Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/22/2005 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda February 22, 2005 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for February 22, 2005. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Reverend Tommy London First Baptist Church - Cloverdale 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring the month of February 2005 as School Board Appreciation Month in the County of Roanoke 2. Certificate of recognition to David Craighead, Roanoke County Communications Officer, for his services to the community 3. Certificate of recognition to Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board, for obtaining the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) certification 1 D. BRIEFINGS 1. Annual report from the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership. (Phil Sparks, Executive Director) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution supporting the designation of the Blue Ridge Parkway as an All American Road. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Gary Johnson, National Park Service) 2. Request to approve 2004-2005 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) supplemental revenue sharing projects. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. 1. First reading of an ordinance to consider spot blight abatement of property located at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Building Commissioner. 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for a private kennel on 4.38 acres located at 4509 Red Barn Lane, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wayne and Martha Pike. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance amending Division 3. Courthouse Parking Lot of Article III. Parking of Chapter 12. Motor Vehicles and Traffic of the Roanoke County Code to provide for a new Section 12-76. Authorization to Remove Vehicles. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) 2. First reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximately 0.2785 acres of unimproved real estate fronting on Pleasant Hill Drive from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors for road improvements. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) 3. First reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a 0.0348-acre parcel of land to Michael S. & Deborah W. Harless as a reversion of property in connection with an abandonment of the rural addition of Artrip Lane, Catawba Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) 2 H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximately 9 acres of real estate located on Cove Road from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors for use as the site for the new public safety building. (Dan R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) 2. Second reading of an ordinance amending and re-enacting Section 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at certain locations and enacting a new Section 19-28, Permit for Street Solicitation of Article II, Chapter 19, Solicitors and Solicitations, of the Roanoke County Code to authorize a procedure for permits for street solicitation by qualified charitable organizations. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) I. APPOINTMENTS J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes - January 25, 2005 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the League of Older Americans Advisory Council 3. Request to accept Integrity Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 4. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of Knights of Columbus, Windsor Hills Magisterial District 5. Request to accept donation of a deed of easement on property owned by Larry W. McCarty and Patricia L. McCarty, Vinton Magisterial District K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 3 N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid -January 2005 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended January 31,2005 7. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report 8. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report 9. Statement of the Treasurer's accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of January 31 , 2005 O. CLOSED MEETING P. WORK SESSIONS (Training Room - 4th floor) 1. Work session to discuss proposed revisions to the Roanoke County Community (Comprehensive) Plan. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) EVENING SESSION Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS S. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. First reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of an existing stormwater management easement, The Cottages at Wexford, and vacation of a stormwater management easement, Wexford Place Townhomes, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) 4 T. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Continued until March 22. 2005 at the reauest of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C 1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and to obtain a special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 2. Continued until March 22. 2005 at the reauest of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20 foot waterline easement dedicated by subdivision plat of Stonegate, Phase 2-B, Lots 47-48, and creating a new waterline easement situated on Lots 47 and 48, Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) 3. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 24,400 square foot, multi-purpose family life facility for Ebenezer Baptist Church located at 7049 Thirlane Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 4. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 0.68 acres from 1-1 Industrial District with conditions to C-2 General Commercial District with conditions in order to construct a retail building located at the northwest corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 5. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 6. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation, quitclaim and release of portions of various easements in Valley Gateway Business Park to the Commonwealth of Virginia in connection with providing clear title and an unrestricted right-of-way for Integrity Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) U. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for regional jail reimbursement funding to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) 5 V. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS W. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Richard C. Flora 2. Joseph P. McNamara 3. Joseph B. Church 4. Michael A. Wray 5. Michael W. Altizer X. ADJOURNMENT 6 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C - , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation declaring the month of February 2005 as School Board Appreciation Month in the County of Roanoke Elmer C. Hodge ~ f{ ~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia School Boards' Association has designated February 2005 as School Board Appreciation Month, and Governor Warner issued a proclamation recognizing the observance. Attached is a proclamation declaring February 2005 as School Board Appreciation Month in Roanoke County. School Board Chair Drew Barrineau and Dr. Linda Weber, Superintendent, will be present to accept the proclamation. t-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2005 AS SCHOOL BOARD APPRECIATION MONTH IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE WHEREAS, it is crucial to the future of our Commonwealth that all young people in Virginia are afforded the opportunity to receive a quality education in our public schools; and WHEREAS, teachers, administrators, families and local school board members are entrusted with creating a safe and nurturing environment conducive to learning in Virginia's public schools; and WHEREAS, local school boards throughout Virginia promote basic, yet diverse and resourceful curriculums, that ensure students a well-rounded education that will be useful in students' daily life and future academic and professional pursuits; and WHEREAS, local school boards work together though the Virginia School Boards Association to encourage local control of Virginia's public schools and to share teaching and administrative techniques, experiences and suggestions with one another in a focused effort to raise the overall quality of education in our Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, this year's theme 'Virginia School Boards: Leading Children to Excellence," is a testament to the commitment and leadership of local school board members throughout the Commonwealth. ~ -j NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby, on behalf of its members and the citizens of Roanoke County, recognize and proclaim February 2005 as SCHOOL BOARD APPRECIATION MONTH in the County of Roanoke, and FURTHER, the Board wishes to express its appreciation to the members of the Roanoke County School Board for their efforts on behalf of the County's public school system. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C-Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Certificate of recognition to David Craighead, Roanoke County Communications Officer, for his services to the community SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge ~ (1~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On January 18, 2005, David Craighead, Roanoke County Communications Officer, received a 9-1-1 call advising that a two-year old child was not breathing. Officer Craighead assessed the call, entered it into the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and gave the mother emergency medical instructions for an obstructed airway and CPR. He remained calm during the stressful situation and continued giving the instructions until the child was breathing on his own and the rescue squad had arrived. The Roanoke County Police Department has issued a commendation to Officer Craighead for his quick thinking and performance during this emergency call. The Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize Officer Craighead and express their appreciation for his actions which were instrumental in directly contributing to the saving of a life. (,0- of l\omtoke ~-~.. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION Awarded To D -d C"·· a h· d :..9 .". .!..;avl... . .ifralg...í.".ea '.1 For services to the community which resulted in the saving of a life · On January 18, 2005, Communications Officer Craighead received a 9-1-1 call from a frantic mother whose two-year old son was not breathing. · Officer Craighead assessed the call, entered it into the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and gave the mother emergency medical instructions for an obstructed airway and also for CPR. · Officer Craighead remained calm during the stressful situation and continued giving instructions until the child was breathing on his own and the rescue squad arrived. · The Roanoke County Police Department has issued a commendation to Officer Craighead for his quick thinking and performance during this emergency call. · The Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and commend Officer Craighead for his expertise and dedication to duty which were instrumental in directly contributing to the saving of a life. Presented this 22nd day of February 2005 Inukd 71-. ~ Michael W. Altizer, Chairm n , "'0ì~ a. w~ Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairman ß. "~k .~ð/,.; ---z,~_S> c.. ~~ ~ Richard C. Flora ~~~--- :Joseph P. McNamara ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Certificate of recognition to Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, for obtaining the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) designation Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board, has recently been awarded the Certified Municipal Clerk designation from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC). The Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) designation is granted to those municipal clerks who have met established education requirements and who have a record of significant contributions to their local government, their community, and state. Ms. Childers received the CMC certification following the completion of three years of study at the Municipal Clerks Institute and after meeting additional work experience requirements. The Board of Supervisors wishes to congratulate Ms. Childers for this accomplishment and commend her dedication to professional advancement. C-3 ~unQ? of l\oano~ CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION Awarded To ~J1·\ ~"'ð Sf' ,¡, Cr1-·.1i~.ð#_'. &I'Q."J~/'.." .¡¡U~·, .., For obtaining the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) designation · The International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC), founded in 1947, has a membership of 10,300 individuals throughout the United States, Canada, and 15 other countries; and their mission is to enhance the education opportunities and professional development of their diverse membership. · The Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) designation is granted to those municipal clerks who have met established education requirements and who have a record of significant contributions to their local government, their community, and state. · Ms. Childers was appointed Clerk to the Board of Supervisors in June 2002 and has successfully completed the requirements for the Certified Municipal Clerk designation. · The Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and commend Ms. Childers for her expertise and dedication to professional advancement. Presented this 22nd day of February 2005 In~Î{' Michael W. Altizer, Chairm n , ~~a.W Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairm~ ß. "&t~ .~~ ~,~.S> c.. ~~&... Richard C. Flora ~~--- oseph P. McNamara ACTION NO. ITEM NO. Û- \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Annual report from the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership (¡~ Elmer C. Hodge ~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for Phil Sparks, Executive Director of the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership, to provide the partnership's annual report to the Board. A copy of the annual report is attached for your review. D-t () -- c.. E .- o~ c: !..... o (1.) () c: wt:: ~ctJ (1.)Q.. +-' ctJ c: > (1.) (1.) E ~c.. o 0 c: (1.) ctJ > o (1.) a:o (I) > -- +-' U (I) c.. en ~ (I) a.. ~ co (I) >- I LO « c: o en en CD .....I ~ J.... o +-' en -- I . I CD -- J.... CD « CJ) Q) '- ~ Q) 0-0 c:: ctS ctS~ 0....., a: c:: ~Q) ..cE ME co Q) (J') > ,.... 0 .....,0') ~oð 0') CJ) .. :J CJ) ~ « ê Q) c:: __ c:: -- CJ) t:: -0 :J ctS Q)..c c.. -o~L() c:: Q) ....., :J = CJ) o ctS _: LL > LL . . b- ( ~~Q) c: c:~ c: ::s ::s 0 E 0 o 0 c: Q) 1:: üüCú_> t Q) 0 ~ ::s~a:CJ)õ o 0 ...... ...... +-' c: 0 0 c: Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ +-' 0 +-' +-' 0 á5ccool- I I I I I c: o en en Q) .....I ~ ,.... o ~ en -- I . I Q) -- ,.... cc « o 0) "'I- m 0 ,.... ~ c::: ~ -- 0 CD .£::. +-' -c CD c::: -- o -~ en CD -c c::: ro~ ~ ~8 c::: c::: C\I ::J ::J C 8 0-_ co-c -- ~ CD 32 c:::_~ c::: ro 0 ro .c::-~ '- C) c::: LL CD 0 -~ - +-' vy-C) « c::: C) ...__ -~ -g 6 o « 0 o ~ C\I CD E o en ~en ..c,- -cO CD+-' t:: en o ~ c..c::: c.. -- ::s '- en.9 o U en CD - en ro I CD2 '- ro ... > CD __ sa. .. . ìj- i c: o -- en en -- ~ ~ o ::J ;; 0 o)'+- en 0 en c: 0) 0 c: -- 0) -- en en en c: CO ::JCO..c ..cc.. x- ~ 0) _~ 0) 0> l:: c: c: en ....... - - ::J -- ~ -c 22c: u en -- 0)00> ~ '+- c: ~O):¡::; - - en - -- ::J .!: -- ëñ~~ en CO 0) 0) u ~ g CO en ~ ::J o 0 ~ . . en -- c: o -- en en -- E ~ :J o ~ ::J o .... ~ o c: en CO .... c: 0) .!: ~ D'--i lY-- ( ...... c::: CD E ...... en CD > c::: -- ~ CD C') c::: en ..c ex> -c 0 0) CD -~ U ~ ... c::: en :::J CD CD Q) c::: -- 0 c::: () c::: -c ctS c: c::: CD Q. ctS u E -- C/) c::: c::: 0 :::J -- U 0 c::: c::: ...... 0 c::: c::: -- CD - ctS - -- 1.- E 0 CD "t- O) "t- OO -- 0 -c C\J ... 0) C\J 0) æ- ,.... 00 . . . o o o C\I CD U c:: -- en ~ (]) c: -c (]) u c: ::J o c: c: co c: -- c: o :.= ......, :-= c: E (]) r----.5 -en <O(]) o > C\I c: æ- -- . C)·- { en ..c o .~ ~ (]) -- c æ -c c.. (]) E u 0 c: U ::J ......, o c: c: (]) c: 1..- CO (]) '+- f'...~ LO-c <O~ C\I C\I C\I . . +-' c: Q) E +-' en Q) > c: c: o c: '- ::J +-' Q) a: en -- o o en o -- C\I en Q).c u 0 c: -~ -- CD en en -0 0 CD..c: +-' +-' ~ ~ CD 0 ~ "t- U >a .c ~ O~ -~ ~ ~ en CD CD c.C') +-' ~ en ~ o CD U > CD ~ C')~ ~O ~ f'.. ~ CD .0 >00 ~CX)O CD LO.. f'.... ..c:,....C\I 1-fF7fF7 . +-' en ~+-' c.C: CD CD ..c: E +-' +-' c: ~ -- > c.c: -- ..c: en ~ Q) c: t:: ~ a.. CD ..c: +-' ;: CD c: -0 CD U c: ::J o c: o c: +-' ~ c: CD -~ -0 > CD - - ,.... +-' C') C\I ~ ,....o)~ fF7~u >a fF7 c: ~ .. CD CD en CD à;ro.c ~ CD en o >a ~ LLLO..c: . C)- J c: -- C\I C\I - <C ,.... æ- .. en ~ ~ CD >a C') +-'-0 en CD ~+-' c.~ CD CD ..c: ~ +-' U c: c: -- CD c: CD CD.c _2= en C')~ ,......c: fF7 = >ae ~ >a CD ~ > C. ~ ~ o CD LL c: . en w en en w Ü Ü ::> en w .-J cc « I- o Z w ~ o en en "- o o o oð en ~ o en "'C en c:: ctS .- - ~(!) - ~ ctS ~ c:: "- .- C)"'C g ~ EO . . [)__ i . 1 en - ctS U .- C> o C) - c:: o .- .. en .- C> +-' [C,"C'CS ~ \U '+- 0 en ~ en rn-o Q) U c:: Q) E C'CS 0 ....J . ~ ~a..ëñ~~ ~ N ~ c:: a.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I . . . ì" .J~- I, , E rn '-- C) 0 '-- a... C) c: -- +-' Q) ~ '-- rn en ~ c: en 0 -- Q) c: en > 0 en en -- -- '- +-' := ~ -- C) ca Q.) en c: - 0 +-' en Q.) C) +-' -- ..c Q.) Q) en a: C/) c: - -- -- en +-' +-' '-- '- u Q.) Q.) := C) Q.) -- - -c ~ Q.) > ..c C) ca '- Z -c ::J ca '- « <C a.. ~ ~ I W . . . . . en rn o (!J CD ..c rn ~ ::J en rn CD ~ o ~ Q) - .c ro -> == -- ro ~ > ~ (tj CJ) CJ) C> Q) >. .~ e (tj ã) ::J ;¡: ~ 0 - '-- CJ) ro (tj ~ oð E Q) >. -+-'..c: !..... 0 (tj +-' (tj en () c Q)~oo ~~~E .:: Q) en "'C ..c '-- :J Q) :: en en êtj ::J -ð 0.."'C ::J o (tj ã) 0..0 C:~I::)>. - CJ) Q) -- ~ . . . . D- \ en +-' ..c C) -- ..c C) -- I '""- Ij-! o o c:: o 0 ... .- or- - "'C := Q) ~ E u ct1.æ LO g> a. Ect1 cD ._ en ._ en "'C en "'C x Q) Q) en ':.ï= ct1 0·;:: ..c:: '- '- ,-.- u Q) CD ~ c..::J ca"'C -6 ~ ~.~ ~ æ « I I I.... . en +-' ..c: C) -- ..c: C) -- I 1)- ( "'C CI) +-' (tj E en ._ CI) +-' .- en c: en Q) (tj S: 00. o CI);§a:> ..c:: 3: '- u cno~oZ ..c 0 0 ..c Q) en 0.0 ~ ""C I'- X ... 3: ~ """ w ~ co ~ I I I . CJ) +-' ..c: C) -- ..c: C) -- I c:: "- (1.) ..c: +-' ... "- ~ 0 ez +-' (1.) ... o § ...+-' (1.) -c CJ) CJ c:: 0 c:: (tj CC - (tj (1.) ... == > ~ « (1.)-- - "- >.üO CD ... u::: or- = (tj (tj - - c:: ..c: ... > ..c: "- C) CJ) c.. (1.) "- -c "- CD..c: :J m ~ "C t ~ - -- (tj 0 :t:: en -g a: :E Z ä: c:: 't= ~ a.. -C ... o == (1.) c:: (tj -00 (tj Z Ó (tj -C -- _~ :J ..c: E J "- êi5 ~ 00- ~ o~~ ~ (0 (0:> o>--æ ctS or- or- ex> I- Z ü ~ I I CJ) c:: o -- CJ) CJ) -- ~ 0) c:: . D-I CJ) +-' CJ (1.) c.. CJ) o "- c.. Cf) ... CJ) +-' CJ (1.) c.. CJ) :J CJ) L{) CJ) ......., ..c C> -- ..c C> -- I -'. I I '. _I ,--.I - CJ) ~ Q) -c ctJ Q) ~ c: o .- - - .- E <D CJ) ~ +"'" - c: Q) Q) +"'" E ~ Q) .- U x en ctJ 0 c: - ~ o c.. c.. -- 0 9- +-' LO \,u ~T""""'C CD +"'" Q) a: CJ) ..c: ctJ u " Q) ctJ '-' - Q) -- :Õ«a: ::J I I a.. . E en -- ~ c: o -- C) CD a:: ~ Q) - - co > '-- Q) > -- a: ~ Q) z Q) ..c: +-' ..c: +-' -§ C) c: -- +-' Q) Q) ~ ~ '-- ::J co Q) .c E () u c: 0 +-' CO ~ c: __ CD -õ = 1 -,« . en c: o ëñ en en -- ~ ~ 0 C).c -~ Cf) +-' Q) Q) ~-c ~ ctS ctS ~ :2E I- 00 00 1 1 \"\ ."- I -/ 1 o o +-' ... c.. -- .c en ~ Q) c: t ctS (L ~ Q) - - ctS > .c '-- ctS o 0 -C-c - ¡:: c: '-- ctS o c: () Q) .c 'r-Cf) 001 I - . -c c: co ~ cc co c: o -- C> CD a: Q) - o '- c.. co:C C)~ c: Q) -- -c ~ CO CO Q) 1-- . I', \ , __r- i +-' COt -co '- c.. CO '- o -- ..c CO = Q) ((1£ . ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E -\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution supporting the designation of the Slue Ridge Parkway as an All American Road SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Chief Planner APPROVED BY: )'J~ Elmer C. Hodge ftw./ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The All American Road Program has been established within the Federal Highways Administration to pay tribute to the very best of the nationally significant Scenic Byways. The designation is one of recognition only. There is not any direct money awarded. The National Park Service/Blue Ridge Parkway staff is in the process of preparing a nomination form for the Virginia section of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The designation is being sought to leverage sources of money to assist the Parkway in protecting its resources. The designation is also a source of national and local community pride. The Park Service has asked Roanoke County to write a letter of support for the designation. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Send a letter of support and resolution of support to the All American Road Selection Committee. G: -l 2. Do not send the letter of support and resolution of support to the All American Road Selection Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. E. - f AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY AS AN ALL AMERICAN ROAD WHEREAS, the designation of the Blue Ridge Parkway as an All American Road by the Federal Highway Administration would enhance the importance of this scenic highway, both nationally and internationally; and WHEREAS, the Blue Ridge Parkway represents a cultural, natural resource and tourism attraction for the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the Parkway has been in existence for over 60 years and over this period of time, its significance as a natural resource has grown; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, in recognition of the importance of the Parkway to our community, has been involved in protecting the viewsheds of the Blue Ridge Parkway for future generations. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors that we support the Blue Ridge Parkway's nomination to the Federal Highway Administration as an All American Road and direct the Clerk to the Board to forward copies of this resolution to the All American Road Selection Committee. E - I February 15, 2005 ALL AMERICAN ROAD SELECTION COMMITTEE Roanoke County is very pleased to endorse and support the National Park Service's nomination of the Blue Ridge Parkway as an All American Road within the Federal Highway Administration's All American Road Program. The Blue Ridge Parkway is one of the most important scenic byways in the country and this designation will enhance its importance to the Roanoke Valley as a cultural and tourism attraction as well as a national resource. Roanoke County takes great community pride in the 28 miles of Parkway within our jurisdictional boundaries. Over the last ten years, the County has been involved in protecting the beautiful scenery of the Blue Ridge Parkway for future generations. We have identified and mapped critical view areas and partnered with non-profit organizations, private developers and the National Park Service to develop management strategies to protect these resources. At the Roanoke County Board of Supervisor's meeting on February 22, 2005, the attached resolution of support was unanimously adopted. The Parkway is the quintessential All American Road and certainly deserves this designation. Sincerely, Michael W. Altizer, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Attachments cc: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator Members, Board of Supervisors ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~-Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve projects for fiscal year 2004-2005 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) supplemental revenue sharing program SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~ f)~~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) annually provides localities the opportunity to request additional funds from the unused allocations of the County primary and secondary fund (revenue sharing program). This program allows localities to receive state matching funds for the construction, maintenance, and improvement to primary and secondary roads in the state's highway system. Roanoke County is one of twenty-six counties eligible this year to receive these funds, which total over $1 ,000,000. VDOT has limited the request of each locality to $100,000 each. The supplemental revenue sharing program for FY 2004-2005 contains six (6) projects totaling $200,000 of State and County matching allocations. Receiving no requests to modify or change the priority list, staff is requesting the Board to approve the priority list for the FY 2004-2005 supplemental revenue sharing program. 1 E-~ FISCAL IMPACT: A portion of the County's matching funds ($50,000) is shown in the Department of Community Development operating budget for FY 2004-2005. The remaining allocation ($50,000) will need to be approved and appropriated from County Minor Capital. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the project list and authorize the County Administrator to sign the Letter of Intent and appropriate $50,000 from County Minor Capital. 2. Decline to participate in the supplemental revenue sharing program for fiscal year 2004- 2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. 2 ....... "'" o ....... ~ " -< P-< " § -< :I: lfJ ¡::G ~ o :J "'" Z ~ (/} > o~ s,...¡ ~< Or-< zZ O¡¡.:¡ ¡:~ -<¡¡.:¡ z,...¡ "P-< V5p-< ~::J OlfJ lr) o --- '<:t o o N :>-< µ... ~~ ¡¡.:¡¡¡.:¡ ,...¡,...¡~ < < ~ lfJlfJo::I .. ~ ><¡:,¡.. ?-:ÜN ÜrEN ¡;;¡ 9 ~ ~ (/} f-< õ~ð ~~:.. . r-. ~. .5 ~ :: ¡¡: ~ r~ ~~"'" ~ ... ~"1::1 :::¡:>- to.¡ SI. ~ '" ~~ ~~ < > ><~ f-< 5 o u ~ o z -< ~ 'II", ~> ... ~ ~........ ...:: .~ "5(¡ Q- (~! .....¡ )~~ .:;, "1::1 ...:: ~ Q ~ ~........ (::: ;.:~ :: 'II ::: ~~~ ,,'" ::: I :.. ~ ~.~ .1::1 'CQ.;Q.;'" 'II"':: ......~~ .s~~ ~::§ Ò...:: :::~~ ð~~ l- e a > ~ ~ !§. ~ ~ Q \J ~ ~ ..... 111'0 -e ê III .~~ uã5 !E>- III III 'þ~Q) .... Q) > ,E-:O<l: 0>l:J åi c:>-o> .- Q) e åi=Q) Q)III= c: > III .- ~ .c. g>ou Q) e ~.2 ê~ .- '" E .... =.& Q) e .... .- ~ >- z ~ ::.: OQ) g~~ Mev 1"')0 i: Q .'¡:: a Q .....¡ ~~ 5-::0 .- Q) * tg>Q) ~..s!~ 2m c:..e ·-u <I: ...... z z ..... o o o o.rì o o o o.rì ~.. >- Q) 'g'll~~~~r--. Q ¡¡: ~ = ('¡) -Ll'I .... ~.... ~-:o~r--. ....~~ l:Jã5 c: o Q)= ..... III Q) .... b-e 5 III U s.~ 5,= 0 :.:.fS.... III"'..... Q) e 0 L.. ._ QJ ....-'0 '0 ~ ~ ,ñ :; .Q) o"'ijj e ..eel!! "'C:cc ~~V) o u 'OQ) sg> cc .5 III .... '0 >- o o CD -ò 1:0:::'02 0..e cO::: u..UIll - C L.. .."'C 0\ Q):::¡r--.>..... Q)..er-.ã5..... ~ur--._..... '¡:¡II>Q)III Q).-.....O> cc~O:::c: Q) ...... ...J o ..... ci >- N o o o o.rì N ~~ >-CD Æ2 00::: I- l- e a > z I- 8 > II> æ1: ~Q) c.> III:; c: u BX g>.8 'Ë = .....fS æ .~ ~i e N :::¡ .- ~~ ._ '0 o.c: Q) :::¡ g>Æ .50 III..... .... a >- z o o "'l ..... I- 8 > 2 .fS V) '0 c: UJ ..... III '0 § ~ o c: .... III III c: E2 :::¡ e ..... .- ~~ ~ Q) c: t 2 ..... '" c: o U >- z o V I- 8 > b:, v Q) ]5 :::¡ o '0 ...... ~ ~ ~ã. ~ ~'ã. 01 e ~ .~ e¡ III C. & .... o ...... '0 o c: .....111 'OII>~ Q)~ìõ Q) :::¡ c: e t ëë .... ~ Ir... Q)....'O g>~ ::: .5Q)~ ~ g>'O '0 .5 ~ Q) III .... 1O.a~ :::¡ .... 0 cr·- Q) III !::: '0 0. ~E III Q) C L... .- ......::::. ]j II> .= >- z o Ll'I ..... 50> ('¡):> 5S- B ·-el"')15>:¡::¡ :;:.~~ t·¡:r-.""Q)'Ou >~~ !II o.Ll'I V) c: § 9.'-g~ .0::: c: ~V)""''OOo~OLl'l'E:C:CP Q) Q) Q) e I- .... Q) E ..... .- .2 '0 "E:>~UJ.....;ê'E:EQ)E""'~ ';:ð . E.5 S·;: III~ e~'O III_SO~""'III:I: u..1II ~~.t ~'õ Q: o o o o.rì N <I: ...... z z >- I"') v o 0 o 0 o 0 o.rì o.rì ..... ..... o 0 o 0 q 0 Ll'I o.rì ..... ..... .s Q) ~ '0- \D O>~N"5iO:::I"') c: Ll'I('¡)'OO' 'Ë ....- \D 171 e Q) ....0....... 0 Q.J~ æ. :I:cc Ll'I o ci <I: ...... z z Ll'I o o o Ò I"') o o o Ò I"') ....- ..... aN 'OLl'I ......... ~ Q) G~ 0. ]j :E2Ll'1I-0 ,¡gO:::O' c: _CD Q)e..... 'C ...J u.. I- 8 > >- z o o ~ ..... Ll'I I"') ci >- \D o o o Ò ..... o o o Ò ..... o o o Ò o ..... iA- o o o Ò o ..... iA- E-~ ~ U :z; ¡;¡ ~ ... ¡;¡ =- ~ ... ~ o a: =- ><1 >- ¡- PZ o PZ =- ¡- VJ W ~ o .....:¡ VJ ¡- U ¡:¡ ~ Cl. ...J ...J -< ACTION NO. F\-~ ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for public hearing and first reading for rezoning ordinances; consent agenda SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Chief Planner Elmer C. Hodge cß--/ ff~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~arr~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for March 22. 2005. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. Request of the Roanoke County Building Commissioner to consider spot blight abatement of property at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 2. The petition of Wayne and Martha Pike to obtain a Special Use Permit for a private kennel on 4.38 acres, located at 4509 Red Barn Lane, Vinton Magisterial District. Maps are attached. More detailed information is available in the Clerk's Office. 1 r-=,-~ 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 March 22, 2005. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1-2, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. r: -\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to consider spot blight abatement of property located at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Building Commissioner SUBMITTED BY: Joel Baker Building Commissioner APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board recently adopted a Spot Blight Abatement Policy designed to deal with individual properties that have become a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. In the case of 3821 Colony Lane, staff has determined that the property meets the conditions for blight and has initiated the abatement procedure. The property has suffered severe damage from a fire that occurred in early 2003. The property has remained in this state since that time and has continued to deteriorate. Notice was given to the owner of the property on November 30, 2004 advising that a preliminary determination of blight had been made and the owner was required to respond within 30 days of the notice with a plan to abate and correct the blighted conditions. No response was received from the owner. The owner currently has a building permit to make repairs to the property and has been removing damaged materials from the structure; however because no response was received, staff is proceeding with the process and has requested a public hearing before the Roanoke County Planning Commission to consider the disposition of the property. FISCAL IMPACT: Fiscal impact is unknown at this time. Please see attached Blight Abatement Plan for 3821 Colony Lane. F·-I ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the first reading of an ordinance to consider spot blight abatement of property located at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 2. Do not approve the first reading of an ordinance to consider spot blight abatement of property located at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. F -I Blight Abatement Plan for 3821 Colony Lane To assist in this decision making process, Code Enforcement staff has developed a work plan to complete all work necessary to return the property to a code compliant condition. An alternative, consistent with the spot blight program, is for the County to purchase the property if it determines that the purchase is necessary to abate the blighted conditions, with the cost of abatement to be recovered :fì·om the sale of the property. 1) Inventory, document, pack and remove all personal belongings in the property and remove to a county storage facility. 2) (Alternative) Rent one or more storage lockers to store personal items for a period not to exceed six months at which time the owner would resume responsibility for the payments. 3)){ave independent engineering firm evaluate structural members for integrity and provide written repOli. 4) Have independent engineering firm evaluate all plumbing, mechanical and electrical components and fixtures to determine code compliance and operability. Repair/replace as needed. 5) Clean and sanitize interior of the structure. 6) Repair damaged structural members. 7) Have masonry contractor point up, repair and/or replace damaged brickwork in foundation and exterior veneer. 8) Replace all broken windows and re-install glazing. 9) Replace damaged roofing sheathing and shingles. 10) Restore interior flooring. 11) Replace insulation and wall covering. 12) Patch, repair and paint all interior surfaces, woodwork and trim. 13) Clear gutters and down spouts of leaves and debris. 14) Repair, scrape and paint exterior surfaces. 16) Replace\repair all exterior doors 17) Extenninate entire structure and remove all debris from the property. 1=- I COUNTY OF ROANOKE SPOT BLIGHT ABATEMENT PROCESS PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE Section 36-49.1: 1 1. The Department of Community Development receives blighted property referrals from Board members, community groups, other County agencies and citizens. 2. All referred properties are entered into a blight database. The Department of Community Development investigates, begins a file on referred property and makes a preliminary blight assessment. County records are reviewed for a history of violations and complaints. 0t11er departments such as Police, Fire, Health, Plam1Î11g, Real Estate Valuation an.d the County Attorney may be consulted as necessary to aid in the determination of a bli ghted condition. 3. A property can be considered blighted if it meets the standards set forth in Virginia Code Sections 36-49 and 36-49.1: 1 and if it meets any of the following criteria: A. It has been vacant and/or boarded for at least one year. B. It has been the subject of documented complaints. . C. It is no longer being maintained for useful occupancy D. It is dilapidated or lacks normal maintenance and upkeep. E. It has been the subject of nuisance abatement actions undertaken by the County. F. Any buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescenc.e, overcro\~'diD.g, faulty arrangement of design, lack of ventilation., light and sanitary faciJities, excessive hmd coverage. deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimentaJ to the safety, bealtll, morals or we.lfare ofthe community; 4. The following is a li.st ofpoteI1tial condjtions that may cause a property to be considered blighted under the tenns of this policy: A. Condemn.ed structure - A structure on the property has been continuously vacant for at Jeast one year, bas been condemned as unfit for human occupancy by the building official in accordance \Vlû1 the Virginia Unifonn State'\vide Building Code, but has neither becn demolished nor repaired by the O\~ller as directed by the building official; 1 t= - B. Rat and roden.t infestation - There is evidence of rat or rodent infestation or harborages caused by conditions on the property; C. Previous dtations - The property 112..') been used or maintained in a condition which has resulted in the following actions: a. The owner has been cited on a least three (3) separate oCCa.c.;iOllS because activities or c.onditi011S on the property violate state or cmmty laws or ordinances governing the use or maintenance of property, and ihose activities or conditions threaten the public health, safety and welfare of the community; or b. The owner has refused to abate one or more violations as ordered by the court or bas repeated conduct involving tbe u.se or maintenance of prope.rty for which the o'wner has been convicted of violating state la\vs or c.ounty ordinances ÍJ:l tbe past. D. Inadequate facilities - The property has inadequate sev¡rage, septic, p]umbing, well or heating facilities; E. Potential trespass - Tfthe property is vacant, the OVVl')er has failed to take adequate precautions to prevent tJ1e use of or access to tbe property by trespassers; F. Nuisance to children - A potential attractive nuisance to children exists 011 the property, inducting, but not ]imited to, abandoned wells: basements, excavations or broke.n. fences; G. Fire hazard - Any condition exists on the property that has been specifically identified as a fire hazard by the fire depm1ment or the building official: and H. Substan6al dilapidation of buildings or structures as evidenced by either: a. Co]lapse of either interior or exterior structural elements such as floors, walls, roofs, porches, decks and similar appendages which do not pose a danger to the public: or b. Removal or rotting of exterior siding, roofing or sheathing exposing structural members to the weather. 2 ~-I 5. The Building Commissioner shall make a preliminary detennination that a property is bIighted in. accordance \",itb this poJícy and shall notify ûle owner by rebTUlar and certified mail, specifying the rea.'wns \.vhy the property is considered blighted. The notice maiJed to the owner also shall be posted 00 the property. The owner shall have thirty (30) days v.rithin which to respond with a plan that would cure the blight within a reasonabIe time. Such plan shall include a site plan delineating blighted condition(s) and specifying measures to be taken for the removal of each. 6. Upon approval by the BuildÍllg Commissioner of the plan to cure the blight the owner shaH have ninety (90) days to complete all work approved in the plan. The BuiIding Commissioner, upon acceptance of a perfomlan ce bond in ûle amount of the estimated cost of the work, may grant an extension of an addjtional ninety (90) days to complete work where it is determined that the owner ha.c; completed substantial portions of the work in compliance with the plan and is diligently pursuing c.ompletion of all \vork. 7. if the owner fails to respond ,\~Üûn the thirty (30)-day period set forth in section three with a plan that is acceptable to tbe Building Commissioner, or faiJs to complete the work approved in tl1e plan to cure the blight within the allotted time, Í11cluding any extensions, the Building Commissioner; (i) may request the planning commission to c.onduct a public hearing and make findings and recoIT'.tillendations th.at shall be reported to the Board of Supervisors concern.ing the repair or other disposition of the property in question, and if a public hearing is scheduled, (ii) shal1 prepare a plan for the repair or other dispositi011 ofthe property 8. The Planning Commission schedules the matter for public hearing. Notice of the hearing must be sent 3 weeks prior by regular and certified mail to: a. owner(s) b. abutting owner(s) c. civic league or association, if any for the immediate area Notice must include plan for dealing with blight (i.e., teardown, repair, etc.) Notice must also be published twice (with not less than 6 days elapsing between first and second publication). Notice shall also be posted 011 the property. Hearing must occur within 21 days of 2nd publication. 9. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing and determines whether (1) property is blighted; (2) whether owner has failed to cure blight or develop a reasonable plan; (3) whether plan is in accordance with applicable law and (4) whether property is listed as historic. 10. The Planning Commission reports its findings to the Board of Supervisors. 3 [:-1 11. Board of Supervisors holds advertised public hearing and affirms, modifies or rejects the Planning Commission findings. 12. If the Board of Supervisors approves repair or demolition, the Department of Community Development will solicit bids and will carry out a contract to abate the blight. 13. The owner of record is billed for the cost of blight abatement including administrative costs. If the owner fails to pay for the abatement, the costs will be collected by any manner provided by law for collection of state or local taxes. A lien shall be recorded to recover the County's costs and expenses. 14. If Board of Supervisors detennines that it is necessary to acquire property by eminent domain in order to cure the blight, the matter is referred to the County Attorney's Office for condemnation suit. 15. Throughout the entire process, the Department of Community Development continues to work with the owner to gain voluntary compliance to eliminate blight. 16. UnJess otherwise provided for in Title 36 of1l1e Code ofVirgirûa., if the blighted property is occupied for personal residential purposes, the county, in approvi.ng the plan, shan not allow for an acquisition of such prope.rty if it would result in a displacement of the person or persons living in tbe premises. The provisions of ws subsection shall not apply to acquisitions, under an approve.d plan, by the county of property 'I,\Ihich has been condemned for human habitation by the loca! code officia! for more than one year. In addition., the county, in exercising the powers of eminent domain in acc.ordance with Title 25 ohIle Code of Virginia, may provide for temporary reJocation of any person living in the blighted property provided tile rel.ocation is within the financiaJ means of such person. 