floor amount to $100,000-$300,000 to focus more on true capital items and away from maintenance and renovation needs (assuming capital maintenance is addressed). · The Board's approval of the policies for Major Capital and Minor Capital funding sources was a positive step in capital planning. It may be desirable to also look at grouping CIP projects in a similar fashion when evaluating and prioritizing capital needs. · When undertaking capital planning a broader, more qualitative, view must always be considered. What are these projects going to do to enhance the community (impact on neighborhoods and region)? Does this leverage future investments? What is the residual effect? Does it affect future economic, quality of life, or public safety considerations? There needs to be a broad, strategic vision for the community that guides decision making. A4 Roa11oke County CIP Review Committee Committee Member Comments by Department/Project Community Development - GIS - New Color Scanner/Printer Average Total Score: 46.0, Level 4 . The product of this printer can be provided by an outside service... the county can sell prints to those that need to order them, but the supplies for these plotters are expensive and I don't think the county is in the print making business. Community Development - GIS Phase II - Integration Average Total Score: 60.0, Level 2 · Seems extremely beneficial to public safety. · Funding for this project should be shared by the Water Authority and the County School System. · This project is not initially eye-catching, but when one considers that this technology upgrade positively impacts multiple safety and service concerns within the county) it becomes clear that it provides great bang for the buck. Community Development - Regional Storm Water Mgt/Flood Control A vera~e Total Score: 61.0, Level 2 · The monies allocated for this project over the next five years total $7,500,000. A portion of these funds wil1 be used to apply for grants that could possibly greatly exceed the initial investment. The project is worthwhile and the funding mechanism provides solid bang for the buck. Community Development - VDOT Revenue Sharing Average Total Score: 74.0, Levell · Much road work is required in the County. · I consider the condition of community roadways to be a major indicator of the commitment that community has toward quality of life. Investing $500,000 annually that may be matched by VDOT shows great commitment. Economic Development - Center for Research Technology Average Total Score: 62.0, Level 2 · I'm excited to see money being spent to attract goodjobslbusinesses to our area. · The consideration of the CRT as site for the Regional Jail suggests that funding of the CRT be re- evaluated. If this development is considered for uses other than what it was originally designed for, the funding should be reduced until such time that the County decides how it wants to use the CRT. · The CRT must maintain physical and financial readiness to act swiftly when opportunities arise to attract new businesses. Its location close to 1-81 and a major research university bode well for the future. Continued investment is needed to help the CRT maintain viability. · The CRT is an important component for the growth and sustainability for Roanoke County and surrounding communities. · The continuing development of CRT is important to the future of the county's growth and stability. Fire Rescue - Back Creek Station Addition Average Tota} Score: 57.0, Level 3 · There is an incredible need for space at this station. · Would reduce load on Cave Spring Station. Fire Rescue - EMS Data Reporting System A vera2e Total Score: 72.0, Level 1 · It's a no brainer....spend $145,000 this year, continue to get $300,000 each year. Don't spend the 145K, then you lose $300k/year. · Why not purchase a few devices as a test project to see how they perform before an an-out investment. AS'] · Wi]] save County money - has a short payback time. · If the potential gain from this project is indeed $300,000 annually, a one time investment of $145,000 seems prudent. · Completion of this project should produce revenue for EMS services. Consider designating all receipts above a floor amount to fire station improvements. · Since this project collects more money than it costs, it should be a no brainer. · Medicare guideHnes are very strict in accordance to reimbursement for ambulance transport of senior citizens. According to the biI1ing company about 70% is denied from Medicare due to the fact other modes of transportation are avai1able. Before proceeding the benefit and cost of outsourcing should be investigated. Fire Rescue - Hanging Rock New Station A verage Total Score: 56.0, Level 3 · Area in most need. · Instead of a new station at Hanging Rock, expansion of the station at Mason's Cove should be explored. · This project, ifnot funded, will become and urgent need project before much longer. Fire Rescue - New City/County Co-Staffed Station Average Total Score: 62.0, Level 2 · With Hollins fire dept responding to more calls than any other station it makes sense to partner with the city to provide better protection to this area. It's cost effective, both to partner with the city and to leave the Hol1ins staff in their area so they are able to respond to ca1ls in a more timely manner. · First priority would put this project as part of a land bank purchase. More research seems necessary on this station proposal. · Wauld be nice to have.. present system is working. · Cooperative ventures with neighboring municipalities should be pursued whenever possible. · Partnering with Roanoke City reduces the cost of a new station. · Roanoke County needs to be ready to move on this project whenever the city is ready. · While I don't believe that this project is urgent now, it win be later when it costs a lot more. Fire Rescue - New Oak Grove Station A verage Total Score: 58.0, Level 3 · By the year 2007 the Oak Grove station would be serving hundreds of new homes in that area. Project would be extremely beneficial to those new homeowners. · Would reduce response time - but not in line with the cost. · Is a joint project with Roanoke City a possibility in this area? · This project, ifnot funded, will become and urgent need project before much longer. · Consider a county/city station. · It should be explored as to whether this station could be a joint city/county station due to the close proximity to the city. Fire Rescue - Station Fuel Control System Average Total Score: 49.0, Level 4 · Good project if more money was avaHable. · Abuse of current procedures are non..existent. Fire Rescue - Station Renovations A verage Total Score: 55.0, Level 3 · No doubt these things need to be done. It would seem that, at some point, the county would begin looking at spending money to maintain their buildings. Firemen, volunteers, and workers should not be asked to live in some of the conditions we saw. · Must maintain what we have. · W QuId like to have seen a break down of each station's renovation needs and their priority given by EMS Chief. Many of the renovations are actually maintenance items. AS.2 · This project consists of a multitude of smal1er maintenance items at fire stations around the county. Some would not likely qualify as a capita] improvement project were they not combined. · These projects should be completed as maintenance issues from a continuing maintenance fund. Without the maintenance fund, they must be completed as CIP projects whose scores don't reflect the need. General Services - New Garage at Kessler Mill Road Average Total Score: 77.0, Level 1 · It would be impossible to not see the need for this project. · I believe in a new garage versus fanning out our vehicle problems. · Every department in County depends on this garage - should be large enough to service the 600 vehicles the County owns. · The existing garage appears to violate OSHA regulations for workplace safety. It frankly amazes me that county vehicles are serviced as well as they are given the significant garage limitations. A new garage consisting of 14 bays would provide the capacity to service fire and solid waste vehicles that now are outsourced. It is estimated that this might save $100,000 to $200,000 per year. The county depends heavily on vehicles to administer county business efficiently and safely. In my opinion, a new garage should be one of the top three projects considered. General Services - Recycling Trailers Average Total Score: 54.0, Level 3 · A pubHc/private partnership might advance this project. · Recycling enhances the environment, a benefit to all county residents. A cleaner community also makes it more attractive to outside interests. All in all, investment in this project makes good ecological sense. General Services - Renovations to Service Center Average Total Score: 53.0, Level 3 · Again, this seems like a more of a maintenance project but these things need to be done. · Some monies need to be implemented to bring codes up to date! · Project should be combined with new County garage. · There is little doubt that the Service Center on Kessler Mill is in disrepair. I fear that investing funds on building repairs will be a very temporary fix. It is an old building not designed for its current purpose. I support the razing of the current facility and construction of a new, smaller, more efficient facility on the hill behind the current location. · The possibility of building a new center vs renovating the current center should be examined and evaluated. Greenway Development - Mudlick Creek Greenway Average Total Score: 54.0, Level 3 · There seems to be a desire to fast track this project in order to "piggyback" onto a VDOT roadway project. Adjoining landowners to this project have not been notified nor involved in this project. Public involvement must be included. There is also a potential for misuse of this greenway due to a portion of it being remote, in regards to visibility from roadways. · This greenway project carries a higher price tag and involves several engineering challenges. There is currently less grant money dedicated to the project. These factors make this greenway project slightly less attractive than the Roanoke River Greenway. Greenway Development - Roanoke River Greenway - East Average Total Score: 57.0, Level 3 · Unfortunately, Greenways do not score well within the current rating scheme. However, there is little doubt that a comprehensive system of green ways in the Roanoke Vaney would make our community a highly desirable place to live and work. Continued investment in this process is vita1. Information Technology - Disaster Recovery Hot Site A verae:e Total Score: 54.0, Level 3 · I don't think this is the right approach for this issue. AS.3 Information Technology - Replacement of HPI3000 A veraRe Total Score: 68.0, Levell · Do we really have a choice? · Must stay current. · This project supports systems purchased in fiscal year 2004/2005. Information Technology - Voice Over IP A vera~e Total Score: 48.0, Level 4 · Voice Over LAN using IP will benefit the county residents. I'm not sure that VoIP will have as much a benefit because the service is stil1 in the hands of companies that may be short lived. Library - Bent Mountain Library Expansion Average Total Score: 57.0, Level 3 · Scoring does not accurately reflect the benefit to this community. Due to it's location in the County, Bent Mountain residents receive a disproportionately lesser amount of County services than other communities. Funding for this project should be given weighted consideration. Library - Circulation Self-Checkout System Average Total Score: 54.0, Level 3 · Will reduce the number of personnel needed. · Although the savings in staff hours would be beneficial, and would al10w for re-assignment of staff to other branches that have staffing shortages, the core needs of the library must first be addressed and met prior to advancing this project. · The operating costs that average $15,000 per year seem a bit high. However, freeing up employees to help visitors somewhat offsets these costs. Library - Glenvar Library Expansion Average Total Score: 63.0, Level 2 · The scoring of this project does not accurately reflect the need. One key issue is that the current facility is not ADA compliant. Additionally, residents in this section of the County are not in close proximity to a number of other County services. We must work toward establishing some parity in the services we provide to each area of the County. Instead of fees for usage of conference rooms, perhaps we could encourage civic groups and businesses to contribute to this project and dedicate these rooms to that group (or their designee). Library - Mt Pleasant Library Relocation Average Total Score: 61.0, Level 2 · If the project gets funded please don't put yourself in a position where you need more space in a couple of years. · Several issues are involved in this project. Non-compliance with state standards is a severe understatement. The current facility does not meet the needs of residents in regards to availability of materials and hours of operation. Residents in this area of the County are not in close proximity to other County services, therefore the project is also an issue of equitable distribution of taxpayer services. A new library would enhance the resources available to our school children and serve as a focus of the community. Meeting rooms would also provide an opportunity to serve as a satellite location for adult continuing education classes. Corporate sponsorship is not a consideration, as this area of the County has been primarily used for residential development. Site selection is an issue. Recommend that considered sites be north of Back Creek / Rt 116 Bridge. Any locations south of this point would require citizens to traverse Windy Gap Mountain. This would also be a concern in a joint venture with Franklin County, as it's residents would be subjected to the same dangers when traveling. This project should remain a high priority. Library - South County Library Average Total Score: 71.0, Level 1 · It seemed that all the libraries we looked at were in need of space. · A library that is so heavily used by county and city residents yet undersized and understaffed needs to be replaced. Is a strong force for relocating businesses and families. This facility must have top priority in landbank purchasing. A5.4 · One of the most used facilities in County - must be enlarged to meet County needs. · South County Library is currently the main distribution center for our library system. This distribution activity could be transferred to another branch that might have somewhat better accessibility and a little more space. Parking space is limited and might deter some from using the library. Expansion is needed, not only for books, but to comply with fire code for occupancy numbers. · The need for a library headquarters is obvious. The sooner this project gets off the ground, the more money will be saved on engineering and construction costs. · Consider leasing available retail property. Could combine with South County Police Precinct and/or Oak Grove Fire Station. Library - Vinton Library Renovation A verage Total Score: 59.0, Level 3 · Handicap accessibility remains a problem at this library as does several safety hazards (both for staff and patrons). ADA issues could be a potential liability. A joint venture with Vinton might be the only way to advance this project and should be discussed. Parks & Recreation - Brambleton Center Average Total Score: 61.0, Level 2 · Again, the county needs to address maintenance/upkeep issues that seem to be popping up with many di fferent proj ects. · Used by large number of County citizens - must be kept in good repair. Parks & Recreation - Brookside Park Average Total Score: 60.0, Level 2 · I believe that this park should be placed in a high priority status as there is no handicap access. There is no way for someone who is in a wheel chair to access the park and there is no way for our mowers to access the park unless they go through a creek or up stairs. · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds ofprojects. Parks & Recreation - Burton Softball Complex Average Total Score: 59.0, Level 3 · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds ofprojects. Parks & Recreation - Camp Roanoke A verage Total Score: 54.0, Level 3 · The possibility of this park being used as a tourist facility is not consistent with protection of municipal water supplies. Will the Water Authority place restrictions on Spring Ho11ow to fonow guidelines set by the Office of Homeland Security? · The camp produces income for the county that goes against the expenditure. It is a great experience for the children of Roanoke county and provides employment of county teens during the summer. Parks & Recreation - Family Water Park Average Total Score: 48.0, Level 4 · Seems like a great idea for Roanoke! · Why not have a park that charges a fee and brings more revenue into the community. · Nice.. but not necessary. · If it was a destination attraction, it could add to tourism in the area, as well as pay for itself. Parks & Recreation - Garst Mill Park Improvements A verage Total Score: 70.0, Level I · This needs to be addressed as soon as possible. · The erosion problem needs immediate attention before investment in "park" type programs. · In order to effectively correct problems and meet park needs, the stream bank erosion should be a separate CIP project. However, when combined with other park maintenance needs, this project scored lower than I anticipated. · Creek bank erosion at Garst Mill Park is jeopardizing the busiest park in the county and it gets worse with A5.5 every heavy rain. Repairs need to start while there is something to repair. Parks & Recreation - Goode Park Average Total Score: 54.0, Level 3 · I like the fact that we're improving a Greenway and a park all at the same time. · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds of projects. Parks & Recreation - Green Hill Park Phase III Average Total Score: 55.0, Level 3 · Amphitheater should be a separate CIP project. · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds of projects. Parks & Recreation - Hollins Park Average Total Score: 52.0, Level 4 · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds of projects. Parks & Recreation - Northside High Tennis Court Restoration Average Total Score: 49.0, Level 4 · Partnership with Roanoke County Schools is preferable. · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds ofprojects. Parks & Recreation - Parks & Recreation Land Bank Average Total Score: 64.0, Level 2 · Extremely happy that the board and the departments are addressing land banking. · There should be more land banking done for al1 facets of county needs! · The county needs to look at land banking for many areas, not just Parks and Recreation. It would be beneficial to libraries, schools, fire and rescue, and police. · Land banking should be a top priority before it's too late. Parks & Recreation - Spring Hollow Park Average Total Score: 46.0, Level 4 · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds of projects. · Should we open up our water supply with unlimited access to the public? Parks & Recreation - Starkey Park Average Total Score: 56.0, Level 3 · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds ofprojects. Parks & Recreation - Stonebridge Park A verage Total Score: 56.0, Level 3 · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds ofprojects. Parks & Recreation - Vinyard Park Phase III Average Total Score: 51.0, Level 4 · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds of projects. · Does the handicap trout fishing area increase County liability? Are we coordinating with the Virginia Dept of Game and Fisheries? Greenway project should be a separate CIP request. Parks & Recreation - Walrond Park Phase III Average Total Score: 55.0, Level 3 · Baseball under poor lighting seems to put the county at risk of a liability suit. · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds of projects. Parks & Recreation - Whispering Pines Average Total Score: 56.0, Level 3 · There should be an annual maintenance fund for these kinds of proj ects. A5.6 Police - Bomb Disposal Unit Average Total Score: 49.0, Level 4 · Ifwe must, we must. · State police have a unit in Salem. · Cost benefit ratio needs to be studied for cost to have someone else deal with the problem and the wait time for the response to a bomb threat · Joint venture with neighboring municipalities might be the only way to see this project advance. Police - In Service Training Facility Average Total Score: 48.0, Level 4 · Ifwe as citizens look for good protection of our property and ourselves, law enforcement officers should be trained to the top degree. · Poor planning.. should have been included in the Public Safety Building. · There are training facilities available.. Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy - in the vaHey that Roanoke County can utilize for staff and community training. In addition, the proposed site of this building is remote and would not likely attract citizens to community programs. An alternate solution would be to add some space to the proposed South County Precinct to provide for fitness/training facilities for police officers. Community programs would also be more visible and easily accessible in the South County area. · A lot of volunteer work goes into this project. · The need for this project was created by the exclusion of a gymnasium at the new Public Safety Center. · While the need for this project is evident, there is some doubt as to this project's urgency. The district supervisor for this area is on record complaining about the police shooting range. Expansion of this facility does not seem to reflect the opinions of West County residents and their supervisor. Would like to see further study of this project. Police - South County Police Precinct Average Total Score: 58.0, Level 3 · Perhaps the Precinct building could be constructed along with an existing building. Save money. · Not needed with new Public Safety Building. · A South County precinct would decrease response times to that area, but more importantly, Roanoke County Police would increase their community presence, a benefit that cannot be measured in dollars. · Should include a new police precinct as a part of other South County needs, i.e., Oak Grove Fire Station and 4 I 9 Library. Properties like the old Brendle's store at Tanglewood and the soon old Kroger's store at Cave Spring Comers could serve as a library and police precinct. Selling of the current 4 I 9 Library would fund many library improvements plus pay the lease at a new location for some time. · This project should have been addressed in the planning of the PSA project. · Having a station in south county would greatly benefit the citizens and the police. · Emphasis on a South County Precinct has been cited as a need to have public access to police information. However, we currently have an information office located in Tanglewood Mall. Police officers use laptops which helps maximize personnel resources. Wouldn't response times increase with additional officers on patrol? Police interaction needs for school age children are met through School Resource Officers. The Roanoke County Crime Prevention Office continues to generate criticism by neighborhood watch groups over the past year, a new precinct wiH not address this problem. Completion of the new Public Service Center in North County should be able to provide criminal investigation personnel with needed space for interviews, allow them to have ready access to resources, and have other officers on property should a need anse. Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade Average Total Score: 75.0, Levell · Because this project enhances the ability of public safety personnel in Roanoke City and Roanoke County to communicate with one another, it should remain a top priority until completed. · Waiting on Roanoke City... not yet a priority. AS.? Sheriff - Regional Jail Project Average Total Score: 89.0, Levell · Take advantage of the $ the state has to reduce the cost to Roanoke County tax payers. Has there been any consideration in using the cUlTentjail and court as juvenile detention and juvenile court? · I support the building of a County regional jail as an utmost priority. Fewer men in a cell produces less agitation; perhaps better rehabilitation. There is too much fear generated by some of the public on it's location. It will probably be a visual and safety addition to the community. · All options should be explored - joining with other regional jails, etc. · Construction of a regional jail benefits Roanoke County, Salem, Montgomery County, and Franklin County. It will enhance public safety in all four jurisdictions by providing sufficient bed space to house dangerous offenders. It will also provide a possible source of income through housing prisoners from other agencies for a daily fee. Up to 50% of the cost of construction may come from the Commonwealth. Delaying construction until the next jail funding cycle could yield substantially higher construction costs. · Roanoke County should find as many partners as possible to share the overhead expenses of this project. There is no advantage to a Roanoke County only project.This project should proceed as soon as possible due to the extended time for planning, design and construction. Best case would put start up in three to four years. The need is now and will continue to increase. · Even though this project is being addressed, the process is just beginning and it should have been solved a long time ago. · Roanoke County must expedite this project. This request has been known for some years and prior Boards have failed to address the problem. Delaying the jail for 2 years will only cost taxpayers millions of dollars. A regional concept to help reduce the burden to Roanoke County is a sound approach and should not be abandoned. A5.S Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Project Score Summary - Category Breakdown Sheriff.. Regional Jail Project General Services... New Garage at Kessler Mill Road Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade Community Development... VDOT Revenue Sharing Fire Rescue... EMS Data Reporting System Library .. South County Library Parks & Recreation.. Garst Mill Park Improvements Information Technology.. Replacement of HP/3000 Parks & Recreation.. Parks & Recreation Land Bank Library - Glenvar Library Expansion Fire Rescue - New City/County Co-Staffed Station Economic Development - Center for Research Technology Parks & Recreation.. Brambleton Center Community Development.. Regional Storm Water MgtlFlood Control Library.. Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation Community Development... GIS Phase II - Integration Parks & Recreation... Brookside Park Library .. Vinton Library Renovation Parks & Recreation.. Burton Softball Complex Police.. South County Police Precinct Fire Rescue... New Oak Grove Station Fire Rescue.. Back Creek Station Addition Library .. Bent Mountain Library Expansion Greenway Development... Roanoke River Greenway - East Parks & Recreation.. Stonebridge Park Parks & Recreation.. Whispering Pines Fire Rescue.. Hanging Rock New Station Parks & Recreation... Starkey Park Fire Rescue.. Station Renovations Information Technology.. Server Replacement Parks & Recreation - Green Hill Park Phase III Parks & Recreation.. Walrond Park Phase III General Services.. Recycling Trailers Parks & Recreation.. Goode Park Information Technology.. Disaster Recovery Hot Site Information Technology.. Enterprise Network Security Library.. Circulation Self-Checkout System Greenway Development... Mudlick Creek Greenway Parks & Recreation... Camp Roanoke General Services - Renovations to Service Center Parks & Recreation... Hollins Park Information Technology.. Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade Parks & Recreation.. Vinyard Park Phase III Community Deve10pment ... GIS.. New Server Fire Rescue.. Station Fuel Control System Parks & Recreation.. Northside High Tennis Court Restoration Police.. Bomb Disposal Unit Information Technology - Voice Over IP Parks & Recreation.. Family Water Park Police - In Service Training Facility Parks & Recreation.. Spring Hollow Park Community Development.. GIS... New Color Scanner/Printer Information Technolo ... Lawson HRlPa roll Enhancement ~ .' ..::..:.: ::. :. . :::. ,. .." : : . :: . . . ' Category D: Cat8gOl)'~:f~8.~ct8,~gn:(JI·~~I.,:Q.i'~ ~at@gory F:Sitry¡¢~ Pub~ ic:'~;~fEttY" .,....."I....,.'.,',.".}I"..~!t."I' :.:'··¡~i~@,~lt~;,'qJ"J..'t'f' :,'~f~¡¡sb~l.Iêtùre,; 89.0 77.1 75.4 73.8 72.3 71.1 69.8 68.3 64.3 63.3 62.4 62.3 61.4 61.3 61.0 60.4 60.0 58.8 58.7 57.8 57.8 57.1 56.9 56.6 56.3 56.2 55.9 55.8 55.3 55.1 55.0 54.7 54.2 54.2 54.1 54.0 54.0 53.8 53.6 53.3 52.1 51.9 50.7 49.0 48.9 48.8 48.7 48.4 47.9 47.7 46.2 46.0 44.3 A6 Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Project Score Summary - Cost Breakdown $1,OOO,:PP()- $20 ,()gº~QQO Sheriff... Regional Jail Project 89.0 General Services... New Garage at Kessler Mill Road 77.1 Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade 75.4 Community Development... VDOT Revenue Sharing 73.8 Fire Rescue - EMS Data Reporting System 72.3 Library - South County Library 71.1 Parks & Recreation· Garst Mill Park Improvements 69.8 Information Technology - Replacement of HP/3000 68.3 Parks & Recreation - Parks & Recreation Land Bank 64.3 Library ... Glenvar Library Expansion 63.3 Fire Rescue - New City/County Co-Staffed Station 62.4 Economic Development... Center for Research Technology 62.3 Parks & Recreation - Brambleton Center 61.4 Community Development - Regional Storm Water MgtlFlood Control 61.3 Library - Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation 61.0 Community Development - GIS Phase II -Integration 60.4 Parks & Recreation - Brookside Park 60.0 Library - Vinton Library Renovation 58.8 Parks & Recreation.. Burton Softball Complex 58.7 Police - South County Police Precinct 57.8 Fire Rescue - New Oak Grove Station 57.8 Fire Rescue - Back Creek Station Addition 57.1 Library - Bent Mountain Library Expansion 56.9 Greenway Development - Roanoke River Greenway - East 56.6 Parks & Recreation - Stonebridge Park 56.3 Parks & Recreation - Whispering Pines 56.2 Fire Rescue - Hanging Rock New Station 55.9 Parks & Recreation - Starkey Park 55.8 Fire Rescue... Station Renovations 55.3 Information Technology - Server Replacement 55.1 Parks & Recreation... Green Hill Park Phase III 55.0 Parks & Recreation - Walrond Park Phase III 54.7 General Services - Recycling Trailers 54.2 Parks & Recreation... Goode Park 54.2 Information Technology - Disaster Recovery Hot Site 54.1 Information Technology.. Enterprise Network Security 54.0 Library - Circulation Self-Checkout System 54.0 Greenway Development - Mudlick Creek Greenway 53.8 Parks & Recreation... Camp Roanoke 53.6 General Services.. Renovations to Service Center 53.3 Parks & Recreation - Hollins Park 52.1 Information Technology... Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade 51.9 Parks & Recreation... Vinyard Park Phase III 50.7 Community Development... GIS - New Server 49.0 Fire Rescue - Station Fuel Control System 48.9 Parks & Recreation - Northside High Tennis Court Restoration 48.8 Police... Bomb Disposal Unit 48.7 Information Technology... Voice Over I P 48.4 Parks & Recreation... Family Water Park 47.9 Police - In Service Training Facility 47.7 Parks & Recreation - Spring Hollow Park 46.2 Community Development - GIS - New Color Scanner/Printer 46.0 Information Technolo .. Lawson HRlPa roll Enhancement 44.3 A7 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. e-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session with Dr. Mike Chandler to discuss the County's Comprehensive (Community) Plan SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Professor Chandler will provide the Board an overview of the process involved in developing and amending a Comprehensive Plan and the relationship of the Comprehensive Plan to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning maps. He will also summarize the agreements forged by the Board during its work sessions with him during the summer and fall of 2004. He will also provide the Board with a statewide perspective of the planning process and the initiatives implemented by other localities to manage growth and development in their communities. Professor Chandler and I will summarize the applicable provisions of the State Code as they apply to the Comprehensive Plan approval process. These Code sections are as follows: § 15.2-2226 - After public hearing and notice the Board shall act within 90 days of the Planning Commission's recommendation (November 2, 2004). The Board shall (1) approve and adopt the Plan or any part of the Plan; (2) amend and adopt; or (3) disapprove the Plan. 1 (/þ- '3 § 15.2-2227 - If the Board disapproves the Plan, it shall return it to the Planning Commission for its reconsideration with a written statement of the reasons for its disapproval. The Planning Commission has 60 days to reconsider the Plan and resubmit it with any changes to the Board. Finally, Professor Chandler will discuss the Capital Improvements Plan or Program (CIP) and how it can implement the Comprehensive (Community) Plan. 2 Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2005 RESOLUTION 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 members 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. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 5- \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 15-foot drainage easement on a plat entitled "Subdivision of the Orchards, Section 2, Applewood", Plat Book 9, Page 112, and further shown as "existing 15' drainage easement" in Plat Book 13, Page 59, Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize and approve the vacation and release of the remaining portion of an existing 15' drainage easement shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 9, page 112, and further shown as "Existing 151 Drainage Easement" Plat Book 13, page 59, on property of F&W Development Corporation, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #40.01-1-4. F&W Community Development Corporation has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate and release the remaining portion of the existing 151 drainage easement through its property, in order to allow it to complete its sale of this property. The portion of the 15' easement to be vacated is shown hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto. An alternative drainage system has been established as part of the site development. FISCAL IMPACT: None s-) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance. 2 s -\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,2005 ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON PLAT ENTITLED 'SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 112, AND FURTHER SHOWN AS "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG.112)" IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', dated September 14,1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 112, a fifteen-foot (15') drainage easement was shown and created on remaining property of F&W Community Development Corp~, the subject easement being designated on said plat as "15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT"; and, WHEREAS, the subject easement is further shown and designated as "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)", on plat entitled 'PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', dated July 31, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner, F&W Community Development Corporation, is the current owner of the property designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as 40.01- 1-4, and has requested that the remaining portion of the above-described existing 15' drainage easement be vacated; and, WHEREAS, the construction of a proposed multi-family development will result in an encroachment on the subject drainage easement and the Petitioners have requested that it be vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, S"- j WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on January 25, 2005 and the second reading of this ordinance was held on February 8, 2005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of the existing drainage easement being designated and shown as "15 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been shown and designated as "15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT" on the subdivision plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', dated September 14, 1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 112, and further shown and designated as "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)", on plat entitled 'PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', dated July 31,1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59, in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the conditions contained herein. 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners. 2 s- 3. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 3 " ' ¡ 5- \ i ~ VICI.NITY MAp·; NORTH '" "~ .', ~ Stormwater Management Easement °0- 'o''''''(''~ "-.. . ~ ~ -Î";- -- _ . " ~ROPEfjn or \-11 ~ \ -<.....1 ¡\ , -- ____.-. RUTIi r. 'N1tor ., R lOiltLL W!Nr ~ ~ ~0.t?' _ ~" ''\. ~01r, ct~,I.~~~I~~~:~E.L '1~2~ ~~~ ..O~ . ~.. \,~~ <.... .() ~ "'\ . , "i\\ ~ "'" '. . ~ IÖ.\ ' ~...". < '" 't.\~. --. SCH0'-~~ .. 7'",. , ., . '\. 1;'~ 0'~ ..... .~ 't. ' . \~~!I.\;. ~ /7" , . ·t;A £,t"I¡ ".~~.. ~ 'f,,~ " ,''65 It.. (, <1', " , ~ __~ ..~\' i.í-- ~ .ë ';,"'.., "',' ", ,.,ß.?;sc.þ..\~._,) ",. \~~ , ',"_' l~Ci~~ (h9ø:gx.c~~\ ~¡,\ ~~;t>; -,.'~ '.r~~, . " ,: ~-i~_ (i'., ' , .... 4t." , . \ j ,-,' '_. V.1'0:' ~ ":::'1·( ':.~.~\.-r '\ ùeC, R.. . ' ' .'t"''l DOte ;, 1;, '~~CJ~ OU3) ~1,( ~tcr. Q1cd~' C1 l , , . tt-..¡~i1tl"~: ~ F. & "V, C0111111l111ity Developmel1t Corp. Tax Map # 40.01-1-4 DFC Roano1ce, LLC· Tax Map # 40.01-1-4.3 DESCRIPTION: A 15 foot drainage easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112) and a combination of a 100 foot drainage easement and 15 foot drainage easement (D.B. 13, PG. ~9) withín the property (Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4) located between CruIf1packer Drive (VA. See Rte #781) and Cortland Road 01 A. Sec. Rte #1003). EXHIBIT "A" ROANOKE COVN1Y . DEPJLTtTMENT O,F COMMUNITY, EE-VELOPMENT I5-FOOT DRAJNAGE EASEMENT AND A 100-FOOT . DRAINAGE Ei\SEMENT TO BE VACATED. T-I PETITIONER: Billy & Catherine Montgomery CASE NUMBER: 1-1/2005 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: January 4, 2005 January 25, 2005 A. REQUEST The petition of Billy D. Montgomery and Catherine R. Montgomery to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a private stable on 2.876 acres, located at 861 Texas Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District. (WITHDRAWN BY REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission Billy David & Catherine R. Montgomery 861 Texas Hollow Road Salem, VA 24153 T-l December 22, 2004 Mr. Timothy C. Beard County of Roanoke Department of Community Development Planning Division P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Beard: Per our telephone conversation of Monday, December 20, 2004, I am writing to request the "ithdrawal of my application for a special use permit to construct a private stable on my 2.876 acres located at 861 Texas Hollow Road in the Catawba Magisterial District My 'Wife and I appreciate the time and work: you have put into our request. However, due to the overwhelming show of opposition by our neighbors, we feel it wouJd be in our best interest to withdraw our application. Should there be any further questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, ~........ .~ 1\)~ ~~cl ~'~ Billy David Montgomery ~ PETITIONER: Seaside Heights, LLC (Bojangles) CASE NUMBER: 32-12/2004 (Rezoning) & 33-12/2004 (SUP) T-g Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 1,2005 (Continued from December 7, 2004) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: February 22, 2005 (Continued from December 21, 2004) A. REQUEST The petition of Seaside Heights, LLC, to rezone .98 acres from C 1, Office District to C-2, General Commercial District and to obtain a Special Use Permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Continued by request of the petitioner) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. McNeil made a motion to continue the petition until the Planning Commission Public Hearing on February 1, 2005. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission T-~ County of Roanoke Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: David Holladay, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator Date: December 29, 2004 Re: January 4, 2005 Public Hearing - Agenda Item I. 2. Seaside Heights, LLC / Bojangles has requested that their petition, Agenda Item I. 2., be continued until February I, 2005. The petitioner is contracting. a traffic impact analysis of the existing turn lanes and traffic signal timing. The study will not be completed prior to the January 4 public hearing. Staff recommends continuing the petition until February 1, 2005. DEC. 1.2004 2: l1PM CARTER,OSBORNE&MILLER NO. 332 P. 2 Carter, Osborne ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mill er -r-~ Dece.mbe.r 1, 2004 !\1r. David Holladay, Zoning Administrator Roanoke County Planning Department P~ o. Box 29800 Roanoke, \'A 24018 RE: Special Use & Rezoning Applications - Seaside; Heigbts, LLC Dear 11r. Holladay: We re.spe:ctfully request that the Special Use Application and Rezoning Applications of Seaside Heights, LLC scheduled to come before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors be postponed. The PlannÍDg Commission hearing date of Dece·mber 7, 2004, should be rescheduled for January 4, 2005, and the Board of Supervisors hearing on this matte-r would be resc·heduled from December 21, 2004, until January 25, 2005. Please let m~ }mow if you have any questions or concerns \vith this reque.st. v F!:!y troly yours, CARTER OSBORNE &. MILLER q~~ J. Lee E. Osborne JLEO/jrnh corporateJUcJ$e!1Sid:h~ightsl!trtohollad3Y c·: Mr. Stanlejr Seymour, III Seaside Heights, LLC 1401 Franklin Road P,O. Box 13206 Roanoke, Virginia 24032·3206 P: 540·982-0234 F: 540-982..8102 WWV/.cboli.w.com -r:~ County of Roanoke Community Developmént Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke) VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ;".. "'-:'::'-~-~i"':"..." :~" .~. ....ø-: ~~..... .....1 ~ --.. .. .... ",' .. ... ~....~" .. ........ 'ill." 4 .....~ .,¡,.,. ~... . ·:!ØftliiP1!ifdJ:N.1S f~;'~~.,.i,,·'...:~·/:.~.:;~¡"~.C· ~.....:,'.:...:. .'. ...... .,. . .~.. . ~...'" ....~,:..o.... :.',. -'.".... .. . _ ..... 0,'1 ..' ......... ..' ........ .' .... . .... ....,_... Check type of application flled (check all that app1y) XJ RczoD.Ùlg 0 Special Use 0 Varia..nce 0 Waiver App licaDt.S nam el addre~s W Zip 'P-o 10.:> ( t.. L. c- I ':> -r t*--. S ..t r....... (;) Y;-'I1C; !) 'I b D ¿;, i ~ ""'-4. to- í2-J W or k: Seaside Heights, ll.C ~ V, ~ ú:JI,vaf'å A¡ ~ ll, Es . c.<-..-1Cc.., Ifi ;¿t-/Ðt? Cc:llli: 3 · q Fax No.: 5.!l1-77Y-09Gl 0'( D'f Placards issued: D5e Numb=r 3~ - . .~~4.._,_~...._..I"__·"·"."..-..r.. ""..,..,..~ .. .... -~ ........~. .t;-:e-",. ~..... o AdmiDistra'êve Appe.a1 5" 3 7 - t I ¿¡o/ tJl6 125 8181) r I :2- 1 6,..&1.. ~ -rl-.. -c.r- t2-/ Seas ide Heights, LtC G-ILI-=rt t!-o'"J b./ï vt'L b a:Nr1CT: £.J~d f... tIE. t t, Esq. =<-D i, .., 018 Phone #: .> J -, - 6 ( '1 f Work: 540-115-S1-ßO Fax. No. #: s.q 0 ] ì rl_ 0--9 61 Property Location Intersection of Brambleton Avenue, Co J oni a I Avenue and Wlerr ¡man Road Magisterial District: Cave Spr i ng CommUDity Planning area: C?fve Spr i ng 1pãtftt~O~f08i~~8š~~3~~Š~Ó,and ~,- ~ Î)~ Ex~ttngZommg: C-l S· f l( ). A · ~ q r ¿¡.~r~s E·· L...-"" U · lze 0 parce s. cres. , j)., Xlstmg 4.LJU sc. Vacant ;t~ii~~~i.~ø-~ P$.~··~~~~~:ïiAi.:~~~~ì.~i~~.§lm. ~.._: ':' ~-_. ..:.....~. -:~~:.._. ~._.~.~~. · -" .-.... '..__~~_.",~_ Propos~ Zoning: C-2 PrDpOSed Land U~e: fast food restaurant w/drive-thru·& 6600 sq ft retai I space D s the parcel· meet the miDimum 10t are-a, width, aDd frontage requirements of the r~quested ciistri~t? Yes _ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the re.quested Use Type? ~ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST Ii rczomng request, ar~ conclitioDS being proffhed with 1:b.ls r~est? Y cs ~ ~~~~-~~~~~¡:~~~._~~~.~ Va..rian~aiver of Sectlon(s) of the Roanoke County ZoIÜllg Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administratort s decision to App~al of Interpretation of SectioD(s): Appeal of Interpretation of ZoDiDg Map to of the Roanoke County Zonúlg Ordimnc.e Is "the application comp1ete? P1casc check if encJosed. APPLICATION 'WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THE ITE1\1S ARE MISS3NG OR INCOMPLETE. RlS/W V/AA RlSIW V/AA RJSIW V/AA §E Consultation ~ 8112- x 11- concept plan ~ Application fe:c Application '. Metes and botmds ~scription Proffers, 1f Âpplicabl~ Iustification Watbr md sewer ¡ppJic:ation AdjoiniD.g property OWDers · I hereby certify that I am either the o\VD.erS'ERš '9lDt(¿gcDt or ~ntra.c:t purchuer and am :acting witll the kDowledge a: consent of the owner. .. ' ~ . c¡;;~ Owner's SigIlÄtllIe JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST T..~ Applicant SEASIDE HEIGHTS, LLC The Planning Commis51on will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety. and general vve1far~. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the C-2 District ;s to provide for a variety of commercial and seTViee-related activities within the urban service area serving the community of several neighborhoods or large areas of the County. These commercial districts are generally found along maj:' : - .-:. { \I thoroughfares which serve large segments of the County population. The use as a mixed retail anu reSlaurant meets these criterions and those uses are specifically permitted within the County's Zoning Ordinance and within the County Comprehensive Plan. Retail uses are specifically al10wed by right and the restaurant, drive-in and fast food is allowed with a Speciaf Use Permit A significant portion of the subject property is already zoned C-2 and I thus, the rezoning effort is a small extension of the existing Zon ing District. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The subject property is designated as "transition" within the County's Land Use Plan. The "transition" category recognizes that certain roadways have the potential of becoming primary corridors where strip development pressures exist. Certainly this is true with the subject property with the adjoining uses on BrambJeton Avenue. The guidelines for "transition" promote planned development nodes and major road junctions in redevelopment of existing strip developments. The former uses on the subject property have been eliminated and, with the appropriate grading plan, the proposed use as retail and restaurant, fast food with a drive-thru, subject to a Special Use Permit. are appropriate in this area. AU of the adjoining properties along Brambleton are similar retail uses. Thus, the propDsed use meets the objective of the ~lransjtion district" which is to provide for development along design£.: .:: .:.... ·oad corridors in the County. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, rOáds, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. The proposed development wrll have no negative impact upon public services and facilities. The property is already zoned Commercial. a portion being C-1 and a portion being C-2. The rezoning from C-1 to C-2 will allow for the appropriate development of a significant portion of the property with one owner, thereby assuring limited access and a well-designed and coordinated plan of development. F:\USERS\C Baumgardner'ZONI NG\Seaside Heights JUSTIF ICA TION .doc J I J J 1 ; J I , J I , , 1 I " IT I ~ ~ -- -~r= § ~ Zoning _AG3 ~ _EP _AG1 AR _AV C1 ~C2 .. C2CVOD -"-~. 11 12 ~ ~ '.. PCD PRD œPTD ~ R1 R2 R3 ~ " (~~ R4 Roanoke County Department of Community Development N Â Applicants Name: Seaside Heights, LLC Existing Zoning: C-1 Proposed Zoning: C-2S Tax Map Number: 86.08-3-36.1 Portion of 86.08-3-35.1 Magisterial District: Cave Spring Area: 0.98 acres October 25, 2004 No Scale -r:~ County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Application fee: o.ÐD PC/BZA date: (2- I BOS date: "2.... Placards issu ed: ð.lf Case Number '-'." , Check type of application flled (check all that apply) o Rezoning Q.CSpecial Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver . R"I$o L-t.L.- S--f~ "e¡ 11-(7"'" 6 a Applicants name/addr YZlp 51" 0 CcIJ.~ I~ Phone: ->") 7 - 1,'1 SEASIDE HEICHTS, LLC J2.-t?lA.'l.O~~ VA ::V.-t..:>(? Work: S~A 11.. ¡qRO CINfACT: IS I"".... rd.å 14" I t. .k~. ( Cell #: 3+411 a I~~"Q I I S I O. . I bu i w 200 C,· R~.....1.51CC, -.. 7frQ1Ax No.: C;lìll- '71f-U~ð 1 Owner's name/address w/~ c¡ I 23 &CL-i'fL.4!r- l2.J Phone #: S] 7 - 'I' 77" SEAS IDE HEIGiTS, LLC G-a.(-H-. e.. J J.:¡ vr? ( Ø1 Ò Work: 541.1- ¡ ¿S-it--SO CDirÞCT: Cd.;~1 d ~A__ tJatt. C:"''l :J-o~( 'I Fax No. #: ~1.It\ 7"1 6§Ur 3 Su; J ~ lu-u C Rueu JU~t:! ~/A 2'19 ra Property Location o Co loni a I Avenue 4510 Brambleton Avenue o Administrative Appeal Magisterial District: Cave Spr i ng Community Planning area: Cave Spr i ng Existing Zoning: C- 2 Existing Land Use: Vacant .~~.J_B1~.~'¡_l_~~:~îilt~lt~, Proposed Zoning: C- 2 Proposed Land Use: fast food restaurant w/dr ive-thru Does t~rcel meet the minimum Jot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ~ ~ No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. / Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yesý No D IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning requestt are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes D No D VarianceIWaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administratorts decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICA TION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RlS/W V I AA RIS/W VI AA RlSIW VI AA m Consultation E!ji. 8 1/2" x 11- concept p]an ~ Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers. if applicable Justification Water and sewer application X Adjoining property owners 1 hereby certify that I am either the omer of the pr e r th owner·s agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. SEAS I B¥. Owner's Signature 2 T-~ JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Applicant SEASIDE HEIGHTS, LLC The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of pub1ic health, safety, and general welfare~ Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possibJe. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the C-2 District is to provide for a variety of commercial and service-related activities within the urban service area serving the community of several neighborhoods or large areas of the County. These commercial distrícts are generally found along major arterial thoroughfares which serve large segments of the County population. The use as a mixed retail and restaurant meets these criterions and those uses are specifically permitted within the County's Zoning Ordjnance and within the County Comprehensive Plan. RetaH uses are specifically allowed by right and the restaurant. drive-in and fast food is allowed with a .Special Use Permit. A significant portion of the subject property is already zoned C-2 and, thus, the rezoning effort is a small extension of the existing Zoning District. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan~ The subject property is designated as Utransition" within the County's Land Use Plan. The Utransition" category recognizes that certain roadways have the potential of becoming primary corridors where strip development pressures exist. Certainly this is true with the subject property with the adjoining uses on Brambleton Avenue. The guidelines for "transition" promote planned development nodes and major road junctions in redevelopment of existing strip developments. The former uses on the subject property have been eliminated and, with the appropriate grading plan, the proposed use as retail and restaurant, fast food with a drive-thru, subject to a Special Use Permit, are approprjate in this area. All of the adjoining propertjes along Brambleton are simifar retail uses. Thus. the proposed use meets the objective of the "transition district" which is to provide for development along designated key road corridors in the County. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the a·djoining properties. and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. The proposed development will have no negative impact upon public servjces and facilities. The property is already zoned Commercial. a portion being C-1 and a portion being C-2~ The rezoning from C-1 to C-2 will allow for the appropriate development of a significant portion of the property with one owner, thereby assuring limited access and a well-designed and coordinated plan of development. \\JOLl Y\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardner\ZONING\Seaside Heights JUSTIFICATION.doc T-~ Description of 0.298 acre To be rezoned from C-l to C..2 (portion of Tax Parcel 86.08..3-35.01) Situate at the southwest corner of Colonial Ave. and Merriman Road County of Roanoke, VA Property of SEASIDE HEIGHTS, LLC Beginning at a point at the intersection of the southerly right of way of Colonial Ave. and the westerly right of way of Merriman Road; Thence leaving Colonial Ave. and with the westerly right of way of Merriman Road, S. 14°39'39" E., 26.04 feet to a point; Thence continuing with said right of way of Merriman Road, S. 4°01'45" W., 40.69 feet to a point; Thence leaving Merriman Road and with the property of Seaside Heights, LLC (D.B 1699, Pg. 1806), on a curve to the right whose radius is 1,457.39 feet, whose length is 164.71 feet, and whose chord is S. 85°40'16" W., 164.82 feet; Thence continuing with the property of Seaside Heights, LLC, S. 89°02'06" W., 5.98 feet to a point; Thence leaving the property of Seaside Heights, LLC, and with the easterly boundary of the existing C-2 zoning N 31°56'45" E., 141.28 feet to a point in the southerly right of way of Colonial Ave.; Thence with the southerly right of way of Colonial Ave. on a curve to the left whose radius is 591.25 feet, whose length is 100.92 feet and whose chord is S. 65°39'16" E., 100.81 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.298 acres and being the easterly portion of a 0.580 acre parcel of right of way purchased from the Virginia Department of Transportation by Seaside Heights, LLC T-~ 1m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " (~ r; i ~ ~ ~ - RI 667 Zoning _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR .AV C1 .C2 ¡¡¡;¡ C2CVOD 11 Dr ~ _ - ~·1 12 .PCD ª PRD fi. .PTD R1 R2 R3 R4 Roanoke County Department of Community Development N Å Applicants Name: Seaside Heights, LLC Existing Zoning: C-1/C-2 Proposed Zoning: C-2S Tax Map Number: 86.08-3-34 86.08-3-35 86.08-3-35.1 86.08-3-36.1 Magisterial District: Cave Spring Area: 2.22 Acres October 25, 2004 No Scale PETITIONER: NEXTEL Partners, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 31-12/2004 T-3 Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 1, 2005 (Continued from December 7, 2004) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: March 22, 2005 (Continued from December 21, 2004) A. REQUEST The petition of Nextel Partners, Inc., to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower, located at 432 Bandy Drive, near Windy Gap Mountain, Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Steve Azar made a motion to continue the request for 60 days. Motion carried 5- O. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission -~ - + ' . T-~ Petitioner: :.STAFF,:REPQRT,;'-, . Nextel Partners, Inc. . .- Request: Special Use Permit for a 199' monopole Broadcast Tower (with antenna) on an AG-3 zoned parcel. 432 Bandy Drive - Windy Gap Mountain Vinton Location: Magisterial District: Suggested Conditions: 1. No lighting and/or markings shall be permitted on the broadcast tower unless required by the FAA. 2. The broadcast tower, hardware and antennas shall be constructed of non- reflective materials to reduce visibility and reduce light reflection. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Nextel Partners, Inc. is proposing to construct a 199' monopole broadcast tower and antenna on Windy Gap Mountain for expanded coverage of their wireless communications network. The site is designated as Rural Preserve in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Broadcast towers are permitted in the AG-3 zoning district with a Special Use Permit. Site plan review shall be required. Specific attention should be focused on the proposed disturbed area due to critical stapes and ridgeline protection interests. VDOT entrance review may be required at intersection of Bandy Drive and State Route 116 in Franklin County. Building permits shall be required. Sealed, engineered, as-built plans shall be required to certify actual height The site shall comply with the Emergency Communications Overlay requirements in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Subject to FCC and FAA approvals. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Backqround - The applicant has been evaluating the Windy Gap Mountain area for some time. Originally there was a discrepancy between Franklin County staff and Roanoke County staff concerning the jurisdiction of the subject parcel and site. The applicant had communicated with both counties to work through the public hearing process. The applicant filed a Special Use Permit application with the Franklin County Department of Planning. The application was not acted upon by that county because of the jurisdictional question. The applicant then sought clarification from each county to determine proper jurisdiction. Information from USGS maps, both Roanoke County GIS, Franklin County GIS and surveys from licensed surveyors was evaluated by staff and attorneys from both counties. It has been determined that the site of the proposed broadcast tower is actually located within Roanoke County, subject to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, however the property is being assessed by Franklin County for tax 1 purposes. 1-3 TopoaraphvNeqetation - The site is thickly wooded with mature deciduous and evergreen trees along with some low growth vegetation. The base elevation of the proposed broadcast tower site is 1659 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) with steep slopes of up to 25%. The top of the 199 foot proposed broadcast tower with antenna and lightning rod would then be 1858 feet AMSL. Surroundinq Neiqhborhood -The site is located off Bandy Drive, a private road that intersects with State Route 116, on the Franklin County side of Windy Gap Mountain. Bandy Drive curves around close to Roanoke County near the site of the proposed broadcast tower. The road serving the property is a steep, narrow dirt and gravel road. The general area is heavily wooded and has several homes within several hu ndred feet of the site. The adjoining Franklin County parcels have an A.. 1 J Agricultural zoning and the adjacent Roanoke County parcels are zoned AG-3, Rural AgriculturaL There is some pasture land south of the site in Franklin County with cattle. The subject site is approximately 1200 feet west of State Route 116. There are existing overhead AEP electrical lines, with average pole heights of 25' I adjacent to Bandy Drive near the entrance to the site. Electric and telephone service would need to be extended approximately 100 feet to the site of the proposed broadcast tower and communication building. An access road would need to be graded to the proposed site. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Lavout/Architecture -The applicant is proposing to locate a 199' broadcast tower and equipment buildings on a 50' X 100' leased area of the 11.95 acre parce1. Access is proposed from Bandy Drive a steep. narrow dirt and gravel private road. Tree clearing will be required at the site and on the road to the tower site. A representative from the applicant has stated that the building proposed to be constructed with the broadcast tower is 10' X 20', and will be enclosed by a six foot chain link fence with barbed wire surrounding the top of the fence. The monopole is proposed to be galvanized steel and non-reflective. The monopole is engineered to support the applicant's antenna system and three additional colocation opportunities for other cellularl PCS providers. No back up generator is proposed at this location. Environmental Impacts - The applicant had a consultant perform an assessment of the site to determine if there were any endangered species of wildlife, historic structures, sites, buildings or objects of significant American history or listings in the National Historic Register of Historic Places (within one mile radius of the site) and all reports were negative. In addition there were no wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, identified on the site. The applicant did reference the removal of trees would be necessary for the grading of an access road and site preparation for the construction of the proposed tower and related structure. The FAA Aeronautical Study Number 2004-AEA-1983-0Er indicates that no markings or lighting will be required for the broadcast tower at this site. The broadcast tower may be visible to the Mount Pleasant residents and Franklin County residents. The proposed broadcast tower may be visible from several areas of the Blue Ridge Parkway between the Vinton area and south of the Mount Pleasant area. At the Blue Ridge Parkway overpass above Jae Valley Road the structure may be visible from passing vehicles. A back up generator is not proposed with this request. In the event of power failure a portable generator is proposed to be brought in to serve the facility. The application shows additional colocation proposals that are all panel type antennae for other cellular/PCS service providers. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance does not require that the colocation only be for cellularl PCS service. If whip antennas or dishes were used as the colocations the 20 foot separation between antennae may not be required. The Roanoke County Crowell Gap Tower for public safety purposes is located approximately 3700 feet from this proposed broadcast tower site. The base elevation of the Roanoke County tower is 2056 feet AMSL, with a total height of 150 feet. The applicant has indicated that this site does not meet their requirements for coverage purposes. The Roanoke County Communications Shop has indicated that the Crowell Gap Tower has available leasable space at several heights on that broadcast tower. The applicant has indicated that 2 the Roanoke County Public Safety Tower at Crowell Gap does not provide the coverage area that the -r- 3 proposed broadcast tower may provide. The colocation potential on the County tower must be fully considered as an option for the applicant. Currently the applicant does not have any tenants secur.ed to colocate on the proposed broadcast tower at their proposed Windy Gap location. Accessrrraffic Circulation - Access to the proposed leased area for the tower site is shown from Bandy Drive. This is a dirt and gravel, narrow private road that intersects State Route 116 on the Franklin County side of Windy Gap Mountain. Bandy Drive is located in Franklin County. A twenty foot (20') access easement is proposed to serve the leased area. The site of the proposed tower and related buildings is in Roanoke County. The applicant has indicated that the communication facilities assoctated with the broadcast tower is unmanned and should have minimal impact on traffic generation. The applicant indicates that the facility will normally be checked once a month by service personnel from the wireless company. The number of service trips will be increased as additional carriers locate on the proposed broadcast tower. Fire & Rescue/Utilities - No negative impacts are anticipated regarding an increased need for emergency service responses. No public water sewer is involved. and is not available to the site. Roanoke County Public Safety Communications Impacts.. The Roanoke County Information Technology- Radio Communication Shop has worked closely with planning staff in trying to insure that there are no radio communication conflicts between the proposed broadcast towers and antenna that broadcast on radio frequencies in the same band. Staff has been in constant communication with the applicant attempting to insure that Roanoke County emergency public safety radios are not negatively impacted. The Roanoke County broadcast tower is located approximately 3700 feet from the proposed site. The Information Technology Department is satisfied that any potential interference issues have been resolved. Community Meetina - On November 17, 20041 a community meeting was held at the Mount Pleasant Fire Department and First Aid Crew building. Planning staff, Information Technology staff and representatives from Nextel partners, Inc. were available to discuss the Special Use Permit process and proposed broadcast tower proposal for the citizens. Approximately 10 residents and staff attended the meeting. A primary issue that the neighbors discussed included the condition of Bandy Drive, the private road in Franklin County, used as access to the site. Issues of the broadcast tower's visibility from the surrounding neighborhood, potential radiation hazards and decreased property values were also discussed. The Nextel representative advised the neighbors that he would contact the company to bring the road maintenance issue to their attention. Upgrades to Bandy Drive would be outside the scope of Roanoke County jurisdiction since the private road is located within Franklin County. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan designates the subject property as Rural Preserve. Within the Community Values Section of the Community Plan residents of the Mount Pleasant area identified the view of Windy Gap Mountain as an important scenic vista. Rural Preserve is a future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying land. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestall. recreational and remote residential areas. A distinguishing feature on the subject parcel is the view. the ridgeline and the critical slopes. The Ridgeline Protection Themes in the Community Plan specifically note that utility and communications structures should not be placed on ridgelines. The scenic beauty of the ridgelines contributes to the quality of life and preserves property values. Limits on the extent of mountainside and ridgeline development will help preserve the 3 T-3 scenic beauty of the County. The disturbance of land on critical slopes and ridgelines creates the potential for future erosion problems and further deterioration of the slopes and ridgelines. It is the intent of the County to fully comply with all of the applicable provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other federal and state laws and allow the communication industry the right and responsibility to provide communjcation services within their service areas. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The proposed broadcast tower is a monopole design which is preferred over the lattice type tower. The structure is designed to accommodate at least three (3) other potential collocation opportunities if other service providers were looking to start or upgrade their coverage in the Windy Gap Mountain area. The height of the proposed broadcast tower is the maximum that Roanoke County Code will allow. The proposed heig ht is based on the applicant's interest in improving coverage in the Mount Pleasant, Vinton and Franklin County areas. The original application filed with Franklin County focused attention to the Burnt Chimney, Red Valley and Smith Mountain Lake areas. The diagrams that the applicant included in their submittal show a twenty foot separation between panel antennas for cellular-type service coverage. This separation demonstrates the need for a taller tower, if all of the antennas are for cellular-type use. Should there be other microwave dish antenna or whip style antennas there may not be a need for this separation. There are opportunities available from the Roanoke County Crowell Gap broadcast tower for colocation of antennas. The application referenced the need for a higher broadcast tower to satisfy their service needs. The excessive height of the tower may create more of a negative visual impact on the Mount Pleasant and Franklin County areas than to collocate on an existing facility. The goals of the Roanoke County Community Plan are to reduce the number of new broadcast towers by encouraging collocation possibilities on existing structures and by not encouraging broadcast towers on ridgelines. The disturbed area along the ridgeline for a new access road and site clearing for the broadcast tower and necessary buildings may potentially create erosion problems. The proposed broadcast tower is not supported by the Community Plan. Planning staff is not convinced that the Roanoke County Crowell Gap broadcast tower site has been fully considered as an alternative. Planning staff is recommending that propagation studies be conducted and provided to Roanoke County staff for evaluation for the Roanoke County site on Crowell Gap. Until the Roanoke County site is fully considered staff is recommending that the petition shall be continued. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: # 31-12/2004 J. Murphy PC: December 7,2004 BOS: December 21, 2004 4 ,-3 County of Roanoke Community Developmént Planning & Zoning For Staff USf: Only Date re;c.eivcd: uc:eived by: 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number 3 1- ¡.;:~~~~'~E:,~..:tf':':~;":~~:~~:::\O;~.:'~:. .' . ..' '. dO ." ...... . ........#.. 0" ........ ....~.._....-......~. ...~.._. .. ·:~~It:jJ?,ItBIGÂN:TS ~!:t...~~~'"1"--~~:'~·;.:~:~_':~~t.:.t.·:'::·....~"~: 10 ~ .. . .~, ~ ~þ.'" .4.... ......r... ~. _...... .....þ..... ,'..ã.." .·...r. .:...t.... ._ ... \... ~. II .'. ....~..4_.... .. t .......... Placards issutd: Check type of application file.d (check all that apply) o Rezoning .Special Use 0 Vanance o Waiver o Administrative Appeal Owner's name! address w /zi p L·.n!A SLl~ "'e..r .l\Je ~3~ ßø.....!y bf'. HArdy. VA ,2~lo\ Property Location Phone: 757 - 3t>5"" 8~;c, Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 5'L/o - 725''' '/'"150 PhDne #: ~r.:J - '-f 7-7 - :J- 0 ~9 Work: Fax No. #: Applicants name/address w/zip tJL)C "'e. \ 9M~~"'S I ~. RÞp-r\oke.., v,4 )4018 5"115" 8e.rna"'¿ t1t". St\i Ie. ZðO Cðft.+.d-: fù,.+e ~ll~ 43~ ~U\ÅY ~(". Magisterial District V ì fJ T-b r-.J ~ Community Planning area: . ~ \-. P ( êa...t'a __ t- Tax Map No.: (, - 71/.:1. (F~ø.r-\.ch.. ~.) Existing Zoning: A'-3 Size ofparcel{s): Acres: I'.' 5" Erisrlng LaDd Use: Re.~ &Wl.\1ct.\ , tJooJed ~ ~~~ -~~~~ ~.~~-~~~~-~.~~. : - Propos~ Zoning: A G-:S Proposed Land Use: Þ V"D ~ ,-t Th4:A/.err ~ the parcel meet the minimum Jot area, width, and frontage requirem~Dts of the requested district? ~ . No IF NO, A V ~CE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Do~s the parcel meet the I11.i1:llmum criteria for the requested Use Type? @> No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUITŒD FmBT If rezoDIDg request, are conditions b~ing proffered with this request? Yes No ~.~ ::~.~~~.~=~~==~~~~ . . ...:.."... r, ..... ~. VarianceAV'aiver of Section(s} of the Roanoke County ZoIDng Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning AdmiDistrator's decisioD to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appeal of Interpretation of ZoniD.g Map to of the Roanoke County Zorring Ordinance Is 1he application complete? Please check if cnc1osed. .APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR JNCOMPLETE. RJSIVi V/AA.. RlSIW V1AA m' COn£Ultation _ 8 1/2' x 11" concept plan . . Application ~ '.A- Metes aDd bDunås descriptloD Justifica.tion A' Watcr and sewer application I h~re'by cerrlfy tha.t I am either the owner of the rop or the 0 = S a or co CDDScnt of th~ O\VIlI:I'. '"Daui J +/ollCLdttt QInunt~ n£ ~nannke T-3 PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY A TIORNEY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATIORNEY P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2089 JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY A ITORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY A ITORNEY (540) 772·2007 October 13, 2004 (540) 772-207] . James Jefferson, Esq. 5 East Court Street, Suite 101 Rocky Mount, VA 241S1 Re: Nextel Partners, Inc. Dear Mr. Jefferson: This letter will confirm a telephone cOIÚerence held on October 13, 2004, betvveen you, Jay Carter, David H<;>lladay, and me concerning the proposal by Nextel Partners, Inc. to erect a 199-foot cell tower and equipment shelter on a S,OOD-square foot portion of an 11.95-acre tract owned by Linda Sue Perdue (Franklin County Tax Map No. 6-74.2). Nextel filed an application for zoning approval for this tower with Franklin County in August of 2004. A question has arisen with respect to the proper application of zoning power and authority to this application, since it appears that the proposed location of this tower may be in Roanoke County. Upon further review, Franklin County officials have determined that a large portion of this parcel is located in Roanoke County. Both Franklin County and Roanoke County officials have reviewed topographical maps of this area and have determined that the proper location of the boundary line betvveen tl1e counties is along the ridgeline. This determination results in the conclusion that the proposed location of this cell tower and equipment shelter is in Roanoke County. Mr. Jefferson will review this matter with the Commissioner of the Revenue for Franklin County and I will provide a copy of this letter to the Commissioner of the Revenue for Roanoke County so that these officials may take appropriate action with respect to this parcel. ~ "'. ..··,~,~~~f%;~~~rf~;C_;-··~~: I " , I T~ James Jefferson, Esq. Page Two October 13, 2004 Mr. Holladay will inform the representatives of Nextel of this determination and recommend that it file the necessary zoning application for approval of this cell tower by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. Further review by Franklin County officials will ,be necessary to deterIIÙne the ex~~~ !ocation of Ms. Perdue's house on this parcel. This review will have an effect on such issues as school attendance and voting' registration. I trust that this letter accurately reflects the discussion of the parties. Very truly yours, ~ W\ '-y{\~6 Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney PMM/sb C: David Holladay Nancy Horn j','....,....'.." u, . . .~, ~: f ~: ~" ~ ~~. f2: ~;~ ~ ì fe. I ~. ~" ~ i g" ~. t I I' I ~~.- ~ f;; ~' ~ ~. ~; ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ i ~ ~' ~i: ~ ~. ~~- ~ ~:'! t ~ ~£ ~' "I T-:S APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT Nextel Partners, Inc. Wireless Communications Facility Windy Gap I. LETTER OF APPLICATION a. Proposed Us,e of the Property. Nextel Partne!rs, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit for the purpose of installing a wireless communications facility (WCF) within a 50· x 100· leased area located in the southwest corner of the parent tract containing 11.95 acres. The subject parcel is located at 432 Bandy Drive. Hardy, Roanoke County, Virginia, appr()ximately 1,200 feet west of Highway 116 with a tax map number of 6-74.2 (See Figure 4). The parent parcel is zoned AG-3 (Agricultural-See Figure 5) with the existing land use primarily wooded and undeveloped except for one residence located approximately 650 feet to the northeast and Bandy Drive to the east running along the border of the parent tract. The parcel $traddles the Roanoke and Franklin County border with' Nextel's leased area on the Roanoke County side. The proposed WCF is located at an elevation of 1 ,659' AMSl with 8-25 percent slopes that are moderately steep to steep (See Figure 3). The proposed WCF will contain a 195 foot monopole with twelve (12), 8 foot panel type antennas mounted at the top. At the base of the tower. a 10'(w} x 20'(1) x 10'(h} equipment shelter will sit on a concrete pad the same length ànd' width (See Zoning Drawings). Coaxial cables running from the equipment shelter wilt run up the inside of the monopole to the panel antennas at the top. A six foot high chain link fence will surrou.nd Nextel's shelter and monopole for security purptJses. Power and te1ephones Jines will be pulled approximately 100 feet from Bandy Drive up to the site. From Rocky Mount take Highway 40 east until Highway 122 (Booker T. Washington Hwy). Turn left on Highway 122 heading north until Burnt Chimney. Turn left on Highway 116 (Jubal Early Hwy) heading north and continue on to Windy Gap (See Figure 2). Tum left at 432 Bandy Drive heading west on the gravel road. At the next right, turn heading north up the gravel road. Approximately 580 feet before the résidence, turn left up a dirt path to an opt~n area. The site is directly ahead on a dirt path (See Figure 1). It is Nextel's policy to provide collocation opportunities to other carriers and county departments as long as the design and engineering can accommodate such request~;. In this case, it may be possible for 2 to 3 other carriers to collocate on t.his monopole. Mr. Bill Agee of the Franklin County Emergency 911 Department mentioned that many county fire, police, and emergency crews carry f\Jextel phones as a backup to county radios and coverage in the r I: I t I [ g I ~. I f f ~ ~~:. . í: ,t,:; ~ L' I .~ t~ i I ~ ,~ L E' ~; f" _..~ ,:g;: I ,~"I ~~ ~~{ -~; ~, . t?,~ r: ~ ~~: il J~ i ""i~: ,. ~;.~ --~ :'n~ ;"I~ ->: " .~ :"'·"I",~, .. ..~. . " ::t :i , Mo' ;- . ;";+.,. ;IIIY ':1..,,',', ~.t~ . . . .f.