The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/22/2004 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda June 22, 2004 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for June 22, 2004. 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. Please note that the evening session will begin at 6:00 p.m. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation Attender Tom Nasta Roanoke Society of Friends 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 BRIEFINGS D. E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Adoption of a resolution to approve an assumption agreement to transfer water and sewer revenue debt to the Western Virginia Water Authority. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) 2. Request for approval of the Roanoke Valley Regional Program Fund budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 in the amount of $4,865,611. (Dr. Patricia Radcliffe, Director of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Service) 1 F. CONSENT AGENDA - REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES: 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. Note: This item is on the agenda as a matter of procedure and is necessary in order to initiate the process and allow the Planning Commission to move forward at the July meeting to receive public comments. Additional work sessions may be required, which would delay the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance before the Board of Supervisors. When a date for the public hearing is set, it will be advertised to the public. 1. Request to schedule a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to receive public comments on a proposal to revise and update the Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. The proposed Community Plan is comprised of both text and maps. Once recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the plan will serve as a general guide for long-range use and development of all land within Roanoke County. The proposed plan has been prepared in accordance with guidelines contained in Section 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the Code of Virginia, and Section 30-8-1 of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of an easement to Appalachian Power Company through property owned by the Board of Supervisors, Tax Map #028.13-01-27.04 and #028.13-01-27.00, to provide electric service to Hollins Park, Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) H. APPOINTMENTS 1. Length of Service Awards Program (LOSAP) for Fire & Rescue 2. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) 3. Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Community Advisory Committee (CAC) I. 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 2 IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes - June 7 and June 8, 2004 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board and Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority 3. Resolution establishing salaries for the County Administrator and County Attorney 4. Request from schools for approval of diesel emissions reduction grant funds in the amount of $226,644 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 5. Request to accept and approve the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) grant for fiscal year 2004-2005 in the amount of $276,170 6. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Sherman D. Argenbright, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-26), Vinton Magisterial District 7. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of David Mott and Vickie L. Mott, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-29), Vinton Magisterial District 8. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Bernard B. Deacon and Nancy L. Deacon, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-30), Vinton Magisterial District 9. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of George C. Cobler, Jr. and Judy D. Cobler, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-28), Vinton Magisterial District 10. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Dana L. Underwood, Donna S. Underwood and Elizabeth C. Underwood, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-25), Vinton Magisterial District 11. Request to accept donation of a conservation easement, 15' in width along Wolf Creek in Greenway Landing, Plat Book 27, page 97, Vinton Magisterial District 12. Request to accept donation of a 20' water and sanitary sewer easement across property of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., (Tax Map No. 40.14-01- 02.11), Hollins Magisterial District 3 13. Request to accept Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of $600.00. 14. Request to accept Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of $300.00. 15. Request to accept water facilities serving Hanging Rock Estates (Catawba Magisterial District) J. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS K. L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid - May 31,2004 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended May 31 , 2004 7. Statement of the Treasurer's accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of May 31,2004 N. CLOSED MEETING O. WORK SESSIONS (Board Meeting Room) 1. Work session to discuss Slate Hill. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) EVENING SESSION (6:00 p.m.) P. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION 4 Q. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Public hearing and adoption of resolution approving the revised Roanoke County Solid Waste Management Plan. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Service) R. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.3 acres from AG3 Agricultural Preserve District to PRD Planned Residential District and rezone 97 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to PRD Planned Residential District, located south of Whistler Drive and Creek Circle and east of Apple Grove Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Sam L. and Mercedes P. Hardy. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Postponed to Julv 27. 2004 at the reQuest of the Plannina Commission 2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.83 acres from 11 C Industrial District with conditions to R1 Low Density Residential District for a development of single family housing located at Tract B1-A-2 of Mason Subdivision, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Balzer & Associates, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Postponed to Julv 27. 2004 at the reQuest of the petitioner 3. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.24 acres from R1 Low Density Residential District to 12 Industrial District in order to operate a construction yard located at 7314 Wood Haven Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ernest E. Sweetenberg. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 4. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit to conduct equipment sales and rental on 7.7 acres located near 3902 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of James River Equipment Virginia, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 5. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.35 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential District to C-1 Office District in order to construct a financial institution office located at 4975 Bower Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Member One Federal Credit Union. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 6. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of certain real estate from Norman D. Mason consisting of approximately 4.83 acres and being identified as Tax Map No. 28.13-1-27.5 for public park purposes, Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 5 7. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 9.9 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District and 5.8 acres from R1 Low Density Residential District to C2 General Commercial District in order to construct a general office and retail sales facility located at Route 419 near its intersection with Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Kahn Development Company. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Postponed from March 23. 2004 and continued from April 27. 2004 8. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.92 acres from C2C General Commercial District with Conditions to C2 General Commercial District, 8.03 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and 17.01 acres from R3 Medium Density Residential District to C2 General Commercial District in order to construct a general office and retail sales facility located at 4486 Summit Street, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Slate Hill I, LLC, Slate Hill II, LLC, and Woodcliff Investments, LLC. (County Staff) Postponed from March 23. 2004 and continued from April 27. 2004 and May 25. 2004 9. Second reading of an ordinance to amend the zoning on Virginia's Explore Park from EP, Explore Park with conditions, to EP, Explore Park with amended conditions, in order to remove a natural area designation, located at 3900 Rutrough Road, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority. (County Staff) 10. Second reading of an ordinance to adopt the operating agreement with the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority and authorizing the conveyance of real estate to said authority. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 11. Second reading of an ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of Virginia. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) S. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS U. ADJOURNMENT 6 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. t-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of resolution to approve an Assumption Agreement to transfer water and sewer revenue debt to the Western Virginia Water Authority SUBMITTED BY: Diane D. Hyatt Chief Financial Officer APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge {' /I County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: With the formation of the Western Virginia Water Authority, the assets and liabilities of the water and sewer systems of Roanoke County and Roanoke City will be transferred to the Authority. As part of this transfer of liabilities, the Revenue Bond Debt of these systems will also be transferred to the Authority. The City and the County have worked with Virginia Resources Authority (VRA), who is the holder of the majority of the Revenue Bonds debt, to transfer this debt. This transfer will be accomplished with an Assumption Agreement, which will be signed by the County, the City and the Authority. The attached schedule summarizes the outstanding balances of Revenue Bonds as of July 1, 2004, that will be transferred. The attached resolution authorizes the County Administrator, or Chairman of the Board, to sign this Assumption Agreement. The VRA Board approved this agreement at their meeting on June 8, 2004. The City of Roanoke will be considering the Agreement at their June 21, 2004 meeting. 1 " E:. - } FISCAL IMPACT: The outstanding Revenue Bond debt of the County water and sewer systems will be transferred to the Western Virginia Water Authority. As a result of the Authority formation, the revenue generating assets are also transferred to the Authority. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the attached resolution which authorizes the Assumption Agreement which transfers the water and sewer revenue debt of the County to the Western Virginia Water Authority. 2 eo Outstanding Amounts of Assumed Debt as of July 1, 2004 Assumed from Roanoke County Water Obligations 1991 Water Revenue Bonds 2000B VRA Revolving Loan ( Little Brushy) 2000A VRA Revolving Loan (Clearbrook) 2003 VRA Water Revenue Refinancing $ 3,304,660 594,232 159,023 49,515,000 Sewer Obligations 1996 VRA Revolving Loan (Wastewater Treatment) 1999 VRA Revolving Loan (Wastewater Treatment) 2003 VRA Revolving Loan (Wastewater Treatment) 10,786,168 4,615,585 9,000,000 Assumed from Roanoke City Water Obligations None Sewer Obligations 2003 VRA Revolving Loan (Wastewater Treatment) 17,511,501 3 (:-( e t:- I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA APPROVING THE ASSUMPTION OF CERTAIN REVENUE BONDS BY THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") and the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "City") propose to transfer their respective water and sewer systems to the Western Virginia Water Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to an Operating Agreement among the County, the City and the Authority. WHEREAS, the Authority proposes to assume certain revenue bonds of the County and the City, respectively, pursuant to an Assumption Agreement (the "Assumption Agreement") among the County, the City, the Authority and the Virginia Resources Authority. WHEREAS, the County issued its Water System Revenue Bonds, Series 1991 of which $3,304,660 remain outstanding (the "1991 Bonds") pursuant to a Master Indenture of Trust, dated as of October 1, 1991 (the "Master Indenture") between the County and SunTrust Bank (as successor to Crestar Bank) as trustee, as such Master Indentur~ is supplemented. WHEREAS, the County issued its $49,515.000 Water System Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2003 (the "2003 Bonds") to the Virginia Resources Authority pursuant to the Master Indenture, as sÜpplemented. WHEREAS, the County proposes to enter into the Fifth Supplemental Indenture of Trust (the "Fifth Supplemental Indenture") to amend the Master Indenture to evidence the assumption of the 1991 Bonds and the 2003 Bonds by the Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Assumption Aqreement and Fifth Supplemental Indenture. The execution and delivery of the Assumption Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental Indenture by the County are authorized. The Assumption Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental Indenture shall be in substantially the form on file with the County Administrator and may contain such changes, insertions, deletions or corrections as the County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, shall approve, such approval to be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Assumption Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental Indenture. e ~~-I 2. Execution of Documents. The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them, are authorized to execute on behalf of the County the Assumption Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental Indenture, and, if required, to affix or to cause to be affixed the seal of the County to such documents and to attest such seal. Such officers or their designees are authorized to execute and deliver on behalf of the County such instruments, documents or certificates, and to do and perform such things and acts, as they shall deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the transactions authorized by this Resolution or contemplated by the Assumption Agreement and the Fifth Supplemental Indenture; and all of the foregoing, previously done or performed by such officers or agents of the County, are in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed. 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of the Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on June 22,2004 Clerk, Board of Supervisors, County of Roanoke, Virginia BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION At a regular meeting of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors held on the 22nd day of June, 2004 the following resolution was adopted by the following vote, as recorded in the minutes of such meeting: PRESENT: VOTE: ~ e ACTION NO. ~-~ ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of the 2004-2005 Roanoke Valley Regional Program Fund budget SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Patricia Radcliffe Director of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services Elmer C. Hodge tfl County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 41ft _/- ~ ~ r1~ ~ ~ 0"'1 r--' 1 ~ ~~- SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County School Board serves as the fiscal agent for the Roanoke Valley Regional Program for Low Incidence Populations. The Regional Program budget application for fiscal year 2003-2004 is currently $5,906,092. The proposed application for fiscal year 2004-2005 is $4,865,611. (see attachments) The Regional Program began operation during the fiscal year 1986-1987. The Regional consortium is comprised of six school divisions: Botetourt County, Craig County, Franklin County, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and Salem City. Services are provided to children with autism, multiple disabilities, severe disabilities, and hearing impairments. Regional classes are currently housed in the following school divisions: Botetourt County, Franklin County, Roanoke City, and Roanoke County. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue received from participating school divisions is based on a per pupil cost. Program costs for each division are offset through reimbursement from the State Department of Education. 1 e E-:z ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Roanoke Valley Regional Program's budget for fiscal year 2004-2005 in the amount of $4,865,611. 2 " . FY 2004-05 proposed budget . FY 2003-04 approved budget Budget Data 2004-05 $4,865,611 $5,906,092 . Total decrease from FY 2003-04 to FY 2004-05 $1,040,481 due to the combining of Regional classrooms . Employee Raises Botetourt County Craig County Franklin County Roanoke City Roanoke County Salem City . Rate listing comparison Disability 03/04 Aut $112.17 SD $149.62 Inst Asst $ 92.87 HI $152.66 MD $122.58 Summer $ 61.51 .. 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 04-05 $119.47 $150.09 $ 91.69 $165.75 $130.56 $ 75.35 Change 6.00% .31% < 1.00%> 9.00% 7.00% 23.00% C -. «:::2...... APPLICANT CERTIFICATION AND CHECKLIST - (I) Applicant: Contact Person: Proposed Budget Dates: Deadline: CHECK YES OR NO Application Forms Audit Yes Yes Street City Phone Location 5937 Cove Road, NW Roanoke . 540-562-3900 FORMS SUBMITTED (I) Applicant Certification and Checklist (II) Program Narrallve (III) Service Information Forms (IV)Revenue N) Employee Compensalion (VI)Contraclual Service Fees (VII)Fringe Benefits ("O) PAGE: 1 Date: March 31, 2004 Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations Pat Radcliffe, Director 540/562-3900 July I, 2004 - JlJ1le 30, 2005 Date Received: x X No No State Zip Vìrginia 24019 x X X X X X X (VIII) Real Property Information("') (IX) Depreciation Summary("O) (X) Other Operating (XI) Other Operating Expenses (XII) Other Operation Expenses (XIII) Expense Summary (XIV) Rate Computation Schedule X X X X X X X Note: (-) Indicates the form Is not Included with the package It will be sent on an as needed basis only. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT As an authorized representative of the applicant, I certify that the information submitted in and with this application package is true and complete, that the services meet all applicable licensing andlor certification standards. Further, the program does not duplicate reimbursement for services provided, and all allocations of expenses and revenues are fair and consistent with prior year applications. Signature Chairman Roanoke Vallev Reaional Board Title Date ¡~) j J .{} PROGRAM NARRATIVE. (II) PAGE: 2 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1, 2004 . June 30, 2005 1) Name of Program Roanoke Valley Regional Program for Low Incidence Populations 2) Statement of Philosophy: To provide a program which meets the specific educational needs of children who have severe disabilities, autism, multiple disabilities and deafness/hearing impairments. To continue to foster cooperative efforts among the several school divisions in order to better meet the educational needs of their disabled populations. 3) Age of Service Recipients: 2 to 21 4) Disability conditions of service recipients: Severe Disability Autism Multiple Disability Deafness/Hearing Impairment 5) Level of parent or guardian participation required by the program: Parent and/or guardian participation is accomplished through involvement in program planning and implementation, IEP development, parent support groups and various local and state inservice meetings. '" ~ jJ SERVICE INFORMATION -(III) PAGE: 3 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1.2004 - June 30, 2005 1 Name of Service: Autism 2 Description of Services: Instructional services based upon a functional analysis of behavior and needs of each child 10 be enrolled in !he program. Instruction of each child to be based on a continuous evaluation of all available data. Assessment data to be used in developing and updating IEP and instructional goals for each student Daily Rate 5 Y, hours of instruction for a period of 180 days 3 Unit: 4 Definition of Unit .. CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated (E) Year Projection 1. July 41 2. August 42 3. September 43 34 (A) 29 4. October 43 33 (A) 29 5. November 43 33 (A) 29 6. December 43 31 (A) 29 7. January 43 31 (E) 29 8. February 43 31 (E) 29 9. March 43 31 (E) 29 10. April 43 31 (E) 29 11. May 43 31 (E) 29 12. June 43 31 (E) 29 13. Average Daily Enrollment for the vear 43 32 29 14. Number of days service Is offered oer vear 180 180 180 15. Number of Total Units 7,740 5,472 4,959 (Carry forWard to Form XIV line 10) The utilization rate should be 95%. To calculate the number of units, take the average dally census number X number of days a year the service is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. -For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however is negotiable on an individual program basis only". r:l ! tV SERVICE INFORMATION. (III) PAGE: 4 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 1) Name of Service: Severe Disability 2) Description of Services: Instructional services based upon a functional analysis of behavior and needs of each child to be enrolled in the program. Instruction of each child to be based on a continuous evaluation of all available data. Assessment data to be used in updating IEP and instructional goals for each student. Daily Rate 5 Yz hours of instruction for a period of 180 days 3) Unit: 4) Definition of Unit: CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated (EJ Year Projection 1. July 25 21 (A) 2. August 25 20 (A) 3. September 23 19 (A) 22 4. October 23 19 (A) 22 5. November 23 18 (A) 22 6. December 23 18 (A) 22 7. January 23 18 (E) 22 8. February 23 18 (E) 22 9. March 24 18 (E) 22 10. April 24 18 (E) 22 11. May 24 18 (E) 22 12. June 24 18 (E) 22 13. Average Daily Enrollment for the year 23 18 22 14. Number of days service is offered per year 180 180 180 15. Number of Total Units 4140 3,078 3,762 The utilization rate should be 95%. To calculate the number of units, take the average daily census number X number of days a year the service is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. fY\ . I , ¡J SERVICE INFORMATION - (III) PAGE: 5 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1,2004 - June 30, 2005 1)Name of Service: Instructional Assistants 2)Descrlptlon of Services: To provide one-on-one assistance to students as Identified by the multidisciplinary team. Individual goals may include decreasing the effects of specffic disabling conditions and promote normalization to the greatest extent possible. Daily Rate 5 Yo hours of instruction for a period of 180 days 3) Unit: 4)Deflnltlon of Unit: ~ Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated (E) Year Projection 1. July 2. August 96.0 3. September 96.0 91.5 (A) 89.5 4. October 96.0 90.5 (A) 89.5 5. November 96.0 90.5 (A) 89.5 6. December 96.0 85.5 (A) 89.5 7. January 96.0 87.5 (E) 89.5 8. February 96.0 88.5 (E) 89.5 9. March 96.0 88.5 (E) 89.5 10. April .96.0 88.5 (E) 89.5 11. May 96.0 88.5 (E) 89.5 12. June 96.0 88.5 (E) 89.5 13. Average Dally Enrollment for the year 96.0 89 89.5 14. Number of days service is offered cer year 180.0 180 180 15. Number of Total Units 17,280 15,219 15,305 The utilization rate should be 100%. To calculate the number of units, take the average daily census number X number of days a year the service Is offered X the utilization rate of 100%. --For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however is negotiable on an individual program basis only". '" ~ ¡ ~ SERVICE INFORMATION. (III) PAGE: 6 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates July 1, 2004 - June 3D, 2005 1) Name of Service: Multiple Disabilities 2) Description of Services: Instructional services based upon a functional analysis of behavior and needs of each child to be enrolled in the program. Instruction of each child to be based on a continuous evaluation of all available data. Assessment data to be used in developing and updating IEP and instructional goals for each student. Daily Rate 5 Y. hours of instruction for a period of 180 days 3) Unit: 4) Definition of Unit: ... CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated IE Year Projection 1. July 50 45 (A) 2. August 49 45 (A) 3. September 49 45 (A) 38 4. October 49 45 (A) 38 5. November 50 45 (A) 38 6. December 50 45 (E) 38 7. January 49 45 (E) 38 8. February 49 45 (E) 38 9. March 49 45 (E) 38 10. April 49 45 (E) 38 11. May 49 45 (E) 38 12. June ~9 45 (E) 38 13. Average Dally Enrollment for the vear 49 45 38 14. Number of days service is offered oer vear 180 180 180 15. Number of Total Units 8,820 7,695 6,498 The utilization rate should be 95%. To calculate the number of units. take the average daily census number X number of days a year the service Is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. .'For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however Is negotiable on an individual program basis only'"'. (r\ ,'t J 9-) " ~ SERVICE INFORMATION - (III) PAGE: DATE: 7 March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 Name of Service: Deafness/Hearing Impairment Description of Services: Instructional services based upon a functional analysis of behavior and needs of each child to be enrolled in the program. Instruction of each child to be based on a continuous evaluation of all available data. Assessment data to be used in developing and updating IEP and instructional goals for each student. Daily Rate 5 Yo hours of instruction for a period of 180 days Unit: Definition of Unit: CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (AI Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated IE) Year Projection 1. July 31 26 (A) 2. August 31 25 (A) 3. September 31 25 (A) 25 4. October 31 25 (A) 25 5. November 31 25 (A) 25 6. December 31 25 (A) 25 7. January 31 25 (A) 25 8. February 31 25 (A) 25 9. March 31 25 (EI 25 10. April 30 25 (E) 25 11. May 30 25 (E) 25 12. June 30 25 (E) 25 13. Average Dally Enrollment for the year 31 25 25 14. Number of days service Is offered per year 180 180 180 15. Number of Total Units 5,580 4,275 4,275 The utilization rate shouid be 95%. To calculate the number of units, take the average daily census number X number of days a year the service is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. -For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however is negotiable on an individual program basis only". (';\ , p '" SERVICE INFORMATION - (III) PAGE: 8 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1, 2004 . June 30, 2005 Name of Service: Summer Schaal (Optional) Description of Services: Instructional services for autistic, severe, multiple disabled and deaflhearing impaired students provided based upon a functional analysis of behavior and needs of each child to be enrolled in the program. Instruction of each child to be based on a continuous evaluation of all available data. Assessment data to be used in updating IEP and instructional goals for each student. Daily Rate 3 hours of instruction for a period of 24 days Unit: Definition of Unit: CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (AI Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated IE) Year Projection 1. July 83 60 (A) 70 2. August 83 60 (AI 70 3. September 4. October 5. November 6. December 7. January 8. February 9. March 10. April 11. May 12. June - 13. Average Daily Enrollment for the year 83 60 70 14. Number of days service is offered oor vear 24 24 24 15. Number of Total Units 1,992 1,368 1,596 To calculate the number of units, take the average daily census number X number of days a year the service is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. "For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however is negotiable on an individual program basis only". ~ p SERVICE INFORMATION. (III) PAGE: 9 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1. 2004 - June 30, 2005 Name of Service: Physical Therapy (Optional) Description of Services: Services to be provided by a qualified physical therapist. The goal is to promote the normai growth and function of movement skills. Individual goals may include decreasing the effects of specific disabling conditions and promote normalization to the greatest extent possible. Hourly Rate 60 minute sessions. May be subdMded into smaller sessions. i:e.. 30 minutes. Unit: Definition of Unit: .. CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated (E) Year Projection 1. July 19 36 (A) 38 2. August 49 52 (A) 55 3. September 65 76 (A) 81 4. October 69 68 (A) 72 5. November 65 67 (A) 71 6. December 59 67 (A) 71 7. January 62 67 (E) 71 8. February 59 67 (E) 71 9. March 64 67 (E) 71 10. April 70 67 (E) 71 11. May 69 67 (E) 71 12. June 69 67 (E) 71 13. Average Daily Enrollment for the year 60 64 68 14. Number of days service Is offered per year n/a nia nia 15. Number of Total Units n/a n/a n/a The utilization rate should be 95%. To calculate the number of units, take the average daily census number X number of days a year the service Is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. -For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however Is ne90tiable on an indMdual program basis only"". m \ . j ¡ '" SERVICE INFORMATION. (III) Applicant: Proposed Rate Year Dates: Name of Service: Description of Services: Unit: Definition of Unit: PAGE: 10 DATE: March 31, 2004 Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations July 1, 2004 . June 30, 2005 Occupational Therapy (Optional) Occupational therapy to be provided to children Identified as having developmental or restorative motor needs. The goal will be to facilitate Independent functioning and limit progressive disabling effects from Injury and/or disease. Hourly Rate 60 minute sessions. May be subdivided Into smaller sessions, I.e., 30 minutes. ~ Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated' lEI Year Prolectlon 1. July 40 47 (A) 43 2. August 111 89 (A) 80 3. September 142 136 (A) 123 4. October 141 113 (A) 102 5. November 150 125 (A) 113 6. December 149 135 (A) 122 7. January 146 135 (E) 122 8. February 149 135 (E) 122 9. March 149 135 (E) 122 10. April 147 135 (E) 122 11. May 143 135 (E) 122 12. June 143 135 (E) 122 13. Average Dally Enrollmeït for the vear 134 121 119 14. Number of days service ,IS offered per vear nla nla nla I 15. Numbe. ofTatal Units I nla nla nla The utBlzation rate should be 95%. To calculate the number of units. take the average daily census number X number of days a year the service Is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. -For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however is negollable on an individual program basis only". f)/\ ! ¡ì r SERVICE INFORMATION - (III) PAGE: II DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence PopulaUoos Proposed Rate Year Dates: Jliy 1. 2004 - June 30, 2005 Name of Service: Speech Therapy/Audiological Consull (Optiooal)' Unit: Deflnllton of Unit: Speech services will be provided for identification and diagnosis of speecO and language problems. Identified students will be provided Instruction as specified in their IEP. The program will be comprehensive and will include parental Involvement In reaching the child's goals. Audiological Consull will be provided to Hearing Impaired students. 'SerVices are provided on an as needed basis only. Hourly Rate One hour sessions (60 minutes) mey be divided Into two one-half hour (30 minute) sessions. Description of Services: CENSUS Current Yeer Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual ~ Eslimate,ÙEI Year Prolectlon 1. July 55 2 (A) 41 2. August 5 (A) 4 3. September 2 1 (A) 1 4. October 1 1 (A) 1 5. November I I (A) I 6. December I I (A) 1 7. January I 1 (E) I 6. February I 1 (E) I 9. March I I (E) I 10. April 1 I (E) I II. May 1 I (E) I 12. June 1 I (E) I 13. Average Dally Enrollment for the vear 6 1 5 14. Number of days service Is offered per vear nIa ria ria 15. Number of Total Units ria nIa ria 'Projected number of students will receive possible Audiological consult services. The utilization rale should be 95%. To calculate the number of units. take the average dally census number X number of days a year the service Is offered X the utlliza1ion rate of 95%. "For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however Is negotiable on an Individual program basis only". (()\. . I '. J t p '" SERVICE INFORMA nON. (III) PAGE: 12 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant Roanoke Valley Regiooal Board for Lbw Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1, 2004 - June 30,2005 Name of Service: Psychological Assessmen! (Optional) DescrlpUon of Services: Administer and interpret tests to gain a current estimate of present Intellectual performance and gather information to assist In eligibility determination, appropriate educatiooal planning, andlor further placement recommendations. Services wIll be provided upon request from the sending school dlvlsloo. Houl1yRate 60 minute session Unit: Definition of Unit CENSUS Current Vear Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & EsUmated-/E\ Year ProlecUon 1. July 0 0 (A) 0 2. August 0 0 (A) 0 3. September 0 0 (A) 1 4. October 0 0 (A) 1 5- November 0 0 (A) 1 6. December 0 0 (A) 1 7. January 0 0 (E) 1 8. February 0 0 (E) 1 9. March 0 0 (E) 1 10. Aprtl 0 0 (E) 1 11.May 0 0 (E) 1 12. June 0 0 (E) 1 13. A;:::~:~':~y EnrOliment 0 0 1 14. Number of days service IS, offered t>eryear nta nta nta 15. Number of Total Units nta nta nta The utiliZation rate should be 95%. To calculate the number of units, take the average dally census number X number of days a year the se!Vice Is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. "For small Programs a dJlferent percentage may be used, this however Is negotiable on an Individual program basis only"". @ !J SERVICE INFORMATION - (III) PAGE: 13 DATe: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence PopulaOons Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 Name of Service: Work Experience Training (OpOonal) Description of Services: Dally work experience training at area businesses or sheltered workshops within the community. Areas addressed are work habitš. social skBls, communlcalion, and Independence at the work sIleo Daily Rate 2 Yo hours per day at a work site with trainer '" Unit: Definition of Unit: CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actua' & Estimated lEI Year Projection 1. July 0 1 (A) 0 2. August 9 9 (A) 10 3. September 9 9 (A) 10 4. October 9 9 (A) 10 5. November 9 9 (A) 10 6. December 9 g (A) 10 7. January 9 9 (E) 10 8. February 9 9 (E) 10 9. March 9 9 (E) 10 10. April 9 9 (E) 10 11. May 9 9 (E) 10 12. June 9 9 (E) 10 13. Average Dally Enrollment for the year 8 8 9 14. Number of days service is offered per year nla nla nla 15. Number of Total Units nla nla nla The utllizaOon rate should be 95%. To calculate the number of units, take the average daily census number X number of days a year the service is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. "For small Programs a different percentage may be used. this however is negotiable on an Individual program basis only-. ~ lJ î SERVICE INFORMATION - (III) PAGE: 14 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Boam for Low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 Name of Service: Assistive Technology Services (Optional) Description of Services: Provide assistive technology services as needed to identified students and provide continued equipment maintenance as necessary. Hourly Rate 60 minute training/consultation session and maintenance Unit: Definition of Unit: CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & Estimated- (EI Year Projection 1. July 0 - 1 2. August 6 0 0 3. September 6 1 (A) 3 4. October 10 6 (A) 3 5. November 15 0 (A) 3 6. December 0 5 (AI 3 7. January 0 2 (E) 3 8. February 6 2 (E) 3 9. March 0 2 (E) 3 10. April 0 2 (E) 3 11.May 0 2 (E) 3 12. June 0 2 (E) 3 13. Average Dally Enrollment for the vear 4 2 3 14. Number of days service Is offered per vear nla nla nla 15. Number of Total Units nla nla nla The utilization rote should be 95%. To calculate the number of units, take the averoge daily census number X number of days a year the service is offered X the utiiization rate of 95%. "For small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however is negotiable on an individual program basis only". ~ SERVICE INFORMATION. (III) PAGE: 15 DATE: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board for Low Incidence Populations Proposed Rate Year Dates: July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 Name of Service: Psychological Counseling (Optional) Unit Definition of Unit Psychological Counseling will be provided on an Individual basis. Students In need of psychological counseling will receive counseling as specified In the Inävlduaüzed Education Program. The counseling goal will be to enhance educational services of identified students. Hourly Rate One tDur sessions (60 minutes) may be divided into two ana-haW hour (30 minute) sessions. Description of Services: CENSUS Current Year Prior Year Actual (A) Proposed Rate Month Actual & EstImated'iE' Yeer Prolectlon 1. July 0 0 (A) 0 2. August 0 0 (A) 0 3. September 0 0 (A) 1 4. October 0 0 (A) 1 5. November 0 0 (A) 1 6. December 0 0 (E) 1 7. January 1 0 (E) 1 8. February 1 0 (E) 1 9. March 1 0 (E) 1 10. April 1 0 (E) 1 11. May 1 0 (E) 1 12. June 1 0 (E) 1 13. Average Dally Enrollment for the vear 1 0 1 14. Number of days service Is offered Der vaar nIa n/a n/a 15. Number Df Total Units n/a nla nla The utIlIzatIon mte should be 95%. TD calculate the number of unlls, take the average daily census number X number Df days a year the service is offered X the utilization rate of 95%. -FDr small Programs a different percentage may be used, this however is negotiable on an Individual program basis anIY-o '" n IJ Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1, 2004 to June 2005 REVENUES - (IV) PAGE: 16 DATE: March 31, 2004 " (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) PRIOR CURRENT AVAILABLE FOR YEAR YEAR UNAVAILABLE! OPERATIONS ACTUAL ACTUAL TOTAL RESTRICTED e=c-d Grants From Governmental Agencies -echnoloç¡v Grant 24,657 26,000 26,000 26,000 rotal 24,657 26,000 26,000 26,000 )ervice Fee Revenue ;rand Total Revenue $24,657 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 ~ fJ..1 l' EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional BoardlLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: Juiy 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 11 DATE: March 31, 2004 AUTISTIC SD INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. AD.JUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS SAlAIn FRINGE CaMPEN. NOT CaMPEN. % OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF posmON TITLE SERVICE BENEFITS SATION SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY SAT/ON PROGRAM (D+E=F) RELATED (F-G--H) Board Member 3,039 23 3,271 3,271 0 100% 3,271 Board Member 3.039 232 3,271 0 3.271 0 100% 3,271 Board Member 3.03 232 3,271 0 3,271 C -n 0 100% 3,271 Board Member 3,039 232 3.271 3271 0 0 ~ 0 100% 3,271 Board Member 3.039 232 3.271 0 3.271 C C 0 100% 3.271 Board Membef 3.039 232 3.271 0 3.271 ~ C 0 100% 3,271 Clerk 8.425 645 9.070 9.070 0 0 C 0 0 0 100% 9,07 Bookkeeper 23,68 7.106 30,794 30.794 0 0 (j 0 0 0 100% 30.79 50,347 9.143 59,490 0 59,49C C 0 59,4Q( rr'\ , V f EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPO~6D BUDGET YEAR (VI Roanoke Valley Regional Boardilow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dales: July 1. 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 18 DATE: March31,2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESSI HEARING OlD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TDTAl UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS SAlAR FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN. %OFTIME PORTION OF %OF pORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF PQSI11ON TITLE SERVICE BENEFITS BATiON SALAAY TIME SALARY TIME SALMY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAM (F-G=H) (D+E=F) RELATa) Director 520 87.65 26.297 113.952 85.464 28.488 5% 5,698 to% 11.39: 10') 11,395 Assl Direc1Qr 824 69.273 20.782 90.055 63,037 27,018 10% 9,006 10% 9.006 10% 9.006 Budget Specialist 791 39.128 11,738 50.866 31,53 19,329 0 0 C 38% 19,32 SeQ'etary 31 26,682 8,005 34,687 29.484 5,203 C 0 C 15% 5.20 Medicaid Specialist 20BO 23.66 7,101 30.770 0 30.770 0 C C 100% 30.77 Secretary 208C 37,080 11,124 48.204 C 48.204 0 ( 0 C 100% 48.20< 263.48 85,047 368.534 209,522 159,012 14,704 20.401 0 C 20.401 C 103.506 " (1\ , i ¡ 9-) EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regional BoardILow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 19 DATE: Mart:h31,2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN- %OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF \IoOF PORTION OF POSmoN TITlE SERVICE GROSS SALAR BENEATS SATIDH SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATIOH PROGRAM (FoG=H) (D+E=F) RELATED Nu",. 1248 33.342 10.003 43.345 21,67 21.673 10% 4,335 20% 8,669 20% 8.669 0 ( '" 33,34 10.003 43.345 21.672 21.673 4,335 8.669 0 8,669 0 rÍ'y . ; ~ QJ EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional BoarrllLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 20 DATE: Man:h 31. 2004 AUTISTIC SD IHST ASST. DEAFNESSI HEARING MO SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIReD TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOuRS <II' GROSS $ALA'" FRINGE COuPEN. NOT COMPEN. %OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'IIOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POSITION 1ITLE S£1MC£ BENEFITS SATION SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SA TION PROGRAM (F-G'H) (D.E'F) RELATED Speech 94 33,705 10,112 43.81 43.817 30% 13.14 40% 17.527 30% 13.145 Speech 94 20.B98 6.269 27.167 27.167 30% 8.15! 40',¡ 10,867 30% 8.150 C Speech 1500 24,499 7.350 31.849 31,849 30% 9,555 40% 12.739 30% 9.555 0 Speech 788 25.728 7.716 33,446 33.446 30% 10.034 40% 13,378 0 30% 10.034 C 104,830 31.449 136.279 0 136,279 40,884 54,511 0 40.884 0 ry-.\ } ~ EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Vaney Regional Boardll.ow Incidence Populati"". Proposed Budget Dates: July 1.2004 to Juna 30. 2005 PAGE: 21 DATE: _31.2004 AUTISTIC SD INST ASST. DEAFNESSI HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNAllOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS SALAR FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN. % OF TIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POSmQN Tß1.E seRVIC' BENEFITS SATION SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY SAT/ON PROGRAM (F.G-H) (D+E-F) RELATED Teacher-Adapt PE 1500 49.538 14.861 64.399 0 64.399 30% 19.320 40% 25,760 0 30% 19,319 Taachar-Adapl PE 375 42.459 1Ú31 55.197 41,396 13.799 0% 0 25% 13.799 0 0% 0 0 Substitutes 10.300 3.09! 13.390 13.390 20% 2.678 20% 2.678 40% 5.356 0 20% 2.678 0 Substitute. 10,300 3,090 13.390 0 13,390 20% 2.678 ~ 2.678 40% 5.356 20% 2.678 0 , 112.597 33.779 146.376 41.398 104.978 24.676 44.915 10.712 24.671 0 .. "r'\ , , . \ J t..) .€ .I EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Populations Proposed BudgetDate.: July 1, 200410 Juna 30, 2005 PAGE: 22 DATE: Mar<h 31. 2004 AUTISTIC SO INS7 ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLQW- ADJUSTEO EMPLOYEE ASLEOR I'OSfTION 7ITL£ HOURS OF GROSS SALAR FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN- 0/0 OF TIME PORTION OF 0/0 OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF ",OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF SERVICE BENEFITS SATION PROGRAM SA 11ON SAlARY TIME SAl.ARY TIME 5A1.ARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME 5A1.ARY (O+E"F) RELATED (F-G"H) Teache, 150( 3S.393 11.518 49,911 49.911 100% 49,911 Teacher 150( 35.843 10.753 46,596 46,596 0 100% 46,596 Aide 1209 9,165 2,750 11.915 11,915 0 100% 11.915 -0 0 Aide 120 10.614 3.184 13,798 13.798 0 100% 13,798 0 0 Aide 120 9.857 2,957 12,814 0 12,814 0 100% 12.81' 0 a AIde 120 10,000 3,000 13,000 13,000 0 100% 13.000 0 0 0 1-1 AIde 120 10.000 3,000 13~ 0 13,000 0 0% 0 100% 13,000 C C 1-1 Aide 120'. 10,000 3,000 13.000 13,000 0 0% 0 100% 13.000 0 C 0 133.872 40,162 174.034 ( 174.034 0 148.034 26.000 0 0 0 ( (Ý) 'J , ~I J ... EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION . ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regional BoardlLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 23 DATE: Mard131, 2004 AU11STlC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESSt HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS Of FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN. %OFTIM PORTION OF IIOF PORTION OF IIOF PORTION OF IIOF PORTION OF IIOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF IIOF PORTION OF ,osmON TITLE SERVICE GROSSSALAR BENEFITS SATION SÞJ.N>.Y TIME SALARY TIME SALARY nME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SÞJ.N>.Y TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAM (F-G=H) (O+E=F) RELATED Teacher 1501 40,751 12.225 52,976 0 52.976 100% 52.97! 0 0 ( Aide 120'. 13.219 3.966 17,165 0 17,185 100% 17,18 C 0 ( Aide 120 10,405 3,122 13,527 0 13,52 100% 13.527 ( 0 0 ( 0 0 0 0 84.375 19,313 83,688 0 83688 83,688 (j 0 0 0 0 ?J EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional Boardllow Incidence Populations P~sed Budget Dates: July 1, 2004 teJune 30. 2005 PAGE: 24 DATE: Marå131,2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESSI HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS Of FRINGE COMPEN- NOT CaMPEN- ,,"OFTIM PORTION OF ""OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF ""OF PORTION OF posmoN TITlE SERVICE GROSSSAlAR BENEFITS SATiON SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATiON PROGRAM (F-G-H) (D+E-F) RELATED 1-1 AIde 1209 14.236 4.271 18.507 0 18.507 100% 18,50 1.1 Aide 1209 10,81! 3.245 14,060 14.050 100% 14.060 1.1 Aide 1209 13.219 3.966 17,1S! 17.18 100~ 17.1¡ 0 1-1 Aide 120"- 10.021 3,006 13.027 13.02 100% 13.02 0 -i 1.1 Aide 120! 10.815 3.245 14.060 14.050 100% 14.060 0 1.1 Aide 1209 10,815 3.245 14,060 14.060 1M 14,06 0 1-1 Aide 12O! 14.236 4.271 18,507 18.507 100% 18,50 0 0 0 1.1 Aide 120"- 13.21! 3,966 17,185 17.1¡ 100% 17.18! 0 0 1-1 AIde 120! 9.191 2.757 11.948 11,948 100% 11.948 0 -u 1-1 Aide 120! 16,240 4.872 21,112 21,112 100% 21.112 0 0 1.1 Aide 12QC.. 10.815 3,245 14.060 14,050 100% 14.060 c c 1-1 Aide 120! 7.654 2,296 9.950 9.95C 100% 9.950 0 . 0 141.276 42.385 183.661 0 183,661 0 -rJ 183.661 c < 0 C ... rf'\ I ~ EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regional Boardllow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 25 DATE: Mard131.2004 AUTISTIC SO '. INST ASST. DEAFNESS' HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS Of FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN- %DFTlM PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'IIOF PORTION OF 'IIOF PORTION OF 'IIOF PORTION OF PosmoN tm.E SERVICE GROSS SALAR BENEFITS $ATlON SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAUIRY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY $ATlON PROGRAM (F-G=H) (D+E=FJ RELATED Teacher 1500 36.722 11.017 47,739 C 47,739 100% 47,739 « Aide 1209 12.067 3.620 15,687 C 15,687 100% 15,68 C C 0 AIde 1209 10.000 3.00< 13,00< C 13,000 100% 13,000 C 0 C 58.789 17.637 76,426 76,426 76,426 ( 0 0 0 , C'r\ f ~ , .. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roa_e Valley Regional BoardlLow Inddence Populations Proposed Budge! Dates: July I, 2004 to Jun. 30, 2005 PAGE: 26 DATE: M9Id131, 2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS¡ HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TDTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS Of' GROSS SALAR FRINGE COUPEN- NOT COMPEN. %OFTIM PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTlON OF %OF PORTlON OF ,osmoN TIT1.E ""RYleE BENEFITS SATION SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY SATION PROGRAM (D+E=F RElATED (F-G=H) 1-1 Ald. 12 10,815 3.245 14,060 0 14,060 100% 14,0& - 1-1 Ald. 12 10,815 3.245 14,060 0 14.060 100% 14,O6( 0 0 0 1-1 AIde 120 14.236 4,271 18.507 0 18.50 100'1'. 18,50 0 1-1 AIde 120 9.983 2.995 12,978 0 12,978 100% 12,978 0 1-1 Aide 120 14.23 4.271 18.507 18.507 100% 18.507 0 1-1 Aid. 120 10.81 3,245 14.060 14,O6C 100% 14.060 0 1-1 Aid. 1209 19.98 5,997 25,98E 25.986 100% 25,986 0 1-1 Aide 12 17.5 5.258 22,784 22.784 100% 22.784 0 1-1 Ald. 120 17,490 5.247 22.737 22.73 0 ( 100% 22.737 0 125.905 37,774 163,679 0 163,679 163,679 0 ( ( (1. ..'\ ~ $ ~ EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanolte Valley Reg....1 BoardlLow Incidence Pop<JlaUons Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 27 DATE: Man:h31.2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAfNESS! HEARING MO SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN- IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR 'OsmON TßI.E HOURS Of GROSS SAlARY FRINGE COMPEN. NOT COMPEN. % Of TIME PORTION Of %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %Of PORTION OF %OF PORTION Of %OF PORTION Of SERVICE BENEffiS SATION SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAM (F-G=H) (D+E=F RELATED 1-1 Aide 12011 8.955 2.687 11.64 11,642 100% 11.642 1-1 AIde 1209 13.219 3.""" 17.16 17.185 100% 17.185 1.1 AIde 120<. 10.815 3.245 14.060 14.060 100% 14,06 0 1-1 Aide 1209 10,815 3.245 14,060 14.060 100% 14.06 0 1-1 Aide 120\ 9,327 2,798 12.125 12,125 100% 12.12 C 0 1-1 Aide 1209 10.81 3.245 14.060 14,060 100% 14.06 0 0 1-1 Aide 1209 10.815 3,245 14.060 14,060 100% 14.060 0 0 74.761 22,431 97.192 97.192 0 ( 97.192 C '" (Y') , <V EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional BoardlLow Incidence Populations ProposedBudgetDatas: July 1,2004 toJ- 30. 20OS PAGE: 28 DATE: Man:h 31, 2004 AUTISTIC SD INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALlOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSSSALAR FRINGE COMPEN. NOT CaMPEN. %OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF r,OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POSITION mLE SERVICE BENEFITS SATION SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY $ATlON PROGRAM (F-G=H) (D+E=F) RELATED Aide 1205 10,81 3,24 14.060 14,060 0% ( 0 ( 100% 14,060 ,each.. 150< 38.87! 11.66ô 50.538 0 50.538 ( 0 ( 0 100% 50.538 PJde 120 10,00 3,000 13,000 C 13.000 0 ( ( 100% 13,000 59,S!( 17.908 77.598 C 77,5ge ( 0 0 77.598 ( ( .. r'Yì .. .j t 9/ íf EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regional BoanilLow Incidence Populaüons Proposed Budget Dales: Juty " 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 29 DATE: March31,2004 AUTISTIC SD INST ASST. DEAFNESSI HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUS'TED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF FRINGE COMPEN- NOT CaMPEN- % OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %Of PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF ,osmoN Tr1'1£ SERVICE GROSS SALAR BENEATS SATiON SAlARY TIME SAUIRY TIME SAUIRY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY oS> SATION PROGRAM (FoG=H) (D+E=F) RELATED 1-1 AIda 120 10.000 3,000 13.00< 13.000 0 100'1 13,000 ( 1-1 Aide 120 12,06 3.620 15,687 15,687 G 100% 15.687 H AIde 120 9.83 2.952 12,791 12,791 C 100% 12,791 C 1-1 AIde 120 10.81 3.245 14,060 14.060 C 100% 14,060 0 ( 1-1 AIde 120 10,815 3,245 14.060 14,060 100% 14.060 1-1 AIde 1209 10,000 3.QO( 13.000 0 13,000 100% 13,000 1-1 AIde 1206 10.00c 3.0(( 13.000 13.000 100% 13,000 H AIde 1209 7.847 2.354 10.201 10,201 ( 100% 10,201 0 0 1.1 AIde 120 10,81! 3,245 14,060 14.060 C 100% 14,060 0 1-1 AIde 12( 14,236 4,271 18.50 18.507 -C 100% 18.507 1.1 AIda 12 8,919 2.676 11.595 a 11.59 0 100% 11,59 0 1-1 AIde 12 9,491 2.847 12.338 12.338 100% 12,338 C 1-1 AIde 120 9,981 2,994 12.975 12.975 100% 12.975 ( 1-1 Aide 120 10,228 3.068 13,296 13.296 100% 13.296 0 0 1.1 AIde 120 10,000 3,000 13.000 13.000 100% 13.000 0 0 1-1 Aide 1209 11.31 3.395 14.712 14.712 100% 14.712 0 C C 1-1 Aide 1209 10.815 3.24 14,060 14,060 100% 14.060 0 1.1 AIda 1209 9.867 2.960 12.827 12.82 100% 12,827 C 1-1 Aide 12Q¡ 10.815 3.245 14,060 0 14,060 100% 14.060 a 1-1 AIde 1209 14,231' 4.271 18.507 C 18,507 0 100% 18.507 0 1-1 AIde 1209 10.000 3,000 13,000 0 13,000 0 0 100% 13.000 C . 222.10 66.633 288,736 ( 288,735 a c 288,736 0 a ('rl I) rp EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional BoanJiLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 30 DATE: March 31. 2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAl UNAllOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ASLEOR HOURS OF GROSS SAlAR FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COM PEN. 'roOFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'roOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF ""OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POsmoN TI1\.E seRVICE BENEFITS SAnD" SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY SATION PROGRAM (D+E=F) RELATED (F-G=H) Dis Svc Coo«! 150< 60.061 18,01e 78.079 39.03E 39,040 1(),\ 7.806 30% 23,42 0 10 7.80 0 Dis SVC Coo«I 1500 55.139 16.54 71.681 35.841 35,840 10% 7,168 30% 21,504 10% 7,18 0 N3A Instructor 150 34.478 10,343 44.819 22,409 22,410 10% 4,482 30% 13,446 C 10% 4,482 0 149,676 44,903 194.579 97,289 97,290 19,456 56,374 0 0 19,458 C r:'ì I 9J EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regional BoardlLcw Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1.2004 to June 3D, 2005 PAGE; 31 DATE; Mard131, 2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. OEAFNESSI HEARING MO SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSlEO EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF FRINGE COMPEN- NOT caMPEN. 'IOOFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'IOOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POSITION TITLE SEIMCE GROSS SALAR BENEffiS SATION SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY SATION PROGRAM (F-G-H) (D+E=F) RELATED Djs Sye Coord 150( 00.060 18.018 78,07 39.03 39,039 10% 7,008 30 23,423 10% 7,808 ( Djs Sye Coord 150( 55.13E 16.542 71.681 35.841 35.840 10% 7.168 30% 21.504 0 0 10% 7,168 0 ABA InstrudOl' 1500 34,476 10.343 44,81 22,409 22,410 10'% 4.482 30% 13.446 10% 4.482 0 149.675 44.903 194,578 97,289 97,289 19,45 58.373 0 0 19,458 C .. ~ì } ~ l EMPLOYEE COMPENSA nON - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (VI Roanoke Vallay Re91onal BoanJ/Low Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Oat..: July I, 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 32 DATE: Mard131, 2004 AUTISTIC SO '~ST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MO SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS SAtAR FRINGE COMPEN. NOT COMPEN. % OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF "OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF posmoN mt.E SERYlCE BENEFITS SAnON SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY SAWN PROGRAM (F.G=H (O+E=F) RELATED Principal 124 53,383 16,OI! 69.398 67,316 2.082 3% 2,082 0 Sacretarv 12 29.99"- 8.999 38.994 37,824 1.170 3% 1,170 0 (¡ 0 0 0 C '" 83.378 25.014 108.392 105.140 3.252 3,252 0 ( 0 ( 0 ~ t V f EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional BoardlLow incidence Populaliona Proposed Budge, Dates: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 33 DATE: March 31. 2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING Me SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS SAlAR FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN- %OFTIM PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF posmoN 1tT1.E SERVICE BENEFITS SATION SAl.ARY TIME SAl.ARY TIME SALARy TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARy TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAM (D+E=F) RELATED (F-G=H) P,;nclpal 124 65,841 19,752 85.593 83.025 2,568 3% 2,568 ( 0 Principal 12 69.707 20.912 90.61 87.900 2.719 3'Á 2,719 C Principal 62 61.800 16,540 80,340 17,93IJ 2,410 0 3% 2.41( 0 C P,;ndpa' 6 55.168 16,556 71,744 69,592 2.152 0 3% 2,15 0 C SecrelarY 5 16,941 5,082 22.023 21,362 661 3% 661 ( 0 0 Secretary 31 18.911 5,673 24.584 23.84 738 3% 7'" 0 0 0 Seeretarv 50 25.267 7.580 32.84 31.862 985 3% 98 C 0 0 0 Secretary 5( 15.576 4.673 20.249 19.842 607 0 0 0 0 3% 607 0 329,231 98.768 427.900 415.159 12.840 3,306 6.208 0 0 3.326 0 ~ .. fl/ EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoka Vallay Regional BoardlLow Incidence PopulaDons Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 34 DATE: Merd131. 2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MO SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF FRINGE COMPEN. NDT COMPEN. % OF TIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF "OF PORTION OF POSmoN TITLE GROSS SAlAR BENEFITS SATION SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SERVICE SATlO" PROGRAM (D+E:F) RElATED (FoG:H) TEACHER 1:¡¡ 2,700 '81 3,510 3.51 0 C 100% 3.510 ( AIDE 12 1.200 36 1.560 a 1.560 e 0 100% 1,560 AIDE 12 1.200 36 1.560 0 1,560 0 ( 100% 1.56C AIDE 12 1,200 36( 1,560 ( 1.560 C e 100% 1.560 AIDE 13 1.200 36 1.56G ( 1.56G e C 100% 1.56 OISABILITI SVC 155 3.000 900 3,900 e 3,900 e 0 ( 0 0 100% 3.9OC COORD TEACHER 13 2.700 810 3.510 ( 3.510 ( 0 0 0 100% 3.51 TEACHER 13 2.700 810 3,510 ( 3.510 a -( a 100% 3,510 TEACHER 13 2.700 81 3.510 a 3.510 0 a 100% 3,510 TEACHER 13 2.700 810 3.510 a 3,510 0 0 ( a 100% 3.510 AIDE 12 1.200 36G 1.560 1.560 a Ii I: G 100% 1.560 AIDE 12 1,200 360 1.56e a 1,560 a { a G 100% 1.560 AIDE 12 1.200 360 1.560 1,560 0 G ( 0 C 100% 1.560 AIDE 12 1.200 360 1.560 0 1,560 0 0 0 0 100% 1,560 AIDE 12 1.200 360 1.560 0 1.560 100% 1.560 AIDE 125 1,200 360 1.560 0 1.560 100% 1.560 AIDE 125 1,200 360 1,560 0 1.560 0 0 0 0 0 100% 1.560 AIDE 125 1,2GO 36 1,560 0 1.560 G a 0 0 0 100% 1.560 AIDE 12 1.200 360 1,560 a 1.560 0 0 0 a a 100% 1.560 AIDE 125 1.200 36 1.560 a 1.56G a G a a a 100% 1.560 AIDE 12 1.200 360 1.560 0 1.560 0 Ii a G G 100% 1.560 AIDE 12 1.200 360 1,560 a 1.560 a 0 0 a 100% 1,560 35,700 10,710 46,410 ¡, 46,410 0 (, a G a 46,410 '" rr, ¡ J ~ f ,'f/ ?"'-' ~.-- E !¡ '0 en «¡;j c ~ '" <.') ~ 0 ~ ~ E ... c7\ !1: ... 0'" ~ N :i: 1ñ g .di :;: " '" ~ 0'" (/) ¡¡¡ " OJ .... -. :::> §¡ <: N c." E &j 8i ~...: -g !1: ~ ~ ~ g¡ :::> <D - g: ~R ....::i ~~ -c <D u.. <'; \Z ~ e "! C) N J J e '" EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION -ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Re9ional 80ardlLow Incidence Populations Proposed 8udget Dates: July 1.2004 to .xlne 30. 2005 PAGE: 35 DATE: Merch31.2OO4 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOUR$OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN. %OFTIM PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POsmoN TfT1.E SERVICE SALARY BENEFITS SATION SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATlON PROGRAM (F-G'H) (D>E=F) RELATED Teacher 150< 33,425 10.028 43,454 0 43,454 0 0 100% 43,454 Speech 441 37,886 11,366 49.25 41,864 7,38 0 15% 7.388 0 Nurse 420 24.965 7.48S 32,454 22,718 S.7:!! 30% 9,738 0 AIde 1260 11,66 12.099 23.761 23,761 100% 23,761 AIde 1260 9,451 2,S35 12,2S 12.28 100% 12.28 1-1 Aide 1260 9,S35 2.981 12,916 12,916 100% 12.91 0% 1-1 AIde 126 9.687 2.906 12.59 12,59 0 100% 12.5S3 0 0% Principal 12< 64.m 19.433 84,21 81.664 2.526 0 0 ( 3% 2.526 Secretary 12 28.254 8.476 38.73 35,628 1.102 0 0 ( 3% 1,102 0 Teacher 150 46.531 13,9SS 60,4 60.4Q( 0 ( 100% 60,490 0 Speech 75 48,179 14,454 62.6 25.05J 37,580 0 ( 60% 37,580 AIde 1260 9,687 2.9<Hi 12,59 C 12.59 0 C 0 100% 12,593 0 1-1 AIde 12B< 10,692 3.200 13,90 C 13,900 0 100% 13.900 0 0% 0 0 1.1 AIde 126 10.964 3,289 14.253 0 14,253 0 100% 14.253 0% 0 0 Aide 1260 9.00 2,700 11,700 C 1'.7OC 0 0% 0 100% 11.70 0 Principal 63 71.027 21.308 92.335 89,565 2,77 0 3% 2.770 Secretary 6 30,42 9.128 39.555 38.361! 1,187 0 0 3% 1,187 Director 21 82.60 24.781 107.386 106,312 1.074 0 1% 1.074 1-1 AIde 125( 10.172 3.051 13.223 13,223 100% 13.223 0 0 2,929 2.929 0 2,929 ( 0 0 100% 2.929 Teacher Map. P.E. 33.968 10.191 44.159 22.080 22.079 C 0 0 0 50% 22.079 0 596.22 186,588 782.812 483.272 319.64C 0 66.885 0 252.655 0 (Y\ ì '\ ()./ if EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Re9ional BoardlLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July " 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 36 DATE: Marcl131.2004 AU11STIC SO INST ASST. DEAf NESSI HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN- %OFTIME PORTION OF 'IIOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'IIOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORllON OF POSITION 11TlE SERVICE SALARY BENEFITS SATION SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAM (O+E=F) RELATED (F-G=H) Teacher 150( 50,479 15,144 65,62 0 65,623 C 0 ( 100% 65,623 ( Speech 147 52,642 15.793 68.435 61.591 6.644 0 0 10% 6.844 0 Nurse 420 24,784 7,43t 32.211 22.553 9.666 0 0 30% 9.666 AIde 126C 10,964 3,281 14.253 0 14.253 0 C 100% 14,253 1-1 AIde 126( 9.93 2,981 12.916 0 12,916 0 { 100% 12,91 C 0 1-1 AIde 126C 1'.50S 3,452 14.96 14.96 0 I: 100% 14.960 { O Aide 1260 12.703 3,811 16,51 0 16,514 0 100% 16,514 0 1.1 AIde 1260 13.9~ 4,181 18,119 0 18,119 0 ( 100% 18.119 0 0 1.1 AIde 1260 9.03 2.711 11,748 0 11.74 0 0 100% 11,748 0 C 1-1 AIde 1260 9.451 2,83 12.28E 0 12.28E 0 ( 100% 12.28 0 Principal 63 82,590 24,m 107.367 104.146 3,221 0 0 0 3'" 3.221 secretary 63 23.7& 7,134 30.914 29.987 92 0 0 3% 927 Director 21 82.60 24.781 107.386 106.312 1,074 0 0 1% 1,074 1.171 1.171 1.171 0 0 100% 1.171 1-1 Aide 1260 10,680 3.204 13,884 0 13.884 0 100% 13.884 0 C 1-1 Aide 1260 10,000 2.459 12,45 0 12,45 0 0 100% 12.45 0 C Teacher. Adap. PE 37.873 10,111 47.984 23.992 23,99 0 0 0 50% 23.99 1.1 Aide 1260 10.0OC 2,459 12.45 0 12,45 0 100% 12.456 0 0 0 1-1 AIde 1260 10.000 2,459 12.459 0 12,45 0 0 100% 12,459 0 0 0 1-1 Aide 1260 10.000 2,459 12.459 0 12,459 0 0 100% 12,459 0 0 0 484,140 141,475 625.615 348.581 277,034 0 133.749 0 143,285 0 ... rr\ . 'oJ ì ~ " EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Re9ional Board/Low Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 10 June 30;2005 PAGE: 37 DATE: March 31. 2004 AUllSllC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED I EMPLOYEE ABLE OR posmoNT!Tl.E HOURS OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN. NOT COMPEN- %OFllME PORllON OF %OF PORllON OF %OF pORllON OF %OF pORTION OF %OF pORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF pORllON OF SERVICE SALARY BENEFITS SAllON PROGRAM SATION SAlARY TIME SAlARY llME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY (D+E=F) RELATED (F.G'H) Aut Teacl1er 34,7~ 10.429 45.194 45,194 100% 45,194 ( Aide 9.~ 2.981 12.916 0 12.916 100% 12,916 0 0 Aide 9.935 2,981 12,911 0 12.916 100% 12,916 0 1-1 Aide 10,00 3,130 13.13< 6,565 6.561 0% I 0 50% 6,51 0 1-1 Aide 10.692 3.208 13.901 6.950 6.951 0% 0 0 50% 6.9 ( 1-1 Aide 9.225 2,768 11.993 5.998 5,99 0% 50% 5.997 ( Speecl1 48.64 14.593 63,238 ( 63.238 100% 63,238 0 0 Principal 65.400 19,620 85,020 82,4& 2.551 3% 2.551 0 0 Secretary 29.684 8,905 38.589 37,431 1.158 3% 1,158 0 ( 0 1-1 Aide 12,029 3.609 15.638 0 15.638 0% Q 100% 15.638 0 976 97 0 976 100% 976 ( 0 0 laacher Map. P.E. 33.966 10.191 44,15 22.079 22,0& 50% 22,080 0 275,254 82.41 357.66 161,490 196,179 161,029 0 35,15( 0 C 0 0 .. rr\ , Q../ 1 .. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regional BoerdlLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 38 DATE: March 31,2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UHALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR POsmoN TITLE HOURS OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN. NOT COMPEN. "'OFTIM PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF "'OF PORTION OF '!!oOF PORTION OF SERVIC1! SALARY BENEFITS SATION PROGRAM SAnaN SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY (D+E=F) RELATED (F.G=H) AutTeacher 33,621 9.789 43.418 0 43.418 100% 43.418 ( Aide 8,564 2.569 11,133 G 11.13 100% 11.133 G G 1-1 Aide 12,029 3.609 15.638 G 15.638 C 100% 15.638 0 0 141 14 0 149 100% 149 0 0 0 C 1.1 Aide 10.000 3,000 13,000 0 13,000 0 100% 13,000 0 ( 1-1 Aide 10.000 3.000 13,000 C 13.000 0 100% 13.000 0 ( I-I Aide 10,OOC 3,000 13.000 C 13.000 C 100% 13.000 0 0 0 84.371 24.967 109,338 0 109.338 54.700 0 54,638 0 0 C J 9-) EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional BoardILow Incidence Populalions Proposed Budget Dales: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 39 DATE: March 31, 2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS 01' GROSS FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN- \IoOFTIM PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF \IoOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF posmON TITlE SERVICE BENEFITS SATiON SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY SALARY TIME SAlARY SATION PROGRAM TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY (D'E=F) RELATED (F-G=H) HI Teacher 1500 52.951 15.88e 68.836 0 68,83t C 0 100% 68,836 ( 0 HI Teacher 1500 35,762 10,728 46,490 23,245 23,24e C 0 50% 23,245 0 HI Teacher 1500 33,968 10,191 44.159 22.079 22.08 0 0 50% 22.080 ( Speech 1125 28,72 8.617 37,339 9.335 28,004 C 0 75% 28.004 0 Interpreter 1260 17.193 5,158 22.351 0 22,351 C 0 100% 22.351 ( Inlerpreter 126 15,400 4,620 20.020 10.010 10,010 0 50% 10.010 Interpreter 1260 16,766 5.030 21.796 10.898 10.698 0 0 0 50% 10.696 ( Interpreter 1260 17.634 5,290 22.924 11.462 11,46 0 0 50% 11,462 ( Director 21 62.60 24,781 107,386 106,31 1.074 0 "'" 1,074 Principal 21 69.376 20.813 9O.18¡ 84,778 5,411 0 6% 5,411 C Secretary 21 32.768 9.83C 42.596 40,040 2.55< 0 6% 2,556 5,85 5.859 0 5.85¡ 0 100% 5,659 C 409,002 120.943 529,945 318.159 211.786 0 0 0 211.786 C C lI> rr. " \, .¡ 9-,/ II Jf EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dales: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 40 DATE: March 31. 2004 AUTISTIC SD INST ASST. DEAFNESSI HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN. % OFTIM PORTION OF 'YoOF PORTION OF 'Yo OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'YoOF PORTION OF 'Yo OF PORTION OF 'Yo OF PORTION OF POS/11OH TITLE SERVICE SALARy BENEFITS SAnoN SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARy TIME SALARY TIME SA!.ARY llME SALARY SAnoN PROGRAM (D+E=") RELATED (F-G-H) Teacher 150C 35.762 10,726 46.490 23.24~ 23.24 a 50% 23,241 Teacher IsOC 33.426 10,028 43.454 ( 43.454 100% 43,451 ( Speed1 375 28,722 8.617 37.339 31.738 5.601 15% 5,601 Interpreler 1260 28.011 8,403 36.414 C 36,414 100% 36,414 C ( Interpreter 1200 21,72! 1.574 23.302 0 23,302 100% 23.302 e ( Interpreter 126 19.953 5.981 25.939 25.93 100% 25.93 C ( Interpreter 126C 14.820 4.44! 19,266 0 19.266 100% 19,2'"' 0 0 Principal 21 92.167 27.65G 119,817 116,222 3.595 0 3% 3.595 Secretary 21 30,427 9,128 39.555 38,368 1,187 0 0 3% 1.187 Interpreter 126C 19.952 5,986 25.939 0 25.935 0 0 0 100% 25.939 3,41E 3.418 0 3,41E 0 100% 3,418 Teacher 150 46.531 13,955 60.490 60,49C e 100% 60.400 c Speech 375 28.722 8,617 37.33 31.738 5,601 C C 15% 5.601 Interpreter 1260 19.815 5.94E 25.760 0 25,760 ( 0 100% 25.760 ( ( Interpreter 1260 25,541 7,662 33,203 0 33.203 0 100% 33,20 0 Interpreter 126e 17.634 5.290 22.92 ( 22.924 0 0 100% 22.924 0 Interpreter 1260 26,825 8,047 34,872 ( 34,872 0 ( 0 100% 34.872 Interpreter 126 13.49E 4.048 17.543 ( 17.54 ( 100% 17.543 Principal 63 71,650 21.495 93,145 90.351 2,794 ( 0 0 3% 2.794 Secretary 63 31,201 9,360 40.561 39.344 1.217 a c 3% 1,217 Director 21 82.60E 24,781 107.386 106,312 1.074 0 C 1% 1.074 ( Interpreter 126 18,518 5.55! 24.074 0 24.074 0 0 100% . 24,074 ( 710.924 207.306 918,230 477.318 440.912 ( e 440.912 [ ~ [V-\ j ~J EMPLOYEE COMPENSA nON - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanol<e Valley Regional BoardlLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July '. 2004 10 June 30, 2005 PAGE: 41 DATE: March 31. 2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR POSIT1OH 11TLE HOURS OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN. NOT COMPEN- % OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'I'oOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF sERVICE SALARY BENEFITS SATION SAJ.ARY TIME SAUIRY TIME SAlARy TIME SAJ.ARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAIII (F-G=H) & (D+E=I') RELATED Hu,,;e 46 8,54 1.895 16.438 9,863 6,57 ( 40% 6,51! Aide 12S1 10.00 5.644 15,641 15,944 100% 15.644 0 Speech Pathologist 160 47.3'" 12,4S8 59,794 53,BH 5.919 I 0 10% 5.97 65.s4f 26.027 91.616 63.678 28,198 ( 15.644 C 12.554 0 0/ I EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regione' BoardlLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 42 DATE: Merch31.2004 AUTISTIC SO IN51 ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS Of' GROSS FRINGE COMPEN. NOT COMPEN. %OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POSIT1ON TIT1.£ SERVICE SALARY BENEFITS SATION SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAM (D+E=F) RELATED (F-G=H) Aut SUmmer COOfd. 3,520 25 3,775 3.77 0 0 100% 3,775 Aut Teecher 3,520 25 3.775 3,77 ( C 100% 3.77 HI Teacher 3.520 25 3,775 3.77 a 100% 3.775 HI Teacher 3,520 2 3.775 3.775 ( 0 a 100~ 3,775 MD Teacher 3.520 25 3.775 3,775 0 0 0 100% 3,775 MD Teacher 3.520 25 3.775 0 3.775 0 0 0 0 100% 3.775 Aut AIde 1.415 1 1,521 0 1,521 0 0 ( 0 100~ 1,521 Aut AIde 1.415 10 1,521 1.521 a ( 100~ 1,521 Aut AIde 1.415 1 1.521 1.521 0 0 C 100% 1.521 Aut AIde 1,415 1 1.521 1.521 ( 0 0 100% 1,521 Aut AIde 1,415 1 1,521 1.521 a c 100% 1.521 Aut AIde 1.415 1 1.521 1.521 0 ( Ii 100% 1.521 MD AIde 1.415 1 1.521 1,521 0 ( 0 100% 1,521 Aut AIde 1.415 106 1,521 1.521 a a ( ( 100% 1,521 Aut AIde 1,415 10! 1.521 1.521 0 a 0 0 100% 1.521 MD AIde 1.230 9 1.322 1.322 0 a 100~ 1,32 MD AIde 1.230 92 1.322 1,322 0 a 100% 1,322 MD AIde 1.230 92 1,322 1.322 ( 0 100% 1.322 MD AIde 1.230 g 1,322 1,322 0 0 100~ 1.322 MD AIde 1,2, 9 1.322 a 1.322 a ( 100% 1.322 Interpreter 1,64 123 1.763 0 1.763 0 a I: 100% 1.763 Interpreter 1,64 12 1.763 0 1.763 a a ( 0 100% 1.763 Interpreter 1,64 12 1,763 0 1,763 a 0 u( 100% 1,763 Interpreter 1.640 12 1,763 ( 1.763 ( 0 100% 1.763 Interpreter 1,640 12 1,763 1.763 ( 0 100% 1.76 Nurse 3,075 230 3,305 C 3,305 ( 0 100% 3,305 51.280 3,78 55,069 a 55.O6E ( a a 55,06! ("f"'.. J 9J '" EO ~ c .. C) æ § Eui E '" " (/) ;¡; "'. a:g ::; ... ¡¡¡ _Ñ I:2 '" - '" ""'t -=8 :;:'"' '" a (/) '" I-~ :::J- ..::N 0.[8 E"t 8~ "",: ..:: ¡¡¡~ ;:"'- ~&l c- :::J _:3 "'Õ ~~ 0 .,:;; OJ"; i§1/! u.. ",g "'¡:;; E!", C)Ñ :;. i:J ~ e EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanol<e Valley Regionel Boardllow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1, 2()04 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 43 DATE: March 31,2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOUR8OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN- NOT CaMPEN. %OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION Of %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'IIoOf PORTION OF POSITION TIT\.E SERVICE SALARY BENEffiS SATION SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAM (F-G-H) (O+E-F) RELATED Inst Ass! 12 14,895 7.84 22.73 22.7~ 100% 22,735 0 0 Iost~ 126 15,658 2.64 18.298 18.29 C 100% 18,298 IostAsst 126 14.895 7,088 21,983 0 21,983 0 100% 21.983 Inst Ass! 12 15,276 6,973 22.249 C 22.249 0 100% 22.24' Inst Asst 128 15.276 2.576 17,852 0 17,852 0 C 100% 17,852 0 Ins! Asst 117C 10,762 3.229 13.991 0 13,991 C C 100% 13,991 0 0 85.762 30.346 117,101 C 117.108 0 117.108 0 C C , . r"^? \:_"MW :},~~~ EO ~ c Q) ø 0 ~ 0 Q) E E ::> en 0 a ::;: J: '" _0 II> ~- .!:'= "T~ ~ a en f- :J <: ~~ 8:: ~ "'00 ~ 1õ c :J !¥ ]j~ 0 - f- Q ~ g':;¡ 'c U. ¡;j II> "'. P¡ t') E Q) 1õ en EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional BoardlLow Incidance Populations Proposed Budget Datas: July I, 2004 10 June 30, 2005 PAGE: 44 DATE: Marcl131.2004 AUTISTIC SO INST ASST, DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN. NOT CaMPEN. % OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POSITION TITL£ SERVICE SALARY BENEFITS SATION SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAU>.RY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY SATION PROGRAM (F-G=H) (O+E=F) RELATED Taacher 1500 44,817 13,445 58,262 0 58,26 0 100% 58.262 0 Inst. Ass!. 1260 8,321 6.286 14.614 ( 14,614 100% 14.614 0 0 Inst. Asst. 126 8,328 6,286 14,614 ( 14,614 I 100% 14.614 0 Speach 4 52,154 14,051 66.20~ 62,89! 3,3t( I 5% 3,310 ( 0 Principal 3 73.21 17.136 90.34 88,539 1.80 I 2% 1.807 ( 0 Guidance 1 37.601 11.181 48,78 48.294 4ß¡ I 1% 48! 0 0 Supervisor 62 74,071 17.901 91.979 91.059 920 1% 92 ( Sacratary 13 26.375 9.524 35.89! 35.54( 35 I 1% 35 ( Secretary 1! 32,051 10,254 42.312 41.889 42 ( 1% 42 0 Nursa 13 26.083 9.255 35,33t 34,98! 3 ( 1% 35 0 ( Vision 13 52,15< 13.615 65.76 63,790 1,97 0 3% 1.97 I 0 1.071 1.076 ( 1.07 0 100% 1.07 ( I 0 436.262 128.934 565.190 466,997 98.199 C 98,19 ( a c ( " (y\ > J I '! ~...~ ~ EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR M Roanoke Valley Regional Boaró/low Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 '" June 30. 2005 PAGE: 45 DATE: March 31. 2004 AU11STIC SO INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MO SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR IIOO'S OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN. NOT COMPEN. %OFTIME PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF ""OF PORTION OF ""OF PORTION OF ""OF PORTION OF ""OF PORTION OF ""OF PORTION OF POSIt1ON TITlE SUMCE SALARY BENEFITS SATION SALAf<Y TIME SAlARY TIME SALAAY TIME SALARY TIME SÞJ.AAY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SA'IION PROGRAM (FoG=H) (D+E=F) RElATED " ( C 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( (Y\ I QJ f / E C> ~ '" OJ C> ~ C> OJ E E ::! en 0 ::ö 'f '" ~ ~ 5J~ ~ ~ ~~- 8~ ~ is¡ ~.; 'æ~ '" ::> \!! ëij>ñ õ:?\ ~ OJ ~- 0><0 """ .'" ~ IJ.. êi C> 1:: ::! 0 ¡;; õ co C~Cc".,. ~, EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roano1<e Velley Regional BoardlLow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dales: July 1,2004 "'Juna 30, 2005 PAGE: 46 DATE: March 31,2004 AUTISTIC SD INST ASST. DEAFNESS! HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN, IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS FRINGE COMPEN. NOT COMPEN- %OFTIM PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF PosmoN1ITLI! SERVICE SAlARY BENEFITS SATION SAlARy TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY SATION PROGRAM (D+E=F) RELATED (F-G=H) 1-1 Aide 126 12,26 2,116 14,378 0 14,37 100 14.37 ¡ 1-1 Aide 126 10.00 2,551 12.551 ( 12.558 ( 100% 12.558 0 C ( I-I Aide 126 10,00{ 4.581 14,588 ( 14,588 0 0 100% 14.588 [ 0 1-1 Aida 126 17,058 2.944 20.002 ( 20.00 0 100% 20,002 [ 0 ( 1-1 Aide 12 10,000 3:00 13.00{ 13.000 100% 13.000 7 52 3 56 ( 56 ( C 100% 56! ( ( AIde 80 1.538 11 1.653 0 1.65 ( 0 100% 1,653 ( Aide 8C 1,02 1,10 ( 1.102 0 C 0 100% 1,10 ( AIde 8C 1,025 7 1,10 0 1,102 ( 0 C 100% 1,102 ( AIde g¡: 1.025 '7 1.102 1.102 ( 100% 1,102 ( 64,461 15,590 80.051 0 80.051 0 0 75,092 ( 4,95! " r,r- ~ - '-~" EO ~ c: ø (!) 0 ...0> ø'" Eq E"" '" C/) 0 0 0 ::< 0 0 :r 0 N -0> il!q -'" ;l:1'- 0 0 0 C/) 0 0 ~ <C 0 Q.~ E'" 8â ._co ~ '00 ~ .Q œ c: ::> ù> -0 .. . -0 r=,co 0 ø'" g>"'. 'C:~ u.. lOW ~ "". (!);1; 0> ,ij U e ... EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES - PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (V) Roanoke Valley Regional BoardILow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 47 DATE: March 31. 2004 AUTISTIC SD INST ASST. DEAFNESSI HEARING NO SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNAllOW- ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS Of' GROSS FRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN- %OFTIME PORTION OF %OF pORTION OF 'IIOF PORTION OF 'IIOF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF 'IIOf PORTION OF POSITION 1II1.f eERVlCE SALARY BENERTS SATION SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARy TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SA TION PROGRAM (F-G<H) (D+E=F) RElAJED Teacher-Elom 1501 30.16 6.731 36,900 18,450 18,451 50% 18.45 Inst Ass!. Elam 1260 11.101 3.55C 14.651 7,32 7.326 ( 50% 7,326 ( Olr. Sp. Ed. 60,46 11.635 72.102 69,93 2,163 ( ( 0 3% 2.163 0 Principal-Elem. 54.28 10.57 64.857 63,560 1,29 0 0 ( ( 2% 1.29 ( Seaelary-Elam 21,61 3,499 25,116 24.614 50 ( 0 0 2% 50 0 1-1 Aide 1260 10,320 3,096 13.416 0 13.416 ( 100% 13.416 0 1-1 Aide 126! 10.32(] 3,096 13.416 ( 13.416 ( 100% 13,416 0 0 1-1 Aide 126( 10.320 3.O9E 13,416 0 13.416 0 100% 13,416 0 0 1.1 Aide 1260 10,320 3.096 13,416 ( 13,416 0 0 100% 13,416 0 . 218.917 48.373 267.29C 183.888 83,402 ( 53.664 I: 29.738 ( v EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES. PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (VI Roanoke Valley Regional Boardllow Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 PAGE: 48 DATE: Maroh 31. 2004 AUTISTIC SO !NST AS$T. DEAFNESSI HEARING MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. IMPAIRED TOTAL UNALLOW. ADJUSTED EMPLOYEE ABLE OR HOURS OF GROSS fRINGE COMPEN- NOT COMPEN. %OFTIME PORTION OF %Of PORTION Of %Of PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF POsmoN tm.E WMCE SALARY BENEFITS SATION SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY SATION PROGRAM (FoG"H) (O+E"F) RELATED Teecher-Soc. 150C 51,433 10.191 61,624 30.812 30,81 0 50% 30.812 "( InstAssl Sec. 126C 10.563 3,54¡ 14.112 7,0& 7.051 0 ( 0 0 50% 7,056 Teacher-Soc. 1SO 29.947 7,35£ 37,306 18.653 18,653 0 ( 0 -, 50'% 18.653 ( Inst.Assl.Soc 126 17,930 4,532 22.462 11,231 11,231 ( ( 50% 11.231 -( 1-1 Aide 126C 11.101 1,797 12.898 ( 12.89 ( 100% 12.898 ( C ( ( air. Sp. Ed. 60,467 11,631 72,102 69,93¡ 2.1s; ( 0 3% 2.163 -, Principal-Soc 65,509 12,19E 77,705 76,151 1,554 0 ( 0 2% 1,554 ( Secretal)'-s.c. 28.319 6,638 34.957 34,258 69'. 0 ( 2% 699 0 PrincipaJ-Sec 59.228 11.319 70.547 69,136 1.411 0 0 2% 1.411 ( Secrelaty-Sec. 17;56Ii 2,832 20,400 19.99 401 ( ( ( 0 2% 408 ( [T 352.065 72,048 424.113 337,228 86,885 0 0 12.898 73.987 0 r."'\' "'. If . r I ... ,- c--,""""~ EO "C -0: c: ~ ~ 0 E :¡ en 0 ~ OM ::¡ S! :E 0 ,dl £18 ~ 0 C/) 0 I- ;:) -0: c."" E ¡1¡ 8~ ~ ãJ~ ~~ <ü'" :§ '" 0 - .. '" - ~~ ., ¡¡; e>ö .§~ U. N "'~ Ë~ (!) .5 :;;a c: ~ ~ CONTRACTUAL SERVICE FEES. ASSIGNMENT TO SERVICES (VI) Roanoke Valley Regional Boardllow Incidenca Populations Proposed Budget Oates: July 1. 2004 to June 30, 2005 -,.. _,_SI,2D04 PRIOR YEAR ACTUAL CURRENT YEAR ESTIMATE PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (b) HOURS HOURS AVERAGE HOURS AVERAGE UNALLOWABLE PSYCH ASST (aj CONTRACTOR AVERAGE TOTAL OR NOT ADJUSTED SPEECH/AUDIO WORK PSYCH GENERAL ìYPE OF OF FEES OF HOURLY FEES OF HOURLY PT/OT TECH NAME HOURLY RATE FEES PROGRAM FEES CONSULT exPERIENCE COUNSELING ADMIN SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE RATE SERVICE RATE RELATED EVALS SERVo To B. De.."". 8004 PTIOT 4002 54.01 216,148 6.096 36.5 222.504 12.500 40 500.000 500,000 500.000 To B. Dete"". 8004 SõeiICh 189 40 7,560 189 40 7,560 250 40 10.000 10.000 10,000 To Be Detenn. 8002 PsYCh 11 100 1.100 10 100 1,000 25 100 2.500 2.500 2.500 To B. Detenn. 8007 AsstTech 86 45 3,870 25 45 1,125 100 50 5,000 5,000 5.000 ARCITinke, Mtn 8007 Work ~~ 1014 30.00/dav 30.420 1200 3O.OOIdav 36,000 1900 30.00/dav 57.000 57.000 57.000 To Be Date"". 8002 Ps~h Coun 42 85 3.570 1 100 100 40 100 4.000 4,000 4.000 KPMG 8005 Audit 3,27B 4.000 4,200 4,200 4.200 Roanoke Gounlv 8006 Accountinn 23.100 23.100 23,100 23.100 23.100 Com of Va Ri"" Momt 8007 Liabllitv Ins. 391 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 289.437 295,889 606.300 606.300 500,000 10,000 2,500 5,000 57,000 4,000 27,800 289.437 295,889 606,300 606.3001 500.000 10.000 2,500 5.000 57,000 4,000 27,800 c...,....... 1oF.1,Ino" """""'(0) c...,r....... 10 F-1. "no" """,,,,(bl c.r,.........,F-1. "'2.""""""101.1')0101 c.r,........, F-2. '"".. """"""'1010 Ie) f ~ '>0 - """-' ~ " DISCLOSURE OF EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFITS (VI/) Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: Julv 1. 2004 to June 30, 2005 Page: 50 Date: March 31,2004 For each benefit listed below, where applicable, please indicate the following: . Employees Covered: indicate 'All employees' or specify the particular groups, categories or individuals eligible for the benefit . Basis of Cost briefly describe how the cost of the benelit arises, e.g., five percent of salary, $20 per employee annually, reimbursed per occurrence, etc. . Total Cost Proposed Budget Year: indicate the cost of the benefit for the budget year. The column total should equal the GRAND TOTAL of all C-1's, column (t). DO NOT INCLUDE COSTS FOR FRINGE BENEFITS WHICH ARE (a) APPROPRIATELY REPORTED ELSE WHERE IN THE APPLICATION TOTAL COST PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR 7101 Medical, Hospitalization and Dental Insurance Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) All full time contracted personnel Basis of cost (describe): Varies by division approximately $3,500 $534,422 7102 Accident, Disability Insurance Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) Basis of cost (describe): 7103 Group Life Insurance Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) . All full time contracted personnel Basis of cost (describe): 0.0035% $212 -21Q1 Pension and Retirement Benefits Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) All full time contracted personnel Basis of cost (describe): 12.39% of salary $749,415 ~ Unemployment Taxes and Termination Benefits Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) Reimbursable employer Basis of cost (describe): -11Q§ Workman's Compensation Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) Basis of cost (describe): ---Z!.QI Meals and Housing Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) Basis of cost (describe): ~ Professional Affiliations of Employees Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) Basis of cost (describe\: ~ FICA (employer's share and employees' share if applicable) Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) 7.65% of Salary Basis of cost (describe): $462,714 --1.:!.1Q Other Benefit!,\ (specify): Covers: All employees Selective (Specify) Basis of cost (describe): --Z1QQ TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS $1,746,763 (Should equal GRAND TOTAL of C-1 column (f) REAL PROPERTY INFORMATION (VIII) Page; 51 Date: March 31, 2004 Applicant: Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Populations Proposed Budget Dates: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 1 LOCATlON(S) OF BUILDINGS AND LAND: See attached leaseslletters regarding classroom space leased by Regional Board. 2 IF LEASED, ENTER NAME AND ADDRESS OF ALL OWNERS: Roanoke County Schools 5937 Cove Road, NW Roanoke, VA 24019 Roanoke City Schools P.O. Box 13145 Roanoke, VA 24019 Franklin County Schools 25 Bernard Road Rocky Mount, VA 24151 Botetourt County Schools P.O. Box 309 Fincastle, VA 24090 3 ARE ANY OWNERS RELATED PARTIES? (SEE INSTRUCTIONS) YES NO X 4 IF OWNED (OR BEING PURCHASED) NAME AND ADDRESS OF PARTY(S) HOLDING TRUST(S) AND THE AMOUNT(S) OF TRUST(S): Not applicable 5 LAND ACREAGE: NUMBER OF BUILDINGS: INSURED VALUE OF BUILDINGS: TOTAL FLOOR SPACE: Not Applicable 17 partial buildings will be used Not Applicable See Leases 6 APPROXIMATE FLOOR SPACE IN SQUARE FEET USED FOR THE COMBINED RESIDENTIAL AND/OR SCHOOL PROGRAM: See Leases 7 WHO OCCUPIES ANY FLOOR SPACE NOT USED BY COMBINED RESIDENTIAL AND/OR SCHOOL PROGRAM; Programs are located in several school divisions - Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Franklin County, and Botetourt County. 