17. In lieu of the acquisition of blighted property by the exercise of the powers of eminent domain as herelll provided and in lieu of the exercise of other powers granted by tbe Code of Virginia, the Board of Supervisors, by ordinance, may dec]are any bJighted property to constitute a nuisance and thereupon abate the nuisance pursuant to state law. Such ordinance shan be adopted only after written notic.e by certified rnai1 to the owner or owners at the last knovm address of s"Uch O\/v'Der as shown on. the current real estate tax assessment books or current real estate tax assessment records 4 · \, ;" i~ ~':" , If"'". r-I Q) c: ro .-J >- c: o o U T"" N CO M +-' c: Q) E c.. o Q) > Q) o >- ~ c: ::J E E o u - o +-' c: Q) E t ro c.. Q) o )= - 077.18-02-40.00-0000 077.18-02-41.00-0000! '077.18-02-42.00=6000 077.18-02-43.00-0000 \ ~ \ Site Colony Lane ~ :1 :J, ~ 077.18-02-20.00-0000 ~ \ t1 ~ t' 077 .18-02-19.00-0000 077.18-02-22.00-0000 077 .18-02-21.00-0000 -, ! 1140 1"'" ,---," - , ", ] E 1-104 ,-,' CJ---.{) , / ,:¡ ,. " E 1104 Rt419 £;Iectrjc RQ8d \-~I----~ , .: -:'-. , - u - ¡., , .- n \:...,. n ,. . , c) 077 .18-05-02.00-0000 1 - Applicants Name: Shelton Residence Tax Map Number: 77.18-2-20 3821 Colony Lane . Magisterial District: Cave Sprmg February 3, 2005 Scale: 1 "=50' Roanoke County Department of Community Development F-~ County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only Date received: Iii 8 ¡ oS 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, V A 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Application fee: l.\C:h 0 ('\ PCiBZA date: Placards issued: Case Number Check type of application filed (check all that apply) o Rezoning B"Špecial Use o Variance o Waiver Applicants name/address w/zip P LJAYN~ Cý- trlr1R.THA (K£ 'I q ¡¿eó ßlt~¡.j LANé- A Phone; Work: Cell#: Fax No.: ðVð ~~ 977-3397 -;'K~ ~ 2~~4 Owner's name/address w/zip -SAmc fJ5 AEYJlJ6 Phone #: Fax No. #: Property Location t.rs-o 1 72- ei.. 1) ?"~.." LVI- <- Tax Map No.: I-[ () . / 'i _ I _ ] ? f Magisterial District: tJ ~ ~:;(i¡ r~ Community Planning area: Existing Zoning: í<..{ Proposed Zoning: R l S Proposed Land Use: fn·//.,j-t:. ¡,c ~-..d Does th7Parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes i2'" No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes 0 No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST Ifrezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No 0 of the Roanoke County Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ms V &v FJSIW V ConsuJtation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan v Application fee Application ~ Metes and bounds description ~ Proffers, if applicable Justification i~ Water and sewer application ~ Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the 0 er of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ~h ~Plk- Owner's Signature F-~ Applicant t<)AuAJé <V- fílAf2TfIA p¡!:.6 / The Planning Commission 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. R-i r<-~ s ; J ~ L-..J 2.....? r,-~ rJ .-- / n v¡v+r -- f~~-01 1A^-.¿e:K5 ¡C~h.J ~ v.v-e. I >/?c·~tJ l/~¿ /.~ .... . l'\.ol...LV\..L ,N\.v'.... 1\...~of...tJ e... c:...- &e- 4 TìJlc/hefJ L'e 77éK- - Please explain bow the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. ~'.^'- ~~ J LN'; n IV ~lj í\ Þ ~kv --J- ~"- ~ ¿¡VtL-4.W" ~~. I ~j \..I~e.... cl es i li4i'- iõ h.. 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 fãcilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ru/lt \=-:¿ County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning Page ll: Justification Addendum Letter January 18,2005 We recently moved to Roanoke County to the afore mentioned location. As part of our family and household, we have four (4) small Yorkshire tenier dogs, a male, female and their two offspring. All have been medically altered so they cannot reproduce. All four animals have a combined weight of about 40 pounds. They live inside the home. Prior to moving to Roanoke County we had an attractive treated wood picket fence built. It allows for an area of about 6,000 sq. ft. for the pets to go outside when required. Martha Pike works in the home, so she is at the residence full time. Our home is private and secluded on 4.38 acres. Only one other Residence is partially visible rrom our home. It is approximately 1/8th mile away. Other homes, that are not visible, are no closer than 100 yards to our home. All adjoining property owners have one or more dogs. The property that joins ours on the south side is zoned Agriculture. Our four Y orkies spend approximately 1 hour per day outside. They would have no impact of any kind on the surrounding property. When we tried to get the license for our pets we found that in Roanoke County, We were in an R-1 Residential zone that would require us to have a Private Kennel special use permit. Since our property size and related items are valid we are applying to the county for a Private Kennel permit in order to keep our four pets and/or remain in Roanoke Co. Our property and pets and the granting of this permit will have no affect on our community and it conforms to neighborhood conservation future land use designation. We have attached related aerial and other related photos with this letter and application. Sincerely, Wayne and Martha Pike ~-~ A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. Thÿ,concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, th~an shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the aJWlicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficienci1'that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. / The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plw¡£at is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with SJàte 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 eßent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. / I I A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use peJ'l'9.it, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may va,rY, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest thé addition of extra items, but the followin~ are considered minimum: ALL APPLIC.ANTS / a. Applicant name and name of development / b. Date, scale and north arrow / c. Lot size in acres or square feet and ~~ensions d. Location, names of owners and R/anoke County tax map nwnbers of adjoining properties I e. Physical features such as groUD9/cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use oraU/adjacent properties I All property lines and easem~nts / All buildings,existing anfproposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights 1. Location, widths and Da¢es of all existing or p1atted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development ; j. Dimensions and locati~~s of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces g. h. Additional information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, stonn drains) and connections at the site 1. AJ1y 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 i o. Locations 01 an adjacent fire hydrants p. Any proffrred conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. ]fprojecris to be phased, please show phase schedule I certifY that aU items required in the checkHst above are complete. Signature of applicant Date t= ._~ '''-.... Planning Commission Application Acceptance Procedure The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if the new or additional infonnation is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional infonnation prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional infonnation and provide written conunents and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to detennine if a continuance may be warranted. Name of Petition Petitioner's Signature~ g;þ..J.. Date 1/1810,<)"" 71'h1;}~ p¡& ~-~ 64~ r erraServer ;".." Page 1 of 1 b 0' .. '. '100M . 0" , . '100.,.d Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement http://terraserver.microsoft.comIPrintIm~aspx?T= 1&S= 1 O&Z= 17 &X =2998& Y =20651 & W... 12/15/2004 CD P\\<.E 1.\, ~ß Pic... ~ M.AA.\{ ~nt HeWElL. JArt.éS 1> \ l b $0 ~ 'I'" s 7 '8(),.¡.sAcK./(b. /,'1 '1¥Ac- ©1~t~1~~~~ S.8C\AC.. @'R\(~.I.wq~l)A.t-b/A¡J€ S'NI< <DB\\_\..~ C.~UV"t\e.L€'1 .1 '- /,;\ 41'85 C}/i4llBlG¡:'7e. /Iv. S."ZOA~ n KI~ ~ 1. '!. '1 BON;' A-c.t<. R b. ..,. \ '" Ac..- \11 c. ~ ~L£ -;.. R..A't Co" ~ '7 ð I": e-,::). '''-OJ ¡¿ ê.-u. ¿ -cu.. ~ .-... n -.. ^." Q..o,.." I <' A J _ . __ 4 'Ï t'J.5 LA ICe:: ßPiu,<. - 0 ~ i3 í:~ oN t:d::> ~ .3 2. 10. A(. TEL NO: 982-5436 o' J ~O~;J C. Be \ \ \. \~I+ J MATTIe ·Y. . ~U' I J4A1RF1ELD ¡ I ~~ ~all8"¿ ......413\1 \ \ §~l~' "~s~rs'OQ"e \ Irr(P '21.150' lltì... ~ ~ . ~Oo ~~ ~ "il . ¡ b ,.RAC"T .~ G. Þt.tYLlts ~ \ 1"\ "A" . ¡.. C. HOWELL~ U. \JOW OR .' .~ ' {fJ r· & MARY 1 \., ~~MeRl."'" ~ tv N aé~ ~OWeu. f . 1 E.L.MeR ~ fIJ üAMes. \ .\. CRAFT . ~ . I o.s.lI;e~ Pa..1416 \II I· . IJaw ~~ ~c:- .' . 0 . f'r' -~";--<.".'.·oo L.:. t~E . ~ JJQas-crrn.-- 0 \ u' '" . '" '-" , .-- -= I...... P\- 1\.. ;.,.... ". '..,;¡-. ð·";;".~;~_ ~;.....~ ,2Ø~. in ~U\.I~ ':"'1 ~'\. li;II~õ;1o - ~ ---w . . ...,,~ if) 'I 4%.,~ . , . . ~ . . \~.. . ~ .., ----' ~ . UaTE: . ..,. , "R4CT 'Z-A B&tUG ~. ." .,.- vJ ~"'tIU:) ,-0 Pt.Nu..a~ c. . ~CI ~/6W'T I4OWE.s..\., ek ~A1õt'( . 61aTH \"~~Clif i ~~..E."^_____ 14a",&~~ \JA.Mes.l'O ". ~ .. .... ~ --:::::... '"lA"" .ÄOO&.O"TQ e.Vtwr. PRa~ ,..-. ~\..... <::. AIJO IS...OT ~ ISIi  ßEÞA~ '!:.~-( .~\oG' SUn_Ot\J<D '&\'Ta. : CQ~\"Ci:. . 0"" D' LANDAM ~LTIC 14: 20 NOV 2í' zø04 I ' - . 1: ASt4LE'{ 8: . . ,L.ILL'A).J L. I GARRAG\4T"'( .0. 'B. q 18 PG.. ne;.:. )oJ CÖo--4"T1()(),. e........ ·'2.C&..~a~ ~ ~ :J LOC'ATJ au 0. MAP. t ~t9r. . "~O;j 9.i .It> · 0 ' II" tlJ2u (t æ . I <i~9Qj 8 a.ct~U i . ~'~li~ ~ ::t 2· :z 0 2~O~; . «a~øJd Þlì4j 'Ï1<ACT i.'24... . 1.518 A.C. *91373 PAGE: 10/22 F-~ TRACT "OZEr . 4~'380 AC. .. ~ APPROVE.D: ~J4~'. At4tã\J"T ~ ())(E cou~ P\..A\.J).J\"1Q . COMMIßS,tO\J PARCEL 1 . . SURVEY FOR, . ÞI4VLL IS COOK 'MOWe.\.L ~'-4OW''-JG O\VI&IOµ OF Þ.A~e,- '2. ~ft:A.,. 1tQ.' . OF' ~e ,ESTA'. OP A'-FREt> ~. COOK" ~1OJW J:. . Set "ec RuT\-{ c: L.AU &:>1 ÞoJ 1; C:OCk: ,~ 01\0. . Þ.B. q PG. '!.O\ ..,,~ "'~... "'''-'"TO\.! MA<:\I&'TeRtA.\.. C>Iß~1<:'ï. t"N~ . ROA~O\(.e COUI.J1rY ' 1 "" YIItGI.,o\ . . . 'C"I.~: ]-..'00' 4T: T. p, PARKER' SON ~Ui: Oc!"{. 10, --'~'!"'i !NGINfEItS & SUIVnOlts ,&.TO. ¡. ~-.",., I .....:-:~~..... ....., "il.EIf. "rAG'''!'. . .~:- 'C)~::~" o. . , ......---..".,...... If.", 4-"'1"2. O"biM .š.:k.L c.tto.e. o.e.... ~.. 0 ____ - f:!t" ...,.............~ ""';"~I fI .-- -. , -""...;J Zoning _AG3 _EP _ AG1 AR _A V C1 _C2 _ C2CVOD 11 12 _PCD PRO - j PTD R1 R2 R3 R4 Roanoke County Department of Community Development  Applicants Name: Wayne & Martha Pike Existing Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: R-1S Tax Map Number: 40.18-1-33.03 Magisterial District: Cave Spring Area: 4.38 Acres January 20, 2005 Scale: 1 inch = 400 feet ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G-\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance amending Division 3. Courthouse Parking Lot of Article III, Parking of Chapter 12. Motor Vehicles and Traffic of the Roanoke County Code to provide for a new Section 12-76. Authorization to Remove Vehicles SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Code regulates parking at the courthouse parking lot. Although it grants authority to ticket vehicles parked in violation of the Code, it does not provide specific authority to remove or tow vehicles that are parked in violation. This ordinance grants specific authority to the Sheriff to remove vehicles parked in violation of the Code. The authority to remove vehicles is important not only for enforcement purposes but also is critical to public safety and security for the courthouse and jail buildings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the favorable consideration of the adoption of this ordinance. (;·,·1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2005 ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 3. COURTHOUSE PARKING LOT OF ARTICLE III. PARKING OF CHAPTER 12. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW SECTION 12-76. AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE VEHICLES WHEREAS, § 46.2-12221 of the Code of Virginia grants authority to counties by ordinance to regulate parking on county-owned or leased property; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Code does not specifically authorize the removal or towing of vehicles parked in violation of the County Code at the courthouse parking lot; and WHEREAS, the power to remove vehicles from the courthouse parking lot is critical to public safety and the security of the courthouse parking lot; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 22, 2005; and the second reading was held on March 8, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. That Division 3. Courthouse Parking Lot of Article III. Parking of Chapter 12. Motor Vehicles and Traffic is hereby amended by the addition of a new section, Section 12-76, authorization to remove vehicles as follows: Section 12-76. Any vehicle parking in violation of this chapter may be moved or caused to be removed by the Sheriff, or any person deputized by the Roanoke County Sheriff to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, from the present location of the vehicle to another area of the courthouse parking lot or such other location as the Sheriff 1 G.- ! designates. Any vehicle so moved or removed shall be released to the owner or operator thereof upon proper identification by that person and payment of the costs of removing the vehicle. Neither the County nor the Sheriff shall be liable for any damages to the removed vehicle which might result from the act of removal unless such damages resulted from the gross negligence of the County or the Sheriff in such removal. 2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of its adoption. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximately 0.2785 acres of unimproved real estate fronting on Pleasant Hill Drive from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors for road improvements SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: As part of the construction of Hidden Valley High School, it was necessary to realign Pleasant Hill Drive. For the purpose of location and construction or other improvements to Pleasant Hill Drive, the Roanoke County School Board acquired certain portions of land for right-of-way purposes. At their meeting on January 26, 2005, the County School Board declared the above- mentioned portions of land acquired for right-of-way purposes to be surplus property, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of an ordinance and recordation of a deed. Once the Board of Supervisors has ownership to this real estate, it may then either convey this real estate to the Commonwealth of Virginia (VDOT) or it may guarantee right-of-way to VDOT, in order to accept this street into the secondary system of state highways. This may require future action by the Board of Supervisors. On May 22, 2001, the Board adopted a resolution approving a County-State Agreement with VDOT to construct the improvements to Pleasant Hill Drive and Brambleton Avenue to improve access to the new Hidden Valley High School. The School Board allocated $200,000 (from the $30 million budget for Hidden Valley High School) as the G- -c:) local matching share for this Revenue Sharing project. This agreement allowed the School Board to expedite this road project. FISCAL IMPACT The reconstruction of Pleasant Hill Drive to serve Hidden Valley High School was done as a VDOT revenue sharing project. In July 2000, the Roanoke County School Board submitted $200,000 to VDOT as the local share for a qualified project of $400,000. Because of timing concerns, the work was actually done with a contract amendment to the Counts & Dobyns contract and paid by the Schools. This action needs to be taken in order to recover the $400,000 from VDOT (less $47,533.80 of expenses incurred by VDOT). This money will be returned to the School Capital Account, where is it currently budgeted as a receivable from VDOT, since the funds have already been spent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached ordinance. 2 G-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2005 ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 0.2785 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED REAL ESTATE FRONTING ON PLEASANT HILL DRIVE FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, as part of the construction of Hidden Valley High School it was necessary to realign Pleasant Hill Drive; therefore, for the purpose of location and construction or other improvements to Pleasant Hill Drive, the County School Board of Roanoke County acquired certain portions of land for right-of-way purposes; and WHEREAS, at their meeting on January 26, 2005, the County School Board declared the above-mentioned portions of land acquired for right-of-way purposes to be surplus property, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of a deed; 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 will be held on February 22, 2005, and the second reading will be held on March 8, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition from the County School Board of Roanoke County of approximately 0.2785 acres of real estate for purposes of location and construction or other improvements of Pleasant Hill Drive as shown on plats entitled "PLAT FOR ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FROM RECORDS AND FROM PARTIAL FIELD SURVEY 1 {;-à SHOWING. . . AREA TO BE DEDICATED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES (226.5 sa.FT., 0.005 AC.) (TAX PARCEL 86.08-4-30) SITUATED ALONG PLEASANT HILL DRIVE" (DB 1672, PG 1100) and "RESUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,. . . . DEDICATING 0.2735 ACRE TO VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR STREET WIDENING CREATING HEREON LOT A - 0.3548 ACRE" dated July 28, 2004 (Instrument #2004-15777, PB 28, PG 38), is hereby authorized and approved. 2. 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. 2 G-a ACfION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MEETING DATE: Januaty 26,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Approval of a Resolution to Surplus Real Property BACKGROUND: As part of the construction of Hidden Valley High School, it was necessatyto re-align Pleasant Hill Drive. For the purposes of location and construction or other improvements of Pleasant Hill Drive, the Board acquired certain portions of land for right-of-way purposes more particularly described as: A certain strip or parcel of land, consisting of 0.005 acre, being shown and described as "0.005 AŒES TO BE DEDICATED FOR ROAD RIGHt OF WAY PURPOSES" on that certain plat entitled 'PLAT FOR ROANOKE CDUNIY smOOL BOARD FROM RECDRDS AND FROM PARTIAL flEW SURVEY SHOWING ... AREA TO BE DEDICATED FOR RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES (226.5 SQ. FT., 0.005 AC) (TAX PARCEL 86.08-4-30) SI1UATED ALONG PlEASANT HILL DRIVE,' and recorded in the Oerk's Office of the Grcuit Court of Roanoke Countyas in Deed Book 1672, Page 1100, said plat being by reference incorporated herein.. The above-described property was acquired by the Grantor from Joyce A Isner in accordance with an Order Entered Pursuant to §33.1-129, Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) in the Grcuit Court of the Q)unty of Roanoke, Virginia, on July 29, 2003, said Order having been recorded in the Oerk's Office of said Q)urt as Instrument # 200318419, and, That certain strip or parcel of land, consisting of 0.2735 acre, being shown and described as "0.2735 AŒE HEREBY DEDICATED TO VIRGINIADEP ARTMENr OF1RANSPORTATIONFORSTREETWIDENING BOUNDED BY CORNERS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9 TO I" on thatcertaÏn plat entitled 'RESUBDIVISIONPLATFOR 1HE SmooL BOARD OF ROANOKE CDUN1Y, VIRGINIA, Showing 0.0047 kre (D.B. 1690, Pg. 1443),0.608 kre (D.B. 1636, Pg. 453), 0.0151 kre (DB. 1690, Pg.1447) and Dedicating 0.2735 kre to Virginia Department of Transportation for Street Widening Creating Hereon LOT A - 0.3548 AŒE", dated July 28, 2004, and recorded in the Oerk's Office of the Grcuit Court of Roanoke County as Instrument # 2004-15777 and fOWld in Plat Book 28, Page 38, said plat being by reference incorporated herein. 