~~: ~\._. "~,' -'--, " Special Use Permit Application Roanoke County , VA October 22,2004 --T ;. - ....) HardyM'indy Gap area would be essential not just for Nextel but for Franklin/Roanoke county as well. b. Effect of the changes on the Surrounding Area. The proposed wireless communications facility will be located in a heavily wooded area on a parcel that is primarily undeveloped and of course, some trees will neelj to be cleared within the leased area. The size and scale of the proposed development is relatively small in comparison to the size of the parent parcel. The equipment shelter and monopole will not significantly affect storm water runoff or create soil erosion issues. The proposed WCF was strategically 1=,I.anned in a location that would not adversely impact surrounding view-planes. There are no known historic resources located on the subject parcel and no known endangered species or vegetation. Apart from the removal of a few trees, no significant impacts are anticipated on the subject parcel or surn:>unding area. c. Reason for the Request. As Nextel's customer base grows, so does the need for expanded coverage. In order for N'3xtel to be competitive and satisfy customer demand, Nextel must be continually expanding coverage are"as. In this case, coverage along Highway 116 from Vinton to Red Valley is sparse at best (See Figure 6). With the proposeej facility, road and in-building coverage will be significantly increased from southeast Vinton to Windy Gap Estatest hence the request for a Special Use fJermit (See Figure 7). II. Justification for Ret~onina. Special Use or Waiver Reauest 1. Please explain h ow the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as WEtll as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance The intent of Section 30-87-2 is to regulate the placement of new broadcasting towers within ROélnoke County. Whenever possible, carriers are encouraged to co- locate antennas c)n existing structures with request for new towers when no other reasonable 10catkJn is available. In addition, it is tfj1e intent of the ordinance to require engineering documentation which proves the structure meets all the required standards of the ordinance. Nextel has provio'ed engineering drawings which show the proposed tower meets all the required sE~tbacks for telecommunication structures as well as the setbacks for principal structures in the AG-3 zoning district classifications. Nexfel has also provided a third party engineering review which concluded we meet aJl of the engineering specifications of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. Nextel Partners, Inc. 2 Windy Gap-VA178P f·"é;·' .-- .- :1 i I ·I~ - - ~ ~: t; If t;, .~, ,fl: t" ~ I ~ ~ I I;,:,,' .; ~ ~" - ~ ..~ .'JI. Special Use Permit Application Roanoke County, VA October 2212004 T=3 2. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies containled in the Roanoke County Community Plan The Roanoke Co,~nty Community Plan was developed as a blueprint for the future growth and development of the county over the next 10-15 years. A major force behind the plan has been to identify and protect scenic view sheds as well as its natural resources. Many times telec()mmunication structures have been located in areas which disturb the natural scenic view sheds of many imporlant local resources. Nextel has identified a location which meets their cUffent engineering needs as well as protecting the ns'tural beauty of the region. Since the area has many elevation changes becausE~ of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the proposed tower will only be seen from a se/elct few locations. This can be documented from a balloon test which was conducted at the proposed location simulating the 195 foot tower and as expected, the pf()posed location of the tower mitigates any visual impacts along Highway 116 and most surrounding areas (See Figures 12-25). The essential character of the t3xisting region will not be significantly impacted by the proposed use. ~4·. 3. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services élnd facilities, including water/sewer, parks/recreations and fire and rescue. The impact of the proposed facility on the property will be vel}' minimal. Nextel has leased only a 50' by 100' area on the 11.95 acre, with very little tree clearing required for the facility. Nextel will utilize the existing private entrance road (Bandy Drive) off of High1IVay 116 and will not be required to build any new road to access the facility. Any impact on thl~ adjacent properties will be very minimal since the nearest adjacent resident;al residence is approximately BOO' away, with existing wooded property in between. Since only a minimal amount of trees will need to be removed for the t.9cility, the existing buffer will help to shield the ground equipment as well as a large portion of the tower: The facility operates on only power and telephone conneGtions and is unmanned, therefore not impacting any public services or facilities. In fact, since most police, fire and rescue crews use Nextel service as back up to their own communication system, the facility wi/I qnly enhance safety in the area. III. REQUEST FOR APFtROVAL The proposed wireless communications facility meets the criteria of the Special Use Permit Application and Zoning Ordinance and furthers the policies of the COmmunityuThe general health, safety and welfare of the community has been considered in the proposed design and location of the WCF. Nextel Partners. Inc. humbly requests approval of the Special Use Permit Application in regards to the proposed development. Nextel Partners, Inc. 3 Windy Gap-VA 178P N Topographic Map & Terrain Analysis * = Visible Location :~ i 0 Sc.alo t : 60.000 1'" - 4170 ft '!aI. .: , . ~ ._u. ..._... .1 ""I .1.. TN 1I!r I UN ; ..CïW ~ Special Use Permit Application County, VA Roanoke ~ NEXTEL . Partners~!!'~ Wireless Communications Facilir Windy Gap - V A 178P ~2 ~ ~, , f:) '~~ A: J"'1.:: !o.' ~ ð .', ~'-- ~....., . 0 :.."~~ ':~":: .;;/ '5::J ~ .,-.. ,.. .... ~~ Cj.. 4t ~ ~ ~ Site Photos 1 - 6 Special Use Permit Application County, VA Map Key RO:J.110ke Ir:\ t-~EXT~L ." PartnerS:JN~ Wireless Communications Facilit) Windy Gap - VA178P 1=3 -c co o 0: ~ ~ ~ (l) co J Franklin County Roanoke County Department of Community Development N Â Applicants Name: Nextel Partners, Inc. Existing Zoning: AG-3 Proposed Zoning: AG-3S Tax Map Number: 89.00-3-49 Magisterial District: Cave Spring Area: 11 ~ 95 acres November 30, 2004 No Scale ..... o ~ ~ @) ~ Q.) ~ o ~ Þ § o U bl) ~ · ,....t r.rJ ~ ~ ~ d q ~ ~ ~ 00 t'--- ~ ~ > \ :,~, Q ~ ~ ~ ~ C]) rf1 o ~ o ~ ~ bl) ~ · ,....t rf1 ~ ~ ~ d >- ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ > .- r ..-.. It..... .~ _ .1 T-4 PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: M & M Developers, LLC 2-1/2005 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: January 4,2005 January 25, 2005 A. REQU EST The petition of M & M Developers, LLC, to rezone 17.034 acres from R4C, High Density Residential District with Conditions to R4C, High Density Residential District with Amended Conditions for the development of single family housing located at Plantation Road at the intersection of Hershberger Road, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Thomason questioned the petitioner about on-street parking. Petitioner stated each house will have a garage and driveway. The Commission raised questions about access to the cemetery and protection of Tinker Creek. D. CONDITIONS 1. The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the Charleston Estates Master Plan dated November 23, 2004. 2. A greenspace easement shall be dedicated as shown on the Charleston Estates Plan dated November 23, 2004. 3. A 15 ft. access easement shall be dedicated to allow access from the new Public Road to the existing cemetery. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Jarrell made a motion to favorably recommend the rezoning request with conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission Petitioner: I . . . STAFF"REPORT M&M Developers, LLC (Contract Purchaser) 167 Buck Lane Roanoke, VA 24012 . ·'ktl; Request: Rezoning from R-4C to R-4C Location: East Side Plantation Road at the Intersection with Hershberger Road Magisterial District: Hollins Suggested Proffers: 1. The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the Charleston Estates Master Plan dated November 23, 2004. 2. A greenspace easement shall be dedicated as shown on the Charleston Estates Master Plan dated November 23, 2004. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a rezoning request to amend the conditions for 17.034 acres, at the East side of Plantation Road at the intersection with Hershberger Road. The property is zoned R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential and is designated as Core in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The petitioner requests to amend the conditions from the current proffered site plan, allowing 232 units in a multi-family complex, consisting of 13 different buildings to a zero lot line development, consisting of 65 single family homes. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Building Permit for Single-Family Homes Required. Site Plan Approval Required. V DOT Entrance Approval Required. 2. ANAL YSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS TODographyN egetation - Site is heavily covered with high canopy trees and steep slopes. There is not much undergrowth on the site. Surrounding Neig:hborhood - This property adjoins R-2 zoned residential properties to the North and Northeast, Industrial zoned properties to the East, and Commercial (C-2) zoned properties to the South and West across Plantation. Cemetery - There is an existing 19th century cemetery near the center of the property. During the 1980's the cemetery was surveyed by the Roanoke Valley Historical Society and documented in their report as the "John Richardson Cemetery". The surveyors reported that only two stones remain there, though there is evidence of others. According to the survey, this cemetery contains 1 -r-~ at a minimum 71 graves. Observed graves included three graves marked with inscribed marble headstones, 44 marked with uninscribed fieldstone markers, and 24 unmarked graves visible as ground surface depressions. There is an existing limestone enclosure, which contains three, possibly four graves. The cemetery was maliciously disturbed in a period of 1989 to 1998 where limestone was destroyed, graffiti applied with spray paint, headstones toppled, and graves partially excavated. Neighbors reported all disturbances came to an end as the local vandals grew In age. 3. ANAL YSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Background - The existing R-4C High Density Multi-Family Zoning allows for a maximum of 273 units. The petitioner requests a rezoning to amend conditions that were placed on the property in a rezoning in February, 2003 when the property was rezoned from R-3 to R-4C High Density Multi-Family Residential. That rezoning, with conditions, allowed for 273 units in a multi-family subdivision containing thirteen (13) multi-family residential buildings and one building used as a clubhouse. The anticipated use was a multi-family neighborhood. The petitioner now proposes a zero lot line, single family neighborhood, with a maximum of 65 units on the property. Site Lavout! Architecture - The conceptual plan shows one layout. The layout has a main arterial drive beginning at Hollins Road. This main drive will go through an adjoining property (038.16- 01-03.02), which is also under contract by the petitioner pending the rezoning. This property is not part of the rezoning and no residential lots are proposed on this C-2 property. Each lot will meet the zero lot line provisions which require a 5,760 square-foot minimum lot size, 48 foot minimum road frontages, 24 foot minimum front building setback, 10 foot minimum side yard opposite zero yard, and 20 foot minimum rear building setback within the common development. All setbacks adjacent to adjoining property will adhere to the regular R-4 setback requirements. Access/Traffic Circulation - V DOT states that the proposed entrance location is within the limits of construction on Route 601 as well as within the planned turn lane onto Route 115, Plantation Road. Review of the proposed entrance with the construction project shall be evaluated to determine impacts and improvements. The potential for right and left turn lanes, based on the projected traffic volumes should be evaluated and additional right of way may be needed to accommodate these improvements. Review of the entrances for Roanoke County Tax Map Lots 3.6, 3.2, and the existing entrance for Tinkerbell Lane on Lot 3.2 should be addressed to minimize access points. Consolidation of access for these three potential uses should be evaluated and a single access point should be determined. Information regarding all proposed uses and traffic volumes associated with lot 3.2 should be made available for review. Any changes to the existing drainage system would require review and approval to ensure maintenance of adequate outfall from the site. Upon review and approval of a site plan a permit would be required for any work within the right-of-way. Roanoke County Traffic En~ineer - The Roanoke County Traffic Engineer for the most part mirrors V DOT's comments. Mr. Ford feels that the applicant should submit plans to V DOT as soon as possible so that costs and engineering of the Hollins Road widening project can be coordinated in the most positive way possible. Mr. Ford notes that this development will generate 622 trips per weekday and this increase would not trigger a traffic impact study. 2 -r:~ Fire & RescuelUtilities -Fire and rescue services will continue, as they currently exist. Public water and sanitary sewer is currently available. This petition does not affect the existing public water and sanitary sewer systems. Departm~nt of Economic Development - The Department of Economic does not object to the rezoning request from the petitioners to amend the conditions of the parcel. Long-Range Impacts - The schools that will be impacted by this development are Mountain View Elementary, Northside Middle School, and Northside High School. There is the recognition on the part of staff that continued residential growth has a direct impact on school capacities and other capital improvement needs such as roads and park facilities. These capital improvement needs must be met in order to maintain a high quality of life in Roanoke County. 4. CONFORl\1ANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated as Core in the 1998 Community Plan. Core designated land use areas are where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem, and Vinton. Core areas also encourage the development of high density residential that is integrated with commercial development and pedestrian oriented areas shall be linked between adjacent sites and land uses. This petition along with the suggested proffers is consistent with the Core designation of the Roanoke County Community Plan. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS This is a request to obtain a rezoning to amend the conditions of this R-4C parcel. The request involves a 17.034 acre tract off of Plantation Road. The proposed layout will reduce the amount of units from 232 units in multi-family buildings to 65 single family homes. R-4 zoning allows for zero lot line single family homes as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner's request is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The site has ample space to confonn to all applicable development standards. No negative impacts are anticipated. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: 2-1/2005 Chris Lowe PC: January 4, 2005 BOS: January 18, 2005 3 (~;01iD.tJ;J of l{Qa;lloke Ct)f1J ttnañie" JR'\~loIJmërtt 1~IQllnblg.& ZOlling .For Si~\ff U$e- O~nl- ! r: II T},¡jle nxæål¡'lfdt Rœa,'Vct.I hi¡: ;2~~ Bernard Drive p' O~ Box 2'9800 Roanoke., Vi-\. 240l8~(Y198 (S4(l) ii2-2OSS. F.AX <)40) 77Qt. 71 SS (þ:}S d&-: ^pp6cnti~m fee: ALL ..4PPL-lC4Jy.TS . ~k t;1'C [}f ~Iiç¡,ìj("m fl.1~4 (CE1~k aiE '~t ipP~)') rj RuJJmng 0 Sp:=cw 'U ~~ 0 VariiUD:: o Vt"aivrr o AmmiilistT'dllvl: "J.pr-caJ O'.:,! r1~" S nanl(:t.;JÒ(b,:; 5 wtzip DOMINION TRUST co. & M.E. HINMAN EXORS AND TRUSTEES, c/o FIRST UNION P.o. BOX 40062 JACKSONVillE, FL 32231 PnJpc:rt)' lLli:iilion PLANTATION ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HERSHBERGER ROAD, NORTH ROA. CO. T,ax· ~t2ip 1\10.: 38.16-1..3.9 CONTACT: RALPH MABES HALL AND ASSOCIATES Ptu;ur1f~: : \Vrnt,: (540) 314-3783 Çel1 I: fax No.: Au:uu~ #: (540) 354-8138 \Vork: Pax: No- i: Applicants na11~l¡dðr~$ Vf.IJzip M & M DEVELOPERS, LLC CONTRACT PURCHASER 167 BUCK LANE ROANOKE, VA 24012 l\;f~~'ÍeriaJ Djs¢IÍ.;i: HOLLINS Çor¡;1mutD,t)' Ptla!1!1ing Jtrea: HOLLINS Exi'SÛmg lQniLlg: R-4C stzc ~f par~El(:$); .~~: 17.034 E-xi'St3E1S Lard U:~: VACANT .. .. . -"" , -" - ...,.. .. ,. .....- . ' ,,-,. .... , , . . , ., <- . ,., . , ... " -"" ~ . . .. , . ... , ... :'::Rii!ð!tlÎ!ir;::~EØ~.::~~:'~~.Mi1:~\~D~,:,,~~~::ItÞ~¥¿¡~· (W~l\\i) Pmpori ãJ.]iÍ!~,= PJUP[)~ und 1.J~: R-4C (AMENDED CONDITIONS) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DETACHED - ZERO LOT LINE OPTION Dge¡ the ~TçeI ~ th: Ini.nimum )0<, .ar~.. ~i·c1l:b:- and. fT(mta~ 11:qWr:mer45: oftht: rÞ-l.~ed dìistrjr.;:~ Yes IX No D IF J\'J. A '~I~Rl~'lCE IS REQumED FIRST~ Do~ tb~' paTçe~ ~ tb: n1inimnm ctit~ri.a for ~lr R:q~~~ ll~ 'T'yp~ y t:; ~ Nfl D IF NO, ..I\. \r'I~R1ANCE l~S IŒQlllRED FIRST If rrzoning rtIltJe...\1·t ;are condi~i~ bc=i11!: proffcrcQ ~1ith ~bÈ-s ~sr? Yc:f¡)Q 'No ] .- }:~\;cEJ:-'WAn1fl("",^Ð..u;M}JwSrf..trn~A,.PPlt~d4PPªç4..m (I'l1¥ÚlA}/.",..··. \,"~mrel'\fmver of S~[)T~:s) gf ~ R'l;Iamt~ O)ll1~1 'Zonin~. OTÚimni:f j]3 CJnJe-T to: ~:ða.~ø.al ()tf ZQt1fLlg Adrninistntn.r"s d~tsiøn to .J\~ of ]nte~t¡pr:m of SØi{Jru:~5): App'~ of futerprctæ:ioo (If Zoning J\f~p 10 [J:f Uti: ~ C.~ Zoning ~"(, Is the appHatioo OJmpfde? Ple,ase døXt. if enc:lm;ttI,. ."PPLlC~4. TJON '\'lLL 1"w.T)T BE ACCEPTED IF AN\~ O'F T.11ESE- (T'El\1JS ARE :MIlSSING OR IN·COl\:1PLE'I'E. RlSl\\' \flAÃ. RJiSi\\~ Vl A.A, (t¡s;W ''''l ¡\,A. E±§ C'(rüS1ßfâtion E§i] S fl211 X. t J.~ (tJ~[ jJ!ißi ~ .AppHcut1LxiI1æ X Applièêtmr.i X M~~ aJì4 bfJ1b1:.:B d~~ipliüt1 X pmllm. itt 8PJfücâb]t! .h:1!GliJ1i1tt:ifldl\\"-ft~ ~d SL~~t!r Op¡pUC.ftI.H:ln AdjoÎt1ing PI1:l;P~t1)· m\'J!et"S I ~l" èâ'1jfY dun I nm. ëil;!u~r [!t~ w~ õf. tl~ F"· . , ¥"æ i12 ô'W" . ü!}.é'11f Or cwtn.\.~ pl.'Tt~ iifid i!Jô ài:~ng w 51!J dr. 'kI)~!le:l~è ¡1¡Jd Cðtt~[ of we ow"ñèr. ·A¥~li.~r·!!i Si£.l~11lt~ T-~ -,. ..., ....., .....--... ,. ,. . .,.,. . ".. ".- . .. -. ..,"".".. -. --- ,., - , ., ". i.t'R.¡i1~~·.F'~~~~~I,~~~~··æ~~~·i~~.~]æ,~~ij~~ilm:'~Q~,m:.··i;'~.':~.'ii.'i:·,.:;i¡J'~ ..... ~. ... ,. ... . .,~ .. ..., ". ~. '~.' - ... ,. . .......... .-""" ... ".-. ,..,....,........................ .. ". -., . .....~.,. ..~.. ...., . .... ... ..:u··' ';. ;;;~:::: .=:~~ :;:~t;.·...· _.~ _ .:. ,..... ....., ,............,..... ... . ." .... ;-;, Ia\pprjca~, M & M DEVELOPERS, LLC T'h~ PlaE1E1in~ C,tnunli5sion ';.yiLt stoo;y rczonîn~" :;p¡,.-ci~l U5~ pr;::T1]1:it or \\<aiv(:r n:qu~ to detcnniJ~ Eh~ need ltndjusn:ñca~~n for 11~ ~11~ in 1~rrrJ:; Qfp\EbJiç l~aJûJ, ~af~)'., aud ~~ral \\I~~. r.ll~~ aJ~l¡¡1:r tb~ fQUl]wi'[)~ q''¡~'ijl)J]S ~I~ tl1(MlJusJ~1y as p~ih}~'. lIs:: addi.Ú(]í!Ia) spaœ if Il:œssary. Plça.a~~ explain hí}i1l tl1i; rcqu~~"¡¡ fi1rEiters; th~ purpOC~.s of ~e Rœn:»:e 'Ç()1!.n1Y QSTdi.lgn:f: ~s 'lt~fl ~~ 1f1~ p~~1~5::- tljUa(14ì! f1te begjûrling of ,:he app1i~añle zJ)ai nB~ distrjct çl~ssilÌcadol1 in (he- Z~fJl1Îng OntilJ;1I11::e- The proposed request for rezoning will allow this parcel of land to become a buffer between the less intensive residential areas to the north, which is zoned R·1, and the more intensive commercial properties locate to the southeast as prescribed in section 30-45-1 of the zoning ordinance. A multitude of house designs and styles will provide for a diverse and flexible layout. The density of the proposed community is approximately 4 units per acre which would place less demand on the current infrastructure and services than the 16 unit per acre density that the current zoning allows for. The subject parcel is adjacent to both Plantation Road and Hollins Road. which are both primary roadwaysa The proposed community is within a short distance of major transportation corridors such as Interstates 81 and 581. rJe..lse- e:r.p141j~ fun\\<' ·the prqjecc- CDl1fDm15 ~ the Eener¡l guideline!; and p.ikfie::;: Ct:lt1ta!t1~d in rthe Rœnrike- CœS1()' C{}I1~rnr~tj' PJ:::"D. The proposed community seeks to preserve the surrounding environment as well as providing an opportunity for growth and economic development The new development seeks to preserve existing cemetery located within the boundaries of the subjec parcel, which dates back to as early as 1817.. Greenspace is proposed around the boundary of the cemetery as well as the area surrounding Tinker Creek to provide for a buffer and protection for the other land uses. The proposed rezoning would encourage growth in an area of the county where the infrastructure and facilities can support it and where expansion of the existing infrastructure is already planned. The new community may spur additional economic growth through the revival and reuse of vacant facilities in the area such as the old Winn-Dixie building located across Plantation Road. The proposed development seeks to provide an aesthetically pleasing area with landscaping and a variety of architectural features.. PJca.sf ~criibe-1áe i:rnp~(:t(sl of ¡b~ reG1~t om ~be property !L~i! t..~ .aájoji:Li-n~ properû~'h aM '!fI:. sumJundi.n:g are-a, 2.:S \\~i ~I$ JJhc impa~i~, on pu'b~ic SU\r1l;CS ~.iJ!1d fa.çátiû:s! ~lu.:1Udiß~ 'p.la.~!:;CVi.tr.."''I ~ds~ ~51 par;kshj~~tion lI:nd fire ~~ ro:s~rc. The rezoning of the subject parcel will result In less impact to the area than that which the current zoning provides for. The proposed 65 lots of single famify homes will have far less impact on the community and environment than the currently allowed 272 units. Proposed greenspace and landscaping will provide a natural buffer between the proposed development and adjoining land uses. PubHc utilities are already located in the vicinity of the property and deemed adequate to serve the proposed community as verified by the Western Virginia Water Authority, Availability No. 04-191 dated 15 November 2004a All proposed improvements shall be in compliance with Roanoke County, Western Virginia Water Authority and Virginia Department of Transportation standards. The proposed access road for the development will connect to Hollins Road. VDOT project 0601..080..233. C-501 plans to widen Hollins Road in the area of the proposed connection. 1- '-1 - . "_ _, .... ..'.. '_r" _+" ~ ,.....,. ....., . ... ".. _...,"u>. ".'"_> .P" ..u...... .~.... ..-. -+.. ,.-", .~-. -, ......._-~..~. ...~..-.., ,. .h .+_~+,.....". ~'.."_ _> __+ .......__.. .. . . ,>. I ._...+ _, ,.. .", _. ~ I . . . 16ÔNC]£I~fI?LAN. ÇHOCKU~' . . , : ..."... ..' .... . .~. .~.+ ' , , . , , , .. ., ........ ...... .... , . ,-, ... +~ _. ~_..... ·h. "-, . . . .. ..... . . - - ...- , - . . . .. ... ~.\ C(lrlCept: plan of tt~ PItJÇJQ~þ:jj projt:~~ mus~ 1;1~ Sl_3bmit.~d. Vìli~b tfuc .appn~ti().¡~ Tb~ CiJ3U;.t;p~ ptHn ~n gra:phicany ,d~içt tJt~ n.1J11[). ~. cl]3nge. de'\reloprnent or \'3;ñ~nœ n~~ is, tQ b: CDnsi.derçd. FLIfJ1f1~, (h~ pItan shan a'ddn:ss:a.ny pot~~'1! ):u~ tL,;C or d:sigJ] i:;:..,~ ~li:jrI1B rt\)!ü. ~lJ~ ~~~,. 1]] ~1.Eì:;11 (~5 im~~]'tl·[n! rr:zp..T1i£lgs.. U!~· ~PW'~~am JTaa.y ptOff~r ç:'Ql}ii(iol]~ ~l) liJrn2t th.~ fUt~re: ~~e ;t1¡l.~e']Of-1I]~T.Jj, of tl~ pmpr:-rty ~nrj b~' ~ ¢d~t Ça.j-rreçt ~L1, defit.;g~ié5 tha~ rna.y nlJt be- n12:~s{:~blc' ~ CíJflJrlf)' peT1Hi.tftng Tt: gülatÎ iJ~l~ ~ TIle ç(]!1:.;ept plan $tlO1Lld. TI~ ~lC ~(.H.lfu5M 1.1:1i.~ ~he- ~t~ fila.1T! or pro!: pJan L~t k;; r~~1r·ujJed. pJ"!(1r Ç(l th~ is~"Ua~~ (If a bl]jJdir12 p:ITJ7¡it.~ SHe' pian :and buùlding pem15t procaJ£Jn=s· ensure cornpli;S:TY~e ,¡,-rim S~~e :inå C01!nfY œ,'c]rrpITie21l reg,tda.tiQl1s ,amt3 n~,1 ~'qurre i:-~al]~ t() tJ~: if1rÞ~I, rroru;-ept pl~rL ()IJ1t:5S Ijmi~ng '\?IJdipOfltç .;m;. proff~n;d. ~Iild ~J:;~~~ Ën a. ~zglJins or jIT1~d. on a ~~ia.1 u:æ p~nni~ or \r2rja.r~·~, ttì.e t:"(iD:;e-pt p]~n may be ~ët~n:d 1I) ~f :f:':Kt~Jn pef1n~ttc'd, by' !(ht= Z(}:rJnS. d~~tricl ~nd p(J1:3'" regotnti011t;, . A Ci}OCfpl pl~n is T\..'qui.r~ ",d~h ~d] ~:wni.n$! ~ëÇLam Uf.(:- p:!'mÜ~ l).raill~r aD:f vaña.~ J!pp1~.;~ti(K;lS- TIu~ ~3.n $1:1I~u.~[d he prepared by 3: pmfessiO.1:ai1. :;ine &1'~anr..er. Tilt" ~l~1el of ö:tflH IriS)' YJlJ)'.. depeMing 00 rh~ na1Qre of tEu: reqœst. Th~ Crnl!11y PJa11lJi.ng Dtvi~(ln ~~ff 1~~r ex:~tl1p~ :sonlt= gf tfue i1~!1$ (!II ~~~~""'$J. th~ ~iddiprm nf ~x~r~, ~~~m5.. lYill. ~h;:- fç,]~iJ't\li:f¡:~ ~re ,~t}3t5~red IT;âmn]~II1i: .o\LL Ar~]~'L-IC..~1\'7 S X :1.. .~ppHca~ na!l1~ ¡:nd 1BIT~nf de~!~toptT'tCnt ~~'I sÇa.I~- .and north ~mrt'l x b·. X ,~. X d. x ,e:. X f. X í:'I ~ X b. X t. ...L j~ Lot size ~!J. acres; or s~arç fefE ;:u1i ctiIn:fl~it.~-J!i' l(JC~tionT ~In,=s Qf 'IT"r¡~ ;jJ~ RQa.f11Jt~ çry..GU)! tax I.nap· rJunJ1xrs of 'ªdJ.~oini~ pro.p::iT~i~ Physical f:a¡þJ;rei swch :as grtP.J.rd i;-.,;")ver ~ ætl¡ral v.;I¡¡te're(J~~es. flCh."Jdptajm, ¡:'iÇ. TI11;: T...gning ~nd l;alld µ~ ,gf -a-lI ;~dj;i-~!1( pn~~j~ ..\tl ~pErt)l1îr~«; ;;nd ea:,ð'!'~I1t:.i .-\tl D1da~tn$5~ ~xÍ:5Prt£. illoc! ¡lmpº~1:d1 ~nd din1ÇT:tµQt15, flGQt'" ~~r~~ ~E1d ))ci£.hl~ l~tit".h"! 'tfi.fOOb~ ~rnI nmJ:$ of ;d J ~ is,;inS (jr p]aU~, s I:~~ts or o:IJ:T publ iç '-\'¡J ys ',,\itTtim m ~dj'4t.Çellt ~1) ~l): dl;vcf.opm~ D~IT~siQ~ ~I]~ l~~~ns of ~m dTI\~Vt~)·:s.. p;iiktl1,£; ~p~2!;~ ~I"d llJa.di~, ~p;J,~ ..441dfJim}~1l i!if{)'}J}If!til;I.IJ Tt;~ìffir~d jo'T REZCJ~VIJ\r(] a~'fd $PE(;JAL (i$E PERJ!/T APPU-ç.A}llTS 1n.TCJP(ts_r~phy nl~p hJJ ~ ~I.!i~~bl~ sç~]r; ~t1d Cr;t.1'l1Q\.¡Iif i~f\"iJ-D5 ~"L Approxima~ ~~et grn.r;ki ¡!I1~ si~1;' áistanc.'eS at i.r(~~Ul)n.~. (I. ù::K;?ti(rr!t5 f)f;ill ~d!j~çç=ß1 fi~ h~rçir~nts p~ An)' prn~r~d conditions at tbe siæ and 110\-\1 trn:,J. ~ 2.:dd~s.iõtl NI A .q. )f pmj~ is to ~ pbastli, pll;~~C ~hg'w pb;i~~ :j;Ç~d~d~ X __ k. x ---....., _ L X X x X E:r.i,.qing utiHtit:5 (_'j...·~1~r! $e',\~~, :;~ÇJrnl dr~ñE1~) ;11):1 Ç{)111~~grlS ;tt ·tt~· -5il~ An)! gr.iv-~'AI4\~'5", el1~.T~le:tji5.. ~ LJpcrnins;s,,;'uxl crot;5Q,\IeI5 g ccrtify that aU i1ew.s n.~lIurired tin the cbeckLi:iJ1 3IJO\te :are eomprete. //....2.0/- 00/ D?4~ -r-~ Introduction The following material constitutes rezoning application for tax parcel 38.16-1-3.9. The application is to change the zoning classification of a 17.034-acre tract of real estate located on the east side of Plantation Road in Roanoke County at its intersection with Hershberger Road (Tax Map No. 38.16-1-3.9) in the Hollins Magisterial District from the zoning classification of R-4C to the zoning classification of R-4 with revised proffered conditions. The subject parcel was formerly zoned R-3 prior to 4 February 2003 whereas the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County voted to change the zoning to R-4 with conditions based on the application by Carroll Investment Properties, Inc. The zoning change allowed for 272 units to be built on the 17-acre parcel. The proposed development will only have 65 single-family houses. M&M Developers, LLC, the current contract purchaser of said real estate, hereby submits an application for rezoning of a certain tract of rear estate containing 17.034 acres, as described herein, and located on the east side of Plantation Road in Roanoke County at its intersection with Hershberger Road (Tax Map No. 38.16-1-3.9) in the HoJlins Magisterial District from the zoning classification of R- 4, High Density Multi-Family Residential, to remain the zoning classification of R- 4, High Density Multi-Family Residential with a change of conditions. Legal Description The said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east side of Plantation Road at the northwest corner of the property of CBL Plantation Plaza Ltd. (Tax Map No. 38.16-1-3.3); thence with the easterly side of Plantation Road the following courses and distances: N. 25 deg. 25' 56" W. 372.42 feet; N. 19 deg~ 43' 18" W. 251.25 feet; N. 27 derg. 20' 29" W. 150.08 feet; N. 30 deg. 14' 36" W. 194.96 feet; N. 18 deg. 25' 50" W. 94.13 feet; N. 07 deg. 51' 08" W. 223.82 feet; thence leaving Plantation Road and with a line of Ethel V. Fulcher (Tax Map No. 38.12-5-6); N. 84 deg. 04' 05" E. 572.46 feet; thence S. 16 deg. 00' 28" E. 441.80 feet; thence S. 15 deg. 28' 10" E. 85.44 feet; thence N. 72 deg. 07' 55" E. 175.10 feet; thence S. 21 deg. 40' 18" E. 236.34 feet; thence S. 34 deg. 38' 30" E. 111.56 feet; thence S. 36 deg. 34' 20" E. 197.11 feet; thence S. 64 deg. 34' 04" W. 749.23 feet to the Point of the Beginning, and containing 17.034 acres (excluding the area in the cemetery). Proposed Use M & M Developers seeks the rezoning of th-¡s parcel to R-4, High Density Multi- Family Residential District for use as single-family dwellings detached with the zero lot line option. Public sewer and public water will serve the proposed lots. Zero lot line provisions require a 5,760 square-foot minimum lot size with 48 foot minimum road frontage, 24 foot minimum front building setback, 10 foot minimum side yard opposite zero yard, and 20 foot minimum back building setback within the common development. All setbacks adjacent to adjoining property will adhere to the regu,lar R-4 setback requirements. Proffered Condition 1. The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the Charleston Estates Master Plan dated November 23, 2004. 2. A greenspace easement shall be dedicated as shown on the CharJeston Estates Master Plan dated November 23, 2004. \-~ T-Y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,2005 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 17.034- ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT PLANTATION ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HERSHBERGER ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 38.16-1- 3.9) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R4C TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R4C WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF M & M DEVELOPERS, LLC WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 21,2004, and the second reading and public hearing were held January 25, 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on January 4, 2005; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 17.034 acres, as described herein, and located at Plantation Road at the intersection of Hershberger Road (Tax Map Number 38.16-1-3.9) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions, to the zoning classification of R4C, High Density Multi- Family Residential District, with amended conditions. 2. That this action to amend the proffered conditions is taken upon the application of the contract purchaser, M&M Developers, LLC. 1 -r-Y 3. That this property was rezoned in February of 2003 at which time the owner of the property voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors accepted: (1) The subject property will be developed in substantial conformity with the IIPreliminary Sketch Plan for Carroll Investment Properties, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia," prepared by GPT Engineering and Surveying, Inc. under date of December 9, 2002. (2) A greenway easement shall be dedicated between Tinker Creek and the centerline of Tinkerbell Lane (private access easement). (3) Pedestrian access shall be made available to the Hershberger Road/Plantation Road Intersection. (4) Pedestrian access shall be made available to the adjoining shopping center property line located to the east of the property. (5) A maximum of 272 units (16 units per acre) shall be allowed. (6) The exterior of all buildings shall be substantially brick, hip roofing, and post tension slabs. (7) The number and square footage of units shall be: (a) 76 one-bedroom units, minimum 685 square feet. (b) 156 two-bedroom units, minimum 950 square feet (c) 40 three-bedroom units, minimum 1,456 square feet (8) The following amenities shall be provided: (a) club house (approximately 2,658 square feet) (b) swimming pool (c) laundry facilities (d) tennis court (e) playground 4. The conditions proffered by the owner in February 2003 are hereby repealed and rescinded. 5. That the contract purchaser of the property, M&M Developers, LLC, has voluntarily proffered in writing the following amended conditions, to which the owner has 2 -r=~ agreed in writing, and which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the Charleston Estates Master Plan dated November 23, 2004. (2) A greenspace easement shall be dedicated as shown on the Charleston Estates Plan dated November 23, 2004. (3) A 15 ft. access easement shall be dedicated to allow access from the new Public Road to the existing cemetery. 6. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east side of Plantation Road at the northwest corner of the property of CBl Plantation Plaza ltd. (Tax Map No. 38.16-1-3.3) ; thence with the easterly side of Plantation Road the following courses and distances: N. 25 deg. 25' 5611 W. 372.42 feet; N. 19 deg. 43' 18" W. 251.25 feet; N. 27 deg. 20' 29" W. 150.08 feet; N. 30 deg. 14' 36" W. 194.96 feet; N. 18 deg. 25' 50" W. 94.13 feet; N. 07 deg. 51' 08" W. 223.82 feet; thence leaving Plantation Road and with the line of Ethel V. Fulcher (Tax Map No. 38.12-5-6); N. 84 deg. 04' 05" E. 572.46 feet; thence S. 16 deg. 00' 28" E. 441.80 feet; thence S. 15 deg. 28' 10" E. 85.44 feet; thence N. 72 deg. 07' 5511 E. 175.10 feet; thence S. 21 deg. 40' 18" E. 236.34 feet; thence S. 34 deg. 38' 3D" E. 111.56 feet; thence S. 36 deg. 34' 20" E. 197.11 feet; thence S. 64 deg. 34' 04" W. 749.23 feet to the Point of Beginning, and containing 17.034 acres (excluding the area in the cemetery). 7. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. 3 ~ fñ a: w 0. g ~ !~ :i: I - ~ C .".rNI(~I^ · A.J.NnOO 3>fON"I01::I :~~. .. ¡ 1¡,. I:~~ n~, ' if'~! r:H L ¡f; i.l~ HE H¡î~ L H1ï !W ! 1~~ I ' ~~H t.. 1 ~ ;jiz: N'V'ld bl3.LS"'t1.M I ~~ ..ç is! ti4 Iii:: ~ !¡~~~ o o C'.i 0) i .0 w t¡ [) i~ ~ I ~~ -r:y S31. ~ .LS3 ,NO.LS31èfvHO ì I \ \ \ I \ \ a co :I - CJ Õ u (¡) I ~ It ] c: .9 ã ë a ~ / / / !I. .,t: ~ð I S~l<l \¡~~! ~ ::~ o at tü~ w~ 1.1 :! ~ r....: ~ ~ i (t W ..J e .::r: ;) .,. a:: Ü ; :z: ~ S V,I o Q. o f ª $I § Œ ùi ~ ~ I- ~ * i ~ œ 11. ~ !IJ ~ C < '" CI en I- 9 c w ~ ~ a. ~~~q ~~~i ~.:A e" .. 81/10/2B15 11:45 54e772885B BÞL.ZEfW\5SOCIATES ru.. b4b (;g2 PAGE 82/62 . . _. .. __ ___ . _ . . __ _ . _ ,-' ., ....,....... L ..:JiIICJ -r-~ Petitioner: MåM Developers, LLC (Contract Purçhaser) 167 Buck Lane Roanoke. Va 24012 Rezoning From R+C to R+C (Revised Cønditions) ...... .. 17.034.~ Tax # 38.18-1.-3.9 t¿I~ß~ NA FKA.r~ ~ ð~, FIíA Dominion TruJ;t Co. & M.E. Hinman Exors And TRlSteea. C/O First UniOn P.O. Box 40062 Jacksonville. FI 32231 Request; Property: , Property Owner: The·following are proffered oondttions for1he IÍbove referenced Zoning Case. Proffered Condltlan 1. The developer hereby pro""" substantial compliance with the Charleston Estates Master PI.n dated NO\lember 23, 2004. 2. A greenspace easement shalt be dedicated as shown on the Charteston EBtatel Malter Plan dated November 23. 2004. 3. A 15' access easement shall be dedicated to allow access troT thø new Publfc Road to thê existing cemetery. Signed: Title Date ,II () / t( If / I / I / / .~ . ---- 1 ( ----I - ------- --------- ...--- ----; ~ - ~ \d :--~ ----- ~ - - Or1ando Ct ~ J -. 1----- ------ -...... I I -~ r---- - æ ~- UI --------'1 --...- æ--- ~ ~ _1------ to) ~ .- ~---. ----I ./ J ..J VlSla Äv ~ l r-X)( )( )II; DC K -1 , )( Zoning _AG3 _EP ~ó. _AG1 ~~r¡¡J. I AR .AV C1 .C2 e::I1 C2CVOD 11 [~J 12 .pce PRO _PTD ~ R1 R2 R3 R4 Roanoke County Department of Community Development ~ 1( \I: - x ~ JC X X xx x X X xx "'\( :JI; '\t:x ~ M>: " :x JI',; -'" x X. JIll; "C)( CI{ X Jill X 'Ii >C 'C X { X X )i}lli )( V'Ÿ'>< x "eo \()( ~ )( , If, J''';¡ Â JcOn R-ichardSon Rd r~ :/ 7'- - J \ ~ \ ~ r I 1 RI 1973 I ª li -- ..$ I I ""XX~ ~ x Site X·X ~ :x JiC ~ \@~ ~ :JI! )()(X )(\ ).: >C )( ~ ~ . , .1 ... ~ xx xx X·X ].:. . .JIll; " x X X X). 'f·x . ,. ~ \ t. ~ ~ ~ / ~ Applicants Name: M & M Developers, LLC Existing Zoning: R-4C Proposed Zoning: R-4C Tax Map Number: 38.16-1-3.9 Magisterial District: Hollins Area: 17.034 acres November 29, 2004 Scale: 1" = 300' ACTION NO. T-5 ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance to amend Section 30-74-4 (A) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to change the reference date for the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency SUBMITTED BY: George W. Simpson, III, P.E. Assistant Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Periodically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revises the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Roanoke County has been advised that new flood insurance rate maps will be issued and become effective February 4, 2005. As such, it is necessary to revise the zoning ordinance to reflect the new effective dates to comply with FEMA floodplain management regulations. This revision is required for continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Staff is requesting the Board to approve the attached ordinance revising the effective date in Section 30-74-4 of the Zoning Ordinance to February 4, 2005. The only revisions in Roanoke County involve changes to the Peters Creek watershed primarily due to the construction of two regional detention ponds in North Lakes and Montclair Estates. The pond in Montclair Estates has resulted in the removal of fourteen homes from the 100 year floodplain in an area that was previously flooded frequently. There are no changes 1 T-S to the other tributaries of the Roanoke River or the Roanoke River itself. The first reading of this ordinance was held on December 7, 2004. FISCAL IMPACT: No appropriation of funds is required for this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. AL TE RNA fiVES: 1. Approve the ordinance revising the effective date of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) in the zoning ordinance to February 4, 2005. 2. Do not approve the proposed revision which could result in the suspension of Roanoke County from participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. 2 T-S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,2005 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 30-74-4. DELINEATION OF AREAS TO CORRESPOND WITH THE CURRENT FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS PROVIDED BY FEMA BE IT ORDAINDED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 30-74-4. Delineation of areas be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 30-74-4. Delineation of Areas. (A) The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the 1 DO-year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated February 4, 2005, as amended. These areas are more specifically defined as follows: 1. The Floodway is delineated for purposes of this section using the criteria that a certain area within the floodplain must be capable of carrying the waters of the 1 DO-year flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one foot at any point. These Floodways are specifically defined in Table 4 of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map accompanying that study. 2. The Flood-Fringe shall be that area of the 100-year floodplain not included in the Floodway. The basis for the outermost boundary of the Flood-Fringe shall be the 1 DO-year flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map accompanying the study. 3. The Approximated Floodplain shall be those floodplain areas shown on the flood insurance rate map for which no detailed flood profiles or elevatîons are provided, and all other floodplain areas where the drainage area is greater than one hundred (100) acres. Where the specific 1 DO-year flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of data such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the T-S applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to existing land use and potentia' development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the director of community development. 