8 ARE REAL PROPERTY COSTS CHARGED TO THIS PROGRAM DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF AN ALLOCATION METHOD? YES NO X IF YES, ATTACH A DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGY e r-~, lOCATIONS WHERE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED locality Name of School Roanoke County Schools Mountain View Elementary School 6001 Plantation Circle, NW Roanoke, Virginia 24019 (540) 561-8175 Roanoke County Schools Northside Middle School 6810 Northside High School Road, NW Roanoke, Virginia 24019 (540) 561-8145 Roanoke County Schools Cave Spring High School 3712 Chaparral Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772-7550 Roanoke County Schools Northside High School 6758 Northside High School Road, NW Roanoke, Virginia 24019 (540) 561-8155 Roanoke County Schools Hidden Valley High School 5000 Titan Trail Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 776-7320 e # of Classes Percentage 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ......" (.'4-' '3~,: 52 Disability (AUT) (SO) (MO) (SO) (AUT) ~~------ --- --------~ lOCATIONS WHERE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ~- ð<....eAGE: 52 ,...- locality Name of School # of Classes Percentage Disability Roanoke City Schools Fishburn Park Elementary School 1 100% (MD) 3057 Colonial Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24015 (540) 853-2931 Roanoke City Schools Preston Park Elementary Schoool 100% (MD) 3142 Preston Park Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24015 (540) 853-2996 Roanoke City Schools James Madison Middle School 100% (MD) 1160 Overland Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24015 (540) 853-2351 Roanoke City Schools Virginia Heights Elementary School 2 150% (HI) 1210 Amherst Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24015 (540) 853-2937 Roanoke City Schools Patrick Henry High School 100% (HI) 2102 Grandin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24015 (540) 853-2255 Roanoke City Schools Woodrow Wilson Middle School 100% (HI) 1813 Carter Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24015 (540) 853-2358 Roanoke City Schools Garden City Elementary School 100% (AUT) 3718 Garden City BLVD. SE Roanoke, Virginia 24014 (540) 853-2116 Roanoke City Schools TBD - Middle 1 100% (AUT) ( ) Botetourt County Schools Breckenridge Elementary School 100% (SO) P.O. Box 175 Fincastle, Virginia 24090 (540) 473-2423 Franklin County Schools Rocky Mount Elementary School 50% (MD) Route 6 Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 (540) 483-5040 Franklin County Schools Benjamin Franklin Middle School 50% (MD) Route 1 Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 (540) 483-9255 Franklin County Schools Franklin County High School 50% (MD) 506 Pen Avenue Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 (540) 483-0221 Locality Name of School LOCATIONS WHERE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED Percentage Total number of classes # of Classes 18 e ...... d.""'PAGE: 52 Disability DEPRECIATION SUMMARY (IX) *** PAGE: 53 DATE: March31,2004 APPLICANT: Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Populations PROPOSED BUDGET DATES: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 (a) Ib) Ic) (d) (e) m (0) (h) m (j) ACQUISITION ESTIMATED DEPRECIABLE SERVICE LIFE DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION ACCUMULATION ACCOUNT NUMBER DEPRECIABLE ASSET MoNr Cost SALVAGE VALUE COST IN YEARS RATE EXPENSE DEPRECIATION THROUGH ASSIGNMENT 2000 Blazer 5/18/01 28,000 0 28,000 10 SL 2,800 8,400 2000 Chevy Van 3/27/01 18,500 0 18,500 10 SL 1,850 5,550 " TOTAL 4,650 l' Ò 'I )~..J OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES. (X) PROPOSED BUDGET DATES: APPLICANT: July 1. 2004 to June 30, 2005 Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Population PAGE: 54 DATE: March31.2004 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) AUTISM SO INST. ASST. HI MD Summer School (g) PRIOR YEAR CURRENT YEAR UNAUOWABLE OR ADJUSTED GENERAL NOT PROGRAM BUILDING OCCUPANCY ACTUAL ESTIMATE TOTAL RELATED TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 8101 RENT 153030 173050 133220 133,220 38,360 31560 10810 52490 BUILDING & BUILDING EQUIP 8102 INSURANCE 0 8103 MORTGAGE INTEREST 0 8104 UTILITIES 62301 72 655 77463 77.463 14,032 4790 7455 20192 1561 29 433 JANITORIAL & OTHER 8105 MAINTENANCE SVCS 0 . BUILDING & GROUNDS 8107 MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES 0 8108 BUILDING DEPRECIATION 0 AMORTIZATION OF LEASEHOLD 8109 IMPROVEMENTS 0 8100 TOTAL BUILDING OCCUPANCY 215331 245705 210,683 210683 52,392 36350 0 18,265 72 682 1,561 29 433 RENTAL AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT 8201 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 8202 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT DEPRECIATION 8203 EXCLUDING AUTOMOBILESI 8200 TOTAL RENTAL & MAINT OF EQUIP I ~~OjMEMBERSHIP DUES I I I I I I I I I I I I I 84oolsTAFF DEVELOPMENT 2.000 y OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES. (XI) PROPOSED BUDGET DATES: APPLICANT: July 1. 2004 to June 30. 2005 Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Population PAGE: 55 DATE: March 31. 2004 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) AUTISM SD INST. HI MD Summer (g) PRIOR YEAR CURRENT YEAR UNALLOWABLE OR ADJUSTED ASST. School GENERAL TRAVEL ACTUAL ESTIMATE TOTAL NOT PROGRAM RELATED TOTAL ADMINISTRATION DEPRECIATION EXPENSE ON 8501 VEHICLES 0 4650 4.650 4.650 4650 8502 MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS 709 1000 1000 1.000 1000 8503 INSURANCE - VEHICLES 0 800 800 800 800 AUTO ALLOWANCE - 8504 EMPLOYEES & VOLUNTEERS LODGING. MEALS. 8505 COMMERCIAL AIRFARES 8506 LEASING COSTS - VEHICLES 8507 PROPERTY TAXES - VEHICLES OTHER TRAVEL: SPECIFY 8508 Staff/Board Travellá) 36t oar mile 1.246 5,000 5,000 5.000 5.000 8500 TOTAL TRAVEL 1955 11.450 11450 0 11450 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.450 SUPPLIES 8601 ÉDUCATION AND TRAINING 45.849 44133 13.050 13.050 3250 1,550 2050 5.600 600 8602 FOOD AND BEVERAGES 0 8604 OFFICE SUPPLIES 857 1.000 1500 1500 1.500 RAW MATERIALS AND 8605 MANUFACTURING 0 8606 RECREATIONAL AND CRAFT 0 OTHER SUPPLIES: SPECIFY Hepatitis B Vaccines & Health 8607 Suoolies 1528 1.050 2000 2.000 2000 8600 TOTAL SUPPLIES 48234 46.183 16.550 0 16.550 3250 1.550 0 2050 5.600 600 3500 " ~ ì 9J í OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES. (XI) PROPOSED BUDGET DATES: APPUGANT: ""'.200"0""'30.2005 Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Population PAGE; 56 DATE: _31.2004 (e) (b) (e) Id) Ie) AUTISM SD INST. ASST. HI MD Summer (g) PRIOR YEAR CURRENT YEAR UNALLOWABLE ADJUSTED School GENERAL OR ACTUAL ESTIMATE TOTAL NOT PROGRAM TOTAL ADMINISTRA llON COMMUNICATIONS RELATED 8701 TELEPHONE & TElEGRAPH 0 0 200 :¡oo 200 8702 POSTAGE AND SHIPPING 142 250 200 200 200 PRINTING FOR INTERNAL 8703 REPORTING 0 SOD 500 SOD 500 PRINTING FOR PROMOTIONAL 8704 PURPOSES 0 SUBSCRIPTION & PURCHASES OF 8705 PUBUCATIONS 0 8700 TOTAL COMMUNICATIONS 142 750 900 900 900 "~C\"""A""""A.."e lu,..",.",uAU,,' MEDICAL AND DENTAL FEES. 8801 MEDICINES ETC. 880 CLOTHING SERVICE 88 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 88 STUDENT WAGES 88 TESTING FEE 880 PERSONAL SUPPUES '" 88 PUBUC SCHOOL SUPPUES OTHER SPECIFIC ASSISTANCE: 88"' SPECIFY 88nr TOTAL SP~~~~~:~T ANCE TO I 88J INTER:;rR\?:~ THAN I I I I I I I . I I I I I I ITOTALOTHER O1'ERATINGEXPENSES , 286.862! 310.0aal 246.083 01 246.083/ 57.6421 39.4oQ oj 21.3151 80.2821 2.1611 45.283 C<r<yforwrd1o(XIll). ItM '.-""""(0). (b). (,).(d). 4(,) t /9/ ... ( EXPENSE SUMMARY - (XIII) APPLICANT: PROPOSED BUDGET DATES: Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Population July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 PAGE: 57 DATE: March 31, 2004 2 PROPOSED BUDGET YEAR (a) (b) (e) (d) (e) PRIOR YEAR CURRENT YEAR UNALLOWABLEI ADJUSTED ACTUAL ESTIMATE TOTAL RESTRICTED TOTAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION (FORM V) 2,258,204 4,592,962 7,795,308 3,808,080 3,987,228 CONTRACTUAL SERVICE FEE (FORM VI) 2,602,889 527,500 606,30e 0 6OB,3OC OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES (FORM XII) 275,884 330,270 246,083 0 246,083 TOTAL EXPENSES (LINES 1+2+3) 5,136,977 5,450,73 8,647,691 3,808,080 4,839,611 3 4 5 INON SERVICE FEE REVENUE (FORM B-1) 24,657 26,0001 26,000' 01 6 INET EXPENSES (LINES 4-5} 5,112,320 5,424,732 8,621,691 3,808,080 4,813,611 h ) ~ RATE COMPUTATION 5C~ '-E. (XIV) APPLICANT: Roanoke Valley Regional Board/Low Incidence Population PROPOSED DATES: July 1. 2004 to June 30,2005 PAGE: 58 DATE: March 31, 2004 8 (a) (b) (e) ASSIGNED TO SERVICES TOTAL GENERAL GRAND AUT SD INST ASST HI MD SUMMER PT/OT SPEECH PSY EVAL ASSTTECH WORK EXP PSY CO ASSIGNED ADM. TOTALlbl+le! ASSIGNED EMPLOYEE COMPENSA nON (Form VI 505916 497684 1334 808 652698 726688 106438 3824232 162.996 3987228 ASSIGNED CONTRACllJAL SERVICE FEES EXPENSE (Form VI) 500 000 10000 2500 5000 57000 4000 578500 27800 606 300 ASSIGNED OTHER OPERATING EXPENSE (Form XII) 57642 39400 0 21315 80282 2161 200800 45283 246083 TOTALASSIGNEDEXP (line 1 + 2 + 31 563558 537 084 1334808 674013 806970 108,599 500 000 10000 2500 5000 57000 4000 4603532 236079 4839611 , % ASSIGNED WC EXPENSES (COI. (e)' lne 4 tol. (b)J 12.2419% 11.6668% 28.9953% 14.6412% 17.5294% 2.3590% 10.8612% 0.2172% 0.0543% 0.1086% 1.2382% 0.0869% 100.000% REVENUE (Form IV) 26,000 26 000 NET GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FOR ALLOCAl1ON(1Ine4.fi) 236079 ALLOCATION OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES Olne 7 coI.( c) . lIne 5) 28901 27543 68452 34 565 41383 5569 25641 513 128 256 2923 205 236079 , TOTAL. SERVICE EXP (Ine 4-6+8) 592459 564 627 1403260 708578 848353 114168 525641 10513 2628 5255 59923 4205 4839611 NUMBER OF TOTAL UNITS (Reference Form 111) 4959 3762 15305 4275 6498 1596 COMPUTED RATE (line 9.lIne 10) 37.001hr 119.47 150.09 91.69 165.75 130.56 71.53 37.00Ihr. 40.OOIhr. 100.00Ihr. 45.00/hr. 30.00/dav 85.00Ihr. REQUESTED RATE 37.00Ihr. 119.47 150.09 91.69 165.75 130.55 71.53 37.00Ihr. 40.001hr. 100.00/hr. 45.00/hr. 30.00/dav 85.00/hr. RATE FOR CURRENT YEAR 37.00lhr. 112.17 149.62 92.87 152.66 122.58 61.51 37.00lhr. 40.00lhr. 100.00/hr. 45.00/hr. 30.00/dav 85.00/hr. PERCENTAGE INCREASEIDECREASE 6.51% 0.31% -1.27% 8.57% 6.51% 16.29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% RATE FOR PRIOR YEAR 37.00lhr. 110.57 146.29 88.61 127.54 114.53 57.97 37.00fhr. 40.001hr. 100.00/hr. 45.00/hr. 30.00/da' 85.001hr. 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: APPROVEDRATE I I I I I I I I I I f'í\ '11 ¡ (0 fJ-J (" EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION - PROPOSED FY 04-05 AUTISTIC SPD INST ASST. DEAFNESS{ MD SUMMER SCHOOL GENERAL ADMIN. HEARING IMPAIRED POSITION 1111E AND TOTAL UNALLOW- EMPLOYEE ABlE OR ADJUSTED NAME{USE" TO BENEFITS HOURS GROSS FRINGE EMPLOYEE %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %DF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF %OF PORTION OF DF NOT COMPEN- DENOTE POSmoN CODE SERVICE SAlARy. BENEFITS COMPEN- PROGRAM SATION TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlAAY TIME SAlARY TIME SAlARY TIME SALARY TIME SALARY VACANCIES AND P TO SATION DENOTE PARTllME) RELATED RDanoke County 2,213,034 657,962 2,870,996 987,469 1,883,527 0 290,187 0 399,485 0 769,980 0 0 0 214,469 0 46,410 0 162,996 Roanoke City 2,677,044 793,510 3,470,554 1,832,498 1,638,056 0 215,729 0 0 306,066 0 652,698 0 408,494 0 55,069 0 0 Salem City 86,762 30,346 117,108 0 117,108 0 0 0 0 0 117,108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Botetourt County 436,262 128,934 565,196 466,997 98,199 0 0 0 98,199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Franklin County 570,982 120,421 691,403 521,116 170,287 0 0 0 0 0 66,562 0 0 0 103,725 0 0 0 0 Craig County 64,461 15,590 80,051 0 80,051 0 0 0 0 0 75,092 0 0 0 0 0 4,959 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( TOTAL 6,048,545 1,746,763 7,795,308 3,808,080 3,987,228 505,916 497,684 1,334,808 652,698 726,688 106,438 162,99E " fv:\ 9J ACTION NO. t= - \ '- ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22,2004 AGENDA ITEM: Consent Agenda - requests for public hearing and first reading for rezoning ordinances SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Chief Planner Elmer C. Hodge t /I County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Request to schedule a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to receive public comments on a proposal to revise and update the Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. The proposed Community Plan is comprised of both text and maps. Once recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the plan will serve as a general guide for long-range use and development of all land within Roanoke County. The proposed plan has been prepared in accordance with guidelines contained in Section 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the Code of Virginia, and Section 30-8-1 of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. Note: This item is on the agenda as a matter of procedure and is necessary in order to initiate the process and allow the Planning Commission to move forward at the July meeting to receive public comments. Additional work sessions may be required, which would delay the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance before the Board of Supervisors. When a date for the public hearing is set, it will be advertised to the public. More detailed information is available in the Clerk's Office. e 1 F.- I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: '- Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for Julv 27. 2004. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Item(s) 1, 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. e 2 ACTION NO. 6-} ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of an easement to Appalachian Power Company (APCo) through property owned by the Board of Supervisors, Tax Map # 028.13-01-27.04 and #028.13-01-27.00, to provide electric service to Hollins Park, Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Pete Haislip Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Elmer C. Hodge ê JI County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The North Roanoke Recreation Club, in cooperation with Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism, wishes to install lighting at a soccer field at Hollins Park. As part of this project, Roanoke County has agreed to provide electricity to the site as part of the lighting project. APCo requires that an easement be granted to accomplish this installation. The County Attorney's office has developed the attached standard easement documents for your approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Parks, Recreation and Tourism has committed approximately $6,300 to install the electric line. ALTERNATIVES: Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing' the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for conveyance of the easement as shown on Exhibit A. e Gc-) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: '- Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for conveyance of an easement as shown on Exhibit A, attached. e G- AT A REGULAR METING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22,204 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY THROUGH PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP #028,13-01-27,04 AND #028,13-01- 27,00) TO PROVIDE ELECTRIC SERVICE TO HOLLINS PARK IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff is developing soccer fields at Hollins Park and requires electrical service to provide for lighting; and, WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) requires a 10' right of way and easement for underground transmission lines extending from Hollins Road (Va. Sec. Rte. 601) along the entry road through the Roanoke County property, designated on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map #028.13-01-27.04 and Tax Map #028.13-01-27.00; and, WHEREAS, the proposed right of way will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of Roanoke. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on June 8, 2004, and a second reading was held on June 22, 2004. G~,- f 2. 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 Appalachian Power Company for the provision of electrical service in connection with Roanoke County's development of Hollins Park. 3. That donation to Appalachian Power Company of an easement and right- of-way for underground transmission lines and related improvements, within the "PROPOSED 10' EASEMENT AREA" on the County's property (Tax Map #028.13-01-27.04 and #028.13-01-27.00) extending along the park entry road from Hollins Road as shown on APCO Drawing No. V-1464, dated May 17, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved. 4, 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. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, 2 e 6..- PROPOSED UC TRANSFORMER 100' r-- THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PorcellO- 028.13-01-27.00 HOLLINS PARK APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY CHARLESTON REGION - ROANOKE. VIRGINIA PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ON PROPERTY OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY DRAW. BY. LMA DATE' 5/17/04 -. By. PAW St:AI.E . NONE Sl<EET __1___- OF --_!_--- COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA T. D.665000 MAP SECT. 37800182 C2 ßc C4~ DRAWING NO, V-1464 - ---------------.- --- - -----.------------ EXHIBIT A ACTION NO. ITEM NO. -BJ- ""3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge tll County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1, Length of Service Awards Program (LOSAP) for Fire & Rescue Mr. Phil Wilmott, who represents the Volunteer Rescue Squads, has submitted his resignation. His four-year term will expire January 1,2006. 2, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) The following three-year terms will expire on June 30, 2004: David A. Thompson, Hollins Magisterial District; and Bobby G. Semones, Vinton Magisterial District. 3, Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Community Advisory Committee (CAC) The late Lee B. Eddy served on this committee without a term limit. The County has three representatives on this Committee and the Board is asked to appoint a citizen and/or representative of the community, business, education, health care or civic interests rather than staff members. 1 J I-rs AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22,2004 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM 1- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 2004, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 12, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - June 7 and June 8, 2004 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community ,Criminal Justice Board and Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority 3. Resolution establishing salaries for the County Administrator and County Attorney 4. Request from schools for approval of diesel emissions reduction grant funds in the amount of $226,644 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 5. Request to accept and approve the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) grant for fiscal year 2004-2005 in the amount of $276,170 6. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Sherman D. Argenbright, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-26), Vinton Magisterial District 7. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of David Mott and Vickie L. Mott, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-29), Vinton Magisterial District 8. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Bernard B. Deacon and Nancy L. Deacon, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-30), Vinton Magisterial District e 1 í 1-~ 9. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of George C. Cobler, Jr. and Judy D. Cobler, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-28), Vinton Magisterial District 10. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property of Dana L. Underwood, Donna S. Underwood and Elizabeth C. Underwood, (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-25), Vinton Magisterial District 11. Request to accept donation of a conservation easement, 15' in width along Wolf Creek in Greenway Landing, Plat Book 2, page 97, Vinton Magisterial District 12. Request to accept donation of a 20' water and sanitary sewer easement across property of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., (Tax Map No. 40.14-01-02.11), Hollins Magisterial District 13. Request to accept Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of $600.00. 14. Request to accept Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of $300.00. 15. Request to accept water facilities serving Hanging Rock Estates (Catawba Magisterial District) 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. 2 ACTION NO, ITEM NO. -J--d-.. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of committee appointments to the Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board and Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge £:./1 County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nominations were made at the June 8, 2004 Board meeting. COURT COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAM REGIONAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD Supervisor Flora nominated John M. Chambliss, Jr. to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on July 1, 2007, VIRGINIA'S FIRST REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY Supervisor Flora nominated Doug Chittum and Jill Loope, Alternate Member, to serve additional two-year terms which will expire on July 1, 2006, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments be confirmed. 1 eo ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~'" 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22,2004 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution Establishing Salaries for Administrator and the County Attorney the County SUBMITTED BY: Diane D. Hyatt Chief Financial Officer SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County Administrator and the County Attorney receive annual evaluations conducted by the Board of Supervisors. The attached resolution establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for the 2004-05 fiscal year, .. _.1. -- 3'. '-.J..- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the annual salary for the County Administrator shall be increased from $129,529.92 to $134.063.47. 2. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from $110,291.25 to ll14,151.45, plus the County longevity supplement. 3. That the effective date for the establishment of these salaries shall be July 1, 2004. e ACTION NO. ITEM NO. :I-!-J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools for approval of diesel emissions reduction grant funds in the amount of $226,644 from the VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) SUBMITTED BY: Danny Carroll Vehicle Maintenance Coordinator APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The School Board gave approval for Roanoke County Public Schools to partner with VA DEQ and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through a grant program to voluntarily reduce emissions from diesel engine powered buses which will improve air quality and reduce exposure of children to school bus particulate matter, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions. This project will retrofit 100 buses of the 184-bus fleet, 1993 through 2003-year models, with oxidation catalysts (pollution control devices) in the exhaust systems to reduce exhaust emissions. Roanoke County Public Schools agrees to continue using each retrofitted bus for at least three years after project completion. Technicians at the Schools Transportation Department facilities will install and maintain the oxidation catalysts. Labor cost for installation will be reimbursed through the grant process and placed into a capital account to upgrade Faster, the computerized fleet maintenance program currently used in Transportation. 1 ., I- tJ FISCAL IMPACT: Grant funds for this project total $226,644.00 and will be provided through an intergovernmental contract with the VA DEQ and the U. S. EPA as a result of a settlement with Virginia Electric Power Company. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the grant funds in the amount of $226,644.00, for implementation, retrofit and maintenance of verified emission control technology for 100 school buses for a minimum requirement of three years. 2 e ACTION NO. ITEM NO. -J-- '3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ~ ~ June 22, 2004 Request to accept and approve the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) grant for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 in the amount of $276,170 ~ John M. Chambliss, Jr. Asst. County Administrator Elmer C. Hodge!: II County Administrator ~ The Department of Juvenile Justice of the Commonwealth of Virginia administers the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) grant which is used to provide services for youth before the Juvenile Court system. These monies are used with the Comprehensive Services Act programs to provide direct services, treatment programs, substance abuse services, and probation activities. These programs are administered by the Life Skills Mentoring program of the Court Service Unit of the Juvenile Court and have the blessing of the Juvenile Court Judges, Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) and is now presented to the Governing Body for the acceptance of the grant, approval of the positions, and appropriation of monies associated with the grant. The attached resolution is required for approval of the grant. The eight positions associated with this grant were approved as part of the budget for FY 2004-05 on June 8,2004, We also estimated the budget of $271,669 for the VJCCCA Grant for the new year, however the new grant was approved in the amount of $276,170 or an increase of $4,501. This is suggested to be included and approved in the Outreach Detention portion of our local budget. e 1 I-5 The Life Skills Mentoring Program expanded their delivery of services during the current fiscal year to assist with drug screenings, electronic monitoring, and treatment programs such as anger management which we are able to provide to our court service unit or sell to other agencies to offset the cost of the program. The local match required for this grant is $24,644 and is included in the budget of the Court Service Unit. FISCAL IMPACT: The Board is respectfully requested to approve and accept the VJCCCA Grant for FY 2004-05 in the amount of $276,170 and to appropriate the additional $4,501 approved in the grant award from the state. Staff recommends acceptance of the grant, appropriation of the additional $4,501 awarded in the grant and approval of the attached resolution which will allow this program to be administered by our Court Service Unit. .. 2 ~~I"- 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF VJCCCA FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 - 2005 WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke has participated in the VJCCCA program in the past allowing the Court Service Unit to provide direct services, treatment programs, substance abuse services and probation activities associated with the Juvenile Court, and WHEREAS, through the Life Skills Mentoring Program of our Court Service Unit, the grant funds have been administered to assist the court by providing counseling services, drug screens, intensive supervision, community service, restitution and other needed services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County will participate in the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act for Fiscal Year 2004-05 and will accept said funds, appropriating them for the purpose set forth in this Act until it notifies the Department of Juvenile Justice, in writing, that it no longer. wishes to participate in the program. 1 " VJCCCA FY 2004 - 2005 GRANT Life Skills Mentoring Program Court Service Unit Expenses In-Home Services Community Service Intensive Supervision Outreach Detention Restitution Anger Management Mentoring Substance Abuse Total Revenues VJCCCA Grant Local Match (from Court Services Budget) Services purchased by others Total These programs are administered by the Life Skills Mentoring Program under the Court Service Unit and the Juvenile Court and were included in the budget adopted June 8, 2004. The following positions are approved with the understanding that should the grant or reimbursement program be eliminated, the positions will be abolished. The positions are approved June 22, 2004 to June 30, 2005. These positions were included in the budget adopted June 8, 2004. Position Title Life Skills Mentoring Program Supervisor Life Skills Mentoring Program Mentor Program Support Specialist Court and Mentor Specialist Community Service I Restoration Officer Probation Officer Aide eo I~- 5 13,440 29,057 36,816 101,925 7,265 27,942 30.725 29.000 276,170 251,526 24,644 276,170 Number 1 3 1 1 1 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I-to AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of Sherman D. Argenbright (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-26), Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ell County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves conveyance of an easement to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: A perpetual RIGHT and easement, of approximately 1,082 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated February 13, 2002, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Instrument Number 200221157and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10- 26 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). The County's engineering staff has reviewed and approved the location and dimensions of this easement. 1 e J: ~.~ {p STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this easement. 2 ,-1- - Cp Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempted from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to § 58,1-811 A(3), Code of Virginia, Prepared by: Kirk A, Ludwig, Attorney at Law Tax Map No,: 61,19-10-26 Property Owners: Sherman D, Argenbright, also known of record as Sherman D, Arenbright THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 4- day of June.. 2004, by and between SHERMAN D, ARGENBRIGHT also known of record as SHERMAN D, ARENBRIGHT (whether one or more, "Grantor") and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA ("Grantee"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, by deed dated February 13, 2002, of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for Roanoke County, as Instrument Number 200221157, the below described property was conveyed by Sherman D. Argenbright and Tamara A. Argenbright, divorced and unremarried, to Sherman D. Arenbright; and WHEREAS, Sherman D. Arenbright is one and the same as Sherman D. Argenbright, the Grantor herein, the discrepancy being due to a typographical error in the vesting deed. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed of Easement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and Law Office OfKirkA. Ludwig 1 e I,-,(P CONVEY with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easement, to-wit: A perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT, of approximately 1,082 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated February 13, 2002, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Instrument Number 200221157, and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10-26 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). . The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's Property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the Property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents shall have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement, that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee Law Office Of Kirk A. Ludwig 2 e Law Office Of Kirk A. Ludwig ~_w Lc shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect the Property have been fully explained to Grantor or Grantor's authorized representative. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the Property by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. The Grantor covenants and agrees ,for themselves, and for their heirs, successors, successors in ~itle, executors, legal representatives and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location; construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement herein granted. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by said Board of Supervisors of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Ordinance No. 3 Law Office Of Kirk A. Ludwig Virginia, on the ~I'- ~ adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, day of WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTOR: ~ <\'. .r--~ ~ SHERMAN D, ARGEN~RIGHT also known of record as SHERMAN D, ARENBRIGHT (SEAL) 4 ~ \....../ -"'- ~ STATE OF COUNTY/CfFt OF ./--;) \ 1s~A~ - , to-wit: he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 'f day of /¡. , Joo4- by Sherman D. Argenbright, also known of record as S rman D. Arenbright. /- . (~ ~ NO~U~¥ My commission expires: or¡'~/()S* Approved as to form: -7.L/ /f~ ~ Kirk A. Ludwig Attorney at Law BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/CITY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , I by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: ,w Office . OfKirkA. Ludwig 5 e NOTES, 7, 7HIS PLA T WAS PREPARED Vrf7HOUT 7HE: BENE:FIT OF A CURRENT 11n.E REPORT AND 7HERE: AlA Y Ð<lST E:NCUAIBRANŒS WHICH AmCT 7HE: PROPERTY THA T ARE: NOT SHOWN HERE:ON. 2. THE: PURPOSE: OF 7HIS PLA T IS ro CRE:A. TE: A NEW VARIABLE-VrfD7H DRAINAGE: CONS7RUCl1ON E:A.SÐ.tE:NT AND DOES NOT CONSl17UTE: AN AC7UAL BOUNDARY SURIÆY. J, NOT ALL PHYSICAL IAlPRO'BtE:NTS ro 7HE: SUB.£CT PROPERTY ARE SHOWN ON 7HIS PLAT. 4, THE NEW VARIABLE-VrfD7H DRAINAGE: E:A.S£MENT SHOWN HEREON D£F1N£S THE POSll1ON OF AND ENLARGES THE Ð<lSl1NG 70' UND£F1NED DRAINAGE: E:A.S£ME:NT RE:CORDED IN P,B, 7, PG. 78. ( I ~R I / pr;. ITA LOT 30 ;)W I TAX #61.19-10-27 / P'(/'E; / PROPERTY OF CONRAD O. DOOLEY ( INSmuMENT #200215250 / N76'~2' - / / / Ço~-- / / / / :$t (J ~ df~~ I~ ~ - - ..~--- 1 LEGEND DEED BOOK PAfE SWAN£: fEET R/fJHT-fY"-WA Y P(J8UC (JllUTY £:ASEAlENT Af.8.L. AfIN/Af(JAf 8(JILDING UN£: ~N£W VARIABlE:-HfOTH ~ ORA/NAfE E:ASEAlENT 4J~ ;:s 5fi! LOT 31 ,~". TAX¡fI 61.19-10-28 tJ.~ PROPERTY OF I~ GEORGE C. COBLER, JR. &- JUD Y D. COBLER 0.8. 1426, Pc. 1093 NEW VARIABLE- WIDTH DRAINAQ§--- --EASEMENT (S££ TABLE) TRAN~~~ -- .- PLA T SHOWING NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO mE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY SHERMAN D, ARGENBRIGHT ACROSS LOT 29, BLOCK 6. SECTION #2. "CROFTON" (P,ß, 7. PG, 18) VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA {;>thl !,d- ~IA // DATE. APRIL 6, 2004 ------ ---.-....----.u. -~-_..._~----- --- - -- ....-- ~ -- m__.~- .-. .----.-.---.- ~~;;; e SCALE; 1" = 30' COMM. NO.1 03-317 4664 BRAMBLETON AVENUE P.O. BOX 20669 Rn"'Nn(~ VIRr.INIA '4n1R CADD FilE. F,\2003\O3317\SUR\n~~17¡:A'::1 n!lnwn LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.c. ENG I NEERS-SUR VE YORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PHONE: (540) 774-4411 FAX: (540) 772-9445. . OUA" . 'UII "'" ""eno_onr rn.. ACTION NO, ITEM NO. T-7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22,2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a drainage easement from David Mott and Vickie L. Mott (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-29), Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge l' P County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves conveyance of an easement to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: A perpetual RIGHT and easement, of approximately 1,511 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated December 18, 2001, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Instrument Number 200122522 and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10- 29 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). The County's engineering staff has reviewed and approved the location and dimensions of this easement. 1 " I'-7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this easement. 2 e ------~------------ >r"""7 ,.,,- Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempted from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to § 58,1-811A(3), Code of Virginia, Prepared by: Kirk A, Ludwig, Attorney at Law Tax Map No,: 61,19-10-29 Property Owners: David Mott and Vickie l. Mott THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this g-rL day of Jú n¿ 2004, by and between DAVID MOTT and VICKIE l. MOTT, husband and wife (whether one or more, "Grantor") and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA ("Grantee"). :WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed of Easement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easement, to-wit: A perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT, of approximately 1,511 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated December 18, 2001, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Instrument Number 200122522 and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10-29 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). Law Office or Kirk A. Ludwig 1 'Tee-7 ,-- The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's Property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the Property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents shall have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement, that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect the Property have been fully explained to Grantor or Grantor's authorized representative. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the Property by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. JW Office \Jf Kirk A. Ludwig 2 eo ~I-7 The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their heirs, successors, successors in title, executors, legal representatives and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement herein granted. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by said Board of Supervisors of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of WITNESS the following signatures and seals: ~ DAVID MOTT -l~£YVIÂ VICKIE L. MOTT (SEAL) (SEAL) RW Office ùf Kirk A. Ludwig 3 e J-7 STATE OF COUNTY/eFPf OF R ~ --/ , to-wit: f (}Tit :regOing in~~mô1;l v:,as o"Ck~~I~dged before me this 'l'fN day aU ~ '. :JJiz~ ~~ / I Notary Public My commission expires: I 31 D7 STATE OF COUNTY/6ff¥ OF R 64A1{)Þ~ , to-wit: -B The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befor.e me this of ~ ,-.Øð7J'f b~ ~~ Notary Pu lic My commission expires: / J 3 ¡ 107 ú~ ð day Approved as to form: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA /W 4. i-L. Kirk A. Ludwig Attorney at Law (SEAL) By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/CITY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of I I by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Law Office or Kirk A. Ludwig 4 <eo NOTES, " 7HIS PLA T WAS PREPARED KfTHOUT THE BENE:F1T OF A CURRENT T1TLE: REPORT AND 7HERE MA Y ÐC1ST ENCUMBRANŒS ItHICH AFFECT THE PROPERTY 7HA T ARE NOT SHOVrN HEREON, 2. THE PURPOSE Of' THIS PLAT IS ro CREATE A NEW VARIABl.E:-KfDTH DRAlNAGE CONS7RUCT1ON EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONST1TUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY. J. NOT ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUB.ECT PROPERTY ARE SHOVrN ON THIS PLA T. 4, THE NEW VARIABl.E:-KfDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENTSHOVrN HEREON DE:F1NES THE POS/T1ON OF' AND ENLARGES THE EXIST1NG 10' UNDUlNED DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECORDED IN P.B, 7, PG, 18. . _I /-- --- -¡- - (P'ff. ¡O;t.lI.E, 7-1-.---.~' . 18) I ---.-.-.- --.---.----- LEGEND OŒD 800K PAGE SQl/AR£ FEET RlCHT-OF-H'A Y PV8l.Iç l/17UTY £ASE:MÐlT I <"Cl> l/llUTY POlE - - ~N£W VARIABlE-MOTH Imw;J DRAINAGE EASE:MÐlT ~~ 11- --/.- existing dwelling #fft ~ \\ ~ I / ~ LOT 33 \ ~ TAX# 61.19-10-30 / ^ 11), PROPERlY OF ~ BERNARD B. &- ~ I NANCY L. DEACON 0 L ~ ~&$ \oJ (P,B, 7, PG. 18) \ / ,9; C i:: ~ TAXI 61.19-10-29 ~ ~ ~ ß) ~ PRoPERTY OF' ¡:<!; ÌQ ~ 1!1 DA wi:! MOn' ct ¿Z5~~ 0> , /0...: ~ ;¡ ~t f;P.n l ~ /7. iiJ q: I x ..W/v f! /' ~ ~ NEW :V,4R~ E,.SEIfENT J.-.-./ DR" tI~~E TABLE) ~ - ". - I QEX. STRUCTURE EX. :¡¡RUcJI?E \ PLA T SHOWING NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY DA VID MaTT AND VICKIE L, MOTT ACROSS LOT 32, BLOCK 6, SECT/ON #2, "CROFTON" (P.B. 7, PG, 18) VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA -I.- ( 1 MISSIMER LANE RT. 11039 50' R/W 0.8. Pr;, SF. R/W P.lI.E:. I - EX 25' M.B.L (P.B. 7, PG. 18) 1 I e:risting dwelling #117 eZishn/}' dwellin/}' #123 ~ LOT 31 '" TAX #61.19-10-28 ~ PROPERlY OF GEORGE c. COBLER. JR. &- JUD Y D. COBLER D.B. 1426, Pc. 1093 ~ ~--- f'xJl(p,' f If A II DATE, APRIL 6. 2004 SCALE, 1" = 30" COMM. NO., 03-317 CADD FILE, ¡::,"nn~\n~~17\!'IIIR\O~~17¡::A!'I1 T~'nwn X. STRUCTUR ---- - --. -- ...-- --. ____n ...--- ---- - -_n~- - - - . .----.---. ----- - --.- - --- - -- ---- - -_.------_.~ -- .--------. ---- --- ------- ~ - ---- - --- -- ... --.-.-- ---.---- --- -. __m__- - ---.---.---- - ----------- - -- --- _n - ------ - . .. - .. .--.- ----- -- n- ----- - --- ------- - -- ---- --- --------- - -- -- ----- - - ---- -- _..-- ---- ----- -.---------- - LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.c. ENGI NEERS-SUR VEYORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 4664 BRAMBLETON AVENUE P,O. BOX 20669 ROANOKF VIRr.INIA ?<in1 R PHONE: (540) 774-4411 FAX: (540) 772-9445 F-MAII . MAli tñ">1 IIM~nFNPr rOM ACTION NO. ITEM NO. T-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22,2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of Bernard B. Deacon and Nancy L. Deacon (Tax Map No. 61.19-10- 30), Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge £ -/ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves conveyance of an easement to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: A perpetual RIGHT and easement, of approximately 774 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated December 3, 1969, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 888, page 67 and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10- 30 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). The County's engineering staff has reviewed and approved the location and dimensions of this easement. 1 e ,s~ l? STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this easement. 2 EO Law Office OfKirkA. Ludwig '.r-.",9 ,,- Q Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempted from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to § 58,1-811A(3), Code of Virginia, Prepared by: Kirk A, Ludwig, Attorney at Law Tax Map No,: 61,19-10-30 Property Owners: Bernard B, Deacon and Nancy L. Deacon THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 1 day of -.dÚf\e- 2004, by and between BERNARD B, DEACON and NANCY L. DEACON, husband and wife (whether one or more, "Grantor") and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA ("Grantee"). :WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed of Easement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY' with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easement, to-wit: A perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT, of approximately 774 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated December 3, 1969, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 888, page 67 and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10-30 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). 1 ",g- ,0 - 0 The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's Property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the Property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents shall have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement, that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect the Property have been fully explained to Grantor or Grantor's authorized representative. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the Property by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. Law Office OfKirkA. Ludwig 2 '" I-.. ...~ The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their heirs, successors, successors in title, executors, legal representatives and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement herein granted. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by said Board of Supervisors of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTOR: ß~ ß. O~ (SEAL) BERNARD B, DEACON (SEAL) Law Office OfKirkA. Ludwig e 3 Law Office OfKirkA. Ludwig e BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator STATE OF COUNl}'/CITY 'OF ~(fX1tW~e.. , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of J ¡)f\\? , 201)4- by Bernard B. Deacon. D ,W, W~~ JlC Notary Public My commission expires: \ 'Z.I~I \ t+ STATE OF rJ COUN1.Y/CITY OF 1\()O~Ð\<~ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of J/.JI'><:" , z..oo-r by Nancy L. Deacon. O.W. ~~ ~ Notary Public My commission expires: I~ ~\v-t Approved as to form: '/s:i .4 -fX:- Kirk A. Ludwig Attorney at Law STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/CITY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: r"- <:") .~ C q day q day (SEAL) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: 4 T--=----L I tx. 25' M.8.L I' I -.-. (P.8. 7. PG. 18) >- r-'""'-'-'----' ~-- --.-.-.---.----- t e:ristinu <::I r . åwetlinu : II #117 ¡~ ~ \- \ I OT 32 ~ I ~ TAX 1.19-10- '9 :::¡ PRÖP£RTY OF ¡t: " {:] DA!IID MOTT rk \oJ.a 5 ~ VIcKIE L. MOTT uX¡ 5:! ~ INSTRUMENT #200122522 ~ ~ l:l ~ ~ :æ: ~ 6 NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH ~ 5 2 DRAINAGE EASEMENT ~ - - - - J '~?o ~ (SEE TABLE) - - x 0) <v -- - -- l&j - EX STRUCTU E: ~ ~£fl - -- )( EX. FE!:!CE ~ fU-E:X. STRUCTURE: -- ~ u~- .f. :J 33.58' . PLA T SHOWING - (P.~7~ PG:~ _S4812'30W NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH --- 35 cQ.> DRAINAGE EASEMENT --- x 161.19-10;r ~~~\.'tH 0/0' ¡;~ BEJNG GRANTED TO THE TA PROPfR::D£RS~73 ~§"t 4.\ lPl..A- ~Q COUNTY OF ROANOKE 8£TTY ÑT #20011 ~ 'ÌI~CENT '1< ~ BY INSTRUM£ gUN'" BERNARD B, DEACON ~ A~ No. 14288 NANCY L, DEACON ACROSS LOT JJ, BLOCK 6, SECTION #2, "CROFTON" (P.s, 7, PG, 18) VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA NOTES, " THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED MfTHOUT THE BENEAT OF' A CURRENT 1171£ REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THE PROPERTY THA T ARE NOT SHOWN HEREON, 2. THE PURPOSE OF' THIS PLA T IS TO CREA TE: A NEW VARIABLE-MfDTH DRAINAGE CONS7RUCl1ON EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSl1TUTE: AN , ACTUAL BOUNDARY SUR\o£Y. i J, NOT ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUB.ECT PROPERTY ARE SHOWN ON THIS PLA T. 4, THE NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN HEREON DEF1NES THE POSll1ON OF AND ENLARGES THE EXlSl1NG 10' UNDEANED DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECORDED IN P,B, 7, PG, 18. MISSIMER LANE AT. #1039 50' R/W EX. la' P.U.E:. (P.8. 7, PG. fBr - e:r:isting dwelling #llf X. STRUCTUR LOT JJ (P,8, 7, PG. 18) TAXI 61,19-10-30 PROPERTY OF' BERNARD B. ct NANCY L DEACON .::y4. 5, ¡- '1ft" ""' DATE: ~- ___~_n_~n -- ---------- --n-- ____n-- - ----~- --- -------,- --- - ,- - --- --- - - -- - ---- - --, u_--- ,---, -- ----, ---- ----, _n- -'u ---,-,-- - ---- -- -- ------ --- ------- n ____'n-_- -- ~-, ~------- ~-~ ------ - ----- -- ~ ,---- , __n ---- -- -, _u_---~-~ --- -- ---- - - ------- - ------------,---- --- ------- ~. -- ------ - --- -- - -- - -- ---- _u- --------- SCALE: APRIL 6, 2004 1" = 30' COMM. NO.: 03-317 4664 BRAM6lETON AVENUE P.O. BOX 20669 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24016 CADD FILE. ¡::,"nn:!\n:!:!17\!:UR\O:J:J17EASl T:J:J.DWG ,~-~ NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT UHE B£'AHINQ DISTANCE' 1-2 SO6'50'JO r:' 21,28' 2-J -Si979'JO "",95' ,J--I S-I872'JO"'V J6. 76' -1-5 N?fJWJ"OO"W 11.00' 5-6 N.f.759'JO"E 22.7/ 6-1 N21'DO'.f.2"E: JI.8.f.' AHEA - 77-1 s.F. ( 1 LEGEND O££O 800K PAGE SQUARE: fF£T RI(;I{T-OF-WA Y PUBUC UTIliTY EASEMENT <Q., UTIliTY POl£ ~NÐf VARIABLE-MOTH I:tlB:W ORA/NAŒ EASEMENT 0.8. pc. $oF. R/W P.U,F:. LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.c. ENG I NEERS-SUR VEYORS-~LANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA' PHONE: (540) 774-4411 . FAX: (540) 772-9445 E-MAil: MAIL@LUMSOENPc.COM ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I-Cf AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22,2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of George C. Cobler, Jr. and Judy D. Cobler (Tax Map No. 61.19-10- 28), Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge t II County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves conveyance of an easement to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: A perpetual RIGHT and easement, of approximately 1,436 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated November 23, 1993, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1426, page 1093 and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61,19-10- 28 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"), The County's engineering staff has reviewed and approved the location and dimensions of this easement. 1 eo .""... ~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this easement. 2 e Law Office Of Kirk A. Ludwig x~"". 'r Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempted from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to § 58,1-811A(3), Code of Virginia, Prepared by: Kirk A, Ludwig, Attorney at Law Tax Map No,: 61,19-10-28 Property Owners: George C, Cobler, Jr, and Judy D, Cobler THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 4 day of J u 1\<'",- 2004, by and between GEORGE C, COBLER, JR, and JUDY D. COBLER, husband and wife (whether one or more, "Grantor") and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA ("Grantee"). :WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed of Easement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledQed, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easement, to-wit: A perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT, of approximately 1,436 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated November 23, 1993, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1426, page 1093 and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10-28 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). 1 "1'.,- 1. . \ .,""" ~ The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's Property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the Property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents shall have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement, that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect the Property have been fully explained to Grantor or Grantor's authorized representative. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the Property by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. Law Office Of Kirk A. Ludwig 2 e c:t The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their heirs, successors, successors in title, executors, legal representatives and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement herein granted. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by said Board of Supervisors of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of WITNESS the following signatures and seals: (SEAL) ~~ C). V~L) JU Y D, CO LER Law Office Of Kirk A, Ludwig e 3 'I. .^,"~. 9' ,,-~ ( /~~- ~ITYOF ?¿)qI'l~kC/ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of ~ ZCJD4 by George C. Cobler, Jr. a.LJiW~~ Notar('Public 4- iA day My commission expires: IZ!'5/\ 20P1' @T~ COUNTY ITY OF RoCl{)cke , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of ~ 'Z..DD ¿~ by Judy D. Cobler. o,¿).~JL4/ Notary Public 4/-" day My commission expires: '2..j3Jf°'f ~/f. (/L, Kirk A. Ludwig Attorney at Law BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator (SEAL) Approved as to form: STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/CITY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Law Office or Kirk Á, Ludwig 4 MISSIMER LANE Rr. #1039 -... -... 50' R/1V -',., /-- A'. 10' P. -.- (p.o. 7. .U,£. ----- I ' Pc;. 18}'- - ---..J... - I .-. -.1 Ex. 25' M.B.L ~ 1----!!~7, Pc;.' 18) ~I ç; ~ / / --.-- - Ç:) & Ç:f ?S; -'--.-- !S? 'tr:: f1 ~ / / ~!$f}j~ ~ / 'J~g~~ / ~fl!g¿~ ~ ~¡; / ~ / G~ / ~ / / h I,J~ / ¡¡jlf! / ,~". i':f.:! ~ NOTES, 1. 7HIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF' A CURRENT 71n.E REPORT AND THERE MA Y EXIST ENCUMBRANCES ItHICH AF'FE:CT THE PROPERTY THA T ARE NOT SHOIW HEREON, 2, THE PURPOSE OF' 7HIS PLA T IS TO CREA TE A NEW VARIABLE-KfD7H DRA/NAGE CONS1RUC71ON EASEMENT AND DOES NOT CONS71TUTE AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SUR~ J. NOT ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUB.£CT PROPERTY ARE SHOIW ON 7HIS PLA T. 4, THE NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH DRA/NAGE EASEMENT SHOIW HEREON DEFINES THE POS/77ON OF' AND ENLARGES THE EXIS71NG 10' UNDEF1NED DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECORDED IN P,B, 7, PG. 18. e:J:is4'ng dwelling #123 --'\""'.. C; ---L...-- ( LEGEND lJEE]) BOOK PAG'E SQ(JAHE' FŒT HICHT-Of"-WA Y Pl/SUC l/TlUTY EAS£A(ENT N.8.£. AlINIAll/AI Bl/IWING UNE' ~NE'W VAHIABŒ-IHOTH ~ OHAlNAŒ EAS£A(ENT 0.8. P(;' - s.F. H/W - - P.lJ.E'. ì ~¡ 'L i ( I ~ \ \ I LOT 31 ¡ ~7,~~ I TA~:~iŸ'c¡;.28 JOT 3...., ~'~ GEORGE C, COBLER, tR. ~ #l ¿; ::: , :B,.AJ,~~l p~c:s,~ ~ TA~RQ};:ñ!~F29 x~ I I . ~ OAV(O MOTT &: I~ x ~ /NSTR~C¡;£/#%rfo';;2522 ~ ,~ NEW VARIABLE- ~ . -'-i..¡...- WIDTHDRAINA~ìB " ------:: -' EASEMENT' .f. ---~ ~_. (S££ TABLE) tj< EX. FE~ . )(. ~ EX STRUCTURE: - . - -- 5 --- .41 ~ ;8 r &4,"d 'ýq II DATE. APRIL 6, 2004 SCALE, 1" = 30' COMM. NO.. 03-317 CADD FILE. F,\2003\O3317\SUR\O3317EASL T31.DWG eristing dwelling #117 X. STRUCTUR -- --- PLA T SHOWING NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY GEORGE C, COBLER, JR, AND JUDY D, COBLER ACROSS LOT 31, BLOCK 6, SEC770N #2, "CROFTON" (P.B, 7, PG. 18) VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ---.---- --- --------~---- ---..-- --- _n__- --------- --- --- -- ~._- c...j ::=-' .-C,~if. -;~-= ~~ ~';,-c~~~-';;;;; ~="-~-==-~ -~c=~-=~ LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, E.@, ENGINEERS-SU~VEYORS-PLANNE_- . ROANOKE, VIRGINIA .. 4664 BRAMBLETON AVENUE P.O. BOX 20669 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 PHONE: (540) 774-44 FAX: (540) 772'9 E-MAIL: MAIL@lUMSDENPc.CC>' ACTION NO. T-ID ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of Dana L. Underwood, Donna S. Underwood and Elizabeth C. Underwood (Tax Map No. 61.19-10-25), Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge f' /I County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves conveyance of an easement to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: A perpetual RIGHT and easement, of approximately 165 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated September 26, 1996, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1521, page 1787 and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10- 25 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). The County's engineering staff has reviewed and approved the location and dimensions of this easement. 1 e ,J:- t D STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this easement. 2 e -I- )ö Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempted from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to § 58,1-811A(3), Code of Virginia, Prepared by: Kirk A, Ludwig, Attorney at Law Tax Map No,: 61,19-10-25 Property Owners: Dana L. Underwood, Donna S, Underwood and Elizabeth C, Underwood THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this / day of .../Vf)6 2004, by and between DANA L. UNDERWOOD, DONNA S, UNDERWOOD and ELIZABETH C, UNDERWOOD (whether one or more, "Grantor") and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA ("Grantee"). :WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed of Easement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easement, to-wit: A perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT, of approximately 165 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated September 26, 1996, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1521, page 1787, and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.19-10-25 (the "Property"). The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Plat"). Law Office Of Kirk A. Ludwig 1 '" ,I--ID The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's Property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the Property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents shall have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement, that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect the Property have been fully explained to Grantor or Grantor's authorized representative. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the Property by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, ~aw Office or Kirk A. Ludwig 2 e Law Office Of Kirk A. Ludwig ~'*'~ I b any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their heirs, successors, successors in title, executors, legal representatives and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement herein granted. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by said Board of Supervisors of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of (SEAL) 3 e )t) ~TN~*)TY OF í?~ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day by Dana L. Underwood. a,W, cJ~ Notary Public of My commission expires: 121 ~ I 04 STATE OF j) J (~OUNWCITY OF '~ , to-wit: ~he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of '2,004 by Donna S. Underwood. . [),LJ.JJ~ 7JE Notary Public I day My commission expires: 12.(31/iH fc6~ITY OF ~ .,f~~ to-wit: ~ foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of '2 iJ1.J 4 by Elizabeth C. Underwood. 0 uJ. ¿)~ -;;¡c Notary Public / day My commission expires: rz.{3t{O4 ~dW Office or Kirk A. Ludwig 4 Law Office OfKirkA. Ludwig Approved as to form: .-;X;¡A r Kirk A. Ludwig Attorney at Law STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/CITY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: ..~.~. '-b BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator (SEAL) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. My commission expires: Notary Public 5 e NOTES, " 7HIS PLA T WAS PREPARED mTHOUT THE: BENEFIT OF A CURRENT 71n£ REPORT AND THERE: MA Y ÐaST ENCUMBRANŒS I'rHICH AFFECT THE: PROPERTY 7HA T ARE: NOT SHOItH HERroN, 2. 7HE: PURPOSE: OF THIS PLA T IS ro CRE:A TE: A NE:W VARIABLE-mOTH DRAINAGE: CONSTRUC71ON E:ASE:MENT AND oœs NOT CONS71TUTE: AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SUR'ÆY. J. NOT ALL PHYSICAL IMPRO'ÆMENTS ro 7HE: SUB.ECT PROPERTY ARE: SHOItH ON THIS PLA T. ' 4. THE: NE:W VARIABLE-MOTH DRAINAGE: E:ASE:MfNT SHOItH HERE:ON DEFlNE:S THE: POS/71ON OF AND ENLARGE:S THE: Ð<JS71NG 10' UNDE:F1NED 'DRAINAGE: E:ASE:MfNT RE:CORDED IN P,B, 7, PG. 18. \ jt (J (] (Ô' q;.t I~ ~ -- '"<~ ,-~, l'1) ( 1 LEGEND DEED BOOK PAGE SQlJARE FEF:T RIŒT-OF-IYA Y PUBliC UTlliTY EASEMENT N.B.L NININfJAI BfJlLOING UNE ~ NÐY VARIABLE - HfD 1H ~ DRAINAGE EASEMENT D.B. PG. S,F. R/IY P.fJ.£ \ -- EX 16' P.U.E. (P.å. 7, PG. 18) -SS612'JO.W NEW VARIABLE- WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT (S££ TABLE) PLA T SHOWING NEW VARIABLE-WIDTH DRAINAGE' EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY DANA L, UNDERWOOD, DONNA S, UNDERWOO AND EliZABETH C, UNDERWOOD ACROSS LOT 28, BLOCK 6, SECTION #2, "CROFTON" (P.s. 7, PG. 18) VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 159,47' TAX /51.19-10-35 PROPER TY OF BETTY r. ANDERSON INSTRUMENT /200119773 ¡;;~,b,'t "A- I¡ DATE: APRIL 6, 2004 SCALE: 1" .. 30' eo COMM. NO.1 03-317 CADD FILE: Fa \2003 \03317\SUR\03317EASL T28.DWG -- ----------- ~ -- -- - - ---- -- ------- - -----,-_..- - --, u,-- -_u_- ---- - -- --- --- ___n_'- -,-, ---'-- _n__'- - _n _n ____un_, -- ,--- --- -- - -- ----- --, , ----,--,---- -- ----------,.. -- ,-- ----- --- ---------- - ,- ------ - - - -- ----- -- --- --------, --, ,-- - - - - ------- - - - - ---- --- --- ------ --- -- --- --- --- --- - - ,--- ---- ~- ,-- ,-,------ ~ 4664 BRAMBLETON AVENUE P.O. BOX 20669 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2401 B LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, p,c. ENG I NEERS-SUR VEY 0 RS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PHONE: (540) 774-4411 FAX: (540) 772.9445 E.MAIL: MAIL@LUMSDENPc.COM ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I-I) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a conservation easement, 15' in width along Wolf Creek in Greenway Landing, Plat Book 27, page 97, Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Vickie L. Huffman Senior Assistant County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge G /I County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATO~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves acceptance of the following easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors for conservation purposes in connection with the development of Greenway Landing, in the Vinton Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke: a) Donation of a conservation easement, fifteen feet (15') in width, along Wolf Creek across the common area and a small portion of Lot 18, of Greenway Landing, from Development & Design, LLC, (Instrument No. 200214004; Tax Map No. 61.18-02-24), as shown on the subdivision plat for Greenway Landing prepared by Roderick F. Pierson, LLS, dated January 12, 2004, and recorded in Plat Book 27, page 97, Instrument # 200402261, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The location, dimensions, and terms of this easement have been reviewed and approved by the County's planning and engineering staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this easement. CURVE fABl£ 1':'-'""'- - "'DIU> C-I 2S.DO" '~=~ ,~~~: C-4 "95°' C-S 70.50' C 6 7050' C-7 9.50' (-8 9.50' C-9 '°550' c-,o 'cS.so' 0-11 105.50' C-'2 ICSSQ' , C-U 94.50' L.~-;4 56'8<3' liNE TABl£ ~:Ol¡¡¡S"-- e,^RI~G L- , 5 76'oe'2'"" L-2 N 1)'5"36-" L-3 ~ 76'OS'2"E L..4 N "'3]'00'" ~ "'00"2'£ .----..--'---, TANGENT 26,70' 6.2" ],72' ,.92' IB.B4' IO,B7' 9,75' '9.76' l6.'B' 6,53' '8,69' 252' 2B,05' 41.07' LENGTH 40,92' 1223' 35,21' 39,53' 36,B2' 21.56' IS,]' 2>.33' 3227' 13.05' 37,00' 5.0" 54,S" 82.15 O'STANCE 20.20' 35,00' 21.60' J7".' 16,02' .. ~ t:Ø 1-1 1-3 II> lOT AR£A COUUON AREA STORM WATER _UENT AREA ROAD AREA -.._---- --,,-- P.B. ~1 PG. C¡J DELTA DEGRE[ CHonD CHBEARING TOTAL AREA = 4.8'3 ACRES TI" STREET SERVING THE PROP,"TY DESCRIBED DOts NOT UEET STATE STANDARDS AND WILL NOT BE MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTME"T or TRANSPORTATION OR nos COUNTY. ADDITIONALLY THE STREET WIU NOT BE CONSIDERED ELiGIBLE rOR ADDITION AS AN ELENE"T or THE SECONDARY SYSTEM or STA1E HIGHWAYS UNTIL IT IS CONSTRUCTtD TO THE STANDARDS or THE CURRENT PREVAiliNG SUBD"""ON STREET REOUfRENENTS OR OTHER AFPUGABlE APPROVED STANDARD or THE V'RGINIA OEPARnlENT or TRANSPORrATlON. UTIliZING rUNOS OTHER THAN THOSE A""'NISTERED BY THE DEPARTUENT or TRANSPORTATION. CO"MON AREA IS TO BE OWNED AND "AINTAINED BY THE HO"EOWNER'S ASSaelATlON, All lOTS TO RECEIVE A SINGLE R'SIDENHAL WATER SERVICE WITH PRV, (SEt ROANOKE COUNTY OETAll WOD-O2). h GRAPHIC SCALE .~ ~~ ~ i v,... -- DHR RIDGE HouEoWNER'S ASSOC"TlON AND ~ ~~lE,'N"w,,~~,~~~IN~AI~~r~f:c"EER~ðs~s~g~'ATlO~ >,p~ THE EXISTING STORN"A!ER "A"AGE"ENT "COUTV lOCATED ON THIS SITE. RODERICK r, PIERSON. us, 1969 PLAT or SUBDIVISION rOR DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN. LLC SHOWING "GREENWAY LANDING" SITUATED NEA< NARDV ROAD ANO SITUATED IN THE VINTON "AGISTERIAl D'STRICT ~ ::r õ-=- ::+" ~ > ( IN neT !ino. . <0 fl ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA SCAlE, ," = 40' DATE' JANUARY 12, 2004 SHEET 2 or 2 GOMM, NO. Rï()(],jJ2 6'~~ )\~ m¡: P?l)(lì1?ron PI.Urr,/rDiìI1I,' 'J ACTION NO. ITEM NO. S-I~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a 20' water and sanitary sewer easement across property of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., (Tax Map No. 40.14-01-02.11), Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Vickie L. Huffman Sr, Assistant County Attorney APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge t!)I County Administrator COUNTY ADMINIST=E~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves the acceptance of the following easement for water and sanitary sewer purposes conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, in connection with development of the Lowe's site at Bonsack, in the Hollins Magisterial District: a) Donation of a water and sewer easement, twenty feet (20') in width, and from Lowe's Home Centers, Inc" (Tax Map No. 40.14-01-02.11), as shown on a plat prepared by WW Associates, dated April 9, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The location and dimensions of this easement have been reviewed and approved by the County's engineering and utility staff. FISCAL IMPACT: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the donation of this easement. e -l-,~ ....,- AL-MART(E) i I j;¡ z :t. to ...¡ :::: :I. LOWE"S --- ~ ~ h I LOT 4A OF SUeD. PLAT FOR F '" W COMMUNITY D£VE:LOPMENT CORP. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS. INC. IMP 040.14--01-02.11 INST.! 200307224- NOTES EASEMENT TO BE DEDICATED TO: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION OWNER NAME: F &: W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. TAX MAP PARCEL: 040.04-01-02.11 &: 04.10-03-01.00 LOCATION: ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED REFERENCE: INST.j 200307224 THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A PROPERTY LINE SURVEY AND DOES NOT ADDRESS ERRORS IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS AND PLATTINGS. FIELD TIES HAVE BEEN MADE TO DUERMINE THE LOCATION OF THIS E:ASEMENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE USING PROPERTY CORNERS AND PHYSICAL £VIDENCE AS FOUND. SCALE: 1" = 100' ~ 100' 0 100' """"-PJDOI!"" LY"":;::Æ!Ei]:"'. HOILINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRIcr ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA SCALE: 1'-100' DATE: 4 9 04 DRAWN BY:' EML IYIfA NUMBER: 204067.00 FILE: 4O67ÞLAT.dwa EXHIBIT A TITLE: EASEMENT PLAT SHOWING NEW WATER & SEWER. EASEMENT ON LOT 4A OF A SU6DIVISION PLAT FOR F&W COMMUNITY DBVELOPMENT CORP. TO BB DEDiCATED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~ß:..4 ENGINEERS SURVE\'ORS PLANNERS ASSOCIATES ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J~'-' ) F3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: . June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request acceptance of Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of $600.00. SUBMITTED BY: James R. Lavinder Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge I' If County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This grant is being offered to pay for specialized training to support our participation in the Regional Crash Investigation Team, sponsored by the Blue Ridge Transportation Safety Board. The training will enhance our own fatality crash investigations. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is provided by DMV with no matching funds required. ALTERNATIVES: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends acceptance of the Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of $600.00. e ACTION NO. ITEM NO. :r --- I L1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request acceptance of Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of $300.00. SUBMITTED BY: James R. Lavinder Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge t'lf County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~f'~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This grant is being offered to pay for specialized training to support our participation in the Regional Crash Investigation Team, sponsored by the Blue Ridge Transportation Safety Board. The training will enhance our own fatality crash investigations. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is provided by DMV with no matching funds required. AL TERNATIVES: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends acceptance of the Department of Motor Vehicles mini grant in the amount of $300.00. e ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J: - I 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGEN DA ITEM: Request to accept water facilities serving Hanging Rock Estates (Catawba Magisterial District) Gary Robertson Utility Director SUBMITTED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Successor Developer of Hanging Rock Estates, Branch Banking and Tryst Company of Virginia, has requested that Roanoke County accept the deed conveying the water facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The water facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., entitled Hanging Rock Estates, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The water facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: The value of the water construction is $58,840. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the water facilities serving the Hanging Rock Estates subdivision along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. e Roanoke County Attorney's Office J:- \5 Return to: The Roanoke County. Attorney's Office TIDS WATER SYSTEM DEED, made this..1L day of ::r:-~.......q , 2004, by and between BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST CaMP ANY OF VIRGINIA, successor by merger to FIRST VIRGINIA BANK-SOUTHWEST, successor by merger to Premier Bank-South, N,A., which is the successor by merger to Premier Bank, Inc.~ party of the first part, hereinafter referred to as "BB&T" or "Successor Developer"; and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, its successors.or assigns, hereinafter referred to as the "County," party of the second part. WITNES SETH: TRA T FOR AND IN CONSIDERA II ON ofthe mutual benefits accruing to the parties, the receipt and sufficiency ofwhich)s hereby acknowledged, BB&T does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of SPECIAL WARRANTY in fee simple unto the County all water lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, sources of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment, facilities and appurtenances thereunto belonging, in and to the WATER system in the streets, avenues, public utility easement areas, and water easement areas that have been or may hereafter be inst1.11ed in and for. Hanging Rock Estates, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown, described and designated as follows, to wit: As shown on the plat and plans for Hanging Rock Estates, dated October 5,2000, made by Lumsden Associates, P.C" and on file in the Roanoke County Department of Community D.evelopment. . e \ , ,J:"'~ ( ? Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, executes this instrument to signify acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the - day of , 2004, WITNESS the following signatures and seals: BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, a Virginia c rporation (SEAL) State of Virginia, tAiýlCounty of Roanoke , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 11 th day of June 2004,by James N Hinson , Agent and City Executiv~ behalf of Branch Banking and Trust Company of Virginia, a Virginia corporation. . C~ '5 '. .I?'1f.:'YL~"- Notary Public , on My Commission expires: 1/31/07 Roanoke County Attorney's Office 2 0 Roanokè County Attorney's Office e Approved as to form: Vickie L. Huffman Sr. Asst. County Attorney State of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to-wit: ,I- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By /,5 (SEAL) Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this - day of , 2004, by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. My Commission expires: Notary Public 3 i i ¡ II ---"",J\ I :1 ¡: 1J !! \\ '"../'" t - ',// ", .J.... - I s: " " :,,/'"'- -\ ,../ \/ \\,-,_..~.......-,_.~.. \"'- \ -- ""-"'~,.. , \ \ ' " '\ \ \ \ \ \ ,--.. \647 \~I 48 \11- ¡ ~M. i \~!_..-- \\-----_..._-::> ;}",,",,;~.~t:"""'" -"":~---'" 1/ 33. ~o:' /:J I ¡ .f7 /í / -..............,...---.-..-..'...-...--...'..---- - - :..,..."-" ...- 34. :~~~ 1...-..("""""'" l \ , \ ¡ 42. \ i ""'" \ ! '\ ¡ ¡ 4L 2JI4 ... , ¡ 43- ¡ j --., ""-«"-.'1.-'" .,. \ '\ 76. , 75 '- \ 1.11 h.. \ :59. 1M ... /"-"<"- /f/~:," r .... ... 54. ..0"'- "" ROANOKE COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES SERVING " H.ANGING ROCK ESTATES" \... R:/CAD /GISIJATA/BIWRPT / IJATE: 1-9-08 e ~ ffi- \ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA % of General Amount Fund Revenues Prior Report Balance $8,977,656 6.60% Addition from 2002-03 Operations 1,483,629 Audited Balance at June 30, 2003 10,461,285 July 1, 2003 Explore Park Loan Repayment 25,000 February 10, 2004 Presidential primary for 2004 (24,180) May 11, 2004 Community Policy and Management Team funding for (820,000) mandated services for youth with special needs Balance at June 22, 2004 9,642,105 7.09% Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $9,642,105 $9,642,105 7.09% 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 2003 - 2004 General Fund Revenues $135,971,831 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $8,498,239 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ttf County Administrator e ffi.-~ I CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Audited Balance at June 30, 2003 $360,172.56 Transfer from Department Savings 2002-03 274,972.00 Remaining funds from completed projects at June 30, 2003 419.66 10/28/2003 Equipment and software for electronic records management (73,057.00) system for Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office 10/28/2003 Reimbursement from Water Fund for debt service payments 11,000,000.00 made related to Spring Hollow Reservoir 2/1012004 Addition to the Bent Mountain Library (28,057.00) 3/9/2004 Acquisition of Woltz Property (145,000.00) Balance at June 22, 2004 $11,389,450.22 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge t}l County Administrator e m-3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTI NGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 2003-2004 Original Budget $107,940.00 July 8, 2003 Appropriation towards Roanoke Regional Airport Alliance (8,193.00) July 22, 2003 Appropriation towards Project 50 Capital Campaign (10,000.00) July 22, 2003 Reserve towards Project 50 Capital Campaign (5,000.00) August 12,2003 Appropriation for debris removal and stablilization (15,000.00) December 16, 2003 Appropriation for Office Support Specialist in the Clerk to (15,000.00) the Board of Supervisor's Office April 27, 2004 Appropriation for Planning and Zoning Work Ses~ion (600.00) June 8, 2004 Appropriation for Treasurer's Turnover Audit (8,000.00) June 8, 2004 Appropriation for View Shed Project (8,000.00) Balance at June 22, 2004 $38,147.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge e)l County Administrator e FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget $670,000.00 Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund 1,113,043.00 FY1997-1998 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund 321,772.00 FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,219,855) 780,145.00 Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund 495,363.00 FY2000-200 1 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,801,579) 198,421.00 FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (465,400) Savings from 2001-02 debt fund 116,594 1,651,194.00 FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,592,125) (592,125.00) FY 2003-2004 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,202,725) (202,725.00) Balance at June 22, 2004 $8,435,088.00 Reserved for Future School Operations FY2000-200 1 Original budget appropriation $1,500,000.00 July 11, 2000 SW Co Regional Stormwater (290,000.00) FY200 1-2002 Original budget appropriation 1,500,000.00 July 1,2001 School Budgeted Start-Up Costs HVHS/Glenvar Middle (1,858,135.00) July 1,2002 School Budgeted Start-Up Costs HVHS/Glenvar Middle (35,047.00) July 1, 2002 Transfer to Operating in original 2002-03 Budget (566,818.00) July 1,2003 Transfer to Operating in original 2003-04 Budget (250,000.00) Balance at June 22, 2004 - Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge é' f/ County Administrator '" f)\-~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO.J-S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid - May 2004 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ê)J County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors Payroll 5/07/04 Payroll 5/21/04 Manual Checks Voids Grand Total Direct Deposit Checks Total $ $ $ 4,513,111.77 795,461.31 137,640.45 933,101.76 822,732.62 136,986.63 959,719.25 $ 6,405,932.78 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. e FIN162 County of Roanoke, Virginia Page 7;SO;52AM Date 6/8/2004 Schedule of Expenditures, Encumbrances and Appropriations For the 11 Month Period Ended 05/31/04 Year to Date Expend Expenditures & Encumb Monthly Outstanding & Encumbrance Unencnmbered as a "10 of Fund 100 General Fund Budget Expenditures Encnmbrance Year to Date Balance Budget 0101 Legislative 386,204.97 20,51Lll 46,222.00 348,971.31 37,233.66 90.36 0102 General & Financial Administra 8,840,581.51 776,596.02 56,639.29 7,584,525.60 1,256,055.91 85.79 0103 Electoral Board & Officials 293,266.47 11,661.34 0.00 244,343.66 48,922.81 83.32 0100 General Government Administrat 9,520,052.95 808,768.47 102,861.29 8,177,840.57 1,342,212.38 85.90 0201 Courts 1,148,690.55 63,824.93 0.00 816,393.33 332,297.22 71.07 0202 Other Judicial Support 866,114.54 50,666.96 975.00 614,031.76 252,082.78 70.90 0200 Judicial 2,014,805.09 114,491.89 975.00 1,430,425.09 584,380.00 71.00 0301 Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont 12,533,833.79 802,929.21 189,517.32 9,953,097.85 2,580,735.94 79.41 0302 Fire and Rescue 9,677,206.49 581,605.88 260,474.65 8,233,171.65 1,444,034.84 85.08 0303 Correction & Detention 5,384,185.25 428,713.63 0.00 4,651,080.57 733,104.68 86.38 0304 Animal Control 360,744.47 27,859.59 0.00 308,420.69 52,323.78 85.50 0300 Public Safety 27,955,970.00 1,841,108.31 449,991.97 23,145,770.76 4,810,199.24 82.79 0401 General Services 365,023.83 24,129.31 0.00 308,716.31 56,307.52 84.57 0402 Refuse Disposal 5,797,182.20 347,905.59 0.00 4,865,465.69 931,716.51 83.93 0403 Maint Buildings & Grounds 3,260,678.31 254,010.05 14,674.05 2,893,003.19 367,675.12 88.72 0404 Engineering 2,410,402.39 121,634.66 2,121.00 1,883,362.65 527,039.74 78.14 0405 Inspections 739,405.96 63,1l7.71 0.00 742,714.61 3,308.65- 100.45 0406 Garage Complex 320,273.93 24,952.70 4,136.04 261,277.66 58,996.27 81.58 0400 Public Works 12,892,966.62 835,750.02 20,931.09 10,954,540.11 1,938,426.51 84.97 0501 Mental Health 32,475.00 169.58 0.00 29,122.24 3,352.76 89.68 0503 Public Health 459,403.00 114,850.75 0.00 459,403.00 0.00 100.00 0504 Social Services Administration 3,632,791.98 273,09.6.39 0.00 3,104,951.30 527,840.68 85.47 0505 Comprehensive Services Act 4,523,085.00 330,218.52 0.00 3,150,666.83 1,372,418.17 69.66 0506 Public Assistance 2,577,490.00 238,177.69 0.00 2,616,467.16 38,977.16- 101.51 0507 Institutional Care 31,523.00 0.00 0.00 32,462.66 939.66- 102.98 ~ 0508 Social Services Organizations 167,755.00 0.00 0.00 167,755.00 0.00 100.00 ~ ~ 0500 Health and Welfare 11,424,522.98 956,512.93 0.00 9,560,828.19 1,863,694.79 83.69 FINI62 7:50:52AM County of Roanoke, Virginia Schedule of Expenditures, Encumbrances and Appropriations For the 11 Month Period Ended 05/31/04 Monthly Outstanding Fund 100 General Fund Budget ExpenditørtS Encumbrance 0601 Parks & Recreation 3,773,448.62 231,087.87 6,138.79 0602 Library 2,158,154.34 154,450.08 0.00 0603 Cultural Enrichment 207,531.00 0.00 0.00 0600 Parks, Recreation & Cultural 6,139,133.96 385,537.95 6,138.79 0701 Planning & Zoning 675,518.26 29,055.23 0.00 0702 Cooperative Extension Program 89,456.00 12,680.67 0.00 0703 Economic Development 559,031.20 34,635.28 0.00 0705 Contribution to Human Service 92,070.00 1,000.00 0.00 0700 Community Development 1,416,075.46 77,371.18 0.00 0801 Employee Benefits 570,182.99 14,485.74 0.00 0802 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 35,000.00 12,379.15 0.00 0803 Miscellaneous 2,537,572.00 44,358.52 0.00 0804 Tax Reliet7Eldcrly & Handicapp 538,093.00 0.00 0.00 0806 Refuse Credit Vinton 110,000.00 0.00 0.00 0807 Contingency Balance 59,147.00 0.00 0.00 0808 Unappropriated Balance 9,617,105.00 0.00 0.00 0800 Non-Departmental 13,467,099.99 71,223,41 0.00 0901 Interfund Transfers Out 71,118,844.00 4,491,426.02 0.00 0902 Intrafund Transfers Out 1,633,771.50 0.00 0.00 0900 Transfers Out 72,752,615.50 4,491,426.02 0.00 .. Grand Totals 157,583,242.55 9,582,190.18 580,898.14 Page Date 6/8/2004 Year to Date Expend Expenditures & Encumb & Encumbrance Unencumbered as a "10 of Year to Date Balance Bndget 2,881,057.57 892,391.05 76.35 1,787,621.94 370,532.40 82.83 148,410.00 59,121.00 71.51 4,817,089.51 1,322,044.45 78.47 412,590.84 262,927.42 61.08 39,639.49 49,816.51 44.31 503,555.07 55,476.13 90.08 92,010.00 60.00 99.94 1,047,795.40 368,280,06 73.99 536,176.87 34,006.12 94.04 29,702.81 5,297.19 84.87 2,155,307.32 382,264.68 84.94 426,940.06 111,152.94 79.34 55,000.00 55,000.00 50.00 857.42 58,289.58 1.45 0.00 9,617,105.00 .00 3,203,984.48 10,263,115.51 23.79 53,318,300.54 17,800,543.46 74.97 607,271.50 1,026,500.00 37.17 53,925,572.04 18,827,043.46 74.12 116,263,846.15 41,319,396.40 73.78 3 I 0 FINOS3 County of Roanoke, Virginia Page 7:49:33AM Date 6/8/2004 Statement of Estimated and Actual Revenues For the 11 Month Period Ended 05/31/04 Year to Date Revenues Monthly Year to Date Unrealized as a "I. of Fund 100 General Fund Budget Revenues Revenues Balance Budget 010 Real Estate Taxes 60,047,500 22,026,889 54,146,561 5,900,939 90.17 011 Personal Property Taxes 24,000,000 9,277,457 11,171,937 12,828,063 46.55 012 Public Service Corp Base 2,300,000 2,985 2,536,823 236,823- 110.30 013 Penalities & Interest On Prope 580,000 35,453 411,663 168,337 70.98 014 Payment In Lieu Of Taxes 170,700 65,622 165,195 5,505 96.78 020 Local Sales Tax 6,375,000 1,110,496 6,001,078 373,922 94.14 021 Consumers Utility Tax 6,609,136 463,638 6,124,769 484,367 92.67 022 Business License Tax 4,400,000 59,440 4,804,853 404,853- 109.20 023 Franchise Tax 1,315,000 338,302 1,034,104 280,896 78.64 024 Motor Vehicle License Fees 1,740,000 1,145,257 1,613,972 126,028 92.76 025 (\\ Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,160,000 77,651 1,017,468 142,532 87.71 026 Utility License Tax 490,000 45,365 489,199 801 99.84 027 Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 683,000 35,705 498,972 184,028 73.06 028 Taxes - Prepared Foods 2,675,000 238,619 2,353,907 321,093 88.00 029 Other Taxes 110,000 7,041 87,814 22,186 79.83 030 Animal Control Fees 28,177 2,138 23,914 4,263 84.87 031 Land and Building Fees 273,700 26,240 315,896 42,196- 115.42 032 Permits 246,000 23,607 241,069 4,931 98.00 034 Fees 45,810 4,421 43,427 2,383 94.80 037 Clerk of Court Fees 59,696 4,512 43,154 16,542 72.29 038 Photocopy Charges 48,000 15 242 47,758 .50 039 Fines and Forfeitures 639,400 73,138 561,585 77,815 87.83 040 Revenues from Use of Money 700,288 53,278 344,187 356,101 49.15 041 Revenues From Use of Property 6,530 1,760 11,283 4,753- 172.78 042 Charges for Services 3,040,975 355,857 3,396,518 355,543- 111.69 048 Charges for Public Sevices 2,549,510 19,861 2,370,310 179,200 92.97 050 Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 336,000 233,858 102,142 69.60 051 Miscellaneous Revenue 46,545 44,566 153,047 106,502- 328.82 056 Recovered Costs 455,816 46,915 146,083 309,734 32.05 060 Non-Categorical Aid 195,659 6,646,705 9,892,711 9,697,052- 5,056.10 061 Shared Expenses 4,684,893 360,188 4,001,178 683,715 85.41 064 Welfare & Social Servies-Categ 1,958,000 125,020 1,325,997 632,003 67.72 '-: _/' 067 Education Aid-State 6,391 34,500- 6,391 100.00 -> 073 Other State Categorical Aid 5,219,925 277,685- 2,808,647 2,411,278 53.81 . 