1his being all of the same real estate acquired by the Grantor from Kenneth S. Gusler, Jr., in accordance withanOrderEnteredPursuantto §33.1-129, Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) in the Grcuit Court of the Q)unty of Roanoke, Virginia, on March 22, 2004, said Order having been recorded in the Oerk's Office of said Q)urt as Instrument # 200404602. . " Pursuant to Section 22.1 - 129(A) of the Code of Virginia, whenever a School Board determines that it has no use for some of its property, the School Board may convey the title to the property to the Roanoke Q)unty Board of Supervisors. To convey the title, the school board shall adopt a resolution that the property is surplus and shall record such resolution along with the deed to the property with the clerk of the circuit court for the county or city where such property is located. Upon the recording of the resolution and the deed, the tide shall vest in Roanoke County FISCAL IMPACf: None c~ -.:J 51 AFF RECOMME NDATI ON: Staff recommends that the School Board declare the property surplus and adopt a Resolution to convey the property to the Roanoke County Board of SupelVisors so the property can be dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation for right-of-way purposes. SUB:MITfED BY: Richard C Flora Executive Assistant for Operations Approved () Motion by 1M ~ ~ /((}cvtJ.:" No Yes Abs Denied () Barrineau r-- Received () Canada c.- Referred () IIVin ....-- To () Roark .:--- Stovall ~ ~d-,~ . ~Ó/.Á> 6~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G~3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a 0.0348-acre parcel of land to Michael S. & Deborah W. Harless as a reversion of property in connection with an abandonment of the rural addition of Artrip Lane, Catawba Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~ (1 County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The previous owners of the 0.0348-acre parcel, Michael S. & Deborah W. Harless, had donated the parcel to Roanoke County as right-of-way necessary to add the remaining private portion of Artrip Lane to the secondary system of state highways. The extension of Artrip Lane as a state highway was being made via the rural addition process. One of the requirements of the state's policy for rural additions is that the right-of-way be unencumbered by any utilities. It has been discovered that utilities exist along Artrip Lane that would need to be relocated before the rural addition process could continue. Since the rural addition policy does not provide funds for the relocation of utilities, the cost is borne by the petitioners. After being informed that they would bear the expense of utility relocation, the residents of Artrip Lane elected to abandon the addition. Roanoke County did not pursue the acquisition of this parcel for any purpose other than the acceptance of Artrip Lane as a rural addition. As they are satisfied with the abandonment of the Artrip Lane rural addition, Mr. and Mrs. Harless have requested that the parcel be returned to their ownership. A copy of the plat showing this parcel is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". G- :) -) FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached ordinance to authorize conveyance of the O.0348-acre parcel of land to Michael S. & Deborah W. Harless. 2. Retain title to the O.0348-acre parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. <:;--3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2005, ADOPTED THE FOllOWING: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 0.0348 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO MICHAEL S. AND DEBORAH W. HARLESS AS A REVERSION OF PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH AN ABANDONMENT OF THE RURAL ADDITION OF ARTRIP lANE, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the County has responded to a petition for, and made progress towards, the rural addition of Artrip Lane; and, WHEREAS, the rural addition of Artrip Lane required the donation of real estate from the adjacent property owners to provide an adequate right-of-way for said rural addition, with the donations being made to the County; and, WHEREAS, by deed dated April 18, 2003, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia as Instrument #200313127, Michael S. Harless and Deborah W. Harless donated a 0.0348 acre parcel of land to Roanoke County, Virginia, for said rural addition; and, WHEREAS, the residents of Artrip Lane, including Michael S. and Deborah W. Harless, have elected to abandon said rural addition in consideration of the monetary obligations imposed upon them, without desire to re-petition the County; and, WHEREAS, since the County has no other use for the 0.0348 acre parcel, the Harless' have requested title to the real estate be returned to them. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been, and hereby is, declared surplus. 2. That conveyance of the parcel of land, consisting of 0.0348 acre, located along Artrip Lane in the Catawba Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, having been conveyed to Roanoke County, Virginia, from Michael S. and Deborah W. Harless by deed dated April 18, 2003, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as instrument #200313127, to Michael S. Harless and Deborah W. Harless is hereby authorized and approved. 3. That the County Administrator or any assistant county administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this G-3 conveyance of property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. Recorded Vote Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation File METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF OF DEEDS. PLATS. AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY. G- "'.3 ----.....--.....-...-----..- #4659 1 STORY FRAME DWELLING --...--------..-.....--..-------...--... 100 ~AR FLOODP~ ---- BOUNDAR Y TAX #54.04-7-25 LALLlA BRAMMER HILL LIFE ESTA 1£ D.B. 1272. Pc. 710 1.19 AC. e I' £ ~1'00 N 66262.60' /{i~:~>;'llfllj!III¡I!~:jW' ,// ~~,/ ¡)tJ.~~.·,::::::::::S8~~~~1 W::::::::::::::'<t~ / / L / / ~v , , , " ~ (/ TAX #54.04-7-26 ~ 262. ~ñ.'/ MICHAEL s. & OEBORAH W, ....J HARLESS 0.8. 1607, Pc. 1575 ~ PLA T - 0.8. 1607, Pc. 1578 1.317AC. N 89 "53'0011 E 103' EXISTING EDGE OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT TAX #54.04-7-27 CLARICE O. HARTWELL w,o. 46, Pc. 893 0.8. 689, Pc. 351 PLA T - D.8. 556, Pc. 11 5.82 AC. , ~ ~. 4> ~ " /,& ~~ {1 ~ ¡''';;:''';:''';'';;:'''I 0.0348 A c. ..................................... PARCEL ......"."..................,.".., .,.......................,..."..,... ..,........".............,......... "..................",.............. :::·::i::t:ti}{?tiitft: TO BE ..................................... CONVEYED INSTRUMENT #200313127 #4649 1 STORY BRICK DHELLING TAX MAP NO. TAX# 54.04-07-26 SCALE: 711 = 30' PLA T SHOWING PARCEL BDNG CONVEYED TO MICHAEL S. AND DEBORAH w: HARLESS BY ROANOKE COUNTY Exhibit A PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENCINEERINC DEPARTMENT DATE: 07/73/05 R: \ CAD \LAND PROJECTS R2\ARTRIPPLAN\DWG\ARTRIPplot.dwg 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: February 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximately 9 acres of real estate located on Cove Road from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors for use as the site for the new public safety building SUBMITTED BY: Dan R. O'Donnell Assistant County Administrator APPROVED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ElmerC. Hodge ~ (..J~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATO~: ~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On July 27, 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Roanoke County School Board to accept up to ten acres of property adjacent to the Roanoke County School Board Administrative Offices at 5937 Cove Road to be used as the site of the new Roanoke County public safety building. In exchange for this property, the Board of Supervisors agreed to provide a replacement warehouse, the transfer of the current public safety building at 3568 Peter's Creek Road upon its vacation by the County public safety agencies, and agreed to assist in obtaining funding for future renovations of the current public safety building. In order to proceed with the timely development of the public safety building, it is necessary to have the property subdivided and transferred to the County Board of Supervisors. To this end, Hurt and Proffitt Incorporated, working under the auspices of Northrop-Grumman {-t-( Corporation, has prepared the plat which is attached to this board report. The plat has been reviewed by School Board facilities staff, presented at a School Construction Committee meeting on January 21,2005, discussed at the joint meeting between the County Board of Supervisors and the School Board held on January 24, 2005, and formally introduced to the School Board as an informational item at the January 26,2005 School Board meeting. The School Board acted at its February 9, 2005 meeting to declare the property surplus, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of an ordinance, the first reading of which is this agenda item. The land transfer will be concluded upon approval of the ordinance at the February 22, 2005 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. FISCAL IMPACT: The Board of Supervisors appropriated a total of $28,269,073 for the public safety building project at the June 22, 2004 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. This amount includes $500,000 for the warehouse replacement. It was recognized at the joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board on January 24, 2005 that some additional funding for the warehouse may be needed depending upon bids to be received by the School Board for construction of the warehouse. Additional warehouse funding needs above the $500,000 previously appropriated are tentatively to be split evenly between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors. Funding for the renovation of the current public safety building for use by the School Board will need to be determined over the next two years as the new public safety building is scheduled to be completed in March 2007 and vacated by the County public safety agencies soon thereafter. The approval of this ordinance has no additional fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order to move the project forward in accordance with the schedule, it is recommended that the Board approve the Ordinance to accept the property at the February 22 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. H-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2005 ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON COVE ROAD FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR USE AS THE SITE FOR THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School Board entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in July of 2004 providing for the conveyance of up to ten acres of real estate from the School Board to the Board of Supervisors providing for a site for the new Roanoke County Public Safety Building; and WHEREAS, a plat has been prepared by Hurt & Proffitt creating "Parcel 1 II containing 9.756 acres, which parcel is composed of an approximate 9 acre parcel of real estate (portion of Tax Map No. 36.16-1-11) owned by the County School Board and an approximate .8 acre parcel of real estate owned by the Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 36.16-1-11.1); and WHEREAS, at their meeting on February 9, 2005, the County School Board declared the above-mentioned 9 acre parcel of real estate to be surplus property, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of a deed; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004, the Board adopted Ordinance No, 060804-4 which authorized entering into a lease of certain real estate on Peters Creek Road with the Virginia Resources Authority for the purpose of securing financing for the construction of a new Public Safety Center. and to subsequently transfer this lease to the real estate located on Cove Road; and 1 f-\- f 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 will be held on February 8, 2005, and the second reading will be held on February 22,2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition from the County School Board of Roanoke County of an approximate 9 acre parcel of real estate to be added and combined with an approximate.8 acre parcel of real estate to form "Parcel 1" as shown on a preliminary plat entitled "Plat Showing Division of the Property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, and the County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia, Catawba Magisterial District" prepared by Hurt & Proffitt and dated January 19, 2005, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. 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 and to amend the financing documents with the Virginia Resources Authority, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 2 0) ~jl.OO·l'TØ·,,(II ~IYW96.li"L"ø·"n :H1:U 1101 906t¡"ll;rl'OO9 HKl;rl W^~!lnaHJH}'l OWOII 3H!lOH')HY1 \"l~l G31YtlOdtlO>NI .llI.:l.:lOHd ""11_"''' ( 9 WAlns C 9NIIJlIIII9Ni. lHnH VINI9HIA A.lNnO::> 3>10NVOH 'DIH1SIO lVIH31SI9VW VSMV1Y.> VINI9~IA 'AlNnOJ 3>IONVOH:lO OHV08100HJS AlNnOJ 3Hl aNY VINI9HIA 'AlNnOJ 3} ON"0~ :10 S~OSIAH3dnS:l0 a~V08 3H.L .:10 AlH3dOHd 3H.1.:10 NOISIAla 9NIMOHS .1Y1d H ../ : ¡:: ... o '" .. ?'\' I- '" ::I :z: ON "'... 80 ¡¡¡... ~ ~ ~ ~ð d .. b .' ~ ~~iu.;~ ~-!~!;(~ ~C);:;:oo "- ~ 0: 0:- Z _0 z 2 0 WO()1 I- '" Z '" U1 0: uu....c:( <i r: -'''' w ~~w 'zwf- W ~ W U1 0 UU1 f- U1' Ow z~:E.'{W~e5 o:w :oW "-~ ~~~~~~~ "'U1 j § :> 0:'" w ,,-0 0" :0> ~ "- w "- ~~~ ~U1 [LCEw~ ;;:¡Wl)C:::UCDO iE!§ UU1 ~ ô;!' wD......Jw ~~ø5~~¡g ~"- ~~ ~Z § oZO ð~ ~tj~~ t::bg~tj~~ 0>- êz 0:0 oz°l;t! ~~ U1 :rtj C:~8æ z'" e:::zo::O ozz ~wL>-z: zO '" Wo O<iWZ ~...J:J1:;Vlg:~O iD~ ;¡z ~ Wu ~ ;~~ >-w u...~~w ~1tj~5~~~ "0 :>~ O:z -'" vi U1 00 a:: 8'" 0 w'" i ~~~ ~O' -0: '" WI 0: -'0: ",2 :> ~oo: ~V)~~~~8~ ~¡§ iEU1 :0 ~'" :00: ~ Z Oz U1 U1 >':> a rZID Ow U1 t5ðVlO g:~~~i5w~~ ","- w'" d "'0 ~aJOf- W"- >- <:{ñ~~ >-=ZO:::(DV10Z 0 :> ð B~~ ° '" ~=~~~~g:~ Ow :0>- ::;~ .{z z~<~ w~ "'~ '" §~ 5 ooZ Nê~~~~~: 0'" U1:J g ~~~ ¡;;;g¡~¡ ou "'u -' ~j ~ .{- '" "'''' 0", B(f 8~ ¡j~2:::1zl-...J° 0 -,'" I-a:::IYJ: '" WW -,"- ~~~ :0 W ~~~~ 0", 0 ~~2<g8~~ C)o~ "'~ f- zw oI ~ ð ~~~~ 5:. u w~ 0"'° ~~ ",,,, \,/1 00"" w>- z ~~~êg3~~ "'''''' '" '" '" U1::JI-(.(} f-W-' 101"'" U ~~~~ >'~ u V1~'-' >-:> z ~~ '" 0 0: ~S~~~ t..:) >-~<í0::f0:: ~'" m~à '" Zo: > ~ ~~VJVJw~~~ _ Z 0:" o:tf" ~.{ ~~ S ~wt;;wiJi --:~g 101'" a: <0<0 :> f->- <íc¡ .:1 >- '" fS~~~~~~~ O-Z 0"'10 ° :0-' _ On B 0 ~ S~~~~ :: «5 0'" 0: 00: .x gg:~ ~~ 0: U1CL~!jo::V1V1<í ,~'" 0::> QZtn "- 0: " U "- iEZii wu...-<í w 5 w«ID..1J) ~<íaSeS~~ í~~ ",'" :J ::s:::01- ::> «'§ 0 ;õ:;\ Z 0:: .0:: IO I '" oo::~~VJ ~I~ w o <í~w Z ~ ~Ö~LUð~~~ ~~~ 0: '" => ¡E« ' '" oU "'w u 8g w :0 "- ~ww ~ ~o "- WW Z >-o::z z >- ~~~::2~ ~ZV1~¡=<íw5 '" 1,,- "-:>~ ~~!;? w o:Z ;;88~ 50 :J 0 ED <í~~O::~I-':I:W a::~~ 00:", 0: '" z ~~~~::2 u'" c. c.W ~ '" W .<1:WO::V1I-I w"' V1::2S? ~"'8~ 1010: ~ ~g~~ IZ g ð ~:itñ~~~?:~ ~"'<í 0:U10 ~8·~~·Ñ~~~~~~~~~ z 0:0 §~ ð ~ I-;t~~c¡ 101 101 W CLI:¡ U -0 ~ 5 ~~wO~8ZCD ::J 0: '" CLwo ~~~g 101 0: ?D~8g~ z w'" g~>- §~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CD,..: zo: gêê§~ oz 0 I '" lË~~~g~~~ '" ",,,, wW IO ~ 5 8~~~~ "- :>0 ~u..~ ~~(7)N WI ;~~~d "'<11 '" '" :OW ",-' "'~ > ~~8ou..g§~ :>z'" WOW ãFg~ I"- ~~ 0 :0 o "- ~~~ ~ crCL:t .I ~~:G~~:~ XCL "->-0 "", ~ ~~~g zO W W::!UV'JI- ",,,,W "'~o: wi:WW3::J:L.&JWWl.a.lww:l: ""'''' ~~ IZo: ~~ " 0: 5 IO=>I-;e f-:>'" a:::~o.. z"'... ~~§ ~ o~~w z '" "- u",z ~,-,~~~02~ ~~~ ~'" >-:0 " -' 1010 ~xo "'"- o NO::I-¡:;: ~c. U1 :;\ ~ ;;~V1-ð~ g~~~~~~: '" "'~ 0-0 iigg: [~~~< 0- X ~I-I- oZW ~ ~~ 101", 101 " "- Ofi:ffie:;o S2~0 0:> ;!~~ !:0~I-~~ "-" :J '" [5n=ð[ ::JwO<1: ~V1 w"-w -'" ~Ow [~ -' " ;!' WdüUCLWtjO O:wZ IU1'" ióo IZI I <íZ::>Ü -' ~~~~~ ~~~«£I~~a~ o~~ ~w'" ge~ ~"'~ I- IOV<í '" :0 O:W N ..; ,..: ED .,; 0 - ... _0> ~::¡~:3~~~~~~g~~:3 ~ü~ ::J ~ 101 ~~ U '" Oz ió 0 ow", wZ ~ zQ:;::> "- i" ~ "", wã:':5 w ",:0'" 0 ~ê -'00: " '" F!:~w~~ w:o -' ° ° ~~~Z '" ~~ ~~~~(L > ° ..J<íwO 0: o:O:w «WtJ")<ít'-. ~D~~ "- W ~8J~ ~~~~~ "- 0: ~e5~õ '" i2 ð~U1 <' <' ~~g:~ð o..ülL.CD W '" ZU1w Z Z Z a:: ~I- 0 ~~ê~ ió z ",O:I '" G '" 13 ~~8~~ " '" '" ~~~ ° Z 0: Z 0: 1-0<1:0 ió Vi z z E: :i (3 '> (3 '> ~<G8t1 ~~0~ " (j (3 UOw 101 f- O' 0: ;õ Z '" 0: - " f- ~~o 1 ~ 5 ,: zz:r:oo ;0 '> 5 -'1010 '" '> f- f- 6[5~gs Z 5::!<1:>- 101 ~~~ 0 wf-", 0: ~ ,: Z ~ Z üO:: 'ü- ~~~~ '" ~ ~ "- ~ ~g:~g :0 :0 >-,:!o f- 0 Z 0 5zww :JWI-:J Z 0 Z Z Z U U W 00:: ü "- :0 a:::¡;z ~<QF.ü :0 ::J ::s:::>-"w c;: "'w 0 0 :0 0 ~I-ð ° e:oU 101 0 ° W W '" Ol-O::VJ u.. W U U 5~!z °1 U '" U " ZZWI- 0 ~ ~w 8] iE 0>-'" 0 w 0 ~ <C::¡IZ ~~~ð I w 101 Z~~ . U"-w w Z '" Z 00 W VJ '" '" =~~ '" '" 0 '" 2 o:u§:>-" o:>z § E: ° ° c{8J<1: I 0 0 0 Z Z Z ~~~~~ >- ",,,, U z -uIa Z ::J " '" 0: ~'" 0: <Ä w'" ° ° :5 '" .{ >-z'" ° ð~i~ -:0 I-VIa::: I ~ ~ ~o "- "- ~ oOV1~ üai f-W", ¡¡; :::0: 0 -0: ° ~iE .~ U1 "- '" B81 '" ,"- ,"- a::~O-l-aJ >- "- "- ,. :> °0 w w '" <1:0z>-D:::C7:I "'I'" Ie? 0 0:0: ~:ið~~ íO íO t9 ° WW :> U U 101 °cr<íIJ):J~ ~I-~I i'5 2 II E "'''' E 0: m ..J Ow ~ ð '" 0 I-Z UO ~ <Dð "- ~"f- 0: U u..G<1:wN -:0: ~~ ..JlL. U1ütj ~ 0: W 00 0 0 g~~8S5~ ~)-~§: '" 0 og¡~~ 1 ¡¡¡ð '" '" " c¡W .. " U1 U1 0 0: Z '" Z U .'" -.-~ .~ G~t;~~Ñ f--' w ~ '" '" 5 ." w ~ ·wl- ....'" '" ~ a:::WlL.ü 5 :5 ~V)~5: z ,.- >- wD::°z "- -' z E~~8 ~-' 0: r~ V)V1<1: _N ~~~~ ~ 0 0 CL :5 § f- )-5~9ü~ ~~ ~~~~ :0 r" >- i¡! 0 :0 ~~~ËlL. ~ '" 1-0::: « o::Woa.. z I '" Z "- CL U IO "'-~ ~~~~ ~8 ~ u 0 o Oz U 0 U"f- WZü~ "- iEG 101 .::s:::~ri: ~O '" 0: ~tJ~ i'5 ¡SoS E: '" ° u.U1 Ii :J :~~ð >- -,0: >- "'''' ED ió a:: W<1:)- >' :> üVJ I-D::CD '" "'5 f- :> ~:8 wlL.~Cl5C1 0a:1I1 . 0 '" f- 0 \l!u. U 101", :0 WlL.Ü < II) Z _u -' wC7:IZW CL U1 Z 0: ~z "- S dDwfJo -' ~~~~ ~.~ ClI"--U ~vJ ~ CJ '" ZO ..... >- wçió i5 I =>~ ~ "'Nf- '" ~~~~~ 0 ° 0", >- ~'" 0: f- 0", - ON - f- W U"':O CD.- a ,,-0: U '" Z "'U1 U '" ~~F~w ~ I-D::w>z ~"'- 101 ,. :>f- ~ f- 0: U ° ~ð~ð5~ 1010 0 j§ W w :>", :0 wOU1 5 '" ~~Q W(DÇf Z II>-Oa:: ió iE Of- 0 ~n:g " ~8~~~ ~ iEu '" f-IJ)Oüü<1: I- (/)[!)I-O "'0 ~ u'" u z '" ,,~ 14-1 1 G) XYjLItOO'lI¡S'!¡[1¡ NI'v'W96LL'l"S'!¡[I¡ ]llH "01906I¡'l;I¡Z'OOQ tOSI¡~ WAÐMmUONAl OYOII ]"'I OH~NW1 !1Z5Z O]lY1:IOd1:l0)NI lil:l:lO~d 'dINI9~1^ A.lNnOJ 3>10N'd-ml'lJI~lSla Wnl31SI9'dW 'dSM'dlY.> 'dINI9HIA 'AJ.NnOJ 3>IONYOH :10 OH'dOB 100HJ5 AJ.NnOJ 3H~ aNY YINI9HIA 'AJ.NnOJ 3>10NYOH:l0 5H051AH3dn5:10 OHYOB 3H1 .:10 A.LH3dOHd 3Hl.:lO NOISIAIO 9NIMOHS lYld ~ ii: ... o 01: .. ON z... 80 ~N u ',,;' ~IN"YI"CC!)NI.u^lInSH"' IJJ"I"'].. 'l~nH ~ gi..ü; ~~~~ ~ ::I :r:: z 0 Vi 5 .. / 6 CD 0 I ~ Q w / > 0 ! u ~ ~ \ o g\ o o i o 5 i o '" <> "'I- "èi w~ %~ ~~~ i5~ o:w QIn 1 ~ ~:: ~~~± ~ '"'": ~:;¡ "I ~... c.:: ~i:! ~ a" Q: '- .... "t 0<: Q. ~ <e ~ ~ Õ; '" o o ~ . u g d" ., 0- r!? '" " . ;,. .;j "' <roo Q::w..-o::t Wf- I . f-z~,-, ~~~Q. a... ~.f"-. ~~~;'l; §~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~" o . "'I- 0 ~~~\'" 8w .- g¡ 0: ..> i5~ . \'\ 8:1;f ~~ r ~ ~~ 'Ow ~§ ~y \70~ $?¡¡J ~ 0 ~c~ g~ In In ~-~ ~<tO :::: ì~ ,- - 1 ~ '<o~ <0 _'0 ;¿'<ÌO ""J"'1ð 22~ o -..J ~LL ~~ê EE <e" oOU ðð~ ~~~ <e <em o~O:1i IX) W r-- I ..,- -------- ~:I ¡~; :~~~~ ~ '" '" ~ ~~~ ~ ~~i:! ê§o:.:: ls::S~ W ......¡... ::i 0:::0::: 0.: eft::. <: ~ CD w <to w I ~ <n W Z :0 -------- \ \ \ ~ W I-~ \ t;¡,~ ~ ~~::, ~ð~ <r0 _w ~~ ~ -------- --- .;j o .. 