2. That this ordinance shall be in effect from and after its adoption. \-5 PETITIONER: Zoning Ordinance Revision (Section 30-74-4) Flood Insurance Study CASE NUMBER: 1-2005 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: January 4, 2005 January 25, 2005 A. REQUEST The petition of the -Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend Section 30-74-4 (A) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to change the reference date for the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The reference date will reflect the new Flood Insurance Study date of February 4, 2005, as amended. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. George Simpson presented the request. D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Jarrell made a motion to favorably recommend the request to amend the ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission -r-S MEMORANDUM TO: Roanoke County Planning Commission FROM: George W. Simpson, III, P.E. Assistant Director of Community Development DATE: December 10,2004 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Revision (Section 30-74-4) Periodically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revises the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Roanoke County has been advised that new flood insurance rate maps will be issued and become effective February 4, 2005. As such, it is necessary to revise the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the new effective dates to comply with FEMA floodplain management regulations. This revision is required for continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Participation by Roanoke County in the National Flood Insurance Program allows county citizens to acquire federally-backed flood insurance and federal disaster assistance during declared disasters. Roanoke County enforces FEMA floodplain regulations through the Zoning Ordinance and, in fact, has stricter requirements than FEMA minimum in some cases. This results in reduced flood insurance rates for homes and businesses in Roanoke County. Staff is requesting Planning Commission approval of an ordinance to revise the date of the Flood Insurance Study and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps in the Zoning Ordinance to February 4, 2005. Attached are copies of the Board Report and proposed revision to the Zoning Ordinance. ~s Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance for new Flood Insurance Rate Maps December 21, 2004 SEC. 30-74. FO FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT. Sec. 30-74-4. Delineation of Areas. (A) The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the 100-year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared þy tl1e F'ederal Emergency Management Agency, dated October 15, 1993f~b~ 4, 2005, as amended. These areas are more specifically defined as follows: 1. The Floodway is delineated for purposes of this section using the criteria that a certain area within the floodplain must be capable of carrying the waters of the 100- year flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one foot at any point. These Floodways are specifically defined in Table 4 of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map accompanying that study. 2. The Flood-Fringe shall be that area of the 100-year floodplain not included in the Floodway. The basis for the outennost boundary of the Flood-Fringe shall be the 100- year flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map accompanying the study. 3. The Approximated Floodplain shall be those floodplain areas shown on the flood insurance rate map for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, and all other floodplain areas where the drainage area is greater than one hundred (100) acres. Where the specific 100-year flood elevation cannot be detennined for this area using other sources of data such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Infonnation Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall detennine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to existing land use and potential development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the director of community development. (Ord. No. 92893-18, § 1, 9-28-93; Ord. No. 42694-12, § 10, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 92695-18, § 1,9-26-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1c., 4-27-99) ACTION NO. ITEM NO. U - , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt the Roanoke County Community Plan dated November 2,2004 SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Chief Planner Martha Hooker Chair, Planning Commission Elmer C. Hodge ~;f~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I recommend adopting the updates to the Community Plan so we may begin the next step of developing the ordinances for the five sections being added/amended. It will be helpful to staff if the Board assigns priorities to the sections so we know which ones to work on first. We also want to work with the Planning Commission and the Board to determine the best way to interface the County Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This will require considerable discussion because the CIP is becoming more regional in scope and because it is also used as a financial and management tool. We suggest having a work session with the Board, Planning Commission, and staff in the next few months to consider this. This was a great job by the staff, Commission, business, and citizen groups. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: I ntrod uction: Chapter 15.2 of the Code of Virginia requires that the local Planning Commission review the Comprehensive (Community) Plan every five years and determine whether it should be amended. In accordance with that requirement, the Planning Commission has recommended and sent to you a set of revisions to the 1998 Community Plan. Five sections of the 1998 Plan have been revised or added: Economic Development, Stormwater Management, Growth Management, Transportation and Public Utilities. U -1 What is a Community Plan? The Roanoke County Community Plan establishes policies for the future growth and development of the County. It is a living document - one that can be changed and revised as the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determine necessary. The plan puts down on paper the goals a community holds for itself and when properly done, the plan will describe how, and at what pace, the community desires to physically develop. However, although an important instrument of public policy, the Community Plan cannot by itself effectuate change. Other tools such as the zoning ordinance, zoning maps and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are used to implement the plan. The Community Plan provides guidance. In contrast, the zoning ordinance is legally binding. What is the Plannina Commission's Role? The Code of Virginia states that "The local Planning Commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction". In fact, one of the primary job responsibilities of the Planning Commission is to design, develop and recommend a comprehensive plan to the governing body. The process of revising the 1998 Community Plan began two years ago when the Planning Commission identified this project on its work plan for 2003 and determined that the five sections mentioned above needed to be addressed. Public Involvement: Early on in the planning process, the Commission discussed strategies to involve the public and the Board of Supervisors in this important process. In April 2003, the Commission decided to conduct a Citizen's Planning Academy with Dr. Mike Chandler as the instructor and facilitator. Dr. Chandler is a well known planning consultant and a former member of the Slacksburg Planning Commission and Town Council. All Roanoke County Planning Commissioners and Board members were invited to attend the Academy. Approximately 40 citizens attended the 4-session course throughout June and July and learned about the fundamentals of planning and zoning. In November of 2003, members of the Board of Supervisors, at their annual retreat, announced their priorities for the Community Plan revisions. These included: ridgetop protection, steep slope protection, decreasing rural densities, controlling the extension of water and sewer lines and reducing stormwater run-off. These priorities guided staff, Planning Commission and citizens in drafting the revised Community Plan. In December 2003, the Planning Commission and Board held a joint worksession and discussed these priorities and how best to incorporate them into the revised plan. The first four priorities - ridgetop protection, steep slope protection, decreasing rural densities and controlling public utility extensions - are included in the Growth Management section of the revised plan. The issue of stormwater run-off is discussed in detail in the Stormwater Management section of the revised plan. U-I In early 2004, the Smart Growth Task Force was formed. This group included citizens interested in Smart Growth issues, realtors, homebuilders, Planning Commission members and staff from Community Development, Utilities and the School Administration. This group developed and presented position papers on its respective viewpoints. In the spring of 2004, staff held six citizen input meetings. At these public meetings, staff presented draft plans for each section and draft land use maps. PJanning Commission and staff received valuable input from those who attended these meetings and the draft was revised accordingly. In June, the Planning Commission held the first of many meetings with Dr. Chandler on the draft plan. He suggested additional analyses and mapping that was needed to refine land use changes. In July, the Commission held the first public hearing on the Community Plan and throughout the summer and fall of 2004 the Commission continued to meet with the Board and Dr. Chandler to understand the linkages between the Community Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the CIP. On October 13, 2004 the Commission held its second Open House on the Community Plan and on November 2, 2004 the Roanoke County Planning Commission, by resolution, recommended the adoption of the Community Plan and forwarded the plan to members of the Board of Supervisors for their review and adoption. Summary of Revisions: Economic Development: This revised chapter re-emphasizes the mission of the Economic Development department which is "To attract and retain to the County quality jobs and investment that diversify the economy, broaden the tax base, and provide long-term employment opportunities for area residents." The department will do this by strengthening existing business retention efforts, by identifying commercial and industrial sites and adding them to our product inventory, by identifying public-private partnerships that enhance economic development in the County and by recognizing the inherent conflicts between commercial/industrial development and nearby residential development and regulating the appearance of new commercial and industrial development. Stormwater Manaaement: This chapter focuses on objectives to minimize the impact of drainage on private property, to alleviate existing stormwater problems, to manage stormwater discharge, to protect water quality and to research potential stormwater management financing methods. Growth Manaaement and Cacital Facilities Plannina: The Planning Commission has recommended adding this chapter to the 1998 plan to emphasize the desire to direct development into designated areas that have or will have the capacity to accommodate future growth. The intent of this goal is to facilitate efficient U -I public service delivery in those areas while preserving rural resources in the outlying areas of Roanoke County. The chapter outlines primary and future growth areas and addresses those areas of the County where growth should not be encouraged. Transportation: This chapter states that comprehensive and forward-looking solutions are needed to address growing populations and increasing numbers of commuters and vehicle miles traveled. The stated goals of this chapter are to consider present and future transportation implications when making land use decisions; to make efficient use of Roanoke County's taxpayer money allocated for transportation projects; to guide the use of Roanoke County's transportation infrastructure system to control air pollution, traffic and livability problems; to play an influential role in shaping and implementing regional transportation decisions; to provide progressive and forward looking solutions and technology to users of Roanoke County's transportation network; and to expand and emphasize citizen participation and comments during the early stages of transportation planning. Public Utilities: This chapter discusses public water and sewer issues and briefly describes the responsibilities of the new Western Virginia Water Authority. Conclusion: The Planning Commission recognizes that the adoption of a Community Plan should not be viewed as a final act or an act of closure. In contrast, the decision to adopt a Community Plan should be viewed as the beginning - an initial step - in the planning implementation process. If the plan is going to make a difference then the zoning ordinance changes necessary to put the plan into action must be written, reviewed and approved. Each one of these zoning ordinance revisions must be studied, researched and publicly discussed prior to being voted on by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Work sessions, public hearings and community meetings must be held. Once adopted, these zoning ordinance amendments in concert with the CIP will implement the guidelines and policies established in the Community Plan. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Approve and adopt the Community Plan revisions forwarded by the Planning Commission. 2. Amend and adopt the Community Plan revisions forwarded by the Planning Commission. 3. Disapprove the Community Plan and return it to the Planning Commission for its reconsideration with written statement of the reasons for its disapproval. U.. t STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends Alternative #1. U -- I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,2005 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the plan on November 2, 2004, after advertisement and notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, and adopted a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors review and adopt a revised Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the revised Community Plan on January 25, 2005, after advertisement and notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, has a long and successful history of community planning that has emphasized citizen involvement and participation; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission of every jurisdiction shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive (Community) plan for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-2230 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission shall review the comprehensive (Community) plan once every five years to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan; and WHEREAS, in 2003 Roanoke County began the process of revising the Community Plan to help guide Roanoke County's growth and decision-making in the future; and u- , WHEREAS, in 2003, a Citizen's Planning Academy was conducted, in 2004 a Smart Growth Task Force was convened and during this two year period many work sessions and community input meetings were held; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared a revised Community Plan for Roanoke County entitled "Roanoke County Community Plan," dated November 2, 2004, and said plan has been prepared in accordance with §§ 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the Code of Virginia; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1) That the Revised Community (Comprehensive) Plan, consisting of the following five chapters and maps, is hereby approved and adopted. The Revised Community (Comprehensive) Plan consists of the following component parts: a) Economic Development Plan b) Growth Management & Capital Facilities Planning c) Storm water Management d) Public Utilities e) Transportation f) Land Use maps 2) That the Planning Commission and County staff are directed to commence work on implementation strategies for the Community Plan, including amendments to the County zoning Ordinance and County Code in accordance with the guidelines in the Community Plan for the use and development of land within Roanoke County. 3) That this Resolution is effective from and after January 25, 2005. 2 ttOANOJf t.~~ ·2 r,.- ~~~ ' ....,.- ~ r' T, ;). -·~~t, ....'... ~~ ·0;:1 , -4. '(...' 'fJ' !,) ~ . 4..'. " {,' ; .b: 1838 Counfy of K oanoKeJ Virqinia REVISIONS TO TH E 1998 COMMUNITY PLAN Sections Revised: 1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT 3. PUBLIC UTILITIES 4. STORM WATER MGMT. 5. TRANSPORT A TION 6. FUTURE LAND USE MAPS 7. IMPLEMENT A TION STRATEGIES ~~~January 25, 2005~~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS.................................................................................... 2 PLAN UPDATES... ......... .......................................................................................................... 4 PLAN AMENDMENTS............................................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER 2 - VISION STATEMENTS 5 INTRODUCTION...................................... ........ ............................ ........................................... 5 COMMlJNITY -WIDE THEMES.............................................................................................. 5 VISION STATEMENTS.. ................................................ ......................................................... 6 CHAPTER 3 - LAND USE ISSUES 13 CITIZEN PAR TI C IP A TI 0 N ................................................................................................... 13 DESIGN GUIDELINES.......................................................................................................... 16 Land Use Designations........................................... ............ ................... ...................... 17 Design Guidelines....................................................................................................... 18 Con s erv a ti 0 n ................................................................................................... 1 8 Rural Preserve and Rural Village.................................................................... 20 Village Center ........................... ............. ........................................................ 20 Neighborhood Conservation...... ...... .............. .................................................22 De vel 0 pm en t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Transition........................................................................................................ 23 Core............................. ........ .............. .............. ...............................................24 Principal Industrial.......................................................................................... 26 S c en i c Co rri do rs ............................................................................................. 27 N E I G H BO RH 00 D S ............................................................................................................... 28 Q U ALl TY 0 F LIFE ................................................................................................................ 32 REGIONALISM.................. .................................................................................................... 36 ECONOMIC DEVELOPrvæNT PLAN ................................................................................... 39 Economic Opportunity Area Map - North County ......................................................45 Economic Opportunity Area Map - East County.........................................................47 Economic Opportunity Area Map - South County ......................................................49 Economic Opportunity Area Map - West County .......................................................51 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ** Added Topic** ** CHAPTER 4 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES 53 PARKS AND RECREATION ................................................................................................. 53 LIBRARIES................... .......................... ................................................................................ 57 S C H 00 LS .............................................................................................................................. . 6 1 PUB LI C S A FE TY ................................................................................................................... 68 Police Department ........................................ ............................................................... 69 Fire and Rescue Department........... ............................ ................................................. 70 S hen ff s 0 ffi c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 1 PUB LIe UTILll'] ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72 S TO RMW A TE R MAN AGE MENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74 TRAN SPORT A TI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 FlJNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION - DESIGN REQUIREMENTS .............82 County of Roanoke - Primary and Secondary Roads ..................................................85 BIKEWAyS...... ......... ....... .............................................. ...... ......................................86 Roanoke County - Recommended Roadways for Bicycle Accommodation ...............89 CHAPTER 5 - RESOURCE PRESERVATION 95 INTRODUCTION.... ............................................................................................................... 95 OPEN SPACE........................................................................................................................ .95 G REENW A YS .............................. .......................................................................................... 96 ROANOKE RIVER................................................................................................................. 97 SOILS......................................................................................................................... ............. 99 HISTORIC RESOURCES..................................................................................................... 100 MOUNTAINS AND RIDG ETOPS ......................................... .............................................. 101 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................................... 102 THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY.. ........................ ............................. ................................... 103 THE APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL .........................................................105 CHAPTER 6 - FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE 113 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.............................................................................................. 113 Conservation................................................. ....... ...................................................... 113 Rural Preserve ........................................................................................................... 1 14 R u ra 1 ViII age ............................................................................................................. 1 1 5 Village Center............................................................................................................ 116 Neighborhood Conservation...................................................................................... 118 Deve lop m en t ............................................................................................................. 1 1 8 Transition..................... ............................................................................................. 120 Core. .......................................................................................................................... 120 Pri n c i pal In d u s tri a 1 .................................................................................................... 1 2 1 LAN D USE PO LI C I E S ......................................................................................................... 123 GENERAL ........................................................................ ....................................... 123 RESOURCE PRESERVATION ...............................................................................123 DESIGN.......... ......... ................................................................................................. 124 NEIGHBORHOODS.. ............................................................................................... 124 COMMUNITY FACILITIES.................................................................................... 124 TRA N S PO R T A TI ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 OPEN SPACE...... ..................................................................................................... 125 G REE NW A Y S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 ECONOMIC DE VELO P MENT ............................................................................... 126 CHAPTER 7 - PLANNING AREA ANALYSIS 127 COUNTY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD THEMES AND CONCERNS .................................127 FUTURE LAN D USE MAP S . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 3 3 BACK CREEK - FUTURE LAND USE MAP .........................................................135 BACKCREEK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ......... ................. ........ ..............137 BENT MOUNT AIN- FUTURE LAND USE MAP ..................................................139 BENT MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ................. ..... ... ..............141 BONSACK - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ...............................................................143 BONSACK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA..................................................... 145 CATAWBA - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ..............................................................147 CATAWBA VALLEY COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ...................................149 CAVE SPRING - FUTURE LAND USE MAP .......................................... ..............151 CAVE SPRING COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ................................ ..............153 CLEARBROOK - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ....................................................... 155 CLEARBROOK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ...... ................. ........ ..............157 GLENV AR - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ...............................................................159 G LENV AR CO MMUNITY PLANNING AREA..................................................... 161 HOLLINS - FUTURE LAND USE MAP..... ............................................................ 163 HOLLINS COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ........ .......................................... ..... 165 MASON'S COVE - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ....................................................169 MASONS COVE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ...........................................171 MT. PLEASANT - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ......................................................173 MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ....................................175 VINTON - FUTURE LAND USE MAP................................................................... 179 VINTON COMMUNITY PLANNIN G AREA......................................................... 181 WINDSOR HILLS - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ...................................................183 WINDSOR HILLS COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA .........................................185 CHAPTER 8 - COMJvfUNITY PLAN llv1PLEMENT A lION 189 ** Added Topic Amended Topic Draft ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (November 2,2004) Introduction Economic development is a dynamic public program in Roanoke County. This activity is defmed as, "the process of creating wealth through the mo bilization of human, financial, capital, physical, and natural resources to generate marketable goods and services." The economic development process is of critical importance to the continued high quality of life in Roanoke County and the ability of the County to provide a high level of public services to citizens. Roanoke County's economic development mission is: "To attract and retain to the County quality jobs and investment that diversify the economy, broaden the tax base, and provide long-term employment opportunities for area residents. " Roanoke County established an economic development program in 1985 and implemented an economic development strategy to establish the initial goals and objectives for implementation. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors re-adopted an economic development strategy in 1987 and 1989, with business plans being adopted annually thereafter. The Economic Development 5-Year Business Plan FY 2001-2006 adopted in July of 2000 was intended to complement the Economic Development Strategy and the1985 Comprehensive Plan. The Business Plan focused on four economic opportunity areas into which economic activity would be promoted~ The emphasis was to identify potential commercial and industrial sites that could be developed and marketed by the County as "product" for economic development opportunities, and then to attract new businesses to those sites.. A series of public actions, including proposed capital improvements, rezonings and coordination with VDOT primary and secondary road planning were recommended to implement the Business PJan. The Plan sets forth details of implementation activities and impact measures for the primary program areas of marketing and business recruitment, product development business retention and expansion and community/workforce development. The economic development goals and objectives are generally described below. 1. To market the County's industrial/commercial property and attract compatible business and industry to the community, and to increase the commercial and industrial tax base and related employment opportunities. 2. To encourage the retention and growth of local enterprise by creating and maintaining a positive business climate countywide. Economic Development - Draft - 1 3. To create and maintain a marketable inventory of quality industrial/commercial real property sufficient to meet market demand. 4. To promote and encourage regional participation in economic development activities, programs and services. Issues and Opportunities · Competition among land uses for developable land: There is a limited amount of developable land in Roanoke County. Residential uses and tax-exempt activities are the major land uses competing with economic development for developable land. Potential commercial and industrial sites need to be identified, rezoned and reserved for future development. · Identify economic opportunity areas: The 1992 Economic Development Strategy delineated the 1..81 corridor, North County/Hollins Road, the Route 460 East Corridor, West County, Explore Park and the Southwest County/419 Corridor as economic opportunity areas. Since 1992, significant economic development activities have occurred in these areas. The following activities have occurred in the implementation of the Economic Development Strategy, and Business Plan: 1-81 Corridor - Coordinate with VDOT and Community Development to evaluate the impact on economic opportunity areas and ensure the preservation, creation and enhancement of marketable commercial/industrial property. Participate in interchange design and land use and coordinate any public policy changes necessary to encourage development in these areas. North CountylHollins Road - The Hollins Road area development included the expansion of a Country Inn & Suites, a renovation of a Days Inn and the planned construction of a new Fairfield Inn. Staff continues to monitor and evaluate the interchange realignment at exit #146 for proposed 1-81 development opportunities. Route 460 East Corridor - The Valley Gateway Business Park and industrial shell building showed significant activity with the sale of 42 acres to Integrity Windows for a 200,000 s.f. manufacturing facility, employing 350 people, and a project investment of $32 million. The shell building was contracted by a developer who seeks to occupy the facility with a suitable industrial tenant. Commercial development was also active with the attraction of a Wal-Mart Super Center, and a Lowe's Home Improvement Center. Staff will continue to identify and market developable property in this area to include the remaining Valley Gateway property and the Jack Smith Industrial Park. West County - Phase I development of the County owned 456-acre Center for Research and Technology has been completed. Glenmary Drive has been reconstructed, and utility and road extensions along Corporate Circle have been Economic Development - Draft - 2 implemented. Engineering design and related improvements to Phase II development have been also been completed and include a second extension of Corporate Circle, utility lines, the construction of a regional stonn water management basin, lighting installation, and landscaping enhancements. Additionally, Novozymes Biologicals, a manufacturer of enzymes for agricultural products was recruited to the CRT as the first tenant in the Center. Their initial investment was $12 million with the creation of 25 new jobs for a research and development and administration office. Their Phase II manufacturing facility is planned for construction in 2004. Southwest County/419 corridor - New investment/construction included several commercial enterprises such as the 419 West Restaurant, Carlo's Brazilian Restaurant, Ruby Tuesday's and Fink's Jewelers. Other commercial developments occurred along Brambleton Avenue with Gold's Gym, Freddie's Sunset Grill, Blue Magnolia Restaurant and a Martin Gennan Imports vehicle sales operation. Activity along Route 220 included a new Land Rover, Mercedes, Volvo and Jaguar dealership and the implementation of a 220 Clearbrook corridor overlay district. Maps of the Economic Opportunity Areas are included in this section. These maps include existing commercial and industrial areas and potential economic opportunity sites for future use. Economic Opportunity Areas are intended to provide for future economic development, confonn to future land use designations and be an overlay on the land use maps of the Community Plan. · Product development for sites and buildings: Roanoke County needs an inventory of commercial and industrial sites in order to successfully compete in economic development. The identification of potential sites is the initial step in the process of converting an undeveloped property into a "ready to go" commercial or industrial site. The Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County implemented a rezoning study of potential commercial and industrial sites in 1995-96 and rezoned 117 acres for such uses. While many of the county's commercial and industrial properties are now zoned appropriately, they are not considered to be "ready to go sites," due to the numerous development challenges that continue to exist on these sites. The Department of Economic Development remains actively involved in the Capital Improvement Plan process by recommending specific improvement projects for funding that will create ready to go sites for development. Many of these sites will not be developed until significant capital infrastructure improvements are undertaken by the County. Historically, Roanoke County has initiated the location ofpub1icly owned industrial parks such as Valley TechPark (177 acres) and the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology (456 acres), and has participated as a partner in the development of Valley Pointe (52 acres in Phase I), Valley Gateway (108 aces), the Jack Smith Industrial Park (68 acres), and the Vinton Business Center (99 acres). Roanoke County also participated with The Greater Roanoke Valley Economic Development - Draft - 3 Development Foundation to construct a 75,000 foot expandable shell building in Yaney Gateway, and is participating with the development of Valley Pointe Phase II (180 acres). The County's role is to provide marketable commercial and industrial sites and buildings so that we can respond favorably and promptly to inquiries proposing expansions and relocations. · Targeting business and industry: The Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership markets the Roanoke Valley as a business location and serves as a point of contact for companies seeking to relocate to or expand within the Valley. The Partnership has targeted automotive and transportation related, wireless communications, printing, biosciences/life sciences, medical devices, large office and corporate headquarters. Roanoke County concurs with this list and adds large commercial projects and technology based companies that pay salaries and wages in excess of the median wage rate for the region. · Using quality measures to evaluate economic development opportunities: The series of community workshops held in the planning areas of the County confirmed that the quality of economic development is important to the citizens. If Roanoke County desires to continue to take advantage of its~ premier location for retail~ commercial and industrial growth which expands the tax base and creates new economic opportunity for it's citizens, then it must be accepted that land uses and zoning designations must logically change over time to accommodate this activity. It is however vitally important to consider the appearance of the proposed projects and the impacts on the local community when considering new projects in areas adjacent to existing residential areas. Economic considerations should not be the determining criteria for evaluating land use~ rather it should be one of many factors considered as the County goes through its natural progression of economic growth. Roanoke County has a history of protecting the rights of its citizens and our natural resources that make this area a destination for families and businesses as evidenced by the following projects. Roanoke County pursued a design "charette" with the citizens residing adjacent to both the Vinton Business Center and