080 Welfare & Social Services 2,876,734 321,047 3,031,909 155,175- 105.39 . 086 Other Categorical Aid 1,138,577 19,569 1,062,690 75,887 93.34 E) 090 Sale of Land and Buildings .00 092 Other Financing Sources 17,168,283 11,080- 17,179,363 .07- FINDS3 7:49:33~M Fund 100 County of Roanoke, Virginia Statement of Estimated and Actual Revenues For the 11 Month Period Ended 05/31/04 Year to Date Revenues Uurealized Balance Page Date 6/812004 General Fund Monthly Revenues Year to Date Revenues as a % of Budget 093 Transfers 35.29 Budget 3,202,998 1,130,458 2,072,539 5 I 0 FIN053 7:49:33AM Fund 100 " General Fund Report Parameters Fiscal Month Entered: 11 Report Date Entered: 05/31/04 Fiscal Year Ending Entered: 2004 Grand Totals County of Roanoke, Virginia Statement of Estimated and Actual Revenues For tbe 11 Montb Period Ended 05/31/04 Montbly Budget Revenues 157,583,243 42,746,571 Year to Date Revenues Unrealized Balance Page Date 6/8/2004 123,591,790 33,991,452 Year to Date Revennes as a "I. of Budget 78.43 3 f 0 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: June 22,2004. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of May 31,2004. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BANKERS ACCEPTANCE: SUNTRUST CAP 997,015.67 997,015.67 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS: SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA SAVINGS & LOAN 100,000.00 100,000.00 COMMERICAL PAPER: ALEXANDER KEY FED BRANCH BANKING & TRUST EVERGREEN MORGAN KEEGAN SUNTRUST SUNTRUST CAP 28082.79 4,857.23 4,141.67 3,901.65 4,800.83 4,143.06 799,030.86 820,875.30 CORPORATE BONDS EVERGREEN 3,227,723.75 3,227,723.75 GOVERNMENT: ALEXANDER KEY FED ALEXANDER KEY - Sub Acct EVERGREEN SUNTRUST - CAP 21,886,326.67 4,323,758.50 5,615,585.96 10,479,696.85 42,305,367.98 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION (G.O.) 6,089,477.39 6,089,477.39 MONEY MARKET: ALEXANDER KEY FED EVERGREEN ALEXANDER KEY - Sub Acct SUNTRUST - CAP SUNTRUST - SWEEP W ACHOVIA 16,773,701.07 (0.02) 34,721.64 2,898,613.79 17,499,451.79 2,310,995.54 39,517,483.81 REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: EVERGREEN TOTAL 3,244,600.00 96,302,543.90 3,244,600.00 e 06/08/04 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 0-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss Slate Hill SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Chief Planner APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for the Board to discuss this rezoning petition before the public hearing at the evening session. e -:p AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22,2004 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. 0-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing and adoption of a resolution approving the revised Roanoke County Solid Waste Management Plan SUBMITTED BY: Anne Marie Green Director of General Services APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge {' j.J County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: A:_~é'~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The State of Virginia requires every local government to maintain a Solid Waste Management Plan and to update it periodically. The staff has reviewed the previous plan, which was prepared in 1997, and has made the appropriate changes to the document. The deadline for forwarding the revised plan to the Waste Management Division of the Department of Environmental Quality is July 1. The State is primarily interested in the method of disposal once the waste has been collected, and requires information concerning landfilling, recycling, composting, and incineration activities. Essentially the only change in the County since 1997 is in recycling. At that time, the County still provided both commingled and source separation recycling for some citizens. The Board of Supervisors, after reviewing the costs to expand the program County wide and purchase new vehicles, decided to discontinue formal recycling efforts, and meet our goals by using tonnage from commercial recycling activities. The plan is also required to state solid waste management goals for the next twenty years. The County's goals which are outlined in the proposed plan include: ~ Education as to available source reduction, and recycling programs, with an emphasis on long-term lifestyle changes. 1 e ~\ ~,~, ~ Education of local businesses, offices, and industries to encourage waste minimization and recycling efforts. ~ Development of commercial recycling programs with a larger diversion rate and reduction in the waste stream sent to the landfill. ~ Development of a regional yard waste composting program. ~ Detailed studies and recommendations on large scale resource recovery and recycling projects for the region. ~ Efforts to establish or encourage new regional collection and marketing of recycled materials. ~ Development of a comprehensive recycling program utilizing drop-off centers. (Details and financial impact to be discussed later). ~ Continuous assessment of waste management strategy with emphasis on developing new and implementing current solid waste management techniques. The state also requires a public hearing to receive input on the plan and a resolution of support from the local governing body. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact involved with the public hearing and adoption of the resolution supporting the plan. In order to implement some of the goals outlined above, there may be future budgetary requests for equipment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board hold the public hearing on the Solid Waste Management Plan and adopt the attached resolution of support. 2 e -.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 . RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING A COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, a public hearing on the adoption of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for Roanoke County was held on June 22, 2004; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, and through that authority, maintains and operates a transfer station, a rail line, and a landfill for the disposal of solid waste; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is one of only two counties in the State providing curbside garbage pickup service to its residents at no charge. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Roanoke County hereby adopts the attached Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and 2. That the effective date of this resolution is July 1, 2004. ~-\ COUNTY OF ROANOKE COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2004 " ~.'-I ~1 COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OUTLINE I. II. III. IV. V. VI. . VII. Executive Summary Introduction A. B. C. D. E. Legislation Regulations Objective/Performance Requirements General Description Population Density Current Collection Systems A. B. Roanoke County Municipal Collection Private Collection Systems Current Waste Disposal Facilities Waste Generation Analysis (Residential and Commercial) Long-term Waste Management Goals Assessment of Hierarchy A. Source Reduction 1. In-house strategies 2, Public education/awareness 3. Commercial/Industrial' B. Reuse 1. Strategies and Objectives C. Recycling 1. Objectives a. Residential recycling program b. Commercial recycling program c. Yard waste management program 2. Public EducationlInformation Programs a. General public b. Area schools c. Business or industry D. Waste-Energy e eo ~-f 'I E. Incineration F. Landfills 2 G--\ INDEX OF APPENDICES Appendix A Stages of Accomplishment Appendix B Roanoke County Schools Recycling Activities Appendix C Citizen Advisory Committee Summary Appendix D Method of Reporting Statistics e 3 ~W- \ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Virginia Commonwealth laws required every municipality in the Commonwealth to develop a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The County's first plan was submitted to the Department of Waste Management on July 1, 1991. An update was submitted on July 1, 1997. Although subsequent amendments to the regulations removed the requirement for each five year update, each locality is required to address the original plan by July 1, 2004. The plan includes an integrated waste management strategy iHustrating how the County addresses the hierarchy of source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration, and landfilling. The County has reached and is committed to maintaining the state mandated rate of recycling. The County plan is summarized as foHows: . Further track and encourage recycling participation by the businesses and private haulers. . Details the regional approach to landfiH operations and thus how no further discussion of waste management options is planned due to the anticipated life of the current landfill. . Details what steps Roanoke County takes to divert brush and metals from the landfill. . Clean Valley Council's vital role in the education of the public regarding aH solid waste issues, especially in the schools is outlined in the plan. . Continue studying the possibility of establishing an efficient and economically feasible residential collection program. . Details the County's commitment to the solid waste hierarchy. Any expansion of activity in these areas will be studied in tenns of economic feasibility. e 4 ~ -\ INTRODUCTION Le!!islation The Virginia State General Assembly has passed legislation to establish the parameters to plan and implement solid waste management programs. House Bill 1743 allows the Department of Waste Management to specify requirements for local comprehensive solid waste management plans. By July 1, 1992, all localities must have had an approved comprehensive solid waste plan. By July 1, 1997, all localities had to have updated their individual plans for the next 5 years and identify how the mandated 25% minimum recycling rate will be maintained. Subsequent amendments rescinded the update requirement, but did require one for July 2004. The localities have been empowered to enact ordinances to achieve the goals set forth in the regulations. Substantial involvement by the commercial sector is necessary in order for localities to meet the mandated rates of diversion. Senate Bill 136 gives the County the authority to require businesses, operated for profit, to recycle specified materials based on the main recyclable component of their individual waste streams. The County is responsible for residential waste collection. Residential municipal waste accounted for 67% of the waste going into the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Tinker Creek Transfer Station. The Tinker Creek station is used by the City of Roanoke, the Town of Vinton as well as the County. All waste going into that facility is tracked and reported by the Authority. Other waste generated within Roanoke County is not so easily tracked. House Bill 543 and Senate Bill 447 enabled the Board of Supervisors to adopt ordinances requiring solid waste generators to annually report information necessary for the locality to comply with the Commonwealth mandates. The same report requirement can be placed on those companies who manage solid waste (private sector collectors) or recycle material. These reports will provide the local government with information on the total volume of waste collected by the private dumpster services and/or the amounts of commercial recycling. Roanoke County has acted to try and manage the flow of solid waste. Ordinance 62591- 9 was passed on June 25, 1991, to be in full force and effect on July 1, 1991, requiring annual reports to be submitted by December 31 each year from all businesses that are considered solid waste generators or those companies who manage solid waste or recycle materials. There is some voluntary compliance of the reporting requirement. Many of the private haulers have stated that such reporting is difficult due to jurisdictional boundaries. Staff is working on this issue. Ree:ulations The Virginia Waste Management Board established the first waste management mission statement, goals, policies, and strategies for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The policy statements are below: . Promote development of integrated solid waste management strategy to plan source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery (waste to energy), incineration (volume reduction), and landfilling. e 5 ~-) . Plan and implement strategies to reduce the overall volume and toxicity of hazardous waste. . Continue to conduct strategic planning. . Maintain the highest quality leadership. . Find innovative methods to resolve waste management problems. The Virginia Waste Management Board provides staff assistance to local governments, encourages source reduction, and assists in education programs on solid waste issues. Performance Requirements and Objectives Performance Requirements: . Plan completed and submitted to the Department of Waste Management no later than July 1, 1991. . Report to update Plan must then be submitted by July 1, 1997. . Report to update Plan submitted by July 1, 2004. Plan Parameters and Objectives: . A comprehensive waste management strategy. . Incremental stages and schedule. . Description of the funding resource requirements. . Strategy for provision of funding. . Public education and information programs on recycling. . Consideration of private/public partnerships. . Methodology to maintain recycling mandate of 25%. . Progress report submitted within 120 days of the prescribed time. . A procedure to monitor the total solid waste stream. ~ 6 Q- ì General Description A Solid Waste Management Plan correctly reflects the impact of solid waste disposal must give consideration to the environmental characteristics and land use within the region. Roanoke County is located in the Fifth Planning District and is situated on the eastern border of the Appalachian Plateau. It is approximately 251 square miles with a population of approximately 85,937 (2000 census). Interstate 81 and U. S. Route 220 are the major thoroughfares that serve Roanoke County, but there are several other major arteries. Route 419 serves as a major transportation link as it runs through the most densely populated area of the County, both residentially and commercially. Route 117, Peters Creek Road, has continued to grow in importance as it has become more commercially developed. Other important links are Routes 11,221 and 460. Norfolk Southern has rail service to the area providing vital transportation of goods and services to the Valley. In Roanoke County, approximately 53% of the land is vacant. Population Density According to the Virginia Employment Commission, population growth in the entire Fifth Planning District will grow .4% annually between 1990 and 2010. The population is expected to be 90,500 in Roanoke County by 2010. Population density is an important factor in considering the feasibility of various solid waste management strategies. In terms of actual household information, the number of persons per house decreased from 1970 to 1980, but remained fairly stable from 1980 to 1987, while the actual number of households increased. The past 5 years has shown a gradual increase in the number of households, as the County now has over 30,000 households to be serviced. In terms of population density, Roanoke County currently has 342 persons per square mile. Approximately 73% of Roanoke County citizens live in what is defined as urban setting (i.e. the number of persons per square mile is high). The definition of urban versus rural is commonly determined by whether residents receive public water/sewer or have private wells/septic tanks. This urban versus rural community is an important factor when considering the feasibility of various solid waste collection methods. The County of Roanoke detennined that the varied nature of the geography was not an impediment to implementing automated collection. Nearly 100% of County residents receive this type of service. This incorporates many roads considered very rural. Educationally, Roanoke County has the highest percentage of people over the age of 25 who have completed high school in the Roanoke Valley. Within the Fifth Planning District, the highest percentage of those over 25 who have completed four years of college reside in the County, This characteristic will positively influence the development of new solid waste e 7 ~,'~~ , disposal methods as educated persons learn the important reasons for changing their waste disposal methods. Roanoke County currently operates on a 14/86 revenue tax basis. The commercial/industrial provides 14% of tax revenue and the residential personal property and real estate provides 86%. The ultimate goal is 25/75. Approximately 33% of the waste going into the existing Smith Gap Regional Landfill comes from a commercial/industrial source, which is down significantly from 42% in 1997. There are approximately 4,500 businesses licensed in the County; many of which operate out of the home. In terms of size there are only 97 establishments which have 50 or more employees. Almost 53% have four or fewer employees. A comprehensive plan that analyzes the waste stream must look at establishment size as well as the type of businesses generating refuse (Source: Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission web site), e 8 ~-J CURRENT COLLECTION SYSTEMS Roanoke County Municipal Collection The County provides two methods of refuse col1ection. Automated collection is the standard for weekly household refuse col1ection. Bulk and brush collection is provided every other week. Nearly 100% ofthe homes in the County receive curbside pick up with an automated collection system. The County issues a 96-gallon trash container to each resident receiving automated service. The Solid Waste Division just recently completed the change to automation as the standard of service by implementing the service in all rural areas, as well as in many condominium and townhouse complexes. In addition, the collection days were consolidated to complete all collection in four ten hour days. This is accomplished through the use of nine trucks per day Monday through Thursday. Each automated truck is manned by a single operator who collects from an average of 800-1000 homes per day. The second collection process is the collection of bulk and yard waste items that are not part of the normal daily household waste stream. The large items, such as furniture, white goods, water heaters; and old carpeting are collected in large quantities on a bi-weekly schedule during the year. The size of the crews and vehicles assigned will vary based on seasonal fluctuations. The crew assignment levels and vehicle assignments are very flexible and depend upon assessments made by field supervisors. Most large collections are made with a coverable knuckle-boom, crane-type, truck. Bagged yard waste and other debris that does not fit in the automated container is usually collected by a rear loader, compactor type, garbage truck. Unfortunately, collections are not currently limited to yard waste; therefore, the loads are mixed with other debris and must be landfilled. Brush and other wood waste is the exception to this and will be explained later. The County offers two other means for citizens to dispose of their household trash and debris. The first is the Freeloader service, where the County will deliver a 14 foot dump body trailer to the homeowner's house and leave overnight for the citizen to manually load. The trailer is then picked up the next morning, transported to the Tinker Creek Transfer Station for dumping, and delivered to the next scheduled customer. This service usually stays scheduled six months in advance. The County operates two of these trailers at an average cost of$95.00 every time it is delivered. The other method of disposal is the Homeowner Haul program, where the citizen hauls their own trash, brush, yard waste, construction debris, etc. to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority's Tinker Creek Transfer Station. The County pays all tipping fees as long as the customer is not a contractor and the debris is a result of a clean-up or clean-out of their personal dwelling. The cost of this service ranges from $12,000 to $18,000 per month depending upon the season. 9 ~-\ Private Collection Systems The collection of refuse in the County includes private haulers who provide service to businesses, schools, and multifamily dwellings. These haulers are in two categories. There are fimls who collect commercial/residential waste and those who handle by-product disposal from their own business. The three "main component" haulers of waste in the Roanoke Valley are Browning F ems Industries, Waste Management of Virginia - Blue Ridge, and First Piedmont Corporation. These companies are using a combination of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Landfill and their own facilities outside of the area. A majority of this waste is transported to facilities outside of the Roanoke Valley Two of the "by-product" haulers of solid waste are Thomas Brothers, Inc. and J. M. Turner Company. These companies are in the construction business and have to haul and dispose of "clean" construction debris. Previously, these types of companies were allowed to own and operate private landfills that handled only construction waste that was thought to have little or no impact on the environment. However, future Commonwealth regulations will call for (and enforce) the same strict operation standards for small private construction landfills that will be in effect for larger sanitary landfills. These smaller operations will become more expensive and decrease in number as the older construction landfills reach capacity. In 2003, Thomas Brothers requested a permit to expand the capacity of the current landfill. As part of the development of its solid waste plan, each locality will evaluate its existing garbage coll~ction system and provide for improvements, if necessary. According to a report published by the Environmental Protection Agency, a typical governmental solid waste collection system would address the following: .. Environmental Protection - healthful, sanitary, and aesthetic. Convenience - readily available service. Continuity - uninterrupted service. .. .. Resource Recovery - reclaim where desired. Safety - provide a safe collection system. .. .. Efficiency - high productivity, low cost. Each of these private haulers previously mentioned has been evaluated by the Roanoke Valley - Allegheny Regional Commission staff based on the criteria listed above. e 10 \i '- \ CURRENT WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES Each locality collects its own trash using its own equipment. After collection, refuse trucks deliver the trash to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority's (which is part of this plan) Tinker Creek Transfer Station at 1020 Hollins Road in the City of Roanoke, near the intersection of Orange Avenue and Hollins Road. The Transfer Station was designed by citizens and planners to resemble a Norfolk Southern shop or office building and to be an asset to the neighborhood. At the Transfer Station, waste is loaded into specially-designed rail cars and covered with lids. Each rail car holds 65 tons of waste, making them among the largest on the railroad. At the end of the day, all waste that has been collected and loaded into the 10-12 rail cars is transported 33 miles on the Waste Line Express by Norfolk Southern to the landfill. The Smith Gap Station, which is part of this plan, is located on Bradshaw Road in the County of Roanoke. The building is designed to resemble a rural train station. Upon arriving at the landfill, the rail cars are uncoupled and positioned for unloading the following day. The train makes a daily trip to Smith Gap with the loaded cars from the Transfer Station and returns the same day with empty rail cars from the previous day's load. At the Smith Gap Station the lids are removed and the rail cars are turned upside down using a rotary dumper. The unloading operation takes place inside the tipper building, where the waste is inspected and loaded into haul trucks for burial in a l,200 acre, environmentally protected landfill disposal area that meets all state and federal regulations. There are some 640 acres of land that are planned for use with the remainder being utilized as buffer zones or other non-landfill able uses. (Source: Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Website) e 11 ~-- ì WASTE GENERATION ANALYSIS (RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL) Roanoke County must be able to report disposal of the following material in order to comply with the solid waste management plan regulations promulgated by the Department of Waste Management. . Estimates of solid waste generation from households, commercial institutions, industries, and other types of sources, including the amounts reused, recycled, recovered as a resource, incinerated and landfilled. . Estimates should identify special waste to include, at least the following: stumps, land-clearing/construction debris, motor vehicle tires, waste oil, batteries, sludge, mining waste, ash, white goods, septage, agricultural waste, and spill residues. In the Roanoke Valley, 140,375 tons of waste were disposed of in the Regional Landfill during 2003. Roanoke County residential waste comprised approximately 33% (46,341 tons) of that total. Due to numerous crossing of jurisdictional lines, the collection system has not been able to report Roanoke County's portion of the commercial waste stream. To date no method for gathering that data has been established. It is difficult to accurately project waste-flows because of the extreme fluctuation of waste production, especially commercial/industrial waste. Waste flow trends are based on three factors: population projections, current per capita waste generation, and the national trend for per capita waste production. Although these figures are widely used as the means to predict future waste generation, there are several reasons why they may not be completely accurate. Each region differs as to waste production depending upon industrial development, commercial activities, and population. Olver, Inc., in the 1988 Solid Waste Management Plan, predicted a steady .6% annual increase in processible solid waste (residential only). Based on the current rate of 2.2 pounds per person per day, and the national average increase of .6%, the pounds per person is expected to increase to 2.48 by the year 2010. In the Roanoke County area, population is expected to increase, causing an increase in residential waste. The increase ofthe "25 - 44" age group indicates that the number of families in the service area will begin to grow while increasing the waste stream. Of the businesses located in Roanoke County, only the very small ones (approximately 300) are collected by County staff, although there may be more that operate out of the home. These are collected within residential routes, so it is impossible for the County to separate the commercial tonnage collected by its crews. The remainder of businesses in the County contract the collection service or dispose ofthe waste themselves. Staff efforts to track this waste are on- going. At this time only individual businesses that voluntary report their waste are known. The 12 ~~\ private haulers are attempting to devise a method of tracking waste that crosses jurisdictional lines. Estimating commercial waste generation in the future poses additional problems. The County will consider economic times, population growth, and other current financial trends. Commercial waste going into the landfill has risen at a rate of approximately 6% for the past several years. In addition much of the commercial waste generated in the Valley is being sent out of the area for disposal. The staff has in the past and will continue to use that 6% increase for long-range waste management issues that will be examined. e 13 ~-) LONG- TERM WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS Within the 20-year planning horizon, Roanoke County will face issues that will best be addressed on a regional or multi-regional level. These include: . Education as to available source reduction, and recycling programs, with an emphasis on long-term lifestyle changes. . Education of local businesses, offices, and industries to encourage waste minimization and recycling efforts. . Development of commercial recycling programs with a larger diversion rate and reduction in the waste stream sent to the landfill. . Develop a regional yard waste compo sting program. . Detailed studies and recommendations on large scale resource recovery and recycling projects for the region. . Efforts to establish or encourage new regional collection and marketing of recycled materials. . Develop a comprehensive recycle program utilizing drop-off centers. (Details and financial impact to be discussed later). . Continuous assessment of waste management strategy with emphasis on developing new and implementing current solid waste management techniques. " 14 ~-\ ASSESSMENT OF HIERARCHY The Department of Waste Management listed several options that must be addressed in a comprehensive solid waste plan. These levels are source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery (waste to energy), incineration, and landfil1ing. In evaluating these alternatives, the County will address long-range objectives, funding requirements, economic and environmental impact, and public education requirements for each alternative. This report will evaluate each of the levels of hierarchy as they pertain to the long range plans of Roanoke County. Source Reduction The elimination or lessening of the generation of waste rather than lessening disposal amounts is the basic premise behind the hierarchy level known as source reduction. Source reduction needs to be fostered at the manufacturing, government, and citizen level. The County of Roanoke intends to utilize the element of source reduction in several different areas of County activities. The elements of a source reduction program are product reuse, reduced material volume, reduced toxicity of products, increased product lifetime, and decreased consumption. Source reduction is not a waste management tool, but it can have a positive effect on waste disposal programs. It involves considering the ultimate destiny of product in the manufacturing stage rather than in the col1ection stage. Implementing a source reduction program involves changing the thinking of how items are made, packaged, and used, and is not from the traditional school of solid waste management. Source reduction tries to address the problem prior to the generation of trash. Although it can be very difficult to quantify source reduction results, the benefits are inherently clear. Source reduction, as wel1 as recycling, saves landfill space and natural resources. Although the goals and actions of a local government are specific to local conditions, there are steps that can be taken to effect the actual generation of waste. The County will use a three prong approach in implementing source reduction strategies. This integrated approach to source reduction will hopefully serve to include all facets of the generation of municipal solid waste. Source reduction activities can be widely diverse. Implementation of such programs can cause economic and environmental consequences that must be evaluated. Reduction practices will result in tipping fee savings as well as savings in collection costs (less to col1ect). Roanoke County intends to study all source reduction activities to ensure that no harmful side effects will 15 ~.-\ occur from the implementation of these practices. The County intends to solve environmental concerns, not simply move them. In-House County Strategies . Encouraging the reuse of materials (i.e., using both sides of paper when copying, preparing food and drinks on washable, not disposable materials), . Using longer life, energy efficient light bulbs. . Using longer life tires on vehicles. . Better planning of material requirements. . Purchasing in bulk for all County offices. . Buying items with longer life expectancy, buying items that can be reused in other capacities once original purpose is over. . Implementing job specific waste reduction techniques, such as use of rebuilt auto repair parts at the County garage. . Purchasing requirements for government agencies. (See attached local ordinance). . Establish a waste reduction policy with full support from top management and elected officials to worker level. . Establish an employee training program that emphasizes the importance of waste reduction and efficient materials handling practices (e.g. keep lids on degreasers and avoid spi11s during material transfers and use). . Establish an employee incentive program that rewards employees for their waste reduction efforts and their suggestions on measures to enhance program success. . Require that all capital improvements be reviewed in respect to a waste reduction program. . Require special approval for volumes of 55-gallon drums and more for all toxic chemicals. . Label containers properly to avoid misuse of materials; inspect on-hand material on a regular basis. . Establish a rigorous maintenance program to keep equipment operating efficiently. e 16 ~\ ¡ ~':'- , . Replace caustic solutions with detergent-based solutions and replace solvent cleaners with water-based cleaners. . Use drip pans when working on damaged vehicles or changing fluids. . Recycle waste oil, spent antifreeze, and spent batteries. . Use dry absorbents to clean up spills. . Use high pressure spray nozzles. Public Education/Awareness . Activities to encourage source reduction and teach citizens to become environmental shoppers. . Plan educational curricula (with assistance of Clean Valley Council) emphasizing need for source reduction, consequences, available choices, benefits, costs, and goodwill. . Educational emphasis given to awareness program aimed at consumers. . Educate citizens as to specific, immediate actions that can be taken to reduce their generation of waste: Buy in bulk, avoid disposable items, reuse common items such as plastic and paper bags, repair when possible rather than dispose, use long-life energy efficient light bulbs, buy the large size or concentrates, buy the least packaged item, avoid multi-material packaging, choose items that are recyclable, and avoid the number of toxic products used, such as scouring powders containing chlorine bleach and aerosols, . Encourage in-home waste audits to give all family members better understanding of waste stream. . Encourage benefits of backyard composting as opposed to landfill disposal of yard waste. CommerciaVlndustrial . Plan education and research program aimed at this sector of society. . Develop a recognition campaign to encourage waste reduction by applauding the "doers". . Encourage local manufacturing to design products for source reduction considering product durability, product design and possible mandatory disclosure of environmental impact. " 17 C\-) . Help to quantify the environmental benefits of source reduction over the current mind-set of treatment technologies (i.e., response to problem rather than stopping creation of problem). . Encourage businesses to conduct waste audits to find ways in which operations could be altered to generate less or to reuse waste. Roanoke County has initiated many of these activities through its ISO 14001 project. At a work session held on July 10,2001, the Board of Supervisors for the County of Roanoke, received a presentation on the ISO 1400 I process for certification and creation of an environmental management system. During that session, the Environmental Assessment Team recommended implementation of an ISO 14001 based environmental management system (EMS) as well as adoption of an environmental policy statement that would guide the activities of the EMS. Roanoke County applied for and received the E2 designation through the state's Environmental Excellence Program. The public awareness as wen as that of the commercial sector has been ajoint effort between Roanoke County and the Clean Valley Council. Many of the ideas espoused in the education phase have already begun under the auspices of the Clean Valley Council. The social and economic equity of all activities will be considered, as will the economic feasibility. The main component of source reduction is education. Many of the ideas generated under such a program can actually be cost saving ideas. The overall impact on the environment will be a main concern and will be carefully studied before any programs are implemented. As a part of the outreach of Clean Valley Council, we have started an Earth Summit to better reach high school students who have in the past not been targeted. Reuse The "throw-away" philosophy is responsible for the crisis now being faced at many landfills. Landfills in the past have handled up to 80% of the nation's trash, but this trend cannot continue as space is running out. Reuse is placed higher than even "recycling" on the Virginia Waste Management Board's Hierarchy of solid waste management alternatives, primarily because reuse does not require physical change of an item. Reuse does not require the extensive market research and effort that recycling does. If reuse is employed by Roanoke County citizens, recycling will come naturally because reuse involves changing our waste disposal habits. Reuse is a major part of the solution to our waste disposal problems. Plans for implementing reuse as part of the County's integrated solid waste management plan will follow closely with those general reuse opportunities outlined in the State Planning Assistance Program. These plans will involve aiming direct appeals at residential and e 18 ~-'\ ,",..);{ ¡ commercial waste contributors to evaluate opportunities for materials reuse, instead of disposal. More specifically, reuse will be encouraged County-wide in the following ways: Educational efforts will be focused on both residents of Roanoke County and commercial or private businesses operating in the County. Proper education about reuse opportunities is paramount to successful implementation of reuse as a part of the overall plan. This education will be accomplished as follows: . Pamphlets and brochures distributed to households and businesses, public workshops, presentations, Public Service Announcements on radio, TV, or in newspapers and magazines, and any other method that citizens request or seems feasible to the County. . Material can be circulated or meetings scheduled with area businesses to encourage them to implement the management strategies, purchasing and inventory controls, and operating practices. . Special consideration will be given to offices to encourage them to follow practices concerning the minimization or reuse of office paper documents. Since paper products account for around 55% of to day's landfilled waste, this should be a major thrust toward accomplishing waste management goals. Reuse is an important part of Roanoke County's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Reuse involves changing the waste disposal habits of the past, and more closely scrutinizing the County's residential and commercial waste stream. Roanoke County is committed to exploration and implementation of reuse opportunities. Roanoke County continues to work closely with the Clean Valley Council (CVC) to educate the populace. The achievement of ISO 14001 status will incorporate some of these ideals, at least on an internal basis. All relevant environmental concerns will be considered when encouraging the establishment of reuse strategies. Roanoke County supports the CVC with both staff time and funds. The County does not currently have a staff member devoted to Solid Waste education. Recvclio2: In October 1987, Roanoke County became the first locality in the Commonwealth of Virginia to offer curbside recycling service to its citizens. A small representative group of County residents was chosen to participate in the pilot program. Approximately 1,000 residents were provided three stackable bins in which to place their separated newsprint, aluminum and glass. In March 1989, 900 additional residents were given the opportunity to recycle at the curb, but this program differed from the original pilot. In this test each resident was asked to set their materials at the curb in their own containers. They were asked to bundle the newsprint, box the glass and bag the aluminum. In January of the following year, in order to study the effect of containers on participation, the same residents were given the three stackable bins in which to place the e 19 C)-\ materials. The week following delivery, participation rates doubled immediately to 24% and thereafter averaged approximately 32%. In an effort to implement a comprehensive solid waste management strategy, staff began to test automated commingle recycling in a limited area. By implementing this type of collection method for recycling, Roanoke County would have a method of collecting both recycle materials and regular household trash that was both efficient and complimentary (Le., each serves as a backup for the other). In the automated commingle program, each resident was given a 65 gallon container in which to commingle the recyclable materials. The list of materials collected in the program included mixed grade paper (newsprint, junk mail, magazines, and office/computer paper), corrugated cardboard, aluminum, bi-metal, and plastic. The container was collected once a month by an automated truck with a single operator. All of these programs have since been suspended due to budgetary constraints. During each budget cycle, the County evaluates various recycling options. Staff fully expects to implement a mobile drop-off system for recycling in the next several years. Staff plans to utilize libraries and/or fire stations as collection points. These sites have already been determined and permission to use has been secured. Roanoke County residents currently have the opportunity to recycle at a variety of drop- off centers located throughout the Valley. The Clean Valley Council operates a community recycling station that accepts mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum, plastic, and bi- metal. There is a recycling drop off center at the Tinker Creek Transfer Station. The City of Salem offers a limited number of sites, which are available to County residents. Some private concerns, such as BFI, offer drop-off centers. The list is not meant to be all inclusive but rather to illustrate that there are a variety of recycling options available to residents. Roanoke County currently meets the State mandate through a combination of business recycling, yard waste diversion and other efforts put forth by the County. Staff is committed to offer a wider, more accessible means of recycling to the residents to not only meet the mandate, but to exceed it. In implementing this more accessible recycling program, several factors must be considered. The overall waste stream must be verified to confirm the materials best suitable for recycling. This applies to both the commercial and residential waste stream. Methods of collection must be considered. Availability of markets is an important factor and is of utmost consideration when choosing materials to include in the program. Economic feasibility of the overall program as well as each individual component must be carefully analyzed. Total tonnage landfilled for calendar year 2003 was 140,375 tons. Of this amount 93,763 tons were municipal (67%) and 46,312 tons were commercial/industrial (33%). The tenn municipal waste primarily means residential waste collected by the municipal crews of Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and Vinton. It is composed mostly of household waste, but each of the e 20 \:1,- ) localities collect a low percentage of small business waste, which is tallied as residential. Commercial waste constitutes the waste hauled to the transfer station by the private haulers, , which provide contracted collection service to businesses. Private waste is waste that is self- hauled by individual citizens and businesses. Again, it is necessary to note that a vast majority of commercial waste is hauled out of the Roanoke Valley and there is no current method to track the tonnage. Sorting and weighing of waste to detennine exact makeup can be extremely time consuming and expensive. Some experts contend that any locality's waste stream will be within 1 - 2% of the national average, although seasonal fluctuations could occur. Given the mild nature of Roanoke County's weather, the infrequence of natural disasters, and the relative stability of population (little seasonal influx of tourists), Roanoke County's municipal waste stream composition probably remains within the 1 - 2% deviation. According to the national figures given by EP A, the municipal solid waste is comprised of the following materials Composition of Roanoke County Solid Waste Material Paper/Paperboard Glass Yard Waste Food Waste Metals Aluminum Rubber/Leather/Textiles/Wood Plastics Percentage by Weight 41.0% 8.2% 17.9% 7.9% 8.0% .7% 8.1% 6.5% In planning a program, volume, ease of recyclability and markets for each material must be assessed. In analyzing marketing strategies there are several factors that need to be evaluated. Marketing strategies can develop along the same line as collection methods. Localities can either opt to perfonn the marketing service themselves or they can contract with an intermediate processor who would then process and sell the materials. Cycle Systems of Roanoke is the only business in the valley that offers this service and is utilized by the County to market the office paper collected internally. As the County seeks to expand the recycling opportunities, Cycle Systems will playa major role. There have been very preliminary discussions with the City of Roanoke as well as the Resource Authority regarding the possible establishment of a regional materials recycling facility. A major factor is how much capital investment the County is willing to make (processing equipment, storage areas), In the past Roanoke County has chosen to contract out the processing service because of reduced capital outlay and operational responsibility. Roanoke County has long maintained that local government is generally in the business of providing services and not in the business of competing with the private sector in areas such as marketing. Marketing in- eo 21 ~-, house would require additional staff for tracking of markets, procuring contracts, inspecting materials, packaging and processing. Contracting with local entities serves the twofold advantage of supporting privatization and allowing the County to concentrate on efficient curbside residential refuse collection service. Roanoke County will continue to contract the processing of recyclable materials in the foreseeable future, but will certainly participate in any regional discussions. Residential Recycling Program Two types of household recycle collection were originally employed by Roanoke County. These two processes, Source Separation and Commingled, differ in the degree of materials segregation perfonned by the household. Roanoke County tested both methods to see which yields the highest participation rates, the highest material returns, and the most cost efficient operation. Studies have shown (County test included) that the success of curbside programs is attributed to the impact of the municipality providing containers to the residents. This enhances convenience, is a main motivator, and serves as a constant reminder to the residents. Roanoke County chose to test a source separated program and an automated commingle program. In the source separated program, the residents were given three stackable bins in which to place newsprint, aluminum, and glass. The program required that residents separate recyclables from non-recyclables and then segregate the recyclables by placing them in the stackable bins and setting the bins at the curb weekly. The program participation has averaged 32% on a weekly basis and 89% on a monthly basis (meaning 89% of the residents have participated at least once a month), The diversion rate from those households participating has been approximated at 12 - 14%. Total tons collected in fiscal year 90/91 are estimated to be 239.61. A portion of the source separation residents were asked to change their procedures and set their bins at the curb every other week (twice-monthly). The purpose of this test was to see if the participation rate and/or volume would change if residents were required to wait until they had a larger quantity. Preliminary participation rates showed a 10 - 12% increase in participation rates for the twice-monthly area. The other test involved automated commingled recycling. Residents received 65-gallon containers, which are collected once a month, in which to place all of their recyclable materials. The test neighborhoods of some 1800 homes were serviced for three months and the participation rate averaged 77%, generated 56 tons of material with a diversion rate of approximately 22%. The program required only that residents sort non-recyclables from recyclables. In October of 1996, the County's 1976 model source separated truck was taken off the road with over a million miles on the odometer. The repairs that were necessary to keep it roadworthy and safe (pass state inspection) were too costly, considering the mileage and age of the truck. As soon as the truck was "decommissioned" the County began using a 25-yard rear- loading, high compaction garbage truck and the citizens were infonned that we would no longer be able to accept glass in the program. Soon after glass was discontinued, the participation rate e 22 ~-~" t , ! fell from 37% to approximately 20%. The precise reason for the decline is unknown, as no surveys have been taken to poll the affected citizens. However, based on the few phone calls that the Solid Waste Division office received, it was determined that the citizens were discouraged that the County had cut its program instead of expanding on it. Most of the callers said they would begin using drop-off centers around the Roanoke Valley. The County suspended their limited curbside recycling program in 1997. At that time a Request for Proposals was published to explore the possibility of 6 drop-off centers. Bids were received, but no action was taken at that time due to concerns about contamination, illegal dumping and other financial issues. There are many well documented positive environmental impacts associated with recycling, such as conservation of landfill space and energy resources. While it is fully understood that curbside recycling maximizes participation and therefore volume, the County has no plans to investigate that option due to budgetary concerns. However, the County does plan to explore other alternatives to make recycling more accessible and plans to fully study the environmental impact of all waste management alternatives implemented and comply with all local, state and federal policies and laws. Commercial Recycling Program The commerciallindustrial sector constitutes over 42% of the total waste stream going into the landfill. The main focus of the County commercial recycling plan has been to pinpoint what portion of the commercial waste stream is recyclable, as well as to locate any commercial recycling activity that should be included in the Roanoke County totals. At the current time, commercial recycling makes up the bulk of the 25% diversion rate claimed for Roanoke County. There are several businesses and institutions located within County boundaries that currently have extensive recycling programs, such as the Kroger Company, ITT, Hollins College, Tangelwood Mall, RR Donnelly and Walmart (list is only representative not inclusive). Outreach efforts are on-going. At this point there has been very little economic impact resulting from a commercial recycling program, The cost of the education/promotion campaign has been absorbed within solid waste budget. Clean Valley Council also plays a large role in this educational effort as well. Yard Waste Management Program Yard waste comprises as much as 25% of the waste stream according to the u.S. Environmental Protection Agency. During peak season, yard waste (to include grass, leaves, brush and trimmings) can be as much as 35% - 50% of the waste stream. Any effort to divert materials from the landfill must include yard waste as an option if it is to be successful. Currently, Roanoke County has no formal yard waste management program. In the packet of legislation with HB 1743, the General Assembly has encouraged the localities to e 23 ~-) implement yard waste programs by giving them the authority to ban such materials from the landfills. The locality may prohibit the disposal of leaves and grass clippings after July 1, 1995 provided the municipality has developed a composting program capable of handling all such materials generated within its jurisdiction. In November of 1996, talks were initiated by Roanoke County to begin a regional yardwaste compost operation that includes Roanoke County, Roanoke City, the Town of Vinton, City of Salem and several local fanners in the area. The original program was to be thought of as an on-fann composting operation, with various farmers participating in all four quadrants of the County. The finished compost would be used as a soil amendment to their fields. At that time staff found a local contractor in the Bent Mountain area of the County who was then responsible for disposing of as much as 800 tons of poultry manure from a commercial poultry operation called Seaboard Farms. The contractor had agreements with farms in a 50 mile radius of Seaboard Fanns to land-apply the dried poultry manure to their fields as a soil amendment. He was very interested in the commercial composting aspect and using poultry manure mixed with leaves, grass, sawdust, ground brush and any other yard waste material we can provide. The first year he had plans to sell the compost in bulk to farmers, landscapers, and nurseries that can use the material as a soil amendment. Researchers from Virginia Tech were assisting in the project with setting up and monitoring the windrows, and running tests to determine the grade, or quality, ofthe finished product. Tech was looking at this project as a potential solution to the age-old problem in the poultry industry of waste disposal. This operation did not work out as the individual was unable to effectively produce and market his product. Roanoke County ultimately had to go back and clean up the bags of leaves that had been deposited on the site. We are currently looking for other options to avoid having to contract with a private individual for disposal of yard waste. At this time, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, which operates the regional landfill and transfer station, appears to be the best option available. The problem seems to be in locating a site that is large enough to accommodate the tonnage we project for all four localities (10,000 - 12,000 tons per year), equally accessible for all localities and a site that is permitable for compo sting operations by DEQ, and will be convenient for all four valley governments to gain access. Roanoke County has made every attempt possible to prevent brush materials from going into the landfill. There is a bulkfbrush collection schedule under which this material is collected separately from the normal household trash, every two weeks. The brush is taken to the Tinker Creek Transfer Station and ground for mulch. When small bundles of brush are placed out for collection, it is sometimes not feasible to send a separate truck for collection, so it is picked up with other trash and is not separated for shredding. In 2003, Roanoke County collected approximately 5,400 tons of brush. The Solid Waste Division has been responsible for the collection of bagged leaves during a two month period from the first week of November to late December. During the rest of the year a small percentage (3%) of bagged leaves collected go to the landfill. In the past several years, the leaves have been landfilled due to the inability to find and fund a compo sting site. e 24 ("'~..... '\ .,c,,~-- , , , In addition to the leaves, the Solid Waste Division has kept a vast majority of the Christmas trees out of the landfill for the past eight years. During the second week of January, for a one week period, the department utilizes separate trucks for the collection of the trees. The County diverts on average 90 -115 tons of Christmas trees per year. The current five year solid waste plan calls for the continuation of this program in its present state. The County of Roanoke recently changed its method of bulk/brush collection and simultaneously converted all manual collection to automated collection, As a result we hope to have the equipment and manpower capacity to continue these programs and perhaps even expand our yard waste program should the opportunity present itself. All environmental and ecological standards are met when operating these programs. Public Education/Information Programs A good publicity campaign is the best way to secure and sustain high interest and therefore high participation rates in a program. The main goals of Roanoke County's recycling publicity campaign are to promote recycling behavior and create a sense of community pride that encourages participation. This becomes especially critical when a locality does not offer curbside collection. The Clean Valley Council has performed valuable work in the publicity/promotional sector and will continue to do so in the future. County staff has relied on the Council a great deal for information. In addition, the Clean Valley Council staff does a tremendous amount of public speaking engagements educating the public about recycling in general, as well as the County program, The Council also performs an invaluable service by providing an environmental educator to speak at schools. The Council has developed an entire curriculum dealing with waste management issues and will present it to any interested school system. Recycling programs that capture the interest of school age children have a much better chance of succeeding. Listed below is a brief synopsis of all eve activities available. CVC offers educational services related to recycling and litter control. Target audiences often include the general public, the schools and businesses. These services are described below: General Public . Speaking engagements: offered to civic groups, church groups, clubs, youth organizations, senior citizen groups, and/or professional meetings on a by- request basis. . Distribution of materials by direct request: brochures on a variety of subjects related to waste minimization and recycling may be obtained by calling or writing the eve office. e 25 Area Schools r~ \,'~- \ . Participation at special events: CYC can provide a visual display for festivals, trade shows, etc., accompanied by staff to distribute materials and answer questions. . Elementary: grade-specific programs featuring videos and/or hands-on activities are scheduled by each school's principal. Every school is mailed a detailed description of these programs at the beginning of the year. . Middle/high school: Programs are scheduled at the request of individual teachers or club sponsors and are developed to complement current areas of study/interest. The Earth Summit was developed in conjunction with the CYC to specifically target high school students. It has been highly successful. . Colleges: lectures designed to provide in-depth information on subjects related to a specific course of study are available on an individualized basis (example: "Recycling in the restaurant or hotel business"). . School-wide assemblies/programs: programs appropriate to any grade level for special presentations to large groups. . School-Boards, PTA's, etc.: CYC staff is available to serve as members of recycling committees and/or to present programs to these organizations on an on- going or interim basis. Business or Industry . Telephone consultations: provide businesses with information on local resources available for setting up recycling programs. . Written materials: CYC's Business Waste Recycling Guide and other written materials are available on request. . . On-site visits: Staff is available for on-site consultations to help with program assessment and implementation, as well as with employee education and motivation. County staff has already implemented a business recycling education program. County staff plans to continue to work with The Clean Yalley Council to encourage and assist Valley businesses in setting up in-house recycling programs. The group will serve as an informational source for the businesses as well as a contact point between the businesses and the private haulers. e 26 ~<'-\ , \ \ Waste to Enere" Roanoke County has no plans in the next five years to implement Resource Recovery (waste to energy) as a solid waste disposal alternative. It can, therefore, have no economic or environmental impact. Resource Recovery as a viable solid waste management alternative will be reviewed at each five year plan update period. Incineration Roanoke County has no plans in the next five years to implement incineration as a waste disposal method. It can, therefore, have no economic or environmental impact. Incineration will be reviewed as a solid waste management alternative at each five year plan update period. ' Landfills Landfills are the most common method of waste disposal in the Commonwealth of V irginia and are the primary method of waste disposal by the County of Roanoke. Landfilling is the final segment of the waste management hierarchy and any comprehensive waste management plan must detail the use of landfills in the disposal of waste. There is only one landfill involved in the disposal of Roanoke County's waste during the next five years (and next 20 years). This section will detail the current Smith Gap Landfill in an attempt to describe the landfilling segment of the hierarchy. The County of Roanoke has no need to explore any other alternatives for disposal at this time. The Smith Gap Landfill was opened for use in May 1994, and is located in the northwestern part of Roanoke County at 8484 Bradshaw Road. The landfill is operating on a 1,200 acre site and there are some 640 acres of fillable land with the remainder being utilized as buffer zones or other non-Iandfillable uses. The Smith Gap Landfill is in a part of the County in a geographic section that is best described as mountainous and rural. There are no major state highways that directly access the site or allow for large truck travel. A small administrative road to the site, to provide access for employees of the landfill, administrative traffic, and visitor access is available for cars and pick up trucks. The actual transport of waste to the landfill is done by rail cars that were designed by the Norfolk Southern railroad, and Norfolk Southern currently has the contract to haul all waste going from the Tinker Creek Transfer Station to the Smith Gap Landfill. As of spring 1997, Phase I of the ten permitted phases has been filled but not yet closed. The first ten phases cover approximately 100 acres of the total 1 ,200 acre site. The landfilling in this 640 acre section will be developed in phases consisting of 20 - 25 year time frames. Each phase will be permitted separately and will cover various amounts of acreage with the first phase occupying a 25 acre section ofthe site. The Smith Gap Landfill is projected to have a working e 27 ~,"::^ "\... . . " \. -í ,°," f life of 90-100 years, with closure taking place sometime in 2094. This landfill meets all current State and Federal mandates with regard to operation and environmental impact. The transfer station is centrally located at 1020 Hollins Road in northeast Roanoke City and will provide for basic processing of waste materials in preparation for transport to the landfill. Approximately 22 acres are being used for the station, and the station is capable of processing 1,600 tons of waste per day. The transfer station has an extensive system of waste separation activities including brush, materials recycling drop-off, contractor debris, white goods (refrigerators, stoves, etc.), tires and car batteries. Other options for the handling of these materials are being analyzed and certain cost factors may suggest off-site alternatives to handling waste to be diverted from the landfill. 28 (~-\ , ' SOURCES Virginia Waste Management Board, Workbook for Planning Assistance Program. Clean Valley Council. Business Waste Recycling Guide. Roanoke: Clean Valley Council, 1990. Roanoke -Valley Allegheny Regional Commission - on-line data 2000, Marketing Information Data and Services. Recyclable Materials Market Study for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Richmond: MIDAS, 1989, pp. 23-83. Virginia Department of Waste Management. Regulations for the Development of Solid Waste Management Plans. Richmond: Virginia Department of Waste Management. e 29 ~ "" APPENDIX A Stages of Accomplishment " ~,~\ STAGES OF ACCOMPLISHMENT Phase I Curbside program began in 1987, approximately 1,000 homes participated in the pilot. Program was expanded in 1989 when 900 homes were added. Funding was a joint effort between Roanoke County, Clean Valley Council, Cycle Systems Inc., and Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Phase II Began taking recycle vehicle to various locations to serve as drop-off center. Permanent drop-offs located at Cave Spring Comers in Roanoke County. 1989 began program to attempt total diversion of leaves and Christmas trees from landfill. Funding covered under current budget appropriations. In 1990 new pilot automated commingle recycling program began in nearly 1,700 homes. Funding was a joint effort between Roanoke County and Regional Landfill Board. (Program was suspended 1997) Phase III Implement aggressive program to incorporate commerciallbusiness sector into County plan. Develop reporting requirements for businesses to detail recyclable materials and non-recyclable wastes. Continue present curbside collection of recyclable materials (in pilot areas), leaves and Christmas trees. Continue present drop-off system. Funding of operations to be covered under general fund monies as well as any grant monies available. (Program was suspended 1997) Staff encourages use of various drop-off located around the Valley. By 1991 Improved reporting of business recycling Current curbside collection Current diversion of leaves and Christmas trees Current drop-off system (mobile & Kroger) 10% BY 1993 More involved commerciallbusiness sector % increase in curbside participants e Al ~J.J""-- \ "'-~" \ \ Phased-in yard waste program Drop-off program 15% By 1995 Completely involved commerciallbusiness sector % increase in curbside participants (program suspended 1997) Yard waste program Drop-off program 25% Calculation Methodology: Where the total waste stream going into the landfill is known the recycling rate = RATE = (RECYCLED/TOTAL) X 100% Note: Staff feels that very aggressive commerciallbusiness program will achieve even higher diversion rates. Staff plans to continue exploring provision of more recycling opportunities for citizens. Staff is committed to maintaining current recycling rate. e A2 ~"- \ ~ ~ , APPENDIX B Roanoke County Schools Recycling Activities e -\ ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS RECYCLING ACTIVITIES In accordance with 1990 legislation (SB 287, HJR 158, HJR 153), each agency, university and public school must implement new solid waste management programs. Specifically the school system must do the following: 1) Recycle (at a minimum) office paper, cardboard, glass aluminum and used motor oil. Other materials include newspaper, metal, plastic, bi-metal cans, yard or arboreal waste and used vehicle tires, batteries and antifreeze. 2) Document the amount of waste generated and the amount recycled. 3) Promote procurement of products made partially or fully of recycled raw materials. 4) Minimize the amount of waste generated. 5) Develop plans and implement procedures for achieving above. Roanoke County School System had implemented several phases of the requirements as set forth by the ate. An employee of the school system had been given the mission of developing and overseeing the -recycling activities. The school board had commissioned an advisory committee to help develop and implement various solid waste strategies. Below is a brief overview of some of the strategies the schools have already implemented: Schools have changed from fan fold towels to roll-out towels. Schools have also converted to large roll tissue dispensers. Both of which reduce usage and waste. The schools have started developing a special environmental curriculum in conjunction with the Clean Valley Council. As a result of this area of study some schools have implemented in- school recycling programs (usually to separate paper products). Several of the schools have very active science clubs which often spearhead recycling efforts. Administration plans to encourage this type of activity. Many of the schools have dumpsters in place to recycle cardboard. Polystyrene recycling was implemented in several pilot schools. In these schools, the polystyrene dishes were collected and taken to a densifier, supplied by the Dart Container Corp., to be baled. A truck from Dart collected the densified plastic and took it to a plant in Pennsylvania to be processed. At this time, County staff is unaware of status of project. eo B2 (~. " . .. --\' "-~ ' Another project tested was the use of plastic milk pouches instead of cartons. Roanoke County school staff was looking for someone to recycle the pouches; nevertheless, the pouches do take up less room in the landfill than cartons would. County staff is unaware of status of this project. B3 e APPENDIX C Citizen Advisory Committee Summary e THE ROANOKE COUNTY RECYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (This Committee No Longer Exists) This committee had the following scope and purpose. SCOPE The Recycle Advisory Committee had primary concern with issues pertaining to refuse recycling within the total Roanoke County staff and school board administrative operations, residential recycle collection and commercial recycle collection. PURPOSE . To increase citizen awareness and participation in recycling. . To provide citizen input on the County Solid Waste plan. . To review the recycle portion of the solid waste plan. . To monitor the County progress toward the recycle goals. . To aid in the implementation of County recycle policies. . To provide the board periodic reports on County recycling. l\1EMBERSHIP There were originally eight members on the committee. The committee membership was comprised of elected officials, county staff, Clean Valley Staff, citizen, and business people. In the regulations set forth by the Department of Waste Management, citizen participation in the development of the comprehensive solid waste plan was strongly recommended. In choosing to appoint a committee the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors endorsed this concept. Committee input has been a successful technique for County staff in the past when projects have affected both private and commercial concerns. The committee prioritized their issues: . County Achievement of State Mandated Goals . Comprehensive Recycling Plan . County Policy/Ordinance: Mandatory vs. Other . Commercial Recycling: Education and Recognition . Recycling Activity Reporting . Source Reduction While there is no standing committee to provide input, Roanoke County has used citizen input on other solid waste management issues. For the planning and siting of both the transfer station and the landfill, two separate citizen groups were used extensively. These groups met frequently and were very involved in all aspects of both projects. There are still citizen representatives on the board of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. Cl e (;}- ~ The Clean Valley Council is a citizen driven board that deals exclusively with solid waste management issues. While their primary focus is solid waste education, they still provide valuable input on many of the issues that the localities are facing. C2 e APPENDIX D Method of Reporting Statistics ~- \ '~ Commonwealth of Virginia Locality Recycling Rate Report For Calendar Year 2003 Contact Information Reporting Jurisdiction: County of Roanoke Person Completing This Form: Nancv ß, Duval Title: Solid Waste Manager Address: 1216 Kessler Mill Rd Street/P .0, Box Salem City VA State 24153 Zip Phone #: (540) 387-6200 Fax #: (540) 387-6112 Email Address: nd uval@roanokecountyva.gov Member Governments (The local governments identified in your regional solid waste management plan): Roanoke Valley Resource Authority is a regional disposal facility. It is listed in our individual plans as a regional facility. The members are the City of Roanoke. County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton. ic;ï~-;¡;t;d-R~~y~iing'R;t~: Usingthè fu;;ul~-p~~vid~d b~l;;- andthe i~f~~~ti~~-_._._---] ¡ identified on Page 2 calculate your recycling rate for the reportingperiod. ' " , I I [r+S] I [p"¡:S +MJ X 100=~clingRáte I I I i " ,', ' " ' " '. .' " , . i I [ 15.491.72 + 72.74] IT 15491.72 +', 72.74' '+ 44,791] X 100 ! ¡ [Total PRM (P) + Total SRM (S)] / [Total PRM (P) + Total SRM (S) + Total MSW (M)] Xl 00 I ! ' ' , " " , ,," , ,.",'",," , i i j i I I I I ---~"..;...-_.-J '2'58.0/ \=. . . ,,',. /0 1.- 'Recr cl!~l!i~te ----------------_.._-~-_.:..~~-~._--- ' I certify that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this form and any attached documents, and that, based on my inqun-y of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete, These records will be made av . able for auditing pu ses, if requested. ~ J-ÇJL ~~ nrlt, Tille ( ~~~ Date Return completed form by Apri130, 2004 to: Virginia DEQ, Attn: Recycling Rates, P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, VA 23240. e. DEQ Form 50-30 (Revised) lof6 un 0/2003 Locality Recycling Rate Report Instructions rs~ '--- '\ ,,~ . , OPTIONAL: Use this page to identify those programs, activities, procedures or operations which you feel reflect the locality's commitment to waste minimization, waste reduction, and/or materials reuse which by definition on the recycling rate reporting form may not be included in the recycling rate calculation. Roanoke County and the Environment In the Spring af200l, Roanoke County embarked on an investigation of its potential to adversely impact, as well as improve the environment by creating an environmental assessment team (EAT). It was decided that in order to determine how best to have a positive impact on the environment through its activities, management practices must be put in place so as to objectively assess and improve procedures that may potentially impact the environment. The environmental assessment team detennined that the most appropriate environmental management model was contained in the ISO 14001 standard. At a work session held on July 10,2001, the Board of Supervisors for the County of Roanoke, received a presentation on the ISO 14001 process for certification and creation of an environmental management system. During that session, the EAT recommended implementation of an ISO 14001 based environmental management system (EMS) as well as adoption of an environmental policy statement that would guide the activities of the EMS. Environmental Policy The citizens, Board of Supervisors and Administration of Roanoke County are committed to maintaining and improving the environment of the Roanoke Valley. Roanoke County government will establish, maintain and continually improve an Environmental Management System that: ~l . . . . . Identifies, evaluates and manages potential environmental impacts of the County's activities and services; Brings environmental issues and solutions to the attention of county government; Confonns to requirements of applicable environmental laws and regulations; Employs pollution prevention to eliminate or reduce adverse environmental impacts; and Encourages other organizations to establish and implement environmental management systems. The County of Roanoke has entered into the Roanoke MSA Ozone Early Action Compact with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, EPA Region III, Salem, Roanoke, Vinton and Botetourt County, The purpose of the Compact is to develop an Ozone Early Action Plan (OEAP) and subseqnent activities that would reduce Ozone concentrations in the Roanoke Valley to levels compliant with the EP A's National Ambient Air Quality Standard. In so doing, we would not only improve our air quality but also avoid being designated an official nonattainment area and thereby face various mandatory compliance measures, The aforementioned municipalities, VDEQ, EP A, several local businesses and community groups have been meeting over the last year, under the guidance ofthe Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission to develop the Early Action Plan. . Significant Environmental Aspects for Roanoke County . Vehicle Use . Energy use . Stormwater runoff, erosion . Paper waste . Motorized equipment eo DEQ Form 50-30 (Revised) 4 of6 12110/2003 ~ "\ ,,"- \ '. , ~.._-----------_.,-_.~--__.Lo£!!!~J.~: e~Y,..~_!i:!!g R~!~_~~p' 0 r( IDst_ru cti ODS -~----~....__..._-_._~--~ ¡ .. '.' '.". ¡ ¡ I OPTIONAL: Use this page to report and summarize information for the "Other" categories on Page 2 of this form. SRMs, "other" material: (If your locality processed and recyded storm debris from the hurricane, this excess material should be listed here and not included in the waste wood or yal'd waste category under PRMs,) Material Total SRMs Recycled Tons Recycled (to "Other" entry, Page 2) SRMs, "other" material: (Ash generated by an industrial operation does not quality as }\fSW material and should not be induded in the Ash category on Page 2, or included in the recycling rate calculation, Tonnage and use should be identified on Page 4 as beneficial reuse,) Material Total SRMs Reused Tons Reused (to "Other" entry, Page 2) Iö 3 of6 12110./2003 DEQ Form 50-30 (Revised) c:~-\ ~. Locality Recycling Rate Report For Calendar Year 2003 '>art I: Principal Recyclable Material (PRM): Report only PRM generated within the reporting -jurisdiction(s), NOT imported PRM. PRM TYPE Paper Metal Plastic Glass Commingled Yard Waste (composted or mulched) Waste wood (chipped or mulched) (see Other, Page 3) Textiles TOT AL PRM 5,400 12.4 15.491.72 (P) Part II: Supplemental Recyclable Material (SRM): Report only SRM generated within the reporting jurisdiction(s), NOT imported SRM. SRM TYPE RECYCLED AMOUNT/Tons Waste Tires 65.45 Used Oil 7.29 Used Oil Filters Used Antifreeze Abandoned automobiles removed Batteries Sludge (composted) - Electronics Tree Stumps (> 6" Diameter) Other (ftom Page 3) SUB TOT AL8 72,74 (RECYCLED SRM) REUSED* AMOUNT/Tons* Construction Waste Demolition Waste Debris Waste Ash (see Other, Page 3) Other (from Page 3) SUBTOTALS TOTALSRM (REUSED SRM) 72.74 (8) Part ill: Total Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Disposed**: Report only MSW generated within the reporting jurisdiction(s) , NOT imported waste. MSW TYPE Household Commercial Institutional Other * * * TOTAL MSW DISPOSED 44.791 (M) * Material separated from the waste stream and used, without processing or changing its form, for the same or another end use. ** Disposed for the purpose of this report means delivery to a permitted sanitary landfill or waste incinerator for disposal. ***}.1ay add total amounts ofSRM generated, ifknown. TOTAL AMOUNT D ISPO8ED (TONS) 42,291 2,500 e DEQ Form 56-30 (Revised) 2of6 12/10/2003 ~I --~ ¡ PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Sam & Mercedes Hardy 18-6/2004 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 6, 2004 (Continued from June 1, 2004) July 27,2004 (Continued from June 22, 2004) A, REQUEST The petition of Sam L. and Mercedes P. Hardy to rezone 1.3 acres from AG3 Agricultural Preserve District to PRD Planned Residential District and rezone 97 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to PRD Planned Residential District, located south of Whistler Drive and Creek Circle and east of Apple Grove Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District B, CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. David Crane, 7822 Creek Circle expressed concerns with stormwater runoff to the creek behind his home. Encroachment upon the view shed and services that would be utilized were concerns as well. Mr, Crane wanted Mr. Hardy to donate the open space to Roanoke County so everyone in the community could utilize the open space. Mr. Hardy said the open space would fall under the homeowners association, Mr, Crane also questioned fire access to an 18' wide road and how would a school bus access the property. Mr. Crane also wanted to know whether the creek would be studied or not. Ms. Donna Lane, 7739 Creek Circle requested Roanoke County to preserve the view shed of this property. Ms. Lane was against development in Southwest Roanoke County, She also had concerns with sewage fields and wells. Mr. Gary Murray, 7131 Lodi Lane was concerned that the view from his home would be ruined. Ms. Amy Murray, 7131 Lodi Lane expressed concern that the Parkway view shed would be encroached upon and wildlife would be dispersed to the neighborhoods, Ms. Teresa Thomas, 7534 Apple Grove Lane also expressed concerns with the Parkway view shed. C, SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Chris Lowe presented the petition. Mr. Thomason questioned the terrain of the property and how mountainous it was. Mr. Thomason also had concerns because he has not seen the site as of that time, Ms. Hooker also expressed concern about voting on the petition before a site visit was taken, D. CONDITIONS 1. Minimum of 18' paved width for private road, 2. Maximum 16% grade for private road. 3. Development must be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan dated, 4/21/2004. E, COMMISSION ACTION{S) Mr. AI Thomason made a motion to continue the petition for 30 days. Motion carried 5-0. e 6 F, DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G, ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan - Staff Report - Vicinity Map - Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission e R;-, 7 Petitioner: Sam L. Hardy Jr. & Mercedes P. Hardy 5954 Landview Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 ~~1 Request: Rezoning from AR & AG-3 to PRD Magisterial District: Proffers: Whistler Creek Circle - Applegrove Windsor Hills Location: 1. Minimum of 18' paved width for private road. 2, Maximum of 16% grade for private road. 3, Development must be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan dated, 4/21/2004.' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a rezoning request from AR & AG-3 to PRD for 97.543 acres, at Whistler Creek Circle & Applegrove. The majority of the property, approximately 96 acres is zoned AR, Agriculture Residential and the remaining acreage (approximately 1-1 Y2) is zoned AG-3. The property is designated as Rural Preserve in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The petitioner requests to rezone the entire tract. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Building Permits for Single Family Homes Required. V DOT Entrance Approval Required. Site Plan Approval. Floodplain study may be required during site plan review. Current AR zoning allows 1 Acre Lots with private well and sewer. 2, ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS TopographY/Vegetation - The property consists of90% timbered woodland. The tract was cut approximately 5 years ago. The topography is generally steep and rolling, Because of the size of the tract it has a few ridgelines as well as varying degrees of slopes, A stream runs through approximately 36 acres of the property which is being designated as open space. A floodplain study may be required during site plan review. Surrounding Neighborhood - Approximately 50% of the adjoining properties are vacant woodlands. AG-3 zoned properties adjoin to the west, south, and east, and AR zoned properties adjoin to the north. e 1 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ,t) t,- ., Background - Current conceptual plans show a subdivision of 12 lots with ~ingle family residences, approximately 36 acres of open space, and 3 out parcels. Anticipated use is single- family homes utilizing the natural terrain and specific site criteria for design. The petitioner proposes that site plans for each individual lot will be required and must be developed by a certified landscape architect, and will be subject to the developer's approval. The petitioner also proposes that natural exterior materials and colors are to blend in with the natural woodland setting, houses will not be built on steep slopes and houses will have a minimum of 1600 square feet and be limited in height of 45 feet and shall be sensitive to the surrounding view sheds. Site Layout/Architecture - No building site is visible to any of the existing adjoining homes, No houses will be closer than 150 feet to one another within the development. The conceptual plan shows a private road which serves the 12 single family lots, Access/Traffic Circulation - V DOT states that the development of this single-family residential subdivision will increase the traffic from this site, A minimum sight distance of 390 feet on Route 937 will be required in either direction and will be addressed during site plan review, Roanoke County Traffic Engineer - Mr, Ford does not feel that the increase of traffic (approximately 120 trips per day) is significant enough to cause a point of concern, Mr. Ford does recommend that the proposed 16-ft- private road be increased to 18-ft to allow for easier passage of vehicles that may meet on this private road. Mr. Ford also recommends that the applicant meet all county standards set forth in the "Public Street and Parking Design Standards and Specifications", These specifications require an 18-ft paved road with 2' shoulders and a maximum grade of.16%, Fire & RescuelUtilities -Fire and rescue services will continue, as they currently exist and should not adversely impact Fire and Rescue call volume at this time, Fire and Rescue does have concerns with the plans only showing one means of entry and exit into this subdivision because of it's location in a wildland/interface area and is heavily wooded, Fire and Rescue recommends building materials for roofbe asphalt or "Fire Retardant" wood shake shingles because of the possibility of a wildland fire in this area, Fire and Rescue also recommend brick or stucco exterior walls for the same reasons, Fire and Rescue also recommend driveways that would be wide enough for a Fire and Rescue Apparatus to get up and down without difficulty. Public water and sanitary sewer is not currently available, This petition does not affect the existing public water and sanitary sewer systems. 4, CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated as Rural Preserve in the 1998 Community Plan, Rural Preserve designated land use areas are where preservation options and certain design strategies can be followed which would allow future development but leave land available for productive agricultural acivities and open space, and preserve rural views and vistas, This petition is consistent with the Rural Preserve designation of the 'Roanoke County Community Plan, e 2 K '\ , . ,.- ì.,.' . . f 5, STAFF CONCLUSIONS This is a request to obtain a rezoning from AR & AG-3 to PRD for the construction of 12 single family homes and 3 outparcels, The request involves a 97.543 acre tract off of Whistler Creek Circle. . The petitioner's request is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Roanoke County Community Plan. The site has ample space to conform to all applicable development standards. CASE NUMBER: 18-6/2004 PREP ARED BY: Chris Lowe HEARING PC: June 1, 2004 DATES: BOS: June 22, 2004 " 3 , , County of Roanoke Community Developmént Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only (\/\ Received by: 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number ',,~"""~-,};;r¡D_".;_'~.,'..~,'F.'::.,rri,~.-.",,¡:~.':,,",'.~,",~:",-.",,':,~.:,':~,.:"" '..' ',,'" ',"", ,"',"'.'" """"".":-"'" ~::., "., ,.., ."..........,...::,"...,:.' ':""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" Check type of application filed (check all thAt app1y) ffRezoning 0 Special Use 0 Vaxia.nce 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appw Applicants name/address wlzip . Phone: 114 -'7£;1'7' ~\V\ L - "~'rZ.'tN ,::rn. ;"4 L:t4D~:Ù ~ ~~~: ;;~: ~~o KEZtZ.C~fi--; ?, HÅ~O'( oM-1o E: ~4Ó,ca Fax No.: 342- ~L41 Application fee: PC~ dz.!t: Placards issued: Owner's name/address wJzíp 4.&. toA. ft:. Phone #: Work: Fax No, #: '- Property Location tJI4ISrU£/l. - (!~It£~ <2JItc.t.t£ AfPLfi.~f(,ollf:: CDmmUILity Plamrlng area: Tax Map No,: , Z' A r? ,0 -2-/ /C/,/ $3 Existing omng: J.4\, ~ ~~"5 Size ofparcel(s): Acres: '17, S43 (ez Existing !.aDd Use: .,::':~~':"":"::.'\¡,~,:",h,,:,'-:;~.:~c.,~~J; ;-¡S'E-.'p~-,;~~";,",~;;~~"r':';'~(~i,i;j:;;¡¡fð.,"~.~,"~;~:",,~;~;;~#;:i&;is;'<m:-',-,", . .".",..,.. , , "':,"'-""'" """,," ":' ""',,', ,'" "" " ~,'o['.§F'e....~ !:I}"., re~~~',~..g. r'r~!':e.~M!.-£i!~H'H.:~"~,~" '. . , ' -~""!""""""""" .. ,--""",~',.'...._~~J,-"...~~--.__....".-.. .~.-.."'"'~_...-_."'..._.....-_.....-,,-.......,_..._.,-~,.--- -'.".- Proposed Zoning: P f(,P " Proposed Land Use: 12 t,~~ ~M$~ ':#;:::"'-1 ð5'FJJf4f'l: Does the p¡y-cel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requ.iremeDts of the requested district? Yes ,/' No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes /' No IF NO, A V ARlANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST ~ If rezomng request, are conditions being proffered with this r~est? Yes ~ No ~i~~~~4i1%ß; ~,:@. ~_1i!~è~~¡¡jjJ' ,'. ':"~'='ii~iii~.~~.:~;..J J .',~.~~~;: ,'. ~.~~~~,~~ '^~~~,.==~.:~~.~= VariancelWaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Magisterial District: W 1 ~"P~o12- t-l \ Ll.. S Appeal of Zonhlg Adm1nìstrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordlmnce Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF A.NY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE, '1Jsrw V/AA Rlsrw VJA..4.. RJSIW V/AA rn Consultation Eii 8 112" x 11. concept p1a.n EE Application fee Application Metes and bounds &scription' Proffers, if applicable 'Justification Water and sewer application AdjoÍIring property OWDers , I b!:I'eby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or CODtract pmchaser and am acting with the knowledge aDd' consem of the owner. ~. .9. ~ I Owner's Signature ------ (--""""."" .. "". "."."...",..-.,.,.,...",.., """""""."""""-"'-"""""""~".'.'.-" \.""""""""1 . ~":"";N-:ißPT"p.LANdtECKL1St . . . ..- t~::~~~..:~:;-:...::,,' , . ,: .",:. ,.....'...,... ,....-...",.. -.," --. '~......-_:.., ',,"'" ......,.""'-'--'-- ---- _.........)...... ... ",""""'" ,.., .. ' A concept plan of the proposed proj~ct must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use chaJlge, development or variance tha.t 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 appliC3llt 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 of a building permit, Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require chang~s to the initial'concept plan. UD1ess limiting conditions are proffered and accepted ÌD a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the emnt permitted by the zoning district and other regulations , A concept plan is required with ill rezoning, special use perinit, waiver and varlaDce applications, The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner, The level of detail may vary, depending on tlle nature of the request. The COUD,1)' , PlaDIÛ1lg Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but tlle' following are considered minimum.: . ALL APPLICANTS ,/ B. Applicant name and name of development / b, Date, scale and noI1h arrow / c. Lot size m acres or square feet and dimensions L d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke CO'U1lty tax map numbers of adjommg properties ./ e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. / f, The zoning and land use of all ådjacent properties . / g. All property 1ine~ and easements ./ h. All buildings, existing and proposed. and dimensions, floor area ~d heights / i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways wi!hin or adjacent to the development / j, Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPUCANrS ~ k, .JL' 1, /m, ~n. ~/þ. o. '/ - p, Þ!Jt. q. Existing urllities (water, sewer, storm. drains) and connections at the site luJ.y driveways, entrances/exits, ClJIb openiD.gs and crossovers Topography map in a suitabIe scale and contour intervals Approximate street grades aDd site distances at intersections Locations of all adjacent me hydrants AIiy proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed If project is to be phased, p1ease show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. )<::/c- ~ ø~ # I Signature of applkant 4/1;z,/6+ Date . 6 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONING REQUEST Ii " f\ I 1\-' The subject tract of this PRD consists of97 acres of timbered woodland, The timber on about 90% of this tract was cut about 5 years ago. Already, the site is showing positive signs of natural regeneration of the forest. Over 50% of the adjoining boundary is vacant woodland. A large portion of the proposed 36 acre open space was not timbered and has a pristine mountain stream floWing thru. It is the intent to keep this area in an untouched state for all in the development to enjoy. The highlight of the development is the spectular views of the valley and the surrounding mountains and the extensive walking trails thru the 36 acre open space, By limiting the number of home sites we feel this is the highest and best use of the land. - 1- This request furthers the purpose of the Roanok.e County AR zoning ordinance by offering very low density of single family residences utilizing the natural terrain in a gentle way. The site is outside the urban service area ( only 6.5 miles to Cave Spring Corners) but convenient to major retail, office space, restaurants, and major medical facilities. Agriculture will not be encouraged because of the wooded nature of this tract. - 2- The developer will oversee the development by requiring an individual site plan on each lot. The site plan will be developed by an approved landscape architect and will be subject to the developers approval following specific site criteria. That is, houses will be required to use natural exterior materials and colors to blend in with the natural eo ~-) woodland setting. Houses are not to be built on steep slopes. Hous~s will have a .. . minimum of 1600 square feet and be limited in height of 45 feet and to be sensitive to the surrounding view sheds. All of the building sites are not visible to any of the adjoining existing homes. Furthermore. no houses will be closer than 150 feet to another house within the development. Yard space will be limited to allow the forest to regenerate which will assure privacy between the home sites. No temporary structures shall be used as a residence at any time. 3- There will be no impact on the adjoining properties because the home sites are not in close proximity or visible to them. The home sites will have private well and septic, underground electric, telephone and cable thus not requiring any public infrastructure. The streets will be private and maintained by the homeowners association .Because of the low density and targeted market of retirees there will be minimal impact on the schools. Fire and rescue will not be strained because of the low density .Parks and recreation will be provided within the development by the walking trails, Street grades at intersections are 5 %. Site distances are 350 feet or more. Streets in the development are within a 50 foot right of way, See the typical road section for details. ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ .;r §? U~~~ c ~Ii" 2 ß ~~I\") . t ~! ì -':) !~ ~ " e e i ii;â ~II=) ~ ~¡ I Ii !f h ~ ! i ¡~ i~1 ~ ~I i ~ ~ lil~~2 11~~~a ... ~.:§I! , -III'" ;I!§~: i ~ ~ "... - ~ ~li~l~ ¡.~~o:~~i. rIB~~~ I i§b DOl .- 'zr""" JYId HU/CW ~~ Z " wi.. :ill ¡,~n~ ...!:",,~wI '1IIi~ lilil ¡ti ~11:t¡!i:! "¡"... ~I~ .~~ " ~u- .- 'i' ¡,il1å ~I ~i~ h~~ ~ba ~7 ~ t; B 'i' ¡ ~ ~".Id>. ~ ~ T , ~ ~ I a . ~~~~'" ~~'?¡;; ." :! !è ~ ~~~~~gm~"~::~~ n~~i! ~ ~ iI<!?1:.; ..... ~ t:~IfS~ ~4.a+ ... c¡: !tl~ I:::\~~~ t,o:.J!S ~il,,- b~ ~ÇrJ2~~!§ ~~=-'. I!~u ~ ~ ..~~~~,-~~8åliS~ 11..- C'c; ~"::i .~13 ~~!oQ~IIi~ t~~~ <:C ~ I '4up;~!ã~' ~ I ~~ ~ ~'ì'~~~ It:~. s: ~~~.. ~ :..:~I') ~!i!"'C§ :! i~CIj~~ ~ ~ ~ 1\ ~ r;; ~ ~ 2 - ~ ai , ~18i¡& ~:¡:¡§..i! II~il~ 51 1i ~I'¡¡I!~~ ~ L!dll~1 ~ ~"'~ Þi ~i~t:~ iel "'~i~I¡'~11 i~!M II~h~~!~1 d¡i~I~~i~ n~l¡ ::&1' ~;~ ~iil :idl;l~¡1 ;; .. , II> ~ ÍÒ' ... ~ ~~I¡, h~1 ill' ¡i.: h§i !~~I '!d";;~ I!¡,o:~~§ ¡¡!¡~I ~' e ¡¡¡II ~ I!! Iii b~ ~, I ~¡~iW5 11:111 ~llib lill!! I ~ ~ ~ t;¡ ~ a:; ~ .. ~ ~ .. ~ ¡:: t! g¡ .. I: ~ iii .. ;: a t .. i Ir< -"1 v \. \ \ c;¡ "'" I".' ""'~ë.6-Ø ~we..12. L..,....e. '!:.~. OlJTP/>.IZCeL ~ !: I~ A.c:.. ...-- --', \.~(. -". 'W""'\~ì~ 'T('«Il.. I : ,f' . OorpÁ~e:L @ '¡ :!: 1.7 A.c:.. \ (~T '!> , fIIl"'T"( RI~ec¡,T) , . . --:>0<»-- L- EG, E..N 0 - -8 OI"EH srA.C~ 'l.c; CO~ÙIt'b .., 'D(U..\~~ ~~"(6 ,t.I""\..~)..t6i ~\L.S f'1tOf"!:Ç2.,.-r I..I¡.¡ett ~&\.!a !-\aU"e. '9I.if."õ ""'-'. '" " / .' ourp~eL..<D :O.".w.. ~ -::-:.:h œ I %..::>0' J Q-\I: $CA.I..4!. ME~CEDE~ HE'~HTS \20J...~O¡.(.e. COt)¡..¡T'( e.c.A.l-e: ,".. zoo' ytr<.Gt\ N \A.. pA.Te:4.2.I.O"'l- R-l 2,.1 ~iOI-'tINO()~ PA.\lEf.,l.g\.Ji (S.~) 8" e&..~ (2.\ 'He '2.( A.) \.ÂUJ, 1'2 Lt Llt)'~~ Ot~ M\N. ~' 7n~¡(e, ~ttJ, ~' 'n,~[kr DAN CHITWOOD cam'IED IJONI>SCOÆ MCHITECT ~ P.O.8ak2O9l2 ~~24D18 Homo I'hont 989-6827 T1?\ CA L ~D.' ~€.GTtON ~EQCEæ~ H-e\~t-\TS e SCALE: I-lO ~i DATE: DAWN BY: SHEET NO.: OF: e ~-~ PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Balzer & Associates 12-5/2004 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 6, 2004 (Continued from May 4, 2004) July 27,2004 (Continued from May 25,2004) A, REQUEST The petition of Balzer & Associates, Inc. to rezone 4.83 acres from 11 C Industrial District with Conditions to R 1 Low Density Residential District for a development of single family housing located at Tract B1-A-2 of Mason Subdivision, Hollins Magisterial District. (Continued at the request of the Planning Commission) B, CITIZEN COMMENTS C, SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D, CONDITIONS E, COMMISSION ACTION(S) F, DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G, ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan - Staff Report - Vicinity Map - Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 9 Petitioner: . , .:. ., .>~';"::' ;'r,.::..f)t~~~~FQß:]t::i:~,;::t,:';::;:~,'!;:~:},.::;'><;:":",/~?;~~~;'~;:i(;R::..,.;,~.'¡r'.~í¡.\WMì" Chad McGhee .\ C/O Balzer & Associates ; '.:- ~ Roanoke, VA 24018 Request: Rezoning from I-IC to R-l Location: Hollins Road Tract BI-A-2 of Mason Subdivision Magisterial District: Proffers: Hollins EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to rezone 4,83 acres from I-IC to R-l at the 5,000 block of Hollins Road for a 16 lot single family residential subdivision. The property is designated Principal Industrial in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. Principal Industrial is derIDed in the 1998 Community Plan as a future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate, The proposed petition would not fall under any of the land use type designations of Principal Industrial but would fall under the Neighborhood Conservation designation which adjoins the property. The petitioner requests to rezone the entire tract. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site Plan Review Building Pennit for Single Family Home Required, V DOT Entrance Approval Required, 2, ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS BacklZround - The property is currently zoned II Conditional, In March 1983, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors rezoned this tract as part of the Mountain View Farm Technological Park, The 40+ acre Mountain View Farm property was originally owned by the Roanoke County School Board, and later owned by the Board of Supervisors, In 1983, the Board of Supervisors petitioned to rezone the property for industrial development. During the conceptual design phase of the project, an extensive list of protective covenants were written to control the land use of the property as well as impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, Many of the restrictive covenants are similar to proffered conditions typically accepted by the Board of Supervisors. The restrictive covenants were referenced in condition #1 of the Board of Supervisors proffered conditions, e 1 +\- \ The restrictive covenants will remain whether or not the Board of Supervisors cho~ rezone the property. Typically, the County of Roanoke does not enforce private restrictive covenants. But in this case, the covenants were declared by the Board of Supervisors, and the Board would need to be involved in amending the covenants, if the property were rezoned. The Planning Commission's decision for this petition is whether or not to recommend amending the zoning district for the petitioner's property. If a favorable recommendation is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the Board of Supervisors amend the restrictive covenants, or simply leave the issue as matter for the Board to consider in the future, TopographvN egetation - The property increases in slope from front to back at a slope of approximately I to 2%, The property has an existing stormwater management pond on the southeast comer of the property. This stormwater management pond will need to be reconfigured to allow detention of the proposed subdivision and existing development. A mutual stormwater management agreement will be required for the existing and proposed development. According to topography maps there are existing sinkholes on the property and the site is in an area of shrink swell soils. A geotechnical report will be needed to properly site and construct buildings and infrastructure. The use of sinkholes for drainage outfalls is prohibited, Surrounding Neighborhood - This property adjoins an R-l zoned property to the west which is owned by Roanoke County and utilized as a park, R-l single family homes continue north, The proposed property is the first property not zoned R-l coming from the north, Access to the park runs along the northern property line ofthe.propôsed subdivision and the park adjoins the western property line, Single family homes are also prèvalent to the west with single family homes along Quail PI. and Meadwood Dr. The southern property line adjoins the Depaul Family Services property which is zoned I-I. To the east of the property is Hollins Road, with I-I and R-3 properties across the road, Roanoke County also owns a 500' long by 10' wide strip of property between the proposed subdivision and Hollins Road. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Background - The petitioners conceptual plans show a subdivision consisting of 16 lots ranging from 8,000 - 14,000 square feet. Currently the lot is vacant. he conceptual plan shows a main arterial drive with lots placed along this road ending with a cul-de-sac at the rear of the property, No architecture plans have been submitted, Access/Traffic Circulation - V DOT notes that Roanoke County owns a 10' x 500' parcel which separates the proposed property from the state right of way. Access easements may need to be obtained from Roanoke County, V DOT states that the development of this single-family residential subdivision will generate approximately 160 vehicles per day, V DOT also notes that the existing stormwater management pond will need to be modified and calculations submitted during site plan review, A commercial entrance permit will be required upon receipt and approval of subdivision plans, This review will address access improvements, Roanoke County Traffic Engineer - Mr, Ford notes that the proposed rezoning falls just outside the limits of the V DOT project that is currently on Roanoke County's Six-Year Plan and should not be impacted by the current project. <ò 2 l) .~._~' ~ " Fire & RescuelUtilities -Fire and rescue services will continue, as they currently exist.. esponse time to the site is estimated at 6-8 minutes. Public water and sanitary sewer is currently available, This petition does not affect the existing public water and sanitary sewer systems, Department of Economic Development - "The Department of Economic usually opposes the loss of industrial land due to rezoning, however we do not object to the proposed rezoning by Balzer & Associates of certain property located on Hollins Road. We feel that since said property is located along a transition area between industrial and residential land uses, and that the Hollins Road Corridor is currently mixed with industriál and residential uses, moving the zoning line a few hundred feet is not significant. The Department does feel however, that the best use for the referenced property is not single family residences, but for the expansion of the adjacent county park. Park land used for athletic fields is in short supply in this geographic section of the county," Roanoke Parks and Recreation - The Department of Parks and Recreation have several concerns with this rezoning, Currently a project oflighting the adjacent soccer fields is in progress and there is a fear that the lighting may cause resentment from proposed residents and that they would push for lighting restrictions, It is a fairly small park and the activity, traffic, parking, and other nuances from this type of use may also cause a conflict with proposed neighbors. An industrial neighbor may not be impacted by these nuances, There is also a concern with the offset of the two entrances and a fear that this could be a safety problem, but this will be addressed by V DOT during site plan review. Long-Range Impacts - Cumulative long-range impacts of this proposed subdivision as well as others, include impacts on school populations and attendance zones, road improvements, parks and recreation facilities, emergency services and other general services such as trash collection and libraries, The school administration has recently dealt, at least in the short-run, with overcrowding in some of their attendance zones, The schools who would get the children from the proposed development are Mountain View Elementary, Northside Middle, and Northside High, 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. CONFORMANCE.WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated as Principal Industrial in the 1998 Community Plan but is adjoined by Neighborhood Conservation to the north, west, and east property lines, Principal Industrial is derIDed in the 1998 Community Plan as a future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate, Principal Industrial areas are existing and planned regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to maj or residential areas and suitable highway access, The proposed petition would not fall under any of the land use type designations of Principal Industrial but would fall under the Neighborhood Conservation designation which adjoins the property. This would include single-family developments in conventional lots, which include attached, detached, and zero lot line housing options, This petition is not consistent with the e 3 - R'-~ . Principal Industrial designation of the Roanoke County Community Plan, but con~i<:tering that the Neighborhood Conservation designation surrounds 3 of the 4 property lines of the proposed project, it would be prudent to consider that the proposed project would not change the land use pattern of this area and could possibly be included in the Neighborhood Conservation Designation in any future revisions of the Roanoke County Community Plan, 5, STAFF CONCLUSIONS This is a request to obtain a rezoning from I-I C to R-I. The request involves a 4,83 acre tract off of Hollins Road. The petitioner's request is not consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Principal Land Use designation but would not change the land use pattern of this area. The site has ample space to confonn to all applicable development standards, CASE NUMBER: PREP ARED BY: HEARING DATES: 12-5/2004 Chris Lowe PC: May 4,2004 BOS: May 25, 2004 4 '" County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onl 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Check type of application filed (check aU that apply) J!5Rezoning 0 Special Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver rmAdministrative Appeal Applicants name/address wJzip ~,-' B"'I...~6:""": "'s'øG.M~~I...c, I~ ~Þøa.... ~ GA.. I:.c! V II 'Z '4 0 IS Own(:r's name/address wlzip c ~ t> t'w1 ~ G::. H-eë lfÞ? g."c.I, !-t41'l e f4,.,./Jok.G" JI¡f t'-b,ê~~N J:;>, M A-£ClN p, 0. i30~ ~ 3'35 t<~~~ V... "2clOl7 Phone: ~/f/.- J78'l Work: Celli: Fax No.: Phone I: Work: Fax No. I: Property Location }.6n I"~ (2.0 ~\ ~\-"-'Z. e;.Ç. M14S0N S~'odi",~,~ Tax Map No.: l. Magisterial District: f.I c:::.IlI¡O.~ Community Planning area: He. fl'Nt; Exisrlng Zoning: :c Ie Exisrlng Land Use: "14C-f4 NT ~f.].{i:1iMIt.,:>;JjNt:~~~;~~f,;;i!~..K~~~~:\H({i'f.~~,~',~,'\)):'~~;,,:sf~i!}t'ÌJL~;¡W~Ç vk¡\'"." "i..I. \' "ntl>..," ',f". .. DJ:' ,,& J\77).¡ttf} "r"t.!'ii"Df,:a bþr: r,. ~ ""' It} 1S:mr\ ,'~,,',',f::,,'.,.:,:',.~,:,:~.'"!.::",',;,~,~.:,,,".',:,',',,~,.;,:.~,:.:,~,,:,'p:.:.,';,'",.:::ço.,'":o,,,':',-:,''"~"."':~"",c¡,-,~'~"'-"(':f-t,:,¡:,'.~"'-;,.c,;j,'.,,::','":,'"':",~)~:,',,,,:.,',",,',' "~,;f:,:",,,¡;,;;,',~-l~1tt!:-~.{;,tt~~~"~~}f:'c~~~.,;~J;A,'.~'~ . "',~, ,'- . "-';"'-. ::"",.: . fi{jtÞJll&~~~~f.~' Proposed Zoning: ~-I Propos(:d Land Use: é~ IDÐJ1}"c. Does the parcel meet the Ìninimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes%-. No ß IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUDrED FIRST, Does the parcel meet the minimum, criteria for the requested Use Type? IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes D No J¿' "ii'~¡;¡'t'\it~-:F ""';I":¡';r:f,';'1,!::"','i),.\,,';;'r; .~";:¡~ti?~~:' '~'f" m"""'-.-:<.!i~J,~-~'~'~WJ"""~" '~";~-' "'f,'¡¡;:.',J~,"JI;I"'\"",;:,("';;:r.¡':c¡:œ' ,'1.';;;;>' it", ',"'" , ~,(i!<"',' :~,t'i.~,~¡~~rffi;,.¡S~'~~~,'" ",iI' . " 'îk"'C"}:¡:'1ô~'S""Nffi.i,f.'¡¡¡'l'i",~~ ~,' i"~i:'\\rr~'i~"i\t.~,;..,' '.t>}i«. "?f¡.¡,.."",'y,ff.:,:". .::;..".~.l!,'~~YH!:~J." :f~1!r~:,,:1i""'i' ,~.;..",,~, ,'N1~\'i'\"'.!:!;';"~':"~~,~~~ \'\{~~";;/(~;\";"f;::<~ ':". ~., ",,',;J.;' YesD NoD VariancefWaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's 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, APPLICATION Wll,L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSJNG OR INCOMPLETE, Rlsrw V/AA, RJSJW V/AA RJSfW V/AA rn Consultation Eii g 112" x 11 . concept plan ~ Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application AdjoiniDg property owners I ~::~t ~rt~~ =~r~ either the owner O~~_o~gen./ contract ~r and am acting with the knowledge and ~ Owner's Signature e 2 Applicant ~ e;K)T . g 4 t.~")oz. i II So s: Oc:..l 1.0( n:.-S /~t:., . f\-~ The Planning Comnússion will study rezoning, special use permit 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. 5 eë Å 'm'\<. ~ -0 Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. S ea5 14 ~ C. I-h= '"'0 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. s~ A 'fl")4,.c.1-h::'""V;) e 3 A concept plan of the proposed project must be subnútted 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 permitting regulations, The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted 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 staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS ~ a. Applicant name and name of development ~b. Date, scale and north arrow --.:-c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions ~d. /e. /f. /g, /h, r' - 1. /' . - J. 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 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, parking spaces and 10adIDg spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPUCANTS /" k. ~1. --L ID. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals ~ D. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections ~ o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants /" p. A:D.y proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed /q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers 11 iterns required in the checldist above are complete. Date 6 BALZER - REFLECTING TOMORRO'W March 26, 2004 ~-~ Mr. Chris Lowe Department of Community Development 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 RE: Hollins Road Rezoning B&A, Inc. Project No, RO400053,OO Dear Mr, Lowe: On behalf of Mr. Chad McGhee I am requesting tax parcel 28.13-01-27.05-0 be rezoned from IlC to Rl to allow for a 16:1: lot residential subdivision, It is anticipated that the houses will range in size from 1800 to 2000 SF and will range in price from $180,000 to $240,000, This project will comply with all development standard in ilie R-I zoning district and it is compatible with the surrounding residential development in the area, The request is consistent with the Hollins Community Planning area because it adds to the balanced mix ofbusÍness and residential development. This project will be bordered on two sides by residential property, on one side by a county park and on one side by a business. This project will actually serve to buffer some oithe existing housing from the existing industrial area, This project is anticipated to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area, Public utilities are available and appear adequate. Stonnwater management will be handled by reconfiguring an existing stonnwater facility currently located on the property, Please feel free to call with any questions you may have, Respectfully Submitted: ¡;; If :s::c~~. mc. Project Manager SMHlbs PLANNERS. ARCHfŒCTS . ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS ~OANOKE . ¡,I/('í¡fllo,'m . NnVI?!'..H¿VAIi/Y . :,HN':\f\lI"¡')¡\H \,:.iIIFf 1208 Corporate Circle. Roanoke. Virginia 24018 . (540) 772-9580 FAX (540) 772-8050 \\Roanolte-server\Worddocs\2004 Proj\R0400053\Chris Lowe Ltr 3.26-04.doc e Legal Description for Tract B-IA-2 (Tax Map #28.13-1-27.5) K-~ Beginning at a point in the westerly line of Roanoke County Tax Map #28.13-1-27.4, property of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (plat Book 10, Page 109)., and at the intersection of the northeasterly comer of Tract B-IA-l of the Norman D, Mason Resubdivision (plat Book 23, Page 19), being comer number SA on said plat; thence with the northerly line of Tract B-1 A-I N68°41' 45'W 624.09 feet to point number 2^ being a point in the easterly line of the property of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Deed Book 1460, Page 1284); thence with the éasterly line of the Roanoke CountypropertyN21 °16'30"E 313.26 feet to point number 3; thence S73°04'25"E 599.09 feet to point number 4; thence along a curve to the right with a radius of 25.00 feet, an arc distance of 41.18 feet, and a chord bearing S25°53'OS"E 36.68 feet to a point on the westerly line of Roanoke County Tax Map #28.13-1-27.4, property of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (plat Book 1 0, Page 1 09), being point number 5; thence with the westerly line of Tax Map #28.13-1-27.4 S21 °18'15"W 334.06 feet to point number SA, the point of beginning, containing 4.83 Acres and being Tract B-IA-2 as shown on the Norman D, Mason Resubdivision recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit cotUi of the County of Roanoke, Virginia in Plat Book 23, Page 19, e ., "'-.. .. rAIf pa",..,-I' IlIACI I-ZA "'.. ,,,., - "" \ ()list -./ ,r-. '¡-.sf' '::" ~ \ .J/.3.ø' I /II/nr 1JiIn' /1-1"-6 I \ ..U- a"Q .!.::tlf ¡Ii ð = NIf/f men' 11-1.1-1 I.» M>IØ It(IUM# (Ill JfC "1£ HI) ~- .......... .- /Alll"MC I ".,", """" , Iff~IMJI1 ,,"",," f løU'" "...""" I IlJI."" IHU11' , -- ",It,JI»' , ...,.. 1_,,$1 , _41ft ""1.111' I "~!IIU 1111"'- IIIIJII. _A - UI A<IIP @ A- "'ZI'ffI' If- 'SN ... n." t- ~I.III III« ",'""'" C ..... ".,11 -f- - _AU_,Y/M!IC_"" III"'" IlfArIlrRMMfø.IIA_/$IH£m--.c_AfIf1_IIIIf"1HC ---- "'11(- _IIYt1tIrz,or- I -- I III t -ØIf; IHØI ~ AU " IH£ -II' C1IVK"II1I III $<V ....... ". ..... .... /fI1 - I; "'<1 """"""'" 1M' cumr'.I' """""'IHC_rØ1llllr",--"""", _"__,- ,.,. ,- I/tC $<V ....... ŒlI/P1Ø "'., /If: lIAS........... - UND AI """'" - CNIIIIB.Y"'" /IS """ ~ IIIU - cavsmr ""'" N1rJIJAlIr III - lit - "'", -- III-aM ""'" 1.1" " /II( CØJF '" ~~:~~~__~"~"'IH£ " ..- II -.......- IN( - ....... """ - Æ<U IIfI I1U :O~Y'" :2:~ - In ~ A - " D """"'- .......... L- " ,'.' :,--,'., ,~"- " ..--.... t ~ A NØ",," ~ " """ "" IHC NIIIß4III """ IrA"""" NemlY"""'" "'Ar - IA ... JØ'I """"" NANr " ......" III /III: ~ ""'.... ~ ':t~:: NU :;:w."If ~ "":i="=- ~ 'Ut IIfI MO.... - ""--"'¡""'" .1\ L...!. -o,,":ll M. ~ wr"".. GRAPHIC SCALE ~ ~ I If,.." .....".. .. @ A- 11/'6"'" II- zr.N /101«" t" ....61 ItIC , ..,rfll' " a.a .ø» ~ p¡.'""" P.B, -_--I PG. \+ , 1J~qv NAP ~ . --....;.~- PA"" "1H£~1n/Œ"'IN(_Y""""rCl"-""""" ""'""'" :.~ :~ cr;rrccll' " 4~r - =-"r II ..D!SL-ø- --4-M urœ 'ÆIÐr'" MAlMIII fUll/( ~~ Ri'iltr aiM NØ/DI! '. "."""r/$_(lfA~f1EII- .. - """ ..., -- "/IIIJUf' IN( _r "".. ØXfIfÐtI' ðlU:_r - /M1II""" øsr - -- oIIftrr ".. -"' I/IN """,., -. ~ """"",.......-sr.,MI. ---""IB\ .. __II'/$/fIlrL"""1U> 1f_1IIf:_ISCI"A - -"-ODØ _rAlIIß<JfA1fI111..,."... __al1A5lDmNt/ll1f'CC/llllt '" M:"-",,,,_IM.._--"""- _'IY"""'" 1/IIJ1 0lJII1/I.Iß " _.....r_"""",-",--"""/-IUo ,I. - - 'I" 1IIf:"'-- - -- ._r II "" - - 1/1111 IHr -- """'IT"""""" _.....a: """'IF ...."""~ $IK:N AI ........... ,.", -- -- ,., ,,- ðPl.( ~ -..:>W.C III IN( -- - - AM: NOr --ør-,.",_111-- r.11NE:1I/f1IfIA III 54 II" lfA'møaruw;; II - nøcrll-" -1-"- PLAT SHOWING THE RESUBDlVlSlON Of PROPERTY OF NORMAN D, MASON CREA llNG HEREON NEW LOTS NEW TRACT "Ð-IA-l" (2,33 ACRES) NEW TRACT "Ð-IA-2" (4,63 ACRES) BEING ORIGINIAl TRACT "0-"'" (P.O. 17 PG. 5) SI1\JATED AlONIr HOLUNS ROAD (ROUTE 1604) HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, "VIRGINIA ::"8 !t~ ~¡:ä îd ~~1i1 I~~ .. :t Of w ~ w OJ ~ ! .. ¡ ::! ..z ..1> i!~ iÐ~ ;.~ ~~~ ui'! c.:~ ~i ~g< ...- ...2:. ~~~ ~z~ ~õ~ ....Ú'SIi! II I! I III - c I i IIII .... ,.... P,B, _!.~-, PG, --~~ ----=> ~ \ Y , .. - ~i~/<: "." ~{ :. '( / ; ",' ~i" 'A' '~..\\ ~"..-. '~/... '., I '~.' ~-@ 'r-- 1.\"\ ../ç,:j" ."'-.. '"."". "'" i ' '~:.;: ¡èl¡ "~.:. Çr~ r'~'~-- ¡"i / -""", """ \"""":""0$';""" ~"" 1i!!i ~ ~ ,.\';'l,."."..,. ,,~ç p;---r------------:---..o.-r. ;---¡,r,.,-,-\-_': "~}-;-"--T-->u;':; --1' 'i. rÇ /~. "':r"",," r J ! '-, " I ' .¡¡!ô. , .' ...." . . I: ..¡ '-r/ 'j 'r.' ".Ä . .", I ..:.""T' ~ ::~ :. . ',-, ,r-,,:-;:---'"\..r:-'---¡-o---¡'¡'----ì. "1\ I,:) .;~! l "C' ': f, II c§ \.\': .._~- .1- .o,~,),,"'-' CI.I Kt .-s ,;!¡ ~.. I ,...,' I; "I' i: . ~ co: I ' ... ~ ¡ ;;,.; . ,.' ~ ~".' I . (-,',1, 'I'. . ,'--, ¡~.._. I..'j'" :>\1),..::\;, ',.,'J ,'~I...' "r I =;"'1 \. ':~'.J ,,:. ;'I~', I' ~1~~.o!J.- .. ~\----./, l~"'" 1/ :'~.','Y::~:' I ',~'?'" "",.;¡:'c ",,/,"", \.,1 ,::-,~,I).';,: .. '.r') """'-. ... f ", ¡t 1""" /..... "'--1'-;;.J, .r~l i)' t: ! "'0" "', .,,' ,,-, .¡,--. ,. -- -\ .1.....,")"..: "I"~I'\ ""-"','" I~; ,,-.1,;;7' ,," --or<-"",-Jo.- .. :,_\10,;, '!'5 I-:",~rf., It",*<~~?r..-¡...," '~:;-3":'" ;:'r.,',¡ "'" 101- : I I :~: ,_-í .. \ ,.='- ...... y ',~'. ;'(;,.... "'.""-"'-1 "::/'; ~'/of; \' '~E§IË\ '~rl...;""" :!r:I~i """ I ï"'" I ¡if ;V: I: I ~'~:""I : . ,"(¡-)(i/ ~7-." ,';>.. ¿"'...,,-. ~1_l'nœ:dÄ ,T .. :i, I ' :, " . :(. \\, ¿ .,-<,:.,:..:,. :,''': ì .." ,'-~:..:.~':::J \,.. ': 'I;,L-----;'L~ t"\,--$.. -"0 : ?rJ)" '" """ 'n"-;"" 'I... . .\..~' p' ,L-~i.-L,,"J-;I' \ . ("\-~"-"" '.',]' IC- -p:, I ,.~ ',.. t\ , II,>!, "\ ---------.'~' \ ~. f ;;' ¡t., ~-!', , . . ,i.!~, ~: . ...,..;",' '1 ~~,., ',-'10\ -, (.f (/'()' =~ "1\ ." li'-'ì\......-""" , ""'1' '.....' .J I . 1 I, I "1"- 'v'! ',,-..I. , ::'~ ~". - ¡" ¡ ,r--LTt".L- -1-:-"\ ~ I . ,i, / \ ~ . '. : ¡ ~J: ,," :, r-----',-:-, " 'I .:....-[::"'::_¡~;-.:-;-~1.>::C;-V: \ ~ .~ 1.:1'1-,1 ¡;" I e§ ,I ~ .""f. "':, J' \0:., \5 I';~ of' 1---'-,' -, I :.1 I 1- I',' 1 "'" " .' -,.tl ~ .' "r, .,;',;,"'; 1'.,1 'II I ~- 1 r~'I~1 !:<.r::~' \')' '. ' , ')r, ' " :8 S ~ 1- - -L!'7,!r.L- - -I--J '1 I ~ ,( I I.\~ ) . "'i'~J'1 ",", ",-' . 7't.' \)" .,¡';)' 1"1' U" 1--------; " , t-."..---":'----H .~: \'j '. ,",.',. ",,'J I ,," I"""""!: -, 11-. ... . i ! ~~ »):' I' I;! h i:~ I is ': ~ l r T ~,~... .~~ - -1~]! ~:~I ), \ :':>-1' 11i¡i!t...!.-... II: I '!.ol,' "ii.' \, I;:~¡¡':i" 1 i ¡ (' J I. I'~" ~ I L - -L"7'!!".L- - -' 17 I" .' -". II' I r~ 1 ;ii!;) f-:J .. ;';]'~ ) I I f~ : :L__~~_-..J ~L_.:...__-"':'..:..,,-+-Jlí~\\ ~., 'it : 'Ï: (- ,..:! . :' I , ' ,-- --,..!~!:_~-\.--:;:¡ f i I)' !i!;J :( ¡!; : 'i I e§ ,"'1 I¡ .f ,.....r r'~""""""'JI \. .;.t , ,J ' , I = I I t' ...11.. I' .,~. . :,\.~"'; .,1.; i,! ~II: I . . .. \j~1 ~r...,~. !I,." ¡f..,,¡ t "t=.....,..., . " I. > i=~ I ." l)' , . J ¿ '-r- ----1-""'-' '.J.r ,. - 1. I r r. " : i."" -< I ¡. "Or I -~~'-_.', 'I .I, T ,1=:) .,.~'7 v'. "}!~:"'~ ¡ ¡ .,: ~.!!;- ;~., É§ l ~- :: ~:: '¡ \\..L~J),,'\ ...\.);.1"'\.;~'"J'l'" I \-, ,¿ "1 : .' . _t... 2_;. t, ;. ;Or, I ", I ... . ».;: l",n{. : ~ C ¿" I 1 1! Ll -LItJF..r. -~ I -+ \ ~""~-'~~~~':"7~i :., ""'~..-~fY\' .J.t~L ~ '¡, ' ; !I'[:]~:~:I==~U J L ~r~~:-::--' ~; - ~.:1\1' '~ì\ ~' . f t5, ./ , J " , ' '. 1:1- , ! .,; '. 1 I ' 1'.1;. ';:.) \.;.1 ¡ E~MI-t::l.ill !~ì. I ¡--~~:=--:i;;;;;;:;-_-"'=::¿I~ '. ""1'~""'}o..J " _.' '.é/'éE- ~., " ,our. , I '-. :r:) !..'j'~'" f..-..-....." I .J';I ~, I-d. "",,' - I' 'rOo' -I~. .~~. I. --, ... ". .'.'") ""<-...":, i" Hh-.~" '~H.-""', -:',1. '..\', ".1...(1 ....J-' I-"""I'!""~"J'-'~i~""~-'I."I'.!I'¡' .: ~ "-..r--:-""",. )<.\..' :':¿¡ .,j"., I "......¡ I I ¡L--~-l-----.J) " '. )1- I \) : . ,,:-;- . .. i L~'_~_~ ".:.:.:::c-:.'~' '. r. 'd,! .' . ~ . - .. .,~ . ! r L;I. ------~"<I':'7~-J-=.::...::_'!.~-~.J:=.2'~ !..'. -~~-- --~_::.,,--, \' . -'..:~::: ,-,.'- 'é::~i:~ ~;;;~~i~i~~~~f: =~ i~;' f ~~: ~Z~: i, L ~2 ¡;;~; ,;):i; ,.. :. '.'~ -- - :.~-~':~;;:~-~~:~~~!~¡~.~~~;,;;..~:~~~t~~~;:::~;~:'.:i~!~~~:ï7~~~.~~ :.[~;l=-:¡: i~~:.~~:~f{{\-~l -..-.}u;. ¡1sflt'" ,~.' .. ;.\"/""-. '."'-- '-¡""¡',...,l:;! ,:: t' .....g..-..:,;¡-f;!.'P" ". -)"r--rr--' ...'. ,--T. .. "-,.....1.--\-.__..;....1 ! 'r- -'....,.." -rrrr'- ~f.'~¡j .~, ,i':' I. ..---. 5211.-iI1 E .-r""",~r" . r: J'" ! if i I , .." .- . -" ~hie~~' . ~~ -tl -I-III I., l~,Uir g~ t il ; ~i1jl ¡ Hi I!f ¡ii ~.! I ~lIi ; ! f; a .- .. ~ ~ " .. ... ¡; HOWNS ~ DIiIm'IIt:!' - COUNTY, VIRœNIt\ l'llrfil ¡1((IIIU!,lfll if II UI~. n III ,I 111 !Ifl .. ! i 'I I tid II I - - II 'I . ~...¿ëË !õ!~ 0 - 0 - ~ 1 ~ ..¿ & b 0 ¡Hill ~!r !r ~~ H BROOKE VILLAGE HOI.LJ>IS FIo.o.D CONCEPTUAL srre PLAN -~ ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicants na-me: Chad McGhee Proposed Zoning: R-f Existing Zoning: 11 C Tax Map No 28,13-1-27.5 " PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Ernest E, Sweeten berg 15-6/2004 ~-"3 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 1,2004 June 22,2004 A, REQUEST The petition of Ernest E. Sweetenberg to rezone 1.24 acres from R1 Low Density Residential District to 12 Industrial District in order to operate a construction yard located at 7314 Wood Haven Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B, CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Sweetenberg provided a brief history of his property use dating to the 1960's when the immediate area was predominantly agricultural. He stated that he sold the right-of-way for Valleypointe Parkway to Adams Construction Company many years later. The petitioner indicated that he has no plans to construct a building on the subject property at this time. C, SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Tim Beard presented the petition. A report of the petitioner's experiences with the Board of Zoning Appeals and acquisition of variances was provided in addition to general information. Ms. Hooker asked if the construction yard was found by regular inspection or by complaint and staff's opinion of the B.Z,A.'s actions, Mr. McNeil inquired about possible "grandfathered" rights and details of the site's zoning history. D, CONDITIONS Use of the property will be restricted to the parking of a maximum of twelve (12) vehicles including dump trucks, trailers, farm equipment and related heavy equipment. E, COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Martha Hooker made a motion to approve the rezoning with the recommended condition. This motion passed 5-0, F, DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G, ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan - Staff Report - Vicinity Map - Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission e 3 STAFF REPORT --3 Petitioner: Ernest Sweetenberg Request: Rezoning from R-1 Low Density Residential to 1-2 Industrial to operate a construction yard Location: Valleypointe Parkway 0,03 mile south of Wood haven Road Magisterial District: Catawba Suggested Condition: 1) Use of the property will be restricted to the parking of a maximum of ten (12) vehicles including dump trucks, trailers, farm equipment and related heavy equipment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mr. Sweeten berg has parked trucks and heavy equipment at the subject property (1.24 acres) for more than 30 years. In spring 2003, he was cited by zoning enforcement staff for having such machinery parked in a residential zone. The purpose of this petition is to match the zoning of the parcel with its existing use, The site is designated Principal Industrial in the 1998 Community Plan. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site plan review and VDOT approval for a commercial entrance will be required, Construction yards are permitted by right only in the 1-2 Industrial district. Additionally, per Section 30-86-2, all materials stored overnight on the premises shall be placed in a storage yard which shall be fully screened from SUITounding views in accord with Section 30-92 and shall be set back at least 100 feet from any adjoining residential district. In lieu of those regulations, the petitioner received conditional variance approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 21, 2004 reducing both the setback and screening nonnally required, Please see Setbacks / Screening & Buffering. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background - Per the petitioner, the subject tract has been used for truck and heavy equipment parking since 1968, The property has been zoned R-1 since 1992 and was zoned A-I Agricultural prior to that time, Before development ofthe Valleypointe office and industrial park south ofthe applicant's parcel began in the late 1980's, most tracts in the immediate vicinity were occupied with single-family homes, some including accessory forest and small-scale agricultural uses preceding the construction of 1-581 in the 1960's, To{)ography / Drainage - From Valleypointe Parkway (west boundary), the site drops approximately 8 feet rising back to grade level near the north and south access points, The lot continues rising west to east displaying scattered mature deciduous trees. The site drains toward the west-central border. VDOT reports that "improvements to e ¥\-3 entrances may involve upgrading guardrail and detennining impacts on the drainage area at the toe of slope." Surrounding Nei~borhood - Adjoining uses include medium-to-large lot residential and open space. R-I zoning adjoins the subject site on the southeast, east and north (home of petitioner), I-I Industrial lies to the west and 1-2 Industrial is found to the north across Woodhaven Road, Residential nonconfonnities exist on the nearby I-I and 1-2 parcels. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout / Access / Circulation / Parking - Mr, Sweetenberg has informed staff that he has no immediate plans to construct a new building, but may do so later as indicated on a sketch filed with this application, Presently, two detached carports stand near the north end of the site, Vehicles stored on April 9, 2004 included two dump trucks, two all- purpose trucks, one bulldøzer, two farm tractors, one step-van and three flatbed trailers, Access is restricted to the southwest and northwest corners of the lot (which do not meet VDOT's commercial entrance standards) intersecting Valleypointe Parkway, Parking requirements for this use type vary ftom one space per 2,000 square feet for outdoor service areas to one space per 5,000 square feet for outdoor storage. The 1996 traffic count for this location indicated 960 vehicles per day, Traffic generation is expected to be minimal due to parcel size and quantity of vehicles, but could exceed 60 trips per weekday. Per the county's traffic engineer, "the radius and width of entrances should be (upgraded) to allow easy ingress/egress movements for large trucks, tractors, machinery, etc, so as not to disrupt traffic on Valleypointe Parkway." Setbacks / Screening & Buffering - Soon after originally filing for rezoning, staff and the applicant discovered the 1O0-foot setback requirement applicable between construction yards and residential use types. Such a distance would demand virtually the entire parcel be used for setback pmposes. A 1 DO-foot to 50-foot setback variance was requested by Mr. Sweetenberg and amended by the Board of Zoning Appeals to a 100- foot to 25- foot approval, Additionally, the Board granted a reduction in the quantity oflandscaping necessary ftom one large and two small trees for each 30 feet, six-foot high screening and eight shrubs for each 10 feet to one small evergreen tree for each 15 feet and one evergreen shrub five feet on center or less. Also approved were rights to continue using the existing access road as it curls through the subject property and to continue utilization of the two open-air carports for storage in the northeast comer of the site. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN This property is designated Principal Industrial by the 1998 Community Plan. Such areas are established where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate, Principal Industrial locations are sometimes regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access, Among the encouraged land use types are industrial facilities such as conventional fteestanding industrial uses, warehouses, wholesalers and storage yards, " (Z ,-~ .3 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The proposed rezoning is in conformity with the Community Plan. However, compliance with Section 30-86-2 requiring storage yards to be set back 100 feet from any adjoining residential district would have prevented the petitioner from utilizing virtually the entire parcel for equipment storage, By virtue of the variances granted relative to setback and landscaping, the petitioner should have ample space to legally carry on his construction yard / equipment parking operation, lithe Planning Commission supports the applicant's request to continue the existing use at this location, staff suggests attaching the suggested proffer limiting the quantity of equipment. CASE NUMBER: 15 - 6/2004 PREPARED BY: Timothy Beard HEARING DATES: P,C.: 6/1/2004 B.O,S.: 6/22/2004 e County of Roanoke Community Developmént Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only r~- :> Date rtCerve¥Z? zz>LJt Received b~ Co- Application fee: l£jBZA datc(j\ ll.1:Jf:A: 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number ~""""",""""'" '.."',""',,"'.'..........' .,..','""",""""""",,,',"'.' :,o.,i..'-":":" \~R_,~,:,:'."':""'-""~.fi!1~ ".""" :.'. '..,..., ~ . "" ... . ." ..', . . ... Placards issued: . "',' ...., "". ..'" , .... ..... . '. ....., ..... Check type of application meet (check all that apply) i1 Rezoning 0 Specja} Use 0 Variance ~plicaIlts ~~e/a~,,!~ "!'J.z.i'R - - ¿R,.Nï;' ~ i::.., 7WÐ£TENi.?CJ<.. ~ 7;314 WbbþlMW J~ õÁ:(J AA bKJt VÁ Z.4-oJ'f Owner's name/address w/zip "ERJJr~-r 13:, 9NEF1tN I3fR<! ï?lif \"J.Il>bPJl~VeJ R.4ðrP bJ¡J I> ¡çE: V :.t 2-l/l) /1 Property Location O~ò3 M(IÉ ¡;òtJ'H õ1= ~ ¡f.J"ïí:t.-¡¿$i::Glír:¡..J Magisterial District: c...c-ÁrW134 VALœýPoJ~ P~1(VJ4Y &- vJÞèpJl4'{m~!J CommUDity Planning area: H~LLN'¡~ - Tax Map No.: 7-io,ltf-f-'i'(P Existing Zoning: R-I Size ofparcel(s): Acres: /..,2.'1 Existing Land Use: ~"(!'U~5fJl ~~r<Aaû¡<:s ::..j.~.$i~Ç.#h q$~'~g~rrÄjJ';w~~~~~ø:~.~¡m. :...:~~'-~_..",.,.:.'-~.~:.'..~,~".~.~:_~:_.._.=~.:.,.._~.:..,.:... Proposed Zoning: ..L - 2.. T¡..JPl./jTI<JA:L. Proposed Land Use: TRI./CK. F~ ~úJ.Pl1£>.lr ~ /.lE:A't( EQU/f7'1/E:NT PARJ<::1jJfir 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal Phone: ~z. - ~"'B<.f5' Work: 7'fc.3 - BZ-5'7 Cell #: 3Dq - ~1I3 . Fax No.: Ç&'3-8z57 Phone #: AÞ6V¡; Work: Aj3t>'¡¡; Fax No. #: Æ/3C>VE Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and ñ-ontage requirements of the requested district? Yes. No IFNO, A VARIANCE IS REQumED FIRST, Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? IF NO. A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No ~;.'~"-":;~'~'~:~"~j':i:~¡ttji;iANt;:Âbø~ili~¡¡'¿iŒ~ijj~Ì.i,"""':¡¡¡'.:":""",-. .,""""""'" ....""""... i ..:.:'..,:;:; ~~;,.,.!]jJR;-: ,;',' c', ".:', ':,:,':"'~'~"j¡.,-,=".:!:.=.<;;:;\¡::.~,r., ~~:ti;:,;,:"~"~:,;;J.>"'.'-i...""",-~:,,,,~~",,.~r-,, ,;..;:~ '.~Th-dl,L...:~....:.:..;-",.,.~.."::;~.,_""¿;";..~,,,,,,,,',--i_.",,_:..~,.c Yes No VariancelWaiver of SectÍon(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordina:nce in order to: Appeal of Zoning AdnrlDistrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appw of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke CO'UD.ty Zoning Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed, APPLICATION Wll-L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RlSIW V/AA RJSIW V/AA RJSIW V/AA œ Consultation Eii 8112" xlI" concept plan EB Application fee Application Metes and bOUDds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owner:s . 1 hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or coD1Iact purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and' consent of the owner. Ovroer's SignatUI~ "'I ~F;i¥~6~~ON~ORREid~G:spidÏÄi-tl~Þ~~'øre~w_.IDt~~~""'- '." .-"..-...-.-.--- t~::.;:::..'..::.' . ." ...:J.....:o.:.::::.:.:..~:..:...-~.:...:...::_:.~.~:.~..:....:..::...-.:'.~:._::::.:~'.'-_..::'.'-'~~..:".~'.:...._.. --...ow ...-..............-"""""""" &..pplicant ~-3 The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to deteI11Û11e the need and justification for the change in tenDS 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 Zonmg Ordinance, ~p.:f"" I:!/ Mb PR~T.Þ ~cr.r¡;- ¡¡.¡-n-¡¡;: L:¡f,E:' DF~ PR.t>PFR-ì'(.. r iJ4V£' fb(¡) TR/..crðR5 MJ) 71<tI<:.k:, ZW 71H~ LAJJj) :SINer ¡CJIoS. ß?.l:/i:;~ìTE:5 ACJ~ 61>5 VAli..E.Ýrl>¡NíE þ/~r'ýl; .l..Np WOO.DMV£N 1~D4j) A/~E" z.aJJ:D lA/pt.Æ>TR.lA L r þ,PAf.{? c.r:f.{%RLlC77I>N cÒ/'I1PMif' ~U4\S RuN ALL PAY A~p AlllfHT (ZJ/x7) bN Wt:bþHÂ.V1=N ~1JJ) ýA)...U;I(PDlNr1=. TI-Ñ=\{ R,Ll^/ A-, NlttrHT IN ,f}£' 5i1I\f~r~ TffE: NDI51£ ~L '5 TDD ff/t;¡'¡ 'FbI<. R-I '2..I>ÑIN~. - Please explain bow the project conforms to the genera! guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan, . . ,HI, PR/Vt: <-T 11? t..,DCh'Ep IJ..( AN ¡I-JPU?ìi?IAL ARE"A" APAM5 ~l1CKS pAþ; 71ft= AR£'4 zLf 't 7. T1+15 ¡::/T5 R/4HT;1./ wrm Ct5MP4NJE"j» fA.! TT-/t AI< é Á . Please dcscn'èe thc impact(s) of the request on the propcrty itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as wen as thc impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fue and rescue. Tf/l!:~F \¡JILL ßE" ¡.Jþ IMPAcT oN P~~L- ?E:R..VI<:..:&:'1>.. I~l~ V4/(:./ÁNŒ t:t~ APRIL 21) ZDt:if} r ifllLt /V\4J.IJTA-I"I Á Z'i"-R.bT >c.lf:4êK~ 7#t CÞJ.J:ÇïR.r,Jq¡DN YÁR/);lJJP As.IY AflJJ.Ó::ìlTl?:ðIPfi:N714 L.JJi3 ANy Pi..AJJT EYl:R.~i?ltN Tl<.:t=rj)..l.¡p sHF(l.l(5.$-: AL~b 'T1fl; iZ:ý,/j/¡N4- Å~? PR/~'E:$ffAI.L /{Ð'M-JA/ IIJ 4J::Þr/7bA/ ~ T1I/D METAL ~I(I~ ¿HJp~R. wft/CH .d..UY P/J..Rt\!Al4 ()~ ~lE: ð~L/RRIJJ¿¡ ;SMAJL í?E' c.t::NpuclEf? >D A5r Tb NDr Acc.£J/'1lU_~ þl:.~/~ ~ C4u?E Å NlJ/þJcN(F'.. e .~ ----~-~-~----~ - - ~--------~-~~-- ,'":":' >:"::', ,""":' ,. ..:" .'. "q ""," . ,"'," :1 Applicant ß:...3 Th~iIlÍ1lg Appeals is re~ulred by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a varlånce can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how the request meets eath factor. If additioœ1 space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. ~:dii$~l.';¿~i~¡fiÖ+'l~OR ~~~t~¿~i' """"""""""',"'" ...,~,. "...".".-,.",..,"" ~,...._...."....,' ..""",-,":,:"_~""""""",,,q""""""""""""""""'-"" 1, The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the mteDded spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, 2. The strict applkatioD of the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distiJ1guished from a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. 3. The hardship is not sharoo by other properties in the same zoning district or viciDity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendmeDts to the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. eo I 4 rii§;~lliiù~TïÖNFORADMnäs~~..'iÞ:~~:ii~ïŒ~tm~"'-' """'... '.,',......, . .' ',... "... ....' ., ¡;'::;N'~:::-':'::"~' ...:.::..: . ..:'.'.'.;:..::':~.:.;~:~:,,::..:.;:::;:¡t:::-,:';,;:,;:~:;~":::,:.¡::.7.:~,;:,..._........_....,., """-"""-'.........'........,"--.............,..'" .'" ... Applicarit r ~..-3 Please respond to the following as thoroughly as possible. If addidow space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. Reasons for appeal: 2. Evidence supporting claim: .5 m___.__~~_._--~--- - . .1 If~~~~~#~~~AN.ÇHËciLX$T'-: ,..'..~'~.:'.::...':~.,'.,.' ~... ~"'...~ .~.:.'.:...:'.. "".~-: .-:~."'.'_.~...~'.~~.:_,,,. ~-,',......K::.3"..'..~'..~'..,,:-: A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan sba11 graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered, Further, the plan shall address any potentiall2Dd use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use aDd 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 of It building permit, Site plan a.D.d building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development reguJations md may require changes to the initial concept plan. Urness limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regularlons, A concept plan is required with all rezocing, special use peimit, waiver and variance applicarlons. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner, The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The CoUD!y Plamún.g Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: <,-- ALL APPLICANTS 2, Applicant Dame a:nd 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 adjoinIDg properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties - g. All property llnes and easements h. All buildiDgs, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area ~d heights i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development - j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPUCANTS k, Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drams) and connections at ilie site 1, ÞJJ.y driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m, Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals D, Approximate street grades and site distances at intersecrlons 0, Locarlons of all adjacent fire hydrants - p, AIly proffered condlrlons at the site and how they are addressed - q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items requiIed in the checklist above are complete. Signature of applicant Date ~ . 6 ,," \.. 'if 33. 1.74 Ac. '" 1 7056 .....~ ~~ .. t t t t . t . . . . t . . . . t . . . t t .. 50. 1.65 Ac. 0 5315 - 1.21 Ac. City of Roanoke pin ,7 n7-1-~ 37. > 70.15 ". "" ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ... Applicants name: Ernest Edward Sweetenberg Proposed Zoning: 1-2 Tax Map No 26,19-1-59 ~ '" ~: -()- ..~ '=1 ~tt I ~ / 14£'r..5'~'piV' 0):4" Ii..... ,*,.J....~ L . \ ß ~b 0 '2. '3 '3 ~~ \ TAX MAP 26.19-1-56 prepared by: L R padgett, Jr. P,O, Sox 1098 Salem, VA 24153 THIS DERD OP GIFT, made and entered into this the 14th day of June, 2001, by and between BRHBST B. SWBB'l'BBBBRG and IfORMA S1IBB'1'BRBBRG , husband and wife, hereinafter to referred "Grantors", and RBHBB B. SWlun;I5ØBRG BROIIH and BDMOliID TROY BROIftf, , . wife and husband, as, tenants by the entirety with right of survivorship, as at common law and as defined in Section 55-21, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and hereinafter referred to as the "Grantees", :W I TN B S S B T H: THAT, FOR AND IN CONSIDBRATION of the love and affection of the grantors for the grantees, the Grantors do hereby GIVB, GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantees, with GBNBRAL WARRANTY and INGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLB, all of their right, title and interest in and to the following described property, lying and being in the County of Roanoke, State of Virginia, and more particularly described as follows, to-wit: 28 SBING ALL OF TRACT I~ containing 1.215 acres as shown on plat and survey for Ernest B. and Norma J. Sweetenberg, dated May 30, 2001, prepared by ~cMurray Surveyors, Inc" and recorded in Plat Book --2:!:1:-, page III/, Clerk IS Office, Circuit Court, County of Roanoke, Virginia, BBING the same property conveyed to Emest E, Sweetenberg and Norma Sweetenberg, by Deed dated October 27, 1975, which is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia in Deed Book 1030, page 347, L_~".c. ~.UIII -- 1 i. as I~;, B~ \ 1 \ 6 ~G I) 2 3 t¡ '1') 3 K- Without reimposing any of the reservations, restrictions, easements and conditions of record affecting the hereinabove described property, this conveyance is made subject to all of them, WITNESS the following signa~ (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF SALEM, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this :J.() 111 day of June, 2001, by BRHBST B. S lie My commission expires: J1 1 ~{J 1 lJ'l . STÄTB OF VIRGINIA CITY OF SALEM, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this JJ.Oth day of June, 2001, by -- ~HJP.ct,Il~'7Y1f'i ~ -rt Nót:ary ~h.c My commission expires: II / .301 O~, THIS DBBD WAS PRBI?ARRD 1fITBOUT THB BBHBFIT OJ' A TITLB BXAMIHATIOH. Ho state or local recordation taxes are due at the time this deed is recorded by authority of Section 58.1-811 (D) CQde gf Vi:qp.nia L_IIIIRt.ILfIC. .19..5Q All _MiMI. ---&oW -- 2 eo '; ." '.' .:_" ..' .--- . ..' " ... /" e .'.' . "..' . r~-3 ~o~~ ~~~~'ò /'" :v~~ 4 :( .# 'to ..~~ ç ~ ~ó'ú'~~ "- ~~~ .<>1:>,,~ " . <0" t.. q: .... ~.p,~ -.. ".ø~ /", (!) ,,&,'i' ~ " "~: ~Q ~'?>'ò ~ t9~~J> ,~o ~f ~ð' tò~~ ' ô\5 'õ ...~. .I' ~ ~1>.-;e; ~~~. ~ ó'v~Ã:: <-\. '" ~ þ ~ U': ~ ~ '" .9. '" <fA . .. / '\ 'C~ '\ ~~)i~ "'~a ~é>'?~ -ÞÓ>À '~J'~~c¡. '\~°"r // -? ~ ú>. '" -\.,:). /> "v '" ";. .,."",¥,;,, . %~ " > '1,:p~ ~'~ .~%.,.~ 7~_:.,,< '::;10, "?.. . --- ~..., «:'6-<,;-> " '" c,~,... ;;\>1' (¡o to 0.,. "",.-;. c;,. <.' . " "'v> '1~ . °v. '>F"w J<AGZ ""-..& V,o. - '{6 ó)t~-^4>. .o""'ð. . ""'!' - "'" 79 '..' -, "6>""'01' " > e~ ~PB ., . ~ ":0 '~<> 'I- ~ ~ - ~ ' . .;.i- <- ' @ , " <>", '-. \ ~j. '\ ~';\. :.. .I' 1,. . -"....... ~ \ <><\'.> <>,..5"> . "" ... "0 <~ ó'. '-",. ~ ~ '\.. @ r~..-_'{,.. ,. :<lr~~l'~ '?> .. ., :?J . ... y ~C" <a ~ . 2~=fJ' I 0, Ï?}js '" ~ ~5B \ 'I, , !?o4NO}Q> J1e~ ~ 1: ,./ LE~~bN FOL~ =IT ~ 5/8- REB.Œ " " \ \ \ '.'~.).' '}" ~ r\"""" . \,. ~Æ"'# AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDA Y, JUNE 22, 2004 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.24- ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 7314 WOOD HAVEN ROAD (TAX MAP NO.26.19-1-56) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 1-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF ERN EST R. SWEETENBERG WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 25, 2004, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 22,2004; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 1, 2004; 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 124 acres, as described herein, and located at 7314 Wood Haven Road (Tax Map Number 26.19-1-56) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of 1-2, Industrial District, That this action is taken upon the application of Emest E. Sweetenberg. 2. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: e 1 ~3 (1 ) Use of the property will be restricted to the parking of a maximum of twelve (12) vehicles including dump trucks, trailers, farm equipment and related heavy equipment. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: 1.24 acres further described as Tax Map No. 26.19-1-56 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed, The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. e 2 p-~ PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: James River Equipment Virginia, LLC 16-6/2004 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 1,2004 June 22, 2004 A, REQUEST The petition of James River Equipment Virginia, LLC to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct and operate an equipment sales and rental use adjacent to 3902 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District. B, CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C, SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr, John Murphy presented the petition. Staff described the history of the Route 11/460 Master Plan Guidelines. Mr. Simmers represented James River equipment. Mr. Azar asked Mr. Simmers if he was comfortable with the staff recommended conditions. Mr. Simmers responded in the affirmative. D, CONDITIONS 1. The site shall be developed in conformance with the Route 11/460 West Master Plan. 2. Access for the facilities shall share one entrance from West Main Street. 3. Outside storage of equipment on display for sale/rental or equipment stored on site for repair shall be behind the front building line of the proposed building. F, COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Martha Hooker made a motion to approve the SUP with the recommended conditions. This motion passed 5-0. F, DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G, ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan - Staff Report - Vicinity Map - Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission e 4 Petitioner: ~ rAf~gâgRgJ~,t,', James River Equipment Virginia, LLC Request: Request for a Special Use Permit to expand and construct a new facility for an equipment sales and rental business, ' Immediately West of 3902 West Main Street Catawba Location: Magisterial District: Proffered/Suggested Conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in conformance with the Route 11/460 West Master Plan, 2, Access for the facilities shall share one entrance from West Main Street. 3, Outdoor storage of equipment on display for sale/rental or equipment stored on site for repair shall be behind the front building line of the proposed building. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: , This petition is a request for a Special Use Permit for the expansion of an equipment sales and rental business with a new 16,493 square foot building on several adjacent parcels in a Principal Industrial area, within the limits of the Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan, 1, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines equipment sales and rental as; Establishments primarily engaged in the sale or rental of tools, trucks, tractors, construction equipment, agricultural implements, and similar industrial equipment and the rental of mobile homes. Included in this use type is í.he incidental storage, maintenance, and servicing of such equipment. A Special Use Permit is required for the equipment sales and rental use in the C-2 zoning district. Site plan review shall be required. VDOT entrance approvatshall be required. The subject properties are within the limits of the Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan. The design guidelines from the master plan were adopted in June 2003 as an amendment to the 1998 Community Plan. 2, ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background -The site of the proposed expansion once housed a manufactured home sales business. According to County records several of the properties were purchased in 2003 by James River Equipment Inc, According to the application the business has been in operation for over 15 years and the plan is to continue to use the existing building for storage and the new facility will be for sales and service. The existing building has a brick facade. TopoqraphvNeQetation - The properties are generally flat with some mature trees from the center of the sites to the rear. 1 3, SurroundinQ Neiqhborhood -The property to the east of the site is zoned 1-2 all the way to Garman Road. To the west the C-2 zoning continues near the Koppers site. Across West Main Street from the site is the Fort Lewis Public Safety Building zoned C-1 and the F rito lay facility is zoned 1-1. V\ - <-j ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT r Site LavouUArchitecture -The concept plan shows a new entrance from West Main Street to serve the proposed new building. The parking area is located between the highway and the building. The front of the building is shown as office with the service bays on the side of the 16,493 square foot building. A significant portion to the rear of the site is shown as gravel for the storage of equipment. Access/Traffic Circulation - West Main Street is a Primary Arterial Road with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. There is currently one eastbound lane and one west bound lane with one shared center turn lane. The site also falls within the scope of the VDOT, Route 11 improvement project that is currently in the six- year plan. Additional right of way and easements are anticipated as part of these improvements. It is recommended that any site development incorporate the proposed right of way for building setbacks. The consolidation of entrances shown at the south-western corner of the site is preferred since the existing entrance at the north-western corner does not meet the minimum commercial entrance requirements. Tota! site consolidation of access points shall be considered, The estimated traffic count for West Main Street at the site is 21,289 vehicles per day. The existing width of Route 11/460 right of way is 80 feet. The Route 11/460 project is scheduled on the Six-Year Improvement Program. The preliminary engineering is currently underway with right of way acquisition generally scheduled for 2007 and construction scheduled for 2008. The current plans for Route 11/460 show the right of way shifting approximately 15 feet towards the James River Equipment building. The actual edge of pavement will shift up to 30 feet towards the building. Fire & Rescue/Utilities -Fire service will continue with current levels of service. Public water and sewer is available to the site. A TIre hydrant is located directly in front of the proposed building. Economic Development - The Roanoke County Department of Economic Development supports this request for Special Use Permit. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan designated the subject parcels as Principal Industrial. This is the future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate. Principal Industrial areas are existing and planned regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access. Typical uses include small industrial and custom manufacturing facilities and warehouses, wholesalers and storage yards. In June 2003, the Route 11/460 West Guidelines were adopted as a supplement to the Community Plan, The goal of the guidelines are to enhance the views of the adjoining parcels visible from West Main Street, minimize access points on the highway, and enhance the corridor appearance through innovative building, signage, lighting and landscaping designs. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The proposed use is generally consistent with the Principal Industrial land use designation. In order to be consistent with the Route 11/460 Corridor Master Plan the requirements of the guidelines should be mandates instead of recommendations. For these guidelines to be mandates the concept plan submitted with the application will need to be modified. Staff is supportive of the proposed Special Use Permit with the recommended conditions. e 2 CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: ~i i #16-6/2004 J, Murphy PC: June 1, 2004 BOS: June 22, 2004 e 3 County of Roanoke ., Community Development Planning & Zoning . 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 For Staff Use 001 R1 Dare received: 2 Received by: Applicalion fee: 0 0,':- PCIBZA date: - Ime I 20DL/ Check type of application filed (check all that apply) :.. Rezòning DI Special Use - Variance U Waiver Applicants name/address wlzip ~es R¡\lerf",¡pp\cl'\( vlrSil\:a,LLC 3QOl. tùC2St. Md.'" sot. 5a.\eMJ V&. z&lIS3 c/o Jay ~1I'ikt- G..(cl.wtll W"I~ .)(..(ø-JL¡ DO Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: Owner's name/address w/zip S4lYte. Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Property Location Að~t too 3Qot t.>.st M~I\ St., Tax Map No.: SS ,0) - - 'l.Ø ,%.1, tJ,l Magisterial District: Co.tt:.~blL Community Planning area: Glen &far Existing Zoning: C. t Proposed Zoning: C-'Z- Proposed Land Use: E",,~pPl4rt'\t S.)., -r RCI\t,fl.) Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes~ No D IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST, Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 Yes~ NoD NoD Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appeal of interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance e Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RlS/W V/AA RlSIW V/AA RlSIW V/AA rn ConsullJltion Ei 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 agent or contracl purchaser and am acting with tlJe knowledge and consent of the owner. L b.9P .. A'ßf\-t Owner's Signature /{4.)dlJcl\ {.Jh.tcJlS.soc\c.œS 2 t.r ,k""es R:ver £ '6u',,""«I\t V¡,':1I';4¡ u.c. A 1. James River Equipment Virginia, LLC pp lcant The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to detennine the need and justification for the change in tenDS of publjc 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. The stated purpose for the C-2 General Commercial District is to 'provide locations for a variety of commercial and service related activities within the urban service area.. . serving large areas of the county'. James River Equipment is a well established equipment rental, sales and service business located on Rte. 111460 west of Salem. They have been in business at this location for more than 15 years and serve a large portion of southwest Virginia. The purpose of the development is to construct anew, larger building on the parcel adjacent to the existing facility, that will improve service to their customers by updating and expanding the parts inventory and service bays. The existing facility will remain and serve as equipment storage. Please explain how the project confonns to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The proposed construction will greatly improve the appearance and functionality of parcels currently zoned C-2, but not in use at this time, by constructing a new building that is attractively landscaped. The look of the new building will be an improvement over the existing facility and will be in character with surrounding facilities within the commercial and industrially zoned properties nearby. 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. Construction of the proposed facility is a substantial improvement over the existing structures currently occupying the project site. There will be little or nO impact on adjacent properties. All stormwater will be captured and routed through the pond to be constructed at the back of the lot adjacent to the railroad Since the existing building will become storage and the number of persons using the facility is not expected to increase, there will be no impact on existing public services. Several of the existing entrances will be consolidated into one entrance constructed to VDOT commercial entrance standards. This will improve access to the site as well as safety on Rte. 11/460 and will also improve the roadside appearance. There will be no impacts on schools, parks/recreation or fire/rescue. .----.. ---..-- "'-' e 3 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 regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building 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 limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted 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 staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS L a. Applicant name and name of development ,/' b. Date, scale and north arrow vi'" c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions ",/ d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties v e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. /" f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties v g. All property lines and easements /" h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights /' i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development .,/ j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPliCANTS ./' k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site ./ 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections ... /' o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants ,.,IA p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed ,...}Pr q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. ~ tJ. tfi!' I As«tt l~ture of app' ant Ct\cI(J~1\ IJ\-;I~ AsSQ(~o.ro for ~t"'e5 R\"u [~II~pl\eM' Uì~:,,:ct/u.C 1/6/0"{ Date e 6 1 1Q l/ 0\--1 I II 16. J850 3954 24. ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicants name: James ~iver Equipment VA, LLC Zoning: Rezoning from Special Use (C2) to C2 Tax Map No. 55,03-3-20/21/21.1 t<Z~ '-/ Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan - Design Guidelines ¡ GOAL: Develop a set of Design Guidelines as a component of the Corridor Master Plan that will serve as a planning tool to help achieve aesthetic and functional compatibility between new and existing development along the Route 11/460 West Corridor as improvements are made to this corridor per roadway plans prepared and implemented by the Virginia Department of Transportation, OBJECTIVES: . Proactively plan for quality development along the corridor to include a mixture of residential, office, retail, institutional and industrial uses. . Encourage aesthetic and design excellence in all public and private improvements and developments through adherence to the design guidelines included in this Master Plan, Encourage revitalization and redevelopment of properties along the corridor to create an attractive, commercially viable and functionally efficient atmosphere for the development of business centers and community focal points. . Encourage designs that produce a desirable relationship between individual parcels, the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, and adjacent areas. The provision of pedestrian open spaces, such as covered walkways, plazas, courtyards and open passageways between buildings and adjoining developments, are highly desirable. . Encourage consolidation of contiguous parcels to provide for development projects that collectively function in a well-designed and efficient manner while discouraging traditional commercial/industrial strip development patterns that require multiple access points and large expanses of parking areas and often result in clusters of architecturally-unrelated buildings. Strive to incorporate visually interesting building facades into designs that effectively engage pedestrian and business interest. . Discourage development that creates high traffic volumes directly to and from Route 11/460 West and that contributes to the creation of a strip-commercial character along the corridor. For development that requires drive through facilities and promotes short visits, encourage the utilization of shared access points from Route 11/460 West and interior access drives that direct the main flow of traffic to controlled intersections, . Promote the use of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and techniques that help to preserve andlor improve the water quality of water bodies and drainage corridors, including the use of sub-regional stormwater drainage facilities. The integration of Low Impact Development principals is strongly encouraged, Site planning and design should consider the use of landscape areas as a method of promoting storm runoff flow paths and the construction or bio-retention systems (rain gardens) as an alternative to conventional stormwater management facilities. Create incentives to land developers or owners such as potential reduced costs of site grading, infrastructure construction and long term facility maintenance. . Encourage the utilization and implementation of these guidelines by offering financial, zoning, stormwater, and design incentives and programs that are mutually beneficial to the business and the development of the corridor. e " r\-4 Compliance is voluntary, but mandatory to receive financial incentives from the County. I . I. Analysis of Existinq Conditions A. The initial step in site plan formulation should be an inventory and analysis of significant natural and historically significant features that exist on the parcel. Inventory and analysis elements should include, but are not limited to, drainage corridors, areas of steep slopes andlor unstable soils, and significant vegetation. Data generated as part of the analysis should be submitted as part of a preliminary plan submission to Roanoke County for review, B, New development should minimize impacts to significant natural features and should strive to preserve existing individual trees over six inch (6") diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree masses that function as natural visual buffers and provide a natural setting for the construction of new buildings, All trees 24" DBH and greater should be protected, preserved and incorporated in the final site design, except where such practice severely limits the site's development options as determined by the Director of Community Development. C. Incorporate into design development the preservation of natural drainage corridors, views, natural ground forms and unique site features. D, All proposed development or alteration should reflect sensitivity to the historical character of the corridor in terms of land use and architectural integrity, New commercial development and existing structure redevelopment should integrate architectural elements that emphasize aesthetically pleasing facade and side wall components visible from the Route 11 \ 460 West corridor. II. Buildinq Orientation and Location A. New buildings and associated structures should be located in a manner that encourages aesthetically pleasing views from the Route 11 \ 460 West corridor. B. Buildings should be sited with respect to the natural topography and any uniq ue cultural, historic features of the site. C. The arrangement of multiple buildings on a single development parcel should be undertaken so as to define workable spaces that promote the safe and efficient interaction of site users. D. Multiple buildings should be arranged to reflect a unified theme for the proposed development and clustered to reinforce a neighborhood style or feeling as appropriate for the corridor. e 2 III. Site Access A. Access points along the corridor should be minimized and consolidated to the greatest extent possible in order to reduce traffic congestion and facilitate ingress and egress from sites along the corridor. B. Access to each development parcel should be designed so as not to impede traffic along the corridor, Where feasible, development parcels should share access points along the corridor via shared entrance and access drives, interparcel travelways and/or on-site service drives that connect adjacent parcels. C. Individual parcels of land that exist at the time the [Route 11/460 West Corridor Overlay District] is created should not be denied access to a public highway in the event no reasonable joint or cooperative access is possible at the time of development. D, Areas along the rear property lines of parcels should be enhanced to encourage access points, joint access drives and service alleys through the planning of buffer strips and easements with all new and redeveloping businesses. iJ. 1..1 ~1 ! E. As a condition of project approval for new and redeveloping businesses, property owners should provide a joint easement agreement that allows cross access to and from other properties within the corridor and a unified parking and circulation plan should be formulated wherever feasible. IV. Site Layout. Parkinq and Pedestrian Circulation A. Site layout should stress the development of an organized pattern of roads, accessways, parking areas, service lanes and pedestrian walkways that work together to provide a safe and efficient internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern. Internal roads, accessways, parking areas, service lanes and pedestrian walkways must be located outside of public right-of-ways and maintained by property owners. B. Provisions for connections to pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems throughout the corridor should be incorporated into site plans. e 3 A:.# </ C. Parking lot design should incorporate opportunities for interconnection to adjacent f parcels within the corridor wherever feasible. D. Views to parking areas from the roadway corridor should be minimized by locating parking areas to the side and rear of proposed buildings, Landscaped areas should be incorporated adjacent to parking areas as stipulated by Section VI Landscaping. E. Smaller parking areas located throughout an individual development parcel should be deemed preferable to large expanses of parking as these smaller parking areas function to reduce visual and environmental impacts. While the location of all parking areas should be in compliance with the existing zoning ordinance requirements, parking areas are generally discouraged in the front yards of parcels. Multiple smaller parking areas with associated landscaping, sidewalks and signage comprising 30% to 50% each of total required parking is encouraged over single parking areas adequate for the entire parking demand. F. The provision of on-site pedestrian circulation systems should be coordinated with those systems of adjacent properties and with pedestrian circulation patterns throughout the corridor. Develop clearly defined and direct walkways to buildings that will discourage unintentional pedestrian routes that may jeopardize possible landscape opportunities, v. Buildinq Style and Architectural Treatment A. Architectural treatment of buildings, including style, materials and color, should be compatible with the developing character of the neighborhood. Building compatibility should be achieved through the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors andlor other architectural features as appropriate. Creation of a strong sense of architectural continuity along the corridor is highly encouraged. B. Where large buildings are proposed, architectural facades and landscaping should be used to reduce their visual and aesthetic impact. The use of vast blank building walls in areas visible from the street or adjacent properties should be avoided or mitigated through the use of fenestration, building articulation, architectural detailing and/or landscape plantings. Building frontages should utilize offsets, projections and/or other distinctive architectural components to add interest to building facades and reduce the impact of expansive structures. C. Building materials should be selected on the basis of their harmony with the developing character of the neighborhood, Exterior materials such as exposed standard concrete block, or metal will not be allowed within 300 feet of the public right-of-way. Preferred materials should include stone, brick, architectural precast concrete, aluminum and glass, Concrete masonry should be limited to ground face, split face or burnished units. D, Building entrances should be designed to be clearly visible and easily recognizable from parking areas and walkways. Special attention should be given to street level design that attracts pedestrians and reinforces street activity. E. Building services associated with solid waste storage or mechanical units should be screened from view to minimize visual impacts from the corridor, parking areas and neighboring properties. e 4 F. Accessory buildings associated with individual lots uses such as utility buildings. solid waste storage enclosures and storage buildings should be constructed of materials that are architecturally compatible with the main facility. VI. Landscapinq A. General standards and specifications 1. Landscaping design standards and species requirements should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec, 30-92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards with the exception of the following: B. Street frontages 1, Street frontages along the corridor should be devoted to building architecture, landscaping or public green spaces unless site constraints dictate otherwise and with approval of the [Director of Community Development]. Landscaping along the frontage of properties adjoining any road right-of-way should be outside of the road right-of-way and in compliance with all VDOT regulations for roadside landscaping, and should include the following: a) A planting area with a minimum width of 15 feet should be established outside any road right-of-way and utility easement and maintained as open green space. b) Within this planting area, a combination of trees and shrubs should be planted as follows: . 