0: IX) " 0 ~~~: :[~~Q.. l/1:t:......r;; ::\U~~ '" :i~~~ U"':f-O \ \ / 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: February 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance amending and re-enacting Sec. 19-4. Solicitinq Prohibited Durinq Certain Hours and at Certain Locations. and enacting a new Section 19-28, Permit for Street Solicitation of Article II, Chapter 19, Solicitors and Solicitations of the Roanoke County Code to authorize a procedure for permits for street solicitation by qualified charitable organizations SUBMITTED BY: Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge (If County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Firefighters Association, in conjunction with the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), is requesting these amendments to the County's current solicitation permit restriction against solicitations on any public street. The request is made in order for the Firefighters Association to conduct their annual "Fill the Boot" campaign at intersections in the County. Statistics provided by MDA support the increased level of contributions obtained by these organizations in localities which have permitted firefighters to solicit contributions during duty hours which has typically involved their presence at public intersections. The proposed amendments would require MDA and other charitable organizations to provide evidence of substantial liability insurance coverage with the Board of Supervisors designated as an additional insured and also documentation of qualification as a Section 501 c(3) organization. Authorized solicitations by any qualifying organization would be limited to four (4) days in any calendar year. A work session was held with the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, February 8,2005, to address questions which had been raised at the first reading for this ordinance. As a result ~ j-, I'" - C),. of suggestions which were made by Board members at this work session, three additional provisions have been added to the ordinance as follows: (1) a requirement for submission of a safety plan as part of the application process; (2) submission of a copy of any permit required by VDOT for use or occupancy of the public right-of-way at the location of any solicitations; and (3) a one year "sunset provision" for this ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact upon Roanoke County is anticipated. Some operational impact upon the Roanoke County Police Department may be anticipated in order to monitor compliance by a qualifying charitable organization with its permit and to insure that no impediment to traffic is occurring at authorized solicitation locations. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance amendments to permit a qualified charitable organization to solicit at authorized intersections for a maximum of four (4) days in any calendar year. 2. Deny the proposed ordinance amendments and prohibit charitable organizations from soliciting donations from motorists at intersections or elsewhere on public roads in the county. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff takes no position with regard to the adoption of this ordinance. Legal issues concerning worker's compensation coverage and sovereign immunity coverage may arise should County firefighters be involved in charitable solicitations while on duty. 2 1..1. b ...,J t.1 ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SEC. 19-4, SOLICITING PROHIBITED DURING CERTAIN HOURS AND AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 19-28, PERMIT FOR STREET SOLICITATION OF ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 19, SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO AUTHORIZE A PROCEDURE FOR PERMITS FOR STREET SOLICITATION BY QUALIFIED CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WHEREAS, Section 19-4(b) of the Roanoke County Code currently makes it unlawful for any individual or representative of a charitable organization to engage in solicitation, as defined by the County Code, from any occupant of a motor vehicle on a public road; and WHEREAS certain reputable charitable organizations have requested an amendment to the Roanoke County Code to permit solicitation at intersections and other locations on public roads for limited periods of time after filing an application, paying a fee and providing the County with evidence of adequate insurance coverage and legal proof of their charitable status; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 7, 2004, and the second reading was held on February 22, 2004. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That Section 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at certain locations, of Article I., IN GENERAL, of Chapter 19, SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS, of the Roanoke County Code be amended and re-enacted as follows: (--\ - d " Sec. 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at certain locations. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solicitation in the County at any time prior to 9:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solicitation from any operator or passenger of a motor vehicle that is in traffic on a public road without a permit for charitable solicitation from the County as outlined in Article II Sec. 19-21 to 19- 28 Roanoke County Code. A public road shall include the areas of the median and the public right-of-way along the curbside. 3. That Section 19-28. Permit for Street Solicitation, of Article II, Permit for Charitable Solicitations, of Chapter 19, SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS, of the Roanoke County Code be enacted as follows: Sec. 19-28. Permit for Street Solicitation. The prohibition on soliciting from a vehicle on a public road set forth in Section 19-4(b), above, does not apply to a charitable organization, and its authorized solicitors, which has applied for and been issued a permit under this section and which is in compliance with all other provisions of this Chapter. In order to solicit contributions while standing in a public road, a charitable organization must comply with the following requirements: 1. Not less that thirty (30) days prior to the date desired for beginning solicitation, the charitable organization shall submit a complete application to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for a charitable solicitation permit. In addition to the information required by Sec. 19-22, the form shall require the charitable organization to 2 H-'~ , . ';0" provide its full name, the name, address and phone number of a local point of contact for the organization, the desired date(s), time(s) and specific location(s) for soliciting which shall be limited to not more than six (6) intersections with a traffic control signal light, the name, mailing address and phone number of each individual who will be engaged in solicitation activities on behalf of such charitable organization. Further the charitable organization shall provide an agreement or document whereby such organization shall indemnify the County, its officers, employees and agents, and hold the County, its officers, employees and agents, harmless from any and all claims. suits, demands, damages and attorney fees arising out of or related to the acts or omissions of individuals or entities soliciting for such organization. The charitable organization shall have an ongoing obligation to update or correct any information submitted in its application for a solicitation permit so as to maintain all information in the County's possession as accurate. The County may require such additional or supplemental information as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate the direct enforcement of this section and the purposes of this Chapter. 2. When submitting a completed application to the County, the charitable organization shall also submit the following: (a) Written proof of general commercial liability and property damage insurance coverage issued by a company authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence that insures the organization and all individuals and entities who may be soliciting on its behalf. The proof of insurance shall include the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as an 3 H-~ additional insured and must specify that the insurance is primary over any insurance which the County may carry or any provisions for self insurance by the County. (b) An application permit fee in the amount of $10.00 shall be payable at the time the application is submitted. This fee shall be used to defray the County's cost of processing the application and for insuring compliance with the conditions of any permit issued through monitoring of the public roads. An applicant will be notified in writing of the approval or denial of their request within fifteen (15) days after the County's receipt of a completed application. Within the County's discretion, a portion of this fee may be refunded in the event a permit is denied. (c) Written proof that the applicant organization is a charitable organization which has obtained qualification from the Internal Revenue Service as a Section 501 c(3) entity under the Internal Revenue Code. (d) A safety plan which shall describe the measures which the organization will implement during any solicitation period to insure the safety of those participating in its solicitation activities and of drivers and occupants of motor vehicles at intersections where solicitations are permitted. (e) A copy of a permit issued by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for use or occupancy of the public right-of- way at intersections at which solicitations will be conducted during the term of the County's permit. 4 H-à" 3. Additional solicitation activity restrictions shall include the following: (a) No more than one permit may be issued to an organization during each calendar year. Permits shall be valid for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of their issuance; (b) Solicitation upon a public road in the County pursuant to a permit shall be authorized for no more than four (4) consecutive calendar days, and shall be limited to the period from 9:00 a.m. until one half hour prior to sunset, at the approved location(s) specified in the application and permit;. (c) Each individual solicitor shall have in his or her possession some form of official identification with a photograph, such as a driver's license and shall wear a high-visibility, reflective safety vest over their clothing at all times; (d) A copy of the organization's solicitation permit shall be maintained at each approved solicitation location; (e) All solicitors must be at least eighteen (18) years of age or older; and, (f) No solicitor may impede traffic at any time; touching a vehicle or reaching inside a vehicle without the consent of the occupants of the vehicle shall be considered as impeding traffic; 4. Additional conditions for consideration of and issuance of permits: (a) In additional to the provisions of Sec. 19-24, an application for a solicitation permit under this section may be denied or revoked, in whole or in part, for the following reasons: 5 H-J, (i) A solicitation permit has been issued to a charitable organization, and is currently in force, for one or more of the intersections at which the applicant seeks permission to solicit; (ii) In the opinion of the Chief of Police or his designee, approval of the solicitation permit at one or more of the requested intersections is determined to create a reasonable potential for injury to solicitors, other pedestrians or vehicle occupants or an unreasonable potential for disruption to normal traffic flow; (iii) The applicant has made a false or materially misleading statement on the application form or in any response to information requested on behalf of the County; and (iv) A material violation of the solicitation permit granted under this Section or any action by the organization or any individual solicitor acting in its behalf which creates a clear and immediate danger to public safety. (b) Issuance of any permit under this section shall not represent an endorsement by the County of any charitable organization that the permittee may represent nor any indication of supervision of or control over the proceeds raised by the organization's charitable solicitations. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after March 1, 2005. from :md after its adoption. This ordinance shall be effective until February 28, 2006. 6 3'-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February 22, 2005, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - January 25, 2005 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the League of Older Americans Advisory Council 3. Request to accept Integrity Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 4. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of Knights of Columbus, Windsor Hills Magisterial District 5. Request to accept donation of a deed of easement on property owned by Larry W. McCarty and Patricia L. McCarty, Vinton 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. 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~-Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointment to the League of Older Americans Advisory Council SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge t tf County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: LeaQue of Older Americans Advisorv Council At the February 8, 2005 Board meeting, the Clerk was directed to contact Beverly Eyerly to determine if she would be willing to serve another one-year term which will expire on March 31, 2006. Ms. Eyerly has advised that she would like to serve another term and confirmation of her appointment has been placed on the consent agenda for this meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointment to the League of Older American Advisory Council be confirmed. ACTION NO. J-3 ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept Integrity Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director, Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ê If County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATO=T~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Department of Community Development requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requesting that they accept 0.18 mile of Integrity Drive from it's intersection with Route 757 to it's terminus. The staff has inspected this road, along with representatives ofVDOT, and finds the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Integrity Drive into the Secondary Road System. J-~, ~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2005 ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF INTEGRITY DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation File -I >. ë: ::> 0 ë ü -I ë: <1) E .c. tJ .s « IJ) ro ~ <1) .:.: .J::. 0 C :r: «! 0 ( ,) ~ - ro - (f) "- 0 E ( ,) - IJ) (f) ro ;; "'C .. .. c:: 0 0 0 ( ,) (f) ë .. ( ,) E .J::. 2 - ;;; 0 .E - ,., ãi 3 VJ ~ 0 .... CO c.. c rJ) ,2 rJ) 'S Q) '£ c: .. ëñ a: .. :¡ 6 CD ~ >- .. CO Co :; " VJ Q) ë êií « 'E ø co Ll) 0 >- I co a::: ~ ..9:! (f) ro ::;E > >: a::: ë 0 0 .. ë c u.. 0 0 '6 '¡¡; (f) .. '5 Z .c 'is !:!. .Q 0 £ ::> rJ') I- ë - .. 0 Q E <1) .c Q (,,) E to <II « ~ z ,.., ~ !::!. ~ ...., =': "" ~ "" LJo~ B~ 68: ~! .c on Õ> .!! c :¡ .. ...J .. 00 00 c c - - ,g 'E 0 .. 0 :¡; ë '0 .. « u .. 01 to .!! :¡ ] 0 I- " .. õ z " " 0 .. c .!!! ãi " " ~ ~ is 6 5 0 a: '0 00 ~ M N ~ ~ ¡,; ¡,; ¡,; ¡,; .. 01 01 01 01 01 to to to to '" '" Il. Il. Il. Il. Il. Il. 0.. l""- N cD '" '" '" '" '" 01 '" '" to 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 iii aJ aJ aJ aJ aJ aJ aJ .¡; '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" ~ '2 .; 'S '§ M " 0 .. .. ....... oS! I- 00 c - " g ....... ë 0\ .. :¡; l""- E '0 ¡,; ¡,; ¡,; ¡,; ¡,; ¡,; ¡,; .. « V) 1ií 1ií ãi 1ií .. .. 1ií " ;; I""- '" to <1) ª 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to i!! '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 ~ ¡¡; 'Eí '§ .. to .. .. .. CD .. .. '0 'E 'E '0 'E 'E 'E ¿Z 6 6 " 8 0 8 B 8 " <1) " " (,,) 8 CD CD CD CD .. .. .. Ë Eo-< II:: Ë II:: Ë a:: Ë II:: Ë II:: ~ II:: Ë II:: .. .. 1ií 1ií 1ií .. .. 1ií c E! ö E! ö E! ö E! ö 0 Ö ë ~ ë ,., "- .... ii: "- .... ii: "- .... ii: "- .... ii: It .... ii: "- .... ii: "- .... ii: c '" ë .. > '¡¡ ::1 ¡; )( .. ,., ~ ë E ;; .~ <1) ë i!! > iñ 'C .c '6 '0 0 '~ .. è '0 E .. to 'C .. Z b.O ë <1) 1! 'E .. ::1 - ø -' ¡,; " 0 - N '" ... '" <D .... .. a: z Õ z 0-3 ¡,; > 0 .c .. '0 .. B :¡; ,5 ë .. l- E z ¡¡ w 0 :!: '0 J: .. ~ :5 ~ ë 1: "- to Co 0 to Z " 0 ~ u ¡¡: ¡:: II:: w tJ METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLA TS, AND CALCULA TED INFORMA TlON AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURA TE BOUNDARY SURVEY. ~ 0~ ~¢i; ~0 ~'/)' ~ ~ ~. ~ J-3 5.8 22..30 Ac. Bl 5.6 4.47 Ac. 5.7 17.00 Ac. .1909 4. T-C 1.34 Ac. -#;22 .1911 3. 3.14 Ac. 5.5 17.24 Ac. 5. 42.13 Ac. -#;50 (integrity atj INTEGRITY MFG PLANT TAX MAP NO. 50.01-01 Length: 0.18 Miles Industrial Access SCALE: 1"=200' PLAT SHOWING Acceptence of Integrity Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DA TE: 1-27-05 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J-4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of Knights of Columbus, Windsor Hills Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director, Community Development Elmer C. Hodge trf County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves conveyance of the following described easement to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: A perpetual RIGHT and EASEMENT, of approximately 3,507.21 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slopes(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, 1986, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1251, page 800 and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 77.06-02-24 (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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this easement. METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A .cOMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY. J- ~ CURVE 4-S R=203.S2 L=28.06 D=7·S4'01 ' T=14.0S O~<Y ~ 4 ,,1 tI..~ ::::::::'1': J.... .V.v . :::::?:::::::::::: Q '\~? /:::::::::::::7 ~ <>. "v ::::::::::. '" ~y [:':':':':':-:7 J GO /:::.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ~ :.::(f{t~Y ~ l:-:·:·:·:·:·:-:/ ~ !::::::::::::::::'J::::-~ .......... ~ A::::::::::: , /········1· !::) ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:: cu ¡:.:.:.:.:.:.:./¡ ~ 3A:i&~l % 2 ·:{\}/ry 7 ~ .~. ~1 ~ S 6 CITY/COUNTY LIN£ \~~' ßß ~S} ~rt:.\~~ /ß V 1S}b ~V 'òßß 1 ~ G <?,6' ~O· O~ 6\ ~ ~~. ,( S ifJJ>~ 0\ ~. 't-~\G BLOCK S BRAMBLETON COURT POINT BEARING 1-2 N40· 46 '10'\/ 2-3 N46·SS'06'E 3-4 N23· 40'09'E 4-S N68·24'30'E S-6 S72·21 '30'\/ 6-7 S23· 40'09'\/ 7-1 S46·SS'06'\/ DIST. 20.02' 11.12' 149.S4' 28.04' (CHORD> 0.3S' 173.80' 16.14' BOUNDARY COR. TO ESMT. COR. - 13.1S' t::::::::(:::::::\::: DRAINAGE EASEMENT AREA :::::.::::::: 3S07.21 S.F. TAX MAP NO. 77.06-02-24.00 SCALE: PLAT SHOWING DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, INC. PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1" =50' Exhibit A DATE:04-30-04 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept donation of a deed of easement on property owned by Larry W. McCarty and Patricia L. McCarty, Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director, Community Development Elmer C. Hodge tlf County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves acceptance of the following easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors for storm drainage purposes in connection with Drainage Project P- 298 located in the Vinton Magisterial District of Roanoke County: A perpetual RIGHT AND EASEMENT, of approximately 3,744.15 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 of parcel of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated June 9. 1988, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1286, page 652, and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 70.04-4-22 (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"). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of these easements. 1 NOTE: METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON lHlS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMA TlON AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY --- ,Sl!R~ 0 EAS"rLAiv-; . - (Va. SEC. RT,E ROAD . 749 40' R S82-¡S;-SS"£ /W) 28S,97' TAX I 70.04 04 21.00 PROPERTY OF LARRY W. &: PATRICIA L. McCARTY PT. LOT 4 8LK. 19 0.8. 1286 PG.652 0.100 Ac. - S82-41'01"£ ) 7,8~' - S82-S1'08"£ 2S,78' I I I" ',I I" "j oj', r, ~ 0) I', ". ~ 0) - I ,I, - ~ I '.I > .... I ~(j I ¡ ~ ~ \ ì!;~Q..o I r, ~ ~ I 1-. .. ~ ""I: I /', ~ 0 o ~~O) / I· 0 0 ~. .....Itj~ I /', Q '.. .1 " - ~ I I '. ~', = " . J I '~' " c:S . I. I '. ¡- " ),;; Q.. I --+--I. , ~ , , ' I ' I I I I I }U , /0 . , 10 0' f";r, ~ II II) eX) I- 0» ,N N ,0 , ¡z , I I I- I , ;z I / UJ I ~I UJ ' I (I) I ¡ « I I lLJ ' I . j I 0, I C\J I I I øj I ;Z I I ¡::: I I (I) I I -I I XI I UJ I I I I , I I I I " 'k" ",1T " "~~~ 1T~> Q i9... .~ lii :~~N3~~5 ';AS;~~ TAX # 70.04-04-22.00 , PROPERTY OF , LARRY W. & PA TR/C/A L. McCARTY' PT. LOT 4 BLK. 19 , D.B.1420 PG.441 , 1.31 Ac. I- , Z, w..·.