the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. This process has resulted in a Master Plan that the County and Town recently qualified by hiring a marketing finn to review the economic feasibility of the various land uses proposed in the Master Plan. Retention of natural vegetation, site and building design criteria, open space preservation and the adoption of protective and restrictive covenants are some of the quality measures adopted in the Master Plan process which will not be compromised as development occurs. · Assisting economic development through its public private partnerships: Roanoke County has adopted a public-private partnership policy to assist businesses with expansion and relocation opportunities. The policy was revised and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2002, which expanded the flexibility of the program to allow for incentives to be offered for retail businesses that provide significant revenue for Roanoke County. This action signifies the value of retail business Economic Development - Draft - 4 operations and their positive impact on the County. Funds are annually appropriated to an economic development fund and administered for projects in accordance with the policy, which gives staff the ability to offer incentives to targeted businesses. The County will consider financing eligible public improvements and employee training costs as a partnership if there is a "payback" or return on investment from new taxes/fees generated by a commercial or industrial project. Typical partnerships involve extensions of water and sewer service and related utility connection fees. All projects are subject to the execution of a performance agreement between the County and the private entity to insure that a proposed development meets its investment goals. Partnership agreements are audited by the County staff to determine if the projected taxes and fees are being generated by a partnership project. Business Retention & Expansion: Roanoke County carries out an ongoing existing business visitation program to companies located within the County. These visits provide a confidential update of a company's products, markets, operations and gro"Wth potential. The goal is to retain and facilitate expanded investment and employment within Roanoke County. Existing businesses are eligible for public-private partnership assistance. The Economic Development staff also coordinates district roundtables, hosts a Business Partners TV show, and publishes a business newsletter. Coordination with other County offices and State and Federal agencies to address issues raised by existing businesses is also a function of this program. · Redevelopment Efforts: Roanoke County encourages redevelopment through a broad based community development approach that includes citizens, business and the County as partners. The County recognizes that redevelopment efforts should be primarily private sector driven, but is often approached with the involvement of both the public and private sectors. For example, Tanglewood Mall is in a state of decline due to high vacancy rates, and County staff is partnering with the mall management to offer assistance in attracting quality retailers as tenants. County Staff is also assisting the Town of Vinton with revitalization efforts for their downtown area, and continues to support the marketing and development of the Vinton Business Center. Staff will also be participating in Vinton's comprehensive planning process in 2003. Redevelopment efforts for the 460 corridor in West Salem have been delayed due to VDOT's postponing of a significant road widening project in this area. Delays have occurred due to funding considerations, and staff is prepared to assist with this project once funding is restored, and the project is renewed. The Dixie Caverns interchange at Exit #132 off ofl-81 and the Hollins Exit #146 are also areas concentration for future development opportunities. Staff will continue to monitor and evaluate the land uses in these areas, and the corridor study to implement a work plan for future development/redevelopment initiatives. In Economic Development - Draft - 5 many County redevelopment efforts, public monies are used to leverage private funds for property improvement and development. County staff serves as a partner and a facilitator in these projects, assisting all parties with accomplishing their goals. · Assisting business startups" small business development and Workforce training: The Economic Development staff has many contacts in both the public and private sectors. The Commonwealth of Virginia, the Department of Business Assistance (DBA), the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), the New Century Venture Center, regional agencies (such as TAP), local colleges and universities and the regional Small Business Development Center (SBDC) are available to assist citizens seeking to start a business. County staff offers referrals to these resources, which contributes to the growth of new businesses in Roanoke Countyw Objectives A. Strengthen existing business retention efforts and assist companies with expansion opportunities within Roanoke County. B. Attract new industry to the County that will enhance and diversify the industrial base. c. Identify potential commercial and industrial sites and pursue opportunities to add these properties to the "product" inventory of the County. D. Increase public awareness of business activities and their role in the economic base of Roanoke County. E. Identify areas for community development projects that will allow the citizens, businesses and County to jointly improve a geographic area. F. Identify potential public-private partnerships that will enhance economic development in Roanoke County. G. Evaluate and regulate the appearance of new commercial and industrial development, especially those developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Implementation Strategies 1. Implement the economic development program areas described in the Economic Development Business Plan including Business Retention and Expansion, Business Attraction, Product Development and Regional Cooperation. (Obj. A, B, C, D, E, F,) Economic Development - Draft - 6 2. Implement all three development phases of the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. (Obj. B, C, F) 3. Identify sites and opportunities for future business park development. (Obj. C, E) 4. Continue to monitor the 1-81 Widening Project and the 1-73 development process for economic opportunities. (Obj. C, E) 5. Redevelop the West Main Street (Route 460) corridor. (Obj. A, D, E, F) 6. Continue the land acquisition program to identify, reserv~ and rezone Economic Opportunity Areas for future development needs. (Obj. C) 7. Development of regional publicly owned business parks. (Obj. A, B, C, D, F) 8. Develop design guidelines for new commercial retail developments including "big box" retail structures, traditional shopping centers and the newer "life style"centers. Develop design guidelines for new industrial projects on a case-by- case basis taking into consideration the location of existing residential developments and valuable natural resources such as the Blue Ridge Parkway viewshed. The appropriateness of the design and the extent to which the developer is sensitive to the above mentioned items will be used as criteria when considering the use of financial incentives to spur development. The following Economic Opportunity Area maps include existing commercial and industrial areas and potential economic opportunity sites for future use. The blue areas identified on these maps as "Other" are areas that have not been specifically identified at this time as future commercial or industrial areas. They are areas where, based upon their location, access or topography, some potential for future economic opportunity exists. Economic Development Draft - 7 DRAFT (January 11,2005) GROWTH MANAGEMENT & CAPITAL FACiliTIES PLANNING GOAL: To protect, preserve, enhance and effectively and efficiently utilize Roanoke County resources by: . Guiding future growth and development to areas where land uses, facilities and infrastructure exist and are planned . Promoting compact and contiguous development and infill development · Focusing County infrastructure funding on these current and designated future development areas · Protecting and enhancing the following resources: historic, cultural, agricultural, forestry, water, recreational and scenic. INTRODUCTION The growth management goal is to direct development into designated areas that have or will have the capacity to accommodate future growth. This goal will facilitate efficient service delivery in those areas while preserving rural resources in outlying areas. To further this goal, the County land use map should delineate three areas of growth potential: 1) the primary growth areas of the County that are currently served by public water and sewer and where the majority of new growth should be encouraged; 2) the "future growth" areas directly adjacent to the primary growth area that should accommodate outward growth over a 5-year period of time and where the extension of public water and sewer can relatively efficiently be accomplished; 3) the rural areas where growth should be discouraged and public water and sewer services should not be extended. It must be recognized that the future growth areas should be periodically reviewed and updated. While it is the goal of Roanoke County to focus new development in those areas that currently have existing infrastructure and services it is recognized that some level of outward growth is necessary. To accommodate this outward growth in a manner that does not diminish the quality of life of current residents of these areas, the timing of new developments must be carefully orchestrated to coincide with the construction of public facilities and services to meet the needs of current and future citizens. Draft - Growth Management - Page 1 1 The growth management goal is clearly intended to discourage development in the rural areas of Roanoke County and recognizes that incompatible development in these areas of the County is costly both in terms of service delivery and the irreversible damage to critical resources. In order to implement the growth management goals it should be recognized that the provision of adequate public infrastructure and services to those areas designated to receive growth is a critical component. The growth management goals of Roanoke County can only be achieved if needed capital facilities improvements are timed and coordinated to accommodate future growth. Conversely, it must be recognized that the inefficiencies of providing these same public services to dispersed rural populations is not in the overall public interest. The provision of public facilities and services requires significant public funding for construction, operation and long-term maintenance. The County should ensure that the highest benefit is provided to County citizens in exchange for this cost. In order to achieve the stated growth management goals, future emphasis should be placed on providing public service delivery to those designated growth areas where future development should be directed. To accomplish this, public facilities and services should be provided at a much higher level in these growth areas than in the non-growth or rural areas. LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GROWTH AREAS Primary growth areas - those areas currently served by public water and sewer and where the majority of new growth should be encouraged - include the following land use designations: Principal Industrial, Core, Transition, Development and Neighborhood Conservation. Future growth areas - those areas adjacent to primary growth areas where outward growth over the next 5 years should be accommodated - include the following land use designations: Development and to a limited extent Village Center. These growth areas must be attractive places to live and work. Development in these areas should be more efficient and at higher densities than in the past in order to help prevent sprawl development and keep suburban development patterns from encroaching into rural areas. The continuation of low-density suburban areas should not be encouraged in designated growth areas. Design strategies should be developed to ensure that these growth areas are harmonious with surrounding areas but mày include different uses and different densities than those surrounding Draft - Growth Management - Page 2 2 areas. Careful design of these growth areas should result in development that is beneficial to the community. 1. The majority of new residential growth in the County should be in designated primary and future growth areas. 2. Development within the growth areas should have public water and sewer. 3. Rezoning of property within these designated primary and future growth areas should consider and address the impacts on public facilities and services that would result from the rezoning. 4. The residential growth areas should be developed at densities that allow efficient use of the land. Gross densities should be increased. 5. Design of residential growth areas should reflect the following principles: a. Transportation - Neighborhood streets (both public and private) should be of a scale that complements the area, should incorporate landscaping and should encourage walking and biking. Private streets, and public streets in accordance with VDOT guidelines, should be designed to calm traffic. Sidewalks and paths should be provided for pedestrians. b. Parks and Open Space - To compensate for increased residential densities parks and open space should be incorporated into the design. Environmental resources such as floodplains, slopes and forested areas should be protected. 6. Steep slopes - New development, infill development and redevelopment on slopes between 10% and 33% should be sensitive to existing grades and where possible should promote architectural design elements that work with, rather than against, these grades. Develop design guidelines and regulations for development on steep slopes. These should include provisions for "slope maintenance bonds", and should determine a slope above which development should not be allowed. The precise slope percentage should be determined after more research and analysis is conducted but should be specified in the future zoning ordinance amendment. 7. Infill development - new development on vacant lots within urbanized/suburbanized areas - should be encouraged. Design guidelines should be developed to: Draft - Growth Management - Page 3 3 a. allow flexibility in housing location, type and density; b. provide flexibility in lot size, configuration, and vehicle access to facilitate infill development; c. provide clear development standards that promote compatibility between new and existing development; d. encourage development of needed housing in close proximity to employment and services; e. promote neighborhood preservation and enhancement through redevelopment of underutilized properties; f. encourage mixed use development to complete neighborhoods and provide housing close to jobs and commerce; A policy that considers encouraging ¡nfill development should address accessory dwellings, flag lots, shared driveway policies, frontage requirements, setbacks and parking requirements. 8. Public improvements, needed to support and encourage ¡nfill development, should be sched uled in a timely fashion in order to be incorporated into new developments. 9. Neighborhood Commercial Centers - Properties suitable for low to moderate intensity retail sales and services - along collector and arterial roads - should be inventoried and rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. Small, neighborhood commercial areas should be developed to enhance the residential development and should connect to the residential area. Mixed uses - shops, offices, civic and cultural spaces - should be encouraged. Densities should be increased by encouraging the mix of residential uses, office uses and retail uses. The current Neighborhood Commercial District standards should be modified as follows: a. Total District Size: increase from current maximum of 3 acres b. Permitted Uses: expand commercial uses allowed (retail) and consider including limited residential c. Strengthen use and design standards including site development, lighting, landscaping, signage and maximum square footage requirements d. Revise minimum parking requirements and establish maximum parking requirements in the District; revise shared parking limitations e. Encourage public uses within this District such as public branch libraries, police sub-stations, etc. Draft - Growth Management - Page 4 4 In addition, the Community Plan should address the issue of allowing higher-density residential in the immediate neighborhoods surrounding these identified Neighborhood Commercial Districts. 10.Commercial development should encourage vehicular and pedestrian connections to nearby neighborhoods and should avoid strip, linear designs. 11. Revise the Cluster Development ordinance. Address the following sections: f. Street and Access Requirements including: 1) length of private streets; 2) number of dwelling units allowed on any single private street; and 3) private street design requirements. g. Conservation Areas, Primary and Secondary: review and clarify definitions including section relating to slope. h. Open Space Requirements and the relationship to lots and property lines. 12. In compliance with the ozone Early Action Plan, Roanoke County should adopt a 40% tree canopy coverage (calculated at ultimate growth of trees) as a target for all new development. Encourage developers to site structures and parking lots around stands of mature trees and where needed, require the replacement of trees. Recognize the important role trees lay in air quality, aesthetics and cooling. 13. Develop corridor studies for future commercial areas including Route 220 South, Route 221 and Route 460 west. LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RURAL AREAS Rural growth areas - those areas where growth should be discouraged - include the following land use designations: Rural Village, Rural Preserve, Conservation and to some extent Village Center. Roanoke County should make a commitment to preserve its rural areas. Without this, we will see the continued fragmentation of large parcels of land and the conversion to residential development. This pattern results in a declining agricultural economy, the loss of plant and wildlife habitats, and the loss of natural resources and the rural character of much of Roanoke County. The subdivision of rural lands for single-family residences has serious implications for resource conservation and the preservation of the rural character. Draft - Growth Management - Page 5 5 The outlying more rural areas of Roanoke County are currently zoned to allow minimum lot sizes of 1-3 acres. These lot sizes are not conducive or sufficient for viable agricultural, forestry or conservation land uses. The only thing these small lot sizes do is encourage the steady spread of a basically suburban land pattern and character in historically rural areas. The consequence is the irreversible loss of rural lands and the loss of natural,. scenic and historic landscapes. In addition, rural residential land development requires increased delivery of public services. To be consistent with the growth management goals of Roanoke County, the policies that allow the continued development and fragmentation of rural lands should be changed. It should be recognized that the most effective tools for protecting rural lands are those that discourage development from occurring in the first place and provide permanent protection of the land. Any land use regulations that allow residential development in the rural areas, even at much less density, will reduce fragmentation and density impacts but not eliminate them. Having said that, the goal is not to eliminate all residential development in the rural areas of Roanoke County but to recognize the impacts this development pattern has and to address the location, character and extent of this development in order to minimize the harmful impacts. The following policies are recommended: 1. Encourage land protection and conservation in rural areas. Recognize that tools such as conservation easements are the most cost-effective solution to protecting rural lands. Rather than develop a conservation easement program (or purchase of development rights program) of its own, the County should adequately fund the Western Virginia Land Trust (WVLT) to run such a program within the County. The WVLT has staff and expertise to conduct such a program and, with sufficient funding, should be able to do so much more efficiently than the County. 2. Decrease residential density in rural areas. Revise the AR, AG-1 and AG-3 zoning district site development regulations to address the issue of lot averaging and the concerns of land fragmentation and density related impacts. 3. Permit and or require clustering of rural residential development for subdivisions of 5 lots or greater. This should encourage a more efficient land development pattern and retain all the development potential that would be available under a conventional development standard. The benefits of this program to the landowner are reduced Draft - Growth Management - Page 6 6 development costs, more marketable lots, and the preservation of substantial portions of land. Citizens would gain the benefits of permanent preservation of large tracts of land that could be used for agricultural or forestry uses, recreational uses and the preservation of water, natural or scenic resources. Many issues need to be considered in developing standards for a rural cluster program. The protection of the natural environment should be ensured. A minimum size of the preservation parcel should be determined. The standards should ensure that a minimum amount of land is used for residential development. With that though, and in keeping with the growth management goals of Roanoke County, the use of rural cluster developments should not be a justification to extend public water and sewer to these rural areas. In order for this program to work, alternatives for wastewater treatment and water supply should be considered that would allow reduced lot sizes for the residential parcels and, thereby, allowing significant portions of land to be available as preservation parcels. 4. Proactively manage the extension of water and sewer services. Recognize that the availability of public water and sewer, among other things, greatly influences the development and density of land. Sewer pump stations have made the extension of public sewer feasible to areas of the County where it would not otherwise be. Staff has mapped recommended "future growth" areas, contiguous to the current utility services boundary, that should accommodate growth over the next 5 year period of time. Within this future growth area Section 15.2-2232 public review will not be required for the extension of water and sewer services. Outside and beyond these future growth areas, staff is recommending that no new utility lines be extended, no new pump stations be built and no new community well systems be allowed without the benefit of a Section 15.2-2232 public review. 5. Consider adopting a set of design guidelines and recommendations for future improvements to rural roads. Also, consider adopting the Virginia Department of Transportation Rural Rustic Roads Program. This program for unpaved roads is designed to pave rural roads in a more environmentally friendly and less costly manner. This program uses existing road widths for road improvements, rather than increasing road widths and is designed for areas with limited growth. 6. Consider minimum private road development standards for very large lot rural residential development. Shared driveways, flag lots or lots with no frontage should also be considered to minimize the amount of road frontage required and the visual impact of residential development from the rural roads. These standards should apply to five or fewer lots. Draft - Growth Management - Page 7 7 7. Protect steep slopes and ridgelines. Develop design guidelines and regulations for development on steep slopes. These should include provisions for "slope maintenance bonds", and should determine a slope above which development should not be allowed. The precise slope percentage should be determined after more research and analysis is conducted but should be specified in the future zoning ordinance amendment. 8. Develop and implement a Mountain Zoning District. This proposed district should prohibit multi-family residential, commercial and industrial development within the district and provide limitations on clearing, grading, building height and distance from ridgeline for all other development. Specifics of this ordinance should be researched and analyzed after the adoption of the Community Plan. 9. Develop design standards for Rural Village Centers. Review the areas currently designated as Village Centers and, with community input, determine which should stay on the list, which should be removed and if new areas should be added. There may be areas that are currently designated Rural Village Centers that, given growth patterns, may be better suited as Development and rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. In these cases, consideration should be given to the extension of public water and sewer to these areas. Rural Village Centers are rural locations where you would find small country stores, small family restaurants, schools, post offices and churches - those establishments that bring a sense of community to the surrounding countryside. These areas are not intended to be major employment centers for urban/suburban residents but rather to provide essential goods and services to the nearby rural residential community. These areas are often the rural crossroads. Design standards should consider the following: prohibit the creation of strip development along rural roads; appropriate scale of buildings; the re-use and renovation of existing buildings should be encouraged. Overall, rural design standards should be implemented not suburban design standards. It should be recognized that these rural village areas do not require the same signage, access, parking and lighting standards that more suburban and urban areas do.. 10.Develop an ordinance to prohibit the clear-cutting of trees in certain zoning districts, under certain circumstances. Attention should be given to the provisions of State Code dealing with silviculture activities. Draft - Growth Management - Page 8 8 Draft - PUBLIC UTILITIES (November 2, 2004) Introduction Public utilities available in Roanoke County include water supply and production, water distribution, sanitary sewer collection, solid waste management, electrical service, telephone service, natural gas distribution and cable television. Public water production and distribution, and sanitary sewer services that are provided by the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). Transfer ofs.olid waste to the regional landfill and the management of that landfill is the responsibility of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. This section of the Community Plan discusses two public utility services - water and sewer, which individually and collectively, greatly influence growth in Roanoke County. The provision of these services to a previously unserved area will encourage groMh and development in that community. As we learned over the last I 0 years, the lack of water and sewer services to an area does not necessarily mean that community will not experience growth. Past history has shown that growth may still occur, but it will likely be at lower densities. As development pressures increase, the communities may experience the failure of wells and on-site septic tank/drainfield systems. As a community Roanoke County must recognize the influence that public water and sewer services and internal policies concerning fees, fee rebates and cost sharing have on growth management. The policies of the WVW A must be consistent with County policies concerning issues of land use, economic development, schools and the provision of public services such as police, fire and rescue. The WVWA is charged with providing public water and sewer service to the citizens of Roanoke County and Roanoke City. This Authority operates as an enterprise fund and receives no direct general fund tax dollars. As a result, the Authority is funded solely from the collection of water and sewer fees from the citizens of Roanoke County and Roanoke City. The WVWA is responsible for providing and maintaining a safe drinking water supply. The predominant source of this water for Roanoke County is the Spring Hollow Reservoir, which when full, holds 3.2 billion gallons of water. The reservoir can meet Roanoke County's water needs past the year 2040. Distribution of water from the Spring Hollow Reservoir is provided via two transmission lines. The 30-inch diameter South Transmission Line begins at the Spring Hollow water treatment facility, terminates along U. S. Route 220 in the Clearbrook Community and serves major areas of southwestern Roanoke County between these two points. In addition, portions of southwest Roanoke City are served by the South Transmission Line. The north loop begins at Route 11/460 near Cherokee Hills and proceeds to Route 311, along Loch Haven Road to the Plantation Road area and includes a parallel line from Dixie Caverns to the Fort Lewis area. Major areas served by the North Transmission Line include the 1-81 corridor between Dixie Caverns and Plantation Road. Also served are portions of northeast Roanoke City. Draft - Utilities - Page 1 Chapter 4: Community Facilities The WVW A continues to have limited dependence on ground water wells. Currently, approximately 22 wells located in Roanoke County supply drinking water. More than forty wells have been taken off-line since the construction of the Spring Hollow Reservoir. In addition, the WVW A has the capability of purchasing approximately 0.2 million gallons per day from the City of Salem. The WVW A is responsible for maintaining the wastewater collection system, including sewage pump stations for the wastewater conveyance system located in Roanoke County. Roanoke County participates in the regional wastewater treatment plant that is owned and operated by the WVW A. Roanoke County, Botetourt County, the Town of Vinton and the Cities of Salem and Roanoke are participating in an upgrade of the regional wastewater treatment plant. The WVW A has completed a Capital Improvement Plan through the year 2006. This Plan includes the most critical needs in the areas of water and sewer service that can reasonably be funded and constructed within the 2001-2006 timeframe. The WVWA develops a new Capital Improvement Plan every five years. Draft - Utilities - Page 2 Draft - Stormwater Management (November 2, 2004) Introduction Stonnwater management is the planned control of surface water runoff that results from rainfall. The goal of stonnwater management is to prevent flooding and pollution. All development creates an impact to the overland flow of rain water. Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between development and water quality degradation/flood volume. This element of the Community Plan provides direction for ensuring that development impacts are mitigated by stonnwater management facilities and water quality best management practices. A number of regulatory and safety factors influence stonnwater management in Roanoke County. These include local, state, and federal regulations such as the Roanoke County Stonnwater Ordinance, the Virginia Stonnwater Management Handbook, and the County's Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS-4 Pennit # V AR-040022. Following are the stonnwater goals of Roanoke County. (1) Prioritizing drainage basins which need improvement through stream inventories and watershed impact assessment. (2) Addressing pollutant load and flood reduction techniques. (3) Inventorying stormwater management facilities and their condition through the stonn sewer system mapping program. (4) Recommending capital improvement projects to improve stonnwater quality. The primary issues of concern for the stonnwater management section of the Roanoke County Community Plan are to (1) Minimize the impact of drainage on private property, (2) Alleviate existing stonnwater problems, (3) Manage stonnwater discharge control, (4) protect water and stream quality, and (5) Research potential stonnwater management financing methods. The objectives and implementation strategies of this section direct Roanoke County to monitor maintenance of existing stonnwater facilities and will also work towards meeting or exceeding the compliance requirements of the Federal Government's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Objectives and implementation strategies are presented to address the five primary issues of the Roanoke County Community Plan. Perfonnance standards for stonnwater discharge will be applied to new development to prevent downstream degradation. These standards will be imposed through regu]ations, but alternative methods such as low impact development methods or developer contributions to public facilities may be provided, where feasible. Detailed drainage system studies are proposed to identify feasible off-site discharge control opportunities and to identify other drainage conditions which warrant County action. More general policies for preserving water quality include the protection of natural drainage corridors and the incorporation of water quality consideration into various aspects of stonnwater management. Implementing riparian buffer regulations to filter run-off, reducing stream temperatures, providing open space Draft - Stonnwater Management - Page 1 1 and wildlife habitat and preventing development of parking lots and structures within close proximity of a stream corridors are all means of water protection. Many drainage issues involve conditions that raise questions concerning the division of public and private responsibility. Polices concerning existing conditions emphasize a thorough study to identify conditions which may warrant County action either to correct problems on County property or to assume a new level of responsibility for those that are now considered private property. The creation of a framework for informed decisions concerning the expansion of the County role is proposed. The County has also detennined that regional stonnwater management facilities can provide a viable alternative to individual on-site controls and will work to include regional facilities as an important component of the countywide stonnwater management program. Stonnwater management regulations should be revised where applicable, so that land development activities can be reviewed and developed from a watershed-wide perspective. Until such time, regional or community facilities should be approved on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration all state and federal stormwater management compliance regulations. . In summary, the Stonnwater Management Policy presented in this section emphasizes prevention of future problems and the development of information and procedures necessary for a proper evaluation of stonnwater management practices. Consistent with the nature of the Community Plan, the policy is general and is intended to be a guide for more specific implementation actions. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 2 2 Issue #1 Drainage on Private Property Obiectives · Reduce future property damage, nuisance flooding and requests for public assistance. · Protect water quality and reduce the potential for flooding and erosion damage by preventing encroachment into natural watercourse areas. · Continue storm sewer drainage system studies to identify existing and future flooding and erosion damage. · Re-evaluate current County policy for stormwater basin inspections and maintenance acceptance. Imolementation Strate!!:ies · Evaluate the existing floodplain regulations to determine if amendments are needed to reduce the exposure of new structures to flooding. · Preserve the natural character of drainage ways. · Apply appropriate standards for the alteration of private drainage facilities. · Work to upgrade the County's floodplain mapping to provide more accurate data on future flooding evaluations. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 3 3 Issue #2 Existing Stonnwater Problems Objectives The current understanding of existing stonnwater problems indicates a level of severity which demands substantial immediate action by the County. The current system of responsibility provides remedies either by the affected party or through legal measures to obtain relief from a party causing the problem. Nevertheless additional requests for County assistance can be expected, and will require an expanded County effort. Any actions to expand County responsibilities for the correction of existing stonnwater problems shou]d be supported by a thorough analysis of needs, proper solutions, and appropriate levels of public and private responsibility. These conclusions support the following objectives for policies related to existing stonnwater problems: · To provide a high level ofperfonnance for drainage facilities on County property and for facilities necessary to manage the off-site effects of drainage from County property . · To establish the financial capacity, information base and decision criteria necessary for the County to assume responsibility of private drainage problems when conditions warrant such intervention. · To recognize the validity of private responsibility for a large portion of the drainage system and to maintain a consistent, understandable, and supportive posture regarding private responsibilities. · To increase coordination with V -DOT in urban Bio-infrastructure installation and maintenance. · To develop a system for the identification, correction and financing of a comprehensive storm sewer illicit discharge connections program. Imnlementation Strateeies The implementation strategies recommended below are intended to retain aspects of current practices which are working well, to adjust certain policies to minimize conflict over responsibilities, and to initiate expansion of County responsibilities for existing drainage systems when such expansion serves the public interest. · Continue studies necessary to identify deficient drainage structures and conditions on County property, evaluate the effect of these conditions both on and off County property using watershed impact analysis, identify appropriate corrective measures, and establish priorities for implementation. The purpose of this policy may be accomplished as a part of the drainage basin studies recommended in other elements of the overall Stormwater Management Program as outlined in the current stonnwater maintenance program and the County's Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS-4 Permit # V AR-040022. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 4 4 · Initiate studies necessary to identify feasible drainage projects on private property, establish the justification for County assumption of responsibility for these projects, and establish priorities for implementation. This policy may also be accomplished as part of a comprehensive drainage basin study. · Maintain annual capital budgeting for drainage improvements. Identify feasible projects which require scheduled maintenance and an annual budget. As the results of storm sewer system drainage studies identify additional projects, the budget level may be increased accordingly. Development of a drainage utility approach to funding shàll be considered. Any program of sufficient magnitude to justify the creation of a drainage utility may require bond funding to support major capital costs in the early stages. · Use guidelines which recognize need, equity, and public purpose in detennining the appropriateness of the County assuming responsibility for privately owned drainage facilities. · Develop an infonnationleducation program to increase citizen awareness of private drainage responsibilities and potential stormwater effects. · Develop an ordinance prohibiting illegal discharges into the storm drain system. Draft - Storm water Management - Page 5 5 Issue #3 Stormwater Discharge Control Objectives · Manage the stormwater effects of new development. · Manage the stormwater effects of re-development. · Manage stormwater quantity. · Manage stormwater and stream quality. · Correct and fund existing drainage deficiencies. · To prevent significant increases in the potential for property damage, nuisances, or other negative impacts of stormwater. · To equitably allocate the costs of controlling increases in stormwater discharge to properties which are the sources of the increase. Implementation Strateeies · Controlling, through regulation or ordinance, stonnwater discharge from new development in pre and post construction. · To apply discharge control methods (stormwater best management practices) which are economically, aesthetically, and environmentally acceptable, as well as effective in storrnwater management. · Develop a system for stormwater discharge control which emphasizes regional/community facilities. In addition, appropriate levels of on-site control for new development should be applied to a particular site where immediate downstream degradation or flooding issues exist. · Incorporate in site plan review, considerations for potential pre and post construction stormwater impact. · Develop ordinance and regulation to prohibit illegal and illicit stormwater connections. This general policy related to discharge is intended to combine the strengths of on-site and off-site approaches, while minimizing the weakness of either approach. Accomplishment may require studies to create a fee in lieu of on- site facilities when plans have been approved for better off-site improvements. These improvements may include strategically located improvements. Design criteria for the discharge control system will be subject to further detailed consideration, but the following are appropriate: 1. Control the peak flow for the tvvo and tvventy-five year storm events 2. No increase in peak discharge after development 3. Stormwater Best Management Practices that enhance water quality 4. Provisions for future maintenance Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 6 6 5. Authority and standards for the County to either require on-site perfonnance, to accept alternative methods, or require fees in lieu of perfonnance 6. A fee system based on the average cost of site control · Continue stonn sewer drainage system studies to identify feasible regional facilities and other facility improvements that may be constructed as alternatives to on-site discharge control. The ongoing program of the stonn sewer drainage system study will be necessary to establish the location and feasibility of regional facilities as part of the discharge control system. · The stonn sewer drainage system studies should also identify actions which can be taken to expand the capacity of existing drainage systems to accommodate increased flow. ~tructural modifications and channel improvements may be the preferred management approach in some situations. · Continue to prioritize and evaluate watershed and urban bio-infrastructure health through the stream inventory and stonn sewer system mapping programs. Draft - Stonnwater Management - Page 7 7 Issue #4 Water Quality Objectives · To sustain a stonnwater and stream water quality program which meets federal stormwater discharge pennit requirements, state water quality standards and local needs. · To preserve the natural character, ecological processing functions and biological integrity of drainage ways. · To incorporate water quality considerations into County actions related to public facilities and development regulations. 1m Dlementation Stratel!ies '- · Evaluate the County's stormwater and stream quality policies to meet federal stormwater discharge pennit requirement, state water quality standards and to address local needs. Components of the County's plans should include discharge controls on new development, drainage basin and regional basin studies, illegal discharge identification and control, retrofit projects, water quality monitoring, and public education and participation programs. · Preserve the natural character of drainage ways by green way acquisition, flood prone area regulation, drainage corridor protection, public design and construction, and the application of other public resources that may be identified in the future.. The intent of this policy is to apply the various powers and resources of the County to the preservation of natural features which prevent pollutants from entering streams and reduce potential economic cost due to flooding, stream erosion and urban Bio-infrastructure degradation. · Incorporate water quality management practices into discharge control regulations and County design, construction and maintenance practices. Water quality and receiving water impacts will be considered during the design, construction, and maintenance of drainage facilities on County properties. Water quaJity will be fully considered as one of the factors which may justify assumption by the County of responsibility for the maintenance of drainage systems, including existing facilities on property which is currently privately owned. · Encourage where applicable, Low Impact Development Standards (LID's) to help alleviate stormwater quality or quantity issues within the county. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 8 8 Issue #5 Stormwater Management Financing Objective · To develop an equitable system of stormwater financing based on relative contributions to the stormwater problem based on impervious surface assessment, water quality impact and watershed impact mitigation. Implementation Strate!!ies · Develop a system for financing the public costs of controlling stormwater . discharge from new development. A development fee system and/or stonnwater utility district confined to basins with regional controls may provide financing for public facilities to be used instead of on-site controls. · Use general County revenues to finance the correction of drainage deficiencies affecting existing development until annual costs reach a level that justifies a drainage utility approach to financing. The stann sewer drainage system studies may identify additional needs and could lead to a substantially expanded County role in drainage facility constructio.n and maintenance. If such an expansion should occur, the creation of a drainage utility approach to annual financing may be feasible. A drainage utility may be justified if widespread needs and long-term annual funding requirements are identified. Drainage utility fees may be charged to each property in the County based on the amount of uncontrolled runoff from the property as calculated by impervious area. · Identify target areas for future stonnwater management facilities. · Investigate the feasibility of a regional stonnwater management authority. Draft - Stonnwater Management - Page 9 9 N @)fþ~~ 2004 COlTllTlunity Plan County of Roanoke, Virginia N (giþ~~ Transportation element 1 Introduction Roanoke County has become a vital employment, retail, residential, and entertainment center for Southwest Virginia. Along with this growth and expansion, the County is experiencing the consequent transportation dilemmas that much of the nation is undergoing. In order to remedy the problems, one must closely examine travel characteristics, statistics, and trends to gain insight into the quandary. The population of the United States increased 33% from 1970 to 1998, while the workforce increased 66% over that same period. That means that about 55 million more people are commuting daily to work and the majority of those, some 88%, travel in an automobile. That means over 48 million more commuters by automobile on the road every day. The incredible magnitude of the problem becomes clear when one examines the data and realizes that the amount of vehicle miles traveled is almost doubling (increased 72% from 1980 to 1998) while the amount of road mileage/capacity is holding steady as new roads are not being funded and built (total U.S. roadway lane-miles increased by only 3.6% during the same time period) (All statistics from Bureau of Transportation Statistics ). Comprehensive and forward-looking solutions are necessary to address these problems and to meet the transportation needs of Roanoke County residents, visitors, and businesses. The Transportation element of the Community Plan provides a policy and program framework for these solutions. Transportation projects and plans developed and implemented within Roanoke County are guided by this framework. By achieving the goals set forth in this Plan, Roanoke County will provide accessible, attractive, economically viable and environmentally sound transportation options that meet the needs of residents, employers, employees! and visitors for safe, convenient, and efficient travel. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Commonwealth of Virginia owns, constructs, and maintains all of the public roads in the County. However, the County does have considerable input and say into what transportation projects are supported and funded within the County; and a close working relationship is and will be maintained with VDOT on County transportation issues. Roanoke County will also continue to participate in the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization to continue comprehensive transportation planning and to promote and provide additional opportunities for effective citizen input in concert with neighboring jurisdictions. Utilizing this Transportation element of the Community Plan and working in coordination with adjoining localities and the aforementioned entities will enable the County of Roanoke to achieve the goals laid out herein. It should be noted that this element of the Community Plan is a policy document rather than a transportation proposal; no specific projects or changes in traffic planning are mandated. 11 TransDortation Components of Community Plan A. Goal: To consider present and future transportation implications wl'len making land use decisions. i. Objective: To encourage growth where adequate roads and other transportation systems exist; to plan, design, and construct transportation infrastructure in areas where development is desired. a. Strategy: Growth Management Measures -- Transportation is one of the keys that unlock the door to irresponsible growth. Without the emergence of transportation, sprawl and suburban development would not exist. Additional transportation infrastructure, ¡fnot planned and placed in a reasonable context, leads to a furtherance of ad-hoc sprawl. The 2 question arises, if transportation is a key factor in the creation and growth of sprawl, how is it a growth management tool? Every metropolitan area in the nation is shaped by the way its public infrastructure is financed and by the timing and geographical sequencing by which that public infrastructure is built. Generally, infrastructure can be financed by developers or by taxpayers; it can be targeted geographically according to a specific desired sequence; or it can be allowed to be constructed anywhere within the area. By design or by accident, these policies help to determine the geographical pattern of growth within a regIon. Therefore, a growth management policy is simply an attempt to deliberately use public land acquisitions, land use regulations, and infrastructure investments to contain, influence, or direct growth to specific geographical locations to meet the needs of the locality. While Roanoke County may not be experiencing the population explosion that other areas are, it is imperative that the County encourage development in designated growth areas in order to support efficient expansion of infrastructure and services, including transportation facilities. Similarly, the County should attempt to negate taxing the existing transportation infrastructure with over-development by ensuring that if the existing roadway cannot handle the expected trips generated by a proposed development, then accommodations would be made by the developer or the taxpayers to safely and efficiently carry the expected traffic levels. One such containment/growth management tool the County can consider implementing is an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). (Currently, under the Commonwealth of Virginia law, a local government cannot adopt and implement an AP FO. At the time of the writing of this Community Plan, there is much debate and discussion occurring with Virginia lawmakers on this topic. County staff will continue to monitor the progress of said proposal and determine if this strategy is applicable to the County and how it should best be implemented. Other types of revenue enhancement techniques, such as cash proffers, impact fees and public/private partnerships will also be researched, monitored and evaluated by County staff) Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances help local governments avoid the negative impacts of rapid growth, such as insufficient sewer capacity and traffic congestion. The main objective of APFOs is to ensure that new development has adequate urban services. They serve to give local governments more control over the timing and location of new development and pace the construction of public facilities to keep up with the demands of new residential development. While an APFO can direct growth in areas that can provide the necessary infrastructure 3 Emphasis to provide mob ility of traffi c with Ii rnited access to land for development, it can also curb growth in areas intended to remain rural. Many localities already have some standards even though they have not formally adopted an APFO. In principle, land-use planning, zoning, and public facility plans should prevent development in areas that lack adequate levels of urban services. In practice, however, APFOs encourage better monitoring of urban service levels, and make clear the levels of service that must be available before development happens. The key aspect of APFOs is that local governments can withhold or delay approval of developments in areas where adequate urban services are unavailable. As the Roanoke Valley continues to grow, the demands of an increasing population create potential threats to the County's quality of life: threats such as eroding livability, declining mobility, and rising transportation costs. Without careful planning designed to manage this new growth and implementation of some of the aforementioned strategies, these threats could become reality . b. Strategy: Balance Land Use Objectives with Street Functional Capabilities -- Transportation road networks provide two divergent objectives (see Figure T-I). One objective is to provide efficient mobility from one location to another, usually accomplished at the sacrifice of limiting access to adjacent land (e.g., limited access highway/freeway). The other objective is to provide access to each parcel of land, usually at the sacrifice of rapid, efficient movement from location to location (e.g., local or subdivision road). In between these two extremes of the transportation network spectrum, you will find many of the roadways that are located in Roanoke County. Functional Street Classification FREEWAY ARTERIALS COLJ..ECTORS LOCALS Emphasis to provide access to land and with limited mobility Figure T -1: ObjectivesÆmphasis of Functional Street Classifications 4 It is important to first establish and then assign a functional street classification to each roadway within the County; and then to institute a policy framework for balancing our land use objectives with the functional street classifications. The idea behind this practice is to ensure that inadequate roads, or roads that were never intended to handle large traffic volumes, are not overtaxed. It is also the intent of County staff to ensure that the access requirements of each land use designation are properly addressed by the roads in the respective classifications. Rather than "reinventing the wheel", the County will utilize the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) functional street classifications.. This is done for unifonnity and clarity since the County is already using VDOT street classification in its Pavement Management System (mentioned in this element of the Community Plan). VDOT's functional classifications are based on mobility and accessibility. The streets and highways are grouped into classes according to the character of service they are intended to provide. The VDOT system parallels the federal classification system except that Federal Major Collectors are designated as Minor Arterials in the State system. The two major categories of roadways are Rural and Urban Functional Classification Systems. The distinction between Rural and Urban is based on population figures reported by the Bureau of Census. An Urbanized area is defined as one having a population exceeding 50,000 people. A Small Urban area is designated by the Bureau of Census having a population between 5,000 and 50,000. Rural areas are all areas not designated Urbanized or Small Urban (i.e., less than 5,000 people). Under the heading of Rural Functional Classification System, the classifications and their subsequent criteria and characteristics are as follows: ~ Rural Principal Arterial (e.g., US 220, between Franklin County line and Blue Ridge Parkway) · Serves corridor movements of substantial statewide or interstate travel; · serves all urban areas of 50,000 and over population and a majority of those over 25,000 people; . provide an integrated network without stub connections; . Primary function is the movement of traffic, access for individual properties is a secondary consideration 5 ~ Rural Minor Arterial (e.g., VA 221, between Floyd County line and Rte. 688 Cotton Hill Rd) · Link cities and large towns; · Provide service to corridors with trip lengths and travel density greater than those served by rural collectors or local systems; · Design should be expected to provide for relatively high overall speeds with minimum interference to through movement; · Direct access to individual property owners is discouraged. ~ Ru ral Major Collector (e.g., VA 311 Catawba Valley Drive, from Y4 mile North ofRte 419 to Craig County line) · Provide service to larger towns not directly served by higher systems; · Link the larger towns to nearby larger towns or routes of higher classification; · Serve the more important intra-county travel corridors; · Entrance controls (such as turn lanes, signals, signs, combined access points, etc.) should be utilized. ~ Rural Minor Collector (e.g., VA 711 Tinsley Road, near Bent Mountain Elementary School) · Spaced at intervals consistent with population density; · To collect traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a collector road · Provide service to the remaining smaller communities. . ~ Rural Local (e.g., VA 617 Pitzer Road, from Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County line) · Serves primarily to provide direct access to adjacent land; · Provide service to travel over relatively short distances as compared to collectors or other higher systems; · Includes all facilities not on one of the higher systems. The Urban Functional Classification System includes the following classes and criteria: }ì;> Urban Principal Arterial (e.g., Rte. 1 1 Williamson Road, between Roanoke City and Botetourt County lines.) · Serves the major center of activity of a metrop01itan area; 6 . Highest traffic volume corridors; · Roads serving the longest trip desires; · Carry a high proportion of the total urban area travel on a minimum of mileage · Limited access highway, direct access to individual properties is controlled. ~ Urban Minor Arterial (e.g., VA 720 Colonial Avenue, from Roanoke City line to Rte 221 Brambleton Ave.) · Should interconnect with and augment the urban principal arterial system and provide service to trip of moderate length at a lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials; · Includes all arterials not classified as a principal and contains facilities that place more emphasis on land access and offer a lower level of traffic mobility. ~ Urban Collector (e.g., VA 630 Kessler Mill Road, from the City of Salem line to Rte 311) · Provides land access and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial areas; · Distributes trips from the arterials through these areas to their ultimate destination; . Collects traffic from local streets and channels it to the arterial system. ~ Urban Local (e.g., VA 1658 Cresthill Drive, from Rte 682 Garst Mill Rd to Rte 1647 McVitty Rd) · Serves primarily as direct access to abutting land; · Serves as access to the higher order systems; · Through traffic movement is deliberately discouraged · All facilities not on one of the higher urban systems. Once the functional street classification system is applied to the County's roads, the next step is to establish the framework for balancing land use objectives with those classifications. The following table, Table T -1, serves to accomplish that goal. In the first column are the County'sNDOT's functional street classifications. The second column contains the County's various land use designations that staff recommends as applicable and pertinent to the street classification. The land use designations are used to identify areas around the County where similar land use activities occur, and are used in conjunction with the Future Land Use Guide and this Community Plan (please refer to Roanoke County Community Plan Land Use Guide for further explanation of the designations). 7 ',;::: Applicable land Use Designations R'u r.~,I,:: :P rê:st3rvé:.::::.,:::::::·!::,::::::.......:··.:..~··.:::...,.,,:: ':, ::,_~,u:låt.)/i.I.lâ:ge::.¡::;::.:::..:::::>:-'-. -. - , ::..:: Villél9Ëf'C_èntef:;::"\" Rural Preserve Rural Village Village Center .. .. R. ...... U,.·::r_·,·,:al M...-.:.,.....,·.:a.,·.·,J·o._.:.r._---_--··,C.' .'o.-.-.U.e,·. -.·.c.:-_:,·..t..·._'o,:.·,".r_:,.·· · ..... ..... · .. ····Rurälf'res¢rve/ · :: ,,: : : ..: " .:} Rurål"Villå'g'ê;>: <:'::::- Rural Preserve Rural Village Conservation <> ........ ....... ./;j, .. . . Ruralpfesef\fê "'<~Ea ,()car>< ......... . RqtªIVilla9~(> :- /:'>:,--.'-: ',:.:::.:: '.,:,:-::_ 0:<"-:-:--::::: - -Cö'-rl'servaliôr1 Transition Core Principal Industrial T '~ Rural Minor Arterial Functional Street Classification , - -, -.,., ". . .-- - 0"..- .. ..,_. .. _,., .". ..- ....- - --. ,-". . ..,-, ,--,. .... ,., -- .. .,.. " , . . - - - . ". - .. ." ,..... -.. - . ..-- ., - ,- --.-. .... . ,- ,. ".-_..-- -. ..... .." , . -.. .--- - -.. ..- RUtéJl. Pti.ric_ipål}~rfêfiªln;/< Rural Minor Collector ':, Urban Principal Arterial :'::: : ::0:;:<:,:' :.-' :-:<:>::. :, :::>.>':'-:, '..,. ...,'::.<...<> >.<.'. U rib I. .-... ,^ ".- '. .~. :.: ::':- \: -' II 'VUIIU 1 /"\1.. _.,' , :::-::':,::..:.:-::-:-::.,::::,: ,::::_::::",,:::<:::::::: ... -:-c_::':-::' '': : .':_::- : _,':-_:- ','. , :..:.¡: I:::',': :-'::: ~nr.o -:.:.::-- -.:.-' ':."-: n :-.::: I .",: _,~ '!W;" I n:::11 L: ,:: ,': Neighborhood Conservation Transition Development 'N~:~gbb()rt}99d::Ç():n~~ryatjon: :::: ::-':.:'::-'::'::·Oèvelopr'iê:nf· --:-. . Urban Collector .' ". ... . . ',., .,. .. .- , ",..' .., "... ., . ."" " . .. . .- .".,... ....".,..., - , ,. ...... ...... , . . - -. .'.. ': :--:-::.. U rÞå·ì,::Local\:·\::::- " - Table T-l: Functional Street Classifications vs. Land Use Designations For example, consider the land use designation "Core". As defined by the Land Use Guide, Core is a future land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem, and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally-based shopping facilities. Some common Core land use types are: general retail shops and personal services, office and institutional uses, and limited industrial uses. One of Core's land use detenninants is access. Locations that are or can be served by an arterial street system are grouped into the Core category. Therefore, based on these detenninants and the criteria outlined in the Land Use Guide for the Core designation, it is sensible to recommend Urban Minor Arterial and Urban Principal Arterial as the functional street classifications that could accommodate development that could 8 occur in the Core areas. Urban Local and Urban collector roads would not address the requirements of most Core area developments, hence they are not recommended. It is important to point out that the recommendations presented in Table T -1 are not requirements or to be viewed as deterrents to a developer. Rather, they should be seen as a guide for developers and County planners in making land use decisions. A prospective developer or planner could determine what land use designation the prospective site is located in and the functional classification of the road serving the development, refer to Table T-I in this document, and determine whether the adjacent roadway is capable of meeting the needs of the development. Once again, this policy framework is not intended to be a disincentive or restriction to development, but rather a planning tool to aid in balancing the established land use objectives with the capabilities of the road network that serves them. Utilizing the information in Table T -1 is but one idea to balance land use objectives with street functional capabilities. County staff is coordinating with VDOT to develop strategies to determine the existing level of service of all roads in the County and then to use that data to better enable planning decisions. Level of service, or LOS, is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Letters designate each level, from "A" to "F", with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Level of Service is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. General definitions of levels of service, as provided in the Highway Capacity Manual are as follows: LOS A describes completely free flow conditions at average travel speeds. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Operations are constrained only by the geometric features of the highway and by driver preferences. LOS B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. The general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to the drivers is still high. 9 LOS C represents stable operations. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted and lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver. Minor disruptions can cause serious local deterioration in service, and queues wiII form behind any significant traffic disruption. LOS D is the level at which speeds begin to decline slightly with increasing flows and density begins to increase somewhat more quickly. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. LOS E describes operation at capacity, an unstable level. At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruption, and any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. Operations at this level are volatile, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. Maneuverability within the traffic stream is extremely limited, and the level of physical and psychological comfort afforded the driver is poor. LOS F represents breakdowns in vehicular flow. This level characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds below one-third to one-quarter of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high approach delays resulting. The Highway Capacity Manual contains no recommendations for the applicability of the levels of service in highway design. That is to say there is no "official" standard as to the minimum acceptable level of service. The choice of an appropriate level of service for design is properly left to the highway designer and the local agencies. Representatives from VDOT state that they do not have formal guidelines for this matter, rather they refer to the Green Book, othervvise known as A Policy on Geometric Desígn of Highways and Streets, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The guidelines set forth in that document are as presented in Table T-2. 10 Appropriate LOS for specified combinations of area and terrain type Functional Class Rural level Rural rolling Rural mountainous Urban and Suburban Freeway B 8 C C Arterial 8 8 C C Collector C C D D Local D D D D Table T -2: Guidelines for acceptable minimum LOS standards Roanoke County will strive to provide the highest level of service practical. County staff will coordinate with VDOT in reviews of traffic impact studies to ensure that these guidelines are met. If the minimum acceptable standards are not met, staff will consult with VDOT as to what mitigation matters, if any, are necessary to meet the standards. County staff should research ordinances that other states/local agencies have implemented that affect development when it is shown that the development project significantly degrades the level of service. Along the same lines of thought, the County staff, specifically the Traffic Engineering department, desires to reserve the right to request a traffic impact study in situations where staff feels it is necessary. The conditions that could trigger a request for a traffic impact study include: rezoning or special use pennit request that is inconsistent with Community Plan; potential impacts upon local and/or regional road networks; the site generates or attracts 100 total trips or more per hour during the adjacent street peak hour; among others. Currently, only the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Director of the Department of Community Development can request a traffic impact study. c. Strategy: Long Range Transportation Plan issues -- Federal regulations, implemented as a result of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-2I), require urbanized area Jv1PO's (Metropolitan Planning Organization) to develop and approve a financially constrained long range multimodal transportation plan. The Long Range Transportation Plan (LR TP) is intended to guide the region in creating a more efficient, responsive, and environmentally-sensitive transportation system over the next twenty to twenty-five years. The plan examines transportation issues/trends and offers a list of specific projects for addressing the region's mobility needs. The LRTP provides the context from which the region's Transportation Improvement 11 Program (TIP), a capital improvement program for implementing highway, transit, and bikeway projects, is drawn. VDOT prepares travel demand forecasts using computer simulation models that relate travel demand to socioeconomic factors. Using the computer model, trips forecasted for the horizon year are assigned to the existing plus committed transportation network. The resulting traffic distribution is then analyzed to detennine at what Level of Service (LOS) the traffic would operate. Recommendations are then made to eliminate existing and projected deficiencies in the network.. The Roanoke Valley MPO is required to conduct a review of the LR TP on a periodic basis, ideally updating the LR TP every five years.. The review takes into account changes in socioeconomic and land use factors and trends. It also includes an evaluation of how well the travel demand forecasting process simulates actual travel. County staff works with the Roanoke Valley MPO and the RV ARC to consider VDOT's recommendations and compare those recommendations and projects to the County's future land use, zoning, impacts to the corridor, smart growth factors, etc. The final product, following the County's review and submittal to VDOT, is an updated LRTP. The plan may also be amended as a result of changes in projected Federal, State and local funding, major improvement studies, congestion management system plans, interstate interchange justification studies, and environmental impact studies. Please refer to Table T-3: Roanoke Study Area 2025 Recommendations & Priorities for the routes on the current LR TP and the recommended improvements (as submitted by Roanoke County staff. For the approved 2025 LRTP, see the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission website -- http://wvvw.rvarc.org/work/lrpfinal.pdf).This represents a prioritized list of the County staffs recommendations and comments for each road section that VDOT has recommended based on their models. Note that the "U" and "R" designations in the "VDOT/Roanoke Co. Recommends" column represent Urban and Rural, respectively. The number that follows the "U" or "R" is the number of lanes proposed. It should be pointed out that the County has recommended allocation of fùnds (relatively more than has been allocated in the past) to be set aside for miscellaneous items such as traffic signals, signal optimization, spot improvements, intersection re-design, transit, bike and pedestrian improvements, and technological solutions to transportation deficiencies. 12 c: ~ Q) 0) c: ~ 0) c: o ...J Il) "~ "-:: ;...¡ .9 100.4 ~ ~ Il) c; o . ,..o ~ ra "0 r:: Q) ~ o u Q) ~ ~ o N tt:S Q) 100.4 ~ ~ '"0 .a CíJ Q) ~ o r:: ra o ~ ~ ~ .. ::I a a:: ~ CQ .i Þ: 'W> ~ § ~ ~ ~ a a:: ã '... .. .u i .'" t: ~ C/" c u s e o u o u u ~ o c ~ ~ c: 0) O)c: 0)0 .c"C >-c: "CO) co 0) Q).c -æ~ "C 0) co ~ ~-; o .c c: E ~.!2 ~ :e ~ .8 ~E "C 0 0 "5 is. U)~ o .. U) u c: c: a; .2:S c: ü '"í o 0) (/) "C U).c en .!!! 0) c: .c:J "ã) - 0 ~ .9.c >- 0= ~ '¡:"5 ~ Co:J « :;i ß ~ E o .:: . V, 0""0 U c: ~ë ~ c a 0 o (.) ~~ ....J V 0::: V, ""0 F- ~ o E o !3 >- 0 ~ ....J V 0::: ~~ .- c: :< ctI ~..J ....J" M ..c tô:=- 5 E .....J- ~ ..... o F- E 0) ã; (/) ....J ~ e o ~ N ..... <C B 0::: g 'ü t'a t.J.. t J: C1) C1) ...J èu ctI - ¡:: :::::I 'E~ &l.. o <0 ~ ..... ..... .€ .9 &l: ..... U) ~.s Q; 0 "C êi) c:: 0:::' Q.. Ec: .E 'õ15 ~~ ~ §!Ë <E ~ 'g co ~ => = '5. ~en ~~ .c O· ~ .5 E C) co ....J 0 :ë 0:::;; 0 .; :::¿ C1):ë 0 ....J U "C- <C ~ .~ ~ ~ a:::~ ~ ..:' "C c: "C Õ "5 .~ ru a::: . .c :J.- LLE ru ß~ .9~ ë c: ru C1)~ ~ $.5 ~~ j~ 8~d Co õ C1) c: oj ~.E c: .5 ~ ~ó~.~~æ 1/ c:: -8 t3 ~ ë3 u: >- ë :J o o , -c: , 0, "C ....J V 0::: ....J V => ....J V => ....J V c::: ...J v .=> ....J v => ....J N ....J N ....J N v r') M C) ~ ..... C) ..... N (/)...... .- C) Eco LO.æ ~o::: ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... C1) æ: C1) æ: ~ 'ë ~ LO<C ~ ..... C1) ~ 0....J æe.> o c::: LO .r:: . Q,) æ: '(/) CD .:::t:. 0-' c:....J rue.> o cr: .' ¿ ~ ë: C1) [D c: o U) E ~ ~ c: ,2 êU ë co ë: ..... N N LO ..... ..... ..... ..... N M v ....J (C 0:::, :::J, (C =>" ....J (C ,0::: ....J v N ...... ('I') C1) .:::¿ o ' æc3' 0" c::: .5 32 c: co LL o N N It) c: o c.. 0) Q) .:.::: >. ~ êã~ Q..ru 0:::....J m.5 Ci>~ "C.c 3e enC/) (1)_ &~ ~~ Nt NO o:::c.. 0,5 ;~ "CC1) ~> 0) ....: i~ 0C1) 0:5 ~ >- :- ,5 :c._~ ë co ~....J 0) e~~ E CoC:O §-. ~: <E ~ æ:5~ ~ ~g~ ñ; ~....J~ ë3 ~co Co Q; ~a)ê1) E cbêU~ g' == û) co u ~~-5 "C (1) co Q; ~ ~~ë o en t:: .- g-. ~ .È ~ c.. 8. "C N ~ ii ~i§U) 1ij => 0) ~ ~ .~ o .~ -i g e a. m c:o- en ¡~æ~£~(1) c: m c.. ~ "C 19 cD mC/) _C:C1)C: ~ ~.;::: 0 P (1) 0 «CD () ::= I.L S c:':: ;r N N c::: ....J (C => o ....J co => ....J (C => ....J v 0::: ....J co => ...J (C 0::: ...J N ...J v ...J v v C'! ..... co ~ ..... r') co o C1) 1::: ~ :J 0...J .s...J æo 20 o 0 c::: .cc >. 0) ~ m ëi5 v <C <C C1) æ: Q) .:::t:. 0-1 æü o· c:: o N N Q,) æ: >. ~ Cã > C1) co """) a; CD c: ~ ã; ~ e.> -è c::: u '¡:: Ü C1) ill <C ..... ..... C) ~ o (C <oct (C f'.: co 0) c: o en ;S .9 - o "¡: Co c: ,2 Õ (1) U) Q) "'C e en a. :J .... ....J (C => ...J (C => ...J v co LO -.:i E cu Cã (/) ...J e.> (f) >. Q) .¥ m ëi) -è c::: u '¡:: ü: CD jjj C) ..... v C) "C ru .c "C c: co en 0) en ~~ u12 õ~ en co õ~ -u ë:- ,5 .2 0 ~;;; =0 co "(ij' ,~ E .cC1) ~.c co"C ....J"5 S~ ~ .. ~.5 :=:0 co Et: (f),æ ;r N N a::: ;r N N 0::: ...J N v ~ ..... v <C <C CIJ [( ...J o .~ ~ c: ru .t ~ m > C1) co """) <C ..... ..... o ..... .... en Ü co Co ,5 o '(ij'.: E èi (1) E :J o >C;; 0= ~E ..:=e B:;; COC1) "C> 00 E E' E~ 0(1) ~~ co>- "Cco :;E 2i:: c/)CIJ ~j r;I) Q) ~ ~ o ~ è cd a .¡: ~ I r;I) ~~ ~ ~¡: o .¡: ~ ~ ....J V => ...J <C => r;I) c o .~ ""'0 C () 8 8 o (.) () ~ V) N o N cd () ~ < >. ""'0 ~ ~ r:.n () ~ o c cd o ~ :...J v C) C) o C) ..... v cu 22 C) co <C (1) æ: ~ I ~ ~ :ë = ~ c: o Q) :c E:- co às ..... N N ..... ..... c: ct Q) ~ ca 0: Þ) c: o ....J CI':J (l) :-E ;....¡ .9 ;....¡ P-t ~ CI':J c:: o . ""'" 0400# rtS "'C c:: (l) 6 6 o u <JJ ~ LO N o N rtS (l) ~ < >- "'C .E Cf) (l) ~ o c:: rtS o ~ .. S ~ & ~ .g ã b œ !!l ~ § ~ ~ fi C Q: r: IC :: ,b ~ I~ S --. Co') ë CJ ê ê o u o u Q.) ..::.::: o c CtI o c:: . Co') 0--0 U C ] Ë o := ã õ ~~ Co') "'0 ~ ~ o :: Q E ;> 0 u u ~ tI) Vol U .- C >< ~ u..:J...J ..c ~:;- j5 ~ e o ~ ~ ·ü ~ è .g.£ c=' ,'0 8 ~ <0 u tI:I .£ .2 -- ~ -C e 'S a- m >. "C m 4).- .... ' Cü ~ Ó ~- "ë m c.. ..... >. d:J c: o ~ N N a:: ;,. N N a:: ...J N '.' <0 :~ -- CI)~ .- N Eco ('),æ ~ 0::, 1.0' -- -- C1) æ: C/) ~ Õ :r: ;,. N N c::: en m -C C1) c: 0) ëi) C1) "C 0) c: ëv .c ë m c.. ~ cO c: o m: ~ ,ca - 45 c: , 0 >.,- ~~ .....C/) ca C1) a.."õ a::'~ m~ - o. c: mo ~c: caO .5 ~ _c: C:O) C1) ïii ': E tV c.-C Oc: "4)m >.c tV..... "C=> "Co tV- C/)GJ 00) a.c: om .....~ a..u ~ N a:: Ñ N N a:: ...J N M 1.0 ci "C a:: u "~ 13 tV W c:ø C:GJ tV~ a.. 0 LJ. (ij "2 o Õ U o N ,...... N .:. - ...J N => ;,. N N a:: ...J N 1.0 N N o N N C1) æ: >. C1) ~ C6 û5 c: ~ ~ u ~ CD en ,...... <0 M ...J N => .9 tV -c m o c. ~ -ti "4) ~ 0) "5 t) tV E 0) c: "5. o u rn ë m c.. ..... >. cO c: o ...J N => ;,. N N c::: ...J N <0 -- -- o ~ -- C1) æ: >. tV ~ m èi5 c: m E "E C1) :E M ã; "it "C ~ ':; CT o ca, 0) ,5 '...J ~:!; ~c. Ó~ I .oX c::: ~ þ Q) § §u C/) ~ ë-o- Q; ~ > mo C1) C/) =~ .5 ~ ~ c. n;~ ~~ .~~ -Þm ~a.. ~~ ...J "it => ...J "it => ...J N en en Ò -! () "E .2 "C tV ca ...J () c: o ë :> >. "C C6 :r: ~ <0 1.0 ...J "it => ëã ~ m "5 ë C1) E c. o "4) > C1) -c ~ ë GJ -c "Ü; ~ -c c: m ~ U; ~ "C .5 ~ o en Õ ...J ...J "it => ...J "it => ...J N en ~ -- C1) > <C c: C1) "C W M -- <0 C1) ëi >. C1) ~ m ëi5 ~ en <0 c: .~ ëõ -c c: tV E E o o ~ ~ é3 C1) ~ o c: ca, o œ: .J:. (;) ëã E .s 'õ.. E C1) ~ 3 c: c: .- 0 ~::= ~e 32S 5£ ~ ca þ C1) £.5 ~ê 0.!2 .9~ ...JO) ;t. e c:~ .~ :r .æE -5~~ 5~~ ~~E .~ "C ~ ë ¡,,: I- ~~.æ :ß~æ C:::o() ....: u- õ- ~g ~g (\') ¡:: _ M ¡:: =>, => ...J "it :: => ...J N o <0 Ò 1.0 -- -- C1) ëi C1) ~ 0...J æ() o a:: Q; 0) Q; .c ~ C/) Q; :r: 1.0 N <D ,...... ...J "it => ...J N "it ~ -- c: S c: ra ø c: o t) :c E f!! ca ~ ~ ra (!) N co <0 co ...J N => .9 C1) 0) c: m ~ U ...J ('\I ::> ;,. N N c::: ...J N 1.0 ~ -- >. C1) ~ m ëi5 Cü '2 o "õ () c;; ~ o LJ. c: c: C1) a.. ,...... co <D en oð Cã "ë o Õ () c: o ":; .c 0) c: ëv .c ~C/) ëã j .J:. u Cã E .s ...J N => .9 ~~ c:.