1) A minimum of one deciduous shade/street tree should be planted for each forty (40) feet of contiguous property line. 2) A minimum of one flowering ornamental tree should be planted for each forty (40) feet of contiguous property line. 3) A minimum of two deciduous shrubs should be planted for each five (5) feet of contiguous property line. At maturity, these shrubs should attain a minimum height of three (3) feet. One-third of all required shrub plantings should be of evergreen materials. c) In addition, evergreen trees and shrubs, groundcover plants and/or earth berms may be combined with the required street frontage landscaping. d) No uses should be permitted within the street frontage planting area except as follows: permitted entrances, necessary stormwater management facilities, utility crossings and easements, pedestrian and bike trails, and signage as allowed within the Corridor Overlay District. C. Parking areas should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards, D. Building exteriors 1. Areas along the exterior walls of buildings should be landscaped to soften the appearance of the buildings and enhance site aesthetics. Flexibility in the placement of landscape materials around building exteriors should be granted in order to promote a naturalized appearance and in recognition of the occurrence of service e 5 areas and utility systems adjacent to buildings. exteriors should be as follows: a) A minimum of one deciduous shade/street tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of side and rear exterior building walls. b) Foundation plantings should be provided along the front façade of buildings as follows: 1) A minimum of one deciduous shadelstreet tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of front building facade. 2) A minimum of one flowering ornamental tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of front building façade. 3) A minimum of one deciduous shrub should be planted for each four (4) feet of front building façade. At maturity, these shrubs should attain a minimum height of three (3) feet. One-third of all required shrub plantings should be of evergreen materials. c) In addition, evergreen trees and shrubs, groundcover plants and/or earth berms may be combined with the required building exterior landscaping, d) Landscaped plazas may be used to meet building exterior landscaping requirements but landscaping in these areas should not exceed 50% of the 'minimum landscaping required for the side and rear exterior building walls and for fr~nt building facades. E. Stormwater management areas ¡ fy'-f Landscaping around building. 1, Above-ground stormwater management areas and facilities should be landscaped with plants adaptable to being temporarily inundated with water consistent with recommended engineering practices for the design of such areas and facilities. Landscaping of such areas and facilities should follow design principles compatible with other required site landscaping and should result in a landscape design that is an aesthetic asset to the overall development. 2, Development of stormwater retention facilities shall follow current county standards and be compliant with guidelines as outlined in the current County of Roanoke Stormwater Ordinance 8;.11A and drainage standards. 3, Development plans that include innovative technologies for stormwater management (open space in parking areas, undergroundlunder parking collection and infiltration, designed bio filter areas, roof collection, and stormwater recycling systems, alternative porous parking areas, velocity dissipation, and stream bank protection, green roofing systems, stormceptors, and other low impact development guidelines) in design should be encouraged when stormwater designs are required. F. Buffer areas a) Buffer areas should be required between properties of different zoning intensities and should be located on the development parcel under consideration, The minimum buffers required between properties of different zoning intensities should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-92 Screening, Landscaping. 1. As required, buffer areas should be provided along the outer boundaries of development parcels except in locations where access driveways, utility easements and/or site openings are required to be located in those areas, e 6 (\-1 I 2. Buffer areas should be planted with a combination of landscape materials that conform to the standards stipulated in this ordinance. A mixture of large and small, deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and groundcover plants and earth berms should be utilized to create a buffer area that effectively screens properties of different zoning intensities. Landscape plans for buffer areas are encouraged to incorporate earth berms with an average height of 3-4 feet, where physiographically feasible, and other creative landscape features into buffer area design in order to simulate a naturalized landscaped edge between adjoining properties. Where earth berms are used, berm side slopes should be no greater than 2:1; berms side slopes 3:1 or less are preferred. VII, Site Liohtinq A. Exterior site lighting should not extend beyond 75% of the height of the principal structure with the exception of buildings with a height of twenty (20') feet or less. Buildings with a height of 20' or less should have a maximum height of fifteen (15') feet for exterior lights. Path and landscape lights are encouraged where appropriate. VII I. Sionaqe A. The shared use of signs is encouraged for adjacent businesses. B. Signage spatial allocation should meet the requirements of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. Signage spatial allocation for shared signs should be the sum of each allowable signage area per business, 1, Signs should be channel lit, ground lit or top lit with shielded laps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or onto any adjacent road or property. C. Signs should be complemented, accented and enhanced by with a combination of landscape materials that conform to the standards stipulated in this ordinance. The sign landscaped area should be at a minimum one and one-half times the total area of the sign. . D. The following types of signs should be prohibited within the overlay district: 1, Off premises signs Portable signs 2. Temporary signs 3. Roof signs 7 I' IX. Utilities A. All new site utilities should be located underground unless otherwise approved. B. Where feasible, existing overhead utility lines along Route 11/460 West should be relocated underground or to the rear yards of buildings along the corridor. ({-~ e 8 ~ , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO JAMES RIVER EQUIPMENT OF VIRGINIA, LLC TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN EQUIPMENT SALES AND RENTAL USE ADJACENT TO 3902 WEST MAIN STREET (TAX MAP NO. 55.03-3-20, 21, 21.1) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, James River Equipment of Virginia, LLC has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct and operate an equipment sales and rental use adjacent to 3902 West Main Street (Tax Map No, 55,03-3-20, 21, 21.2) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on May 25, 2004; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on June 22, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to James River Equipment Virginia, LLC to construct and operate an equipment sales and rental use adjacent to 3902 West Main Street in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: e 1 1 rz-~ (1 ) The site shall be developed in conformance with Route 11/460 West Master Plan, Access for the facilities shall share one entrance from West Main Street. (2) (3) Outside storage equipment on display for sale/rental or equipment stored on site for repair shall be behind the front building line of the proposed building. 2, That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. 2 2 PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Member One Federal Credit Union 17 -6/2004 ~-5 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 1,2004 June 22,2004 A, REQUEST The petition of Member One Federal Credit Union, to rezone 1.35 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential District to C-1 Office District in order to construct a financial institution office located at 4975 Bower Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. B, C, SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Tammi Wood presented a summary of the petition. Ms. Maryellen Goodlatte, Member One's attorney made a presentation on behalf of the petitioner, There was no further discussion. D, CONDITIONS 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004, subject to those changes that may be required by the County during comprehensive site plan review, 2. The architectural design of the building to be constructed on the site will be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004 and the submitted conceptual rendering. 3. The property shall be used only for the office uses permitted by right in C-1 office zoning. 4, The screen fence for the property shall be 8 foot in height in the buffer yard adjacent to the R-1 zoned property. 5. Freestanding signage for the property shall be monument style only. Total signage for the property shall be no greater than 150 square feet. E, COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason made a motion to give a favorable recommendation to the rezoning with conditions. Motion carried 5-0, F, DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G, ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan - Staff Report - Vicinity Map - Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission e 5 -----~~-- "R--e ~.:..> Petitioner: Request: Location: Magisterial District: Proffered/Suggested Conditions: Member One Federal Credit Union The petition to rezone 1.35 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential District to C-1 Office District to construct a financial institution office 4975 Bower Road Windsor Hills Magisterial District 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004, subject to those changes that may be required by the County during comprehensive site plan review. 2. The architectural design of the building to be constructed on the site will be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004 and the submitted conceptual rendering. 3. The property shall be used for General Office and Financial Institution purposes only. 4. The screen fence for the property shall be 8 foot in height in the buffer yard adjacent to the R-1 zoned property. 5. Freestandin signage for the ro rty shall be monument st Ie ani. SUMMARY: This is a request by Member One Federal Credit Union to apply for a rezoning to construct a financial institution. This rezoning request consists of one parcel consisting of 1.35 acres. The proposed rezoning request conforms to the policies and guidelines of the Transition future land use designation, which encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels and generally serves as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent . lower intensity development. Transition future land use areas are suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. This petition conforms to the Roanoke Co,unty Community Plan and the site has ample space to conform to all applicable development standards. No negative impacts are anticipated. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a financial institution as the provision of financial and banking services to consumers or clients. Walk-in or drive-in services to consumers are generally provided on site. Typical uses include banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, lending establishments and automatic teller machines (A TMs). A general office designation is defined as a site for business, professional, or administrative offices, excluding medical offices. Typical uses include real estate, insurance, management, travel, or other business offices; organization and association offices; or law, architectural, engineering, accounting or other professional offices. Financial Institution and General Office businesses are permitted in C1 Office zoning district by right. A Site Plan review is required. VDOT Commercial Entrance Plan Review is required. 1. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS BackQround - The property is 1.35 acres with an existing vacant 1960 residential home that will be demolished for the construction of the new business. Member One has contracted to purchase the property contingent upon the rezoning of the property. It is presently zoned R-1 ,Low Density Residential District. TODOQraDhyNegetation - The property has a vegetative buffer along Electric Road as well as along all property lines. Property is outside of the 500 year flood plain. The site slopes down from the northeast e 2. '" ---------- ------ t"') . Ii"" .,-Ce ~¡ ". J corner of the property to the southwest comer of the property at the Route 419 and Bower road intersection. SurroundinQ NeiQhborhood - The property is adjacent to R-1 zoned property to the east, C-2 zoned property across Ethridge RD (paper street - not maintained by state road system) to the north, and C-1 zoned property across Bower Road to the south. Electric Road runs the length of the property to the west. 3, ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture - Member One proposes to construct a one story branch, not to exceed 45 feet, for its credit union on the site which is illustrated by the architectural design conceptual rendering enclosed. A 20' buffer with at least 8 foot fencing is proposed. AccesslTraffic Circulation - VDOT states that the proposed rezoning will significantly increase traffic from the site at both entrances. Site distance at Bower Road does not meet minimum requirement in either direction. Route 419 appears to meet minimum sight distance requirement. Entrance improvements would be necessary. Entrance permits will be required for each location. The existing traffic on Bower Road is 1,100 vehicles/day (most recent VDOT count).The existing traffic on Electric Road is 36,000 vehicles/day (VDOT 2002 count). Based on ITE Trip Generation Manual and using ITE Land Use Code 912 (Drive-in Bank) the site would generate 187 trips per AM peak hour generator and 273 trips per PM peak hour generator. Fire & Rescue/Utilities - No anticipated major impacts on delivery of Fire and Rescue services. Rezoning does not affect the existing public water and sanitary sewer systems. Economic Development - Supports activity that conforms to the Community Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land use. 4. COMMUNITY MEETING There was a community meeting on Tuesday May 18, 2004, held at the current Member One branch, located at Southwest Plaza on Route 419, to review and discuss the proposed rezoning. 11 citizens and 9 Member One, Thor and County Staff attended the meeting. Ms. Maryellen Goodlatta, Member One's attorney gave a presentation. Issues regarding drainage of surrounding sites, height of building, number; location and height of exterior lights, traffic when exiting left onto Electric Road and screening and buffering were discussed. 5, CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated as Transition in the 1998 Community Plan. This designation encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels and generally serves as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Transition future land use areas are suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. The proposed rezoning conforms to the policies and guidelines of the Transition future land use designation. 6. STAFF CONCLUSIONS This is a request to obtain rezoning of this property from R-1. Low Density District to C-1 Office District. This petition conforms to the Roanoke County Community Plan and the Route 419 Frontage Guidelines. The site has ample space to conform to all applicable development standards. No negative impacts are anticipated. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider the following proffers for the rezoning: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004, subject to those changes that may be required by the County during comprehensive site plan review. . 2. The architectural design of the building to be constructed on the site will be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004 and the submitted conceptual rendering. 2 R-:b 3. The property shall be used for General Office and Financial Institution purposes only. 4. The screen fence for the property shall be 8 foot in height in the buffer yard adjacent to the R-1 zoned property. 5. Freestanding signage for the property shall be monument style only, Staff would like to recommend for consideration the following conditions: . An amendment to Proffer #3 of : The rezoning shall be for all Office uses permitted by right in C-1 Office zoning. . An addition to Proffer #5 of: Total signage for the property shall be no greater than 100 square feet. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: 17.6/2004 Tammi L. Wood PC: 61112004 BOS: 6122/2004 e 3 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use OnI V!..o f'\"< Received by: 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Application fee: '- \ bt>'\ ~ZA date: I .I Cø~}..t:.t>ï Placards issued: BOS date: Check type of application filed (check all that apply) mRezoning [[E;pecial Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address whip Member One Federal Credit Union P. o. Box 12288 Roanoke, Virginia 24024-2288 Phone: (540) 982-8811, Ext. 9130 Work: Cell#: Fax No.: (540) 982-7534 Owner's name/address whip William H. Shackelford 2708 East Kings Road Vir inia Beach Vir inia 23452 Property Location Intersection of Route 419 and Bower Road: 4975 Bower Road Tax Map No.: 076.07-03-22 Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Magisterial District: Windsor Hills Community Planning area: Trans i tion Existing Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: C-l Member One Federal Proposed Land Use: Office for financial institution use - Credit Union Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes X No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST, Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes IX IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST Ifrezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes [[J] NoD No [[J] V ariance/W aiver of Section( s ) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal ofInterpretation of Section(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/srw V/AA RlSIW V/AA RlSIW V/AA æ Consultation E§i 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~ Application fee '-"" Application v Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable v Justification - Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract urchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent ofthe owner. MEMB ONE CREDIT 10 : Owner's Si ature 2 "1 V,~5 Applicant Member One Federal Credit Union. The Planning Conunission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to detennine 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. The County Zoning Ordinance recognizes that C-1 (Office District) uses are most appropriately found along or near major arterial streets where existing cOOUTlercial development has occurred or near existing residential development where the C-1 development would serve as a logical buffer strip between conflicting land. use types. This proposed office for Member One Federal Credit Union, located at the intersection of Route 419 and Bower Road, is appropriate for the location. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The Comprehensive Plan rec.onmends transition uses on this property. The proposed office for Member One Federal Credit Union is consistent with the recommendations set forth in the Transition land use category of the Cormn.mity Plan. 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. No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of the developnent of this property. 3 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 regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building pennit. Site plan and building pennit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit 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 pennit, 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 staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the followimz are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS 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. i. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties 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, parking spaces and loading spaces f. - g. h. - j. Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants - p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed - q. Ifproject is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. MEMBER ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION Signatur of applicant Maryellen F. Goodlatte, its attorney i!),~i::Jy ~ Date e 6 tlLt.\I\! , r t.UJI'1HI\! raX:~4U-¿¿4-~U~U May ¿4 :¿UU4 1.5 : 1~ t-'.U:2 ~)".~"'..r:: f\~'""J VIRGINIA: BEFORE TIIE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SuPERVISORS INRE: 076,07-03-22 (1.35 acres) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) VOLUNTARY PROFFER OF CONDITIONS MEMBER ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION REZONING OF TAX MAP NUMBER: Applicant, Member One Federal Credit Union, hereby proffers that the above-referenced property, if rezoned to C-l, office district, will be developed as follows: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004, subject to those changes that may be required by the County during comprehensive site plan review. 2, The architectural design of the building to be constructed on tho site: will be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004 and the submitted conceptual rendering. 3. The property shall be used for General Office and Financial Institution purposes only. 4. The screen fence for the property shall be 8 foot in height in the buffer yard adjacent to the R-l zoned property. 5. Freestanding signage for the property shall be monument style only. Respectfully submitted. MEMBER ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION :::i ~ ,f ~ e I'IH"-c:."'t-c:.~~"'t .L",,),~::;J r"UI'I'I'IC.I'IC~ UI'Ic:. c:.^c:.~ urr ...>"'t~::;JOc:.I"'>"")"'t IU'c.c:."'tO~"'>~ 83i23r2ae4 17: 313 5407311337 'Ij ~iLAP.RY&WAN~A HUMPHREY f1~ e3 04'O3130p Sh.ekelFøl"ø' I'll:: ?70-8S6-210S ! 1'I'It(..ot.>.~.q 15: ÐSI I {' I H: R-5 il Ii" ¡il: : i " -j! : !ii ; . ,i:' ,I , I BellY A. IIS1Z -- WiDiIna H. $h-o~If~ ': "' ¡ :, Or Roanoke eo- TM MIJP r~1 Nq, 076,O7..o3~~ ~ is . 'prOpM\J ,~ øu pIdti~ ~ ~ to tbis -"mft8 J*iUðD bled" M...- One ,..... ~ 1)~.M .. ..'~ be tIoQnd by -= cmditions chat .. proff"--.t ~ fbi, petidøø. ' :; f,' r , """".J" tJlQ....) PAGE 02 p.g P.B21'2e 1 , ¡ '1'" I ' : :!. . '¡': : :,':; , " I: " ' 'j 'i' : , ~; :'\' 1 I' I I ' I ' 'i ¡: , . I , . " j. :; I ¡ \', : l: 'I II ~ .¡, ,¡, I' : :i: " :" e ; ,j: , '!:. : j' I, ' 'j " I, , , :" : ï" 'I ' ~, , I, , 'J , I I' i ,I , , 'I, : i,' / 2222 49. 2230 Rd. ~ C') ~ ~. C') 'i ~ ~ B ower 1. 2320 23. 4, A/tgO Banbury Ln, 4480 1f60 "-5 4440 19, 1 20, 21. Z ning -1 4959 4951 4965 Rd. 4958 4962 25, 26, ROANpKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .... Applicants name: Member One Federal Credit Union Zoning: Rezoning from R 1 to C1 Tax Map No, 78,07-03-22 ~ v\-:: r' ",':::) e VIRGINIA: INRE: (" ( R,.~S BEFORE THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 076.07-03-22 (1.35 acres) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) VOLUNTARY PROFFER OF CONDITIONS MEMBER ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION REZONING OF TAX MAP NUMBER: Applicant, Member One Federal Credit Union, hereby proffers that the above-referenced property, if rezoned to C-l, office district, will be developed as follows: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004, subject to those changes that may be required by the County during comprehensive site plan review. 2. The architectural design of the building to be constructed on the site will be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004 and the submitted conceptual rendering. 3. The property shall be used only for the office uses permitted by right in C-I office zoning. 4. The screen fence for the property shall be 8 foot in height in the buffer yard adjacent to the R-l zoned property. 5. Freestanding signage for the property shall be monument style only. Total signage for the property shall be no greater than 150 square feet. By: its: e ~-s DESCRIPTION OF TAX PARCEL NUMBER 076.07-03-22.00 LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: BEGINNING at a point along the southerly side of Etheridge Road, being the common northerly point between Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, Section 1, City View Heights; thence running in a southerly direction between said Lot 3 and Lot 4, 278.4 feet to a point along the northerly side of Bower Road; thence along the northerly side of Bower Road in a westerly direction, 160 feet, more or less, to a point; thence with a curve to the right, 33.9 feet to a point along the easterly side of Route 419; thence in a northerly direction along the easterly side of Route 419,240 feet, more or less, to a point; thence with a curve to the right, 22.46 feet to a point on the southerly side of Etheridge Road; thence along the southerly side of Etheridge Road in an easterly direction, 220 feet, more or less, to the PLACE OF BEGINNING, and being Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Section 1, City View Heights, being Tax Parcel Number 076.07-03-22.00, containing 1.354 acres, more or less. \ '),' '\ '------, I I,~ -',- ..J " ~ '" \ { INOTES' -- ,- ury Ln., - "'-(/------ /' / !' ....... ' ) / /, - /1 i ~~~'c':=~=OO1AlCIS1RJCT~- - - --, \.... /' / / -' ' 3, smAC""'FRCIITY""""'IÞ.PPUESTCAl.LSTIOEETFRCNTAGESI,SlDEY"""NCNE,REARYARC"~, - ¡ / I \ ',,"""'..,..HEJG>fTAllCWECWHEN-""'I:If'GR-1CRR-2.>I8, ,,- -- -", ( ,'/ ! 'I, ;: rcirKD~~o':".J~LCT~ ' -- ( 1 ' , \ 7, 2UIIlFFEIYARCWIlUÆNCEREQwœcwHENAaJcNINGR-1. !- (: 1'-/ I - .- '\ ~ =-=~:n"'..":~~1'sf=~-'¡\"'~~¡'EAQ!""Cmc",,-WINC2W~'SPAŒS ¡¡I " I '10, Fl.Cf'CItF~l1CN-AREAISN2C'IEX'CllTBICEOF""YEARFlOOOPlÞJN,' ' I ¡'- r I 1- ' ~'~:i~f '( 1 ~ \ '~-- '- .:. - - - - --' --- ,- -- \ \. ;o,~~"'(1«>IEY1REE~'WIUING, """"" ) -=-- \.æ.~:- 2<O1S . ~ .2.....--~ -- -- -- - \... -,,_!.-- ,-----' .~~----~~"'j=~~~:', ¡ I)! <"::"'1 ' ! ~ N i ¡,; i ;;, :1 , \ ,-, --' , ' , , ", , '-:" ',",\ \. ',""""'~', \\~\ - ,\," '\ " " \ \ """\'" '_-1\\ ", «'" '- j I , '\ , - - ",>,~ ~-~~:::: '; =" "~ ->:::---. -,.,--- -- / \\ ":"" --_/~---"" ','" / -\\ ; '--=-'-------,"'\ ~ ~ ~ § / -, --- -- .~ ¡¡: 5í l 1J § ~ ~ ~ J!! ¡¡¡ u <5 u 1: ~ :;!: ... ~ ~ á Æ E ~ --- -- -,,? I I \ , ' , .. = '.,:,-,..--- ,---,--,--!,._---_...,,-~, --, ',-- -- -, -,'- I - : / -I ¡', I ! -----..... _1_- - - ," -- ----- , ,c" \ \ ""'-"'" 0., "'-. RU8'J1i. """"" =="~2<O1S- - - \f::" wi,' ""'-0>-21-00-IlO>O , ,., -- .- - - -. -- - -'- ,- ... '. \. ~', ~,--- ,.--- ,------.,,/' -', \./ , .-- -- --- --' % '--,---,..-' I /-/'\- \ '----- ----- --- ~- '--- :~--.;c=;:-::.-----." -:,'" - " '- ,eowerRoad ---- --- - - ~ ~ ¡ . .- f ,\ - f ,~/' ----- ' "'-->~ ~ " ( --.:--,£~ ......¡;'"""'" ..., IIOWEI! """" '- """""" -""s-- ~ """"-1 ~ -- .. ""...... '-Ö".'-O>-2S.00-COO<> , , J\ 1\ J " / '--- /' (,', \ \ \\ \ ) \ \ \/ ./ 1/ 10 ír!J-;:; / ~,' ' i , ' ~- -" / x..- \ -'" ~----" -' " «-- \ \ " ",'" /__/ '>/ -, '\ "" .' / X 1>£ MAPPING SHOWN WAS ASSEMBlEC USING ROANOKE COONTY /' , ,{' """"""'....,"'" SU8CMSIGN MAP CFSEC11CN NO,3CFCIlY-vlEW I -<y , HElGtfTSACCITJON CAW 1S47- NO CURRENl BOUNDRY SUR'IEY WAS //' ....... , \ CCI<PLE1ED'NPREPARATICNCF11iISCCNCEPTPlAN., / / ---- " "-,../ " ' ----- "'---"-, ~-----, S1œIf01W1 ',- / ,,-' --.- ""', i--.--- '-'........._w: ~"'-\ / ~~<OIS \~',,- '\""">~""~'t 'ffJ:""";-¡""",......nO1>-OO1X> , -)\ \ ; / , I I ! I I I i -, J i ! ! , ,/ // / ,,--- J /' c' , , -' -,---,--,- " , í - --'~ ,/ \ ¡/ \ i r \ i [\ [ ¡II \, \1 \ /"i,\! I t . '" C ~ ~ 1'! ! ~ ! \ , .::--:- 'XI"'"' """T'" """~ -- -- -- -... --¡-~ ~ ,.-' - '1, GRAPmc SCAlE h......L.LJ' T ,..""', ,....W. -' -'-- '-'.-.. / -- -, - -- -, --' r -- -- ;~~"i<"',,';"¿~';:-ri. "-"""-"'-""-'- ""........ ....,. __,,'n -..""". ...""".", -............ -------. -------- .-------.- "----_... -------- ({ -L h,:) c ~U 0 C,,!!' ,- :s;> COo' ::) 0:1 - cum:! =ë ~~" () c~ ... CI Ii (,) 0 ()D:: Cm o~ ... CU () - .c :s E~ () ::E ......... ....... .!!!! --.Æ -BY, GST IICALfo ".", DA,", ApdI-'!,- " ....,""" Concept Plan II K-S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.35- ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE lOCATED AT 4976 BOWER ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 76,07-3-22) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R.1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF MEMBER ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 25, 2004, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 22, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1.35 acres, as described herein, and located at 4975 Bower Road (Tax Map Number 76.07-3- 22) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of C-1, Office District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Member One Federal Credit Union. e 1 ~~5 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1 ) The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004, subject to those changes that may be required by the County during comprehensive site plan review. (2) The architectural design of the building to be constructed on the site will be in substantial conformity to the Concept Plan dated April 30, 2004, and the submitted conceptual rendering. (3) The property shall be used only for the office uses permitted by right in C-1 office zoning. (4) The screen fence for the property shall be a-feet in height in the buffer yard adjacent to the R-1 zoned property. (5) Freestanding signage for the property shall be monument style only. Total signage for the property shall be no greater than 150 square feet. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point along the southerly side of Etheridge Road, being the common northerly point between lot 3 and lot 4, Block 1, Section 1, City View Heights; thence running in a southerly direction between said Lot 3 and Lot 4, 278.4 feet to a point along the northerly side of Bower Road; thence along the northerly side of Bower Road in a westerly direction, 160 feet, more or less, to a point; thence with a curve to the right. 33.9 feet to a point along the easterly side of Route 419; thence in a northerly direction along the easterly side of Route 419, 240 feet, more or less, to a point; thence with a curve to the right, 22.46 feet to a point on the southerly side of Etheridge Road; thence along the southerly side of Etheridge Road in an easterly direction, 220 feet, more or less, to the Place of Beginning, and being part of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Section 1, City View Heights, being Tax Map No. 76.07- 3-22, and containing 1.354 acres, more or less. e 2 f{'-5 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed, The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. e 3 ACTION NO. ~,,- \c, ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ~ ~ June 22, 2004 ~ Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of certain real estate from Norman D. Mason consisting of approximately 4.83 acres and being identified as Tax Map No, 28.13-1-27.5 for public park purposes Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney C U TV A MINISTRA TOR'S C MMENTS: ~~ The County has been contacted by Norman D. Mason regarding the availability of a 4.83 acre parcel of real estate located on Hollins Road adjacent to an 8.874 acre parcel currently owned by the County and containing two soccer fields, a playground, and parking lot. This 4.83-acre parcel is available for sale at a cost of $250,000. The acquisition of this property will help alleviate an identified deficit in park acreage and field facilities in the North County area. After a series of public neighborhood meetings, a master plan will be devised for the development of this park property consistent with the community needs, This parcel was originally part of a larger tract developed by the County and known as the Mountain View Farms Technological Park. The property was rezoned in 1983 to 11 with Protective Covenants. The County will petition to have this parcel rezoned to R-1 and will also request the modification of the Protective Covenants on the 4.83 acres. e 1 R-~ ~ It is requested that the Board appropriate $255,000 from the Year End Surplus to pay the purchase price and any ancillary costs associated with this acquisition. Staff recommends the purchase of this property to enhance the development of a park in the Hollins Road area of the County. Staff further recommends that the Board ratify, confirm, and approve the County Administrator's execution of the contract to acquire this property on behalf of the County. e 2 R."-'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDA V, JUNE 22, 2004 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FROM NORMAN D. MASON CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 4.83 ACRES AND BEING IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP NO. 28.13-1-27.5 FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES WHEREAS, a deficit in park acreage and field facilities has been identified in the North County area; and WHEREAS, real estate consisting of approximately 4.83 acres owned by Norman D. Mason and adjacent to an 8.874 acre parcel currently owned by the County and used as a County park is available for sale at the price of $250,000; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of this real estate will enhance the current park property and protect the public interest in same; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 8, 2004, and the second reading and public hearing was held on June 22, 2004. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the purchase of 4.83 acres of real estate (Tax Map No. 28,13-1-27.5) located on Hollins Road owned by Norman D. Mason for the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the Board does hereby ratify, confirm, and approve the County Administrator's execution of a contract to acquire this property on behalf of the County. e 1 1 R-~ 3. That there is hereby appropriated the sum of Two Hundred Fifty-five Thousand Dollars ($255,000) from the Year End Surplus to pay all the costs of this acquisition. 4. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 2 2 ,. -~ "" ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ""- Applicants name: Chad McGhee Proposed Zoning: R-1 Existing Zoning: I1C Tax Map No 28,13-1-27,5 . e j . ACTION NO, ITEM NO. R-7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Kahn Development I Keagy Village rezoning SUBMITTED BY: David Holladay Senior Planner I Zoning Administrator APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge tP fJ County Administrator COUNTY ADZ:::::;°~;.~ 1-d rr' ¡J SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This report is to provide an update on Kahn Development Company's request to rezone property at the intersection of Electric Road and Keagy Road. In the time since March 2, 2004, when this petition was forwarded by the Planning Commission, an alternative plan was considered by the petitioners, The alternative plan involved an exchange of property with an adjacent land owner. The exchange would have given Kahn Development Company acreage fronting on Rt. 419, Electric Road, in exchange for three parcels along Keagy Road, The property exchange wou Id have caused the petition to be returned to the Planning Commission, since new properties were proposed to be rezoned. The exchange of property was not successful, so the original petition is being considered by the Board of Supervisors at the June 22, 2004 public hearing. The Concept Plan for Keagy Village has been revised on June 4, 2004 to show adjustments to the entrance from Rt. 419, as well as the entrances from Keagy Road. In response to comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the driveway from Rt. 419 is shown as an entrance only, and the main entrance was relocated to a point further from the signalized intersection of Rt. 419 and Keagy Road. The entrance which aligns with Sugarloaf Mountain Road is in the same location, but curves through a landscape buffer at the southwestern portion of the development. e «-7 Two of the properties under consideration, tax parcels #67.18-2-3 and #67.18-2-4 are proposed to remain as a landscape buffer for the project. Within these two parcels, existing structures would be removed, the entrance road would be constructed, some grading would occur adjacent to planned parking lots, and a portion of the stormwater detention pond would be constructed. Landscaping that meets or exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance would be required to be installed within the buffer yard. In addition, a small portion of the two properties would not be rezoned, and would be deeded from Kahn Development Company to the adjacent property owners, An amended proffer of conditions included herein was received on June 15, 2004, and reflects the changes to the Concept Plan. In addition to the amended proffers and Concept Plan, Kahn Development Company has provided several revised site development drawings, all dated June 4, 2004 as illustrations of the proposed development. These drawings include the following: Conceptual Birds Eye View, Illustrative Site Plan, Conceptual Sketch Views, and Site Longitudinal Sections. A traffic impact analysis of the revised plan was completed by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc (HSMM), The report was submitted to VDOT and Roanoke County on June 14, 2004. VDOT staff and the County Traffic Engineer are currently reviewing the report. The County Traffic Engineer and HSMM Project Manager will be available to provide comments at the June 22 public hearing, 0) ~ "'" (I,) - ::1- 0 (/ 0:::(1,) <C~ >0) c: (/,- (/~ 0 0 '- 0 U..J <C 3: (I,) :> -- ~ c: - ~ Q) ~" c: E .~~ .~ ...c g- ~~ :t ~ Q) ~~ E Æ~H .. S:~ wi >! w >- w (f) 0 0::: co --I « => t- a.... w 0 z! o~ 0' z: <.9 U) w 0 ---I <C :::> I- a.. w U :z: 0 u UJ <.9 .": :5.~ ---I.:::: -> > - >-.: <.9 ~ « ~ UJa: ~ ~t " ";' . '11 .' r." . "." .~jj ~ m~~¡; ¿: ';i1 :!¡ <~~1 !! , - fI] ~ ~ ~ -+-"' c: :: <1> E" c: E .~ ~ ~ c...;;~ .~ co 0 ~~ æ :::s::: <1> æ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ 0; *' Zi ::s~ a...1:z:: w <.!) I- en - w en 0 w ---I > « - ::::> ~ B; I- U en Ô =>iO --'~ --' " w <..9 '" ::s:~ --I.:: »- >- Q) <..9~ <C~ W~ ~ ~i ~ j ~ . ¡I ~ .j ~ p::; .... 11 "" ! m ¡ i ,.:::::; ,,00 <> ¡;H ¡i ì ,.!! ;" ¡ view OT t'(eSlauranl Facing Keagy Road View Across Main Parking Field _M~ 't:,~fX:m¡g KEAGY VILLAGE CONCEPTUAL SKETCH VIEWS Kahn Development Roanoke, Virginia CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 101""""'°,,,' CO'""", '",'be..."""",, ,."".."."""", =~--""."".,_._"._. "',"," """".))1; ""I."",""";,.,, !! .....- c: . Q) "" E K~r co 0 ".:I; ~ Æ ¡I! en¡ :z:: ~ o' I-! <....:> W en --I « :z: CI ::J I- <..9 :z: 0 --I Wi 1-" -~ en " z: C!> ëi5 w CI --I « ;::) I- 0.. W (.) z: a (.) w (9'" «;:; ---I.~ ---I .:: -> > - >-~ (90 «~ W~ ~ ~,...j ~¡¡¡j 1, PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Kahn Development 6-3/2004 R-1 Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 2, 2004 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 22, 2004 (Continued from March 23, 2004) A, REQUEST The petition of Kahn Development Company to rezone 9.9 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District with conditions and 5.8 acres from R1 Low Density Residential District to C2 General Commercial District with conditions in order to construct a general office and retail sales facility located at Route 419 near its intersection with Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 8, CITIZEN COMMENTS The petition generated significant attendance at the public hearing. The meeting room was full to capacity, and another conference room was provided with an audio/visual presentation. The majority of the citizens attending were opposed to the petition, as were the majority of those who spoke during the public hearing, Those citizens in opposition voiced the following concerns: increased traffic, commercial development on residential property, conformance with the Community Plan, impacts to property values, noise, lights, orientation of the project to Keagy Road, drainage and flooding, safety of children, school buses traveling Keagy Road, the project is not needed or wanted, loss of trees and wildlife habitat, opposition by the Greater Hidden Valley Neighborhood Association and the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association. Speakers in support of the petition voiced the following: economic development benefits, scarcity of land, appropriate location, most of the land already zoned C1, tax revenue benefits. C, SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Thomason asked the petitioner's traffic engineer if the improvements described in the traffic impact analysis would work, Ms. Booker of Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern responded affirmatively. Mr, Azar noted that the costs of the road improvements would be borne by the petitioner. The Commission asked for input from Mr. Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation and Mr, Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development. Mr. Driver spoke about property values near commercial developments, citing continued climb in resale values. Mr. Chittum answered questions about whether the proposed development would draw new businesses or relocate existing business, He responded that the development would draw new businesses and the design as an open air center is a new trend in retail development. Mr. Azar supported the mixed use design concept. Mr. McNeil and Ms, Hooker noted the opportunity for road improvements without drawing from VDOT funds. Ms. Hooker also noted the opportunity to guide the development of the properties with the proffered conditions, Ms. Hooker and Mr, Thomason noted that the Community Plan is a guide for rezoning and land use decisions. e 7 D, CONDITIONS Please see the attached proffer of conditions, dated March 2, 2004. E, COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason motioned to approve the request with proffered conditions, The motion carried 5-0. F, DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G, ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan - Staff Report - Vicinity Map - Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission e 8 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onl R~7 Received by: PCq;¡~A d e: . ;5 / ~J. 6...1 ' ! - " ~ - 1..>- BOS date: 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) Xi Rezoning D Special Use 0 Variance Applicants name/address w/zip Kahn Developnen t Company 3321 Forest Drive, Suite 11-B Columbia, South Carolina 29204 Owner's name/address w/zip See attached Schedule A Property Location Four parcels located along Route 419/ Keagy Road Tax Map No.: 67,18-02-01; 67.18-02-02; D Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal Phone: ~~(540) 224-8018; FAX (540) 224-8050 Gœ(kit: Maryellen F. Good~e, Esq. ~x Attorney for Applicant Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Magisterial District: Windsor Hills Windsor Hills Community Planning area: E.. Z . 67.18-02-01 Xlstmg onmg: 6 .18-02-02 Existing Land Use: Vacant and residential Proposed Zoning: C2 Proposed Land Use: Mixed use (office/retail/and possible residential) developme t Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes X No u IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST, Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes ~ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes D NoD NoD Variance/Waiver ofSection(s) Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appeal ofInterpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RIS/W V/AA RIS/W V/AA RlS/W V/AA E§ Consultation ~ 8 1/2" x II" 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 p!~P~ or the owner's a ent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. KAHN D P MPANY B :. Owner's Si ature e 2 Applicant Kahn Developnent Company The Planning' Comnñssion will study rezoning, special use pennit or waiver requests to detennine 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. The County's zoning ordinance recognizes that C2 (General Corrmercial Districts) are most appropriately found along major arterial thoroughfares which serve large segments of the Cotmty's poptllation. This project, located at the intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road is appropriate for the location. Its mixed use design and nature (office/retail/and possible residential) provides a buffer for the existing residential neighborhoods behind this developnent. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. - Mixed use oriented toward Route 419 and Keagy Road promotes the policies contained in the County's Coml1lmity Plan. The proffered conditions in particular are intended to assure a high quality development which will serve the economic and lifestyle needs of the community while buffering the existing residential neighborhoods behind the proposed development. 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. No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of the development of this property. Necessary turn lanes off Route 419 to provide proper ingress and egress to the facili ty will be provided. Public sewer will be extended. Improvements to Keagy Road are contemplated. 3 SCHEDULE A COUNTY OF ROANOKE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & ZONING Property and Owner Tax Map Number 67.18-02-01 67,18-02-02 67.18-02-03 67.18-02-04 APPLICATION FOR REZONING N ame/ Address of Owners Owner/address Existing Zoning Herbert D. McBride 5105 Greenfield Street, S.W, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Cl Country East, L.L.c. P. 0, Box 4143 Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Rl Country East, L.L.C, P. O. Box 4143 Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Rl Country East, L.L.C, P. O. Box 4143 Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Rl e 1<.-7 Y(-7 SCHEDULE B COUNTY OF ROANOKE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & ZONING APPLICATION FOR REZONING Community Planning Area Tax Map Parcel 67.18-02-01 is identified as Transition in the 1998 Comprehensive Development Plan. The other three parcels are identified as Development in the 419 Development Plan and Neighborhood Conservation in the 1998 Comprehensive Development Plan. eo - 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 permitting regulations. . The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted 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 staff ma exe t some of the items or su est the addition of extra items, but the followin are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development f. - g. h. - J. b. Date, scale and north arrow Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions c. d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. e. 1. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties 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, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. 1. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants - q. - p. 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. KAHN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY -dt; ~ r ¡;jt:~k.ilt Sign e ofapplicant MaryeÜlen F. Goodlatte, its Attorney / /;l3/;)(ßj Date e 6 GLENN ,FELDMAN Fax:540-224-8050 0S/08/2øe4 08:53 5403558762 Jun 8 2004 10:40 ~~~uw~~ W~~I~ H~~~ P,O2 I ......~~ -- Description of 1.84& Acre Patcel (Being a portion of Tax Parcel No. 67,18-2~4) To be Rezoned tTom R-l to C-2 Conditional Situate on Keagy Road Windsor Hills Magisterial District BEGINNING at a point in Keagy Road) said ¡»int being the southeasterly comer of Parç~l ! çonvcycd to Country East LLC by Jean. W. Stultz, et lIs by Instrument No. 200328939, reoordeà in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, V A. and being more particul8l'1y shown on Boundary Survey for Country E~t LLC by Caldwell White Associa.tðs elated 18 Nov. 2003; Thence with a. line in Keagy Road, S, 61~O'35" Wo, 271.74 feet to a point; Thence leavin¡ Keagy Road and with 8 new Zoning Divjsion Line through Parcel I, N. 21°39'25" W" 296.00 feet to e. point; Thence with the southerly line ofPereel n (InstrUment No, 200328939), N, 59°44'35" E., 265.50 feet to a point, said point being on the westerly line of the property of Country East LLC (Instrument No. 20032841S); Thence with the property ofCQuntT)' East LLC) s. 29Q51 '20" E" 303,41 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.848 acre!~ and being the tna:ior portion of Parcell oonveyed to Cou:ntry East LLC in Instrument No. 200328939. ~-l Description of 0.964 Acre Parcel (Being a portion of Tax. Parcel No. 67.18-2-3) To be Rezoned ftom R-l10 C-2 Conditional Situate on Keagy Road Windsor Hills Magisterial District Starting at 11 point in Keagy Road, wd point being the southeasterly comer of Pared I conveyed to Country Bast LLC by Jean W, Stultz, et als by Instrument No. 200328939, recorded in the Office or the Clerk of the Circuit CoUt1 of tho County of Roanoke, V A, and being more particularly shown of Boundary Survey for Country East LLC by Caldwell White. Associates dated 18 Nov. 2003; Thence with the property of Countty East LLC (Instrum~t No. 200328415). N. 29°51'20" W.. :303.48 feet to the TRUE POINT OF. BEGINNING; Thence leaving the property of Country East LLC and with the northedy line gfPæcel I conveyed to Counttjt. Bast LLC by Jean W. Stu1tz~ et ab: by Instrument No. 200328939. S, 59°44'35" W,. 265.:;0 feet to 11 point; Thence leaving the line ofParce1 I and. with a new Zomng Division Line through Parcel II. N. 28°39'25" w,. 126,74 feet to a poJ.nt in the southerly property line ofßdward B. Via (\VB 48 Pg. 1100); Thence with the Via Property, N. 34°55'01" E" 223.92 feet to a point; Thence lea.ving the Via Property and with the property of Country East LLC (Instrument No. 200328415), S, 45°09'25" E., 228,39 feet to the True Point of BegiMÌng~ containing 0,964 aete, and being 1he major portion of Parcel II conveyed to Country 'East LLC in Instrument No, 200328939. " . -.-. -------- --=c"'-.... - ~.' ,.""-<=. Jun.1? 1004 1 : 3 I ~M ~AHN UtVtLU~IV1tNI CUM~MY No.0334 ~. I " KAHN DEVELOJ;»MENT COMPANY 'f-,7 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET .-..- David Holladay fROM: Nancy Guills) Executive Assistant D^T~: 6/15/2004 TO: LOCATION: Roanoke County - Sf, Planner FAX Nt:MBER: 540-772-2108 TOTAL NÓ, Of' I'AG~ ]NCLUD]NG COVER: 5 PHONE NUMBER: SENDJ::R'S REFERENCE NUMJ?~: RE, YOL:R REFERENCE NUMI>EIl: Executed Proffer 0 URGENT XFOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT DlPLEASE !tEPL '{ DI PLEASE RECYCLE - NOTES/COMMENTS: Please fmd attached a copy of the fully executed Proffered Conditions for Keagy Village. If you should have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you, ~~ Nancy Gums Executive Assistant #803-736-3325 ext. 1248 '. IM:PORTANT NOTICE: TBJS INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE This communication, which includes all the pages that are pan of this transmission, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it was intended to be delivered. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and destroy all copies and return the original communication to us at the above address. Thank you .. , 101 FLJNTLAKE ROAD, COLUMBIA, SC 29223 SO3-i36.3325 !'AX 803-788-5923 eo Jun.1J. LO04 1:j~~IV1 KAHN U tV t LurlVItN I lUIVIrMY I~O. Vjj'l r .L "(z- 7 VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INRE: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) VOLUNTARY PROFFER OF CONDITIONS KAHNDEVELOPMENTCOMœANY REZONING OF TAX MAP NUMBERS: 67.18-02-01 (9.847 acres) 67.18-02-02 (2.634 acres) Portion of 67.18-02-03 (.964 acres) Portion of 67.18-02-04 (1.848 ~res) Applicant, Kahn Development Company, hereby proffers that the above-referenced property, if rezoned to C-2, commercial, will be developed as follows: 1. Concept Plan: a. The property shall be developed in substantial comonnity with the concept plan dated January 22, 2004, revised February 26, 2004, and revised June 4, 2004, made by DMR Architecture, P.L.L.C.;subject to those changes that are required by the County during comprehensive site plall review and subject to petitioner's right to relocate or reconfigure the buildings, service areas and parking layouts shown on the concept plan. Building relocation, however, shall not change the overall concept of retail and commercial uses oriented toward Route 419 and Keagy Road, and office or residential uses buffering the retail and commercial uses from the adjacent residential properties along Keagy Road. The entire site will include sidewalks connecting all buildings to encourage pedestrian connectivity between all uses and parking areas. A walking trail shall be incorporated into the design of th e center and will provide walking opportunities for users of Keagy V:illage as well as neighbors by connecting to on-site sidewalks and street crosswalks. . Except for removing existing structures, grading, installing the road serving the development, installing a portion of the detentioI:l facilitY serving the development, and landscaping, ta.'\: map parcels 67.18-2-3 and 67.18-2-4 shall be undeveloped and shall seTle as a landscaped buffer between the development and the adj Dining residential property. b. c. Jun. I;. LIJIJ'f I : j (j rlVI 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. ~RHN UtVtLvrMtNI ~VMrANY I~C. Vjj't r. j R-7 All buildings shall be designed to be compatible with one another, All facades of buildings shall be of similar design, compatible materials and similar detailing.. . Plazas, hardscape, landscaped areas and site amenities shall also be compatible to the established building character. and shall include outdoor seating areas, varied paving materials to add contrast and texture, and decorative containers with seasonal landscape. Restaurant tenants will be encouraged to provide outdoor dining areas with tables, chairs and Umbrellas, Roofline treatment shall be of compatible design on all buildings. Single, large building masses without articulated facades shall not be permitted. Large building walls shall be required to incorporate multidimensional design features, such as, changes in plane, canopies, a'Mlings, dimensional signage, windows, doors, facias, arcades, and changes in texture, material and color or vary in height to add interest. Retaining walls shall be subject to proffers 7 and 8 relating to construction materials or be composed of textured keystone blocks. Required screening of service and trash areas shall be with flDish materials compatible with the" adjacent building. The loading area at the northwest side of the proposed grocery store shall be screened with a freestanding wall with similar fuùsh as the adjacent building. Acceptable building frnishes include: a. b. c. d. brick wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute lap siding and trim glass, with clear glass required in retail storefronts stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS) stone face colored concrete block stone or cast stone standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or asphalt shingle roof e. f. g. The following building finishes are prohibited: a. b. c. unpainted or bare metal panels 4 x 8 plywood or composite panels bare exposed concrete that is not exposed aggregate, hammered, sandblasted or covered with.a cement-based acrylic coating unfinished wood other than cedar, mahogany, teak or redwood. d. 2 e Jun.1? 2004 1: JB~M KAHN U~V~LU~M~NI CUM~ANY No. Ujj4 r. 4 K-7 9. Site Lighting: a. All lighting near the property lines shall be shielded "cut off' types to internalize illumination and avoid spillover to adjacent sites and public roads. Sidewalks shall be illuminated with decorative pedestrian-scaled pole or building mounted luminaries, Plazas may be illuminated similar to sidewalks but may include additional feature lighting for attractions and outdoor dining. Landscape lighting may be employed to enhance site entrance and feature areas. No exposed neon or fluorescent lighting shall be pennitted. The maximum height of freestanding light fixtures shall be 30 feet. b. c. .d, e. f. 10. Site Signage: a. b. Off premises signs (billboards) shall not be allowed on the property. The main freestanding multi-sided project identification sign shall be at the comer of Keagy Road and Route 419 and shall be monument style utilizing materials approved as acceptable building materials and shall not exceed 25 feet in height. Minor freestanding entrance signs shall be multi.sided monument style and shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Tenant signage visible to off-site shall be encouraged to be creative in order to add interest and texture and, in addition to letters, may include logos and images. Projecting blade signs and projecting three-dimensional signs are also encouraged, Box signs, exposed raceways and exposed neon are prohibited. Signage may be internally or externally illuminated. c. d. 11. Non-specialty drive-in or fast food restaurants and gasoline stations shall not be pennitted. Establishments primarily serving specialty foods (such as coffee, baked goods, e.g.) with drive-through windows are not included within this prohibition but would require a special use permit in accordance with the . requirements of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Drive.. through windows are not permitted directly facing the street unless they are completely screened. . 12. ~ developer shall comply with all VDOT reqUirements for improvements to adjoining Route 419 and Keagy Road including any reqUired ea5en1ents e 3 Jun.1J. 2004 1:39PM KAHN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY No. 0334 P. 5 Y(-7 for sight distance as well as the donation of any additional right-of-way along Keagy Road and Route 419. Respectfully submitted, e 4 ~ - v:~~ Development Company , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -~ \ -,. \ u.~,. \a._- \W,.~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, " , '" '"f1:'!>, "~~~~ " ..~ " """"- - a."". a..~- w,.,- I I -~ ~--, a.._- w,.,." -~ """'.. -.- ~,_._- a""". -~ ..'" -,,- =~Ë';Z': ---- au-. SCALE"..",.. TYPICAL PARKING LAYOUT CONCEPTUAL SITE DATA EXISTINGZONING:R-I&C-1 PROPQSEDZONING:C-Z T'" PARCEL NUMBERS: 167,18-2-1 ',B47ACRES '67,18-2-2 2B34ACRES 161.1B~~ 1.118ACRES 161.18-24 2052ACRES ..._-"""-"""""""""" """1<"",,"""."""'" TOTALACRE<\GE: IS,65ACRES TOTAL NOHD-EXCEED SQUARE FOOTAGE .TOW.'30.000S.F. .R£TAll< 105.000 S,F .QfF1CE.",OOOs.F. RETAL SHOWN = 99,500 S.F. OFFICE SHOWN = 19.500 B.F, TOTAL PAR~NG REQUMJ FOR SHOWN SQUARE FOOTAGE; 5OOS1'ACES -R£TAJl<3BS/'ACES@4.4/IO00S.F. .OFFICEBBSPACES@3,S/I000S.F. lOADING SPACES REQUIRED: .R£TAJL3SPJ<CES . OFFICE 1 SPACE :DM~ "i;#f:;':g~m CONCEPT PLAN KEAGY VILLAGE Roanoke, Virginia Kahn Development """011."0,,.. Col.."" So"," C...,,", 192" /0 _O) ft",:;: . Petitioner: Kahn Development Company ~ Request: Location: Rezone 15.52 acres from Cl and R1 to C2C Magisterial District: Proffered/Suggested Conditions: Intersection of Rt. 419, Electric Road and Keagy Road Windsor Hills See Exhibit "A", Proffered Conditions, Keagy Village See also additional suggested conditions at end of Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Kahn Development Company wishes to construct a mixed-use office and retail development. The petitioner has also proffered possible residential uses mixed with the office uses, If included, the residential uses would be those allowed in the C2 zoning district. The C2 district allows multi-family residential included within an office or commercial building, not to exceed 50% of the total floor area. In the northern and eastern portion ofthe site, the petitioner wishes to build one large anchor retail grocery store, with a mix of specialty shops and restaurants in the other retail buildings. Non-specialty drive-in or fast food restaurants and gasoline stations are specifically prohibited in the proffers. Specialty food establishments such as coffee and baked goods shops would be allowed, but still would require a Special Use Permit from the Board of Supervisors if a drive- through service was proposed. The remainder ofthe site would be used for offices and possibly multi-family residences. The issues of conformance with the Community Plan, and generation of new vehicle traffic åre central to this proposed rezoning. The petitioner has worked to achieve conformance with the Community Plan through proffered architectural designs, and a tiered development plan that places less intensive office uses as a buffer between the retail uses and adj acent homes. The 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan designates the properties Neighborhood Conservation and Transition. The three properties that are currently zoned Rl fall under the Neighborhood Conservation designation, The development pattern is not a typical suburban residential design, so the debate is not so much conservation of an existing development pattern, but rather should those properties be ultimately redeveloped for single or multi-family residential, or for commercial use, Given the location across from a large office building development and proximity to a signalized intersection, it seems fairly debatable that with a high quality development plan, this property could be better used for commercial development. As mentioned above, staff understands that three of the properties on the petition are designated Neighborhood Conservation, and if the properties are rezoned, the new development must make every effort to mitigate impacts to the neighborhood, In addition, the Board of Supervisors should make a firm commitment not to extend commercial development beyond this point on Keagy Road. New traffic would be generated from this proposed development. A traffic impact analysis is underway, and will make recommendations to VDOT for improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road, VDOT will then determine the extent of required improvements to the streets, VDOT has commented on the proposed rezoning, and those comments should be taken into consideration if the Board of Supervisors accept proffered conditions to rezone the property. Construction of required improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road should also be included in the proffered conditions. e 1 R-7 If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning, staff recommends the following proffers be added to those submitted: 1) The developer shall comply with all VDOT requirements for improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road 2) The developer shall provide easements for sight distance from the eastern Keagy Road entrance. 3) The developer shall donate additional right of way along Keagy Road and Rt. 419 as required by VDOT for street improvements. 4) Access to the site from Rt. 419 shall be ingress only, 5) Retaining wall finishes shall be the same as those listed as "Acceptable building finishes" in proffer #7, dated February 12, 2004. 6) The loading area at the northwest side ofthe proposed grocery store shall be screened with a structural wall with similar finish materials as the adjacent building. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval is required for new entrances and other improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road. Site development review is required for confonnance with Roanoke County standards, 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background - The petitioner, Kahn Development Company, is the contract purchaser of four parcels ofland in the 5000 block of Keagy Road. The properties are located between the intersection of Sugar loaf Mountain Road and Rt. 419. Three properties, with a total area of5.8 acres are zoned R1, Low Density Residential. The remaining property is 9.85 acres and zoned Cl, Office District. Most of the site frontage, approximately 1,090 feet, lies along Keagy Road. The site has approximately 235 feet of frontage on Rt. 419. Three single-family homes exist on the site, along with numerous accessory structures. The western-most home was first used as a school, before being converted into a residence. A review of the 1992 "Historical Architecture Reconnaissance Survey Report, Roanoke County, Virginia" revealed no references to the structure. An evaluation committee from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has recommended that the old school building is not potentially eligible for listing on the National Historic Register, due to a loss of physical integrity, including the structure being converted into a duplex. TopographvNegetation - The property slopes down and to the northwest from Keagy Road, A small water course runs through the middle of the properties, and drops into a deep ravine as it reaches the northwest property line, The channel conveys runoff from Keagy Road and the Allstate property. The topography of the site also slopes down to the north, near the intersection of Rt. 419 and Keagy Road. Vegetation consists of open residential yard areas, surrounded by mixed deciduous and evergreen trees. The wooded areas appear to be of various ages, with some mature stands, and some younger trees. e 2 ~7 Surrounding Neighborhood - Property to the south, across Keagy Road is zoned Cl and contains the Allstate office building and parking lots, Properties to the southwest and west are zoned Rl, and contain single family residences on .75 - I-acre lots, A 19+ acre tract adjoins to the west, and is zoned Rl, with a single family residence. A vacant 15 acre tract adjoining to the northwest is zoned R2, A vacant 13.8 acre tract adjoining to the north is zoned Cl Conditional. The conditional C 1 zoning is the result of a 1983 rezoning for an office building that has not been constructed to date. Properties across Rt. 419, in the City of Roanoke are zoned RSI and Cl, and contain vacant parcels, Showtimer's Theatre, and a medical office. The RS 1 and C 1 districts are similar to the County's Rl and CI districts, respectively. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Community Meeting - The petitioners held a community meeting on January 15,2004, at the Oak Grove Elementary School. Approximately 40 people attended the meeting. Attendance was a mix of nearby residents, interested business persons, the subject property owners, the petitioner and their legal counsel, and county staff. Most, if not all ofthe residents voiced concerns and opposition to the proposed rezoning, They cited traffic concerns, safety, impact to property values, and a desire for the single-family home sites to remain residential. Site Layout/Architecture - The petitioner's proffered site development plan shows ten buildings designed with a mix of retail and office uses. The petitioner has also proffered possible residential uses mixed with the office uses. If included, the residential uses would be those allowed in the C2 zoning district. The C2 district allows multi-family residential included within an office or commercial building, not to exceed 50% of the total floor area. In the northern and eastern portion of the site, the petitioner wishes to build one large anchor retail grocery store, with a mix of specialty shops and restaurants in the other retail buildings. Non-specialty drive-in or fast food restaurants and gasoline stations are specifically prohibited in the proffers. Specialty food establishments such as coffee and baked goods shops would be allowed, but still would require a Special Use Permit trom the Board of Supervisors if a drive- through service was proposed, The remainder of the site would be used for offices and possibly multi-family residences. The proposed retail buildings are oriented toward Rt. 419 and Keagy Road, and the office or residential buildings are oriented toward the adjacent residential properties. In their statement of proffered conditions, the petitioner proffers this overall concept in order to have the office or residential area buffer the adjacent residential properties from the retail uses to the northeast. The site development plan proffers a design concept to place the prominent anchor retail grocery store and large parking area to the north of the site, away from the adjoining residential neighborhood, but visible and easily accessible from the signalized intersection ofRt. 419 and Keagy Road. The proffered development plan also shows that the site will have varying topography and varying building floor elevations, While these floor elevations may not be exact final elevations, they communicate a design of varied building elevations stepping down to the northeast, along Keagy Road from SugarloafMountain Road toward Rt. 419, and also stepping down to the north and northwest trom Keagy Road. The floor level ofthe grocery store is shown approximately 40 feet lower than the floor level of the building nearest the intersection of Sugar loaf Mountain Road, Along Keagy Road, the floor elevations drop approximately 15 feet trom the first two buildings to the second two buildings to the nçrtheast. The floor elevation drops approximately 3 20 feet ftom the second two building to the single building at the eastern comer Of~:. le four buildings facing Keagy Road will have the upper level face Keagy Road, and the lower level face the interior parking lots, A building in the center of the site has a similar design, with the upper level facing the southwest and the lower level accessed from the large parking lot. The concept plan shows retaining walls around significant portions of the northeast and northwest sides of the site, The petitioner has approached the property owner adjoining to the northeast about a possible slope easement in order to achieve their desired building location, If the slope easement is not utilized, then the large retail store and some of the parking lot may need to be relocated due to differences in proposed grades between the driveway around the store and the adjacent property. In the petitioner's proffer statement, proffer number 5 addresses architectural treatment oflarge walls. This proffer should be clarified to specifically address retaining wall materials. The loading docks for the proposed grocery store are shown on the concept plan at the northwest side of the building, Staff requests that the petitioner clarify whether the loading area would be screened from view of the residences to the northwest. lfnot, then a proffer regarding screening ofthe loading area, or relocation to the southwestern side of the store, is recommended. A storm water detention pond is shown in the northwest end of an existing water course. The proposed level of the detention pond is shown to be much lower than the developed site, Comments received from the City of Roanoke, Department of Planning, Building and Development stressed conformance with all applicable storm water management requirements under Commonwealth of Virginia law. Other site amenities include several outdoor plazas for pedestrians and seating, landscaped areas, sidewalks connecting all buildings, and a nature/walking trail around the property perimeter. Seven ofthe 12 proffered conditions address building and site architecture. The petitioner wishes to have some flexibility on final building design decisions, but has proffered by both inclusion and prohibition a concept of all building facades being of similar design, with compatible finish materials, similar detailing, and compatible roofline treatments. Typical building elevations and building cross sections were submitted by the petitioner as illustrations of design concepts, but the specific designs are not proffered, Site lighting and signage are also proffered, Fixtures on freestanding poles would be limited to a height of 30 feet. Other lighting proffers address shielding of lights near property lines, and varying scales and design of pedestrian, plaza and landscaping lighting, Monument style freestanding signs are proffered. Some particular sign designs are prohibited, while other sign design concepts are encouraged. Access/Traffic Circulation - Access to the development is proposed via three entrance driveways, One driveway would be a right turn from south bound Rt. 419. Two other driveways would provide access from Keagy Road. The main entrance to the site would be aligned with the eastern most entrance to the Allstate property. This entrance is shown on the proffered site plan as a divided driveway. Vehicles entering the site would proceed into the main parking lot, and would not be allowed to stop and attempt an immediate left turn into the front parking areas. Smaller parking areas are shown between Keagy Road and the buildings facing the street. Most of the parking is located in the interior ofthe site, and away from Keagy Road. As is the case with the building floor elevations, the concept plan shows the parking lots at varying elevations, e 4 ((- 7 Sidewalks are proposed throughout the interior of the site, to facilitate pedestrian access within the development. A walking/nature trail is also proposed on the site. The petitioner has initiated discussions with the Virginia Department of Transportation regarding possible improvements to the vertical curve in Keagy Road, where the eastern entrance driveway is proposed, If the roadway could be lowered, site distance at the proposed new entrance would be improved, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff commented that the proposed development will significantly increase traffic generation from the property, and that a traffic impact analysis will be necessary to evaluate existing turn lanes and determine lane requirements at the proposed entrances. VDOT staff recommends access from Keagy Road only, citing turning movement problems with the proposed entrance from Rt. 419, VDOT has also commented that additional right of way may be needed for street improvements, and that attention should be given sight distance improvements on Keagy Road at the location of the eastern entrance. The petitioner has contracted with a local consulting firm to perform a traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact analysis will make recommendations to VDOT for improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road. VDOT will then determine the extent of required improvements to the streets, The report is anticipated to be completed prior to the March 2 Planning Commission public hearing, Traffic count and traffic generation information have been supplied by the consultant and are as follows: 2002 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Street From To Rt. 419, Electric Rd US 221 Salem limits Rt. 685, Keagy Rd Rt. 419 SugarloafMt. Rd SugarloafMt. Rd Walton Ln, Rt. 692, SugarloafMt. Rd, Keagy Rd, Elbert Dr. AADT 36,000 4,100 1,900 2,700 Projected Development Trips Per the consultant's information, "Based on the projected uses and facility sizes, approximately 1,180 trips are projected to occur during the PM peak hour of adjacent streets. This number represents the total volume of entering and exiting trips projected for all three proposed entrances to the development, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual." The consultants have added that internal trips, or those taken by tenants of buildings in the development to other businesses in the development, may reduce the peak trip projection. The issue of traffic generated from the proposed development, and how to properly serve the traffic is central to the proposed rezoning. The petitioner has initiated a traffic impact analysis, which will produce estimates of where vehicles entering and leaving the site would travel, as well as recommended improvements. Considering that improvements to both Rt. 419 and Keagy Road will be necessary, and considering the VDOT comments mentioned above, staff suggests the petitioner consider proffers regarding the following: 1) compliance with all VDOT requirements for improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road 2) easements for sight distance from the eastern Keagy Road entrance 3) donation of additional right of way along Keagy Road and Rt. 419 4) restricting access to the site from Rt. 419 to ingress only e 5 ~-7 Fire & RescuelUtilities - Fire and Rescue Department staff have commented that access appears to be good, and that development of the retail site should not produce an extremely high volume of calls, Response would come first from Cave Spring, which is within five miles, and other stations may have to assist. Public water service is available via either an 8-inch water line in Keagy Road, or a lO-inch water line in Rt. 419. Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended along Rt. 419, ITom a point near the intersection of Valley Drive and Keagy Road, Economic Development - Economic Development Department staff strongly support the petition, citing the location adjacent to one of the valley's largest employers, support their staff have heard from citizens and business representatives, and the opportunity for a quality development from national developer. The department hopes the project may be judged by its merits, and realizes that the question of appropriate land use remains central to the discussion. 4, CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan designates the properties Neighborhood Conservation and Transition, With the project being on the border between anticipated future residential land use and anticipated future commercial land use, the petitioner was cautioned by staffto produce a plan that mitigated impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhoods, and was acceptable to the Board of Supervisors as a preferred development option. The petitioner has worked to achieve this goal through proffered architectural designs, and a tiered development plan that places less intensive office uses as a buffer between the retail uses and adjacent homes, The Neighborhood Conservation land use designation is a future land use designation where established single family neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation ofthe existing development pattern is encouraged, The three properties that are currently zoned Rl fall under the Neighborhood Conservation designation. Two homes are located on three parcels that range in size from 1.1 to 2.6 acres, The development pattern is not a typical suburban residential design, so the debate is not so much conservation of an existing development pattern, but rather should those properties be ultimately redeveloped for single or multi-family residential, or for commercial use. Given the location across from a large office building development and proximity to a signalized intersection, it seems fairly debatable that with a high quality development plan, this property could be better used for commercial development. As mentioned above, staffundetstands that three of the properties on the petition are designated Neighborhood Conservation, and if the properties are rezoned, the new development must make every effort to mitigate impacts to the neighborhood, and the Board of Supervisors should make a firm commitment not to extend commercial development beyond this point on Keagy Road. The Transition land use designation is a future land use designation that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses, Planned office parks, small scale planned and clustered retail uses are encouraged land use types. The proposal confonns with the policies and guidelines of the Transition designation, e 6 R-7 The 419 Frontage Development Plan, dated February, 1987, is adopted by reference into the Community Plan. The 419 Plan has goals, design guidelines and implementation strategies to encourage quality economic development along Rt. 419, and avoid haphazard strip development of the corridor. When approached by the petitioner about possibly rezoning the subject properties, county staff presented the designers with a copy of the 419 Plan to use as a basis for their design standards. The petitioner responded with a plan that proffers clusters of buildings and land uses, extensive architectural design standards, and controlled access leading to and from the signalized intersection of Keagy Road and Rt. 419, as well as providing access from the surrounding neighborhood, The proposal confonns with the overall goals and guidelines of the 419 Plan. The 419 Plan also contains Future Land Use designations that are tied to the Community Plan. In the 419 Plan, the three properties that are currently zoned Rl fall under the Development designation. The Development designation is areas where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses. Innovative housing design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective. Clustered developments are encouraged as is the use of greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. While the proposed development confonns generally with some of the design concepts of the Development designation, residential development is the prominent feature of the designation, Thus, the same debate over future use of the Rl-zoned properties exists whether the property is designated Neighborhood Conservation in the Community Plan, or designated Development in the 419 Plan. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The issues of confonnance with the Community Plan, and generation of new vehicle traffic are central to this proposed rezoning, The petitioner has worked to achieve confonnance with the Community Plan through proffered architectural designs, and a tiered development plan that places less intensive office uses as a buffer between the retail uses and adj acent homes. The 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan designates the properties Neighborhood Conservation and Transition, The three properties that are currently zoned Rl fall under the Neighborhood Conservation designation, The development pattern is not a typical suburban residential design, so the debate is not so much conservation of an existing development pattern, but rather should those properties be ultimately redeveloped for single or multi-family residential, or for commercial use, Given the location across from a large office building development and proximity to a signalized intersection, it seems fairly debatable that with a high quality development plan, this property could be better used for commercial development. As mentioned above, staff understands that three of the properties on the petition are designated Neighborhood Conservation, and if the properties are rezoned, the new development must make every effort to mitigate impacts to the neighborhood, and the Board of Supervisors should make a firm commitment not to extend commercial development beyond this point on Keagy Road. New traffic would be generated from this proposed development. A traffic impact analysis is underway, and will make recommendations to VDOT for improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road. VDOT will then detennine the extent of required improvements to the streets. VDOT has commented on the proposed rezoning, and those comments should be taken into consideration if the Board of Supervisors accept proffered conditions to rezone the property. Construction of required improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road should also be included in the proffered conditions. e 7 tZ~ ~.. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning, staffrecommends the 7 following proffers be added to those submitted and dated February 12, 2004: 1) The developer shall comply with all VDOT requirements for improvements to Rt. 419 and Keagy Road 2) The developer shall provide easements for sight distance from the eastern Keagy Road entrance, 3) The developer shall donate additional right of way along Keagy Road and Rt. 419 as required by VDOT for street improvements, 4) Access to the site from Rt. 419 shall be ingress only, 5) Retaining wall finishes shall be the same as those listed as "Acceptable building finishes" in proffer #7, dated February 12,2004. 6) The loading area at the northwest side ofthe proposed grocery store shall be screened with a structural wall with similar fmish materials as the adjacent building, CASE NUMBER: 06-03/2004 PREPARED BY: David Holladay HEARING PC: 3/2/04 DATES: BOS: 3/23/04 e 8 þ þ :~ ~ ~ - It Þ Þ It Þ !Þ !Þ ~ Þ Þ Þ . Þ Þ Þ . t - Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ ~ ~ R~7 Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis For: Kahn Development Company June 11,2004 DRAFT HSMM TR.A,NSPORTATION '" K-) Please note: The following is the Table of Contents and Introduction of the Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis, The complete report is on file in the Clerk's Office if you wish to review it. e ~ , t it !Þ . t t t , . it . . t IÞ t !Þ Þ Þ t t ~ - ~ ~ ~ t Þ Þ t Þ . Þ . . . . . þ , t t ~ lit. Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis Yl~l DRAFT Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................,......................................................................... ......................... 1 2.0 Proposed Development ......,."...,.......................,............,.......,..........................,..,.......,............1 3.0 Existing Volumes.... ,..................... .............................................. .................................,..,... ...... 2 4.0 Projected Growth Rates..................................................,..........................,....,......,.......""........3 5,0 Projected Development Volumes..... ........... ..... .......,... ............ ................ ............. .......... ...........4 6,0 Intersection Improvements .............. ......... .......,................................,............".............. .."........ 8 6.1 Geometric hnprovements .........,...... ........ ,.. ............ ..... ............,........."..... .........,.. ......... 8 6.1.11-eft Turn Lanes............................... ................,......... .................................. ,.. 8 6.1.2 Right Turn Lanes.;................ ......... ......,.... ..., ........................................, ......,.. 8 6.2 Signal Warrants Analysis ......".... ........... ...... ............... ..... ....... ............................, ......... 9 7,0 Operational Analyses........,........................,.. ..........,.........,.......................,............................. 12 7.1 Existing Conditions.........,....,.... ,..,..............,..,..................................................,......... 12 7.2 Design Year 2008 Background Traffic Conditions..................................................... 13 7.3 Design Year 2008 AM Peak Hour ..,......................,....................................................14 7.3.1 Route 419 and Keagy Road Signalized Intersection ...,........~...................,... 14 7.3.2 Unsignalized Intersections.... ......... ,.. ............... """""'" ..,.............. ......" ....... 15 7.4 Design Year 2008 PM Peak Hour 7.4.1 Route 419 and Keagy Road Signalized Intersection ....................................15 7.4.2 Unsignalized Intersections.. ..... ......",............,.. ..".... ........ ...................... ....... 16 8.0 Conclusion............................... ............................................,................................................... 17 HSMM, Inc. June 11,2004 . t . . . þ þ . þ þ , . t Þ . . þ . þ . . . - . t . t t , ~ t ~ . ~ . . t . . t . t t t !Io. Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis R-l D RA~T List of Figures Figure 1.1- Location Map........ .....". ..,................,..... ,............,......... ,................................................ 1 Figure 4. I-Design Year 2008 Projected AM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes ................ 3 Figure 4,2-Design Year 2008 Projected PM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes ,................4 Figure 5. I-Directional Distribution of Ent~ring and Exiting Development Trips .........,................ 6 Figure 5.2-Design Year 2008 Projected AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................... 7 Figure 5.3-Design Year 2008 Projected PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................................... 7 Figure 6. I-Design Year 2008 Projected Four-Hour Average Traffic Volumes ..............,.................. 10 Figure 6.2-Design Year 2008 Projected Eight-Hour Average Traffic Volumes ................................ 11 . List of Tables Table 2.1- Proposed Distribution of Land Uses ..,..........................................................,.......,........1 Table 4. I-Projected Growth Rates and Design Year AADTs........................................................, 3 Table 5. I-Projected Trip Generation for the AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Streets ........................,. 5 Table 5.2-Projected Trip Generation for the PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Streets..........................,5 Table 6,l-Required Left Turn Treatments for Design Year 2008................................................... 8 Table 6,2-Required Right Turn Treatments for Design Year 2008 .............,.................................. 9 Table 6.3-Signal Warrants Summary .................................,..,.......................................................11 Table 7.1-HCM Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections .............................,.....12 Table 7,2-HCM Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections........................................ 12 Table 7.3-Existing Average Queue Lengths-Intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road ........... 13 Table 7.4-Design Year 2008 Projected Background Conditions Average Queue Lengths- Intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road .................................................................. 14 Table 7.5-Projected AM Peak Hour Queue Lengths-Intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road.. .............................................................. ........... ................................ 15 Table 7.6-Projected PM Peak Hour Queue Lengths-Intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road ............. ........... ........... .... ............ ...,.......... .............. .................... ........ 16 Appendix . Appendix A-Proposed Development Layout Appendix B-Turning Movement Counts Collected By HSMM (AM and PM Peak Hours) Appendix C-Automated Tube Counts for Route 685-Keagy Road and Route 692-Sugar Loaf Mountain Road Appendix D-Historical Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes Appendix E-AM Peak Hour Synchro Intersection Analyses Appendix F-PM Peak Hour Synchro Intersection Analyses e HSMM, Inc. ii June 11,2004 t I t I t ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . . . . ~ þ þ ~ ~ t .þ . Þ t ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ þ þ . þ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ...,.------ Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis !.,~i _7'" j/ "'- I ~.' DRAFT 1.0 Introduction Kahn Development, Inc. commissioned HSMM to perfonn a traffic impact analysis for the proposed Keagy Village Development in Roanoke County. The proposed development is bounded to the south and west by Route 685-Keagy Road and is adjacent to the existing Allstate facility, Figure 1 depicts the location of the proposed Keagy Village development. This report includes a description of the proposed development, discussion of projected volumes for the development, discussion of existing and proposed conditions and recommended improvements for the intersections. NOT TO SCALE Figure 1.1-Location Map 2.0 Proposed Development The Keagy Village development is proposed to be a mixed-use facility, including a supermarket, village shopping center, restaurants, office supply store and professional office space. A conceptual layout of the proposed development is provided in Appendix A. The distribution of land uses is projected to be as follows: Development Type Professional Office Space Village Shopping Restaurants Supennarket Office Supply Store Area (Square Feet) 25,000 41,000 20,000 26,000 18,000 Table 2.1-Proposed Distribution of Land Uses eo HSMM, Inc. 1 June 11,2004 þ ~ ~ þ ~ - þ þ ~ þ ~ þ þ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis r<.- 7 DRAFT The time frame for completion of the commercial development is not known, It is expected that the majority of the proposed Keagy Village development will be completed by the end of 2006. A design year of 2008 was chosen to examine geometric requirements for the proposed development. Both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic were examined in conjunction with this report. Three entrances are proposed for the Keagy Village development. Two full service entrances are proposed along Keagy Road. The entrance along southbound Route 419 is proposed to be a right-in entrance only. This analysis is based on the conceptual layout provided. Changes to the entrance configurations, land uses and/or development types will necessitate re-evaluation of the traffic analysis. 3,0 Existing Volumes Turning movement counts were collected for the following intersections in the study area: .. Route 419 and Keagy Road, .. Keagy Road and the eastern entrance to the Allstate development, .. Keagy Road and the western entrance to the Allstate development, .. Keagy Road and Sugar Loaf Mountain Road, and .. Sugar Loaf Mountain Road and the Allstate entrance/Route 1335-Apple Blossom Lane, Turning movement counts were collected for the AM and PM peak hours on April 1, 2004 and February 4, 2004, respectively. These volumes were collected to establish the existing conditions and to quantify the trips generated by the existing Allstate development. These volumes are included in Appendix B. The AM peak hour generally occurs between 7:15 and 8:15 AM. The PM peak hour generally occurs between 4:30 and 5:30PM, During the PM peak hour of adjacent streets, the number of trips generated by the proposed development is expected to be greater, However, traffic analysis was performed for both the AM and PM peak hours to examine turn lane requirements and geometric improvements. Automated tube counts were obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for Keagy Road and Sugar Loaf Mountain Road. These volumes were collected on February 9- 11, 2004, These volumes were used to establish the peak hour percentage of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and to estimate the 8 hour and 4 hour average volumes for the signal warrants analysis as is discussed in a later section of this report. The peak hour of Keagy Road and Sugar Loaf Mountain Road is estimated to be 11 percent of the AADT based on the automated traffic counts provided for these routes. These counts are included in Appendix C. The peak hour of Route 419 is estimated to be 8 percent of the AADT based on the peak period turning movements collected on February 7, 2004 by HSMM, HSMM, Inc. 2 June 11,2004 . . , . . . , ~ ~ t ~ t ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ t e t t , ~ ~ ~ ~ Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis «:7 DRAFT 4.0 Projected Growth Rates Using historic traffic volume data collected from VDOT and included in Appendix D, a growth rate of 1.7 percent was established for Keagy Road and Sugar Loaf Mountain Road. A growth rate of 2.2 percent was established for Route 419. Design year traffic volumes were projected using these growth rates as delineated in Table 4,1. The design year 2008 projected background traffic volumes for Route 685, 692 and Route 419 are delineated in Figure 4.1 and 4.2 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Route 685- Route 692-Sugar Loaf Kea2Y Road Mountain Road Route 419 Year 2004 2004 2002 MDT Volume 4274 2586 36000 Growth Rate 1.70% 1.70% 2.20% Design Year 2008 2008 2008 Design Year MDT Volume 4572 2766 41021 Table 4,l-Projected Growth Rates and Design Year AADTs I - 19 - 60 r 39 r 140 132- --, r 329- 16-, I 10. l,r- , fB~ -189 .104 32~- í r . o~ o~ Lo N::~ -2 ~ ~ L r 5 RTE685 223 -1 í t r KEAGY RD 2- ~:;;:N 152'1 ~ ~ RTE 1335 APPLE BLOSSOM RD Lo oG!", -0 ~¡L .1 5~ I t r 0- N~~ 3. N ALLSTATE I RTE419 RTE692 SUGAR LO,llf MOUNTAIN RD Figure 4.1-Design Year 2008 Projected AM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes e HSMM, Inc. 3 June 11,2004 I ~, . þ þ . þ . þ þ . . Þ t Þ Þ Þ t Þ Þ Þ . ~ _. ~ þ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . t . t t . t t e ~ ~ e Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis (¿~~7 DRAFT I --- 72 --- 163 ,96 r5 ¡~ll[ 1~~ ~r M L18 IQ:::N CO_N -2 ~ I L ,33 I , RTE 685 197-1 II r KEAGY RD 8-- ::¡~'" 215~ - I RTE 419 --171 r 15 2~- I r 1 o~ RTE 1335 APPLE BLOSSOM RD ¡;; L15 IQ_M ---0 -.J ~ L ,51 1J --, t r ALLSTATE I 0- "'~<Q 1"1 RTE 692 SUGAR LOAF MOUNTAIN RD Figure 4.2-Design Year 2008 Projected PM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes 5.0 Projected Development Volumes Trip generation was performed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. 7th. Edition. Trip generation was performed based on the preliminary layout prepared by DMR as provided in Appendix A. The proposed "not to exceed" square footage values were used to develop projected trips generated by the development. The development as constructed may have lesser floor areas. The number of trips generated in conjunction with this study conservatively represents the projected traffic impacts of the proposed development. Land uses for the proposed Keagy Village development are delineated in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2, Projected trips were assigned to the three entrances to develop entering and exiting volumes at each intersection. Figure 5.1 delineates the directional distribution which was projected. e HSMM, Inc. 4 June 11, 2004 . . . . þ- . . . . , . . it . . . . . t . , !t . . t t ~ , t t ~ ~ t . t t . t t . t t ~ . Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis V<-~7 DRAFT Land Use and Size of Rate per Trips Entering Entering Exiting Exiting Projected Use Referenced Facility Page (SF) Trip End Generated Percentage Trips Percentage Trips General Office 71O-Pg. 1159 25,000 1.55 39 88% 34 12% 5 Building Specialty Retail 814-Pg. 1339 41,000 2.71 111 44% 49 56% 62 Center High Turnover (Sit- 932-Pg.I724 10,000* 11.52 230 52% 120 48% 111 Down) Restaurant Supermarket 850-Pg.1525 26,000 3.25 85 61% 52 39% 33 Office Supply Store 867-Pg.1621 18,000 3.4 61 53% 32 47% 29 Total Trips 526 287 * Accounts for the limited number of restaurants expected to be open during the AM peak hour of adjacent streets. 239 Table 5,l-Projected Trip Generation for the AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Streets Land Use and Size of Rate per Trips Entering Entering Exiting Exiting Projected Use Referenced Facility Page (SF) Trip End Generated Percentage Trips Percentage Trips General Office 71O-Pg. 1160 25,000 1.49 37 17% 6 83% 31 Building Specialty Retail 814-Pg. 1339 41,000 2.71 111 44% 49 56% 62 Center High Turnover (Sit- 932-Pg. 1725 20,000 10.92 218 61% 133 39% 85 Down) Restaurant Supermarket 850-Pg.1526 26,000 10.45 272 51% 139 49% 133 Office Supply Store 867-Pg. 1621 18,000 3.4 61 53% 32 47% 29 Total Trips 340 700 359 Table 5,2-Projected Trip Generation for the PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Streets Trip generation rates for the AM peak hour of adjacent streets were .not available for several of the projected land uses. The rates shown for the office supply store and the specialty retail center are based on the PM peak hour rates for each land use. Additionally, it is unlikely that all of the restaurant space (20,000 square feet) will be in use during the AM peak hour. Therefore, trips were generated on 10,000 square feet during the AM peak hour of adjacent streets. The actual number of trips generated by the proposed development will likely be lower than projected for the AM peak hour, e HSMM, Inc. 5 June 11,2004 \ . t t t - . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . , , t . . t t t t . t t t . Þ t . t ~ t t ~ t . Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis R--7 DRAFT SUG.&R LOAF MOUNT Þ/N RO.aD ENT. PROPOSED KEAGY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT ¡ -30% M.&JN ENT. ROUTE 419 ENT. ~ t ~ ~ , I t ~ RTE 685 KEAGYRD WESTERN ENT. EASTERN ENT. I RTE 419 RTE 1335 .&J>PLE BLOSSOM RD REAR ENT. ALLSTATE / RTE 692 SUGAR LOAF MOUNTAIN RD Figure S.l-Directional Distribution of Entering and Exiting Development Trips The timeframe for full buildout of the commercial development is not currently known. The majority of the development is expected to be in plac~ by 2006. A projected design year of 2008 was used to determine required geometric improvements along Route 419, Keagy Road and Sugar Loaf Mountain Road. It is anticipated that all geometric improvements will be completed in the initial stage of development, Trips entering the proposed development that are drawn from the adjacent street volumes are called pass-by trips, These trips are diversions of traffic included in the existing roadway volumes and are not generated specifically by the development facility itself. Pass-by trip percentages were estimated using the Virginia Department of Transportation Land Development Manual. A pass-by rate of 15 percent was used for the retail portion of the center. The restaurant, office supply store, supennarket and specialty retail land uses were included in the retail portion of the center. The projected through roadway volume at the appropriate development entrance was reduced by the number of pass-by trips associated with the development. The number of trips entering and exiting the site remains unchanged. Mixed-use developments have the potential to experience trips between different segments of the development. For example, a vehicle may enter a development and stop at a restaurant before traveling on to the grocery store within the same development. These internal trips can be projected using internal capture estimates. For the purposes of this study, internal capture of trips was assumed to be negligible and the trips generated and applied to the network should represent the upper range of potential traffic generated by the site, e HSMM, Inc. 6 June 11,2004 þ þ . þ . - . þ . t . . . . . . . þ . . . . t- . . . t t t , . t . t . t . . t ~ I , I . Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis R-( I DRAFT The projected PM peak hour traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 5.2, These volumes include the design year background traffic volumes, projected development trips, and the pass-by trip reduction. PROPOSED KEAGY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT SUGIIR LO.aF MOUNTAIN RO/ID ENT. ROUTE 419 ENT. MAIN ENT. L 23 O>O>~ ---38 ---110 -1 L 148 114D 1~~ llr3f~=ï' ~r 16+ N Lo "';:::'" -0 RTE1335..J L 11 APPLE BLOSSOM RD L79 ~~ - 212 ~L --- 291 r1O4 23 -.J 349- ìr 465- "'II) - °t WESTERN ENT. EASTERN ENT. I REAR ENT. ALLSTATE 5J I t r 0- N~i!! 3+ RTE 692 SUGIIR LOAF MOUNTAIN RD a; !8 ~ I ..JJ N:¡¡ Lo ~::~ ---2 -1 l LIS RTE665 288-.1 I t r KEAGYRD 2- ~~N 225+ -~ I RTE 419 Figure 5.2-Design Year 2008 Projected AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PROPOSED KEAGY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT SUGAR LOAF MOUNTAIN ROAD ENT. ROlJfE 419 ENT. MAIN ENT. L 36 ......"" - - "" - 1 06 - 250 ~ t L r 113 15 ~~~ ~1f"18~=l-:lr- .... "" <0 co 45+ - - L 126 1;j¡:: - 207 ..JL - 333 r15 36 -.J 314-- ìr 544 --- 0 CD al It> L15 <O~'" - 0 RTE1335 ~ ~ L- r 51 APPLE BLOSSOM RD 1-.1 I t r WESTERN ENT. EASTERN ENT. REAR ENT. ALLSTATE I 0--- '" 0<0 ~ 1l RTE 692 SUGAR LOAF MOUNTAIN RD 0 CD- ;:!~ --q N L 18 ~~~ - 2 ..J I L r 33 RTE685 . 1 KEAGY RD 316....! I r 8--- ::~'" 351l N N I RTE 419 Figure 5.3-Design Year 2008 Projected PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes e June 11, 2004 HSMM, Inc. 7 -. þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ . . þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ . þ þ þ . . . þ , . ~ þ . . þ þ þ þ . þ ~ ~ '" Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis ~-7 DRAFT 6.0 Intersection Improvements 6.1 Geometric Improvements The VDOT Road Design Manual delineates the turning lane requirements for two lane and four lane highways. These requirements are based on the turning volume, approach volume and opposing volume. The required right and left turn lane lengths are summarized by intersection for the design year in the following sections. Sight distance requirements have not been evaluated in conjunction with this analysis. The roadway improvements which are planned in conjunction with the proposed development include modifications to the existing grade on Keagy Road to improve sight distance. 6.1.1 Left Turn Lanes The advancing and opposing volumes for both the AM and PM peak hours were examined for each entrance to the Keagy Village development along Keagy Road, Figures C-1-1.8 through C- 1-1-13 Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes on Two-Lane Highways of the VDOT Road Design Manual were used to determine the lane turn lane required under the design year 2008 projected conditions. Table 6,1 delineates the required turn lanes for the AM and PM peak hours. Development Entrance Design Year 2008 with AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Route 685-Keagy Road Westbound left turn lane No Turn Lane Required (Eastern Allstate Entrance) with 100' storage length Route 685-Development No Turn Lane Required- No Turn Lane Required Entrance Route 685-Keagy Road Westbound left turn lane No Turn Lane Required (Western Allstate Entrance) with 100' storage length Route 685-Keagy Road & Route 692 Sugar Loaf No Turn Lane Required No Turn Lane Required Mountain Road Route 692-Sugar Loaf Mountain Road (Rear No Turn Lane Required No Turn Lane Required Allstate Entrance) Table 6,l-Required Left Turn Treatments for Design Year 2008 Both of the Allstate entrances along Keagy Road exceed the minimum thresholds for left turn lanes with 100 feet of storage. These deficiencies are not solely associated with the proposed development. The 2008 background traffic projections were examined for both Allstate entrances, The eastern Allstate entrance on Keagy Road appears to exceed the minimum thresholds for a left turn lane with 100 feet of storage in the design year 2008. e HSMM, Inc. 8 June 11,2004 ~ þ þ þ þ þ . þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ . þ þ þ þ,- þ þ þ ~ þ þ þ þ Þ t . ~ þ ~ . . l' ~ t ~ ~ Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis ^./2 ~~7' IJ- DRAFT' 6.1.2 Right Turn Lanes The advancing and right turn volumes for both the AM and PM peak hours were examined for each entrance to the proposed Keagy Village development along Keagy Road and Route 419. Figures C-I-8 and C-I-9 Guidelines for Right Turn Treatment of the VDOT Road Design Manual were used to detennine the required turn lane configurations for each proposed entrance. The results of this analysis are delineated in Table 6.1. Development Entrance Design Year 2008 with AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Route 419 Southbound full width right Southbound full width right turn lane + taper required turn lane + taper required Route 685-Keagy Road - - (Eastern) Route 685-Development Westbound radius required Westbound full width right Entrance turn lane + taper required Route 685- Keagy Road Eastbound right turn radius (Western Allstate - Entrance) required Route 685-Keagy Road & Eastbound and westbound Eastbound and westbound Route 692 Sugar Loaf right turn radii required right turn radii required Mountain Road Route 692-Sugar Loaf Northbound full width right ¡Northbound and southbounc Mountain Road (Rear Allstate Entrance) turn lane + taper required right turn radii required Table 6,2-Required Right Turn Treatments for Design Year 2008 Several of the right turn requirements noted above are associated with existing conditions and/or development in the study area, The existing volumes on the northbound approach to the Sugar Loaf Mountain Road and Allstate entrance exceed the minimum thresholds for a full width right turn lane and taper. 6.2 Signal Warrants Analysis The Manual of Unifonn Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2003 Edition serves as the basis for warrants analysis. Signal warrants were examined for the design year 2008 projected conditions based on the commercial development proposed for the Keagy Village, The MUTCD signal warrants are identified by number and are listed below by name: .. Warrant I-Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, . Warrant 2-Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, . Warrant 3-Peak Hour, e HSMM, Inc. June 11,2004 9 . . . . t - . . . t, " , þ Þ t , , t , , , ~ t ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ !a ~ ~ ; !Þ ~ ~ þ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis k--7 DRAFT . Warrant 4-Pedestrian Volume, . Warrant 5-School Crossing, ... Warrant 6-Coordinated Signal System, ... Warrant 7 -Crash Experience, and Warrant 8-Roadway Network. The ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to project total trips for a weekday period with one exception. A daily trip rate was not available for the office supply superstore land use. The daily trip projection rate was estimated by dividing the PM peak hour trip rate by the PM peak hour percentage of AADT. The resulting trip rate was 40 trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, Pass-by percentages were applied to the weekday traffic volumès projected for each land use. A pass-by rate of 15 percent was used for the retail portion of the center, The restaurant, office supply store, supermarket and specialty retail land uses were included in the retail portion of the center. The average peak hour percentages of AADT were developed using the traffic counts obtained from VDOT and the turning movement counts collected in conjunction with this project. The four and eight-hour percentages of AADT were 8.6 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively. The four and eight-hour peak period percentages were used to project the four and eight-hour average volumes for the study area to examine Warrants 1 and 2. Figures 6.1 and'6.2 depict the four and eight-hour projected average volumes for design year 2008. SUGAA LO,AF MOUNT.alN ROÞD ENT, PROPOSED KEAGY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT g§! -1í MftJNENT. ROUTE 419 ENT, L34 ~~1'j - 80 -196 ~¡L ,84 ,69 11--.t 11 r27~::;- I r 111- ~ ¡:Ij¡!¡ ""¡¡I; 30t . L 120 ~¡: - 210 ~L -330 r56 -~ L9 ~:!¡¡¡ -2 -.J J L r19 RTE685 325--.t 11 r KEAGYRD 5- ~~'" 318t '" It> I RTE 419 34--1 330- 558- I r 0. CIS It> La "'~It> -0 RTE1335 ~ ¡ L ,26 IIPPLE BLOSSOM RD 3--.t ,1 r WESTERN ENT, EASTERN ENT, REAR ENT, ALLSTATE I 0- '" """ "'. - 2t RTE 692 SUGAR LO,AF MOUNTAIN RD Figure 6,l-Design Year 2008 Projected Four-Hour Average Traffic Volumes e HSMM, Inc. 10 June 11,2004 ~ t J , t- . , . . t . . t it . . . , . t t t t t t t t t t t t t it t t ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ [t ~ Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis R-7 DRAFT SUGPR LOPF MOUNT ÞlN ROÞDENT. PROPOSED KEAG Y VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT '" ~ffi I -11 MÞlN ENT. ROUTE 419 ENT. L34 ~~è'; --78 ---193 -1¡L r82 r67 11;~ llr27:=ï ~[ 30t ~ sa L 119 '" N - 206 ..JL --- 325 r 55 OJg¡ L9 ~~~ ---2 ..J J L r 18 RTE 685 --1 t KEAGYRD 320 I r 5- ~ ¡:::co 312 t N ~ I RTE 419 34--1 325- 549- I r O. o~ M L7 M~'" -0 RTE1335 -1 ¡ L r 26 þ.p PLE BLOSSOM RD 3 --1 I t r WESTERN ENT. EASTERN ENT. REAR ENT. ALLSTATE I 0- Mmm OJ.... ~ 2t RTE 692 SUGPR LOPF MOUNTAIN RD Figure 6.2-Design Year 2008 Projected Eight-Hour Average Traffic Volumes Signal warrants were examined for the intersections within the study area as delineated in Table 6.3. The proposed development entrance between the two Allstate entrances appears to exceed the minimum thresholds for Condition A of signal warrant 1. The projected volumes at this intersection also appear to exceed the minimum thresholds of signal warrant 2. Design Warrants Intersection Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Route 685-Keagy Road 2008 X X X X X X X X (Eastern Allstate Entrance) Route 685-Keagy Road 2008 Condition Met X X X X X X Development Entrance A Met Route 685-Keagy Road 2008 X X X X X X X X (Western Allstate Entrance) Route 685-Keagy Road & Route 692 Sugar Loaf 2008 X X X X X X X X Mountain Road Route 692-Sugar Loaf Mountain Road (Rear Allstate 2008 X X X X X X X X Entrance) Table 6.3-Signal Warrants Summary e HSMM, Inc. 11 June 11, 2004 ) ) . . þ . . , . þ þ . . . ~ þ , ~ ~ . " , '- " t , , t , , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ :a ~ ,----.--. Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis ~-l DRAFT 7.0 Operational Analyses Synchro software was used to analyze the projected traffic conditions for design year 2008 at both the signalized and unsignalized intersections within the study area. Synchro software is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. Synchro software provides the ability to optimize signal timings and includes analysis of actuated signal timings. Delay within Synchro is reported with a Level of Service (LOS) designation, The LOS designation is a descrip~ive measure of operating conditions on a scale of A (best) to F (worst). For signalized intersections, the calculated intersection delay is used to determine LOS for signalized intersections. Table 7.1 delineates the LOS criteria for signalized intersections. - ',SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS~ < ,,' ., "i,' LOS Average Control Delay per Vehicle (SecondsN ehicle) A < 10 B > 10 and < 20 C > 20 and < 35 D > 35 and < 55 E > 55 and < 80 F >80 Table 7.1-HCM Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections For unsignalized intersections, the minor street approach delay is used to determine LOS for un signalized intersections, Table 7.2 delineates the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. ,',' ,,:,,',UNSIGNALIZEDINTERSECTIONS --.- :')', LOS Average Control Delay per Vehicle (SecondsN ehicle) A <10 B > 10-15 C > 15-25 D > 25-35 E > 35-50 F >50 Table 7.2-HCM Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 7.1. Existing Conditions The signal operations under existing traffic volumes were examined for the AM and PM peak hours. Signal timings were optimized using the Synchro software package. In the AM peak hour, the intersection functions at LOS B with 14.9 seconds of delay. In the PM peak hour, the intersection functions at LOS C with 21.3 seconds of delay. HSMM, Inc. 12 June 11,2004 ~ . t . Þ . . . . . t . Þ . . . . . . . . . t t . t t , t t t ~ t !t ~ ~ ~ ~ !t ""' ~ ~ !it ~ Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis P--- 7 DRAFT! Synchro also projects the average queue length based on the actuated signalized intersection operations. The average queue lengths under existing conditions at the signalized intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road are delineated in Table 7.3 for both the AM and PM peak hours. Movement A vera2e Queue Len2th (ft) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Eastbound Shared Left-Through 77 130 Eastbound Right 0 11 Westbound Shared Left-Through 2 23 Westbound Right - 0 Northbound Left 41 54 Northbound Through 188 196 Northbound Right 0 1 Southbound Left 7 13 Southbound Through 154 489 Southbound Right 22 23 Table 7.3-Existing Average Queue Lengths- Intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road 7.2 Design Year 2008 Background Traffic Conditions The background traffic conditions for the design year 2008 were examined for both the AM and PM peak hours. Signal timings .were optimized using the Synchro software package. In the AM peak hour, the intersection functions at LOS C with 22.2 seconds of delay. The eastbound and westbound shared left-through movements as well as the northbound and southbound left turn movements operate at LOS D, In the PM peak hour, the intersection functions at LOS C with 34.7 seconds of delay. The eastbound and westbound shared left-through movements operate at LOS E, The northbound and southbound left turn movement as well as the southbound through movement operate at LOS D. Synchro also projects the average queue length based on the actuated signalized intersection operations. The average queue lengths under the design year 2008 projected background conditions at the signalized intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road are delineated in Table 7.4 for both the AM and PM peak hours, e HSMM, Inc. 13 June 11,2004 þ Þ J Þ Þ Þ . Þ Þ ~ Þ Þ t Þ Þ ~ ~ þ þ . þ þ . . . . . . þ þ . ~ t . t . . . þ . . . t ... Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis ((.-] D RAFf Movement A veraŒe Queue Lemrth (£t) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Eastbound Shared Left-Through 123 169 Eastbound Right 4 33 Westbound Shared Left-Through 3 29 Westbound Right - 0 Northbound Left 63 68 Northbound Through 295 443 Northbound Right 0 2 Southbound Left 10 17 Southbound Through 217 880 Southbound Right 34 32 Table 7,4-Design Year 2008 Projected Background Conditions A verage Queue Lengths-Intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road 7.3 Design Year 2008 AM Peak Hour 7.3.1Route 419 and Keagy Road Signalized Intersection The addition of projected development trips for Keagy Village and growth of the background volumes requires geometric improvements to the intersection to provide additional capacity. The addition of a left turn lane for the eastbound approach is proposed for the roadway network and has been included in the signalized intersection analysis. The eastbound approach would include a left turn lane, shared left-through lane and a separate right turn lane. The use of a left turn lane and a second shared left-through lane requires that the signal continue to operate with split phase timing. With the above-noted geometric improvements, the intersection functions similarly to the design year 2008 background conditions, During the AM peak hour, the signalized intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road is projected to function at LOS C with 21.4 seconds of delay. No approach operates with less than LOS D in the AM peak hour. The projected average queue lengths for each approach are delineated in Table 7.5 for the AM peak hour. The available capacity exceeds the projected average queue for each approach in the AM peak hour. e HSMM, Inc. 14 June 11, 2004 þ þ . þ þ - þ þ þ þ Þ t Þ t , t Þ Þ Þ t t Þ Þ Þ t Þ . Þ Þ t , , . t t , t t . , .. t D t Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis R:7 DRAFT A verage Queue Movement Length (ft) AM Peak Hour Eastbound Left 71 Eastbound Shared Left-Through 72 Eastbound Right 0 Westbound Shared Left-Through 3 Westbound Right - Northbound Left 91 Northbound Through 217 Northbound Right 0 Southbound Left 9 Southbound Through 204 Southbound Right 37 Table 7.S-Projected AM Peak Hour Queue Lengths- Intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road The analyses for the design year 2008 AM peak hour projected conditions are included in Appendix E. 7.3,2 Unsignalized Intersections Three entrances are proposed for the Keagy Village development. The entrances on Keagy Road are proposed to be full service entrances. The eastern entrance between the two Allstate entrances is designed to function as the main entrance to the Keagy Village development. The entrance on Route 419 will be a right-in entrance only. The southbound approach at the main entrance to the Keagy Village development is proposed to be a two-lane approach. The left and right turn lanes function acceptably at LOS C and A, respectively. The northbound approaches at the eastern and western Allstate entrance function at LOS B. The northbound and southbound approaches at the intersection of Sugar Loaf Mountain Road and Keagy Road function at LOS Band C, respectively, Finally, the westbound approach at the rear entrance to Allstate on Sugar Loaf Mountain Road operates at LOS B. The unsignalized intersections analyses for the design year 2008 AM peak hour projected conditions are included in Appendix E, 7.4 Design Year 2008 PM Peak Hour 7.4,lRoute 419 and Keagy Road Signalized Intersection The projected traffic volumes for the PM peak hour are greater than the AM peak hour in design year 2008. The proposed geometric improvements provide additional capacity to handle the increased traffic volumes. The signalized intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road is projected HSMM, Inc. 15 June 11,2004 ~ þ þ þ þ þ Þ t ~ , . t ~ t t Þ ~ ~ ~ . . t - t. ~ ~ ~ !J t ~ , t It !Þ . . , . 18 . , . I ~ Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis Y~7 DRAFT to function at LOS D in the design year 2008 with 41.9 seconds of delay. The following movements function with LOS E: . Eastbound Left, Eastbound Through, Westbound Shared Left-Through, and Northbound Left. . . . The remaining movements function with LOS D or better, The projected average queue lengths for each approach are delineated in Table 7.6 for the PM peak hour, The available capacity exceeds the projected average queue for each approach in the PM peak hour. Average Queue Movement Len2th (ft) PM Peak Hour Eastbound Left 146 Eastbound Shared Left-Through 154 Eastbound Right 75 Westbound Shared Left-Through 32 Westbound Right 0 Northbound Left 186 Northbound Through 416 Northbound Right 2 Southbound Left 18 Southbound Through 751 Southbound Right 47 Table 7.6-Projected PM Peak Hour Queue Lengths- Intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road The analyses for the design year 2008 PM peak hour projected conditions are included in Appendix F. . 7.4.2 Unsignalized Intersections Three entrances are proposed for the Keagy Village development. The southbound approach at the main entrance to the Keagy Village development is proposed to be a two-lane approach. The left and right turn lanes function acceptably at LOS C and A, respectively. The northbound approaches at the eastern and western Allstate entrance function at LOS B. The northbound and southbound approaches at the intersection of Sugar Loaf Mountain Road and Keagy Road function at LOS Band C, respectively. Finally, the westbound approach at the rear entrance to Allstate on Sugar Loaf Mountain Road operates at LOS B. .. HSMM, Inc. 16 June 11, 2004 þ . t Þ , - . , , . þ , t t , t ~ , t . It . . v . . It Þ . 8 t t It . . . . 8 . . e e . e . Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis «;-7" I ~ ""~ DRAFT The un signalized intersections analyses for the design year 2008 PM peak hour projected conditions are included in Appendix F. 8.0 Conclusion The proposed development is projected to add approximately 411 trips (227 entering and 184 exiting) in the AM peak hour of adjacent streets, In the PM peak hour, the development is projected to add approximately 700 trips (359 entering trips and 341 exiting trips). A large percentage of these trips will access the development site from Route 419. The existing signal configuration at the intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road will require improvements including the addition of a left turn lane for the eastbound approach. The use of a left turn lane, shared left-through lane will necessitate split phase timing at the intersection. This analysis is based on the conceptual layout provided in Appendix A. Changes to the entrance configurations, land uses, and/or development sizes will necessitate re-evaluation of the analysis performed. The geometric improvements proposed in this report have been developed in accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual as well as operational analysis at the existing signalized intersection of Keagy Road and Route 419. Review of this report and approval by VDOT will be required. Final determination of required geometric improvements is expected to be performed by VDOT. A full width right turn lane and taper are required at the main development entrance on Keagy Road. A radius only is required at the western entrance to the proposed development. The constructed improvements may include a right turn lane for the length of the project along Keagy Road. This construction would fulfill the right turn lane requirements. The development entrance on Route 419 is proposed to be a right-in entrance only, No exit will be provided directly onto Route 419. Per the VDOT Road Design Manual, a full width right turn lane and taper will be required for the southbound approach under design year 2008 projected conditions, Both of the Allstate entrances along Keagy Road exceed the minimum thresholds for left turn lanes with 100 feet of storage. These deficiencies are not solely associated with the proposed development. Additionally, the following intersections meet the minimum thresholds for right turn radii treatments in the design year 2008: . Sugar Loaf Mountain Road and Keagy Road, and Keagy Road and Western Allstate entrance. . In the AM peak hour, the existing volumes at the intersection of Sugar Loaf Mountain Road and the rear Allstate entrance exceeds the minimum thresholds for a full width right turn lane and taper. These improvements are not specifically associated with the proposed development. Sight distance requirements have not been evaluated in conjunction with this analysis. The planned roadway improvements associated with the proposed development include modifications to the existing grade on Keagy Road to improve sight distance. e HSMM, Inc. 17 June 11, 2004 . t Þ Þ . - t t ~ . ~ Þ t ~ , t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 . - . t . ~ !t ~ ~ ~ & . . I t !Þ a " e e e e e Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis ""--'-"". ..... fL~ '-7 ! DRAFT In summary, the projected traffic volumes associated with the proposed Keagy Village development can be reasonably accommodated with an acceptable level of service by the proposed geometric improvements and signal timing modifications. e HSMM, Inc. 18 June 11, 2004 f?-::7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDA V, JUNE 22, 2004 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 15.7- ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT ROUTE 419 NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH KEAGY ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 87.18-2-1, 87.18-2-2, 87.18-2-3, 87.18-2-4) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 AND R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF KAHN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 24, 2004, and the second reading and public hearing were continued from March 23, 2004, and held April 27, 2004, at which point the amended petition was returned to the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the amended petition was withdrawn and the original petition was again brought to the Board of Supervisors for first reading on May 25, 2004, and the second reading and public hearing were held on June 22, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held public hearings on this matter on March 2, 2004; 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 15.7 acres, as described herein, and located at Route 419 near its intersection with Keagy Road (Tax Map Numbers 67.18-2-1, 67.18-2-2, 67.18-2-3, 67.18-24) in the WIndsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C- ~ 1 r<.:-7 1, Office District and R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District with conditions. 2. 3, That this action is taken upon the application of Kahn Development. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A, which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Tax Parcel No. 67.18-2-1 containing 9.8471 acres - C-1 to C-2 Tax Parcel No. 67.18-2-2 containing 2.634 acres - R-1 to C-2 Tax Parcel No. 67.18-2-3 containing 1,116 acre - R-1 to C-2 Tax Parcel No, 67.18-2-4 containing 2.0516 acres - R-1 t C-2 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. e 2 Jun. IJ. iOUit' l:j~~IVI ~AHN UtVtLurMtNI ~UMrANY I~O. Vjj4 r.L !ýZ~7 VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INRE: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) VOLUNTARY PROFFER OF CONDITIONS KAHN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REZONING OF TAX MAP NUN1BERS: 67.18-02-01 (9.847 acres) 67.18-02-02 (2.634 acres) Portion of 67.18-02-03 (.964 acres) Portion of 67.18-02-04 (1.848 acres) Applicant, Kahn Development Company, hereby proffers that the above-referenced property, if rezoned to C-2, commercial, will be developed as follows: 1. e Concept Plan: a. lñe property shall be developed in substantial confon!Úty with the concept pla:n dated January 22, 2004, revised February 26, 2004, and revised June 4,2004, made by DMRAIchitecture, P.LLC., subject to those changes that are, required by the County during comprehensive site plan review and subject to petitioner's right to relocate or reconfigure the buildings, service areas and parking layouts shown on the concept plan. Building relocation, however, shall not change the overall concept of retail and commercial uses oriented toward. Route 419 and Keagy Road, and office or residential uses buffering the retail and commercial uses from the adjacent residential properties along Keagy Road. The entire site will include sidewalks connecting all buildings to encourage pedestrian connectivity between all uses and parking areas. A wa1king trail shall be incorporated. into the design of th e center and will provide walking opportunities for users of Keagy Village as well a.s neighbors by connecting to on~site sidewalks an.d street crosswalks. , Except for removing existing structures, grading, mstalling the road serving the development, installing a portion of the detention facilitY serving the development, and landscaping, ta..~ map.. parcels 67.18-2-3 and 67.18-2-4 shall be undeveloped and shall se:rve as a landscaped buffer between the development and the adjoining residential property. b. c. Jun. IJ. LVV'+ I : J 0 r IVI I\l'\nl~ ucvr:LvrIVIr:I~ I \¡VIVIUIIO I~ o. V J J't r. J r{-7 2. All buildings shall be designed to be compatible with one another, All facades of buildings shall be of similar design, compatible materials and similar detailing.' . . 3. Plazas, hardscape, landscaped areas and site amenities shall also be compatible to the established building character. and shall include outdoor seating areas, varied paving materials to add contrast and texture, and decorative containers with seasonal landscape. Restaurant tenants MIl be encouraged to provide outdoor dining areas with tables, chairs and ÙInbrellas, 4. Roofline treatment shall be of compatible design on all buildings, 5, Single, large building masses without artie-waled facades shall not be permitted. Large buildi:o.g walls shall be reqlÙred to incorporate multidimensional design features, such as, changes in plane, canopies, a'W!lÌngs, dimensional signage, mildews, doors, facias, arcades, and changes in texture, material and color or vary in height to add interest. Retaining walls shall be subject to proffers 7 and 8 relating to cons1rUction materials or be composed of textured keystone blocks. 6. Required screening of service and trash areas shall be with fmish materials compatible mth the adjacent building. The loading area at the northwest side of the proposed grocery store shall be screened ~th a freestanding wall with simi1ar fuù.sh as the adjacent building. 7. Acceptable building finishes include: a. b. c. d. brick wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute lap siding and trim glass, with clear glass required in retail storefronts stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS) stone face colored concrete block stone or cast stone standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or asphalt shingle roof e, f. g. 8. The following building finishes are prohibited: a. b, c. unpainted or bare metal panels 4 x 8 plywood or composite panels bare exposed concrete that is not exposed aggregate, hammered, sandblasted or covered with.a cement-based acrylic coating . unfinished wood other than cedar, mahogany, teak or redwood. d, 2 ~ Jun. lJ. 1004 l:jö~1Vi 9. 10. ~AHN UtVtLV~MtNI ~UMrANY I~O. V jj't r. 't ~-7 Site Lighting: All lighting near the property lines shall be shielded "cut off" types to internalize illumination and avoid spillover to adjacent sites and public roads. . Sidewalks shall be illuminated with decorative pedestrian-scaled pole or building mountedJuminaries, Plazas may be illuminated similcu: to sidewalks but may include additional feature lighting for attractions and outdoor dining. Landscape lighting may be employed to enhance site entrance and feature areas. No exposed neon or fluorescent lighting shall be pernritted. The maxim1..l!'ll height of freestanding light fixtures shall be 30 feet. a. b, c. .d. e. f. Site Signage: a. b. Off premises signs (billbòards) shall not be allowed on the property. The main freestanding multi-sided project identification sign shall be at the corner of Keagy Road and Route 419 and shall be monument style utilizing materials approved as acceptable building materials and shall not exceed 25 feet in height. Minor. fteestanding entrance signs shall be multi~sided monument style and shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Tenant signage visible to off-site shall be encouraged to be creative in order to add interest and texture and, in addition to letters, may include logos and images. Projecting blade signs and projecting three-dimensional signs are also encouraged, Box signs, exposed raceways and exposed neon are prohibited. Signage may be internally or externally illuminated. c. d. 11. Non-specialty drive-in or fast food restaurants and gasoline stations shall not be pennitted. Establishments primarily serving specialty foods (such as coffee, baked goods, e.g.) with drive-through windows are not included within this prohibition but would require a special use permit in accordance with therequÌIements of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Drive-. through windows are not permitted directly facing the street unless 'they are completely screened. .. 12. The developer shall comply with all VDOT reqUirements for improvements to adjoining Route 419 and Keagy Road including any requ:1red easenients e e 3 Jun, 1). 2004 1:39PM KAHN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY No. 0334 p, 5 R-7 for sight distance as well as the donation of any additional right-af-way along Keagy Road. and Route 419. Respectfully submitted, - v:~~ Development Company .. 4 ACTION NO, ITEM NO, R--c¿ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Slate Hill Rezoning SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge t!' 11 County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ) ~ ~ ~~ ;:;I ~ ßOo-J.( ;:fi ¥b -- ~ -< d ~ :_"j SUMMARY OF IN~ This report is to provide an update on what has transpired since the May 25, 2004 work session with the Board of Supervisors. On May 27, 2004, staff received a letter from the petitioner's attorney outlining what they understood to be the remaining issues in the Slate Hill rezoning, Staff met with the petitioner and his attorney on June 7, 2204 and agreed that the outstanding issues are as follows: 1. Whether the zoning category of the property should be C-1 or C-2. Staff was concerned that the March 2004 traffic study prepared by Mattern & Craig, Inc., did not reflect C-2 uses in Zones 3 and 4. The study showed all C-1 uses in Zones 3 and 4. 2. Peak elevation/ridge line elevation. Staff is recommending 1384 and petitioner is requesting 1394. 3, Slope Maintenance Bond amount. The petitioner is offering $50,000/10 year bond and at the May 27th work session staff understood that the Board of Supervisors requested a higher bond amount. 4, The height, size and footprint of the buildings together with peak elevation for construction of buildings. Insofar as the 75 foot request for Zone 3, petitioner has indicated a willingness to limit that to a motel, if one is developed within Zone 3. 1 I... 'f) .....'þ I '= 't~J The Board agreed to the maximum height of the motel in Zone 3 not to exceed 75 feet but petitioner had not addressed the maximum footprint of any building in Zones 3 and 4. 5. Additional traffic studies reflecting total traffic counts, both at peak hours and overall, for a variety of uses based upon office and/or retail. Same staff concerns as discussed in item number 1. 6. Eliminate the proffer which is identified as Proffer 5, Access (b), which deals with density on the 20 acre tract behind Lowe's. Staff is concerned even though the 20 acres is not a part of the rezoning; the petitioner needs to reassure the citizens that live in the Quail Valley and Quail Ridge developments that when the 20 acres is developed there will be not attempts to provide access through these developments. On June 16, 2004 County staff met with the petitioners (Jim Smith and Hunter Smith), their architect, and their attorney to resolve the outstanding issues which resulted in the following understanding: 1. Whether the zoning category of the property should be C-1 or C-2. Petitioner is requesting C-2 for zones 3 and 4 and the revised traffic study will reflect the proposed uses. 2. Peak elevation/ridge line elevation. Based on concessions made by the petitioners, staff agreed to elevation 1394 rather than 1384 for the following reasons. a) In order to minimize the impact to the slope, the petitioner agreed the office building(s) closest to the elevation 1394 will have underground parking. This should help minimize the amount of area that has to be disturbed for development of this office building(s). b) Petitioner agreed to increase the amount and lengthen the period of time on the slope maintenance bond. 3. Slope Maintenance Bond. Staff agreed with petitioner to increase the amount ofthe bond to $100,000 for 10 years. During discussions on June 16,2004 between County staff and the petitioners and their attorney, it was agreed that the petitioner would establish a $100,000 trust account, rather than a bond, for repairing unresolved maintenance issues within common areas. 4. The height, size and footprint of the buildings together with peak elevation for construction of buildings, Insofar as the 75 foot height request for Zone 3, petitioner has indicated a willingness to limit that to a motel, if one is developed within Zone 3, At the May 27 work session, the board and staff agreed to the 75 foot height for a motel in Zone 3. Staff understood that maximum square footage per building in Zones 3 and 4 would not exceed 75,000 square feet and the total square footages of all building in Zones 3 and 4 would match their revised trip generation data. 5. Revised traffic study has not been presented to County staff as of June 16,2004. The petitioners indicated the study would be ready on Friday, June 18, 2004. 6 Eliminate proffer 5, Access (b), which deals with density on the 20 acre tract behind Lowe's. The petitioner has agreed as a part of their presentation on June 22, 2004 to inform the Board and the citizens that the owner of the property will not pursue any access through Quail Valley and Quail Ridge developments. The petitioners indicated that deed restrictions for Quail Ridge and/or Quail Valley would not allow 2 e 'V},.'... .,..\~1.,. ,'-->' (\ access to the adjacent property behind Lowe's, Hunter Smith agreed to research these deeds and forward copies to the County staff. On the morning of June 17, 2004, County staff reviewed the petitioner's revisions to the proffers based on the June 16 discussions. A signed version of the proffers was received before noon on Thursday, June 17, 2004. Regarding the outstanding issues listed above, please note the following: 1. Peak elevationlridge line elevation - requirement for underground parking near the ridgeline. As currently written proffer 3 a. does not require a building located closest to the maximum elevation to have underground parking. Only buildings greater than 50 feet tall would require underground parking. The language linking underground parking to building elevations is ambiguous. 2. The height, size and footprint of the buildings together with peak elevation for construction of buildings. Proffer 3 b. lists total square footage for Zones 3 and 4, based on a table of trip generation data. The total numbers match the trip generation table, but four issues remain with proffer 3 b, First, County staff require clarification that the 375,000 square foot total is the total for both Zones 3 and 4 combined. Second, that the 100,000 square foot maximum is gross area of any single building. Third, that the petitioner has proffered a maximum 90,000 square foot building footprint, and County staff had requested a maximum 75,000 square foot building footprint. And, fourth, this proffer has a typographical duplication that needs to be omitted. 3. Slope Maintenance Bond. Proffer 2 b. still refers to a slope maintenance bond, and not a trust account. During discussions on June 16, 2004 between County staff and the petitioners and their attorney, it was agreed that the petitioner would establish a $100,000 trust account, rather than a bond, for repairing unresolved maintenance issues within common areas. 4. Revised traffic study has not been presented to County staff as of June 17,2004. The petitioners indicated the study would be ready on Friday, June 18,2004. 5. The petitioners will provide documentation of deed restrictions for Quail Ridge and/or Quail Valley that would not allow access to the adjacent property behind Lowe's. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While significant progress has been made during the proffer negotiations between County staff and the petitioners and their attorney, some ambiguities and differences of opinion still remain. County staff will continue to work with the petitioners and their attorney to resolve these issues. Staff will report on these issues at a work session for this petition on June 22, 2004. 3 e ß~ PROFFERS REVISED June 17, 2004 Address of Subject Property: 4486 Summit Street Roanoke, VA 24014 Tax Map No.: 077.20-01-03 077.20-01-04 077.20-01-52 077.20-01-54 077 .20-0 1-5 5 087.08-03-11 Applicant's/Owner's Name: Slate Hill I, LLC Slate Hill II, LLC Woodc1iff Investments, LLC The undersigned owner does hereby proffer the following conditions in conjunction with the rezoning request: 1. Uses a. The C-2 uses set forth on the attached Exhibit A would be prohibited. b. Zones shall be as depicted on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2. Slopes a. A geo-technical report from a certified geo-technical engineer shall be required to verify slope stability and stabilization methods, and design values for retaining structures, b. Slope maintenance bond, in an amount not to exceed $100,000, shall be required for a 10-term, to insure the continued safety and maintenance of all common areas for the Slate Hill development as derIDed by slopes, retaining walls, and private roads. e 3. Buildings a. Height: Building height shall not exceed 50 feet (as measured per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance) unless underground parking is provided. Then building height shall not exceed 65 feet, except in Zone 3 where the height shall not exceed 75 feet for development of a hotel; otherwise, 65 feet. Any building constructed above the base level of 1335' elevation mark and exceeding the 1385' elevation mark (as measured per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance) will be required to have underground parking. b. Size: The total square footage for Zones 3 and 4 will not exceed 365,000 square feet: please see attached trip generation data. In Zones 3 and 4, the ~J \ " ..- {:;;¿. %" \.! maximum square footage per building will not exceed 100,000 square feet. The maximum allowed footprint will not exceed 90,000 square feet. The total square footage for Zones 3 and 4 will not exceed 365,000 square feet: please see attached trip generation data (Exhibit D). In Zones 3 and 4, the maximum square footage per building will not exceed 100,000 square feet. The maximum allowed footprint will not exceed 90,000 square feet. c. Materials: Acceptable building finishes include brick, wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute, glass, stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS), split-face colored concrete block, stone or cast stone, Structures constructed in Zones 3 and 4 will be similar in appearance, materials and design. d. Roofs: Rooflines of the buildings predominantly visible from Route 220 and Route 419 shall be articulated, Acceptable roof materials include standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or shingles. e. Building Colors: The predominant building colors shall be tan, brown, gray, beige, natural color brick, natural stone, f. Facades: The facades of buildings predominantly visible from Route 220 and Route 419 shall have vertical plane relief. 4. Road a. Curbing shall be required throughout the entire road system. The curb and gutter configuration shall be standard VDOT designs for appropriate conditions. b. The roads shall be in the approximate location as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated January 20,2004, prepared by Rife & Wood Architects, attached hereto as Exhibit B. In the event VDOT does not grant pennission to construct a portion of the road on the VDOT property as shown on said plan, the approximate road location shall be as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated December 11, 2003, prepared by Rife & Wood Architects, attached hereto as Exhibit C. c. All parking and vehicular circulation surfaces shall have asphalt top, Base and underlayment shall be as detennined by recommendations from geo- technical engineer. d. Roadway widths shall be a minimum of 24 feet from base of curb to base of curb. Maximum road grade shall be 16%. There shall be no on-street parking allowed. e. Minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be installed to connect all buildings within Zone 4, 5. Access a. Petitioner shall make all necessary improvements to Electric Road (Route 419), Valley Avenue and Franklin Road (Route 220) as required by the traffic impact study and by VDOT. e ~-'r maximum square footage per building will not exceed 100,000 square feet. The maximum allowed footprint will not exceed 90,000 square feet. The total square footage for Zones 3 and 4 will not exceed 365,000 square feet: please see attached trip generation data. In Zones 3 and 4, the maximum square footage per building will not exceed 100,000 square feet. The maximum allowed footprint will not exceed 90,000 square feet. c. Materials: Acceptable building finishes include brick, wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute, glass, stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS), split-face colored concrete block, stone or cast stone, Structures constructed in Zones 3 and 4 will be similar in appearance, materials and design. d. Roofs: Rooflines of the buildings predominantly visible ftom Route 220 and Route 419 shall be articulated. Acceptable roof materials include standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or shingles. e. Building Colors: The predominant building colors shall be tan, brown, gray, beige, natural color brick, natural stone. f. Facades: The facades of buildings predominantly visible ITom Route 220 and Route 419 shall have vertical plane relief. 4. Road a. Curbing shall be required throughout the entire road system. The curb and gutter configuration shall be standard VDOT designs for appropriate conditions. b. The roads shall be in the approximate location as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated January 20, 2004, prepared by Rife & Wood Architects, attached hereto as Exhibit B. In the event VDOT does not grant permission to construct a portion of the road on the VDOT property as shown on said plan, the approximate road location shall be as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated December 11,2003, prepared by Rife & Wood Architects, attached hereto as Exhibit C. c. All parking and vehicular circulation surfaces shall have asphalt top. Base and underlayment shall be as determined by recommendations ftom geo- technical engineer, d. Roadway widths shall be a minimum of 24 feet ftom base of curb to base of curb. Maximum road grade shall be 16%. There shall be no on-street parking allowed, e. Minimum 5- foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be installed to connect all buildings within Zone 4. 5. Access a. Petitioner shall make all necessary improvements to Electric Road (Route 419), Valley Avenue and Franklin Road (Route 220) as required by the traffic impact study and by VDOT. e ((,~ ~ 6. Ridgeline a. Building height shall not exceed 1384' elevation mark in Zone 3 and 1394' elevation mark in Zone 4, and all building elevations shall be shown on the site plan, 7. Utilities a. All utilities shall be underground from the point of the utilitytransfonner to the interior of the site. b. Where design parameters allow, all utilities shall share a common trench. 8. Retaining Walls a. Height: Maximum of 15 feet. b. Distance in between walls: Minimum of 4 feet. c. Color and Texture: Tan, brown, gray, beige, natural color brick, natural stone. Walls shall be textured. d. Landscaping: One medium sized (5-10 feet @ maturity) shrub for every 12 feet of linear wall, Shrubs shall be a mix of deciduous and evergreen. Shrubs may be grouped together, Landscaping behind retaining walls shall be as indicated by engineering designs for the walls, e, A Professional Engineer shall design all retaining walls. 9. Landscaping a. Trees shall be planted along the private entrance road every 30 feet, minimum 2 1/2- inch caliper, 50% native species. Flowering species that are street and urban conditions tolerant shall be utilized. 10. Site Lighting a. No freestanding light pole, including fixture, shall be more than 22 feet above grade. All exterior lights, including security lighting, shall be down-lit or shielded so as not to directly glare onto adjoining streets or properties. The intensity at adjoining streets or properties shall not exceed 0.5-foot candles, b. All street lighting shall be designed to complement the architecture ofthe adjacent buildings, e 11, Signage a. No more than three (3) business signs shall be permitted for each business. b. Restricted signs: The following signs shall be prohibited: Off-premise signs, portable signs, temporary signs, and changeable copy signs. c. Signage shall complement the buildings' architectural style, Colors shall be in the range acceptable for buildings. d. All freestanding signs shall be monument type, shall not exceed 10 feet in height or 12 feet in width and signs shall be channel lit, ground lit or top lit with shielded lamps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or adjoining properties. e. All signs shall be complemented, accented and enhanced by landscaping, f. One monument-type sign shall be allowed on the Route 220 side of the development. The height ofthe monument sign shall be limited to 25 feet. Rh _\ ,:. r 12. Parking a. No gravel parking areas shall be allowed. All surface parking in excess of Roanoke County standards shall be constructed of materials as recommended by the geo-technical engineer. 13. Stonn Water Management a. Outfalls shall be through level spreaders and have a 25- foot riparian buffer as a separation between the discharge point and the concrete culvert, Other design options may be employed if approved by the Roanoke County Engineering Department and VDOT, b. All drainage ways shall be piped or grass swales, No rip-rap or concrete drainage ways shall be pennitted, c. Detention Requirements: IO-year post development equal to or less than 2-year pre-development and 25-year post equal to or less than 2-year pre- development. App licant/Owner: SLATE HILL I, LLC By Hunter Smith, Manager SLATE HILL IT, LLC BY~~~ --- Hunter Smith, Manager WOODCLIFF INVESTMENTS, LLC BY~~ I Hunter Smith, Manager e --.-....---. . .,.__,'",nl' "n" l::>4l1,("(4l1,;:/bl P,04/07 Exhibit A t(-:- \:> Slate Hili Proffered..out Uses PER"MTTTED USES IN C..2õJ8TRICT 1, Residential Uses Accessory Apartment Home Occupation. Type I Multi~Famlly Dwelling Two-Family Dwelling 2, Civic U$Ø$ Park and Ride Facility Post Office . Public Parks and Recreation Areas Utility Services, Minor 3, Office Uses None 4, Commercial Uses Agricultural Services Bed and Breakfast Boarding House Commercial Outdoor Entertainment Gasoline Station Pawn Shop Commercial Indoor Sports & Recreation Commercial Outdoor Sports & Recreation 5. Industrial Uses Recycling Centers and Stations 6, Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower Parking FacilitY '\..lOLL V\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardner\ZONING\Slate HIll-useS-C2.doo Page 1 af2 .. ."" .L." o<:.Uu-T .&.""""'0 U;:) I ~l'\nUU1J I 1""1'\ 1 LLHI'IHN NH I I 154121774121961 Exl)lblt A Slate Hill Proffered-out Uses Special Use Permit 1, Civic Uses Halfway House Relialous Assembly Utility Services, Major 2, Commercial Uses Automobile Dealership, Used - Automobile Repair Services, Major Car Wash Convenience Store Dance Hall Equipment Sales and Rentals Manufactured Home Sales Mini-Warehouse - Recreationa\ Vehicle Sales and Service Surplus Sales Truck Stop 3, Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing Landfill, Rubble Transportation Terminal 4, Miscellaneous U$8S Outdoor Gatherings \\.lOLL V\SYS\USERS\CSaumgSrdner\ZONING\Slate HfII-USr:S-C2.doo e P,øS/07 v Page 2 of2 '£ )C l-f-( r3 I r ,1<...11..,. .J.(,:. ,1.- "'" . N W+E S Slate Hill Site May 24, 2004 Scale: 1"=400' e -- . -....---. ." . --... .. ... "". . , ,0:./0' ":' """""<OJ' """"JU.L -- -- 000.0 R--- ~ ~ d r,¡jß "C . l1li =2 fif ~ &. ,h i ~ i[J a =. °tIJ 1$.. ~~ ;- 0 °rf J:sf., ~ I! ¡ = i == '" ~ I ! I . [ ~ 8 1'1 ... . 0 O~ C:r ; ~ \ì .' e 0 œ ...... ..... TABLE 3 ,~ CONCEPT A 0 ~ Project Slate Hill Development TRIP GENERATION DATA Developed By: Mike Agee ~ Loœtion: Roanoke County, VA Date: June 1, 2004 0 Trip Area Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday CD Zone - .. Generation Use Floor GSF Area Terrant Total Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiling {50% entering ~ Building NO Code {per floor) (GSF) Type Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips 50% e~ting) ~ '" I Building 1-A I Retail J single-story I Starbucks 933 4,000 4,000 Kr¡spy Kream 176 106 70 105 54 51 1580 C>I ~ 0 Co> "" C>I -:¡ œ CD I I ..... I . I . . I . Business/Hotel 710 I Build!n 3-B I Office ~ three-story + I 13,000+ I 40,000 I Multi-tenant I 90 I 19 I 11 I 124 I 21 I 103 I 660 9 parking @ bsml 710 I Buildi 3-C I Office I three-story + I 13,000+ I 40,000 I Multi-tenant I 90 I 19 I 11 I 124 I 21 I 103 I 660 ng parking @ bsmt. Office I three-story + rkinQ @ bsml --~~~L,,=7__~J[~~---=---~~:~:]L~~~__~--~-~----- L---_~_~_,----~.. i_~- n - 714 I BuildIng 4-A ............, ..,ree-story + 13,000+ 40,000 Multi-tenant 90 79 11 124 21 103 660 parkil\Q @ bsmt. Office I three-story + - 714 I Building 4-8 parking (Ø bsmt 13,000+ 40,000 Multi-mnant 90 79 11 124 21 103 660 714 , Building 4-C Office I three-story + '\3,000+ 40,000 Multi-tenant 90 79 11 124 21 103 660 partdng (Ø bsml 814 I Building 4-Q ~ Retail 25,000 25,000 Multi-tenant .. .. .. 81 36 45 1110 Totals 166 621 165 1149 323 826 9428 11£ Equations: Code 312 710 814 1933 AM Pea~ 0.5a(X) Lnm=O.80LnfX!+1.55 . - (exlrapolated) PM PeaK 0.62(X) T=1.12(X}+78.B1 T=2AO(X)+21A8 .. Weekday 1.72(X) tn{T)=O.71Ln(X)+3.65 T=42.7ð(X)+31,66 . ~ ~~~~ Noæ: In all of the above equatJons X is measured In thousands. " - ThelTE Trip Generation Manual contains no studies or rates. ". . The ITE Trip Generation Manual rates. -- r~ ¡ --«""I",." ,,/¿ ~ ¡- \ t ~ ~ ~ S1P (') ~ .... ø ~ '+ - \Y - -\ d §I 0 0 NO PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: R--~ Slate Hill 7 -3/2004 Planning Commission Hearing Date: April 6, 2004 (Continued from March 2, 2004) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 22, 2004 (Continued from May 25, 2004) REQUEST The petition of Slate Hill I, LLC, Slate Hill II, LLC, and Wood cliff Investments, LLC, to rezone 4.92 acres from C2C General Commercial District with Conditions to C2 General Commercial District, 8,03 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and 17.01 acres from R3 Medium Residential District to C2 General Commercial District in order to construct a general office and retail sales facility located at 4486 Summit Street, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A, CITIZEN COMMENTS Several citizens spoke against the proposed rezoning. They had concerns about the unknown uses, the tree removal and grading, possible storm water runoff concerns, the appearance of the buildings, traffic congestion and access. Several representatives from the Sierra Club spoke against the project. B. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. John Murphy presented the staff report. Ed Natt represented the petitioner, The Commissioners had significant concerns about the unknown uses, appearance of the buildings, and storm water management. There were specific concerns expressed by several commissioners about VDOT's response to the traffic study. The commissioners discussed the size of buildings, the amount of parking, and the grading of the site. There was discussion between the Commissioners and Mr, Natt about the development of the site with the existing zoning. The commissioners repeatedly attempted to have the petitioner clarify the uses and provide more information about the project. PROFFERS 1. The C-2 uses set forth on the attached Exhibit A would be prohibited. 2. The square footage of any building located on the property would not exceed 110,000 square feet. No building will be of a butler type building with a metal exterior. The roads shall be in the approximate located as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated January 20, 2004, prepared by Rife+Wood Architects, attached hereto as Exhibit B. In the event VDOT does not grant permission to construct a portion of the road on the VDOT property as shown on said plan, the approximate road location shall be as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated December 11, 2003 prepared by Rife+Wood Architects, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Structures constructed in Zones 1 2 and 3 will be similar in appearance, materials and design. Structures constructed in Zone 4 may be similar in appearance, materials and design, but will be subject to requirements of specific users. C, D, 3. 4. 5. 10 R-~ COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. McNeil made a motion to make a negative recommendation on the rezoning. The motion carried 4-0, E, F, DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G, ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan - Staff Report - Vicinity Map - Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission e 11 Spt~~c:.If) &h~ I '__:'WlDtJ6 'Z-A 8/4. J ...t.f~:1 ßUI ~tJ/1J 4 'Z-ß 8/4- =,--,-~-~..- ~ I?'õ '22.0 oS-,> '-- - =...::. Q = '---- - f- R"r 't1 (j IJ c_--- "\ ~ ::r' s: -" ..... t:C ""',~~ t~ I ./\. '. '. ". .' ~"l -.( " t-.rj 1-" ~ ~ ti (1) I \ ' ", I-' ,þ œ Rife+Wood ArdùlcC\S Ro~noke, VA D!IC: January 20, 2004 Commiuõon No 030::; < (;> ß ~ .L:J ~D a ~ j i l' ... e s ~ ~! i! ~ = æ:: ì H. . CIJ ~.... - = = .!~C) c:fJ "C 6 J ~ go Ui ~ ~ 11: "C t !~i C) ii-.I ~Q ~ '0. ~ 0 s... ~ Exhibit ~ ~ ... -~------ ---- ~------~---- --- Roanoke County Com munity Development- Plannin Division ~p Memo To: Roanoke County Planning Commission From: John Murphy, Associate Planner Date: March 31, 2004 Slate Hill Rezoning Request Re: On March 3, 2004, the Slate Hill rezoning request was continued for 30 days, to allow the applicant time to complete the VDOT required traffic study and analysis and to develop a set of proffers that planning staff was strongly encouraging. Staffs original request was for a 60 day continuance to allow county staff and VDOT sufficient time to review and comment on the traffic analysis. M the public hearing the applicant assured the planning commission that this could be accomplished in 30 days. The applicant provided a copy of the traffic study and analysis to planning staff at close of business on March 29, 2004. P.J. this time staff has not adequately reviewed the traffic study and has not received comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation. Staff has discussed proffers with the petitioner's attorney but has not received any written proffers. e 1 Petitioner: ',' " ", "',, "SrAF'F'REëÕ'RT' ,", '..,' ',,'f: ,:'" ; :./),~, "1" ,'" , sl~íeHiIIl.~L¿.s;~k~iÎI¡(tŒ;níiw~~~~;¡~I~~;~Ïm~~~;~~c 'J\"", ' . Request: This is a request to unconditionally rezone a total of 29,98 acres of C-2 conditional, R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, and C-1, Office District to C.2, General Commercial for retail and office use. location: The subject parcels are located on the hillside generally between the 4200 block of Electric Road and Valley Avenue adjacent to the lowe's Home Improvement Store. Magisterial District: Cave Spring Proffered Conditions: None, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to unconditionally rezone 17.01 acres of R.3 property, 8,03 acres of C-1 property and 4,92 of C.2 conditional property to C-2, General Commercial for an office/retail mixed use commercial development. The parcels have several Future land Use Designations as outlined in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan for this site, The parcels closer to Electric Road with a C-1 zoning are designated as Core. The R-3 parcels and C.2 conditional parcels are designated as Development. Without additional information that planning staff and VDOT is requiring, planning staffwill not support the proposed rezoning, 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site plan review shall be required, VDOT review and entrance approval shall be required, A traffic analysis and study will be required by VDOT to determine access and impacts on Electric Road and Franklin Road and adjoining streets and intersections. C.2, General Commercial, allows many uses including retail sales and oJfice uses, Fast-food restaurant uses will require a Special Use Permit if developed on out parcels within a shopping center, The conditions from the C-2 conditional zoning proposed to be rezoned to C-2 relate to the development of the Lowe's Home Improvement Center, SpecifIcally the conditions require the garden center to be on the northern side of the property, an out parcel will require a Special Use Permit when developed, existing vegetation adjacent to Quail Valley Condominiums will remain and adequate access to houses on Washington Road will be maintained, 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Backaround -The developers have been acquiring the subject parcels and several adjoining parcels for over three years, Many of the adjoining parcels frol)ting on Electric Road already have a C-2, General Commercial zoning in place, Durtng the grading plan submittal phase of the site development in early 1 December 2003, the developers indicated that they had the appropriate zonings they needed to develop their project. At that time comments were presented to Community Development staff indicating an interest in an office park complex with some elderly housing facilities. Based on that information a grading permit was issued on January 20, 2004. The entrance to the site from Electric Road is only approved by VDOT as a temporary construction entrance, On January 23, 2004, the applicant filed a rezoning request for an office and retail campus on the subject parcels and several adjoining parcels, The application includes a concept plan that shows the proposed private road curving through the site beginning at the former Woodmaster's site in the 4200 block of Electric Road and terminating near the cul-de-sac on Valley Avenue below the Lowe's property. p" TopeqraphvNeoetation -The collective total of all parcels subject to rezoning have a thick mature growth of trees and significant slopes, Some of the lower parcels on the Electric Road and Franklin Road sides were once the site of the McNeil Roofing business years ago, prior to a fire. These parcels are already zoned C-2. West of the former McNeil site, or higher up the slopes, are the C-1 parcels owned by Woodcliff Investments, LLC, The R-3 zoned parcels are situated further to the south, generally behind the self storage facility, These slopes are very steep and showing some signs of erosion, These R-3 parcels are owned by Slate Hill II, LLC. The final area subject to rezoning is the Slate Hit/I. LLC property that is immediately adjacent to the access driveway into the Lowe's facility and directly north of the Lowe's Garden Center, This area has significant slopes and there has ~een evidence of past erosion and sloughing of the hillside, Slope map information generated by Roanoke County Community Development Department indicates a large percentage of the R-3 area has slopes in exce~s of 33 percent. In addition, a significant portion of the C-1 zoned area has slopes in excess of 33 percent. Due to the steep slopes and this location being a gateway to Roanoke County ij is critical to insure that if the site is going to be developed, it should be done in a sfte sensitive design and aesthetically pleasing fashion. The applicant has indicated that retaining walls will be required for this project. These would need to be evaluated to insure slope retention and to indicate the actual area that could potentially be developed. The location and design of these walls could negatively impact adjoining properties below the developed site, Surroundinq Neiqhborhood -The general vicinity from Elmview Road, across from Tanglewood Mall, east to Franklin Road has generally been identified as the Slate Hill neighborhood, There are several homes and small churches on Elmview Road that border the subject site. Roanoke County has a water tank on a parcel above the Elm Park Estates Retirement Community, The properties on Elmview Road are zoned R- 3. Medium Density Multi Family District, The commercial properties on Electric Road are zoned C-2, General Commercial. The adjacent and frontage parcels on Franklin Road are zoned C-2. The Lowe's property is also zoned C-2 conditional. 3, ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture -The plan that has been submitted with the application is conceptual, and has not been proffered, No specific information has been supplied related to the size of buildings, site plans, architectural features, retaining wall locations, storm water management or specific uses owners or tenants. Staff has requested this information on several occasions without success, This location is a significant gateway into Roanoke County along the Route 220 Expressway and Electric Road and Business Franklin Road from Roanoke City. The site is as visible to Roanoke City residents as it is to Roanoke County residents and all traveling through the Roanoke Valley on the Route 220 Expressway, Without a proffered plan showing the types and appearances of any buildings, the site may potentially be a big box or a series 2 of small office/retail spaces, ().--<:\ ~i J AccessfTraffic Circulation - A traffic impact assessment meeting was held at the Virginia Department of Transportation Office in Salem on February 19, 2004, to address access impacts from the proposed development on Electric Road and Franklin Road, Roanoke County staff. VDOT staff, the applicant and their traffic consultant were present. VDOT is requiring a traffic analysis and study based on this proposal. The traffic consultant will need a minimum of 45 days to complete the study, Once completed the information will require extensive review by Roanoke County staff and VDOT personnel. WIthout this critical information neither VDOT nor Roanoke County staff can safely evaluate the impacts on already congested stretches of Electric Road and Franklin Road, Preliminary Roanoke County Police Department data on reported traffic accidents show that Electric Road. in this section in the Tanglewood Mall area. is the primary location for traffic accidents in Roanoke County since 2000. For calendar year 2002, 49% of all accidents on Electric Road occurred in this stretch of road, With this type of preliminary data staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the petition until the required information is supplied by the applicant and County and VDOT staff have had sufficient time to review the information and respond to the applicanfs traffic consultant. Fire & Rescue/Utilities - Fire and Rescue services will be provided by Cave Spring and Clearbrook Fire and Rescue, Fire and rescue comments following their review of the proposed concept plan indicates concerns about the extreme traffic congestion at both proposed ingress I egress points presently and in the future. They do not anticipate an extreme increase in the number of rescue or fire calls generated from this proposal. Public water and sewer are not currently available to the subject site, Both public water and sewer. of adequate capacity, may be provided by extensions of public facilities, 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The current G-1 zoned parcels are designated as Core in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. Core is the future land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger scale highway oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. Planned shopping centers and clustered retail uses are encouraged, The centers should incorporate greenways, bike and pedestrian trails into their design and link them to surrounding neighborhoods, The site is not designated as an Economic Opportunity kea in the Community Plan. The G-2 conditional area of the site and the R.3 zoned area are designated as Development. Development is the future land use area where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses, Environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective. This designation also encourages greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. The primary objective of the Development designation is for residential development with a maximum limit set on the retail land, 5, 5T AFF CONCLUSIONS , The petition that has been submitted refers to a .planned campus. and .carefully planned road system which uses existing traffic patterns and traffic lights: Planning staff does not see the proposed rezoning as either of these. With a C-2 rezoning, without any proffered conditions. this property may be developed from an office/retail complex to several big boxes without any County input on the design features, location of stormwater facilities and ingress/egress for the entire 29.98 acre site. The same reasons the developers wishes to rezone the property for development the high traffic counts, the high visibility from two major highways, the development along a ridgeline. are the same reasons Roanoke County must insure that safe access to and from the site as well as safe traffic movements on adjoining highways ~nd intersections is 3 provided, Due to the critical slopes involved with the property, with a substantial portion of the grades over 33%, it is imperative to insure that the development of the property is done in a fashion to protect the adjoining parcels and water courses below the subject property, The location is a gateway to Roanoke County from multiple directions and highly visible from traveling motorists through the Roanoke Valley, Planning staff will require that the traffic analysis and study be completed and reviewed by County staff and VDOT, Planning staff does not support this petition and recommends that the petition be continued until such time as all necessary information is provided to fairly and completely analyze the petition. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: # 7. 3/2004 J. Murphy PC: March 2, 2004 BOS: March 23, 2004 e 4 ~ ... R~~ COMMO~WEALTH of VIRGINIA Philip Shucet COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 3071 SALEM. 24153-5127 March 12, 2004 JEFF ECHC RESIDENT ENGn Mr. Hunter Smith 4415 Pheasant Ridge Rd, SW Suite 303 Roanoke, VA 24014 Subject: Slate Hill Development Route 220, Roanoke County Dear Mr. Smith, This is in reference to the proposed grading and erosion & sediment control plan for this development The traffic impact study update for the commercial development on Franklin Road for Lowe' s and others in 1998 commented that" '" consideration should be given to widening Franklin Road" (Route 220) in this area" '" to provide for three thru lanes in each direction". The recently updated long-range transportation plan (2025) for the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization shows this section of Route 220 on the financially constrained list with a recommended improvement to 6 lanes, Improvements to Route 220 from the current four lane divided roadway to a six lane divided highway would involve needing most of the existing limited access right of way along this section of Route 220. The improvements could also include the interchange with Route 419, the ramps and the median. The grading plan for the Slate Hill proposal shows the placement of fill within the existing limited access right of way, This proposed grading would impact the ability to make improvements to this section of Route 220, The proposed fill is also shown to come to the top of the existing rectangular drainage channel along the southbound on ramp. The integrity of this channel is a concern with the amount of fill shown, Therefore, the proposed plan has a major impact on future improvements to this section of Route 220 and is not acceptable as presented, VDOT would be willing to review and give possible consideration to a proposal that has much less impact to the limited access right way of way. .. TQA,J~l)nQTATln,J I=(")Q T1-II= ~1 ~T /"':1=,JTlII:IV fZ;..~ Page 2 Hunter Smith Letter March 12, 2004 I am available to meet on items for this development. Please advise if additional information is needed. Sincerely, . C'~ ,"\ ri I 0 .' Cf.' I ' '-I . 'j' ..':- il .I } Jeff Echols, P .E. Resident Engineer (On () (. :: )/ )\ \...;""'1"--<'> ' 'o~ Cc: The Honorable Brandon Bell The Honorable Onzlee Ware Mr. Dana Martin Mr, Elmer Hodge Mr. Fred Altizer, Jr, , P.E, I'"" :') ~ ,-l.J. . . , ,.! } \')'/~ I,'f..f)/ .-1 'or . '.' , ',' - ':,.J) .! : !,: ," ;\.,_~ì\' :1..: ,i- '1 ..1 ..' 1-" ~ "'f'¡'- : ,',".J!,. , , I '- > ,--~. ' ! " /" > -- . " I -. , I ._þ , ì ,~ \" L \: r;.":i't.{'\ :. c;. v "C. ,. oj ," ......- . 0 ..--. l.v j l. L- '-J' 1"\ T'- C;' \> N \ 'Ç,~ e County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 For Staff Use Onl Dale received: R . -.. b r<' V"'" eCCIVw y: i ¿.-.." " "1" ' Application fee: PClBZA date: Placards issued: BOS date: Case Number ¡i.'Jf""-;;:':'f.¥~;;>;;;;",,y,/.:\t.;':l' ';~1}1œ "llG' . .. ':.,."..~.',i:..")t.:,;".:..:,-.,,i~;. ." "~~J~ij;i:'tili': Check type of application fi1~ (check all that apply) :=: Rezoning 0 Special Use 0 Variance DWaÌver 0 Administrative Appeal Applicants zww'address wlzip Slate Hill I, LLC, Slate Hill II, LLC, Woodcliff Investments, LLC 4415 Pheasant Ridge Road Roanoke,VA 24014 Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 540/772-5090 540/772-5090 540/874-5755 540/772-0106 Owner's nameladdress w/zip (same as Applicant's information) Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Property Location 4486 Summit Street Roanoke, VA 24014 Tax Map No.o&, .0&-03.11.00-0000, 077 _20-0 1.52, 077.20-01-54,077.20-01-04,077.20-01-55,077.20-01-03 Magisterial District: Cave Spring Community PIannmg area: Cave Spring Existing Zoning: C2C, C1, R3 Size ofparcel(s): Acres: C-2C to C-2: 4.92907 C-! to C-2: 8.0377 R-3toC-2: 17.01791 TOTAL ACRES: 29.98468 Existing Land Use: Vacant ",-.p,"."":,,,.,.'" """.",,'~"~""":'.~<"';"P "'.iJI.;"':!i-'."'-""~"~"""'O¡:',.I;"<!"'¡;p""~~"'I!",;"d:;;.o,"."..~~,¡"¡.t.rò,"""'-!:"" ~"RËžli¡'¡fÑllsp~@¡jj~rl$A:' ::9.",~ '~Jy1MiRt;.., "p"iié:lÑi'~Æ" ;-, - S ',"'->r\}i "-'-:; ,;,~.....""..,,,..!,"., "',,-"":"':,,-,.1'..'\;-:$:-","""""""""" ...;,.";;..~..,.",,,~; ,."""",.....""."t§Jf", ""~""~",,,>.,~,.~.g:y,,,.t:~::t,.; .. ":~fÆ~~~~fé¡;~.il~~Vk:m:;)i~;,;;i;(,: Proposed Zoning: C2 Proposed Land Use: Retail and Office Use Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes X . No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes X IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FmST If rezoning request, are conditions bemg proffered with this request? Yes 0 NoD NoD :;;llf _ç~tw'æ.1.$. ~~ ~~ ~œ!rœlf,æ.~!); ',,~~',.' ;{:if:ti~;t::~~;~§~:~i~'1~lif~'~:~¡¡~: Varianc~aiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Adminis1rator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation ofSecnon(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Is tb~ lpp1ication cou;>lc=? Please checl:: if enclosed. Al'PLICA nON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ï T 1- 1- W¡¡¡ ,,~..,-_.. 1- W~ -~ AppliCll%iom Metes 1114 bounds ~ Pron:~ if 1p>1i=ob1c JustilicatiOll Wau:r 1114 sower 1p>1icati0li Ac\io1lllll& properI)' - 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 oftbe owner. /~ e - Owner's Signature 2 . ?iEf~ Applicant Slate Hill I. LLC. Slate Hill II. LLC. Wood cliff Investments. LLC -'-? The Planning Commission will study rezonmg, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health. safety, and general welfare. Please answer the fonowing 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 1M Zoning Ordinance. SEE ATTACHED SHEET Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained 1n the Roanoke County CoIDII11IDity Pian. The Slate Hill Project in the Magisterial District of Cave Spring in Roanoke County is in confolTTlance with the Roanoke County Community Plan. The Community Plan designates the area in question as a core area that includes office and retail uses along Routes 419 and 220. The planned use is in conformance with existing adjacent property uses: Lowe's and Rent-A-Space, and Country Store. The ridge line will not be disturbed, and the owner will take every measure available to retain a portion of the natural vegetation, The project does not impact existing Roanoke County parks or the Blue Ridge Parkway, The land owner has experience developing several quality developments in the Roanoke Valley and Southeast US, including Pheasant Ridge in Roanoke, The project will provide for an opportunity to attract several businesses that will provide for white collar employment opportunities, While increasing employment opportunities for the County, the project will enhance the commercial core of Tanglewood Mall and surrounding businesse,s, It is the opinion of the property owner, that the Slate Hill project will benefit the County and Mall by attracting retailers to the area, The property, which borders Routes 419 and 220, will be landscaped. Please descn"be the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoiDingproperties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parkslrecreation and fire and rescue, The project does not include a residential component which would lead to an increase in school enrollment. The project will increase the tax base of Roanoke County to help make improvements to the fire and police departments and the existing school system, The adjoining property owners are existing businesses who will benefit from the new retail and office traffic: Lowe's, Rent-A-Space, and Country Store, All other land that borders the project is landlocked or owned by an entity related to the property owner, It is the lack of commercial development in the County that has contributed to the County's dependence on real estate taxes to provide needed public services, The property owner has built and leased one hundred and fifty thousand square feet of Class A office space less than one mile from the Slate Hill project and several other office projects across Southeast US, It is this type of project that is best suited for the property in question. It is sound community planning to change the current zoning from an unconforming use, C2C, C1, R3, to a use suitable for the County's commercial corridor and the busiest iNtersection in the Valley, 3 Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the PurpOS~fOÙ11~. at the beginDing of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. ,- \.. The Slate Hill Project encompasses 29.98468 acres in the magisterial district of Cave SpriJig n F( anoke County of which a small portion needs to be correctly zoned from C2C, C1, R3, The property owner intends to bring to this area a mixed use of retail and office space in a campus-like development by bringing access to vacant landlocked property, The purpose of Roanoke County's zoning ordinance is to supply the citizens of the Cave Spring District and Roanoke County, of which the developer is a member, a high quality of life, Each provision of the ordinance is answered in an outlined form below. 1, Slate Hill will have two points of access. One point of access will be at Route 220, at an existing traffic light at the intersection of Route 220 and Summit Street. The additional entrance will be used from an existing point of business: furniture store. The project is less than fIVe miles from the Clearbroolç Fire Department and Rescue Squad, 2. The project will be a planned campus, The road improvements for the project include a carefully planned road system which uses existing traffic patterns and traffic lights, 3. Slate Hill is a planned community development that incorporates all uses in a harmonious manner. The property owner has extensive experience building planned communities throughout Southeastern US and the Roanoke Valley, which includes the Pheasant Ridge complex in Roanoke City, The addition of access to the landlocked properties will open a new area of commercially taxable land that was previously vacant residential property in a highly commercial area. 4, The existing public facilities are adequate to serve this project: Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Squad. The expanded tax base for Roanoke County, as a result of this project, will help support areas of need elsewhere in the County, Currently, the property is vacant and inappropriately zoned, which results in it being of little benefit to the County's citizens, 5, The 29.98468 -acre development does not include any historic structures, 6, The project does not include plans for overdevelopment or crowded density, The owner has experience with projects in the Valley and will take the necessary measures to make sure the project conforms to its neighbors and existing developments in the County, 7, The project will include both office and retail uses, 8. Due to topography and location, the land in question is not suitable for agriculture and it is surrounded by over one million square feet of retail space. Any use at this location other than retail or office would result in under utilization of the property. 9, The land owner intends to improve the existing property to be a suitable gateway to the County's commercial area. The use of retaining walls will be employed along Route 220 to maintain the slope in an aesthetically pleasing manner and it will include landscaped areas, 10, Thomas Bros, excavating companies will be responsible for the ground disturbance. Thomas Bros. is a local firm with experience in working with the County staff. Also Thomas Bros. was chosen because of their quality of work and experience with large projects. 11, Thomas Bros, excavating companies will be responsible for the ground disturbance, Thomas Bros, is a local firm with experience in working with the County staff. Also Thomas Bros, was chosen because of their quality of work and experience with large projects. . 12, The project before the planning commission does not include a residential use, The purpose of C-2 zoning, General Commercial District, is to provide locations for a variety of commercial and service activities in an urban area, which serves a large portion of Roanoke County, The project satisfies this requirement. The area is surrounded by existing retailers: Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Rent-A-Space, Tanglewood Mall, Hunting Hills Square, etc. The immediate area around the Slate Hill development includes over one million square feet of retail space. The project is also located at the busiest intersections in Roanoke County with a traffic count of in excess of 88,000 vehicles daily. There is not a more suitable location for a project of this type in Roanoke County, The adjacent property owners will not be adversely affected by the rezoning of the property in question. The Slate Hill project will increase business for existing retailers and increase their property value, At this time, the neighboring property owners are adversely affected by the current zoning because it is non- conforming and it results in an unattractive environment for retailers. The Slate Hill project will increase the tax base of the County, improve the gateway to the County's commercial corridor, and provide the opportunity for white collar employment. . . A concept plan of the proposed proj~ must be submitted with the application. 1J1e concept plan shall gra.phicaUy depict the . '. land use change, developnrent or varimce that is to be considered, Further I the plan shall address any potential land use: or design lssues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings-, the applicant may proffer conditioD,S, to limit the , futlIre use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be ~iieab2r b. y County permlttíng regulations. . . (\<-.--' 9 The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building , permit, Site plan and building permit procedures ensure comp1lancc with State and County development regulatiom and may , require changes to the initial concept plan, Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan Dl8.y be altered to the extent permitted by the zoDÏI1g district and other 'regulations, A concept plan 15 required with all rezoning, special use permit. waiver and variance applications, The plan should be prepared by a professional site plaImer, The 1ev~ of detail may vary, &pending on the nature of the request, The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or mggest the addition of extra~, but the following år~ 'copsideréd : I minimum' ALL ðPPUCANTS 'J -L'" a, Applicam name and Dame of development , / b, Date, scale and north arrow ~ Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions ,,- . . ì V'" d, Location, ~ of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties Le, PhysicaI features such as ground cover, na.tunl watercourses, floodplain, etc, : t /'r, Th~ zoning and l~ use of ~ adjacent properties . -1...¿" g, AJ1 property lines and easements '¡ ~ h, AJ1 buUdings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights ,¡ .JL. i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other pt;blic ways within or adja.cent to the development ~ ~ Dimensions aDd locations of all driveways, parmi spaces and Ioa.din.g spaces I Additional infonnaJion requf.redfor REZONINGantl. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPUCA.NTS 'J - k, Existing ~ties (water, sewer, stem drams) and connections at the she 1. AIJ.y driveways. entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers . , m, Topography map in a mitable scale and contour intervals 1- ,J - n, Approximate street grades and site distances, at intersections ! - 0, Locations of an adjacent fire hydrants ¡ ¡ - p.. ÁJJ.y proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed' - q. If project is to be phased, please show phase sch~ule , . '. I ; I certify that all items required in the check1ist above are complete, ~& /' Signatur{ 0 app1icant ' e I h ~ ~y , . Óate' ~ R~: SLATE Hill'S RETAIL NEIGHBORS (Partial Listing of Retail Within 1/4 Mile) Retail Center Square Footage Wal-Mart Store at Hunting Hills Plaza 117,573 Huntina Hills Plaza (Strip of Stores) 47,760 Lowe's 134,641 Play It Again Sports 5,973 First National Exchanae Bank 4,284 Outback Steak House 6,465 Food Lion 31,687 Petland and $1,50 Drv Cleaners 13,740 Tanalewood Mall 393,582 ADDlebees 22,462 First Union Bank 6,298 Firestone 7,876 Kroaer 61,244 Barnes and Noble 25,800 Carmike Cinemas 36,625 Grand Pavilion 98,823 Fashion Floors 12,723 IHOP 5,013 Mac and Maggies 5,935 Carlos Resturant . 5,555 Ainee Cleaners 3,410 Famous Anthony's 3,100 Wendy's 2,235 Total Retail Square Footage 1,052,804 e -------~----- - In te gra \0","'-" -":'Y,,'.,.,',- ~ i',~, ('¡, \-J Your Investment Partner. A member of the Roanoke Valley business community... Integra Investments, LLC, specializes in the design, development, financing, marketing, strategic planning and operation of facilities, The chief executive officer is Mr, James R. Smith. Mr, Smith is a Roanoke native, who attended school in Roanoke and graduated from Virginia Tech. Mr, Smith has been in business since 1983 building communities throughout the Southeastern United States, communities such as, Pheasant Ridge. Pheasant Ridge, located in Roanoke, Virginia, is a 60-acre campus with on-going development since 1997. The campus includes Integra's corporate headquarters in an t84,OOO-square-foot office park, a tOt-bed skilled nursing home, a 90-unit assisted living facility, including a specialized Alzheimer's care unit, and a 128-unit condominium project built in four phases, Phase 3 of the condominium project will be completed in the Spring of 2004, The campus has multiple panoramic views of the downtown Roanoke skyline and the Alleghany Mountains, Mr, Smith has grown bis business to be one oithe largest development companies in the country, managing more than $30 million new projects annually, These projects include nursing homes, assisted living facilities, medical/office buildings, continuing care retirement communities and mixed use facilities, Integra has been successful because it has provided high-quality, cost-saving development solutions to communities, We have done this by working closely with local community leaders, hospitals, civic groups and families to provide quality services, Over the years we have established solid relationships and have broad-based experience with community agencies, We know the business, Integra's track record speaks for itself, Respectfully, /,c~ Hunter D, Smith 4415 PHEASANT RIDGE ROAD. S.W., SUITE 303, ROANOKE, VA 24014 Phone: (540) 772-5090 I Fax: (540) 772-0106 E-mail: hsmith@rev.net - Integra rz~~ ~ Your Investment Partner, January 23,2004 Dear Members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission: The Slate Hill Project is an opportunity for the landowner and Roanoke County to work together to build a commercial area in the CO'Wlty in which everyone can take pride, Currently, the property is vacant, 'Wlder-zone~ and unsightly to everyone who enters the Roanoke CO'Wlty to work, live, and shop: please see attached photo, We can make it better, The landowner, James R Smith, a Roanoke native, is asking to rezone 29.98468 acres from a vacant residential use to an office and retail center: Slate Hill, The property is located in the core area of the Cave Spring Community Plan and will bring much needed employment to the County, The property's neighbors are retail businesses that total over a million square feet of retail space, Located at the comer of Routes 419 and 220, the Slate Hill property has a traffic count of over 90,000 cars daily. When complete~ this $200 million project will generate a mirrimum of $2,224,000 a year in local tax revenue without placing a burden on public facilities, It will not result in a strain on the school system and be assured that we will not disturb the ridge line. To best serve the County residents, this property needs to be commercial. As we work together, we will build a new neighborhood of service and retail businesses that will make Roanoke County stronger, It is this development that will provide the needed spark to enrich this commercial corridor ofthe County to a level of higher prosperity, It is sound community planning to support the Slate Hill project as a place for Roanoke County citizens to work and play, We want input from County officials in the initial stages of the proj ect in order to make this a major addition to the economic base of Roanoke County, If you have any questions, I can be reached at 772-5090. I am looking forward to working with you. Respectfully, /þ-~ Hunter Smith HDS/pj Enclosures e 4415 PHEASANT RIDGE ROAD, S.W., SUITE 303, ROANOKE, VA 24014 Phone: (540) 772-5090 I Fax: (540) 772..01 06 E-mail: hsmith@rev.net ,~ Integra Þ ¡'D f'-<~ ( ~ Your Investment Partner. January 23, 2004 Dear Members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission: The Slate Hill Project will be built in phases, The first phase ofllie project will be the rough excavation of the site to allow access throughout the property, Thomas Bros. has been retained for this service, and they will be completed by 260 +/- days from January 29, 2004, Once the rough excavation is completed, the project will be built in zones in the order colTesponding to the attached concept plan, At this time, a timeline has not been established for the construction of the different zones, Roanoke County will be kept apprised of any new information and timelines, Respectfully, ~ Hunter Smith e 4415 PHEASANT RIDGE ROAD, S.W., SUITE 303, ROANOKE, VA 24014 Phone: (540) 772-5090 I Fax: (540) 772-0106 E-mail: hsmith@rev.net R ~.~j~ UNSIGHTLY APPROACH INTO ROANOKE ON U. S. ROUTE 220 AT SLATE HILL PROPERTY e Þ \, t"-'~' ~~ SLATE HILL AERIAL e .. t ""\\Mr GRAPffiC SCALE MO ~ '" "" ~ , I ( .,.,) 1_-1" II. ..., '" MID ,. fIAt ør I.IM!IØ A$IIXßQ, ,.,~ MIlD lIAr ~ IØIIJ ftÐXIIIIOI " ~.a ø, ,. ,.u. z. fIAT ør J:/". N/fIfR . - /MIlD Ar 14 "" --..~.a.." 7- J. fIAT øT t.... MIIŒII . - /MIlD AT ~ '"' -- " "... = At ,l1li of. fIAT" NfI1fIISIIf NfI ~~ m. IMD N'M. .\ IØIIJ ftIWIIID " ~... ø, At ,V. 4 1fØ fIAT I1fIØ MlT mmlRlI!' .. BIMftMIIY SUllIU. .. JlLGI ACIIØ IV IE IÐINIJ IV 001. IIJIIMD BY CØMIIS I IIØI tf IV I IIQIOO£ E»I/BIT SHOIt1NG 25.06 ACRES 10 BE: REZOHED 10 C-2 ROANOKE" COUNTY TAX PARC£LS 77.20-0l-0J, 77.20-01-0f, 77.Zo-01-!H, 77.20-01-58 PROPERTY OF WOODCUFF INVESTMENTS, LLC RIMNOKE: COUNTY TAX PARca ,7T.lo-OI-52 PROPERTY OF SLATE HILL II, LLC NIO A POR7ION OF RONfOKE" COUNTY TAX PARCEL 187,011-03-11 PROPERTY OF .,.r A "'I':' trTT T T T.T r ;:i~ ¡.v I::~~ 65æi .;0 ~..~ ~B O"'1iIJ J: ... Go } .:I î ~B i~ ~ ~ u1 ;;) ., ~ ~ ð ~ 1;;...0 ...""" aI"'~ ~~u1 ~><>< .,00 :¡~5 ",oð ...:", c)¡Q 'w P-.z l2j E-~ :S¡Q UO<I- 0(;:;- ~>~ -<~~ zl{J> t.:J¡QtJ ow~ cnWo ;:;E~Z ::>~(§ ~taJ~ I ~ I_" ~<:; ~ ~ I n I- I; I, ~ s 3 ~ § {:; ~ 8 ,.... /'11."-" -.: .,.,.", _/III' _IU Ii I~ ~ II ~ slate i.Jll Pr.ojeçt~ ~ Phases ~-' , " . . ". "'.. r . .(1) Met W god ArchiIeÇtS lWanou. VA .: Date: lamwy 19, 1004 Co.IDIDÍI.SÍOD No, 0303 . ~ + '. .. 'to '" .. t ~T -+' ... £»llBiT SHOKING 4.930 ACRES 10 BE RCZONED 10 C-:Z ROANOKE: COUNTY TM PARCEL PROPERTY OF' ,...r Am'" rrrr r r r r r< '~, '" "'" ,"J>-tn-" ' '" . ......,,-~ I - - . "" GI"""""'-- : I "" _IV t I ~ "'" .: "I : ~ '" I I I I '-'-- l,:: ~ -"" "J : l----- ". ,"--0'-'" "": ----------- " __r- "'~ -------- . _IU ' ---------- . ..-- ~---.- '" -, " " ",,- " "" " "'" """ " .:;:~~-~ ... ~..ø: ".~",' A I'ØIIfQI" " - QC .. -"~IU r,' ~r~ .. " ' _WJ . ' """".....;:..":' ¡rø:..-cII' ... _wmr".. " ' ~_~IV .. .. -'" , ' .._--~ ' , ' , ' , ' ." .. S ," :<Ifoo""" " '. "'" ",."-" ' ,-' ,,- -..:tf,' , , -":::,"u-'--\ L..{ V ~- .. \ \ "'.:. '. ...., .. \ \ H"""""/("1 ' ~ .. ,----.... CØI[JIJI1' , ...-- \ , .. " ' ", .. : II: \\ .. :: 7 .... ~ .,.""::-l ' .. ,,', ~;~""""'- ... ,," ' -""""- I' '... .. ":-'" "\ .. + ""erA I' ,,""'18~- ',I ,..,.,.-' , lO1ØroM:--"'" "1 tUrn...-."" _ac ,-;-', ,_U' ' ,1(.'," , . ' ,-:" " .. ,," .. \:....-:.;", ",' " "'" ,,'._Ø .. ""... "", IIWr.....::::SI",NIU, ),,'.. ,',' ,',' A I'0Il- ", .. "", ""',.,.-.. ~,' l1MCr-" ,,' tU_-_.~, , rMf87.~rr '. ,,' _IV " , "'IE'MU.~ILC:' ,,' ,'",... ZØIØ RJ'" "", ,. -"r",'" .. "", , " " .. .. .. "" , '... '. ,/' :.::~.. ,111 '. "", _HI.' .. ,," . ,- ~..;-------~ ,,',- ~oi~"""" : ,'< r..,.~"""'Of -,""~~ "'.....q, , .,' , _IIIIUT- ..~ '~~:""'" I ,,'. \." _IU C~"'" ... "",' ~ ""'181.--11 . ~.;;:;.. ": ,'~ ..' ~ Wlllm- ~ ,-'Q ..... ' ,f , ,'(. _IU ~,. ", ~ ~, ,,' '. '. \ " iii' ,.,.......-" :~'" ,.. ,,-,' '. S.. \. WIt ~ ~ . ~ ....', , ,ø .. "'" """""-11 ~~".q,.'" ~,. ,,-' ,... ",."-"-" 11111 m- ~,;.......,,: " IIIII"'__IU ~~"", _IV -, ~ .. "'/ -'," ""',.,.........." " ,,' Alllm- " ~ ,/ _u " ",' ",./~ .' " I GRAPHIC SCALE ~-~ i i (111l'81li') 1-.1101\, bt! ¡; ..; NO~ .. IYr ør AM1E/ISQ'I NfII A$S1QA1U, rœ 1MB N'RI. " lI1OJ ~~ ~ ~~ ~nr A _r _lET. .1 4....'.aD IIOIIIIJfII ør t'ØNIIS , JfIIIV " 10 , IIItI.Im[ 8EM .. I'0IllIOI'I CF IIMeT .... -- crMtfY' 1M /81.-æ-ff. IDS 1HNI ,- - ... ..---..... "",...It! Øll[llr1 /IfM.. IOTA/. ~p ¥~§ r;;í::2 S~... ~7I.~ z~3 ~"'! ... i ! ~ u1 .. J ~ ~ i g3:~ oJ"'> ID¡¡:..; ~ðð "'lDð :2;' ",q", ...... u:Q 'LLI o..z ~j ~q. -~ U~<I'" °LLl- V»z V) 0::- <::;,~ Zl{J;;: t.:I~. OLLl~ V)LLlO ~~z 5\.:)ë§ ....J~O:: I. j \; ~ I. II To: John Murphy, Community Development ((-- ~ From: Ramona p, Kern. Crime Analyst Date: February 16. 2004 Subject: Electric Rd Traffic Crash Analysis Listed below is an excerpt ftom the 2003 Traffic Crash Analysis Report. Electric Rd has remained the primary location for traffic crashes in Roanoke County since 2000, "Electric Rd runs from the Roanoke City line at Franklin Rd to the Salem City line near Keagy Rd and is over 5 miles in length, For the year 2003. 17% of reportable traffic crashes occurred on Electric Rd as compared tol5% in 2002, while the remaining locations account for 6% or less, Further analysis revealed that of the total 281 crashes on Electric R~ 44% of the crashes occurred between the intersections of Ogden Rd and Fra.nk1in Rei. This stretch of Electric Rd accounts for approximately Yz mi1e of the total road. For the year 2002, 49% of all crashes on Electric Rd oCCUITed in this same stretch. This area consists of a shopping mall. fast food restaurants. gas stations and other local businesses, Crashes tend to occur on Fridays between 15:00 and 19:00, Tuesday between 11:00 and 15:00 and Saturdays between 11 :00 and 19:00, The primary cause for crashes is Following Too Close (52%) and Driver Inattention (13%), In 76% of the crashes. the driver was charged, 22% of the crashes resulted in some type ofpersonal injury," e QInuut1! nf ~a:nah Ii) \1 i",-- ~. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS MAF'PINGlGtS PERMITS PLANNING & ZONING STORMWATER MANAGEME DIRECTOR, ARNOLD CCNFE:'f ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GEORGE W. SIMPSON, III, P.E. CHIEF PLANNER, JANET SCHEID F~bruary 19.2004 Mr, Hunter Smith 4415 Pheasant Ridge Road Building I, Suite 303 Roanoke. Virginia 24014 VIA FAX: 540.772.0]06 Dear Mr. Smith: The meeting conducted on February 19,2004. at the VIrginia Department ofTransponation Office in Salem with Roanoke Co'Wlty staff: VDOT staff and your traffic consultant bas indicated some significant issues that plarming staff feels must be addressed prior to Planning Commission action on your petition, The discussion focused aro'Wld the VDOT requirement for a traffic analysis to determiDe the access impacts on Routes 220 and 419 ftom your proposed development In addition, there was discussion about improvements and/or addinons to tuming lanes, right turn in and right turn out. access at the traffic signal near the Wendy's restaurant and the access close to the south-bound on-ramp to Route 220, In previous discussions, planning staffhas indicated the need to have design or appearance standards related to proposed buildings within your site, To date, planning staffhas not received any proffered building elevations. site plan, design criteria, retaining wall information, final stormwatel' management . ÏDÍormation or use restrictions on the site. Without th~~e critjca] issues being addressed, planning staff cannot adequately evaluate the 1rmd use impacts of your pennon, Therefore staff will recommend to the Planning Commission that YO1II' pen ti on be continued until such informanon is received. Please feel free to contact me 81772.2042 if you have any questions related to this letter, Sincerely, ~aL. rn~~ John Murphy Associate Planner cc: Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Roanoke County Arnold Covey, Director Community Development Jeff Echols. Resident EngiDeer VDOT Susan Hammond, Assistant Resident Engineer VDOT Roanoke County Planning Commission Elmer Hodge, County Adminislrator Roanoke County Board of Supervisors . P.O. BOX 29800 "'ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 "'PHONE (540) 772-2080 "'FAX (540) 772.2108 * Recycled Paper APR. -05' 04 (MON) 13:29 VDOT SALEM RES TEL:540 387 5407 P. 002 I.?-".'- i'~, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Philip Shtlcøt COMMISSIONER April 5, 2004 John Murphy Roanòke County Planning p, O. Box 29SO0 . Roanoke, VA 24018 FAX: 540-776-7155 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 3071 SAlEM, ~4'53'S1~1 JEFF EÇHOLS RESIDENT ENGtWEE RE: Slate Hill Traffic Impact Study (received 03-29-04) Roanoke County - Routes 419 & 220 Dear :Mr. Murphy, We have reviewed the Traffic: Impact Study submitted by Mattern & Craig. Inc, The study. as su~ is unclear and requires a more comprehensive presents.tion. Clarification and additional infor:mation that addresses the full impact Dithe entire proposed development is needed for a thorough review. We would like to reserve our comments until the revised study is submitted, A meeting of parties involved may be beneficial for review of comments and traffic: ÍDfonnation. Should you have any questions or comments~ please advise, J¿Y' Susan Hammond Assistant Resident Engineer cc: Edward A Natt e TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 'TS4 s...m. ElIIIOAÞ St'. F..w; (1540. :111.7,15407 ""I:IHE< !IWO) 387-!1U88 APR-06-20Ø4 øa:21 OSTERHOUDT PRILLAMAN NATT 1=-41O'("(,41::~bJ. t"'.I<:IJ.;¡':¡J. (~;crJ I 4/(, bY "1 f' . i <.;"".~ S~l <>,". ~ :L:J 01. . . 00 . non .~. [~. j I ,,' a 11 ã I -I ~ . == t n. . ãi~-=: -~¡; ~. "CI a ~ =- hI ::"! In v U iI! ~~ Jna . c.. I.!!!'.I e :I.., 't ... ~ e ..... ---- - - ,-.. --, . ï-Em::Ïl..-p:-ø: ~ i ~ ì - ~. ." , page 1 ~~ Metes and Bounds of Slate Hill I and II, LLC to be zoned C-2 from R-3 . Total Acreage 17.01791 North: 8681,17167 Line Course: N 23-21-43 W North: 8879,93582 Line Course: N 22-07-52:W North: 9039,75859 Line Course: N 61-50-50 E North: 9224,57256 Line Course: N 79-24-46 E North: 9227,16492 Line Course: N 05-34-1~ E North: 9263,01446 Line Course: N 08-05-10 E North: 9867,13546 Line Course: S 85-46-50 E North: 9848,69262 Line Course: N 78-12-28 E . North: 9883,27889 Line Cóurse: S 13-46-53 E North: 9864,69732 Course: N 78-43-07 E North: 9940,41588 Line Course: S 19-38-01 E North: 9815,81235 Line Course: S 78-36-16 W North: 9737,41934 Line Course: S 08-52-15 E North: 9340.53781 Line Course: N 79-24-46 E North: 9357,29967 Line Course: S 14-28-48 E North: 9110.86458 Line Course: S 66-04-08 W North: 8681,17167 Line Course: N 75-57-50 E North: 8681,17167 Ii ~ ; ¡ I ~. -- ....ine - - - ï ~ - . l ~ ¡- ~ Perimeter: 4602,94 East: 53568,84778 Length: 216,51 East: 53482,99147 Length: 172,53 East: 53417,99308 Length: 391. 70 East: 53763,35186 Length: 14 ,11. East: 53777.22105 Length: 36.02 East: 53780,71689 Length: 610,19 East: 53866,54784 Length: 250,65 East: 54116,52332 Length: 169,24 East: 54282,18971 Length: 19,13 East: 54286,74743 Length: 387,05 East: 54666,31877 Length: 132,30 East: 54710,77080 Length: 396,77 East: 54321,82565 Length: 401,69 East: 54383,76776 Length: 91. 23 East: 54473,44398 Length: 254,52 East: 54537,08498 Length: 1059,30 East: 53568,84778 Length: 0,00 East: 53568,84778 Area: 741,300,31299 sq, ft, 17,01791 acres ;;-' i ¡ I '- ! ì ~\ I I .; Line I Line ~\ Line ¡Line I page 1 , R-~ Metes and Bounds of Woodcliff Investments, LLC to be zoned C-2 from C-l Total Acreage 8.0377 North: 9.867.13546 Line Course: N 54-37-50 W North: 10138,44151 Line Course: N 34-25-5~'W North: 10255,65914 Line Course: N 43-35-03 E North: 10489,65009 Course: N 53-51-55 E North: 10584,77828 Line Course: S 35-59-0rE North: 10368,00252 Course: N 52-37-55 E North: 10375,34098 Course: S' 35-56-05 E North: 10216,18927 Course: N 59-55-25 E North: 10279,68178 Course: S 34-12-15 E North: 10197,35137 lne Course: S 13-48-57 E North: 9883,27889 Line Course: S 78-12-28 W North: 9848,69262 Line Course: N 85-46-50 W North: 9867,13546 .' Perimeter: 2541,27 " I I East: 53866,54784 Length: 468,70 . East: 53484,35324 Length: 142,11 East: 53404,00113 Length: 32.3,03 East: 53626,70418 Length: 161,32 East: 53756,99140 Length: 267,89 East; 53914,39529 Length; 12,09 East: 53924,00466 Length: 196,56 East: 54039,35875 Length: 126,69 East: 54148,99276 Length: 99,55 East: 54204,95343 Length: 323,43 East: 54282,18971 Length: 169.24 East: 54116,52332 Length: 250,65 East: 53866,54784 Area: 350,122,42769 sq, it, 8,03770 acres e page 1 Metes and Bounds of Cemetery "Not to be Rezoned" Total Acreage .03892 ì : North: 8133,46988 t Line Course: S 03-35-02 W ~ North: 8072,22719 ~ Line Course: N 80-12-02:W i North: 8077,07905 ~ Line Course: N 03-35-02 E !". Line North: 8135,24141 ~ Course: S 86-24-58 E i' North: 8133,46988 I Perimeter: 176,49 Area: I i I I I -' I I. I I I I I ~ ~. t I 1,,"" """ I East: 49768,64621 Length: 61.36 East: 49764,81033 Length: 28,51 East: 49736,71935 Length: 58,28 East: 49740,36229 Length: 28,34 East: 49768,64621 1,695,24581 sq, ft, 0,03892 acres " Metes and Bounds of Slate Hill ll, LLC to. be zoned C-2 from C-2c Total Acreage 4.92907 "Does not Include Cemetery" Total Acreage including Cemetery 4.96799 North: 9110,86458 Bast : 54537,08498 Line Course: S 14-28-48 E Length: 297,95 North: 8822,37677 Bast : 54611,58594 Line Course: S 81-09-09.N Length: 199,70 I North: 8791.66174 East : 54414,26356 Line Course: S 62-53-11 W Length: 316,18 Nor"th: 8647,56194 Ea:st : 54132,83397 -- Line Course: S 74-08-15 W Length: 148,55 f North: 8606,95978 East : 53989,94332 Line Course: N 78-23-39~W Length: 10.00 North: 8608,97197 East : 53980,14581 Line Course: N 28-10-53 W Length: 2,43 I North: 8611,11340 East : 53978,99848 Line Course: N 82-35-47 W Length: 68,80 North: 8619,97847 East : 53910.77607 Line Course.: N 09-32-14 E Length: 3,84 I North: 8623,76189 East : 53911,41172 Line Course: N 80-27-46 W Length: 100,00 North: 8640,33056 East : 53812,79388 J.Ile Course: N 80-29-45 W Length: 247,34 I "- North: 8681.17167 East : 53568,84778 Line Course: N'66-04-08 E Length: 1059,30 North: 9110,86458 East : 54537,08498 I I I I I I I I " ~ Area: 216,405.61596 sq. ft, 4,96799 acres Perimeter: 2454,08 fC.~ 1:) j i!l' V", AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A TOTAL OF 29.98-ACRES LOCATED AT 4486 SUMMIT STREET (TAX MAP NOS.77,20-1-3, 77.20-1-4. 77.20-1-52, 77.20-1-54, 77.20-1-55, PART OF TAX MAP NO. 87.08-3-11) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS OF C-2 CONDITIONAL, R-3, AND C-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF SLATE HILL I, LLC, SLATE HILL II, LLC, AND WOODCLIFF INVESTMENTS, LLC WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 24, 2004, and the second reading and public hearing were continued from March 23, 2004, April 27, 2004, May 25, 2004, and June 22, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter which was continued from March 2, 2004, and held on April 6, 2004; 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 a total of 29.98 acres, as described herein, and located at 4486 Summit Street (Tax Map Numbers 77.20-1-3,77.20-1-4,77.20-1-52,77.20-1-54, 77.20-1-55, Part of Tax Map No. 87.08-3-11) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2C, General Commercial District with conditions, R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, and C-1, Office District to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 2, That this action is taken upon the application of Slate Hill I, LLC, Slate Hill II, e 1 117 I '-=- LLC, and Woodcliff Investments, LLC. 3. That a portion of this property was rezoned to C2C by Ordinance 102897-19 at which time the Petitioner proffered the following conditions which are hereby REPEALED: (1 ) Petitioner proffers to build the Lowe's store in substantial conformity with the preliminary site plan, dated October 7, 1997. Except that Lowe's will flip the location of the garden center and the truck loading docks to the northern property area of the proposed project. (2) Petitioner proffers that if any out parcel that requires C~2 zoning is proposed on this site or the adjoining site of White House Antiques, it will be subject to a special use permit regardless of the C-2 use proposed. This will allow the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors the opportunity to review traffic impacts, circulation and access issues. (3) Petitioner proffers to retain the existing vegetation between the Petitioner's site and the property of Quail Valley condominiums. The only exception to this will be the removal of vegetation that is necessary for improvements to the access road for the existing residential properties. (4) If any of the residential homes on Washington Road remain, Petitioner proffers to upgrade, pave and maintain Washington Road to provide continuous, adequate and safe access to these houses. This upgrade will be to a standard acceptable to the County and reviewed during the site plan review process. 4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing conditions attached hereto as Exhibit 1 , which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, e 2 ~.' ""'~;:\)~"'" . ." J . I. , hereby accepts, 5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Tax Map No. 77.20-1-3 - C1 to C2C Tax Map No. 77.20-1-4 - C1 to C2C Tax Map No. 77.20-1-52 - R3 to C2C Tax Map No. 77,20-1-54 - C1 to C2C Tax Map No, 77,20-1-55 - C1 to C2C Portion of Tax Map No. 87.08-3-11 - R3 to C2C The metes and bounds of the above-mentioned parcels are further set out on the attached Exhibit 2. 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed, The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. e 3 Exhibit I PROFFERS REVISED June 17, 2004 -~ Address of Subject Property: 4486 Summit Street Roanoke, VA 24014 Tax Map No.: 077.20-01-03 077.20-01-04 077.20-01-52 077.20-01-54 077.20-01-55 087.08-03-11 Applicant's/Owner's Name: Slate Hill I, LLC Slate Hill II, LLC Woodcliff Investments, LLC The undersigned owner does hereby proffer the following conditions in conjunction with the rezoning request: 1. Uses a, The C-2 uses set forth on the attached Exhibit A would be prohibited. b. Zones shall be as depicted on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2, Slopes a, A geo-technical report from a certified geo-technical engineer shall be required to verify slope stability and stabilization methods, and design values for retaining structures. b. Slope maintenance bond, in an amount not to exceed $100,000, shall be required for a 10-term, to insure the continued safety and maintenance of all common areas for the Slate Hill development as defined by slopes, retaining walls, and private roads. 3. Buildings a. Height: Building height shall not exceed 50 feet (as measured per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance) unless underground parking is provided, Then building height shall not exceed 65 feet, except in Zone 3 where the height shall not exceed 75 feet for development of a hotel; otherwise, 65 feet. Any building constructed above the base level of 1335' elevation mark and exceeding the 1385' elevation mark (as measured per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance) will be required to have underground parking, b. Size: The total square footage for Zones 3 and 4 will not exceed 365,000 square feet: please see attached trip generation data. In Zones 3 and 4, the e Exhibit 1 "- - R~.-: ~ maximum square footage per building will not exceed 100,000 square feet. The maximum allowed footprint will not exceed 90,000 square feet. The total square footage for Zones 3 and 4 will not exceed 365,000 square feet: please see attached trip generation data (Exhibit D). In Zones 3 and 4, the maximum square footage per building will not exceed 100,000 square feet. The maximum allowed footprint will not exceed 90,000 square feet. c, Materials: Acceptable building finishes include brick, wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute, glass, stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS), split-face colored concrete block, stone or cast stone. Structures constructed in Zones 3 and 4 will be similar in appearance, materials and design. d. Roofs: Rooflines of the buildings predominantly visible from Route 220 and Route 419 shall be articulated. Acceptable roofmateIjals include standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or shingles. e. Building Colors: The predominant building colors shall be tan, brown, gray, beige, natural color brick, natural stone. f, Facades: The facades of buildings predominantly visible from Route 220 and Route 419 shall have vertical plane relief, 4, Road a, Curbing shall be required throughout the entire road system, The curb and gutter configuration shall be standard VDOT designs for appropriate conditions, b. The roads sl1all be in the approximate location as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated January 20, 2004, prepared by Rife & Wood Arcmtects, attached hereto as Exhibit B. In the event VDOT does not grant pennission to construct a portion of the road on the VDOT property as shown on said plan, the approximate road location shall be as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated December 11, 2003, prepared by Rife & Wood Arcmtects, attached hereto as Exmbit C. c. All parking and vehicular circulation surfaces shall have asphalt top, Base and underlayment shall be as detennined by recommendations from geo- technical engineer, d. Roadway widths shall be a minimum of 24 feet from base of curb to base of curb. Maximum road grade shall be 16%. There shall be no on-street parking allowed. e. Minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be installed to connect all buildings within Zone 4. 5. Access a, Petitioner shall make all necessary improvements to Electric Road (Route 419), Valley Avenue and Franklin Road (Route 220) as required by the traffic impact study and by VDOT. e e Exhibit 1 maximum square footage per building will not exceed 100,000 square feet. The maximum allowed footprint will not exceed 90,000 square feet. The total square footage for Zones 3 and 4 will not exceed 365,000 square feet: please see attached trip generation data. In Zones 3 and 4, the maximum square footage per building will not exceed 100,000 square feet. The maximum allowed footprint will not exceed 90,000 square feet. c. Materials: Acceptable building finishes include brick, wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute, glass, stucco or exterior insulated fmish system (ElF'S), split-face colored concrete block, stone or cast stone. Structures constructed in Zones 3 and 4 will be similar in appearance, materials and design, d. Roofs: Rooflines of the buildings predominantly visible from Route 220 and Route 419 shall be articulated, Acceptable roof materials include standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or shingles. e. Building Colors: The predominant building colors shall be tan, brown, gray, beige, natural color brick, natural stone, f. Facades: The facades of buildings predominantly visible from Route 220 and Route 419 shall have vertical plane relief. 4. Road a, Curbing shall be required throughout the entire road system, The curb and gutter configuration shall be standard VDOT designs for appropriate conditions. b. The roads shall be in the approximate location as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated January 20, 2004, prepared by Rife & Wood Architects, attached hereto as Exhibit B. In the event VDOT does not grant pennission to construct a portion of the road on the VDOT property as shown on said plan, the approximate road location shall be as set forth on the "Slate Hill Proposed Roadway and Development Plan" dated December 11, 2003, prepared by Rife & Wood Architects, attached hereto as Exhibit C. c. All parking and vehicular circulation surfaces shall have asphalt top, Base and underlayment shall be as detennined by recommendations from geo- technical engineer. d. Roadway widths shall be a minimum of 24 feet from base of curb to base of curb. Maximum road grade shall be 16%. There shall be no on-street parking allowed, e, Minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be installed to connect all buildings within Zone 4, 5. Access a, Petitioner shall make all necessary improvements to Electric Road (Route 419), Valley Avenue and Franklin Road (Route 220) as required by the traffic impact study and by VDOT. e " '~'~lj Exhibit 1 , 6. Ridgeline ,,<: \~ a. Building height shall not exceed 1384' elevation mark in Zone 3 and 1394' elevation mark in Zone 4, and all building elevations shall be shown on the site plan. . 7, Utilities a. All utilities shall be underground from the point of the utility transformer to the interior of the site. b. Where design parameters allow, all utilities shall share a common trench. 8, Retaining Walls a. Height: Maximum of 15 feet. b, Distance in between walls: Minimum of 4 feet. c, Color and Texture: Tan, brown, gray, beige, natural color brick, natural stone. Walls shall be textured, d. Landscaping: One medium sized (5-10 feet @ maturity) shrub for every 12 feet of linear wall. Shrubs shall be a mix of deciduous and evergreen, Shrubs may be grouped together. Landscaping behind retaining walls shall be as indicated by engineering designs for the walls. e, A Professional Engineer shall design all retaining walls, 9. Landscaping a. Trees shall be planted along the private entrance road every 30 feet, minimum 2 1/2- inch caliper, 50% native species, Flowering species that are street and urban conditions tolerant shall be utilized. 10. Site Lighting a. No freestanding light pole, including fixture, shall be more than 22 feet above grade. All exterior lights, including security lighting, shall be down-lit or shielded so as not to directly glare onto adjoining streets or properties. The intensity at adjoining streets or properties shall not exceed 0.5-foot candles. b. All street lighting shall be designed to complement the architecture of the adjacent buildings, 11. Signage a. No more than three (3) business signs shall be permitted for each business. b. Restricted signs: The following signs shall be prohibited: Off-premise signs, portable signs, temporary signs, and changeable copy signs. c. Signage shall complement the buildings' architectural style. Colors shall be in the range acceptable for buildings. d. All freestanding signs shall be monument type, shall not exceed 10 feet in height or 12 feet in width and signs shall be channe1lit, ground lit or top lit with shielded lamps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or adjoining properties. e. All signs shall be complemented, accented and enhanced by landscaping, f. One monument-type sign shall be allowed on the Route 220 side of the development. The height ofthe monument sign shall be limited to 25 feet. Exhibit 1 ~-"~ 12. Parking a, No gravel parking areas shall be allowed, All surface parking in excess of Roanoke County standards shall be constructed of materials as recommended by the geo-technical engineer. 13, Storm Water Management a. Outfalls shall be through level spreaders and have a 25-foot riparian buffer as a separation between the discharge point and the concrete culvert. Other design options may be employed if approved by the Roanoke County Engineering Department and VDOT. . b. All drainage ways shall be piped or grass swales. No rip-rap or concrete drainage ways shall be permitted. c. Detention Requirements: I a-year post development equal to or less than 2-year pre-development and 25-year post equal to or less than 2-year pre- development. Applicant/Owner: SLATE HILL I, LLC By /~~ Hunter Smith, Manager SLATE HILL II, LLC By /#- ~ --- -- Hunter Smith, Manager WOODCLIFF INVESTMENTS, LLC BY~~ I Hunter Smith, Manager e e ~ -~----------------- R~~ \ I r I '; I ~ Ii I t ~~ J ~. Exhibit 2 page 1 Metes and Bounds of Slate Hill I and II, LLC to be zoned C-2 from R-3 ' . Total Acreage 17.01791 East: 53568,84778 Length: 216.51 East : 53482,~9147 Length: 172,53 East: 53417,99308 Length: 39;1.. 7 o East: 53763,35186 Length: 14,11 East: 53777,22105 Length: 36.02 East: 53780,71689 Length: 610.19 East: 53866,54784 Length: 250,65 East: 54116,52332 Length: 169,24 East: 54282,18971 Length: 19,13 East: 54286,74743 Length: 387,05 East: 54666.31877 Length: 132,30 East: 54710,77080 Length: 396,17' East: 54321,82565 Length: 401. 69 East: 54383,76776 Length: 91.23 East: 54473,44398 Length: 254,52 East: 54537,08498 Length: 1059,30 East: 53568,84778 Length: 0,00 East: 53568,84778 North: 8681.17167 Line Course: N 23-21-43 W North: 8879.93582 Line Course: N 22-07-52:W North: 9039,75859 Line Course: N 61-50-50 E North: 9224,57256 Line Course: N 79-24-46 E North: 9227,16492 Line Course: N 05-34-1~ E North: 9263,01446 Line Course: N 08-05-10 E North: 9867.13546 Line Course: S 85-46-50 E North: 9848,69262 Line Course: N 78-12-28 E , North: 9883,27889 Line Cóurse: S 13-46-53 E North: 9864.69732 Course: N 78-43-07 E North: 9940.41588 Course: S 19-38-01 E North: 9815,81235 Line Course: S 78-36-16 W North: 9737.41934 Line Course: S 08-52-15 E North: 9340,53781 Line Course: N 79-24-46 E North: 9357,29967 Line Course: S 14-28-48 E Noith: 9110,86458 Line Course: S 66-04-08 W North: 8681.17167 Line Course: N 75-57-50 E North: 8681,17167 f ç ~ r ~ ¡ I ~'- ..:aine - 'Line - - - ~ ; - . " i; L ~ r Area: 741,300,31299 sq. ft, 17,01791 acres Perimeter: 4602,94 e II 1 i I ~.. I í t~: I ::: I Line H~ Line I Line I-~~: I Lin:.ri~ter' 2541.27 I i . Exhibit 2 page 1 ú(- J> Metes and' Bounds of Woodcliff Investments, LLC to be zoned C-2 from C-l Total Acreage 8.0377 North: ~S67,13546 Line Course; N 54-37-50 W North: 10138,44151 Course: N 34-25-50:'W North: 10255,65914 Course: N 43-35-03 E North: 10489.65009 Course: N 53-51-55 E North: 10584,77828 Course; S 35-59-02'" E North: 10368,00252 Course; N 52-37-55 E North: 10375.34098 Course: S'35-56-05 E North: 10216,18927 Course: N 59-55-25 E North: 10279,68178 Course: S 34-12-1.5 E North: 10197,35137 Course: S 13-48-57 E North: 9883,27889 Course: S 78-12-28 W . North: 9848.69262 Course: N 85-46-50 W North: 9867,13546 ." East: 53866.54784 Length: 468,70 East: 53484,35324 Length: 142,11 East: 53404,00113 Length: 32~,03 East: 53626,70418 Length: 161.32 East: 53756,99140 Length: 267,89 East: 53914,39529 Length: 12,09 East: 53924.00456 Length: 196,56 East: 54039,35875 Length: 126,6"9 East: 54148,99276 Length: 99,55 East: 54204,95343 Length: 323,43 East: 54282.18971 Length: 169,24 East: 54116,52332 Length: 2'50,65 East: 53666.54784 Area; 350,122,42769 sq, ft. 8.03770 acres --- -- --- ------ --- --- ----- - , I i I I I 'Line ., Line , I I I I I I I I. I I I \ ~ I J' ~- . I ~\' I Exhibit 2 page 1 R:~ Metes and Bounds of Cemetery "Not to be Rezoned" Total Acreage .03892 North: 8133,46~88 Line Course: S 03-35-02 W North: 8072,22719 Line Course: N 80-12-02:W North: 8077,07905 Course: N 03-35-02 E North: 8135,24141 Course: S 86-24-58 E North: 8133,46988 East: 49768,64621 Length: 61.36 - East: 49764,81033 Length: 28.51 East: 49736,71935 Length: 58..28 East: 49740,36229 Length: 28,34 East: 49768,64621 Perimeter: 176,49 Area: 1,695,24581 sq, ft, 0,03892 acres e Metes and Boùnds of Slate Hill IT, LLC to. be zoned C-2 from C-2c Total Acreage 4.92907 "Does not Include Cemetery" Total Acreage including Cemetery 4.96799 North: 91.10,86458 East : 54537,08498 Line Course: S 14-28-48 E Length: 297.95 North: 8822,37677 East : 54611.58594 Line Course: S 81-09-09 * Length: 199,70 North: 8791. 66174 JiJast : 54414,26356 Line Course: S 62-53-11 W Length: 316.18 North: 8647,56194 East : 54132.83397 " Line Course: S 74-08-15 W Length: 148,55 ' ( North: 8606,95978 East : 539B!L94332 Line Course: N 78-23-39'iW Length: 10,00 North: 8608,97197 East : 53980,14581 Line Course: N 28-10-53 W Length: 2.43 I North: 8611.11340 East : 53978,99848 Line Course: N 82-35-47 W Length: 68.80 North: 8619,97847 East : 53910,77607 Line Course': N 09-32-14 E Length: 3,84 I North: 8623,76189 East : 53911.41172 Line Course: N 80-27-46 W Length: 100,00 North: 8640,33056 East : 53812,79388 tne Course: N 8Q-29-45 W Length: 247,34 I '- North: 8681,17167 East : 53568,84778 Line Course: N'66-04-0B E Length: J.059,30 - North: 9110,86458 East : 54537,08498 I I Perimeter: 2454,08 Area: 216,405,61596 sq. ft, 4,96799 acres I I I I r I I " Exhibit 2 R-Þ e PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority 14-6/2004 ~._q Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 1, 2004 June 22, 2004 A, REQUEST The petition of Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority to amend the zoning on Virginia's Explore Park from EP, Explore Park with conditions to EP, Explore Park with amended conditions in order to remove a natural area designation, located at 3900 Rutrough Road, Vinton Magisterial District. B, CITIZEN COMMENTS Rupert Cutler spoke regarding the history of the natural areas designation, the benefits of the natural areas, and the importance of keeping some natural areas. He requested the Commission continue the petition to give the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority time to redraft the boundaries of the natural areas. C, SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. David Holladay presented the petition. Ms. Trixie Averill and Mr, Tom Brock spoke on behalf of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority, Ms. Debbie Pitts spoke on behalf of Virginia's Explore Park. The Commission asked questions about the operation of the park, and about planned facilities. Ms. Averill showed the Commission where the natural areas were located in relation to the actual lands owned by the Authority. She stated the need for the Authority to revisit their plans, and have options available for park development. Mr, Brock stated that the intent is to . add amenities to the park to help make it more self-sufficient. He discussed the park's existing investment and operating costs. Ms. Pitts described the desire for an amphitheater in the park and reviewed a map of the natural areas, D, CONDITIONS 1. Attachment III of the 1993 application to rezone 767.33 acres to the Explore Park (EP) District, which describes the Natural Areas, is hereby removed from the EP District proffers. All of the remaining written and graphic information prepared and submitted as part of the 1993 application constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, 2. Where park development adjoins a residential or civic land use, a Type E, Option 1 buffer yard, with Type E, Option 1 landscaping, or equivalent natural vegetation, shall be provided per Section 30-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. E, COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Steve Azar made a motion to recommend approval of the request, with the suggested proffered conditions. The motion passed 5-0. F, DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. 1 G, ATTACHMENTS: - Concept Plan - Staff Report - Vicinity Map - Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission I e 2 Location: Amend Explore Park (EP) District 3900 Rutrough Road Request: Magisterial District: Proffered/Suggested Conditions: Vinton 1. Attachment III of the 1993 application to rezone 767.33 acres to the Explore Park (EP) District, which describes the Natural Areas, is hereby removed from the EP District proffers. All of the remaining written and graphic information prepared and submitted as part of the 1993 application constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 2. Where park development adjoins a residential or civic land use, a Type E, Option 1 buffer yard, with Type E, Option 1 landscaping, or equivalent natural vegetation, shall be provided per Section 30-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority has repealed a resolution passed in 1991 that established six natural areas within Virginia's Explore Park. They request that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors remove those natural areas from the Explore Park District. The park and surrounding area are designated Rural Preserve in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan, The rural preserve areas are mostly undeveloped, outlying areas. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestall, recreational and remote rural residential areas. Parks and outdoor recreational facilities are encouraged land use types in order to protect environmentally sensitive lands from more intense land uses, Many of the feasible development sites outside the designated natural areas have already been used for existing park structures and programs, Also, potential development areas adjacent to the existing developments are constrained by the natural areas. While confonning to the overall plans for the park, some planned activities such as a boat launch/rental, RV campground, amphitheater and associated parking areas, would not be allowed within the natural areas, This request has the support of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority, and the National Park Service / Blue Ridge Parkway, The National Park Service supports the continued success of the park, and has offered to assist in the future planning of recreational facilities and programs, Removal of the natural areas designation will give the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority the opportunity to revisit some of their plans, as well as attract potential private investment in new facilities and programs, With the removal of the natural areas, staff recognizes the need for buffer yards to be provided in order to continue to mitigate potential impacts from park development. Staff suggests that the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority proffer a Type E, Option I (75-foot) buffer yard, per section 30-92 of the zoning ordinance, where park development adjoins residential or civic land uses. e 1 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS - ~ I All of the written and graphic information prepared and submitted as part of the 1993 application to rezone 767.33 acres to the Explore Park (EP) District constitute proffers, and are binding to the development of the property. Attachment III of the 1993 application, which describes the Natural Areas, is proposed to be removed from the EP District proffers. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Background - In July, 1991, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors created a new zoning district, the Explore Park (EP) District, in recognition of the unique nature and diversity of uses proposed for the Explore Park, The purpose of this district, as stated in Section 30-71-1 of the zoning ordinance, is to ensure "that areas surrounding Explore Park are afforded any protections necessitated by the Park's development and operation," and "ensure that public facilities and services are planned and are adequate to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the Park with a minimum of impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the larger community." The Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRF A) is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, formed to own and operate Explore Park. In June, 1993, on application by the VRFA, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors rezoned 767 acres to the EP district. Pursuant to the provisions of the EP District, all of the written and graphic information prepared and submitted as part of the application constitute proffers of the rezoning, and are binding to the development of the property. A detailed description and analysis of the rezoning application is given in a Staff Report prepared by Roanoke County Assistant Director of Planning Mr, Jon Hartley on June 9, 1993, This report is available for review in the Department of Community Development, in file # 16-6/93, The staff report offers a history of the planning process for Explore Park, as well as a description of the application documents. The documents submitted for the purposes of the rezoning application include the rezoning application forms, Supplemental Information (dated April 23, 1993) with referenced attachments, a schematic titled "Explore Project" (undated), and Supplemental Information Set #2 (dated May 17, 1993), Also included as Attachment ill in the application materials is a description of six "natural areas" which were set aside by resolution of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority. The six natural areas were identified by name, and included a 300-foot deep "Boundary Buffer Area" around the park. These areas were to remain undeveloped, except for trails, hiking shelters, first aid stations, and minor support centers. A copy of "Attachment ill", which describes the natural areas, is included in this rezoning request, as well as. a. copy of the March 30, 2004 VRF A resolution repealing the natural areas. Throughout its history, the County of Roanoke has strongly supported Virginia's Explore Park, During the mid and late 1980s, the County helped facilitate an extensive community participation process that led to the 1987 Explore Park Master Plan, In the early 1990s, the County was involved in the Roanoke County Explore Advisory Committee, and later the Explore Management Group, Since that time, the County has provided financial and in-kind support such as annual budget allocations, planning, infrastructure design, surplus vehicle donation, and most recently, County parks and recreation staff support for recreational programs and management services, e 2 3, PROPOSED AMENDMENT R... -I In 1991, the VRFA passed a resolution designating certain areas of the park to remain ... undeveloped, as "Natural Areas". The resolution described the areas generally, and limited use of the areas to "non-consumptive recreational and educational activities". Since that time, all . development in the park has occurred on the south side of the Roanoke River, rather than both sides ofthe river as originally planned. The Roanoke River Parkway spur road terminates in a central developed area that includes the Taubman Welcome Center, Brugh Tavern, Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center and park administrative offices. Other developed features include a 17th Century Tortero Village, 1St Century Frontier Settlement, 19th Century Valley Community, plus , mountain bike and hiking trails and other recreational facilities and opportunities, Many of the feasible development sites outside the designated natural areas have already been used for the features mentioned above. Also, potential development areas adjacent to the existing developments are constrained by the natural areas. While conforming to the overall plans for the park, some planned activities such as a boat launch/rental, RV campground, amphitheater and associated parking areas, would not be allowed within the natural areas, Realizing these constraints, and the need for future space to plan and expand activities in the park, the VRF A voted in March, 2004 to repeal the natural areas resolution. In their resolution repealing the natural areas, the VRF A also requested the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to amend the Explore Park District zoning ordinance to reflect the change, This request has the support of not only the VRFA, but also the National Park Service. The National Park Service supports the continued-success of the park, and has offered to assist in future planning of recreational activities, Removal of the natural areas will give the VRFA the opportunity to revisit some of their plans, as well as attract potential private investment in new facilities. With the removal of the natural areas, staff recognizes the need for buffer yards to be provided in order to continue to mitigate potential impacts from park development. Where commercial and industrial land uses adjoin less intense zoning districts, the Zoning Ordinance requires buffer yards to be established. The largest of these required yards between certain industrial uses and adjacent residences is 75 feet, with a mix of landscaping planted within the undeveloped buffer area. Staff suggests that the VRF A pro [fer a Type E, Option 1 (75- foot) buffer yard, per section 30-92 of the zoning ordinance, where park development adjoins residential or civic land uses. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The park and surrounding area are designated Rural Preserve in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The rural preserve areas are mostly undeveloped, outlying areas, These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestall, recreational and remote rural residential areas. Parks and outdoor recreational facilities are encouraged land use types in order to protect environmentally sensitive lands from more intense land uses. In 1991, the Roanoke County Planning Commission reviewed the Park for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Section 15.2-456 (currently 15.2-2232) of the Code of Virginia, The Commission determined that the park concept and master plan were in substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Virginia's Explore Park is recognized in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan as an important recreation and tourism resource, e 3 "' , County of Roanoke Community Developmént Planning & Zoning For Staff Use OnI ((,- 'ì 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (54D) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Plac:a.rds issued: 'S" Application fee: Case Number _.~"...'... ..'.' . ..' '..'" ". ,".'. .. ".'" ",' . ".....' '...., .". ,""" ,................:.:...., :.' .:...., """"",' ......................' CJteck type of application filed (check all that apply) !Sf Rezoning 0 Special Use 0 Va:ria.nce , -N¡plicants DaID~ddress w/zip -, . . ' ' \[CkLølNiA k:'e.c.e..u~ò,JA.(~ (. -hi~ AJ~(\~:j '3'"100 ~ ù +e.oœ..h Q.o, ) s~ ~o \fA' 01 Existing Zoning: Size of parcel(s): Acres: , I 'o°A:::R-~ Existing LaDd Use: . .;~ "~~. ':':;~:~~:$ii~ t!$~~i~~ri.(~~1imjl_'<¥l~tm- ._..:"~' '.-~:_.:.",:_...~~~.:.._~'.:~'~~_.'~".._==,~.~",~. PrOpOSMZoning: t£'f..?ld<..t.." F..~~Kt v.:>1 AM.~ ~}{;)'hòp Propos~ Land Use: ',:p 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal Phone: u.. ? 1- - l <2-:,0 Q Work: 1\. ,. CellI: "- Fax No.: "'" Phone #: \ &x.~.......tiv~ Ì)i""'c.à~ Work: \ Fax No. #: \ '\. ~ the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, aDd frontage requirements of the requested district? ~ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. ' Does the parcel meet the miDimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A V AlUANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with tIDs request? Yes No '..--""'-',-. ,--' ....,-'..... ." ..'.',. . """"_"",-""",-,~""~"""",.~"""~",,,,,,,,-"'-"'<":."""'"..,.........,......"...;--...,..,.,.,..,,.. ....-...,......--..--,_....'" ""-"""".,,.... ":~œÍ'~};'irb"'a h"1';i'H-ro' i,fK Jp.¡-H1Ti;--":"¡:ffi;:';Ã'~~, ~ , <"";¡;"ffH;'~ ;;""'11fi';'~~'lTfffij:!:i.:H. ' :!.:~,~~LJY&'J.~~i~f1::f¥:':~#ì!g~~~*{~pr~{&.if;;~..' '~~~;'$?M~~~jtÚSf.~Æ:'L,~",":.,jJ:,"':"_L~;:~.._:,:i.:"':"'_,,~,:, ' '~',' :,:,.~, VariancelWaiver of Secdon(s) of the Roanoke CO'U!lty Zoning OrdinaDce in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appea1 of Interpretation of Zo:cing Map to of the Roanoke Ccrunty Zonmg Ordinance Is the applicarloD complete? Please check if enclos~, APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE, RJS/W V/AA RJsrw V/AA RJsrw V/AA Ë§ Consultation ~ 8 112" X 11" concept plan ~ Application f~e Application Metts aDd bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justificmon Water and sewer application Adjoinmg propeny owners , I hereby certify that r am either the o~ of thï./Dperty or the owner's agent o~ comractpÚTchaser and an;.~g with the kDowledge and' consent of the ~wner. 4J"h"'LJ.1 7f/~ I ,f)iY Mú71 Ex e (' ;;;:(;.~, ~ {)6~;r~~t1lre f." ß \/ tP ]::' a ' '") Memo R-<¡ From: Roanoke County Planning Commission {) , ~ Deborah H. Pitts, Interim Executive Director Virginia's Explore Park jLw1..t Marc Taubman, Chairman Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority Tom R. Brock, President River Foundation To: cC: Date: Apñ123, 2004 Re: 3Quest to Amend the ExolorP P:=¡r\( 7ooing 19 Remove the Natural Areas Designation In 1991, the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) passed a resolution designating certain areas of the park as Natural Areas. The designated Natural Areas were included with documents submitted for the zoning amendment adopted in 1993, Specifically, the VRFA is requesting that Attachment III, Resolution to Designate Natural Areas within Virginia's Explore Park, be removed from the EP zoning amendment adopted in 1993. In March 2004, the Virgioia Recreational Facilities Authority passed a resolution to repeal the Natural Areas Resolution, and request that Roanoke County amend the Explore Park zoning district to reflect the change. A copy of the March 2004 Resolution is attached, Purpose of the requested amendment is to allow the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority to move forward with some planned activities within some areas of the park previously designated as Natural Areas and to evaluate other options for park development 1 e R-9 RESOLUTION OF THE VRF ABOARD OF DIRECTORS . TO REpEAL THE NATURAL.AREAS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (the "VRF A"), at its meeting on October 8, 1991, adopted a Natural Areas Resolution (the "Resolution"), setting aside and conserVing 62 percent of the Park's existing real estate; and WHEREAS, the Resolution was never filed with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, making repeal of the resolution a matter left to the sole discretion of the VRF A Board; and WHEREAS, a current assessment of the Natural Areas Resolution and the existing real estate with updated technologies not available in 1991 found that some of the properties designated natural areas are not owned the VRF A or have been sold by the VRF A; and WHEREAS, some planned activities are not allowed in areas designated as "natural"; and WHEREAS, on Explore Park's 10tb year of operation, the VRF A Board of Directors wishes to review without encumbrance its current asset and development base and re-evaluate other revenue-producing options, such as those discussed at annual retreats and strategic pl~1"1'f'11'f'1g sessions, among others, to plan for future growth. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the VRFA Board of Directors wishes to repeal the Natural Areas Resolution adopted by this same Board on October 8, 1991; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the VRFA requests that Roanoke County amend its Explore Park District zoning ordinance to reflect this change. This resolution is adopted this 30th day of March 2004. ~ubm~, cP Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority -- e --'--" ---- -.- ,-: ,- ,-,~ .." " Attachment lIT ,-'.. ' ~-~ VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHOf{/,T'Y . Rf.SOLU'rION '1'0 DI~S lCN^,l'l~ NNPUllfl.[.. AH,t::A~ Wl'l'Hh~ VIRCUHA.'S 1~;XPL.OHg f'AH<. Tho honrd of Dircctoru of the vir~inl~ Rucr~atlon~l Facil.lt.L~!:'¡ Auth(.¡city (VHPA) ¿It <.1 qLILIJ:tl!r.ly JU'H~t;.illiJ )1I...~ld on ,Octobl..'r 0, .l991, llIdkL~g the followin~r }{(~CiI:.Ü.l::i: 1. ~1erßa~, at it~ April 11, 1~91 me~tlng, the VRPA. n9'c~d that. action r:.hol.lld be tak~r1 to ùl.!~_;i'Jlml~t~ :¡igl11.f'i.cdnt piICL.:l.'.l:.> úL the-.. J'.Y.p.Lc)7i:' P;IC}: r;i!:!) nol:. t.O ))E! developed, l:.O r.elll;dn "1"-,¡\,:,u1."¡~L Ari!a:..": .,Int.! 1, ~1creaD "Nnturn1 Areaa" H~e defined au 8rea~ wh~ru dosl:.ructi'/L" lIUI1\;IO illlrHI.,~t; in to 'be kepI:.. to .'4 minil!lUIII. D'::II~lopmC'.nt is prohibi.tcd cxcc.:.'pt (or tclat:. rlne] horse tL"itll!l, hiking ~.1to:.!ltt.:t"~;, , fica~ aiJ st~tio~~1 and minor supporc centetR for the .ifoc':>uh:.'nLioncd, Hon-con::nllllpt.:.illc .:ì('ti.Vit'i.~fi ::illt..'l\ a~.. )lil¡;:i.n'J, 'birt.h~¡d.:.ch:i.n(J, (:.>colo~ic.:tl ~1tUl]Y, and wil.]liCc ob::ìcrvi'\t'Í.ol\ ~ICC c..!ncClLlt'";(';Jüll. 'rltis pro~,c):ipr.:. i.on on dcvalo¡}1ILl-"nt ;:1.-.)\:::" lìl.")I.:' 1IPfÞ Ly 1:0 v.::hicul~,r accù~!.:i rout.::::> i...k!nt.if:il~d ill bt.~ck dot!; on t111:! lII.ïp nqc l:.O CI\C U.lUl:: HLlh:¡c P~CKW;)'Y t:'il]ht. o( ~/:IY Ill,"" t(j t,l)c NO1~(olk f;outlh:rn rilJht of: "'~Y: ;IIIÙ 3. Whe)"C~'\!3, ~ix Natural l\r.:.>¡I::; have b..:.>ún il]ùnti (ied .:lr.. suiteù t.o tlli.::¡ l'Llrpoue in. }~;,;pl';:¡L--= P;-\'C<,. 'l'h..:'lr bOL)"(1;,ri.ê~1 hr...: d(:tint..'ù on tlw :1C'c.:ompanyir\Cj IIILIP, 'I'I'i(.)Y hêlve \)1'('/1 ~iV',~f\ L'I¡u Lollow-Lwj n;,\IIII":f. an...1 IÌLLlU1J(.H'!;: ~l. f~, ItJ. .4, t5. 1tG. Doundary Duffee A.rua (]OO' dù~p Jtiv..:>r Gurl)c H'ildli.((: C(,)rri(1/..>c. Da~k Creek Wil~ A.r~a. II i 911 tane1 ~ nidl)C! Wi ld 1\.r:0(&. [->il'l"'-: MCJunti'1.ln IJi\tlH-'L1. l\r...:..\, 1Ii1(,ÙY F:Z1!òt. Uél.l:l.1ró'\l l\.rú.~I. around cdac of p~rk), NOH 'f1lEIU::FOlill DR I'f R£SOLVED, tlvJt the l1a.-ud of Dir.f'ctÖJ~:; ot: tne Virgtni.::l 1'~crl.!aç.iol\¿.Ll ¡;'¿¡ci. titlc~ huthorit.:.y .l<::zl'Jn.:ll;ü5 the :~bc Nat.u rul l\r~~üs .i!) prl:!viouu ly ù~ é ined ¿¡nú ~hown 0/"\ Lhe ;lI::~C(jlllp¡:,\ nv i. nr¡ nti'\p ¡Hid prohibits futurü ùl.!vdl/;)plllünl:. t.1)erl~in, ßxct..:!pt nfi (IotC-/! a"'r.)ovc, wit)) use of the ür~a~ limí t.r:.~d to non-con~L1rnl?t.ill~ recreational and educational uctiviti~~: nnd UP. 1'1' 1:'UR'I'!WR ,IU~SOLVEP th~Lt. the VIU'A Ct:ql1c:.:t:; I:h(' :~t:¡, (I' 1)( The RiveJ:" FOCH1,1':lti..Ol' to pllr:':;L\(! Lu.ct)H::r ~tu,Jy O[ t.."\l(', (1...::iil]n;ll.i:-d .,,---- -- 101 Sout¡ JL'f~"'~;lìll St I't'L'1 '~)i xlh Fkor-Itù:t nul\l~. VirL~Í1lÏa :~'101l( ;'œ-)::,-I Co -I ~~')~; , . - , ((~1 Natural Areas and otner Explore property, including but not limited to a biological inventory by faculty and students of Virginia polytechnic Institute, the aGsessment of ecologically ~ensitive areas, and recommendations concerning boundaries of additional such areas; and 11£ IT PURTHER RESOLVED that the VRf'A requests the staff of The River Foundation to contact the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other ntate agencies regarding possible future designations of the parc~ls as official Natural Areas, register~d with the Commonwealth of Virginia, or equivalent status via dedication of conservation or open space eaD~ment. This resolution is adopted this 8th day of October, 1991, t:;' ¿~-;~\. --~- C)-~\C- , L. '1'1. Hamlar; eha irnlan Virginia Recreational Facilitic5 Authority '. e e . . Kr:., 1'. " ., ....... .. . . . .. N W+B S County of Roanoke Explore Park Properties K-7 e May 3, 2004 Scale: 1- = 201 Address of Subject Property: Date: Applicant's Name: {'J i", PROFFERS 3900 Rutrough Road, Roanoke June 16, 2004 Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (d.b.a. Virginia's Explore Park) PROFFERS The undersigned applicant does bereby proffer the following conditions in conjunction with the rezoning request Attachment III of the 1993 application to rezone 767.33 acres to the Explore Park (EP) District, which describes the Natural Areas, is hereby removed from the EP District proffers. All of the remaining written and graphic information prepared and submitted as part of the 1993 application constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. . 1. Where park development adjoins a residential or civic land use, a Type E, Option 1 buffer yard, with Type E, Option 1 landscaping, or equivalent natural vegetation, shall be provided per Section 30-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 2. Applicant: ::~ jZ¡M;~ Its: (XE.c:.v...TÎ v£--=r::>, -rc.-e:ro~ e f-t -'1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 767.33- ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED 3900 RUTROUGH ROAD IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EP WITH CONDITIONS TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EP WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY WHEREAS. the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 25, 2004, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 22, 2004; and. WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 1, 2004; 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 767.33 acres, as described herein, and located at 3900 Rutrough Road in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of EP, Explore District with conditions, to the zoning classification of EP, Explore District with amended conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority, 3. That the owner of the property voluntarily proffered in writing and by Ordinance 62293*14, the Board accepted the following conditions: That pursuant to Section 30~71 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (Explore Park District) all of the written and graphic information prepared and submitted as e 1 1 R.-- 9 part of this application shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following amended conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) Attachment 11/ of the 1993 application to rezone 767.33 acres to the Explore Park (EP) District, which describes the Natural Areas, is hereby removed from the EP District Proffers, All of the remaining written and graphic information prepared and submitted as part of the 1993 application constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. (2) Where park development adjoins a residential or civic land use, a Type E. Option 1 buffer yard, with Type E, Option 1 landscaping, or equivalent natural vegetation, shall be provided per Section 30-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Parcel ¡ax Map t:lumþer Acreaae 1 71.00-1-3 47.70 2 71.00-1-6 5.93 3 71.00-1-8 2.00 4 71.00-1-12 9.00 5 71.00-1-13 33.05 6 71.03-1-10 24.16 7 71.03-1-11 3.75 8 71.03-1-15 18.78 9 80.00-1-34.2 3.83 10 80.00-1-34.3 0.07 11 80.00-1-35 21,96 12 80.00-2-32 8.67 13 80,00-2-33 23.00 14 80.00-2-34 13.86 15 80.00-2-35 5.00 16 80,00-2-36 0.30 17 80,00-5-24 488.28 18 80,00-5-26 10.00 19 80,00-5-27 18.12 e 2 2 R-~ 20 21 22 23 24 80.00-5-29 80. 