· . 0 ¿' . -- . . iJ W '.H3:; ~ ~.~~ . . (f) '....i..........·.o..·....·..·. . -- . « r·o .- . --~A~9t w 'I.;,. : -- . I ('<l -.t w{ N 0,'(fl «. zl «, lX: 0, L[) o o\J "- . ~ANc,., ~ [3 . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . , .~82- 4rõo"w . . . GRA'v£!. . , , . . . , . , . . . . , . . , , , . , .1, ~,1 ~ 40.', TAX I 70.04-04-20.00 PROPERTY OF ALFRED E. &: LORI G. 80LDUC PT. LOT 4 8LK. 19 0.8. 1590 PG. 1842 4.49 Ac. " 0 " '. . " . ROCK . ·WAU.'" ". ,:" BY r-----.mL1.L ' , . , ' , . I -----:.- '··LARRY."W, ,&...P·ATR1ClA· L, McCARTY . ... .' , . . . '. ..' ROANOKE" COUNTY 'TÁ>(MAP PARCEL # 70.04-04-22.00 SITUA TED ALONG EASTLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: SEPT. 22. D,4j>/~ II--i}- DRAINAGE EASEMENT PT. BEARING DIST ANC 1 S 82'46'55· E 15.05' 2 S 02"24'00· W 249.6" 3 N 82'47'00· W 15.05' 4 N 02'24'00" E 249.61' AREA- 37#.15 s.r. 0.086 Ac. '.~', ',~". EXlElT "A" J- - '-'~ ..-- o...~ ~"'> ~(,:) C)o... <:~ ~I.C) ~I:t¡ ~~ ~~ PLAT SHOWING DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY' 3: w z @)~~ G) @ - 00) 0- Irj . ~ ;S~ ~ Q:) (j o Q..' J. Ie) ~ o - co c:i ~ It) Irj " ""I: co ""Qj " . ~c:::. ~o -. o . ...... .N II) /'t') , Nil) _ 0 N-.t o (/) PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COWUNITY DEVELOPMENT N-\ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA % of General Amount Fund Revenues Prior Report Balance $9,738,285 6.61% Addition from 2003-04 Operations 2,050,000 Audited Balance at June 30,2004 11,788,285 July 1, 2004 Explore Park Loan Repayment 20,000 Balance at February 22, 2005 11,808,285 8.02% Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $11,808,285 $11,808,285 8.02% Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund Revenues 2004 - 2005 General Fund Revenues $147,255,793 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $9,203,487 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge £11 County Administrator Approved By rv-~, COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL RESERVES County Capital Reserve (Projects not in the CIP, architectural/engineering services, and other one-time expenditures.) Amount Audited Balance at June 30,2004 $11,389,450.22 Remaining funds from completed projects at June 30, 2004 347,440.84 Transfer from Department Savings 2003-04 233,419.00 September 28, 2004 Appropriation for the Public Safety Building Project (6,110,540.00) October 12, 2004 Appropriation for Regional Jail Facility Study (85,922.00) December 7, 2004 Appropriation for refund to PFC, LLC for PPEA review fees (50,000.00) January 11, 2005 Appropriation for tests and studies to review the Higginbotham (250,000.00) Farms and the existing Roanoke County Jail as sites for the Regional Jail Facility. Balance at February 22,2005 $5,473,848.06 Major County Capital Reserve (Projects in the CIP, debt payments to expedite projects identified in CIP, and land purchase opportunities.) Appropriation from 2003-04 Operations $1,416,838.00 Balance at February 22, 2005 $1,416,838.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge £, H- County Administrator N-3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 2004-2005 Original Budget $100,000.00 September 28, 2004 Appropriation for professional services provided by (9,000.00) Chandler Planning October 12, 2004 Appropriation for Special Assistant for Legislative (18,000.00) Relations October 26, 2004 Appropriation for participation in a libarary study (29,700.00) with the City of Roanoke Balance at February 22, 2005 $43,300.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ('tI County Administrator N-~ FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget $ 670,000 Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund 1,113,043 FY1997-1998 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund 321,772 FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,219,855) 780,145 Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund 495,363 FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,801,579) 198,421 FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (465,400) Savings from 2001-02 debt fund 116,594 1,651,194 FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,592,125) (592,125) FY 2003-2004 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,202,725) (202,725) FY 2004-2005 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (4,192,701 ) (2,192,701 ) Balance at February 22, 2005 $ 6,242,387 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge (If County Administrator ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ -s AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid-January 2005 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~JI' County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors $ $ $ 4,222,809.00 Payroll 1/14/2005 790,843.77 107,231.55 898,075.32 Payroll 1/28/2005 820,339.26 109,743.72 930,082.98 Manual Checks Voids Grand Total $ 6,050,967.30 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. N-lø V"> 0 0 <::! ~ ~ 00 0\ V) 00 M N V) V) V) M M 0\ V) V) 0 0\ 0\ N V) 0\ \D 00 M 0\ '<t" 00 N N '<t" 00 r- 0 '<t" N "' ... 0\ v: oq N N ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 V) '<I; V) 0 r- '" \D 0 oq '" '<t" 0 '" \D 00 00 0 \D oq ~ 00 00 ~ r-: .. .. <0 - oÖ M 0 0; ,.¿ M 0; r- 0 r-: V) N oÖ N 0 0 .,.; V) 0; .,.; M N r-: N ..¿. ,.¿ ,.¿ V) oÖ N M Q = ~ .. '<t" 0\ '<t" V) '<t" V) V) \D M V) V) '<t" V) V) r- 0\ '<t" V) \D 00 V) \D N 0\ N V) V) \D N \D M r- = .. ~ .!; .s .. . "CI M N i(j' 8 > .. = ~ .. ~ "' == .. .. .. '" "CI N 00 \D Õ ;; 0\ M V) '<t" '<t" M M N \D '<t" M 0 V) \D N r- oo '<t" 0 0 00 ..0 '<t" ...:. M r- \D 00 r- 0\ 00 00 0\ 00 \D \D V) :=: V) M 0\ 0 0 r- 0 0\ V) r- 0 0\ r- N N r- 0 N 0 \D V) '<t" 0\ 0 00 .. 0\ r- V) M 0 0\ 0\ 0\ r- r- M '<t" 0 N "l r- \D, N N r- V) 0 r-, '<t" 0 00 v:. r- oo 0\ 0 V) 0 .!::I .. .¿ 0\' or) 00 0\' 0\' Ó 0' r--" N' 00' M 00 r--" r-' N ...¿.- 0\' '<t"' r-' N' M 0\' Ó ~ ~ r--" r--" \D' or) ...¿.- 0\' 0\' .. .. M M = 0\ V) V) V) '<t" r- 0\ 00 0 M \D 0\ r- V) V) '<t" r- N N \D N 0 0\ M N 0 \D - '<t" 00 M r- '<t" .. .. 00 0 M 0\, "l M V) \D, '<t" N N "l N r-, 0, N N '<t" M - r- oo \D N r- .. = .. N' or) M M '<t"' N' ...¿.- 00 ;;¡ == M N .. 00 00 '<t" 0\ 0\ - '<t" V) \D \D r- r- oo '<t" \D V) 0 V) '<t" M M 0\ N 0\ r- N \D - M 00 0\ 0 '<t" 00 0\ V) 00 M '<t" 0\ '<t" \D 0 0\ r- M '<t" V) 00 N 0\ 0 V) r- M r- N - N '<t" ~ 0\ ~ '<t" N 1;j 0 0 '<t" \D, 0\ 0 '<t" 0 N N 00 \D V) 0\ r- oo 0\ 0 r- 0 N \D, 0\ 0 N M '<t" 0 V) \D \D 0 0 Q "' 00' v)' '<t"' Ó Ó '<t"' 0\' N' r-' \D' .¿ \D' N' N' ...¿.- Ó N 00' ...¿.- r-' 0' .¿ r-' 00' r--" or) .¿ M N .¿ N' 0' M .s .. r- 0 r- '<t" r- N \D \D M N N r- '<t" 0 V) V) r- M N M r- '<t" 0 00 0 M 0\ \D '<t" '<t" M :=: = v:. '<t" M N '<t" v:. \D r- r- M v:. M N 0\, 00, M V) r- N, '<t", 00, M .. = N' M' N N .. .. M > M .. .. '" ~ '" OJ or. := ~ 0 r- oo 00 0 N M 00 M 00 0 0\ V) N 00 0\ 0 V) 0\ N V) r- r- oo \D 0\ , 00 0\ \D V) = "' M .... V) V) '<t" r- '<t" r- :! \D M \D '<t" 0\ V) 0 r- oo N '<t" 0\ 0\ 0\ 00 \D N M '<t" 0 \D \D 00 '<t" 0 OJ ~ .Þ .. N \D '<t" \D '<t" V) \D V) r- \D r- N M r- r- r-, N V) '<t" 00 00 v:. r- V) 0\ r-, 0\ 0 M N .. = '<t"' '<t"' \D' Ó ~ Ó M ~ 0\' 0\' ~ M 00 r--" M N' or) M' \D' .¿ 0\' M .¿ or) .¿ 00' ...¿.- M v)' OJ .... -= = M ~ 0:> ë .. '<t" M \D N 0\ \D N 00 \D N '<t" r- V) '<t" 0\ 0\ M \D N M ~ > M \D V) r- N M N V) v:. ï: <0 .. -; ~ ~ N' .~ := .... ;; '" "CI -< .. .; "0 "CI = .01: = ¡.¡ Q ~ "CI = "0 <0 ~ OJ 'C &! .... .. ~ ¡ ., ... .§ -= 0 0 0 0 r- V) 0 0 0 r- 0 0 V) 0 0 '<t" r- r- 0\ 0\ Q .... ë - 0 \D 0 0 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M '<t" '" <0 .. 0 '<t" 0 0 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- 0 V) V) M 0 0 0 M 0\ '<t" 0 V) - 0 '<t" 0 V) r- M 0 0 è f;I;1 .. 0 00 0 0 0 0 "l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-, \D, 0 M 0 N 0 00, \D M 0 N - 0 "l 0 \D, N V) = ... ~ "CI or) ...¿.- ó 0' 0' 0' V) ó ó 0' V)' 0' or) ó ó 00 M M M M or) ~ 0' - ~ .¿ ~ 00' ...¿.- M 0' M r--" '<t"' 0\' N' = r- \D M 0 N 0 V) V) '<t" \D 0\ r- N \D - N 0\ '<t" '<t" V) N 0\ 0 - '<t" 0 r- '<t" M 00 \D M r- 0 V) := Q r- == '<t" '<t" V) \D '<t" 0\ 0 N, r-, -, '<t" \D 00 - N N V) '<t" \D 0\ M V) N 00 0\, \D, \D 0, N 00 Q .... 0:> ...¿.- or) N r-' \D' or) N' M' N' '<t"' N 00 N' U = V) OJ \D N ë .. OJ .; .... .. ~ <0 .... ... [rJ -= ::: rd rd E-<E-< €~ :5 § ~:J OJ '" E '" ::s OJ '" <:: s:: .~ o ::s UO:¡ ~ ~ ~ OJ "'-o:¿ ~ <:: <:: 0 8 '.g :J"E rd ~ § E-<:.aez: ~>8 ~ s ~ C:õrd J:~E-< ~ E-< e Æ~ ~ ~ <:: õ .~ ~ ..Jo:¿ €1j '= 0 ~::c '" OJ '" OJ OJ "'- '" OJ bD OJ "'- <:: ~ "'ê :§ 1:: V'J t= 'S ::s ~ 0 o:¡ 8 I~~~~ 6 ~ ~ .~ ª .~ ~ ~ E-<o<t:..Ji:l..~Ü '" ~ ~ bD_ "" .- .a~ u 0 ;>,"'- 0."'0 8 ¡¡¡ o '" ] .Ë i:l..",- ;>,£ E ~ & ~ o 0 V'J C/:J ~ ð: 8 'õ'õ",]~ê ~ ~ 8 "~ gf ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ :g ð: ~ ~ o ¡::eni:l..""ßg8 ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ V"J V"J r./:J 3 ~ Ë21~~.6~~ ~ ~ 1a 1a .5 ~ 8 ~~ðð~~~ -¡;¡ u "C o bD OJ õj U .= o z bD OJ õj Y '" OJ 'E OJ en '" -¡;¡ ~ '(3 c 0 OJ en ~o:¿ ¡¡¡ OJ -g~ 1a - ¡¡j~ "'0 :( 8 ""§ 'E '§ ~ ~ca ~ 'õ uc55 ~o:¿ û5 ~ t ~ 05"i> o~ '" OJ ~ ~ -¡;¡en u bD '§ '5 bDc: OJ '" êa .S ~ u"'-~ "" "" '" ,š.š§ oo¡.:: "CI = = ... "E .. = .. " OJ 0. o "" OJ i:l.. ~ gj <:: rdO:¡O E-< e- to ~ 0 ~ ~ t:: U B rd8.8..5 E-< 0 .- o:¿ ~ ¡:t; t '" .s OJ .~_ V'J~C/J_ ¡¡¡ § .~ ~ ~~:õc 11) 11) ::I 11) ez:i:l..i:l..i:l.. '" OJ rd E-< '- o ~ rd :JE-< ..5 ~ s::~ OJ en E '" ~ g i:l....J '" "'0 o o "'- "'0 OJ 1a 0. OJ "" i:l.. ~ ..... M ..,. ~ ~ ti: òò "CI = = ... O-NM~O NM~~~~OO~O N~~OO~O NOOO ~o ~MO~NM oooõo~~~~~~~~~~8888888~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~ N-lo N '" 0 @ ~ N ~ .. '" ... r- Q .. = - r- ~ ~ = .s c ~ .. -c "- 8 ~ . ~ t') .. Q! .. = .. '" = .. .. ~ "'CI .~ "; ~ ~ .. ~ ~ Q Ñ \C ..) Ñ ~ IfÍ Q .... .. " Q '" S ~ .. c ~ ~ ~ Q! ~ r- ~ ...... QO '" ..; \C '" .. = '" = s: .. .... .. ~ '" r- ~ .. &! .... = Q ~ Q ..c c .... 'S ë .. ~ ;; :- .~ = Q! .... li :=J .... :; ... IfÍ -< "'CI i -= .. "'CI = C 0 ~ ~ = -= "'CI ~ ~ = ~ 'C ~ .. .... .Š =- 0 ..c ... ë Þ '" ¡.;¡ = - ~ = :=J .. .... .. ~ = 0 "'CI '" 0 ... r- = ..; U = Q = .... .. '" e .. ...... .. ;¡ \C ... .... S .. rr, ~ ~ .. ~ "'CI C .. .. í-' "'CI C = '" ~ ~ "2 ~ r:> '" 2 r- 0 .. " 0 õ 0 c e -ö N .. -ö ~ í-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "' "' o:J -5 = ~ ~ .. ;: 0 8 .S ;:;: ~ ~ õI t:: "'CI Ii ! ~ M C ¡¡: .... = on ~ 0 :! õI Z Ii õ: Oó ¡¡: N-fD ..!! .l> .... Q-, N 00 '" 'D 0 \þ 0 N 00 on - 'D 00 00 N r- V) 0 00 - 0 N 'D '" .. "0 e = '¡¡ ...., ...., r-; r- 'D ...., .., ...., ...., 0 r-; on 0 Q-, N 0 r- on ~ 0 'D '<I" ...., 'D r- .., '" ~ " = 'i!- .. OÔ N N -D OÔ ~ 0-: OÔ M - ~ -D -D ~ M 0 ~ ~ 0:: or) ~ 0 N ..¿. N ~ ß " '" "0 V) V) 'D on '<I" '<I" """ V) V) V) V) on V) '<I" V) 'D 'D '<I" on r- V) '<I" r- Q-, V) on 0 Co " 0 .. = t' .. .. ... ~ 0:1 .. ... ~ " o1J .. N ;.- "0 " r- N ...., N N Q-, '<I" r- ...., .., ...., N 0 00 'D N - ...., V) 00 V) 0 V) r- " " .. ~ .. - ~ r-; '" ...., """ v: V) 00 '<I" """ Q-, 'D v: - - N \þ ~ r- - r-; oq '<I" N - ð .l> " ~ ... oô ..¿. N N 0-: -D = OÔ M ~ ,...: i ~ 0 ,...: 0 -D ... "- e 0:: ...., ...., ...., - " '<I" ...., r- V) 00 """ N r- OO ::£ on 'D 00 N N .., '<I" V) r- - r- OO '<I" OC = " '" .. ...., ...., 'D .., '<I" '<1", '" 00 00 '<I" "1- 'D V) 0 'D. 00 N '" 00 00 Q-, 00 'D r-, 'D on " ;¡ OÓ '" Ó OÓ Q-,. - = <rÍ Ó <rÍ OÓ ~ '<1"' ,.: o· '" M ItS N· '<1"' N OÓ <rÍ Q-,' ItS " " 0:1 V) V) - N '<I" r- N r- r- :::: \þ 0 00 r- 0 'D """ V) '<I" N r- N ;;¡ r- - ~ 'D '<I" -:. N 00 """ N '<I" '<1". o. ...., N r- - 'D. 0 r- \þ ..,¡ on - or) ..,¡ N Ñ N on M on - " '" ...., '<I" r- """ N '<I" \þ r- V) V) r- """ r- OO 0 N '<I" r- OC r- V) N 00 0 Q-, V) \þ " ~ e ..!! 00 0 N - ...., r- ~ ...., ...., 0 V) .., 0 ...., V) 00 00 ...., '" ~ N oq ~ N V) r- N .. 0-: -D N oô N 0-: N 00 ,...: ..¿. 0-: ~ -D ..¿. ..¿. oô 0-: oô ... N oô :?:: oô ... .. .l> .. 00 - ,: e ~ V) N 0 OC 00 ~ 'D Q-, ...., N N r- 'D '<I" 0 '<I" - \þ ...., V) 0 'D N ...., """ ;¡; = 00, 00 r- - '<I" \þ ...., V) 00 00 \þ V) Q-,. Q-, Q-, 'D - 'D V) 'D 'D 00 "l Q-, on " " ß N· - oó Ñ oó Ó oó <rÍ Ó ..,¡ N ..; Ó oó '<1". ..,¡ Ñ '" '<1". N' ,.: M - 00' oó " " .. N N r- N 'D '<I" ~ 00 V) '<I" - '" 'D 0 r- V) :::: ~ N '<I" V) 'D Q-, ...., 00 ~ Co ... .. \þ ~ OC '" r- .. " N N - on V) '<I" ... 'D r- N N ItS N N Q-" r-, V) ItS ...., N 0 00. ItS ... o1J ;.- <rÍ ,.: <rÍ M N - N N - '" = .S " 0 0 0 ~ 0 00 OC 'D 'D 0 00 ~ 'D 0 Q-, V) 0 0 ~ 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 OC " .... " 0 oq 0 :J 0 ~ \þ "1 ~ 0 ...., r- V) 0 0 ...., 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - '" .. 'C " e 0 0 0 :¡:; ... V) ..¿. 00 ~ -D 0 0 ,...: 0 0 ~ 0 0 ..¿. 0 0 0 0 ~ ;¡; .l> N N 0 \þ V) '<I" N ...., on N r- '<I" 0 """ r- r- C. " e N N 00. V) .., r- OO ...., N - 'D V) N N. \þ r- r- = .. = ó = N· ..; r-' '<1"' ..,¡ ~ oó M V). oó <rÍ on ... on E " c. ~ " - ...., on ...., Q-, .., c. - = ... N N - < ~ 0 '" "0 - ~ 13 = 'Sj¡ '" '" ... .. ;; .- = or '" "0 ~ .. '" ... "0 t Q-, r- 0 \þ N 0 N Q-, 'D 00 0 .., Q-, 0 '<I" V) r- 'D - Q-, V) '<I" 00 '<I" 0 V) on ,.Q " E 0 N r- ~ ...., Q-, N "1 'D 'D ...., ~ '<I" N 00 "': - ...., on r- r- ~ V) 00 0 N """ = e ¡.¡ ... ;¡; N ..¿. oô .,.¡ -D 0 ~ -D -D 00 ~ N ,...: 00 0-: ..¿. M N 0 ..¿. ,...: 0 -D .,.¡ = :¡; V) :¡:; ...., '" " "0 ë " r- OO N oc V) 0 on '<I" ...., - 0 'D Q-, ...., 'D .., 0 V) r- ...., r- '<I" oc = " ...., N '<1", ~ N '<1". \þ 00 0 Q-, N ~ 00 'D. 0 'D 0 """ N. 00 - V) - 'D on = .- 'C = Co <rÍ Ó ,.: oó <rÍ ,.: \Ó Ó = oó r-. '<1". 00· N ..; ..,¡ ..,¡ ..,¡ \Ó '" = ~ = ~ .. V) - ...., ¡.;;¡ .. ... N Q-, - .., r- 'D .., 0 '<I" ...., ~ 'D r- 'D 'D 'D '<I" oc - Q-, Q-, r- N - ... g. r- OC - Q-,. Q-, 'D on N N oc - N ...., N -:. = ,;; ..c ..; - .G> .. ë ... = = " ~ " ;<::: = "0 U = r- .. ~ c. .. ~ ¡.;;¡ .; '¡¡ .. 0 'D 0 \þ ...., V) oc 'D Q-, N 0 r- 0 0 0 0 0 Q-, '" 0 0 0 ...., 0 0 0 .., ... Q .. 0 0 0 ~ 'D oq """ Q-, 00 ~ 0 r- ~ 0 0 0 0 V) on ~ ~ 0 "': 0 0 0 """ = ¡.. "0 ,...: ,...: -D = 0 ~ 0-: 0-: -D ~ 00 00 -D ~ N ~ -D 0 0 or) N .. = ...., ...., V) V) ...., ...., 0:1 0 - ...., \þ r- r- """ 00 'D N Q-, r- :::: N N f<\ r- f<\ '" r- 0 00 r- 0 0 00 N -= V) N. '<I" - V) Q-" on '<1". f<\ Q-, '" V) N. V) r- OO ~ '<I" '<I" "" '<I" V) V) - "0 Ó - Q-,. ... ,.: - 0:: -. Ó Ó ..; or) Q-,. - o· ..,¡ ,.: 0:: N '" V) \Ó Q-,' M oó on .. 00 00 00 on - N 'D 'D N - on 'D 00 '<I" N N 0 """ f<\ V) 0 f<\ ::£ .., ..c f<\ Q-, N \þ "!- Q-, - Q-, 00 '<I" "1- '<I" 'D '<1", r- Q-, '<I" \þ '<I" Q-, - 'D .., .- Q-,. = Ñ N '" \Ó '" '<1". f<\ N ~ M <rÍ N Ñ ¡r.¡ - N - ... .. = '" 1: '8 "'Q c ~ -< 0 c '" -= u 0 t) '" "2 .- '" "~ c .. '" '" "'Q -< .S: ... 'š t;j E! IE c ~ ~ "ü " e ::s '" '" ;:¡ "'Q ... C 0 '2 < ) -< i.= '" t:: f-< .S: .... ~ u "§ ~ "-< à Ci 'š .~ '¡¡j 0 :- 0 o(! c 0 IS: ~ o(! ... ö1) "'Q 'ü " E 0 "'Q < ) .... o(! c .. ~ -< VJ < ) ~ 0 " § ::s < ) '" '" x u .. "'Q -; VJ -; < ) < ) Q "8 VJ < ) '¡¡j on < ) '" < ) c '" '" c .... ... '¡¡j :~ E ::s .~ u '" C õ.. .- ;S < ) ;;. .s u < ) -= "0 ¡,¡:; '" ... < ) u o(! C .~ 8.:§ := ~ u .;¡; u " 0 'ü '" :is ö1) E ,.Q '¡¡j .~ '" t;j .~ -; " < ) CO " "'Q u < ) 0 < ) '" "5 '" oj c ";¡; ¡.. o(! ... :a " .... ~ c " .:¡ c 0 " < ) < ) c ... .~ " ... <8 oS: u =- VJ ëS .... .S: u =- ::r: < ) < ) ..c '" .~ < ) ::r: -; ]j ] ] ::s Jj "'Q t) ] CO < ) ::r: VJ < ) -< VJ '" ....., § t;j < ) < ) t) ~ - .... .. .8 .... '" c c '" u '¡¡j å'~ 'E t;j .. '" < ) t:: < ) e < ) 8. c " "@:¡ c u ~ ::s < ) ~ ~ < ) t::: '2 g c <2 "@ '@¡ ~ ~ :D "ü 'ü ~ .. < ) < ) < ) ~ 0 ;S ~ .... 0 < ) < ) c '" ~ < ) ::s 0 o .D '" 0 ~ (.,:I ..J Ci ¡iJ - u 0 N ..J ¡,¡:; U -< .., Ci ~ ::E r..tJ ..5 Ci """ ::E =- VJ u~ ..5 VJ on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = = - N ~ "0 N f<\ N N f<\ '<I" N f<\ '<I" V) 'D - f<\ '<I" V) 'D r- OO 'C ~ " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ž " - - N N f<\ f<\ f<\ f<\ '<I" '<I" '<I" '<I" '<I" '<I" V) V) V) V) V) V) V) ¡;: ;0 ¡.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N~-lo ~ '" ... '" '" '" r-- N N '<t '" "Of' 00 I"- 0 0 0 0 0\ '" 0\ - .. '0 E 0 ~ N 00 00 "! '" v: '" ~ 00 '" 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ - '" 00 "Of' 00 N '" Q .. " ~ OJ) 00 .¡. ,.-: - \Ò ,.-: '" -= 00 .¡. ....; 0 ,..¡ 00 a; OÔ r-: .s " ... . '0 '<t '" 'D '" '" N 'D '" '" '" 'D '" '" 0 '" .. - '<t "Of' "Of' 0 .. ... ¡.¡ .. ::I N '" = Õõ .. ¡.¡ " o¡ .. N ;.- '0 ~ ~ ~ '" 00 0 r-- 'D 0 00 '" 'D '<t 0 0 0 0 ~ '" '" <= ~ í:f " '" ~ 0 \C 00 '" N 0 '" ~ '" 0 0 0 ~ ~ '"'! 0 ~ "Of' OJ '" \Ò a; Ié a; a; N 0 ...; \Ò 00 0 0 0 a; -= -= c.. 0 E " '" ;;:; ... ::I .. N '<t 00 '" I"- '" I"- 0 0\ '" I"- - 0 0 0 00 N 0 ~ 0\ ... .. '<t '" '<to 00 v:. '<t ..... '" 0, - 0 0 '" N r-- '<t 'D <= Q .. õi .,¡ ó \õ ~ '" ",' M '<to ~ N' '" \Ó Ó ..,.) M OÔ oé oô ..,.) ..; ~ " .. = '" 00 0\ I"- 0 0\ l"- N 0 '" '<t 00 0\ l"- I"- '" ..... ;;¡ 0 0, - '" N r-- l"- 'D 1"-, .... '" '<t Q "Of' N ,.) ...: "Of' OÔ ~ r-: - '" ~ 00 8 '" N 0 '" :::: '" '<t 0 ..... r-- '<t 'D 0 0 0 0 r-- Q .. '" '" ..... '" E ~ '<t '" 0 ~ '<t ~ 0 "Of' 00 '" '<t 0 0 0 0 \C I"- '" r-- 0\ ¡: '" .. \Ò .¡. 0 - a; a; '" 0 ,...¡ a; 00 00 0 0 0 0 Ié 0 .¡. .,¡ oö .= E Q 'D 'D "Of' 'D 00 '" '" "Of' '<t N '<t 0 ..... 0 I"- r-- Q :¡; " I"- '" I"- 00 00 'D '" '" "Of' "! "', 0 .... 00 '" --:. '" .. ... .s oô ",' ",' ,.) N Ó oô ó ,.) '" - oô ..,.) 00 N oô - .... " .. .. N \C '" N '" ..... I"- - '" '" 0\ '" 0 \C 00 '" ¡.¡ .. ~ 00 0\ r-- ... o¡ " "', "', ,.) N '<t 1"-, ...; 0 I"- ~ Q ¡.¡ ;.- 'D' ¿ '" ~ 00 '" ::: .S ~ 0 N 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q 00 ..... 0:1 OJ) .. 0 'D 0 \C 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q 0\ 'C .. E 00 .¡. 0 ,..¡ 0 0 0 0 -= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -= 0 0 -= ..¡ :¡; '" '" - r-- C. .. E '" I"- '1. "Of' 0 '" ~ " ,.-:- M - r-: .. ... c. s;: = .. - ..... c. - ¡.¡ "Of' -< ~ 0 0:1 "I: - Q .; ::: '5iI 0:1 '" .. ~ > ... = i 0:1 "'CI E " .. "'CI '" '" 0 ..... l"- I"- I"- 0 ;;:; 0 '" '<t 0 0 0 0 0\ I"- 00 r-- 0 .c .. » .: oq I"- 0 \C '<t 'D 0 '<t ~ 'D 0 0 0 0 \C '" '" ..... - ::: e ~ :ë :¡; '" N 0 oô 00 ,.-: ,.-: ,.-: -= 0 a; 0 0 0 0 ...; .¡. a; ~ ..¡ 0:1 ::I "'CI ¡æ .. '" 0 ~ '" '" N 'D 0\ N 0 0 "Of' '" '<t Q '" § ... .. 0 ~ '" "Of' '" 00 N, '" N '" 0 00 '" '" - r-- ::: 'C ~ .. .,¡ oô .... ..,.) ,.-:- M r-: ..,.) M ~ ..,.) .... \Ó oô iii' .... ¡,.¡ " ¡.¡ '" I"- ~ '" '" <= N 0 '" 0\ '" - - .... =- N "Of' - N ..... N .... \C 0 '" .... \Ó \C ,.) .ò ~ ¡æ - .. .. = ::I ~ ::I ..... 0 :a u ::: r-- ~ Q C. " ~ .; ¡,.¡ i .... ... N 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q '" 0 .. '0 ~ 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q ~ ¡., ::I '" \Ò a; oö a; a; \Ò 0 ~ \Ò 0 ,.-: 0 0 0 .,; oô N .¡. Ié ~ ~ = '<t 0 '<t 0\ '<t N 0 '" ~ 0 0 'D 0 0 0 00 '" N 00 Q 0\ :; '" "! \C '<t 0, r-- N 0 N 0 0 '" N Q "! '" ..... :2- "I: M \Ó - ¿ \Ó \Ó N '" ~ \Ó ..,.) '<to 0' Ó M oô r-: M iii' ~ I"- '" '" \C 0 '" N '" - '<t '" I"- 0 - '<t 00 0\ '" 00 - - .c '" '" '" 00 'D \C '" 00 'D - 1"-. .... 'D -, 00 '" ... M N ~ ...; N - \C .,¡ iii' r-: rr.J - - I"- r-- ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ tî ciô "'CI " ::I ¡., f " " " " ! ::: ;: o <> .~ a ~ -B (J .¡:: <> ::: ~ ¡¡¡ o(! to ï§ '" «! ::> ~ ... - ~:9"3 ~....:¡u "'CI " ::I ¡., N '" 000 'D 'D 'D 000 ¡; ... .a -; u oìJ ::: o -.:: .. .. ... CJ Q! ~ ... .. =- a 8 ~ 'E 8 <> c...;:c;I) § ~ ã OJ)'¡¡; 8. § ::: ::: ..s ::c '2 ~ ~ o¿J>'s N<>Ö§ o(! .~ <.> ~ ~"ã ~ .- <> 0 .- ] 8 8 ~ c...U¡¡¡U Q Q \C Q N '" '" 0000 r- r- r- t- 0000 = .. e c. o .. ~ Q ~ ï: ::I e e o u 0.. 0.. os <.> '6 ::: os ::c o(! § .....;: t;; '" "'0 8~~ ::: .~ U ~"i)~ 8 ~ CI) ..a ~ 1;j::3 ¿;f-.... 0.. ::> ::: os <> Ü ¡:;¡ '" -g ~ d <> ....:¡ 5 E 0:1 <> <> > <> os ð'u P.. .~ a .~ ¡¡¡o <> <.> <> § g "; ~ø 0:1"'2 .....'iií g 'C ~8 .§ §: ::: os o ::: u~ Q Q r-- Q N('I""¡"If"\Or-OO 0000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000000 '" õi '5 "" "'CI " .. ~ ¡ ::: .. e 't .. c. .. Q = o Z ~ ~ 00 '" '" ... ... ~tE ~ ~ f-f- "'0 "'0 ::: ::: ~..a <> e .š ~ - ::I o '" ... ~ '" ::: .. ... ... Q Q 00 Q Q Q 0\ Q N 00 "'''' 00 ~ - co LO I I ('t") !:: N to to ~ O~ 0 0> ...... ...... 0> !:: CO N LO ~ I'-- - I'-- !:: 0 0 (fl (fl !:: - eo - 0> LO LO I'-- N !:: to to ('t") LO ...... E :J I'-- 0 CO ...... LO E 0 0 ...... ('t") to 0> :J E ('t") N LO LO V L-« 0 v to .... (9- to ...... V U I U N - N c"eo W o L- ., L- _ 0 ~ ..c: !:: "t: 0 0:: Z 00 0.. - Z (fl (fl C) C) 0:: ~ Z :;: Õ ~ ...J W 50~ £00.. 0 o::W z wo:: <C ........ 0 ZW 0:: wc) L1. !:: UC 0 0 >~ > ~ ....