- ~~ ():E Cf.J OJ ..... :3 o ~ Q ~ ~ s::::: o u OJ t/) I Cf.J .~ ..... ·C o ·C ~ ~ ...J N :J Cf.J C .~ ..... ~ ""0 C Il) E E o u ~ lO N o N ~ Il) $...( < >... ~ :3 ..... t/) Il) ~ o s::::: ~ ~ ...J "it :J ...J N "it M o c:ø C:GJ C1) ..... a.. 0 LJ. c: o t) :c E co as '"C ~ = = .... ...... = o u ('f') I ~ ~ :ë ~ ~ ë6 'ë o Õ () o N ,...... o -- B. Goal: To make efficient use of Roanoke County's taxpayers' money allocated for transportation projects. i. Objective: To utilize staff expertise, knowledge, and abilities in making road improvement, design, and maintenance funding decisions. a. Strategy: Pavement Management System for Six- Year Secondary System Construction Plan and Revenue Sharing decisions -- The Six- Year Secondary System Construction Plan is VDOT's plan for the allocation of road construction funds for a six year period. The Six- Year Plan provides improvements to all roads with route numbers of 600 and above. It consists of a priority list of projects and a financial implementation plan. The Plan is based on local projects and priorities adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County and VDOT are continuously reviewing and updating the Six- Year Plan. Staff receives requests throughout the year concerning secondary roads in Roanoke County. In deciding which projects should be included in the Six- Year Plan and/or Revenue Sharing program, staff considers traffic counts, existing and future development, pavement conditions, drainage, safety, and the economic benefit to the County. Staff will make an attempt to incorporate growth management strategies into their decision making process for the Six-Year Plan; but it must be pointed out again that the Six-Year Plan is only applicable to secondary roads and the budget for this program is currently very limited. In the latter part of each year (usually November-December), VDOT and the Board of Supervisors hold a joint public hearing about these road improvement projects. After receiving public input, the Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution establishing the top priorities in road improvement projects for the next six years. As is usually the case, the Board of Supervisors approves a priority list of road improvement projects that would cost, in total, in excess of available funds over the six-year planning period. With such a list developed, subsequent VDOT Six~ Year Plans can be prepared and revised in response to available annual funds. The Revenue Sharing program is slightly different. Whereas State money exclusively is used to fund major road improvement/reconstruction projects in the Six-Year Plan, the County must contribute financial resources for Revenue Sharing projects such as routine/preventive maintenance and smaller scale improvement projects. VDOT annually provides counties the opportunity to receive State matching funds for the construction, maintenance, and improvement to roads in the State's highway system. Roanoke County, a participant in the program, must match dollar for dollar Secondary road improvements within the County. The Commonwealth of Virginia allocates $15 million for the matching program and limits localities to $500,000 each (dependent on the number of counties that participate in the program, the value may be increased or decreased proportionately). VDOT and County staff review and evaluate streets and drainage requests throughout the year. There is also contact made with the County's Economic Development Department, Utility Department, and VDOT's area superintendents. As a result of ever limited State and Federal funding, road construction funds must be carefully expended and road needs carefully identified and programmed. In the past, the County staff has used engineering judgment and opinion to select and prioritize road improvement projects in the County. However, the County is attempting to implement a pavement management system to identify maintenance options, help prioritize competing road sections for immediate attention, and anticipate future deterioration. Under the new system, the County will create and archive an inventory of all the roads in the County (utilizing staff GIS capabilities), assess the current condition of the road, select the appropriate treatment, prioritize the projects, and model its future budget requests. The pavement management system offers a rational, systematic approach, enhances professional judgment, and provides statistical backing for fund-allocations. The desired consequence of utilizing a pavement management system is selecting the right treatment, for the right road, at the right time, ensuring the tax-paying public gets the best value for their dollars. County staff has met with VDOT representatives to discuss their pavement management policy. VDOT uses a pavement management plan for the primary/interstate roads in the Salem District but do not presently have a plan in effect for the secondary/subdivision roads. VDOT has recommended that the County implement a plan for its secondary roads, predominantly for selecting and prioritizing projects in the Revenue Sharing program. VDOT staff has reviewed the software and methodologies that the County plans on using for its pavement management system and had no objections. Both entities have agreed to work in one accord on this undertaking to ensure the best results. At the writing of this element of the Community Plan, the inventory of the County roads is nearly complete and plans are being made to begin the condition assessment and subsequent work. Staff is confident that the implementation of this system is a step towards providing smooth, safe, and economical road surfaces 16 and achieving the best possible value for the available public funds. (Note: Interested citizens should consult the most recent "County of Roanoke Six Year Secondary System Construction Plan and Revenue Sharing" document for a current, prioritized list of road improvement projects in the County. The document is available for review at the County office and/or on the County website.) c. Goal: To guide the use of Roanoke County transportation infrastructure system to control air pollution, traffic, and livability problems. i. Objective: To reduce Roanoke County's dependence on single- occupant vehicle use as a primary mode of travel. a. Strategy: Bicycle Facilities & Greenways -- Bicycle facilities There are numerous benefits associated with bicycling. Bicycling offers health and fitness benefits through increased exercise; environmental benefits through reduced vehicular emissions; and transportation benefits by providing an alternative transportation option to the automobile. Bicycles may also serve as an excellent, all-around short-distance transportation alternative to the single- occupant vehicle for trips to work, schools, shopping, recreational facilities, and other intra-neighborhood destinations. The many benefits of bicycle facilities and reasons to invest in such infrastructure have been adequately explained in detail in both the 1997 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley and the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study - Phase I and II (both documents can be accessed via the Roanoke Val1ey AlJegheny Regional Commission (RV ARC) website: http://www.rvarc.orglbikelhome.htm. or by contacting either the RV ARC, at telephone number (540) 343- 4417, or the County Traffic Engineer, at telephone number (540) 772-2080, to obtain a hard copy of the documents). For that reason, this element of the Community Plan will not attempt to duplicate the valuable infonnation contained in those documents; rather, explain how the County attempts to implement its bikeway plan. The following disclaimer is presented in the 2003 Regional Bicycle Suitability Study: Note: For bicycle accommodations to be considered as part of roadway improvements using Federal and State funding, the roadway must be included in an approved bikeway 17 plan. The 1997 Bilœway Planfor the Roano/œ Valley Area (RV AMPO, 1997) is the approved bikeway document for the MPO, thereby fulfilling this requirement As such, the 1997 Bikeway Plan should be referenced when specific roadways are cited for bicycle accommodations. Phase Iof the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study is not intended to supercede or replace the 1997 Plan in this capacity. Instead it should complement the efforts and goals of the 1997 Plan and facilitate the provision of bicycle accommodation in the MPO. Due to the Virginia Department of Transportation's requirements and importance of having an adequate and complete list, the County is striving to provide input; not only on amendments to the 1997 Plan, but in the creation of a region-wide, connected network of bicycle facilities that will hopefully be an end product of the Regional Bicycle Suitability Studya The Regional Bicycle Suitability Study will consist of Phase I and Phase II. Whereas Phase I of the Study introduces the applicable computer models, provides detailed analysis and summary of survey responses, gives an overview of local, regional, state, and national bicycle facility planning efforts, and lays the groundwork for the project, Phase II of the Study will consist primarily of the application of work products developed in Phase l A prioritized list of routes, corridors, destinations, and activity centers to be connected via a significant regional bicycling network; maps of existing and proposed bicycle facilities, and other spatial data relevant to the study; and potentially a new, approved, and updated bike plan are end products of Phase II. The primary goal of the Study is to provide planners, transportation engineers, citizens, and bicycle coordinators and enthusiasts the tools and data for use in developing facilities and other accommodations to enhance safe bicycle travel within the MPO area. Data and tools developed as part of the Study are useful in identifying current and future problems facing the bicycling public, facilitating the planning and design of a bicycle-friendly transportation system, and determining possible options regarding operational and design requirements for new facilities. End products will assist stakeholders in establishing consistency and connectivity along travel corridors, developing crucial linkages with the greenway system and public transit, and developing other components of a regional bicycling network. 18 Development of a regional bicycling network will require coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders in the study area. As a geographic region composed of several jurisdictions, Roanoke ValJey governments should coordinate bicycle facility improvements to ensure that travel corridors are consistent in and between jurisdictions in the study area. As part of the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study, a planning committee, composed of interested stakeholders, was established to assist in various aspects of the study. Representation from a varied cross-section of stakeholders was sought in selecting members. The planning committee was composed of Regional Commission staff, local planning and traffic engineering staff (including Roanoke County staff), Greenway representatives, VDOT representatives, bicycling advocates, and citizens. The committee is assisting in the development of a regionaJly significant bicycling network by guiding the application of work products in Phase II of the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study, facilitating continued regional cooperation in bicycle facility planning, and data collection. The new Study will make it easier for the MPO and the localities to develop a new bikeway plan to replace the 1997 Bikeway Plan, but will not, in itself, be a replacement for the 1997 plan. Until a new plan is developed and adopted by the MPO, the 1997 plan will be the official plan that the County adheres to and thus, it is important to keep the 1997 plan up-to-date. Tools from the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study could be used to develop a new bicycle plan for the region in the next few years. Rather than waiting for the completion of a replacement or update to the 1997 Plan, the County will strive to utilize the computer models introduced and implemented in the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study to get ajump on the planning efforts. Before the design phase of scheduled road projects begins, County staff will attempt to measure the existing bicycle compatibility level and generate proposed options regarding an applicable bicycle facility; all the while consulting the 1997 Bikeway Plan. Study findings and work products will be available to localities in the region, and can be easily incorporated in the development of regional and local plans. Once the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study is complete and the localities have agreed upon a bicycle- friendly transportation infrastructure that has been developed on a regional basis (not only to meet existing demands, but also to encourage and facilitate bicycling as a viable means of 19 transportation in the Roanoke Valley), County staff recommends that the County Board of Supervisors adopt the new plan and that it is utilized as the County's approved plan. In addition, the Virginia Department of Transportation released a memorandum in early 2003 stating their bicycle and pedestrian policies and procedures. In the memo, the Secretary of Transportation stated, among other things: that non-motorized transportation should receive the same consideration as motorized transportation in the planning, design, construction, and operation of Virginia's transportation network; and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should be included in the design of all new highway facilities and all major highway reconstruction efforts, unless special circumstances exist that prevent their inclusion or a local governing body has formally requested that bicycle or pedestrian accommodations not be included. The Secretary declared that the new policies should be in place by end of the 2003 calendar year. That policy became effective on March 18, 2004 and applies to projects that have not yet reached the scoping phase. The "Policy for Integrating Bjcycle and Pedestrian Accommodations" can be reviewed on VDOT's website. The County will keep abreast of the developments pertinent to VDOT's bicycle and pedestrian policies and procedures. Ultimately, the County's objectives pertaining to bicycle facilities can be summed up in the following points: o To complete a network of bikeways that serves bicyclists' needs, especially for travel to employment centers, commercial districts, transit stations, institutions, and recreational destinations; o To provide bikeway facilities that are appropriate to the street classifications, traffic volumes, and speed of traffic; o To develop and implement education and encouragement plans aimed at youth, adult cyclists, and motorists; and to increase public awareness of the benefits of bicycling and of available resources and facilities; o To encourage bicycle parking and related facilities as part of all new construction or major renovation, including office, retail, industrial, and housing developments; o To encourage the construction of showers and changing facilities in all new or renovated commercial development; o To encourage bicycle parking facilities at all park and ride lots, commercial developments, and selected parking lots (such as bicycle parking facilities at public spaces such as County buildings, museums, libraries and civic centers). 20 A regionally significant bikeway network in the MPO will include the Roanoke Valley Greenway system. The greenway systelTI is an integral component of the recreational and transportation infrastructure in the area, providing open and recreational space for Roanoke VaIley residents. Some bicyclists, such as novice users, will not be comfortable with on-road facilities. The Greenway Plan presents an added opportunity to meet this need by providing facilities with little conflict from automobiles and by providing linkages and connectivity. The Roanoke Valley's green way system is explained in the following section of this element of the Community Plan. Green ways A greenway is a corridor of protected open space managed for conservation, recreation and nonmotorized transportation. Greenways often follow natural geographic features such as ridge lines, stream valleys, and rivers, but may also be built along canals, utility corridors, or abandoned rail lines. Most greenways include a trail or bike path, but others may be designed strictly for environmental or scenic protection. Greenways, as vegetated linear parks, provide tree cover, wildlife habitat, and riparian buffers to protect streams. The environmental benefits include reduced stonn water runoff, flood reduction, water quality protection, and preservation of biological diversity. The trails within the greenways provide access between neighborhoods and destination points, opportunity to travel without an automobile, outdoor education classrooms, and close-to-home paths for walking, jogging, bicycling, and roller blading. Tree cover and use of bicycles instead of cars provide for better air quality, fewer hard-surfaced parking lots, and reduced energy costs. Although greenways are a collateral component of a county-wide park system, they do not replace the need for additional park land. In the spring of 1995, the four local governments (Roanoke County, Roanoke City, City of Salem, and Town of Vinton) appointed representatives to a Greenways Steering Committee, supported by the Fifth Planning District Commission. A consulting firm was hired to develop a Conceptual Greenv.Jay Plan for the Roanoke Valley with input from elected officials, civic leaders, and the general public. This Plan was adopted by each of the four jurisdictions in 1997. The Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, appointed by the four Valley governments, replaced the Steering Committee in 21 1997. It is an advisory body with the responsibility to facilitate cooperation and coordination among jurisdictions in greenway planning and development; recommend funding sources for greenway construction; develop uniform standards for design and construction; and, pursue public/private partnerships for greenway development. In August 1997, the first one-half mile of greenway in Roanoke was completed through Garst Mill Park along Mud Lick Creek. This was the first section of greenway in Roanoke County and is being very heavily used. Extensions of this greenway are planned to connect to the Hidden Valley High School and to Murray Run Greenway in the City of Roanoke. The Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail which travels through portions of Salem and Roanoke County opened in 1999. This Trail is included on the brochure Shenandoah Valley Civil War Trails and attracts tourists as well as local residents. The extension of this greenway will follow Masons Creek to the Roanoke River. In 2001 the Wolf Creek Greenway opened in Roanoke County, extending a section built in the Town of Vinton in 1999. This trail connects the new bicycle lanes built on Hardy Road to Goode and Stonebridge Parks in Roanoke County ~ The extension of this greenway will connect with the Blue Ridge Parkway to the northeast and with the Roanoke River to the south. A master plan for Tinker Creek Greenway was completed in 2000 in cooperation with Roanoke City, and plans for Glade Creek Greenway are being developed with the Town of Vinton. The backbone of the Roanoke Valley greenway system will be the Roanoke River Greenway which will run for over 20 miles through Roanoke County, S,alem, Roanoke City, and Vinton. Master plans for the Roanoke River Greenway have been completed, and two sections of the greenway have been built - one in Salem and one in Roanoke City. The first section to be built in Roanoke County will be in Green Hill Park. In 1998, Roanoke County completed a prioritization of greenways within its jurisdiction. The priorities for off-road routes were: Wolf Creek, Roanoke River, Tinker/Carvins Creek, Glade Creek, and Mud Lick Creek Greenways. The priorities developed by staff in 2001 for on-road facilities needing major improvements were: Mountain View Road, Plantation Road, Hardy Road, Loch Haven Drive, and Colonial Avenue. While a significant amount of progress has been made on greenways over the last 7-8 years, there are substantial steps still to be taken. 22 b. Strategy: Traffic Management Strategies -- For the most part, the effectiveness of existing roads should be maximized rather than using new road construction as a crutch. It has been proven in the past that we cannot build our way out of congestion; we must begin to be creative about the utilization of the existing infrastructure. Some potential strategies Roanoke County staff can implement include: · Encouraging motorists to carpool or rideshare; · Promote employer-supported vanpool programs; · Persuade the use of park -and-ride facilities; · Endorse shuttle transit service from fringe parking areas to urban centers or major destinations; · Encourage enhanced motorists information services and systems (such as presenting the congestion crises on television, radio, or the internet; motorists would be advised to car pool or alter their driving patterns); · Advocate public transit, working with Valley Metro (Greater Roanoke Transit Company) and RADAR (Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride); · Support non-motorized travel, such as bicycle/pedestrian facilities (addressed in other sections of this Plan); · Teaming up with Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission (R V ARC) and their regional ridesharing program called "Ride Solutions". This program is a grant- funded program that provides free carpool and vanpool matching services for citizens of the Roanoke Valley and surrounding areas within southwestern VA. The program also provides directions to area park-and-ride lots, and information about alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit service, walking, and bicycling. Information on Ride Solutions can be obtained from the website www.ridesolutions.org or by calling them at (540) 342-9393. c. Strategy: Education on Transportation Systems & Livability Issues -- Americans perceive their car as a provider of the freedom that we have come to cherish so greatly. An aspect of that freedom is enjoying the privacy, convenience, and safety of automobiles. Our love of cars has grown out of necessity. That is to say, as residential developments are built without proximity to employment centers or shopping facilities, residents have no choice but to use personal automobiles. Transportation infrastructure has been designed and built for the personal transport vehicle, rather than designed on a human scale. 23 The public must be infonned of the alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle. One method to consider is infonning the younger residents of Roanoke County. Educating the young is highly important if you want to make a new transportation system work or even make an old one work better.. Today's children are the potential mass transit users, bikers, and pedestrians of tomorrow, but the potential must be tapped through education. By educating children, not only is the next generation reached, but so are the parents. The children will hopefully influence the parents to consider alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. Roanoke County staff will consider working in conjunction with the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission in their educating/advertising endeavors. Staff should also examine informing and promoting the use of mass transit with the aid of Valley Metro (Greater Roanoke Transit Company) and RADAR (Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride). The County should also enlist the help of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and local bicycling clubs to publicize and market the facilities available to pedestrians and bicyclists. Roanoke County staff could also utilize the County website and the public access cable channel (Roanoke Valley Television, RVTV Channel 3) in its educating efforts. ii. Objective: To reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. a. Strategy: Traffic Calming -- Traffic calming measures are mainly used to address speeding and high cut-through traffic volumes on neighborhood streets. These issues can create an atmosphere in which non-motorists are intimidated, or even endangered, by motorized traffic. Along with the additional amount of traffic generated within the neighborhood, cut-through motorists are often perceived as driving faster than local motorists. By addressing high speeds and cut-through volumes, traffic calming can increase both the real and perceived safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Although the social results of traffic calming are slightly more difficult to measure, studies show that traffic calming measures can increase property values, decrease crime and noise levels, promote a sense of community, and improve the quality of life within the neighborhood. In an effort to induce motorists to slow down and drive responsibly, traffic calming purposely introduces additional self- 24 enforcing physical features in the design of the roadway, effectively changing the design speed.. Traffic calming measures are generally implemented in a retrofit situation and traditional design standards require interpretation and modification. Some of the commonly implemented traffic calming measures includes: Horizontal Deflection · curb extension / bulb out; · chicane; · choker; · on-street parking; · raised median island / pedestrian refuge; · and traffic circle, etc. Vertical Deflection · textured --crosswalk; · speed hump; · raised intersection; · and raised crosswalk, etc. Physical Obstruction · semi-diverter; · diagonal diverter; · raised median through intersection; · and street closure, etc. Signs and Pavement Markings · roadway narrowing with edge lines; · speed limit signing; · turn prohibitions; · one-way streets; · and commercial vehicle prohibitions, etc. Any of the above mentioned measures could be individually installed but may be most effective if used in concert with other measures. Tools not recommended for traffic calming include: STOP signs, "Children at Play" signs, speed dips, and speed bumps. Functional classification and land use should be primary criteria in determining whether traffic calming measures are appropriate for a particular roadway. When conditions warrant, traffic calming measures may be appropriate on the following roadway types: . Local residential streets; · Collector streets with predominantly residential land uses; · Arterial roads located within downtown districts or commercial areas (with posted speed limits of 40 mph or less). Traffic calming is not appropriate for use on arterial streets which are intended to accommodate higher speeds and larger traffic volumes. It is important to determine the 25 intended function of the roadway and remember that efficiently moving large numbers of vehicles is necessary on some roads. When implementing traffic calming measures, it is best to do so under the direction of an overall traffic calming plan for the area in question. Installing traffic calming devices in the absence of an area-wide plan could simply divert one neighborhood's speed and traffic volume problems to other streets. One more critical facet of traffic calming is gaining community support. A comprehensive community outreach program is important to ensure that the communities' needs will be met by a proposed project. A task force should be formed at the early stages of planning and concept development. This task force should have representation from the following groups: residents, business and property owners, emergency services, school representatives, transit authorities, local officials, utility departments, RV ARC, VDOT, and other interested parties. The idea behind this is to try to get up-front public involvement in order to ensure that the final solution has broad support in the community. It is the citizen's of Roanoke County that must live with the solution and the traffic calming measures will be largely unsuccessful without community support. By making the residents co-authors of the solution it will foster a sense of ownership and pride in the community. The role of Roanoke County staff is one of facilitator rather than director of the solution. County staff will also work to investigate citizen's traffic calming requests as they are submitted and will examine possibilities to include traffic calming to be included in repair/reconstruction projects on all applicable roads. Staff will determine (based on functional classification, land use, and other factors) whether traffic calming implementation should be pursued and if so, work with VDOT on the project. iii. Objective: To provide access to land development, while preserving the safety and capacity of the transportation system. a. Strategy: Access Management -- Access management is a fairly new response to the congestion, the loss of arterial capacity, and the serious access related accidents that are plaguing our roadways. It is defined as the careful control of the location, design, and operation of all driveways and public street connections to a roadway. Access management is intended for use on collectors and arterial roads that have many commercial and 26 residential driveways/intersections to increase the mobility of the traffic. There are different methods for attaining the goals and those methods are typically designed around the needs and problems of each particular area. The basic principles of access management include: Limiting the Number of Conflict Points A conflict point exists at any place that vehicle paths will cross, merge into, or diverge from one another along roadways, specifically at intersections or driveways. The potential for vehicular crashes increases as the number of conflict points along a roadway go higher. One method for limiting the number of conflict points is to decrease the number of driveways a business or neighborhood can have onto an arterial or collector roadway. Limitation of conflict points can also be accomplished with the use of reverse frontage and access roads. Decreasing the number of conflict points significantly reduce the potential for crashes. Separating Basic Conflict Areas Intersections of public streets as well as intersections of driveways and public streets represent basic conflict areas. High levels of activity can occur at these locations and, consequently, the through traffic needs time to react to the decelerations, accelerations, and travel paths of other vehicles at or near the intersections. Adequate spacing between intersections allows drivers to react to one intersection at a time and provides greater opportunities to avoid potential conflicts at each successive downstream intersection. Similarly, setting driveways and connections back from intersections reduces the number of conflicts and provides more time and space for vehicles to turn or merge safely across lanes. One way of accomplishing this goal is to close off or relocate existing entrances or establish a larger minimum lot size for comer lots. Reducing Interference with Through Traffic Traffic often needs to slow down for vehicles exiting, entering, or turning across the roadway. Providing turning lanes and restricting turning movements allows turning traffic to get out of the way of the following through traffic. Other measures include increasing the turning radius of a driveway, using a driveway flare, or increased driveway width and length. Providing Adequate On-Site Circulation and Storage The design of good internal vehicle circulation in parking areas and on local streets reduces the number of driveways that businesses need for access to the major roadway. Internal 27 connections between neighboring properties allow vehicles to circulate between businesses without having to re-enter the major roadway. Subdivisions should be designed so that lots fronting the major roadway have internal access from a residential street (reverse frontage). Implementation of an access management measure is much easier when constructing a new corridor with wide right-of-ways and no existing development. Developers can follow certain guidelines or regulations that have been established. However, as is the case in most of Roanoke County, most of the corridors have already been developed and the right-of-ways are set. The designers and developers must try to "retrofit" access management measures into an already tight right-of-way. More often than not, access management projects will coincide with major road improvements. Some of the benefits of implementing Access Management are: · Saves lives and reduces the frequency of fatal, injury, and property damage accidents; · Maintains the transportation system travel efficiency necessary for economic prosperity; · Prolongs the functional life of existing highways by maintaining or increasing capacity, thereby reducing the need for new capital construction to meet increasing system demands; · Is an element of Air Quality Confonnance; · Reduces congestion and delay and provides property owners with safe access to highways; · Promotes desirable land use patterns, establishes unifonn standards, and promotes fair and equal application to the development of the community. Virginia Department of Transportation has Access Management guidelines that are available for adoption by the County. Roanoke County staff will consider adoption of said standards, coordinating with RV ARC and VDOT throughout the process. Until the time that the Board has approved and adopted the standards, staff will consider each major corridor project that is performed in the County as a candidate Access Management project.. iv. Objective: To reduce noise-levels where transportation activities are the predominant noise generating sources. a. Strategy: Noise Abatement Measures -- To the normal Roanoke County motorist, highway traffic noise is not a 28 considerable concern. However, to the many County residents and business owners that are adjacent to a busy travel way, it is an unnecessary nUIsance. The level of highway traffic noise depends on three factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. With the number of registered vehicles and vehicle miles traveled increasing every year to nearly uncontrollable values, planners/designers must look to strategies other than traffic and/or speed mitigation. The highway noise dilemma can be solved with a three-part solution: motor vehicle control, land use control, and highway planning and design. Motor vehicle control: The Environmental Protection Agency has issued noise limit regulations for new trucks and many local and State governments have passed ordinances requiring existing vehicles to be properly maintained and operated. Land use control: Highway traffic noise complaints often come from occupants of new homes built adjacent to an existing highway. The majority of these highways were originally constructed through undeveloped lands. Prudent land use control can help to prevent many future traffic noise problems in these areas. It is important to point out that such controls need not prohibit development, but rather require reasonable distances bet\.veen buildings and roads as well as "soundproofing" or other noise abatement measures. Another strategy is to promote the development of less noise-sensitive commercial buildings next to a major highway, with residencies farther away. Highway planning and design: Early in the planning stages of most highway improvement projects, the highway agency will do a noise study. The existing noise levels of a highway are measured or computed by models. Then, the aget:lcy predicts what the future noise levels will be once the project is constructed. If the predicted noise levels exceed Federal noise criteria, the agency must consider measures that can be taken to lessen the adverse noise impacts. Some noise reduction measures that can be implemented on existing roads include creating buffer zones, construction barriers (e.g., earth benns, noise walls, etc.), planting vegetation, installing noise insulation in buildings, and managing traffic. On a more local level, VDOT established its Noise Abatement Policy in 1989 to lessen the impact of highway traffic noise on people in neighborhoods and in other noise-sensitive areas. That policy maintains that VDOT will conduct a highway traffic noise study on proposed federally funded highway improvement projects. These projects must meet one of the following 29 conditions: a highway is being built on a new location; an existing highway is being redesigned with a significant change in its alignment; or the number of through traffic lanes on an existing highway is being increased. The cost of the noise reduction measures are included with the other costs of the highway improvement and are eligible for Federal funding in the same proportion as other aspects of the project. State highway agencies may also use Federal highway grants for noise reduction project on existing roads on the Federal-aid system. The monies spent on the noise reduction measures are deducted from funds which would otherwise be available for highway construction. On non-federally funded highway improvement projects, the locality can obtain partial funding from VDOT to implement noise abatement measures ¡fthe locality meets eligibility requirements outlined in the aforementioned state noise policy. The County will strive to adhere to VDOT's Noise Abatement Policy when making decisions pertinent to Roanoke County roads. If alternative measures will not reduce the noise or are not desirable in a certain location, VDOT engineers will then consider installing noise walls. The noise walls must meet the following conditions: they will not present a safety or engineering problem; they will reduce noise levels by at least five decibels at all impacted locations; and they cost $30,000 or less per noise- impacted property. lfthe structure costs more than $30,000 per affected property, they can still be built if a third party - someone other than VDOT or FHW A, such as a locality or developer - funds the difference. The neighborhood or any other interested party can also participate as the third party and third party payments must be received prior to the start of highway construction. Noise problems are harder to mitigate after an area is developed. Consequently, local governments are encouraged to evaluate potential noise problems as part of planning and zoning decisions. Development standards can regulate the placement of noise generating activities adjacent to sensitive areas such as residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, parks, natural areas, and open spaces. Some of the action measures that the County can consider implementing include: · Coordinate with area RV ARC, MPO, and adjacent state and local agencies to minimize noise impacts of existing and future transportation facilities and other noise- producing land uses; · Ensure development complies with state noise regulations; 30 · Adopt development standards which require review of the potential noise impacts of new development, including roads, and the need for appropriate mitigating measures such as: o Building setbacks; o Berms, noise walls, and extensive landscaping; o Site design measures such as using parking, storage areas and buildings which generate little or no noise to separate noise sources from surrounding land uses; o Sound insulation and state of the art mechanical and processing equipment which generate little or no nOIse; o Measures recommended by DEQ or a qualified noise consultant and financial agreements to ensure required noise reduction measures are installed; o Increased rights-of-way for major arterials and berming, noise walls, sunken roadways, and planting of large shrubs and trees; and o Traffic management measures to discourage through traffic from using local residential streets. v. Objective: To help reduce and control air pollutants in the Roanoke Valley and surrounding area. a. Strategy: Ai, Quality/Attainment Status -- The primary objective of the Federal Clean Air Act, amended by the U.S. Congress in 1990, is to establish standards for various pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and to provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via state implementation plans. The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) to establish minimum national standards for air quality, and assigns primary responsibility to the states to assure compliance. Areas not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), referred to as nnon-attainment" areas, are required to implement specified air pollution control measures. Roanoke County, by its inclusion in the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), may possibly be designated as a non- attainment area. The Roanoke MSA has one ozone monitor located in the town of Vinton. Roanoke County and all other communities within the MSA are judged solely on that one monitoring station. To meet the I-hour ozone standard, the Roanoke MSA must have a monitored hourly peak ozone 31 concentration below 125 parts per billion (ppb). Since 1990, the Roanoke MSA has exceeded the I-hour standard on two occasions in 1998. However, due to the guidelines, the MSA remains in compliance for the I-hour standard. Similarly, the 8-hour ozone standard, found by averaging three years of the fourth highest 8-hour ozone levels in the area, must be lower than 85 ppb to meet the standard. Currently (as of2003), the Roanoke MSA design value is 87 ppb. Therefore, it is probable, based on recent monitoring data, that the Roanoke MSA will be designated a non-attainment area when fonnal designations occur, by the year 2004. The region is volunteering to put itself into the Ozone Early Action Program (OEAP) process to expedite air cleanup and to avoid being labeled a non-attainment area. The two principal components of the OEAP are the Early Action Compact (EAC) and the Early Action Plan (EAP). The EAC is a memorandum of agreement to prepare and implement the EAP. Specifically, the EAC sets measurable milestones for developing and implementing the EAP. The EAC is between the local governments representing the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, the Town of Vinton, the EP A, and VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). It is for the express purpose of developing and implementing a plan that will reduce ground-level ozone concentrations in the Roanoke MSA to comply with the 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2007 and maintain that standard until at least 2012. Failure to meet that obligation results in immediate reversion to the traditional non- attainment process and the subsequent negative impacts. A major advantage of the region's participation in the OEAP is the flexibility afforded to the signatories of the Compact in selecting emission reduction measures and programs that are best suited to local needs and circumstances. The Roanoke MSA's OEAP is designed to enable a local, proactive approach to ensuring attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard and, as a by-product of these actions, protect human health. Using the OEAP approach, the region could begin implementing by 2005 emission-reduction measures directed at attaining the 8-hour standard. This allows for a significantly earlier start than waiting for fonnal EP A non-attainment designation and it gives more flexibility in choosing which emission reduction strategies to implement. The Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (R V ARC), in consultation with the aforementioned local governments, will develop the EAP in coordination with VDEQ, EP A, stakeholders, 32 and the public. The EAP will serve as Roanoke MSA's official air quality improvement plan, to be adopted and implemented by the local governments. By signing the EAC, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is committed to holding responsibility for the development and implementation of the EAP. Roanoke County Community Development staff has aided the RV ARC in the early stages of the EAC and EAP and helped in selecting the consultant that will work on this project. The staff will continue its efforts with the RV ARC, adjacent communities, and interested stakeholders throughout this endeavor; ensuring that the emission reduction measures that are selected are best suited to County needs and circumstances. (For more information, please refer to the latest copy of the Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan on the internet at http://www~rvarc.org/work/eap.pdf) D. Goal: To play an influential role in shaping and implementing regional transportation decisions. i. Objective: To continue comprehensive transportation planning and to work in concert with neighboring jurisdictions and public entities. a. Strategy: Active role in Regional Transportation Issues and Funding -- In 1973, federal law began requiring the formation of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for urbanized areas with populations exceeding 50,000 to ensure that federal expenditures on transportation projects include cooperation at all government levels and provide for citizen input. The regional MPO consists of representatives from area localities, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, Roanoke Regional Airport, and the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RV ARC). The service area of the Roanoke Valley Area MPO includes Roanoke and Salem cities, Vinton, the urbanized portions of Botetourt and Roanoke counties and the extreme western portion of Bedford County . The MPO functions through regional forums where a series of participants address transportation issues. The Policy Board reviews and approves plans and programs and exercises administrative and fiscal control over MPO duties. It is made up of two representatives (at least one ejected officiaJ) from each member locality and one member each from other participating 33 agencies. The Transportation Technical Committee (rrC) works closely with MPO staff in developing plans and programs and advises the Policy Board on technical and administrative issues related to regional transportation planning. It is comprised of planning and engineering staff from participating members of the MPO. An often underutilized component of the decision-making process is citizen participation. The public is invited to help develop, review and comment on proposed regional transportation plans. All MPO meetings are open to the public and serve as a regular forum for community transportation concerns. The Metropolitan Planning Organization is charged with developing plans and programs to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) in order for federal-aid dollars to reach their regions. Federal regulations (see discussion of TEA- 21 in this element of the Community Plan) mandate that each MPO develop a Long Range Transportation Plan and a Transportation Improvement Plan" The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is an urbanized area's guide to creating a more efficient, responsive and environmentally-sensitive transportation system over a twenty-year horizon. This plan examines transportation issues and trends and offers a list of specific projects for dealing with a region's mobility needs. The LR TP is updated every five years and public input is requested. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a three-year schedule of all federally funded and regionally significant transportation projects to be constructed in the urbanized area. To receive federal funding, these projects must first be approved by the MPO Policy Board for inclusion in the TIP. The TIP is updated annually and may include proposals originating from the LRTP. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is Virginia's version of the TIP, (eannarking state funds) established after annual TIP approvals. The Unified Transportation Work Program (UTWP) is a one-year schedule of all urban transportation planning activities that will be carried out with federal expenditures. Project suggestions can originate from the public or from any MPO member. The Policy Board and TTC determine the projects to be part of the UTWP which is updated each year. Roanoke County staff will continue in its efforts to work in concert with the RV ARC, collaborating on particular facility, sub-area, corridor, and system-level transportation studies, and representing the County on the associated boards and committees mentioned above. 34 b. Strategy: Active role with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) -- Roanoke County staff seeks to work in a cooperative manner with Virginia Department of Transportation on all projects that occur in the County. This coordination of efforts is done to ensure the project progresses in a timely manner; all the while, looking out for the best interests of the County residents. Our efforts may involve forvvarding citizens' comments, questions, and/or recommendations, ensuring compliance with County standards, and sharing data, information, expertise, etc. to assure timely and efficient completion of projects. Whereas County residents and staff have input on all roads in Roanoke County, the opportunity for citizen input is greater regarding the secondary roads, working within the framework of the annually updated Six- Year Secondary System Construction Plan. The public may advise county staff on needed safety or other improvements to the secondary street system. Staff considers these requests, investigates the matter, and takes the concerns to VDOT, hopefully to gain a spot in the Six-Year improvement program. Staff also gathers insight and input from the Board of Supervisors, VDOT, and the MPO prior to the inclusion of a specific road into the Six-Year improvement program (see Figure T-2 for an explanation ofVDOT's Project Development Process). In addition to the Six- Year improvement program, the County also works in conjunction with VDOT on Revenue Sharing (both the Six- Year Secondary System Construction and R.evenue Sharing programs are covered in this element of the Community Plan) and the Rural Addition Program. County staff will attempt to _continue to grow and strengthen the working rel~tionship with VDOT, specifi~ally the Salem District of VDOT. 35 VDOT Project De.velopment Process Constrained L()1J; Ra~e 20 Yr PJM d. , Dwric1 " PJ.annlng & Added to ~ ,ðJlocation ~ Added to programmng . TentatlvB~ He.1tring ~ 6 Yr. P2an FHwA& ._ FedBrat.· . ..... : ~ Transit. ~' Projed Agency , for approval ¡ ..... N:m:;· ~ SocotICIOlY bd ~as feR ~ ..;... I j r.41'O'5 yrben AId)' wee o:fId would bt Ind«Wd ! j:/~r~~~L~U:~ZìYJPtan.·. I L--w._._'_';'--'-~ Figure T -2: VDOT Project Development Process c. Strategy: Support regional aviation efforts -- The Virginia Air Transportation Systems Plan classifies the Roanoke Regional Airport as a Commercial Service Airport. The Roanoke Regional Airport accommodates the aviation needs of the scheduled airlines, air freight carriers, general aviation, corporate, air taxi and charter operators, as well as the military, for a region including, but not limited to, the Roanoke Valley. The Roanoke Regional Airport's passenger service area covers an area which includes the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Counties of Roanoke, Montgomery, Pulaski, Giles, Craig, Botetourt, Alleghany, Rockbridge, Bedford, Franklin, Floyd, and portions of West Virginia. Public ground transportation service to and from the airport is limited to taxicab and limousine service. There are a few heliports located in and around the area. Although these heliports are important from a service and air traffic standpoint, their impact on overall transportation planning in the Roanoke area is minor. The need for improvements to the Roanoke RegionaJ Airport spawned an Airport Master Plan Update in 1997 to estimate and accommodate future aviation demand, maintain flexibility for development opportunities and market changes, and to recognize physical constraints. Major long-range anticipated improvements (horizon year 2015) include pavement upgrades to airfield runways, relocation and widening of taxiways, installation of new runway navigational/landing aids, construction of a new air traffic control tower and changes to the passenger tenninal and parking lots. The implementation strategies put forth in the County's 1998 Community Plan hold true for this update/revision. The strategies include: 36 · Supporting improvement to the airport and airport access as a central factor in economic development; · Locating and operating aviation and related facilities in such a way as to minimize detrimental environmental and community impacts; · Evaluating land uses around existing aviation facilities during the development review process, to ensure compatibility in terms of height, noise, and the functional classification of the aviation facility; · Supporting the provision of transit service to the Roanoke Regional Airport, not only for passengers, but in support of the airport's role as a major employment center; · Encouraging the use and development of the Roanoke Regional Airport and seek international status; · Encouraging the Airport Commission to procure aviation and related facility easements where appropriate. d. Strategy: Collaborate with Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) -- Rail transport, once a thriving business and transportation choice in the Roanoke Valley, is not presently a popular mode of transportation for County citizens. There is currently no direct inter-city rail service available from the Roanoke valley. There is, however, rail service from Clifton Forge and Lynchburg, surrounding communities within a short driving distance of Roanoke. Roanoke County staff should cooperate with the VDRPT, RV ARC, and Roanoke City staff in revitalizing passenger rail service for the Roanoke Valley. ii. Objective: To stay abreast of recent legislation that pertains to transportation and investigate its availability for County infrastructure systems. a. Strategy: TEA-3 (An Update / Reauthorization of TEA- 21) -- TEA-3, or Transportation Equity Act- 2003 (third authorization) refers to the nation's surface transportation program previously scheduled for renewal in 2003. The original vision, Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 introduced a series of reforms to national transportation policy, steering away from the automobile and towards pedestrian, bicycling, passenger rail and transit mobility. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty- First Century (TEA-21) continued those programs through the expenditure of $300 billion during the decade. The renewal ofTEA-21 could occur anytime from mid-2004 through late 2005 involving Senate Commerce, Science & 37 Transportation, Finance, Banking, Environment & Public Works, and Housing & Urban Affairs committees and House of Representatives Transportation & Infrastructure, Science, and Ways & Means committees with the U.S. Department of Transportation as the lead agency. The challenge is to build on ISTEA's provisions for improving transportation through flexibility, local decision-making, long range planning, fiscally constrained budgeting, and environmental stewardship. Sound transportation investments can help communities thrive by providing a safe, healthy, and secure environment, enhancing neighborhood livability, and promoting energy efficiency and conservation. The most popular and visible use of federal funds has been conducted under the Transportation Enhancements Program (TE). TE was created under ISTEA and fosters local economic development and helps reconnect communities divided or negatively impacted by highway construction. Using only two cents of every federal transportation dollar, TE projects - bicycle and pedestrian facilities, main street revitalization programs, renovation of train stations and other historic sites, scenic easements, and billboard removal along highway corridors - are achieved. For example, the regional greenways program has been awarded nearly $3.88 million in Transportation Enhancement and other federal funding since 1996. County staff will continue to monitor the progress of the TEA-3 authorization and investigate ways that County residents can benefit. iii. Objective: To remain informed and up-to-date on major road/transportation projects within the County. aÞ Strategy: Interstate 81 -- Interstate 81 extends for 325 miles throughout Virginia, with a substantial portion of it located in Roanoke County. Cut through rolling and mountainous terrain, 1-81 has been recognized as one of the most scenic interstates in the U.S. The highway is essential not only to the economic vitality of Virginia; it also serves as one of the East Coast's most important transportation facilities. The route carries out- of-state tourists, through travelers, a growing number of intra- valley commuters, and more than a third of all college and university students in Virginia. The interstate closely parallels U.S. Route 11 and railroad lines. The nearly 40 year old route is experiencing capacity and safety issues. Traffic through this 38 crucial corridor has tripled in the last 20 years, from around 20,000 vehicles per day to nearly 70,000 vehicles per day in the Roanoke Valley. Though mostly a rural corridor, 1-81 is one of the top eight truck routes in the U.S. On some sections of 1-81, the number of trucks nearly equals the number of passenger cars. The highway was designed for 15% truck traffic, but trucks now account for 20-400/0 of the traffic on 1- 81. VDOT accepted proposals under the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPT A) to design, build, improve, maintain, and/or operate all or parts of 1-81 through the Commonwealth. These proposals involved separating passenger vehicles and heavy trucks using physical barriers, adding additional lanes, adding truck climbing lanes, longer on- and off- ramps, tolls on all motor vehicles or tolls only on heavy trucks, utilizing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and other features. In early-2004, after much review and discussion, the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner directed VDOT to enter into negotiations with STAR Solutions as the potential operator for improvements to 1-81. The STAR proposal would widen 1-81 to at least four lanes in each direction, with the separation of truck and car lanes. The project would be partly financed with tolls applied to both cars and trucks. Plans or proposals to improve 1-81 cannot be implemented without the approval and concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). Because the interstate system is federally funded, any proposed changes to the highway must comply with all federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). In accordance with NEP A, in the fall of2003 FHWA and VDOT launched an 1-81 Corridor Improvement Study. The study will objectively identify deficiencies along the interstate as well as opportunities for improvements throughout the corridor in Virginia. This study will lead to the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and ultimately a Record of Decision from FHW A. Roanoke County will be working with neighboring jurisdictions, planning organizations, and VDOT during the completion of the corridor study and environmental review. County staff will continue to work in concert with all interested parties on this endeavor to best address the safety concerns and truck traffic capacity issues. Similarly, we recognize the 39 1- crucial link between land use and the transportation system a Staff must consider the impacts to existing right-of-way, be mindful of the project's effect on rezonings, special-use permits, and planning projects, and determine if the corridor will playa role in the grovvth management measures under consideration. In addition, it must be stated that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has been very supportive of the 1-81 improvement project. They have adopted numerous resolutions, some dating back to 1997, corroborating VDOT's attempts to improve the corridor. Subsequently, they have resolved to "express its support for the development and promotion of rail freight and passenger service parallel to 1-81, to complement limited highway-widening and to move a large volume of the long- distance freight traffic from trucks on 1-81 to freight trains on dual track, high-speed rails parallel to 1..81" (Resolution 062403-6.d)a (Note: To review the most current information pertaining to 1- 81, click on the link on the County's website to access VDOT's 1-81 website) b. Strategy: Proposed Interstate 73 -- The U.S. Congress designated Interstate 73 (1-73) a National Priority Corridor as part of the Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Congress made 1-73 official in 1995 by including it in the National Highway System (NHS). The purpose of the NHS "priority corridor" is to link the nation's regions and support economic groMh. Needs were identified to improve goods movements between the port of Charleston, South Carolina and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. This would require an effective and efficient roadway that facilitates interstate travel between Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and North and South Carolina. 1-73 is an identified state and regional priority in Virginia to foster planned economic development between southwestern Virginia and the Piedmont Triad regions in North Carolina. Local manufacturers have business connections with the cities of Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point, NC. Improved access through the Roanoke Valley to 1-581 and 1-81 will link businesses in the study area with locations in the eastern U.S. 40 Another regional priority in southwest Virginia is to address safety concerns along U.S. Route 220 resulting from high percentages of truck traffic, poor sight distances, steep grades, and a large number of accidents. VDOT's consultant maintains that solutions to these concerns could be achieved by developing a safe and direct transportation link for business trucking between NC's Piedmont Triangle and the Roanoke Val1ey's 1-581 and 1-81 corridors. The Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved a corridor location for 1-73 in May 2001. Starting at the northern end of the corridor, the approved location for 1-73 begins at the existing interchange ofl-81 and 1-581 and continues along 1-581 through Roanoke City to the Elm Avenue interchange.. At this point in the route, there is a change to be made to the previously approved alignment. In 2004 it was deemed that the Southeast Roanoke neighborhood that would have been impacted by 1-73 was eligible for designation as a historic district. Therefore, an approximately 12-mile section of the corridor in southeast Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and northern Franklin County had to be re- routed. The re-routed corridor that is currently being studied at the time of this writing includes the existing aJignment of Route 220 from Elm Avenue continuing south into the Clearbrook area of the County and then veering southeast of Buck Mountain Road along Route 657 (Crowell Gap Road) into Franklin County where it would rejoin the original approved corridor in the vicinity of Coopers Cove. Roanoke County's Board of Supervisors has supported this project and passed several resolutions pertaining to the issue in recent years. VDOT will be finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with specific information about the selected corridor. The Final EIS will then be forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) for consideration and/or approval. Completion of the Final EIS and approval by FHW A may take up to a year. Once the FHW A issues its approval - called a Record of Decision - final design, right of way acquisition and construction can begin. Roanoke County staff will continue to monitor the development of this project and work in concert with all involved. Along those same lines, staff recognizes the crucial link between land use and the transportation system. Staff must consider the impacts to existing right-of-way, be mindful of the project's effect on rezonings, special-use permits, and planning projects, and 41 determine if the corridor will playa role in the growth management measures under consideration. E. Goal: To provide progressive andforward looking solutions and technology to users of Roanoke County's transportation network. i. Objective: To improve the management of the County's resources and data and to utilize computer technology as a decision making tool. a. Strategy: Geographical Information Systems (GIS) -- Roanoke County has attempted to stay on the leading edge of computer technology. This trend maintains as it relates to transportation issues the County encounters. Specifically, GIS will be used to develop and maintain an inventory of the transportation infrastructure. The inventory will include road lengths and widths, traffic counts, and functional classification, to name a few archived items. GIS will also be used in conjunction with a pavement management system to track and display road construction/maintenance. The inventory and pavement management system will be maintained in the ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) environment utilizing up to date versions of ArcGIS. We will incorporate a relational database to enter, store, and analyze the necessary data. The GIS software will be pivotal in preparing maps and presenting infrastructure inventory and maintenance recommendations to VDOT, the Board of Supervisors, and the public. ii. Objective: To improve the livability of Roanoke County residents by ensuring that transportation systems are properly designed and applicable to the community it serves. a. Strategy: Context Sensitive/Flexible Design -- An important, yet often forgotten, concept in highway design is that every project is unique~ The setting and character of the area, the values of the community, the needs of the highway users, and the challenges and opportunities are unique factors that designers must consider with each highway project. For each potential project, designers are faced with the task of balancing the need for the highway improvement with the need to safely integrate the design into the surrounding natural and human environments. Often, over- engineered road design standards limit transportation choices, isolate neighborhoods, create hazardous settings, and 42 otherwise harm the quality of life within a community. Unnecessarily wide neighborhood streets discourage pedestrian and bicycle use and increase car speeds. Flexible road standards would give designers more opportunities to use varying widths, medians, sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping to develop better streetscapes with more opportunities for transportation and recreation, while still providing roads that efficiently carry vehicles. Use of the aforementioned flexible standards is commonly referred to as Context Sensitive Design (CSD). CSD incorporates the streetscape, aesthetics, livability, and the application of devices aimed at changing motorists' behavior. However, in order to succeed~ CSD requires neighborhood involvement before road design changes are initiated. CSD attempts to balance the level of service of a road with surrounding community values. CSD provides a higher level of safety for pedestrians, cyclists~ and motorists than conventional street design which focuses on vehicular movement at high speeds. Typical elements of CSD are somewhat similar to traffic calming measures. Some examples of CSD are: · Real or perceived lane width reductions or limitations · Intentional curvature · Textured pavement and/or markings · Extensive landscaping · Right of entry for all travel modes Context Sensitive Design calls for public involvement when defining the need for a road project. This requires public participation throughout the project, the early and continuous use of a multidisciplinary design team, the use of visualization techniques to aid the public, and the application of flexible design criteria. The reference most often used for project design criteria is the Green Book. Its official title is A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Although often viewed as dictating a set of national standards~ this document is actually a series of guidelines on geometric design within which the designer has a range of flexibility. As stated in the forward to the Green Book: The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to the designer by referencing a recommended range of values for critical dimensions. Sufficient flexibility is perlnitted to encourage independent designs tailored to particular situations. 43 Context Sensitive Design can provide significant improvements to collector and arterial roads scheduled for widening or reconstruction in Roanoke County. An example of a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) project that has incorporated CSD is the Colonial Avenue project (a one-half mile portion of Colonial between Penn Forest Boulevard and Route 419). Citizens along Colonial Avenue requested that the County and VDOT implement CSD along that corridor. At the time of this update to the Community Plan, that project is progressing with the input of the citizens along the Colonial Avenue corridor and will hopefully meet the needs of the residents and motorists. Roanoke County staff will attempt to monitor all VDOT road projects within the County and ensure that the proposed design is applicable to the needs and environment of the community while maintaining the desired function of the roadway. ii. Objective: To help take an active role in implementing and incorporating new technologies into the transportation system to increase the safety and efficiency of the system. a. Strategy: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) incorporate new technologies in information processing, communications, control, and electronics into the transportation system. When integrated into the transportation infrastructure, and in vehicles themselves, these technologies help monitor and manage traffic flow, reduce congestion, provide alternate routes to travelers, enhance productivity, and save lives, time, and money. Intelligent transportation systems provide the tools for transportation professionals to collect, analyze, and archive data about the performance of the system. Having this data enhances a traffic operator's ability to respond to incidents, adverse weather, or other capacity constricting events. SOIne systems, products, and services are already in place and at work throughout the country (a loca] example of ITS technology can be found between Blacksburg and 1-81 on the Smart Road). Various examples of Intelligent Transportation Systems include: · On-board navigation systems; · Crash notification systems; . Electronic payment systems; · Roadbed sensors; . Traffic video/control technologies; 44 · Weather infonnation services; · Variable message signs; · Fleet tracking and weigh-in-motion technologies. Roanoke County and other member governments of the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (RV AMP 0) are seeking to take an active role in the Commonwealth's efforts to develop and implement ITS technologies. County staff will work with the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (R V ARC) in this effort and cooperate with VDOT's Salem District when possible. F. Goal: To expand and emphasize citizen participation alld comments during the early stages of transportation planning. i. Objective: To ensure that Roanoke County citizens have their voices heard on projects/issues that win affect them. a. Strategy: Comment form on County's website -- More and more people are utilizing the internet to gather and transmit infonnation than ever before. The County should provide a platfonn for those individuals that want to communicate their inquiries, comments, and concerns to County staff, via this fonnat" An addition will be made to the County's website that allows the citizens to voice their opinions, desires, and questions. The citizen will access the TransportationÆngineering portion of the County's website at: http://ww'w. roanokecounf}va.go v/Departnlen ts/EngÎ11eering/Transportation/. Once here, the citizen will find contact infonnation that will enable them to speak their mind on transportation issues in the County" b. Strategy: Citizen Input on Long Range Transportation Plan -- As noted earlier in this element of the Community Plan, the County's input into the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is vitally important. For that reason, staff is seeking the comments of County residents on the matter" Ultimately, the residents are the one that pay for and use the infrastructure; consequently, their voice should be heard" Comments received after the release of this updated Community Plan will be taken into consideration for the next update to the 45 LRTP, as the list has already been submitted (submitted in September '03) to VDOT for consideration. However, as stated earlier, the plan may be revised by the Roanoke Valley MPO through amendments. Therefore, County staff is requesting that the residents review the list (Table T-3) and subsequent map attached in this document. Any comments or questions about the LRTP can be directed to the County staff via the website (explained above), email, or telephone. 46 Transportation ElemeRt-IIDPlementatlon Schedule STRATEGY TIME FRAME COMMENTS Growth Management ongoing Dependent on APFO legislation; work with Measures VDOT on LOS for County roads Balance Land Use Functional Classifications designated by 2004; Objectives w/ Street by 2005 implementation of guidelines by planning staff Functional Capabilities will take a little more time. long Range Plan Issues ongoing Officially updated every 5 yrs.; County will receive comments at any time Pavement Mgmt. Sys. for 6-yr Plan and Revenue Sharing updated Secondary 6..Year Plan & by 2005 annually; hope to implement PMS for Revenue Rev. Sharing Sharing for 2005 program. S ¡cycle Facilities & ongoing Continue working with VDOT & the Roanoke Greenways Valley Greenway Commission Traffic Management by 2005 Work with RVARC Strategies Education on Work with RVARC, Valley Metro, County Transportation Systems & by 2005 Livability Issues website, RVTV, etc. Traffic Calming by 2005 Dependent on scheduling of potential projects Access Management by 2005 Dependent on scheduling of potential projects Noise Abatement Measures by 2005 Project specific; may be an issue that coincides with improvements to 1-81 Air Quality/Attainment by 2005 Must be in compliance by 12/31/07; being Status implementing measures bV 2005 Active role in Regional Transportation Issues & ongoing Work with RVARC, MPO, and other localities Funding Active role with VDOT ongoing Support Regional Aviation Work with Roanoke Regional Airport and Efforts ongoing Roanoke Co.'s Economic Development department Collaborate with VDRPT ongoing Work with VDRPT, RVARC, and Roanoke City TEA-3 ongoing Interstate 81 ongoing Roanoke Co. will provide comments; work in conjunction with VDOT & MPO Proposed Interstate 73 ongoing Staff monitoring project progress Geographical Info. Sys ongoing Used extensively for road inventory and PMS (GI S) Context Sensitive/Flexible ongoing Project specific, time frame dependent on Design project scheduling Intelligent Trans. Systems ongoing Coordinate efforts with RVARC & VDOT (ITS) Citizen can currently access contact info and Comment Form on County's by 2005 communicate to the County Traffic Engineer; Website will attempt to get more structured comment form in 2005 Citizen Input on Long ongoing W¡U receive comments at any time for potential Range Plan amendments and/or the scheduled updates Proposed Future Land Use Map This oversized map is on file in the Clerk's office. COMMUNITY PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES (January 18, 2005) 1. Revise County street standards. 2. Develop (urban and rural) private road standards. 3. Revise Land Development Standards: These standards are the framework used to employ all of the different development regulations such as the subdivision, zoning, utility, E & S requirements, etc. The standards reference old code sections and regulations that are no longer valid and should include the Western Virginia Water Authority requirements. The document should incorporate the proposed Storm Water Ordinance and steep slope codes from the Building Department. 4. Develop and adopt Stormwater Management Ordinance. 5. Neighborhood Commercial: Identify and map areas. Develop design gu idelines. 6. Develop new residential zoning district with increased density, revised permitted uses, and revised development standards. 7. Revise Cluster Ordinance. 8. Review and revise permitted and special uses throughout zoning ordinance. Update uses where needed. 9. Revise Landscape Ordinance to include tree canopy and tree replacement standards. 10. Revise densities in agricultural zoning districts (AG-3, AG-1 and AR). 11. Develop rural cluster ordinance. 12. Develop resource protection ordinances including steep slopes and ridgetops. 13. Village Center: Identify and map areas. Develop design guidelines. 14. Develop ordinance prohibiting clear-cutting in certain areas. 15. Develop commercial corridor studies (Routes 221, 460 east and west). 16. Assist in the development of the Capital Improvement Plan. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ·X - \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Work session with representatives of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern to discuss the feasibility studies to be performed for the proposed regional jail sites SUBMITTED BY: John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to meet with representatives from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc. (HSMM) to discuss the scope of work for the requested feasibility studies for the jail sites. Specifically, the reviews will cover the existing property owned by the County within the City of Salem, including surrounding property, and also the Higginbotham Farms site where the Board has authorized obtaining an option to purchase the property. The Board has requested that this feasibility study be completed by April 1, 2005.