00-5-30 80.00-5-31 80.00-5-32 80.00-5-34 22.66 1.00 2.23 2.23 1.75 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance, e 3 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. R-() AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGIN IA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ~ ~ June 22, 2004 An ordinance approving the execution of an operating agreement with the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority, and authorizing the conveyance of real estate to said authority SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attomey Representatives of the City of Roanoke, the Western Virginia Water Authority, and the County have negotiated an Operating Agreement in order to implement a full service water and wastewater authority to provide water and wastewater treatment at the lowest cost and best rate for our citizens and customers. This Operating Agreement transfers from the City and the County the water and wastewater utility facilities to the WVWA. Included in this transfer is all of the real estate' owned by the County and used for these purposes. Under the County Charter and State Code, any conveyance of real estate can be accomplished only upon the adoption of an ordinance after notice and public hearing. Several minor revisions have been made to the Operating Agreement from the 1 st reading: amendments recommended by the Virginia Resources Authority, filling in several blanks, and revising the signature pages. None of these revisions are substantive. In addition, you will also find all of the exhibits, both City and County. A summary of the key provisions of the Operating Agreement is as follows: Section 2.1 defines the "System" which is being conveyed to WVWA; and Section 3.7 addresses the real property being conveyed to 'NWVA, and it references two exhibits e 1 }r.,-" '.'. ... ,I ...... ~ which list the real estate of the City and the County. Attached you will find a copy of Exhibit B which is the County's list. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 address the indebtedness and liabilities which are being conveyed to the WW'IIA and the commitment by WVWA to pay to the City and the County the principal and interest due on these bonds. Section 3.3 makes reference to the pending negotiations with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality concerning a Consent Order relating to the sewer collection system and treatment plant. Section 3.6 provides for the conveyance of the motor vehicles and equipment. Article V provides for such functions as fiscal agent, accounting, purchasing, fleet management, GIS, and retirement benefits for the employees. Section 6.2 addresses the fees and charges for these utility services, and specifically incorporates the 6.year phase inn period and rate schedules recommended by Black & Veatch. Once equalized the rates shall remain equal for system users in the City and the County. Section 6.3 limits the power of WVWA to extend water or sewer services, unless that extension is specifically approved by the City or the County as being in accord with that localities adopted Comprehensive Plan. Section 6.4 addresses a variety of personnel issues. The first reading of this ordinance is scheduled for June 8, 2004; and the second reading and public hearing is scheduled for June 22, 2004. STAFF REC It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached ordinance, This recommendation includes authorizing the Chairman of the Board, or the County Administrator, to execute the Operating Agreement. It also authorizes the conveyance of County real estate, and the transfer of motor vehicles, equipment, liabilities and obligations to the W\f\NA. e 2 ~ I)., f~"'" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA. HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDA V. JUNE 22, 2004 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF AN OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ROANOKE AND THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL ESTATE TO SAID AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke (the "City") and the County of Roanoke (the "County") have concluded that a "full service" water and wastewater authority would be the best vehicle for ensuring the citizens of their localities the most reliable means of providing water and wastewater treatment at the lowest cost and best rate for customers, as well as providing the best service; and WHEREAS, the VIrginia Water and Waste Authorities Act. Title 15.2. Chapter 51, §§15.2-5100. et~, Code of Virginia (the "Act"), provides full authority for the City and the County to create an independent authority that would be responsible for the supply. treatment, distribution and transmission of water and the collection and treatment of wastewater; and WHEREAS, the City and the County have created the Western Virginia Water Authority (the II Authority"), guided by the following principles: 1. That the assets and liabilities of the City and of the County water and wastewater utilities would be merged into one full service authority created pursuant to the Act, to be responsible for the supply, treatment, distribution, and transmission of water and the collection and treatment of wastewater. 2. In establishing and operating the Authority: a. Both localities would have equal representation on the Authority's governing body. e 1 b. The assets and liabilities of the City and the County utility systems would be pooled. c. Over a mutually agreeable period of time, the water and wastewater treatment rates of the City and the County will be equalized; WHEREAS, in incorporating the Authority, the City and the County agreed that the purposes for which the Authority was created are to exercise all the powers granted the Authority to acquire, finance, construct, operate, manage and maintain a water, wastewater, sewage disposal, and related facilities pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the real and personal property being conveyed to the Authority is being made available for other public uses in accordance with Section 16.01 of County Charter; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 8, 2004, and the second reading and public hearing was held on June 22, 2004. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, or the County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the County the Operating Agreement among the Authority, the City and the County. This Operating Agreement conveys to the Authority the City's and County's water and sewer systems, and the Authority agrees to provide water and sewer utility services to the City and County using the system at just and equitable rates to all customers. 2. That the Authority will assume the liabilities and obligations of the County relating to the water and sewer system which were incurred in the ordinary course of e 2 10 business, and it shall pay to the County the principal and interest amounts due on the outstanding bonds. 3. That the conveyance of the real property identified in Exhibit B of the Operating Agreement from the County to the Authority is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the transfer and assumption of the obligations and liabilities identified in Exhibit 0, the transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicles identified in Exhibit I of the Operating Agreement, and the transfer of the ownership of the equipment and furnishings identified in Exhibit K of the Operating Agreement from the County to the Authority is hereby authorized and approved. 5. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this ordinance or to effectuate the provisions of the Operating Agreement. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. e 3 OPERATING AGREEMENT Among WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY And CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA And COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Dated as of June 30, 2004 OPERATING AGREEMENT TIDS OPERATING AGREEMENT, dated as of June 30,2004 (the "Agreement"), is made among the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "City"), the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County"), and the WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY (the "Authority"), a public body politic and corporate of the Commonwealth of Virginia, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, a recent drought and the need to ensure the long-term supply of water in the Roanoke Valley, and the need to expand and upgrade the wastewater treatment facility currently serving the Roanoke Valley, have focused the need for a regional approach to the provision of water and wastewater treatment services; WHEREAS, after extensive discussions, representatives of the City and the County have concluded that a "full service" water and wastewater authority would be the best vehicle for ensuring the citizens of their localities the most reliable means of providing water and wastewater treatment at the lowest cost and best rate for customers, as well as providing the best service; WHEREAS, the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 51, §§15.2-5100, et seq., Code of Virginia (the "Act"), provides full authority for the City and the County to create an independent authority that would be responsible for the supply, treatment, distribution and transmission of water and the collection and treatment of wastewater; WHEREAS, the City and the County have created the Western Virginia Water Authority (the "Authority"), guided by the following principles: 1 1. That the assets and liabilities of the City and of the County water and wastewater utilities would be merged into one full service authority created pursuant to the Act, to be responsible for the supply, treatment, distribution, and transmission of water and the collection and treatment of wastewater. 2. In establishing and operating the Authority: a. Both localities would have equal representation on the Authority's governing body. b. The assets and liabilities of the City and the County utility systems would be pooled. c. Over a mutually agreeable period oftime, the water and wastewater treatment rates of the City and the County will be equalized; WHEREAS, in incorporating the Authority, the City and the County agreed that the purposes for which the Authority was created are to exercise all the powers granted the Authority to acquire, finance, construct, operate, manage and maintain a fully integrated water, wastewater, sewage disposal, and related facilities pursuant to the Act. While the Authority is also authorized by its Articles of Incorporation to acquire, finance, construct, operate, manage and maintain a stormwater control system and related facilities, pursuant to the Act, the City and the County desire to and do hereby retain the operation and management of their respective stormwater management systems and programs for an indefinite period; WHEREAS, the City and the County have agreed that the initial principal office of the Authority will be at 2012 South Jefferson Street, Suite 200, Roanoke, Virginia 24014; WHEREAS, the City and the County have agreed to convey the System, as herein defined, to the Authority; and, 2 WHEREAS, the Authority agrees to accept the System from the City and the County, and to use and operate the System for the benefit of the citizens, businesses and other persons in the City, the County, and elsewhere. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the representations, warranties, and agreements contained herein, the City, County and the Authority agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1.1 Definitions The following words and terms have the following meanings unless the context otherwise reqUlres: "Authority" means the Western Virginia Water Authority. "Closing" means the closing of the transactions contemplated in this Agreement as provided in Section 8.1. "Closing Date" means the time and date of the Closing as determined pursuant to Section 8.1. "City" means the City of Roanoke, Virginia. "County" means the County of Roanoke, Virginia. "Localities" means the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke collectively. "System" means all of the City's and the County's water and sewer systems as defined in Section 2.1. "Real Property" means the real property included in the System as identified on Exhibit A (real property of the City to be conveyed to the Authority) and Exhibit B (real property of the County to be conveyed to the Authority), both of which exhibits are attached hereto. "Rights and Privileges" means all of the licenses, possessory interests, unwritten easements and other rights and privileges, including judgments, possessed, owned or 3 enjoyed by the Localities as of the date of this Operating Agreement in the CUITent operation of the System including, but not limited to, easement rights where parts of the System are on property owned in fee by either of the Localities or where no formal, written easements have been conveyed. ARTICLE II PURCHASE AND SALE OF SYSTEM Section 2,1. Purchase and Sale of System At the Closing, the Localities agree to sell, assign, transfer, convey, and deliver to the Authority, and the Authority agrees to purchase, accept and acquire from the Localities, the System, as defined herein, in its then "as is" condition, including, without limitation, (i) all of the Real Property and equipment and the Rights and Privileges described on Exhibits A and B attached hereto, together with any easements or any other interest in land owned by the Localities for installation and location of any portion of the System or otherwise used by the Localities in operating and maintaining the System, (ii) all such assets hereafter acquired by the Localities and used as part of the System prior to the Closing, (iii) all federal, state and local govemmentallicenses, permits, and other authorizations and approvals (to the extent that they are transferable) held by the Localities which are necessary for or used in the operation of the System, (iv) the rights of the Localities under all contracts and leases relating to the System (to the extent that they are transferable), (v) all CUITent employees in good standing ofthe Localities who are employed to operate the System, and (vi) any and all personal property and cash, securities, software, inventories, intangible assets, and accounts receivable relating to the System, including amounts on deposit in the City's and the County's respective water and waste 4 water enterprise funds. Such assets, employees, and property to be sold and transferred will be hereinafter referred to collectively as the "System." Section 2.2 Assumed Liabilities At the Closing, the Authority will assume the then-existing liabilities and obligations of the Localities relating to the System which were incurred in the ordinary course of business of the Localities, a list of which is set forth on Exhibits C (City), and D (County), however, the Authority will not assume any liabilities with respect to (i) income and tÌ"anchise taxes, (ii) violations of federal, state or local law, (iii) breaches of contract which occurred before Closing, (iv) matters which do not relate to the System, or (v) any long term debt incurred in connection with the System, except as set forth in Section 2.3. After the June 30, 2004, audits of the Localities are complete, the Localities will update Exhibits C and D to reflect the then-existing liabilities and obligations to be assumed by the Authority. Section 2.3 Locality Compensation Payments (a) The Authority shall pay to the Localities amounts equal to the scheduled payments of principal and interest due on bonds issued by the Localities in connection with the System which are currently outstanding (the "Locality Compensation Payment"). Such payments shall be paid in the amounts and five working days before the dates shown on Exhibit F (City) and G (County) attached hereto and shall be made in funds which are immediately available to the Localities. The Authority may prepay the amounts in accordance with the same terms and rates of the obligations as shown on Exhibits F and G but such prepayments shall not relieve the Authority of its obligation to pay the remaining amounts shown in full. If either of the Localities prepay or refund any of such bonds and realizes net debt service savings, such Locality shall reduce the payments shown on Exhibit F and G to reflect such net debt service savIngs. In the event the Authority determines to amend, refinance, refund or otherwise modify 5 such obligations as are shown on Exhibits F and G, the Localities will cooperate with the Authority at no cost to the Authority. (b) Such payments shall be made exclusively from revenues received by the Authority from rates, fees, and other charges paid by users of its water and sewer systems and available to it for such purpose. The Authority agrees to fix, charge, and collect rates, fees and other charges from users of its water and sewer systems that will be sufficient to make such payments and to pay all expenses of and other charges against its water and sewer systems and to revise the same from time to time as may be necessary. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the Authority may make such payments fÌ"om the proceeds of any bonds issued by it for such purpose. It is the intent of the parties to transfer the revenue bond debt of the Localities' System to the Authority. If this transfer is not completed by July 1, 2004, the Authority shall pay to the Localities amounts equal to the scheduled payments due on such bonds in accordance with the provisions of this section. In addition the Authority shall comply with the revenue covenants in the financing agreements or the trust indentures for these revenue bonds. The Locality Compensation Payments shall be on parity with these revenues bonds. Section 2.4 Collection of Accounts Receivable The Localities agree that the Authority has the right to receive all payments for services furnished by the System collected on or after the year-end closing procedures for the year ending June 30, 2004, including all payments for services for the Localities' prior billings, and such amounts will be paid promptly to the Authority. The obligation to pay any payments that either Locality may owe to the other for water or waste water service rendered prior to July 1,2004, is hereby forgiven. 6 ARTICLE ill REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE LOCALITIES The Localities represent and warrant to the Authority the following as of the date of this Agreement except as otherwise provided: Section 3.1 Authority Relative to this A2reement The Localities each have the power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement, to sell and convey the System to the Authority, to carry out their duties and obligations under this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. The execution and delivery of this Agreement by the Localities and the consummation by the Localities of the transactions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by the Localities' governing bodies. No other proceedings on the part of the Localities are necessary to authorize this Agreement and the transactions contemplated herein. Section 3.2 Non-Contravention The execution and delivery by the Localities of this Agreement does not, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not, (i) violate or result in a breach of any provision of the Localities' charters, (ii) violate or constitute a default under the terms, conditions or provisions of any note, bond, mortgage, lien, lease, agreement, license, indenture, instrument, or other instrument or obligation to which the Localities are a party or by which the Localities or the System is bound, or (Hi) violate any order, writ, injunction, arbitration award, judgment, decree, statute, rule or regulation applicable to the Localities or the System. Section 3.3 No Liti2ation Except for certain negotiations with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality concerning a Consent Order relating to the rehabilitation of the Localities' integrated sewer collection system and the regional treatment plant, there are no actions, suits, claims, investigations or proceedings (legal, administrative or arbitrative) pending, or to the best of 7 Localities' knowledge threatened, whether at law or in equity and whether civil or criminal in nature, before any court, arbitrator, or any governmental department, commission, agency or instrumentality which would have a material adverse affect upon: (i) any license, grant, assignment, ftanchise, right-of-way, easement, or right reasonably necessary for the ownership and operation of the System; or (ii) the ability of each locality to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Furthermore, there are no existing judgments, orders, or decrees of any such court, arbitrator, governmental department, commission, agency or other instrumentality which have or would have a material adverse effect as described in the preceding sentence. Section 3.4 Consents and Approvals Other than as contemplated herein, no notice, consent, approval, waiver or other action of any kind is required to be obtained by the Localities by virtue of the execution hereof by the Localities or in connection with the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated herein. Section 3.5 Licenses and Permits: Compliance with Laws The Localities have obtained and hold all licenses, certificates, permits, franchises, approvals and rights from appropriate federal, state or other public authorities required to own and operate the System and to conduct its business as such business is now being conducted and for the services it provides. The Localities agree to cooperate with the Authority in transferring all permits necessary for the operation of the System to the Authority. Section 3.6 Personal Property (a) Motor vehicles. On July 1, 2004, the Localities shall transfer, convey, and deliver to the Authority title to those motor vehicles identified in Exhibit H (vehicles of City to be transferred to Authority) and Exhibit I (vehicles of County to be transferred to Authority). Such transfer shall only occur on July 1, 2004, if the Authority has in place motor vehicle 8 liability insurance for such vehicles satisfactory to the Localities. If such insurance is not in place on July 1,2004, such transfer oftitle shall not occur until such insurance is in place. These vehicles shall be transferred to the Authority "as is" with no warranties. (b) Equipment. On July 1, 2004, the Localities shall transfer, convey, and deliver to the Authority that equipment and office furnishings identified in Exhibits J (equipment and furnishings valued at over $5,000 to be conveyed to the Authority by the City) and Exhibit K (equipment and furnishings valued at over $5,000 to be conveyed to the Authority by the County), as well as all other equipment, office furnishings, and tangible personal property of lesser value used in connection with the System. This equipment shall be transferred to the Authority "as is" with no warranties. Section 3.7 Title to Real Property (a) The Localities will, as part of the sale of the System to the Authority, convey the parcels of Real Property described in Exhibits A and B. The Localities will convey title to this real property by Special Warranty deed, subject to any and all encumbrances and easements of record. The Localities may reserve the right to use for public recreational purposes some of the real property to be conveyed. (b) The Localities will, as a part of the sale of the System to the Authority, assign to the Authority their rights to use all water and sanitary sewer easements of record used in connection with the System. (c) The City hereby grants to the Authority a license to use the City's rights-of-way to maintain and operate the System, subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as may be established by the City. 9 (d) So long as it would not interfere with the operation of the System, the Authority agrees to reconvey to the Localities at no cost such easements as the Localities may need on the Real Estate described in Exhibits A and B in the future for other public purposes. (e) The County reserves the right to construct and operate facilities and programs at Spring Hollow Reservoir as identified in the Recreation Master Plan for Spring Hollow Reservoir and approved by the County on December 3, 1996. All construction shall be coordinated through the Authority. (f) The City reserves the right for its residents, and those of Roanoke' County, to continue to use the property at Carvins Cove conveyed to the Authority for public recreation uses such as, but not limited to, boating, fishing, bicycling, picnicking, horseback riding, and hiking, subject to such reasonable regulations and user fees as may be established by the Authority. (g) The City agrees to maintain all recreational facilities including tennis courts, public restroom facility, associated fencing, walkways, lighting, and landscaped areas at the Crystal Spring Water Treatment Plant. Section 3.8 No Violations of Law To the best of the Localities' knowledge, their participation in this Agreement does not cause a violation of any federal, state or local law, statute, rule, regulation or ordinance related to or in any way connected with matters contained in this Agreement. Section 3.9 All Assets The Localities represent and warrant that they are conveying to the Authority all of the assets of the System owned by the Localities which are currently used for the operation and maintenance ofthe System, except as otherwise specifically agreed to by the parties. Section 3.10 1999 Water Å2reement. This Agreement and the creation of the Authority supersede the provIsIons of the September 30, 1999, agreement between the Localities relating to the sale of water, joint use of 10 certain water and sewer lines, and metering water flow, and that agreement is terminated effective July 1,2004. ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE AUTHORITY The Authority represents and warrants to the Localities the following as of the date of this Agreement, except as otherwise provided: Section 4,1 Authoritv Relative to this A2reement The Authority has the power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement, to carry out its duties and obligations under this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. The execution and delivery of this Agreement by the Authority and the consummation by the Authority of the transactions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by the Authority's governing body. No other proceedings on the part of the Authority are necessary to authorize this Agreement and the transactions contemplated herein. Section 4.2 Non-Contravention The execution and delivery by the Authority of this Agreement does not, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not, (i) violate or constitute a default under the terms, conditions or provisions of any note, bond, mortgage, lien, lease, agreement, license, indenture, instrument, or other instrument or obligation to which the Authority is a party or by which the Authority is bound, or (ii) violate any order, writ, injunction, arbitration award, judgment, decree, statute, rute or regulation applicable to the Authority. Section 4,3 No Litif!ation No litigation, proceeding or controversy is pending against the Authority, or to the best of its knowledge threatened, before any court or any governmental agency which would have a material adverse effect upon the ability of the Authority to perform its obligations under this Agreement or the operations of the System. 11 Section 4,4 Consents and Approvals. No notice, consent, approval, waiver or other action of any kind is required to be obtained by the Authority by virtue of the execution hereof by the Authority or in connection with the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated herein. Section 4.5 No Violations of Law To the best of the Authority's knowledge, the participation of the Authority in this Agreement does not cause a violation of any federal, state or local law, statute, rule, regulation or ordinance related to or in any way connected with matters contained in this Agreement. ARTICLE V COVENANTS OF THE LOCALITIES Section 5.1 Access to Information, From the date hereof until the Closing, the Localities will afford the Authority and its authorized representatives reasonable access, during normal business hours and upon reasonable notice, to all of the assets, properties, books, records and agreements of the Localities relating to the System. The Authority will pay all costs of copying any records and all other costs incurred by the Localities in compliance with this provision. Section 5.2 Fiscal A2ent. The County shall act, until such time as the Authority makes further arrangements, as fiscal agent for the Authority for a reasonable fee to be established by the County. As fiscal agent, the County shall process accounting and all disbursements including payroll, purchasing, general ledger and accounts payable. Authority staff shall have access to the County systems in order to provide necessary information. All cash of the Authority may be invested by the County Treasurer in a pooled cash arrangement. Investment income will be allocated to the 12 Authority on a monthly basis. Separate long term investments may be made in the name of the Authority. Section 5.3 Financial! Accountine. (a) The City agrees to transfer to the Authority its license and rights to use its Sunguard customer information, receipting, and billing system. (b) The City will provide network, PC, email, web services, data storage for billing and in general all of the Authority's necessary computer support functions, in return for reasonable charges for the costs of the same made to the Authority by the City. (c) The County agrees to permit the Authority to use the following County systems, for a reasonable fee to be established by the County: 1. Tier Technology Systems for accounting, purchasing, asset management, and budgeting. 2. Lawson System for payroll and human resources. Section 5.4 Fleet Manaeement. The Localities agree to provide vehicle maintenance services and fuel to the Authority, at such reasonable rates as are mutually agreed to by the respective parties may establish either at the Localities' garages or at the Roanoke County School Division fuel facility. Section 5.5 Geoeraohic Information. (a) The Localities will maintain parcel mapping information and provide it to the Authority in ESRI or some other mutually agreed upon format at cost. (b) The Localities will develop a site plan review process with the Authority, and make appropriate amendments to their codes in order to implement the process. 13 Section 5.6 Retirement. (a) The City agrees to permit those City employees who are covered by the City's retirement system who transfer to the Authority on July 1, 2004, to remain in such system, subject to the condition that the Authority shall make such contributions to the City's retirement plan on behalf of such employees as the City would have made if such employees had continued to work for the City. (b) County employees and new employees hired by the Authority shall be covered under the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). Section 5.7 Other Services The Authority may contract with the Localities to provide such other services as both deem appropriate for a reasonable fee. ARTICLE VI COVENANTS OF THE AUTHORITY Section 6,1, Secure Necessarv Consents. Etc. The Authority will use its best efforts to obtain all consents, approvals and agreements required on its part to carry out the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Section 6.2 Future Services. The Authority agrees that it shall provide water and sewer utility serVIces to the Localities using the System, and any new additions or improvements to the System as it may undertake, at just and equitable rates to all customers. On and after July 1, 2004, the Authority will be responsible for imposing and collecting fees and charges sufficient to operate the System, as established by the Authority, including fees for water, wastewater treatment, connection fees, meter charges, and related use fees. It is the intent and recommendation of the Localities that wastewater and water rates charged their citizens by the Authority be equalized, using the six-year phase-in period and rate schedules as 14 recommended by Black and Veatch Corporation in its final rate study report dated February 20, 2004. Once equalized, such rates shall remain equal for System users in the City and the County. Section 6.3 Extensions of the Svstem. The Authority shall not construct, establish or authorize an extension of a water or sewer transmission line that will provide multiple individual service lines or laterals, nor construct, establish or authorize any pump station or sewer force mains, unless that extension, pump station or force main is specifically approved by the City or County as being substantially in accord with that locality's adopted comprehensive plan as provided in Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia. Section 6.4 Personnel. (a) It is the intent of the Localities that all of their employees currently employed to provide services in connection with the System who are in good standing as of July 1,2004, and whose position with the City or the County is being terminated as of that date, will be offered employment with the Authority. It is the intent of the Authority to offer such employment. (b) On and after July 1,2004, neither the City nor the County shall be responsible for the payor benefits of those employees hired by the Authority to operate the System, and the Authority shall be responsible for establishing and providing for its employees on such terms and conditions as may be established by it, if it chooses to do so, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Pay rates, job classification, and job descriptions. 2. Health insurance. 3. Dental insurance. 4. Basic and optional life insurance. 15 5. Deferred compensation plan. It is the intent of the parties that this plan be administered by the International City Managers Association (ICMA). 6. "Flex" spending accounts for medical expenses and dependent care. It is the intent of the parties that the County's administrator of its accounts, Benefit One, manage them for the Authority. 7. Long-term disability and other forms of insurance. 8. Employee assistance, training and development, and tuition assistance programs. 9. Savings bond programs. (c) The City agrees to permit employees of the Authority to receive medical services at its Health Clinic on Kirk Avenue in the City, for such period of time and for such reasonable fees as may be established by the City. Section 6.5 Security Services at Carvins Cove The Authority agrees to provide at no charge security services, maintenance of fire trails, and fire planning activities for the portions of the Carvins Cove Natural Reserve being retained by the City for a period of three (3) years. This may be extended upon mutual agreement by both parties. ARTICLE vn CLOSING AND EFFECTIVE DATE Section 7.1 Time and Place of Closinf!; Effective Date "a) The closing (the "Closing") of the transactions contemplated in this Agreement shall take place July 1, 2004. A pre-closing, at which time all documents, instruments and conditions required to be delivered or satisfied by this Agreement shall be delivered and satisfied, but held in escrow pending the Closing, shall take place at 10:00 a.m., Roanoke, Virginia time, on , - at the offices of , or at such other time, date and/or place as may be mutually agreed upon in writing 16 by the parties hereto (the time and date of closing determined as provided herein being hereinafter referred to as the "Closing Date"). (b) This Agreement shall take effect when executed by the Localities. The Authority shall commence operation, and the Localities shall be relieved of all of their obligation to manage, maintain, and operate the System at 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2004. The Authority may undertake action, as necessary, to put in place operational systems before July 1, 2004, so that such System will be functional on that date. ARTICLE vm MISCELLANEOUS Section 8.1 Expenses: Closim! Costs All expenses incurred by or on behalf of the parties hereto in connection with the authorization, preparation, execution and consummation of this Agreement, including, without limitation, all fees and expense of agents, representatives, counsel and accountants employed by the parties hereto, shall be borne solely by the party who shall have incurred the same, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. The Authority shall be responsible for all recording fees, if any, incurred in connection with the conveyances to the Authority pursuant to this Agreement. Section 8.2 Cooperation The parties hereto agree to cooperate in making effective the transactions contemplated hereby, and each of them will, at the request of the other, join in taking any action which, though not specified herein, may be reasonably required to be taken in order to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. Section 8.3 Further Assurances From time to time after the Closing, the Localities will execute such additional instruments of assignment and conveyance and other documents and take such other actions as 17 may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the intent of this Agreement and to vest title or convey rights in and to the System in the Authority. Section 8.4. Notices Any and all notices herein provided for or relating to the transactions herein provided for will be in writing and will be deemed to have been sufficiently given to the City and the County if delivered by hand or mailed, postage prepaid, by first class mail, addressed to: City Manager City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue 364 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 County Administrator County of Roanoke 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 and to the Authority if delivered by hand or mailed, postage prepaid, by first class mail, addressed to: . Director, Western Virginia Water Authority 2012 South Jefferson Street, Suite 200 Roanoke, V lfginia 24014 Section 8.5 Headin2s Section and subsection headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not to be construed as a part hereof or in any way limiting or amplifying the provisions hereof Section 8.6 Entire A~reement: Modification This Agreement constitutes and contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior negotiations, correspondence, understandings, and agreements between the parties respecting the subject matter hereof and may not be modified, altered or changed in any manner whatsoever except by written agreement between the parties hereto. 18 Section 8.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Section 8.8 Successors and Assiens This Agreement will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors of any party hereto, but no right or liability or obligation arising hereunder may be assigned or transferred by any party except by operation of law. Section 8.9 ~ovemjn2 ~aw This Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby will be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Section 8.10 ~Reoresentat.ons. Warrantß1.!m! Asrreements. The representations, warranties and continuing agreements of the Localities and the representations, warranties and continuing agreements of the Authority made in this Agreement and in the documents delivered pursuant hereto will survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the County, and the Authority have caused this Operating Agreement to be executed in their names by their duly authorized officers as of the date first above written. CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By By Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Richard C. Flora, Chairman 19 ATTEST: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk ATTEST: Diane S. Childers, Clerk ATTEST: Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: Authority Counsel CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By Elmer Hodge, County Administrator WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY By Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Attorney APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: County Attorney APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Authority Counsel 20 Properties to be transferred to WVWA bv Roanoke Countv - ~ Alaoma Tank 3544 Londonderrv 87.10-02-02 Alaoma Tank 3546 Londonderrv 87.10-02-03 APCO 1850 Loch Haven Dr. 36.01-01-17.1 Arlinaton Hills 4102 Arlinaton Hills 86.16-04-35 Avenham Tank 4240 Elm View Rd. 77.20-01-50 Belle Haven Tank 3200 Loch Haven Rd. 26.07-01-04 Belle Meade 3927 Belle Meade Dr. 87.05-04-10 Bia Hill Booster 4830 West Main St. 64.02-02-10.1 Blackwood Booster 1450 Blackwood Dr. 56.03-02-22.1 Botetourt East #1 & Chivas Tank Chivas Drive Botetourt Botetourt East #2 5113 Mcintosh Lane 40.09-05-06 Botetourt East #3 4871 North Rome Botetourt Branderwood 4562 Summerset Dr. 97.07-02-69 Bridlewood 5907 Blackhorse Ln. 86.15-03-65 Bridlewood #1 2. 3 5613 Bridlewood Dr. 86.15-03- Bridlewood #1 2. 3 5611 Bridlewood Dr. 86.15-03-01 Brookfield Sewer Lift 2901 Jae Vallev Rd. 79.01-03- Brookwood #1 & 2 5671 Roselawn Rd. 86.03-03-04 Brookwood #3 6599 Woodbrook Dr. 86.03-03-16 Brushy Mountain Tank 880 Brushv Ridae Rd. 45.01-02-62 Buck Mountain Pump/PRV 4050 Buck Mountain 97.08-01-42 Buckland Mills Sewer Lift 8545 Barrens Rd. 26.08-06- Campbell Hills #2 7001 Campbell Dr. 63.03-01- Campbell Hills Booster 6626 Campbell Dr. 72.02-01- Campbell Hills Sewer Lift 0 West Main St 72.02-01- Canterbury Tank 5820 Old Locke Ct. 76.19-05-04 Carolvn Heiahts 6020 Cartwriaht Dr. 87.17-06-10 Carriaae Hills Booster 7405 Carriaae Hills 94.02-04-17 Carriage Hills Tank 7595 Boxwood Dr. 94.02-01-26- Carson Rd. Well 4000 Carson Rd. 50.01-01- Carvins Meadow 7426 Indian Rd. 27.10-07-22 Castle Rock #1 5460A Linda Ln. 76.19-03-09 Castle Rock #2 & 2A 6180 Burnham Rd. 76.03-03-70.1 Castle Rock #3 5225 Cave Sprina Ln. 76.20-05-08 Castle Rock Tanks 6039 Burnham Rd. 76.03-03-70.2 Cherokee Hills #2 5365 Cherokee Hills 54.04-06-37 Cherokee Hills #4 4816 Cherokee Hills 54.04-04-63 Cherokee Hills Tank 5417 Scout Cir. 54.04-06-41 Chesterfield Court 5423 Downina St. 87.11-02-22 Cotton Hills Sewer Lift 5801 Chaaall Cr. 96.07-02- Cresthill 4545 Cordell Dr. 76.12-08-25 Crumpacker Tank Crumpacker Drive 40.05-01-31 Deer Run 941 Starmount Ave. 27.09-01-17 Delaney Court 3161 Huffman Ln. 80.01-02-09 Dwiaht Hills Vivian Avenue 27.13-06-07 Fairway Estates Tank 6570 Fairwav View Tr. 66.04-01- Farminadale 5815 Lakemont Dr. 67.14-01-20 Forest Edae #1 7734 Forest Edae 95.01-03-02 Forest Edae #3 7769 Forest Edae Dr. 95.01-03-26 Forest Edge #5 Cedar Edae Road 95.01-03-38 Forest Edae #6 7745 Bent Mountain 95.01-01- Exhibit B Properties to be transferred to WVWA by Roanoke County .. ~ Forest Edge Tank 8042 Forest Edge Dr. 95.01-03-20 Fort Lewis Sewer Lift 0 Shawnee Dr. 55.02-02-11 Four Sixty Tank Crumpacker Dr. 39.00-01- Friendship Lane 7933 Carvin St. 27.06-04- Glenvar #2 387 A Ivie Cir. 54.02-02-22 Glenvar #3 477A Dot Cir. 54.02-02-46 Glenvar Booster/PRV 4428 Westward Lake 54.02-04-01 Glenvar Raw Water Pump 4581 Mayfair Dr. 65.00-02-55 Glenvar Tank 4800 Lake Front Dr. 43.00-01-43 Goat Rock Tank 5944 Viewpoint Ave. 64.03-01- Green Hill #1 2916 Green Hill Dr. 55.04-01-40 Green Hill #2 3011 Green Hill Dr. 55.04-01-67 Green Hill Park Well & Tank 3099 Riverpark Dr. 55.00-01-08 Green Hill PRV 3092 Green Hill Dr. 55.04-01-57 Grisso 5232 SQuires Ct. 86.11-01-08 Hampden Hills #1 & Tanks 1445 Lori Dr. 79.03-02-27 Hampden Hills #2 3016 Woodway Rd. 79.01-01-33 Hidden Vallev #2 & Tank 5602 Sugar Loaf Mtn. 76.01-01-27 Hidden Vallev #7 4803 Walton Ln. 67.13-02-10 Hidden Valley #8 6420 Hidden Woods 66.04-03-03 Hidden Vallev #9 6428 Fairwav View Tr. 66.04-01-38 Hidden Woods Booster 6762 Hidden Woods Hidden Woods Tank 6808 Hidden Woods 66.04-6-12 Highfields 5413 Highfields Dr. 86.11-04-06 Hillendale Well (In City of Roanoke) Ben St. NW C642 0 1 01 Hollins Booster 8438 Reservoir Rd. 18.20-01-18 Hollins Tank Strawberry Hill Rd. Botetourt Homewood #3 6531 Old Farm Rd. 76.03-06-11 Homewood Booster 6097 Steeplechase 86.01-02-11 Hunt Ridge 4635 Hunt Ridge Rd. 40.14-1-50 Hunt Ridge Booster 5610 Hunt Ridae 40.01-01-01- Hunting Hills Booster 5557 Hunting Hills Dr. 87.07-01-13 LaBelievue #1 2040 Wesvan Dr. 39.04-01-46 LaBelievue #3/Coachman Booster and 2509 Coachman Cir. 39.02-03-28 LaBelievue #6 2287 Donaaale Dr. 39.12-02-50 LaBelievue #7 1999 Springfield Dr. 39.04-01- LaBelievue Drive Tank 2170 Labellevue Dr. 39.04-01-07 Lavman Lawn 4506B Rosecrest Rd. 86.11-03-08 Loch Haven Tank 4968 Northridge Ln. 37.06-01-76 Long Ridge Booster 5706 Long Ridge Cir. 76.09-01-17 Martin Creek #12 7461 Carriage Hills 94.02-01- Martin Creek #14 7524 Fernwav Dr. 94.02-03-08 Martin Creek #3 & 4 Nest) 7826 Five O~ks Rd. 95.01-01-46 Martin Creek (end of road) 7460 Carriage Hills 94.02-04-07 Martin Creek (Parker) 7205 Carriage Hills 94.02-02- Merriman Road Sewer Lift 6008 Merriman Rd. 087.17-05-06 Mount Vernon Forest 5405 Chatsworth Dr. 86.15-01-43 Mountain View 6618A Brvant Cir. 28.13-01-39 Mungar Tank Site Starkev Rd. 97.01-01- North Lakes #3 5619 North Lakes Dr. 36.12-01-23 North Lakes #4 5327 Green Tree Ln. 37.09-08-03 Exhibit B Properties to be transferred to WVWA by Roanoke County . North Lakes #4 Booster & Tank 5325 Green Tree Ln. 37.09-08-02 North Lakes #5 3290 Green Ridge Rd. 36.12-03- North Lakes #6 5200 Spring Ln. 37.09-01-52 North Lakes Booster 4990 Craun Ln 37.14-01-14 Nover Well 1129 Nover Ave. 27.13-02-14 Oak Grove Tank 4530 Glen Heather 76.07-02-19 Oak Ridge Booster Oak Dr. Ext. 36.03-01- Ogden Booster/Front lot Electric Road 77.20-03- Oriole Lane Tank 6074 Oriole Ln. 87.17-03-13 Pelham Tank 1800 Dorset Dr. Penguin Tank 3649 Kenwick Tr. 87.09-06-07 Pines 4610 Glen Heather 76.07-02-53 Ponderosa Park 5957 Barbara Cir. 86.20-01-08 Ponderosa Park Tank 5965 Ponderosa Cir. 86.20-01-33 Roselawn Booster 6023 Roselawn Road 86.01-11-20 Scenic Hills 5730 Scenic Hills Dr. 86.19-01-11 Shadwell Booster 5791 Hollins Rd. 28.13-02- Shadwell Tank 8272 Olde Tavern Rd. 28.00-01- Smokev Ridge 6250 Smokev Ridge 76.03-03-74 Southern Hills 4342 Elm View Rd. 87.08-05-03 Southwoods #1 & 2 2699 Willowlawn St. 77.05-06-15 Spring Hollow. Reservoir 6498 Dry Hollow Rd. 72.00-01-01 Starkey #1 5687 Crystal Creek 97.01-02-06 Starkev #2 5612 Crvstal Creek 97.05-01-28 Starkey #3 6328 Merriman Rd. 87.18-03- Starkey #5 97.05-01-24 Starkey PRV 6657 Merriman Rd. 97.01-02-13 Starkey Sewer Lift 6657 Merriman Rd. 97.01-02-13 Summit Ridge Horizontal Tank 2685 Summit Ridge 039.00-01-09 Summit Ridge Vertical Tank 2857 Summit Ridge Suncrest Heights Sewer Treatment Plant 5827 Kathrvn Dr. 98.02-01-89 98.02-01- Suncrest Tank 106 Hill Top Road 11.01 98.02-01- Suncrest Well 6415 Suncrest Drive 53.01 The F airwavs Sewer Lift 1625 Valhalla Ct. 35.04-05-45 The Groves Sewer Lift 0 Monet Dr. 096.07-99-01 5084 Upland Game Upland Game Tank Rd. 88.17-01-02 72.02-02- Water Treatment Facilitv 6200 West Main St. 03.01 Waterfall Lake Reservoir 0 Waterfall Dr 28.05-02-25 Wooded Acres PRV 1809 Red Lane Ext. 35.04-02-08 Wyndale 4557 Wyndale Av. 76.07-01-08 Exhibit B Exhibit D County of Roanoke Liabilities and Obligations Water Fund SUB GL SUBSID ENDING FUND FUND ACCT ACCT BALANCE TITLE 610 610 2201 (1,834.03) Vouchers Payable 3344 (4,603.00) Outstanding Encumbrances 630 631 2201 (20,173.61) Vouchers Payable 2203 203001 (148,349.47) Accrued Vacation & Sick Pay 2210 210005 (13,178.03) Trevillian Rd Loan Pub Part 2210 210009 (60,540.64) Mtn Heights Loan Pub Part 2210 210010 (26,843.91) Richland Hills Loan Pub Part 2210 210014 (23,831.03) Beaumont Rd Loan Public Part 2210 210015 (47,320.00) Loan from GF-Stable Rd Water 2210 210017 (12,380.03) Webster Rd Waterline Public Wk 2210 210018 (7,182.36) South Drive Water Pub Wks Loan 2210 210020 (16,316.28) Paint Bank Water-Pub Wks Loan 2210 210022 (10,965.00) Joe Carroll Rd - Pub Wks Water 2210 210023 (46,460.00) Glenvar Height - Pub Wks Water 2210 210024 (20,620.00) Amanda Lane - Pub Wks Water 2214 214001 (1,091.67) Accrued Interest Payable 2214 214002 (4,482,189.59) 1991 Issue - Zero Coupon Bonds 2214 214010 (8,426.67) 2001 VRA Revolving Loan 2227 227004 (639,330.94) Def Rev-Connection Fees 2227 227007 (3,164.10) Def Rev- Trevillian Rd 2227 227009 (2,643.76) Def Rev-Richland Hills 2227 227016 (136,795.56) Def Rev-Little Brushy 2227 227017 (49,866.76) Def Rev-Clearbrook 2227 227018 (13,089.69) Def Rev-Beaumont Rd. 2227 227021 (2,019.99) Def Rev - South Drive 2227 227023 (6,855.47) Def Rev - Joe Carrol Rd Water 2227 227024 (3,655.00) Def Rev - Paint Bank Water 2230 230001 (477,916.00) Customer Deposits 2232 232003 652,704.56 1993A Refunding Discount 2232 232004 297,117.06 1993B Refunding Discount 2233 223301 (12,323.37) 2003 Bond Premium 2234 234001 3,165,040.29. 1993a Refunding Loss 2234 234002 1,575,463.43 1993b Refunding Loss 2234 234005 21,292.00 2003 Refunding Loss 2261 261002 (5,005,943.75) 1991 Revenue Bonds Payable 2261 261003 (33,370,000.00) 1993A Refunding Bonds 2261 261004 (17,415,000.00) 1993b Refunding Bonds 2261 261005 (787,427.55) 2001 VRA Revolving Loan 2261 261006 (470,000.00) 2003 General Obigation Bond 3344 (15,388.49) Outstanding Encumbrances 630 637 1145 145002 (550,596.03) Prepaid Princ - 91 Rev Bonds 1145 145003 (58,333.37) Prepaid Princ - 93a Refunding 1145 145004 (104,999.96) Prepaid Princ - 93b Refunding 2214 214001 (774,651.17) Accrued Interest Payable 2214 214003 (280,589.72) 19938 Refunding Accrued Intere 2214 214004 (552,567.12) 1993A Refunding Accrued Intere 630 645 2201 (3,903.95) Vouchers Payable 3344 (14,500.00) Outstanding Encumbrances Locality Compensation Payments to County of Roanoke Based on General Obligation Debt Payments Related to Water Authority Exhibit G Water Sewer Total Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Payment 12/112004 5,800.00 5,800.00 21,293.75 21,293.75 27,093.75 6/112005 80,000.00 5,800.00 85,800.00 280,000.00 21,293.75 301,293.75 387,093.75 12/112005 4,200.00 4,200.00 15,693.75 15,693.75 19,893.75 6/112006 75,000.00 4,200.00 79,200.00 290,000.00 15,693.75 305,693.75 384,893.75 12/112006 3,450.00 3,450.00 12,793.75 12,793.75 16,243.75 6/112007 80,000.00 3,450.00 83,450.00 290,000.00 12,793.75 302,793.75 386,243.75 12/112007 2,200.00 2,200.00 8,262.50 8,262.50 10,462.50 6/112008 80,000.00 2,200.00 82,200.00 295,000.00 8,262.50 303,262.50 385,462.50 12/112008 1,200.00 1,200.00 4,575.00 4,575.00 5,775.00 6/112009 80,000.00 1,200.00 81,200.00 305,000.00 4,575.00 309,575.00 390,775.00 395,000.00 33,700.00 428,700.00 1,460,000.00 125,237.50 1,585,237.50 2,013,937.50 Western Virginia Water Authority. County Vehicles Exhibit I 6/1712004 Shop# Year Make Model Class Code VIN License U760 1988 Chevy KODIAK 70 SINGLE AXLE 2 1/2 ton Dump 1 GBP7D1 G6JV1 08984 78-195L U762 1992 Ford F800 SINGLE AXLE 21/2 ton Dump 1 FDYK84AONV A05185 90-804L U766 1988 Chevy 30 SERIES DUMP TRUCK 1 ton Dump 1GBJR34W7JJ114765 78-197L U768 2000 Chevy PICKUP 2500 SERIES 3/4 ton 4X4 1 GCGK24RXYR171407 46-672L U769 2001 Sterling TANKER SINGLE AXLE Jet Truck 2FZAA T AKX 1 AH65313 90-857L U770 2000 Chevy PICKUP 2500 SERIES 3/4 ton 4X4 1 GCGK24RXYR171312 46-673L U773 1989 Chevy KODIAK 70 SINGLE AXLE 2 1/2 ton Dump 1 GBP7D1 Y7KV1 04906 78-131 L U774 2000 Freightlnr FL70 SINGLE AXLE 21/2 ton Dump 1FV6HJBB6YHB66356 41-664L U776 2000 Chevy PICKUP 2500 SERIES 3/4 ton 4X4 1 GCGK24RXYR171522 46-674L U777 1988 Chevy STEP VAN P30 1 ton Step Van 1 GCKP32W4J3324771 78-198L U780 1989 Chevy KODIAK 70 SINGLE AXLE 2 1/2 ton Dump 1 GBP7D1 Y7KV1 04873 78-133L U782 2001 Jeep CHEROKEE SUV 4X4 1J4FF48S11L576065 101-155L U786 1995 Chevy BLAZER 4DR SUV 4X4 1 GNDT13W2S2242639 11-948L U787 2000 Chevy S10 PICKUP 1/2 ton 4X4 1 GCDT19W7YK225795 46-681L U788 2001 Chevy 3500 HD 1 ton Dump 3GBKC34G31 M 104400 101-154L U791 2001 Ford F250 SUPER DUTY EXT 3/4 ton 4X4 3FTNX21 SX1 MA35303 101-164L U796 2002 Ford F250 SUPER DUTY EXT 3/4 ton 4X4 1FTNX21SX2EB01694 46-766L U797 1992 Ford F350 F350 DUMP TRUCK 1 ton Dump 1 FDKF37G1 NNA28424 86-830L U799 1995 Chevy BLAZER 4DR SUV 4X4 1 GNDT13W8S2242788 11-947L U800 2000 Chevy 3500 HD 1 ton Dump 1 GBKC34JOYF423906 41-694L U801 2001 Sterling CAMEL TRK TANDEM AXLE Camel Truck 2FZHAZ821AJ20173 101-179L U818 1999 Freightlnr FL80 TANDEM AXLE 4 ton Dump 1 FVXJJBB8XHA 73586 36-974L U819 1996 Chevy C3500 1 ton Dump 1 GBJC34R9TE150514 86-753L U821 2001 Ford F250 SUPER DUTY EXT 3/4 ton 4X4 1FTNX21L91EB93338 101-185L U822 1986 GMC STEP VAN P30 1 ton Step Van 1 GDJP32ry15G3501911 90-756L U824 1994 GMC JIMMY 4DR SUV 4X4 1 GKDT13W7R2520958 12-912L U825 1994 GMC JIMMY 4DR SUV 4X4 1 GKDT13W9R2520962 12-913L U826 1994 GMC JIMMY 4DR SUV 4X4 1 GKDT13W4R2520965 12-914L U827 1994 GMC JIMMY 4DR SUV 4X4 . 1 GKDT13WXR2520971 12-915L U829 2001 Jeep CHEROKEE SUV 4X4 1J4FF48S01L598025 101-200L U832 2002 GMC 3500 HD 1 ton Dump 3GDKC34G12M104209 101-326L U834 2002 Chevy PICKUP 2500 SERIES 3/4 ton 4X4 1 GCHK24U22Z329237 112-483L U835 2003 Jeep GRAND CHEROKEE SUV 4X4 1 J4GW48S23C507487 112-492L U837 2002 GMC PICKUP 2500 SERIES EXT 3/4 ton 4X2 1 GTEK19V22E280286 110-947L U838 1994 GMC PICKUP 1500 SERIES 1/2 ton 4X2 1GTDC14Z4RZ533145 90- 764L U839 2003 Ford RANGER PICKUP EXT 1/2 ton 4X4 1FTZR15E63TA10459 112-430L U840 2003 Ford FORD RANGER PICKUP EXT 1/2 ton 4X4 1FTZR15E43TA10458 112-431 L U841 2003 Chevy CHEVROLET S10 PICKUP 1/2 ton 4X4 1 GCDT19X838240692 115- 765L U842 2003 Ford F350 SUPER DUTY 4DR 1 ton Dump 1FD~36S13ED27996 122-637L U844 2004 Chevy COLORADO PU EXT 1/2 ton 4X4 1 GCDT196248149412 122-660L U845 2004 Chevy COLORADO PU EXT 1/2 ton 4X4 1 GCDT196248148907 122-658L U846 2004 Chevy COLORADO PU EXT 1/2 ton 4X4 1 GCDT196848148796 122-659L U882 1997 Ford F250 PICKUP EXT 3/4 ton 4X4 1FDHX26H5VEB85420 90- 766L U883 1997 Ford F350 1 ton Dump 3FEKF37H8VMA41203 90-753L U884 1997 Ford F250 PICKUP EXT 3/4 ton 4X4 1FTHX26H2VEB85413 78-136L U887 1998 Chevy S10 PICKUP EXT 1/2 ton 4X4 1 GCCT14X5W8162573 31-587L U888 1998 Chevy PICKUP 2500 SERIES 3/4 ton 4X4 1 GCGK29R9WE172934 31-586L U889 1998 GMC PICKUP 2500 SERIES 3/4 ton 4X4 1 GTGC24R8WE528133 31-589L U891 1999 Jeep CHEROKEE SUV 4X4 1J4FF28S7XL647752 37-045L U892 1997 Ford TAURUS 4DR Sedan 1FALP52U9VA260037 31-532L Criteria: 1 Exceeds Age 2 Exceeds Mileage 3 Exceeds L TO Costs 3 ofS22- WVWA Operating Agreement Exh H & I Vehicle & Equipment lists Western Virginia Water Authority - County Vehicles Exhibit I 6/17/2004 Shop# Year Make Model Class Code VIN License U893 2003 Ford F150 PICKUP 1/2 ton 4X4 2FTRF18W63CB06504 115- 798L U894 1995 Chevy S10 PICKUP EXT 1/2 ton 4X4 1 GCDT19ZXS8216393 78-161L U895 1999 GMC 3500 VAN 1 ton Van 1 GTHG39R2X 1063199 41-689L U899 2001 Ford F250 SUPER DUTY EXT 3/4 ton 4X4 1 FTNX21 L21 EDO0603 101-238L U7601 1994 Chevy 2500 SERIES EXT 3/4 ton 4X4 1 GCFK29K8RE263289 90-815L U7607 2002 Ford F250 SUPER DUTY EXT 3/4 ton 4X4 1FTNX21S32EB11256 101-319L U7608 2002 Ford RANGER PICKUP EXT 1/2 ton 4X4 1 FTYR45EX2T A40091 101-320L U7609 2002 Chevy BLAZER 4DR SUV 4X4 1 GNDT13W12K155587 101-323L Criteria: 1 Exceeds Age 2 Exceeds Mileage 3 Exceeds L TD Costs 4 of522- WVWA Operating Agreement Exh H & I Vehicle & Equipment lists Western Virginia Water Authority - County Equipment Shop# Year Make Model U7603 1995 TowMstr Trailer U7604 1995 TowMstr Trailer U761 1989 Chillco Trailer U762 1992 Ford F800 U763 1996 Sreco Trailer U767 1989 Sullivan Compressor U771 1990 CASE Backhoe U775 1999 Backhoe/Loadr U779 2000 American Trailer U781 1975 Flash Trailer U784 1994 CASE Loader U785 1995 CASE Loader U789 1988 Hudson Trailer U790 1993 Kubota Mower U792 1993 Thomas Loader U798 1987 Hudson Trailer U802 1988 Hudson Trailer U803 1990 JDeere Backhoe U804 1995 Godwin Pump U805 1991 Kohler Generator U806 1991 Sullivan Compressor U807 1963 Kohler Generator U808 1988 Onan Generator U809 1986 Ran AICTrailer U811 1991 Hudson Trailer U812 1992 Hydro Skid Mower U813 1985 Miller Welder U815 2000 Superior Trailer U817 1986 Secca Rodder U820 1987 Flatbed Trailer U830 1995 CASE Backhoe U831 2002 CASE Backhoe U843 1989 Ford 6610 Tractor U881 1996 CASE Backhoe U885 1997 Interstate Trailer U896 1991 Pump Trailer Criteria: 1 - Exceeds designated lite cycle in years 2 - Exceeds designated mileage/hours 3 - Exceeds designated replacement precentage in L TD costs Exhibit 1 6/17/2004 6 ot6 tOUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SUMMARY OF UTILITY BIlliNG FIXED ASSETS DATE DEPR ACCUM DEPR DEPR. ACCUM DEPR STATUS DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION ACQUIRED LIFE METHOD COST 06/30102 06130103 06/30103 IBM WHEElWRITER 6 30838 9/86 5 Sl 786.00 786.00 0.00 786.00 HOIST,TRI-POD OBI/SALSA WINCI 33416 10/90 5 Sl 1,590.00 1,590.00 0.00 1,590.00 IKON GAS BlOWERNENTILATOR 33415 9/90 5 Sl 530.00 530.00 0.00 530.00 NEOTRONICS GAS EXOTOX 33414 8/90 5 SL 1,840.00 1,840.00 0.00 1,840.00 Trsrto P&R 1992 GMC PICKUP TRUCK FS161 1/92 5 Sl 10,321.74 10,321.74 0.00 10,321.74 HERMAN MILLER WORKSTATIONS 11/93 5 Sl 6,997.00 6,997.00 0.00 6,997.00 HP LASERJET 4 PRINTER 5/94 5 SL 1,215.00 1,215.00 0.00 1,215.00 94 GMC PICKUP TRUCK 3/94 5 Sl 11,416.00 11,416.00 0.00 11,416.00 HP LASERJET 4 PRINTER 8/94 5 Sl 2,166.00 2,166.00 0.00 2,166.00 95 CHEV PICK-UP FS162 12/94 5 Sl 15,071.00 15,071.00 0.00 15,071.00 MTS-2000 RADIO - NEWCOMB 9/94 5 Sl 1,865.00 1,865.00 0.00 1,865.00 MTS-2000 RADIO - HIGGS 9/94 5 Sl 1,865.00 1,865.00 0.00 1,865.00 MTS-2000 RADIO - CROSSGROVE 9/94 5 Sl 1,865.00 1,865.00 0.00 1,865.00 MTS-2000 RADIO - OFFICE UNIT 9/94 5 Sl 1,8S5.00 1,865.00 0.00 1,865.00 GATEWAY P-150 COMPUTER 34634 6/96 5 Sl 2,502.00 2,502.00 0.00 2,502.00 HP LASERJET 4 PRINTER 34509 12/95 5 SL 1,710.00 1,710.00 0.00 1,710.00 Motorola Mobile Radio 34789 12/96 5 Sl 2,034.00 2,034.00 0.00 2,034.00 Gateway GP6-266 35137 6/98 5 SL 1,643.00 1,478.70 164.30 1,643.00 Office Redesign 2/99 5 Sl 2,896.74 2,027.72 579.35 2,607.07 Itron Handheld Computers 35416 12/98 5 SL 4.605.00 3,223.50 921.00 4,144.50 ," Ilron Handheld Computers 34515 12/98 5 Sl 4,605.00 3,223.50 921.00 4,144.50 Itron Handheld Computers 35414 12/98 5 Sl 4,605.00 3,223.50 921.00 4,144.50 Destroyed Itron Handheld Computers 35413 12/98 5 Sl 4,605.00 4,605.00 0.00 4,605.00 Gateway GP7-450 35421 6/99 5 SL 1,625.00 1,137.50 325.00 1,462.50 MVRS Software System 12/98 5 Sl 6,980.00 4,886.00 1,396.00 6,282.00 Microfiche Reader/Printer 35309 12/98 5 SL 2,796.00 1,957.20 559.20 2,516.40 HP laserjet 8100 Printer 35729 Jun-OO 5 Sl 5,350.52 2,675.26 1,070.10 3,745.36 HP laserjet 8100 Printer Jun-OO 5 Sl 5,350.52 2,675.26 1,070.10 3,745.36 Formax Folder Sealer Jun-OO 5 SL 7,698.00 3,849.00 1,539.60 5,388.60 Telephone System Jun-OO 5 Sl 5,484.60 2,742.30 1,096.92 3,839.22 Total as of June 30, 2002 123,663.12 103,343.16 10,563.56 113,906.76 FY 2002 Additions: 2002 GMC K1500 Truck FS-O163 6I4f2002 5 SL 21,166.40 2,116.64 4,233.28 6,349.92 Total Additions 21.168.40 2.116.64 4,233.28 6,349.92 FY 2002 Deletions: 1992 GMC Pickup Truck FS161 1/1/1992 5 SL 10,321.74 10,321.74 0.00 10,321.74 Itron Handheld Computers 35413 12/111998 5 Sl 4,605.00 4,605.00 0.00 4,605.00 14,926.74 14,926.74 0.00 14,926.74 IT' Totals -As of June 30, 2002 130,122.78 90,533.08 14,796.86 105,329.94 -,.c ::r FY 2003 Additions: - 2003 Chev S-10 Pick Up 240692 5/03 5 Sl 16,225.00 0.00 1,622.50 1,622.50 fJ Total Additions 16,225.00 0.00 1,622.50 1,622.50 + Totals - As of June 3D, 2003 _146~:!47;78 90,533.08 16,419.36 106,952.44_- " , COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UADMDEP 19-May-Q4 SUMMARY OF UTILITY ADMINISTRATION FIXED ASSETS DATE DEPR ACCUM DEPR DEPR. ACCUM DEPR STATUS DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION ACQUIRED LIFE METHOD COST 6/30/02 06/30/03 06/30/03 ---------------- ----------------------------- -------------- --------- -------- ---------- --------------- ----------- ------~-- ------- IBM WHEElWRITER 5 TYPEWRr 30092 11/85 5 SL 825.00 825.00 0.00 825.00 IBM WHEElWRITER 5 TypEWRr 30076 11/85 5 SL 825.00 825.00 0.00 825.00 KURTA36X48 TABLET 11/87 5 SL 3,034.90 3,034.90 0.00 3,034.90 PLOTTER DRAFTMASTER 32423 5/88 5 SL 6,534.00 6,534.00 0.00 6,534.00 LASER JET II PRINTER 32596 3/89 5 SL 1,449.75 1,449.75 0.00 1,449.75 SECRETARIAL DESK 33000 7/89 10 SL 767.00 767.00 0.00 767.00 SECRETARIAL DESK 32999 7/89 10 SL 767.00 767.00 0.00 767.00 SECRETARIAL DESK 33161 8/89 10 SL 767.00 767.00 0.00 767.00 SECRETARIAL DESK 33162 8/89 10 SL 767.00 767.00 0.00 767.00 TANDY 4000 COMPUTER 32937 7/89 5 SL 2,079.20 2,079.20 0.00 2,079.20 TANDY 4000 COMPUTER 32936 7/89 5 SL 2,079.20 2,079.20 0.00 2,079.20 TANDY 4000 MICROPROCESSOF 32971 1/90 5 SL 1,949.25 1,949.25 0.00 1,949.25 TANDY 4000 MICROPROCESSOF 32972 1/90 5 SL 1,949.25 1,949.25 0.00 1,949.25 LASERJET SERIES II PRINTER 33048 2/90 5 SL 1,288.00 1,288.00 0.00 1,288.00 MUL TISYNC MONITOR 33052 3/90 5 SL 1,105.00 1,105.00 0.00 1,105.00 MUL TISYNC MONITOR 33053 3/90 5 SL 1,105.00 1,105.00 0.00 1,105.00 ENCODER 00000 11/84 5 SL 1,480.00 1,480.00 0.00 1,480.00 GATEWAY 486/66 COMPUTER S' 33912 6/93 5 SL 3,404.00 3,404.00 0.00 3,404.00 GATEWAY 486/66 COMPUTER S' 33910 6/93 5 SL 4,054.00 4,054.00 0.00 4,054.00 NEC 6 FG MONITOR 34010 10/93 5 SL 2,424.00 2,424.00 0.00 2,424.00 GATEWAY 486/66 COMPUTER S' 3225075 3/95 5 SL 1,680.00 1,680.00 0.00 1,680.00 HERMAN MILLER WKSTATION-H M-S 10/94 5 SL 3,519.33 3,519.33 0.00 3,519.33 GATEWAY PENTIUM PROCESSC 34475 7/95 5 Sl 3,557.00 3,557.00 0.00 3,557.00 Gateway 1"5-166 Computer 34715 9/96 5 SL 2,426.00 2,426.00 0.00 2,426.00 HI" Designjet Color Plotter 34747 7/96 5 SL 3,425.00 3,425.00 0.00 3,425.00 Gateway G5-233 34952 9/97 5 SL 2,260.00 2,034.00 226.00 2,260.00 Gateway G6-400 35230 7/98 5 Sl 2,731.00 1,911.70 546.20 2,457.90 Gateway G6-300 35231 9/98 5 SL 1,645.00 1,151.50 329.00 1,480.50 Okidata Pacemark Printer 35228 8/98 5 SL 1,231.20 861.84 246.24 1,108.08 Herman Miller Workstations Nov-99 10 SL 7,026.45 1,756.62 702.65 2,459.26 Totals June 30, 2003 68,154.53 60,976.54 2,050.09_. uß~,026.62 c' Utility Admin BldQ & Improvements: PUB SERV CENTER IMPROVEMENTS 6/89 10 SL 190,460.72 190,460.72 0.00 190,460.72 PUB SERV CENTER IMPROVEMENTS 10/94 10 SL 30,000,00 22,500.00 3,000.00 25,500.00 Totals June 30, 2003 220,460.72 212,960.72 3,000.00 ___215,960.72 SDEPOEO SEWER FUND OFFICE EQUIPMENT DEPART Tag Date Accum. Depr. Depr. Exp. Accum. Depr. STATUS MENT Description Number Acquired Life Method Cost 6/30/2002 6/30/2003 6/30/2003 --------- ----- ----------------- ----- --------------- ------ ----- ------ ----- Balance 7/1/65 Various 10 SL 10,489.56 10,489.56 0.00 10,489.56 49 Additions 1965-66 10 SL 2,585.90 2,585.90 0.00 2,585.90 49 Additions 1966-67 '10 SL 1,520.83 1,520.83 0.00 1,520.83 49 Additions 1967-68 10 SL 2,202.49 2,202.49 0.00 2,202.49 49 Additions 1968-69 10 SL 409.55 409.55 0.00 409.55 49 Additions 1969-70 10 SL 70.48 70.48 0.00 70.48 49 Additions 1970-71 10 SL 3,195.62 3,195.62 0.00 3,195.62 49 Additions 1971-72 10 SL 1,665.28 1,665.28 0.00 1,665.28 '" 49 Additions 1972-73 10 SL 2,499.80 2,499.80 0.00 2,499.80 49 Additions 1973-74 10 SL 1,558.81 1,558.81 0.00 1,558.81 49 Additions 1974-75 10 SL 922.47 922.47 0.00 922.47 49 Additions 1975-76 10 SL 1,528.65 1,528.65 0.00 1,528.65 49 Additions 1976-77 10 SL 1,141.10 1,141.10 0.00 1,141.10 49 Additions 1977-78 10 SL 1,883.36 1,883.36 0.00 1,883.36 49 Additions 1978-79 10 SL 4,827.52 4,827.52 0.00 4,827.52 49 Additions 1979-80 10 SL 517.57 517.57 0.00 517.57 49 Carpet 1979-80 5 SL 1,310.36 1,310.36 0.00 1,310.36 49 Shelves 6/83 10 SL 690.00 690.00 0.00 690.00 49 Flat File-Southem Photo 12/82 10 SL 781.91 781.91 0.00 781.91 49 Mayline Drafting Table & Chairs 12/82 10 SL 537.45 537.45 0.00 537.45 49 Sony Transistor Monitor 15212 1/78 5 SL 264.95 264.95 0.00 264.95 49 Sony Adapte~ 15214 1/78 5 SL 121.12 121.12 0.00 121.12 49 Sony Adapter 15215 1/78 5 SL 121.12 121.12 0.00 121.12 49 Cue's Power Control Unit 13947 7178 5 SL 861.04 861.04 0.00 861.04 49 Sony Video Recorder 13945 1/78 5 SL 832.70 832.70 0.00 832.70 49 1000' Audio Transmission Cable 11599 - 5 SL 416.35 416.35 0.00 416.35 49 750' Video Cable and Reel 11600 - 5 SL 340.65 340.65 0.00 340.65 Immaterial Difference (0.02) 0.00 (0.02) Gateway GP6-350 Computer 35119 12/98 5 SL 1,584.00 1,108.80 316.80 1,425.60 Gateway GP6-350 Computer 35184 1/99 5 SL 1,485.00 1,039.50 297.00 1,336.50 Gateway Notebook 35208 11/98 5 SL 1,812.00 1,268.40 362.40 1,630.80 Total Fixed Assets as of June 30, 2002 48,177.64 46,713.34 976.20 47,689.54 --- Additions -1/2 Year Convention: Workstations 1103 5 SL 2,821.20 0.00 282.12 282.12 Total FY 2003 Additions 2,821.20 0.00 282.12 282.12 Total Fixed Assets as of June 30, 2003 50,998.84 . 46,713.3.1- 1,258.32 47,9n66 sdepequ SEWER FUND EQUIPMENT - OTHER GENERAL Date - Accum. Depr. Depr. Exp. Accum. Depr. Tag STATUS Number Description ACQuired Life Method Cost 06/30/02 06/30/03 06/30/03 Purchases 1966/67/68 10 SL 1,272.56 1,272.56 0.00 1.272.56 Additions 1968-69 10 SL 2,293.21 2,293.21 0.00 2,293.21 Additions 1972-73 10 SL 193.80 193.80 0.00 193.80 Monitor & Charges - Motorola 2-24-83 5 SL 259.00 259.00 0.00 259.00 30435 Electronic Workbench 2/86 10 SL 294.38 294.38 0.00 294.38 30434 Industrial Storage Cabinet 2/86 10 SL 183.79 183.79 0.00 183.79 30453 ladder Cage 4/86 10 SL 1,200.00 1,200.00 0.00 1,200.00 Portable Blower 6/87 5 SL 1,828.75 1,828.75 0.00 1,828.75 Digitable Meter/con. Transduc. 6/87 5 SL 1,222.45 1,222.45 0.00 1,222.45 Retrofit Model 250 6/87 5 SL 1.191.42 1,191.42 0.00 1,191.42 PUMP - MUELLER 6/88 5 SL 1,269.36 1,269.36 0.00 1,269.36 32439 TRIPOD RESCUE RETRIEVAL SYST 2/88 5 SL 1,306.81 1,306.81 0.00 1,306.81 32440 TRIPOD RESCUE RETRIEVAL SYST 2/88 5 SL 1,306.81 1,306.81 0.00 1,306.81 32441 TRIPOD RESCUE RETRIEVAL SYST 2/88 5 SL 1,306.81 1,306.81 0.00 1,306.81 32442 TRIPOD RESCUE RETRIEVAL SYST 2/88 5 SL 1,306.81 1,306.81 0.00 1,306.81 ,. 32443 TRIPOD RESCUE RETRIEVAL SYST 2/88 5 SL 1,306.81 1,306.81 0.00 1,306.81 PUMP 208 VOLTS/SINGLE PHASE 12/87 5 SL 671.00 671.00 0.00 671.00 BERKLEY 50 HP PUMP 4/88 5 SL 3,239.00 3,239.00 0.00 3,239.00 MOTOR CONTROl CENTER 7/87 5 SL 2,057.00 2,057.00 0.00 2,057.00 32557 PERSONAL GAS MONITOR W/CHAF 10/87 5 SL 1,498.02 1,498.02 0.00 1,498.02 32554 PORTABLE BLOWER 7/87 5 SL 875.00 875.00 0.00 875.00 32555 PORTABLE BLOWER 7/87 5 SL 875.00 875.00 0.00 875.00 32556 PORTABLE BLOWER 7/87 5 SL 875.00 875.00 0.00 675.00 RETRO FIT FLOWMETER 6/86 5 SL 1,020.00 1,020.00 0.00 1,020.00 BACKHOEILOADER 2/88 5 SL 40,545.00 40,545.00 0.00 40,545.00 Transfer BACKHOEILOADER 2/86 5 SL 40,545.00 40,545.00 0.00 40,545.00 32437 6 H.P. MOTOR FOR BOAT 3/88 5 SL 695.00 695.00 0.00 895.00 32418 RETROFIT 12/87 5 SL 970.00 970.00 0.00 970.00 32420 PORTABLE D. O. METER 4/88 5 SL 670.00 870.00 0.00 870.00 32405 METRO TECH 10/87 5 SL 3,462.60 3,462.80 0.00 3,462.80 DIGITAL METER CONTROLLER 8/67 5 SL 874.50 874.50 0.00 674.50 PORTABLE GENERATOR WIBATTEI 4/89 5 SL 1,530.00 1,530.00 0.00 1,530.00 WASTE WATER SAMPLER 11/86 5 SL 2,803.50 2,603.50 0.00 2,803.50 WASTE WATER SAMPLER 11/86 5 SL 2,803.50 2,803.50 0.00 2,803.50 STANDARD TEST BENCH 9/66 5 SL 2,206.20 2,206.20 0.00 2,206.20 500 GALLON TANK 9/66 5 SL 1,979.76 1,979.76 0.00 1,979.78 AUTO DIALING REMOTE CONTROll 4/69 5 Sl 1,600.00 1,600.00 0.00 1,600.00 PORTABLE TV INSPECTION SYSTEI 5/89 5 SL 45,700.00 45,700.00 0.00 45,700.00 32953 ROBYNS GENERATOR 12/69 5 SL 1.130.00 1,130.00 0.00 1,130.00 33105 ROOTS8LOWERPACKAGE 11/89 5 SL 2,385.00 2,385.00 0.00 2,365.00 33164 OIL FIRED STEAM CLEANER 7/89 5 SL 1,735.00 1,735.00 0.00 1,735.00 0 LOADER/BACKHOE U803 12/90 5 SL 31,240.00 31,240.00 0.00 31,240.00 0 BACKHOE BUCKET 02/91 5 SL 1,010.00 1,010.00 0.00 1,010.00 0 STONE JUMPING JACK TAMPER 8/90 5 SL 1,410.00 1,410.00 0.00 1,410.00 33450 MAC RECEIVER 7/90 5 Sl 1,148.09 1,148.09 0.00 1,148.09 33466 QUINCY DUPLEX COMPRESSOR 2/91 5 SL 2,171.00 2,171.00 0.00 2,171.00 33505 HYDRAULIC TILT 4/91 5 SL 6,990.00 6,990.00 0.00 6,990.00 33523 MIMI CAMERA 6/91 5 Sl 6,000.00 6,000.00 0.00 6,000.00 33627 SHORELIGHT SHIELD BOX 11/91 5 SL 11,692.00 11,692.00 0.00 11,692.00 33698 CHEM ODOR CONTROL FEED SYSl 6/92 5 SL 6,875.70 6,875.70 0.00 6,875.70 33B99 VERBATIUM 4 CHANNEL ALARM SY 6/92 5 SL 1.600.00 1,600.00 0.00 1,600.00 33903 STOW 14" FLOOR SAW CUTTER 6/93 5 Sl 1,325.00 1,325.00 0.00 1,325.00 33827 COLOR TV INSPECTING SYSTEM 11/92 5 SL 12,300.00 12,300.00 0.00 12,300.00 34181 CAMERA ASSY HI-RES lOW lUX 3/94 5 Sl 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 33937 MARSH MCBIRNEY FLOW METER 2/94 5 SL 3,825.77 3,825.77 0.00 3,825.77 sdepeQu SEWER FUND EQUIPMENT - OTHER GENERAL Tag Date Accum. Depr. Depr. Exp. Accum. Depr. STATUS Number Description Acouired Life Method Cost 06/30/02 06/30/03 06/30/03 34092 CHESSELL PROG CHART RECORD! 7/93 5 SL 1,615.00 1,615.00 0.00 1,615.00 IMMATERIAL DIFFERENCE (0.03) (0.03) 1995 KAMATSU FORKLIFT 1/95 5 SL 3,474.00 3.474.00 0.00 3,474.00 ($3474 ALSO PAID FROM WATER AND $5000 PAID OUT OF GENERAL FUND) 34422 CASE BACKHOE/LOADER 5/95 5 SL 60,279.00 60,279.00 0.00 60,279.00 4' X 8' TRENCH SHIELD 9/94 5 SL 4,040.50 4,040.50 0.00 4,040.50 6' X 8' TRENCH SHIELD 9/94 5 SL 5,103.50 5,103.50 0.00 5,103.50 STATION (3092.50 PD FROM WATER) SUBMERSIBLE GRINDER PUMP 7/94 5 SL 3,542.00 3,542.00 0.00 3,542.00 34428 FLO-MATE PORT VELOCITY METER 6/95 5 SL 3,295.00 3,295.00 0.00 3,295.00 34381 CIRCULAR CHART RECORDER 5/95 5 SL 1,766.64 1,766.64 0.00 1,766.64 VERBATIUM VSS-4C DIALER 1/95 5 SL 2,080.00 2,080.00 0.00 2,080.00 34588 SEWER FLOW NONITORING SYSTE 3/96 5 SL 3,331.80 3,331.80 0.00 3,331.80 34589 SEWER FLOW NONITORING SYSTE 3/96 5 SL 3,331.80 3,331.80 0.00 3,331.80 34590 SEWER FLOW NONITORING SYSTE 3/96 5 SL 3,331.80 3,331.80 0.00 3,331.80 34586 SEWER FLOW NONITORING SYSTE 3/96 5 SL 3,331.80 3,331.80 0.00 3,331.80 34587 SEWER FLOW NONITORING SYSTE 3/96 5 SL 3,331.80 3,331.80 0.00 3,331.80 00000 MCBIRNEY VELOCITY FLOW METE! 8/95 5 SL 8,950.00 8,950.00 0.00 8,950.00 34672 PRODATA DATAVIEW ASSEMBLY 4/96 5 SL 3,060.00 3,060.00 0.00 3,060.00 34673 PRODATA DATAVIEW WIPRINTER 4/96 5 SL 3,330.00 3,330.00 0.00 3,330.00 34537 AURORA PUMP 2-HP 3/96 5 SL 1,869.00 1,869.00 0.00 1,869.00 00000 HERMAN MILLER WORKSTATION 12/95 5 SL 7,387.57 7,387.57 0.00 7,387.57 34684 DRILLING EQUIPMENT 10/95 5 SL 3,938.00 3,938.00 0.00 3,938.00 Case Backhoe 8/96 5 SL 55,132.00 55,132.00 0.00 55,132.00 34746 Circular Chart Recorder 12/96 5 SL 2,126.00 2,126.00 0.00 2,126.00 34766 Portable Sewer Caple Machine 8/96 5 SL 2,054.00 2,054.00 0.00 2,054.00 34841 Marsh McBimey Flow Meter 9/96 5 SL 9,650.00 9,650.00 0.00 9,650.00 34837 Flo--Syslem Flow Meter 3/97 5 SL 8,472.23 8,472.23 0.00 8,472.23 34897 QuinGy Air Compressor 11/97 5 SL 1,176.35 1,058.72 117.63 1,176.35 35271 Motorola MCS2000 Radio 10/9a 5 SL 1,189.75 832.83 237.95 1,070.78 35254 Pipe Line Locator System 9-98 5 SL 2,350.00 1,645.00 470.00 2,115.00 Okada Plate Compactor 3/99 5 SL 4,138.00 2,896.59 827.60 3,724.19 Totals - June 30, 2001 487,653.17 485,232.18 1,653.18 486,885.36 Additions: Case Backhoe U-831 12/14/2001 10 SL 64,888.00 3,244.40 6,488.80 9,733.20 Deletions: BACKHOEILOADER 2/88 5 SL 40,545.00 40,545.00 0.00 40,545.00 Totals June 30, 2002 511,996.17 447,931.58 8,141.98 456,073.56 Additions: Sewer Inspection Camera 11/02 5 SL 14,507.00 0.00 1,450.70 1,450.70 Totals June 30, 2003 526,503.17 447,931.58 9,592.68 457,524.26 SDEPTlS SEWER FUND EQUIPMENT ;,TOOlS Ta9 Date Aœum, Depr. Depr. Exp, Accum, Depr. Department Description Number ACQuired Life Method Cost 06/30/02 06/30/03 06/30/03 ------------- ------------------ --------- -- -- --------- --------- --- -- --- Purchases 1967-68 10 Sl 14,547,93 14,547.93 0.00 14,547.93 Additions 1968-69 10 Sl 1,616.61 1,IJ16.61 0,00 1,816.81 Additions 1969-70 10 Sl 976.74 976,74 0.00 976.74 Additions 1970-71 10 Sl 6,985,78 6,985.78 0,00 6,985,78 Additions 1971-72 10 Sl 1,360.69 1,360.69 0.00 1,360,69 Additions 1972-73 10 Sl 981,30 981.30 0.00 981.30 Additions 1973-74 10 Sl 2,749.27 2,749.27 0.00 2,749.27 Additions 1974-75 10 Sl 3.418.23 3,418,23 0.00 3,418.23 Additions 1975-76 10 Sl 26,429,60 26,429.60 0.00 26,429.60 Additions 1976-77 10 Sl 3,398.85 3,398.85 0.00 3,398.65 Additions 1977-78 10 Sl 25,844.55 25,844.55 0.00 25,844.55 Additions 1978-79 10 -8l 23,286.85 . 23,286.85 0.00 23,286.85 Additions 1979-80 10 Sl 39,339.72 39,339.72 0.00 39,339.72 High-Pressure Sewer Cleaner 1980-81 10 Sl 18,140.00 18,140.00 0.00 18,140.00 Jacuzzi Pump 1981-82 5 Sl 668.32 668.32 0.00 668.32 Concrete Mixer 1981-82 5 Sl 1,845.00 1,845.00 0.00 1,845.00 Transistor Case 1981-82 5 SL 529.50 529.50 0.00 529.50 Chlorinator 1981-82 5 Sl 800.00 800.00 0.00 800.00 Pump Blower 1981-82 5 Sl 12,067.00 12,067.00 0.00 12,067.00 3000-watt Pincore Generator 1981-82 5 SL 666.40 666.40 0.00 666.40 Portable Radios 1981-82 5 Sl 1,433.00 1,433.00 0.00 1,433.00 Mowing Machine Crowbar 1981-82 5 SL 750.00 750.00 0.00 750.00 15-HP TlA Pump 7/82 5 SL 735.92 735.92 0.00 735.92 Cathodic Prof System 8/82 5 SL 3,900.00 3,900.00 0.00 3,900.00 Power Sprayer 9/82 5 Sl 599.00 599.00 0.00 599.00 Electric Sero-Agoma Reservoir 11/82 5 SL 2,440.31 2,440.31 0.00 2,440.31 Valve Box 1/83 5 SL 1,359.66 1,359.66 0.00 1,359.66 Trash Pump 9/82 5 Sl 670.00 670.00 0.00 670.00 2000-Gal Hydro Pneumatic Tank 10/82 5 Sl 3,164.00 3,164.00 0.00 3,164.00 Pavement Breaker 11/82 5 SL 687.20 667.20 0.00 687.20 Coleman Air Compressors 6/63 5 Sl 104.85 104.85 0.00 104.85 Solution Metering PUmp Tank 6/83 5 Sl 1,717.60 1,717.60 0.00 1,717.60 Hammerdrill Kit 6/83 5 Sl 143.96 143.96 0.00 143.96 Speed Sawzall Kit 6/83 5 SL 160.00 160.00 0.00 160.00 Dayton Bower 6/83 5 Sl 133.53 133.53 0.00 133.53 Weather Enclosures on Backhoes 12/83 5 . Sl 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 LCD Mini Reader 12/83 5 Sl 601.66 601.66 0.00 601.66 Trench Box 12183 5 Sl 3,245.00 3,245.00 0.00 3,245.00 Knock.out Punches 1/84 5 SL 453.00 453.00 0.00 453.00 Metering Pump 2/84 5 Sl 870.00 870.00 0.00 870.00 8-HP Mower 3/84 5 Sl 762.10 762.10 0.00 762.10 Abrasive Saw 4/84 5 Sl 475.00 475.00 0.00 475.00 Neumatlc Water Level Control 4/84 5 Sl 1,369.22 1,369.22 0.00 1,369.22 Tire.loader Backhoe 6/84 5 Sl 53,369.00 53,369.00 0.00 53,369.00 Tag Date I Accum. Depr. Depr. Exp. Accum. Depr. Department Description . Number Acquired Ufe ,.."thod Cost 06/30/02 06/30/03 06130103 ---------- --------------- ----------- ------ ------ ----------- ------ ---- --------- Jacuzzi Motor/pumps 6/84 5 SL 909.84 909.84 0.00 909.84 Electnc Winch 2175' Cable 8/83 5 SL 462.22 462.22 0.00 462.22 Pressure Tank-Western Hills 1/84 5 SL 2,900.00 2,900.00 0.00 2,900.00 Highway Warning System 6/84 5 SL 3,119.75 3,119.75 0.00 3,119.75 49 Turbidity Meter 15124 10/84 5 SL 1,307.12 1,307.12 0.00 1,307.12 49 Trench Box 15126 12/84 5 SL 3,335.00 3,335.00 0.00 3,335.00 6' Fiberglass Step Ladder 9/84 5 SL 115.50 115.50 0.00 115.50 120TP3 Homellght Trash Pump 6/85 5 SL 1,040.12 1,040.12 0.00 1,040.12 Ice-Free Electrode Unit 4/84 5 SL 611.95 611.95 0.00 611.95 Fisher M Scope Model 90 10/84 5 SL 351.81 351.81 0.00 351.81 Fisher M Scope Model 90 10/84 5 SL 351.81 351.81 0.00 351.81 Pipe Horn Line Locator Model 100 10/84 5 SL 459.00 459.00 0.00 459.00 Pipe Horn Line Locator Model 100 10/84 5 SL 459.00 459.00 0.00 459.00 Sewer Jet High Pressure Hose 11/84 5 SL 1,OBO.00 1,OBO.00 0.00 1,0.80.00 SOOO-Galion Water Pressure Tank 4/85 5 SL 6,954.00 6,954.00 0.00 6,954.00 JacUZZi Pump 6/85 5 SL 349.23 349.23 0.00 349.23 Jacuzzi Pump 6/85 5 SL 349.22 349.22 0.00 349.22 49 Level Monitoring System 30450 4/86 5 SL 1,279.54 1,219.54 0.00 1,219.54 49 Level Monitoring System 30451 4/86 5 SL 1,279.54 1,279.54 0.00 1,279.54 49 Level Monitoring System 30452 4/86 5 SL 1,279.54 1,279.54 0.00 1,279.54 49 Numatic Water Level Control 30449 3/86 5 SL 1,080.00 1,080.00 0.00 1,080.00 49 Sewer Radder Machine 30444 3/86 5 SL 9,985.31 9,985.31 0.00 ' 9,985.31 2" Electric Wench 13949 1n8 5 SL 1,991.00 1,991.00 0.00 1,991.00 8" Sewer Line Grouting Packer 15336 1/78 5 SL 1.667.50 1,667.50 0.00 1,667.50 10' Sewer Line Grouting Packer 15337 m8 5 SL 1,667.50 1,667.50 0.00 1,667.50 12" Sewer Line Grouting Packer 15338 1n8 5 SL 1,667.50 1,667.50 0.00 1,667.50 49 Root Culling Machine 32050 3187 5 SL 885.00 885.00 0.00 885.00 49 Trenching Backhoe Bucket 32004 11/86 5 SL 912.00 912.00 0.00 912.00 49 Numatic Water Level Control 32016 1/87 5 SL 1,080.00 1,080.00 0.00 1,080.00 49 Metro Tech line Tracer 32023 9/86 5 SL 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 1,575.00 49 Metro Tech Line Tracer 32024 9/86 5 SL 1,575.00 1,575.00 0.00 1,575.00 49 Personal Gas Monitors w/Charge 32029 9/86 5 SL 1,162.00 1,162.00 0.00 1,162.00 49 Personal Gas Monitors w/Charge 32030 9/86 5 SL 1,162.00 1,162.00 0.00 1,162.00 49 Personal Gas Monitors w/Charge 32031 9/86 5 SL 1,162.00 1,162.00 0.00 1,162.00 49 Motor Control Center 32207 2/87 5 SL 2,057.00 2,057.00 0.00 2,057.00 Immaterial Difference (0.02) 0.00 (0.02) --- Totals at June 30, 2003 324,119.55 324,119.55 0.00 324,119.55 ============== ============..= ============ ============= c' WDEPEQU WATER FUND EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS Tag Date Accum. Depe. Depr. Exp. Acæm. Oepr. STATUS Description Number Acquired Life Method Cost 06130102 06/30103 06/30103 MONITOR CABLE 6/89 5 SL 1,864,00 1,864.00 0.00 1,864.00 MONITOR CABLE 6/89 5 SL 1,864.00 1.864.00 0.00 1,864~00 1990 CASE LOADERIBACKHOE U771 6/90 5 SL 45,990.00 45,990.00 0.00 45,990.00 ROBYNS GENERATOR 32953 12/89 5 SL 1,130.00 1,130.00 0.00 1,130.00 RACO VERBATfM 33098 9/89 5 SL 1.890.00 1,890.00 0.00 1,890.00 RACO VERBATIM 33099 9/89 5 SL 1,890.00 1,890.00 0.00 1,890.00 RACO VERBATIM 33236 6190 5 SL 2,030.00 2,030.00 0.00 2,030.00 DRElI2000 PORTABLE LABORATOR' 33097 9/89 5 Sl 2,830.15 2,830.15 0.00 2,830.15 GREENLEE MECHANICAL BENDER. 33095 8/89 5 Sl 1.906.00 1,906.00 0.00 1.906.00 FORO AP MACHINE 12/89 5 SL 1,238.84 1,238,84 0,00 1,238.84 PENTAA LEVEL WITH TRIPOD 33042 2190 5 SL 875.00 875.00 0.00 875.00 VGACOMPUTERSYSTEM 33447 12190 5 SL 4,240.00 4,240.00 0,00 4,240.00 PIERCE ARROW PIERCING TOOL 33502 4/91 5 SL 4,600.00 4,600.00 0,00 4.600.00 MURATA FACSIMILE 33496 3/91 5 SL 2,093,00 2,093.00 0.00 2,093.00 HACH LOW RANGE TURBIDIMETER 33451 8190 5 SL 1,390.25 1.390.25 0.00 1,390.25 . BOX TOPPER FOR PICK UP 33504 4191 5 SL 1,025.00 1,025.00 0.00 1,025.00 MOWER 33507 5/91 5 SL 2,150.00 2,150.00 0.00 2,150.00 AUTO - GENERATOR 33522 6/91 5 SL 1,103.25 1,103.25 0.00 1,103.25 STONE JUMPING JACK TAMPER 33586 9191 5 SL 1.499.00 1.499.00 {).{){) 1,499.00 TOMATIC DIALING SYSTEM I 33612 8191 5 SL 1,624.14 1,624.14 0.00 1,624.14 TOMATIC DIALING SYSTEM I 33613 8/91 5 SL 1,624.14 1,624.14 0.00 1,624.14 TOMA TIC DIALING SYSTEM I 33614 8/91 5 SL 1,624.14 1,624.14 0.00 1,624.14 HYDRO.SEEDERISKID SPRAYER U812 2/92 5 SL 6,995.00 6.995.00 0.00 6,995.00 GATEWAY 486/66 COMPUTERSYSTI 33833 2/93 5 SL 3,850.00 3,850.00 0.00 3,850.00 GA TEW A Y 486/66 COMPUTER SYSTE 33832 12/92 5 SL 4,650.00 4,650.00 0.00 4,650.00 FOOT TAMPER 33904 6/93 5 SL 2,625.00 2,625.00 0.00 2,625.00 KUBOTA F21 MOWERITRACTOR 33901 4/93 5 SL 12,975.00 12,975.00 0.00 12,975.00 PNEUMATIC 2" BORING TOOL 33776 10/92 5 SL 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 DIGITAl METER 33831 1/93 5 SL 1,010.00 1,010.00 0.00 1,010.00 DIGITAL METER CONTROLLER 33828 11/92 5 SL 1,220.00 1,220.00 0.00 1,220.00 CENTRIFUGAL PUMPIMOTOR 33830 1/93 5 SL 1,870.00 1.870.00 0.00 1.870.00 CENTRIFUGAL PUMPIMOTOR 33829 1/93 5 SL 1,870.00 1,870.00 0.00 1,870.00 SURFACE SCATTER 6 TURBIDIMETE 33744 7192 5 SL 3,026.00 3,026.00 0.00 3,026.00 REGAL CHLORINATOR WILOW CONI 33936 8/93 5 SL 1,600.00 1,600.00 0.00 1,600.00 GAS CHLORINATOR FOREST EDGE 34011 11/93 5 SL 1,814.73 1,814.73 0.00 1.814.73 SKID LOADER wrrRENCHER 33980 9/93 5 SL 15,630.95 15,630.96 0.00 15,630.96 EARTH AUGER 34162 6194 5 Sl 6,450.00 6,450.00 0.00 6.450.00 RACO AUTODIAlER 34178 3/94 5 SL 2,210.00 2,210.00 0.00 2,210.00 MSA UlTRA LITE 2 SCUBA W/CASE 34098 6/94 5 SL 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 1995 KAMATSU FORKLIFT 1/95 5 SL . 3,474.00 3,474.00 0.00 3,474.00 (3,474 PO FROM SEWER & 5.000 PO FROM GENl) AIM LOGIC GAS DETECTOR 34260 9/94 5 SL 1,497.00 1,497.00 0.00 1,497.00 CEINTRIFUGAL PUMPIMOTOR 3 HP 4/95 5 SL 1,18837 1,166.37 0.00 1,186.37 CEINTRIFUGAl PUMPIMOTOR 3 HP 4/95 5 SL 1,186.37 1,186.37 0.00 1,186.37 SPECTROPHOMETER 4195 5 SL 4,617.00 4,617.00 0.00 4,617.00 PIPE HORN 4195 5 SL 1,077.08 1,077.08 0.00 1.077.08 GA TEWA Y P5.66 COMPUTER 34320 2/95 5 SL 6,982.00 6,982.00 0.00 6,962.00 GATEWAY 486/66 COMPUTER 34319 2195 5 SL 2.074.00 2,074.00 0.00 2,074.00 GATEWAYP~75COMPUTER 34463 9/95 5 SL 1.633.00 1,833.00 0.00 1,833.00 YSI600XL MONITORING SYSTEM 34669 11/95 6 SL 6,895.00 6.895.00 0.00 6,895.00 MODEL PI2 REV ELEC DRIVE 34599 9/95 5 SL 4,295.47 4,295.47 (0.00) 4,295.47 Gateway P~I66 Computer 24691 8/96 5 SL 2.846.00 2,846.00 0.00 2,846.00 Fix Fun Scada RIT Software 5/97 5 SL 1,485.00 1,465.00 0.00 1.485.00 A3 Drilling Tapping Machine 34878 6/97 5 SL 2,797.81 2,797.81 0.00 2,797.81 3" PnuemaUc Piercing Tool 34763 11/96 5 SL 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 PeristalUc Pump 34771 3/97 5 SL 1,750.00 1,750.00 0.00 1.750.00 Scada SyStem 6/97 5 SL 108,464.00 108,484.00 0.00 108,484.00 Centrifugal PumplMofor 34804 1/97 5 SL 1,192.90 1,192.90 0.00 1,192.90 Centrifugal PumplMotor 34803 1/97 5 SL 1,192.90 1,192.90 0.00 1,192.90 Gateway P55C-166 34951 9/97 5 SL 1,506.00 1,355.40 150.60 1,506.00 c' Sid<le Bar Mower Motorola MTS2000 Radio Gateway GP6-350 Computer Melrocam 900 Utllnet Radio High Speed Floor Buffer Residual Chlorine Analyzer Radio Controlled Meter/System JCB 2114 Backhoelloader Water Hound Dual Radio System Phoen'. FlowmeterMnstaned Total Addijions: FY 2001-02 Security and CCTV System New Holland MC22 Mower Pierce Pneumatic Boring Tool FY 2001-02 Additions Totals. June 30, 2002 AdditionS: FY 2oo2-1J3: 112 Year Convention Specl>1! III dome came.. FY 2002-03 Additions Totals June 30, 2003 " 34986 35187 35395 35308 35407 36001 11/97 2/98 1/99 9/98 10198 8/98 W98 12/98 0312001 0612001 4/15/02 10/1111J1 2122/02 413103 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 10 10 5 SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 3,200.00 2,880.00 320.00 3.200.00 1,634.25 1,470.83 163.42 1,634.25 1,609.00 1,126.30 321.80 1,448.10 1,343.25 940.28 268.65 1,208.93 1,097.25 768.08 219.45 987.53 2.390.00 1,673.00 478.00 2.151.00 SQ,308.00 35,215.60 10,061.60 45.277.20 49,978.00 24,989.00 9.995.60 34,984.60 14,800.00 4,440.00 2,960.00 7,400.00 25,109.38 12.554.68 8,369.79 20.924.47 41.1.618~_<!.06 056.67 33308.91 439365.58 SL SL SL 27.228.28 1,361.41 2,722.63 4,084.24 13,566.66 676.34 1,356.69 2,035.03 5,400.00 540.00 1,080.00 1 620.00 46.19~1.L- _2~5 -- 5.159.51 7.739.26 517,813.76 408,t!36A2 ._~4§I!,~_~104.84 SL 925.00 925.00 925.00 925.00 9,249.98 9,249.98 0.00 0.00' 527.06J.ZL- 408 636.42__~393.42 448,029.84 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. R- ( l AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ~: AGENDA ITEM: June 22, 2004 Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of Virginia CO NTY ADMINISTRA T R'S COMM NT : BACKGROUND: In June of 2003, the Board adopted an ordinance to increase its salaries pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. This section of the State Code and Section 3.07 of the County Charter require that any increase in Supervisors' salaries be accomplished by ordinance after public hearing between May 1 and June 30. Any increase is limited to an annual five (5%) percent inflation factor. S MMARY OF INF RMATION: The first reading of this proposed ordinance was held on June 8, 2004, the second reading and public hearing is scheduled for June 22, 2004. The current salary for Board members is $13,764,39. There is an additional annual compensation for the Chairman of the Board at $1,800 and for the Vice-Chairman at $1,200. This ordinance increases salaries by 3.5%. ~: A 3.5% increase would cost $2,408.8 ($481.76 each). The new salary for each Board member would be $14,246.15. (z~ t\ , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain population brackets; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members at $13,764.39 by Ordinance 061003-4 and further has established the additional annual compensation for the chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five (5%) percent; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on June 8, 2004; the second reading and public hearing was held on June 22, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members ofthe Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of 3.5% pursuant 1 - 1\ to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $14,246.15 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1 ,800 and the vice-chairman ofthe Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2004. 2