£0 ,9- .... L- W Z u - - L1. ~ rn ...... N <C Q) 0 0 0 0 Q) 0 0 en U u - - U !:: L- L- eo Q) Q) ~ ëã "E "'C LO £0 m L- a 0 !:: 0 ~ C) ~ 0 0.. !:: Q) Q) 0 N C) C) j !:: !:: !:: LO Q) eo eo eo ...... c.. ..c: ..c: L- ~ 0 0 ü 0 eo :J L- ..0 Q) L1. v LO LO LO - Q) 0 0 0 Q eo - - - - ('t") I'-- I'-- co Q) eo 0 ~ N ~ U 0 - - !:: N ...... ...... ...... ro ...... 0 0 0 ëã m rn "'C !:: .2 ...... ...... 0> W eo - !:: Q) E "t: ro c.. Q) "'C E o -= !:: Q) ~ eo - Q) L- Q) ~ N o o : :: : L- Q) "'C L- o Q) C) !:: eo ..c: u L- .E "'C Q) rn :J Q) ..0 o - Q) u rn !:: !:: eo ~ Q) !:: £~L1. 0- "'C eo 0 2 u L- -uE 'E Q) U ..o..oQ) :J Q) .!::: Cl)Cl::O rn "'C !:: .2 Q) ..c: .... ~ N,1 L- o - eo ..... - rn !:: E "'C ~ã5« ~!::~ m!::ë "'C 0 :J Q) 0 0 ðbO c..cêñ c..rorn «0« I- U W ..., o ~ 0::: Z Q. - C)I-C) Zo:::~ -0> c Q. ~ ..Jww 50:::~ en 0:::0 o:::wZ wc« 1-0:::0 ZOO::: WWLL UC)O >-Z>- 1-«1- W::I:Z ~US en U S:2 ..J en :J Q. tJ.,~ IJ') IJ') 0 - <D C") 0 r::: 0 CO 0> :J ...... C") ...... a N IJ') I"-- E « (fl- (fl- L- a> "'C L- o ~ r::: ro .c:::. Ü - a r::: a +: ,9- L- u (/) a> o "'C a> > a ~ « a> - ro o L- a> ..c E :J Z L- a> "'C L- o ~ r::: ro .c:::. Ü (/) - (/) a Ü "'C a> - ro ã5 CI:: r::: a - r::: :> "'C r::: ro a> > ro 3: a L- u ~ N I C.9 <D "'C r::: ro o « ü "'C "'C ro ...-.. (/) "'C r::: .2 ...... (/) ...... L- 0> a> W ~ ro a> _ (/) a> r::: o L- a> « ro E ü~~ ~ g g. a>0"'C [)«E (/) ü e a>"'C- -a>"'C a> _ ._ - ro ro a> - C. O~_ IJ') o o N I"-- N ~ ro :J r::: ro ...., IJ') o o N I"-- N ~ ro :J r::: ro ...., IJ') o o N IJ') ...... ...... o o N o o ~ ro :J L- ..c a> LL - a (/) ro ro Õ I- a> u (/) r::: r::: ro ~ a> r::: ~3:¡¡: "'C0- a> ro a ;:: u L- ,- U a Ea>ü ..c..ca> :J a> .= (l)Cl::O L- a - ro L- - (/) r::: 'E "'C =« ;>.a>>. fY'\r:::_ L.LJ r::: r::: "'C a :J Q) 0 a > - Ü a 0 . 5.r:::ën c.ro(/) «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: February 22, 2005. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of January 31, 2005. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BANKERS ACCEPTANCE: SUNTRUST CAP 236,829.17 236,829.17 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS: SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA SAVINGS & LOAN 100,000.00 100,000.00 COMMERCIAL PAPER SUNTRUST CAP 1,895,306.11 1,895,306.11 CORPORATE BONDS ALEXANDER KEY FED SUNTRUST CAP 1,258,503.00 299,922.00 1,558,425.00 GOVERNMENT: ALEXANDER KEY FED ALEXANDER KEY - Sub Acct SUNTRUST - CAP 50,345,993.47 4,374,594.00 11,468,056.02 66,188,643.49 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION 12,232,146.03 12,232,146.03 MONEY MARKET: ALEXANDER KEY FED ALEXANDER KEY - Sub Acct SUNTRUST - CAP SUNTRUST - SWEEP WACHOVIA 2,474,037.65 28,715.47 1,370,061.20 5,224,509.29 2,331,433.61 11,428,757.22 TOTAL 93,640,107.02 02/04/05 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. p-\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss proposed revisions to the Roanoke County Community (Comprehensive) Plan SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At its meeting on February 8, 2005, the Board requested this additional work session. Staff has prepared amendments to the revised Community Plan based upon Board consensus at the work session. Outlined below are the changes which have been made: · Added Executive Summary · Growth manaqement: Page 5: Formatting change Page 6: Item #1 - removed last two sentences · Transportation: Pages 3 and 4: removed reference to adequate public facilities ordinance Page 15: added reference to Capital Improvement Program · Land Use Map: Hollins District: Change designation on Bach and Newbern tract from Principal Industrial to Core. Please insert the amendment pages into your "Revisions to the 1998 Community Plan" (January 25, 2005) binder. Staff is prepared to address any additional questions or concerns of the Board concerning the draft plan. Î.) -- { DRAFT 2005 REVISED COMMUNITY PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Chapter 15.2 of the Code of Virginia requires that the local Planning Commission review the Comprehensive (Community) Plan every five years and determine whether it should be amended. In accordance with that requirement, the Board of Supervisors has approved and adopted a set of revisions to the 1998 Community Plan. Five sections of the 1998 Plan have been revised or added: Economic Development Plan, Growth Management and Capital Facilities Planning, Stormwater Management, Transportation and Public Utilities. In addition, the Implementation Strategies have been updated and the Land Use Map has been revised. All other sections of the 1998 Community Plan remain unchanged. Summary of Information Economic Development - This revised chapter reemphasizes the mission of the Economic Development department which is "To attract and retain to the County quality jobs and investment that diversify the economy, broaden the tax base, and provide long-term employment opportunities for area residents," The Department will do this by strengthening existing business retention efforts, by identifying commercial and industrial sites and adding them to our product inventory, by identifying public-private partnerships that enhance economic development in the County and by recognizing the inherent conflicts between commercial/industrial development and nearby residential development and regulating the appearance of new commercial and industrial development. Growth ManaQement and Capital Facilities Planninq - This chapter emphasizes the desire to direct development into designated areas that have or will have the capacity to accommodate future growth. The intent of this goal is to facilitate efficient public service delivery in those areas while preserving rural resources in the outlying areas of Roanoke County. The chapter outlines primary growth areas and future growth areas and addresses those areas of the County where growth should be discouraged. Stormwater Manaaement - This chapter emphasizes the following objectives: to minimize the impact of drainage on private property, to alleviate existing stormwater problems, to manage stormwater discharge, to protect water quality and to research potential stormwater management financing methods. 1 \~-I Public Utilities - This chapter discusses public water and public sewer issues and describes the responsibilities of the new Western Virginia Water Authority. Transportation - This chapter states that comprehensive and forward-looking solutions are needed to address growing populations and increasing numbers of commuters and vehicle miles traveled. The stated goals of this chapter are to: consider present and future transportation implications when making land use decisions, to make efficient use of Roanoke County's taxpayer money allocated for transportation projects, to guide the use of the Roanoke County transportation infrastructure system to control air pollution, traffic and livability problems, to play an influential role in shaping and implementing regional transportation decisions, to provide progressive and forward looking solutions and technology to users of Roanoke County's transportation network, and to expand and emphasize citizen participation and comments during the early stages of transportation planning. 2 P-I Draft ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (November 2,2004) Introduction Economic development is a dynamic public program in Roanoke County. This activity is defined as, "the process of creating wealth through the mobilization of human, financial, capital, physical, and natural resources to generate marketable goods and services." The economic development process is of critical importance to the continued high quality of life in Roanoke County and the ability of the County to provide a high level of public services to citizens. Roanoke County's economic development mission is: "To attract and retain to the County quality jobs and investment that diversify the economy, broaden the tax base, and provide long-term employment opportunities for area residents." Roanoke County established an economic development program in 1985 and implemented an economic development strategy to establish the initial goals and objectives for implementation. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors re-adopted an economic development strategy in 1987 and 1989, with business plans being adopted annually thereafter. The Economic Development 5- Year Business Plan FY 2001-2006 adopted in July of 2000 was intended to complement the Economic Development Strategy and the1985 Comprehensive Plan. The Business Plan focused on four economic opportunity areas into which economic activity would be promoted. The emphasis was to identify potential commercial and industrial sites that could be developed and marketed by the County as "product" for economic development opportunities, and then to attract new businesses to those sites. A series of public actions, including proposed capital improvements, rezonings and coordination with VDOT primary and secondary road planning were recommended to implement the Business Plan. The Plan sets forth details of implementation activities and impact measures for the primary program areas of marketing and business recruitment, product development business retention and expansion and community/workforce development. The economic development goals and objectives are generally described below. 1. To market the County's industrial/commercial property and attract compatible business and industry to the community, and to increase the commercial and industrial tax base and related employment opportunities. 2. To encourage the retention and growth of local enterprise by creating and maintaining a positive business climate countywide. Economic Development - Draft - 1 P-I 3. To create and maintain a marketable inventory of quality industrial/commercial real property sufficient to meet market demand. 4. To promote and encourage regional participation in economic development activities, programs and services. Issues and Opportunities · Competition among land uses for developable land: There is a limited amount of developable land in Roanoke County. Residential uses and tax-exempt activities are the major land uses competing with economic development for developable land. Potential commercial and industrial sites need to be identified, rezoned and reserved for future development. · Identify economic opportunity areas: The 1992 Economic Development Strategy delineated the 1-81 corridor, North County/Hollins Road, the Route 460 East Corridor, West County, Explore Park and the Southwest County/419 Corridor as economic opportunity areas. Since 1992, significant economic development activities have occurred in these areas. The following activities have occurred in the implementation ofthe Economic Development Strategy, and Business Plan: 1-81 Corridor - Coordinate with VDOT and Community Development to evaluate the impact on economic opportunity areas and ensure the preservation, creation and enhancement of marketable commercial/industrial property. Participate in interchange design and land use and coordinate any public policy changes necessary to encourage development in these areas. North County/Hollins Road - The Hollins Road area development included the expansion of a Country Inn & Suites, a renovation of a Days Inn and the planned construction of a new Fairfield Inn. Staff continues to monitor and evaluate the interchange realignment at exit # 146 for proposed 1-81 development opportunities. Route 460 East Corridor - The Valley Gateway Business Park and industrial shell building showed significant activity with the sale of 42 acres to Integrity Windows for a 200,000 s.f. manufacturing facility, employing 350 people, and a project investment of $32 million. The shell building was contracted by a developer who seeks to occupy the facility with a suitable industrial tenant. Commercial development was also active with the attraction of a Wal-Mart Super Center, and a Lowe's Home Improvement Center. Staff will continue to identify and market developable property in this area to include the remaining Valley Gateway property and the Jack Smith Industrial Park. West County - Phase I development of the County owned 456-acre Center for Research and Technology has been completed. Glenmary Drive has been reconstructed, and utility and road extensions along Corporate Circle have been Economic Development - Draft - 2 I~- ( implemented. Engineering design and related improvements to Phase II development have been also been completed and include a second extension of Corporate Circle, utility lines, the construction of a regional stonn water management basin, lighting installation, and landscaping enhancements. Additionally, Novozymes Biologicals, a manufacturer of enzymes for agricultural products was recruited to the CRT as the first tenant in the Center. Their initial investment was $12 million with the creation of 25 new jobs for a research and development and administration office. Their Phase II manufacturing facility is planned for construction in 2004. Southwest County/419 corridor - New investment/construction included several commercial enterprises such as the 419 West Restaurant, Carlo's Brazilian Restaurant, Ruby Tuesday's and Fink's Jewelers. Other commercial developments occurred along Brambleton Avenue with Gold's Gym, Freddie's Sunset Grill, Blue Magnolia Restaurant and a Martin Gennan Imports vehicle sales operation. Activity along Route 220 included a new Land Rover, Mercedes, Volvo and Jaguar dealership and the implementation of a 220 Clearbrook corridor overlay district. Maps of the Economic Opportunity Areas are included in this section. These maps include existing commercial and industrial areas and potential economic opportunity sites for future use. Economic Opportunity Areas are intended to provide for future economic development, confonn to future land use designations and be an overlay on the land use maps of the Community Plan. · Product development for sites and buildings: Roanoke County needs an inventory of commercial and industrial sites in order to successfully compete in economic development. The identification of potential sites is the initial step in the process of converting an undeveloped property into a "ready to go" commercial or industrial site. The Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County implemented a rezoning study of potential commercial and industrial sites in 1995-96 and rezoned 117 acres for such uses. While many of the county's commercial and industrial properties are now zoned appropriately, they are not considered to be "ready to go sites," due to the numerous development challenges that continue to exist on these sites. The Department of Economic Development remains actively involved in the Capital Improvement Plan process by recommending specific improvement projects for funding that will create ready to go sites for development. Many of these sites will not be developed until significant capital infrastructure improvements are undertaken by the County. Historically, Roanoke County has initiated the location of publicly owned industrial parks such as Valley TechPark (177 acres) and the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology (456 acres), and has participated as a partner in the development of Valley Pointe (52 acres in Phase I), Valley Gateway (l08 aces), the Jack Smith Industrial Park (68 acres), and the Vinton Business Center (99 acres). Roanoke County also participated with The Greater Roanoke Valley Economic Development - Draft - 3 \:)-\ Development Foundation to construct a 75,000 foot expandable shell building in Valley Gateway, and is participating with the development of Valley Pointe Phase II (180 acres). The County's role is to provide marketable commercial and industrial sites and buildings so that we can respond favorably and promptly to inquiries proposing expansions and relocations. · Targeting business and industry: The Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership markets the Roanoke Valley as a business location and serves as a point of contact for companies seeking to relocate to or expand within the Valley. The Partnership has targeted automotive and transportation related, wireless communications, printing, biosciences/life sciences, medical devices, large office and corporate headquarters. Roanoke County concurs with this list and adds large commercial projects and technology based companies that pay salaries and wages in excess of the median wage rate for the region. · Using quality measures to evaluate economic development opportunities: The series of community workshops held in the planning areas of the County confirmed that the quality of economic development is important to the citizens. If Roanoke County desires to continue to take advantage of its' premier location for retail, commercial and industrial growth which expands the tax base and creates new economic opportunity for it's citizens, then it must be accepted that land uses and zoning designations must logically change over time to accommodate this activity. It is however vitally important to consider the appearance of the proposed projects and the impacts on the local community when considering new projects in areas adjacent to existing residential areas. Economic considerations should not be the determining criteria for evaluating land use, rather it should be one of many factors considered as the County goes through its natural progression of economic growth. Roanoke County has a history of protecting the rights of its citizens and our natural resources that make this area a destination for families and businesses as evidenced by the following projects. Roanoke County pursued a design "charette" with the citizens residing adjacent to both the Vinton Business Center and the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. This process has resulted in a Master Plan that the County and Town recently qualified by hiring a marketing firm to review the economic feasibility of the various land uses proposed in the Master Plan. Retention of natural vegetation, site and building design criteria, open space preservation and the adoption of protective and restrictive covenants are some of the quality measures adopted in the Master Plan process which will not be compromised as development occurs. · Assisting economic development through its public private partnerships: Roanoke County has adopted a public-private partnership policy to assist businesses with expansion and relocation opportunities. The policy was revised and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2002, which expanded the flexibility of the program to allow for incentives to be offered for retail businesses that provide significant revenue for Roanoke County. This action signifies the value of retail business Economic Development - Draft - 4 P-I operations and their positive impact on the County. Funds are annually appropriated to an economic development fund and administered for projects in accordance with the policy, which gives staffthe ability to offer incentives to targeted businesses. The County will consider financing eligible public improvements and employee training costs as a partnership if there is a "payback" or return on investment from new taxes/fees generated by a commercial or industrial project. Typical partnerships involve extensions of water and sewer service and related utility connection fees. All projects are subject to the execution of a perfonnance agreement between the County and the private entity to insure that a proposed development meets its investment goals. Partnership agreements are audited by the County staff to determine if the projected taxes and fees are being generated by a partnership project. · Business Retention & Expansion: Roanoke County carries out an ongoing existing business visitation program to companies located within the County. These visits provide a confidential update of a company's products, markets, operations and growth potential. The goal is to retain and facilitate expanded investment and employment within Roanoke County. Existing businesses are eligible for public-private partnership assistance. The Economic Development staff also coordinates district roundtables, hosts a Business Partners TV show, and publishes a business newsletter. Coordination with other County offices and State and Federal agencies to address issues raised by existing businesses is also a function of this program. · Redevelopment Efforts: Roanoke County encourages redevelopment through a broad based community development approach that includes citizens, business and the County as partners. The County recognizes that redevelopment efforts should be primarily private sector driven, but is often approached with the involvement of both the public and private sectors. For example, Tanglewood Mall is in a state of decline due to high vacancy rates, and County staff is partnering with the mall management to offer assistance in attracting quality retailers as tenants. County Staff is also assisting the Town of Vinton with revitalization efforts for their downtown area, and continues to support the marketing and development of the Vinton Business Center. Staffwill also be participating in Vinton's comprehensive planning process in 2003. Redevelopment efforts for the 460 corridor in West Salem have been delayed due to VDOT's postponing of a significant road widening project in this area. Delays have occurred due to funding considerations, and staff is prepared to assist with this project once funding is restored, and the project is renewed. The Dixie Caverns interchange at Exit #132 off ofI-81 and the Hollins Exit #146 are also areas concentration for future development opportunities. Staff will continue to monitor and evaluate the land uses in these areas, and the corridor study to implement a work plan for future development/redevelopment initiatives. In Economic Development - Draft - 5 \:)~ I many County redevelopment efforts, public monies are used to leverage private funds for property improvement and development. County staff serves as a partner and a facilitator in these projects, assisting all parties with accomplishing their goals. · Assisting business startups. small business development and Workforce training: The Economic Development staff has many contacts in both the public and private sectors. The Commonwealth of Virginia, the Department of Business Assistance (DBA), the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), the New Century Venture Center, regional agencies (such as TAP), local colleges and universities and the regional Small Business Development Center (SBDC) are available to assist citizens seeking to start a business. County staff offers referrals to these resources, which contributes to the growth of new businesses in Roanoke County. Objectives A. Strengthen existing business retention efforts and assist companies with expansion opportunities within Roanoke County. B. Attract new industry to the County that will enhance and diversify the industrial base. C. Identify potential commercial and industrial sites and pursue opportunities to add these properties to the "product" inventory of the County. D. Increase public awareness of business activities and their role in the economic base of Roanoke County. E. Identify areas for community development projects that will allow the citizens, businesses and County to jointly improve a geographic area. F. Identify potential public-private partnerships that will enhance economic development in Roanoke County. G. Evaluate and regulate the appearance of new commercial and industrial development, especially those developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Implementation Strategies 1. Implement the economic development program areas described in the Economic Development Business Plan including Business Retention and Expansion, Business Attraction, Product Development and Regional Cooperation. (Obj. A, B, C, D, E, F,) Economic Development - Draft - 6 p- 2. Implement all three development phases of the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. (Obj. B, C, F) 3. Identify sites and opportunities for future business park development. (Obj. C, E) 4. Continue to monitor the 1-81 Widening Project and the 1-73 development process for economic opportunities. (Obj. C, E) 5. Redevelop the West Main Street (Route 460) corridor. (Obj. A, D, E, F) 6. Continue the land acquisition program to identify, reserve and rezone Economic Opportunity Areas for future development needs. (Obj. C) 7. Development ofregional publicly owned business parks. (Obj. A, B, C, D, F) 8. Develop design guidelines for new commercial retail developments including "big box" retail structures, traditional shopping centers and the newer "life style"centers. Develop design guidelines for new industrial projects on a case-by- case basis taking into consideration the location of existing residential developments and valuable natural resources such as the Blue Ridge Parkway viewshed. The appropriateness of the design and the extent to which the developer is sensitive to the above mentioned items will be used as criteria when considering the use of financial incentives to spur development. The following Economic Opportunity Area maps include existing commercial and industrial areas and potential economic opportunity sites for future use. The blue areas identified on these maps as "Other" are areas that have not been specifically identified at this time as future commercial or industrial areas. They are areas where, based upon their location, access or topography, some potential for future economic opportunity exists. Economic Development - Draft - 7 p-\ DRAFT (February 15, 2005) GROWTH MANAGEMENT & CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING GOAL: To protect, preserve, enhance and effectively and efficiently utilize Roanoke County resources by: · Guiding future growth and development to areas where land uses, facilities and infrastructure exist and are planned · Promoting compact and contiguous development and infill development · Focusing County infrastructure funding on these current and designated future development areas · Protecting and enhancing the following resources: historic, cultural, agricultural, forestry, water, recreational and scenic. INTRODUCTION The growth management goal is to direct development into designated areas that have or will have the capacity to accommodate future growth. This goal will facilitate efficient service delivery in those areas while preserving rural resources in outlying areas. To further this goal, the County land use map should delineate three areas of growth potential: 1) the primary growth areas of the County that are currently served by public water and sewer and where the majority of new growth should be encouraged; 2) the "future growth" areas directly adjacent to the primary growth area that should accommodate outward growth over a 5-year period of time and where the extension of public water and sewer can relatively efficiently be accomplished; 3) the rural areas where growth should be discouraged and public water and sewer services should not be extended. It must be recognized that the future growth areas should be periodically reviewed and updated. While it is the goal of Roanoke County to focus new development in those areas that currently have existing infrastructure and services it is recognized that some level of outward growth is necessary. To accommodate this outward growth in a manner that does not diminish the quality of life of current residents of these areas, the timing of new developments must be carefully orchestrated to coincide with the construction of public facilities and services to meet the needs of current and future citizens. Draft - Growth Management - Page 1 -p- { The growth management goal is clearly intended to discourage development in the rural areas of Roanoke County and recognizes that incompatible development in these areas of the County is costly both in terms of service delivery and the irreversible damage to critical resources. In order to implement the growth management goals it should be recognized that the provision of adequate public infrastructure and services to those areas designated to receive growth is a critical component. The growth management goals of Roanoke County can only be achieved if needed capital facilities improvements are timed and coordinated to accommodate future growth. Conversely, it must be recognized that the inefficiencies of providing these same public services to dispersed rural populations is not in the overall public interest. The provision of public facilities and services requires significant public funding for construction, operation and long-term maintenance. The County should ensure that the highest benefit is provided to County citizens in exchange for this cost. In order to achieve the stated growth management goals, future emphasis should be placed on providing public service delivery to those designated growth areas where future development should be directed. To accomplish this, public facilities and services should be provided at a much higher level in these growth areas than in the non-growth or rural areas. LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GROWTH AREAS Primary growth areas - those areas currently served by public water and sewer and where the majority of new growth should be encouraged - include the following land use designations: Principal Industrial, Core, Transition, Development and Neighborhood Conservation. Future growth areas - those areas adjacent to primary growth areas where outward growth over the next 5 years should be accommodated - include the following land use designations: Development and to a limited extent Village Center. These growth areas must be attractive places to live and work. Development in these areas should be more efficient and at higher densities than in the past in order to help prevent sprawl development and keep suburban development patterns from encroaching into rural areas. The continuation of low-density suburban areas should not be encouraged in designated growth areas. Design strategies should be developed to ensure that these growth areas are harmonious with surrounding areas but may include different uses and different densities than those surrounding Draft - Growth Management - Page 2 ?'~wl areas. Careful design of these growth areas should result in development that is beneficial to the community. 1. The majority of new residential growth in the County should be in designated primary and future growth areas. 2. Development within the growth areas should have public water and sewer. 3. Rezoning of property within these designated primary and future growth areas should consider and address the impacts on public facilities and services that would result from the rezoning. 4. The residential growth areas should be developed at densities that allow efficient use of the land. Gross densities should be increased. 5. Design of residential growth areas should reflect the following principles: a. Transportation - Neighborhood streets (both public and private) should be of a scale that complements the area, should incorporate landscaping and should encourage walking and biking. Private streets, and public streets in accordance with VDOT guidelines, should be designed to calm traffic. Sidewalks and paths should be provided for pedestrians. b. Parks and Open Space - To compensate for increased residential densities parks and open space should be incorporated into the design. Environmental resources such as floodplains, slopes and forested areas should be protected. 6. Steep slopes - New development, infill development and redevelopment on slopes between 10% and 33% should be sensitive to existing grades and where possible should promote architectural design elements that work with, rather than against, these grades. Develop design guidelines and regulations for development on steep slopes. These should include provisions for "slope maintenance bonds", and should determine a slope above which development should not be allowed. The precise slope percentage should be determined after more research and analysis is conducted but should be specified in the future zoning ordinance amendment. 7. Infill development - new development on vacant lots within urbanizedlsuburbanized areas - should be encouraged. Design guidelines should be developed to: Draft - Growth Management - Page 3 P-J a. allow flexibility in housing location, type and density; b. provide flexibility in lot size, configuration, and vehicle access to facilitate infill development; c. provide clear development standards that promote compatibility between new and existing development; d. encourage development of needed housing in close proximity to employment and services; e. promote neighborhood preservation and enhancement through redevelopment of underutilized properties; f. encourage mixed use development to complete neighborhoods and provide housing close to jobs and commerce; A policy that considers encouraging infill development should address accessory dwellings, flag lots, shared driveway policies, frontage requirements, setbacks and parking requirements. 8. Public improvements, needed to support and encourage infill development, should be scheduled in a timely fashion in order to be incorporated into new developments. 9. Neighborhood Commercial Centers - Properties suitable for low to moderate intensity retail sales and services - along collector and arterial roads - should be inventoried and rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. Small, neighborhood commercial areas should be developed to enhance the residential development and should connect to the residential area. Mixed uses - shops, offices, civic and cultural spaces - should be encouraged. Densities should be increased by encouraging the mix of residential uses, office uses and retail uses. The current Neighborhood Commercial District standards should be modified as follows: a) Total District Size: increase from current maximum of 3 acres b) Permitted Uses: expand commercial uses allowed (retail) and consider including limited residential c) Strengthen use and design standards including site development, lighting, landscaping, signage and maximum square footage requirements d) Revise minimum parking requirements and establish maximum parking requirements in the District; revise shared parking limitations e) Encourage public uses within this District such as public branch libraries, police sub-stations, etc. Draft - Growth Management - Page 4 \--..:.;- , In addition, the Community Plan should address the issue of allowing higher-density residential in the immediate neighborhoods surrounding these identified Neighborhood Commercial Districts. 10.Commercial development should encourage vehicular and pedestrian connections to nearby neighborhoods and should avoid strip, linear designs. 11. Revise the Cluster Development ordinance. Address the following sections: a.to Street and Access Requirements including: 1) length of private streets; 2) number of dwelling units allowed on any single private street; and 3) private street design requirements. b.g. Conservation Areas, Primary and Secondary: review and clarifydefinitions including section relating to slope. c.n. Open Space Requirements and the relationship to lots and property lines. 12. In compliance with the ozone Early Action Plan, Roanoke County should adopt a 40% tree canopy coverage (calculated at ultimate growth of trees) as a target for all new development. Encourage developers to site structures and parking lots around stands of mature trees and where needed, require the replacement of trees. Recognize the important role trees lay in air quality, aesthetics and cooling. 13. Develop corridor studies for future commercial areas including Route 220 South, Route 221 and Route 460 west. LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RURAL AREAS Rural growth areas - those areas where growth should be discouraged - include the following land use designations: Rural Village, Rural Preserve, Conservation and to some extent Village Center. Roanoke County should make a commitment to preserve its rural areas. Without this, we will see the continued fragmentation of large parcels of land and the conversion to residential development. This pattern results in a declining agricultural economy, the loss of plant and wildlife habitats, and the loss of natural resources and the rural character of much of Roanoke County. The subdivision of rural lands for single-family residences has serious implications for resource conservation and the preservation of the rural character. Draft - Growth Management - Page 5 p-\ The outlying more rural areas of Roanoke County are currently zoned to allow minimum lot sizes of 1-3 acres. These lot sizes are not conducive or sufficient for viable agricultural, forestry or conservation land uses. The only thing these small lot sizes do is encourage the steady spread of a basically suburban land pattern and character in historically rural areas. The consequence is the irreversible loss of rural lands and the loss of natural, scenic and historic landscapes. In addition, rural residential land development requires increased delivery of public services. To be consistent with the growth management goals of Roanoke County, the policies that allow the continued development and fragmentation of rural lands should be changed. It should be recognized that the most effective tools for protecting rural lands are those that discourage development from occurring in the first place and provide permanent protection of the land. Any land use regulations that allow residential development in the rural areas, even at much less density, will reduce fragmentation and density impacts but not eliminate them. Having said that, the goal is not to eliminate all residential development in the rural areas of Roanoke County but to recognize the impacts this development pattern has and to address the location, character and extent of this development in order to minimize the harmful impacts. The following policies are recommended: 1. Encourage land protection and conservation in rural areas. Recognize that tools such as conservation easements are the most cost-effective solution to protecting rural lands. Rather than develop a conservation easement program (or purchase of de':elopment rights program) of its own, the County should adequately fund the '.\'estern Virginia Land Trust ('.\'VL T) to run such a program 'f:ithin the County. The \l\"/L T has staff and expertise to conduct such a program and, with sufficient funding, should be able to do so much more efficiently than the County. 2. Decrease residential density in rural areas. Revise the AR, AG-1 and AG-3 zoning district site development regulations to address the issue of lot averaging and the concerns of land fragmentation and density related impacts. 3. Permit and or require clustering of rural residential development for subdivisions of 5 lots or greater. This should encourage a more efficient land development pattern and retain all the development potential that would be available under a conventional development standard. The benefits of this program to the landowner are reduced Draft - Growth Management - Page 6 ?-I development costs, more marketable lots, and the preservation of substantial portions of land. Citizens would gain the benefits of permanent preservation of large tracts of land that could be used for agricultural or forestry uses, recreational uses and the preservation of water, natural or scenic resources. Many issues need to be considered in developing standards for a rural cluster program. The protection of the natural environment should be ensured. A minimum size of the preservation parcel should be determined. The standards should ensure that a minimum amount of land is used for residential development. With that though, and in keeping with the growth management goals of Roanoke County, the use of rural cluster developments should not be a justification to extend public water and sewer to these rural areas. In order for this program to work, alternatives for wastewater treatment and water supply should be considered that would allow reduced lot sizes for the residential parcels and, thereby, allowing significant portions of land to be available as preservation parcels. 4. Proactively manage the extension of water and sewer services. Recognize that the availability of public water and sewer, among other things, greatly influences the development and density of land. Sewer pump stations have made the extension of public sewer feasible to areas of the County where it would not otherwise be. Staff has mapped recommended "future growth" areas, contiguous to the current utility services boundary, that should accommodate growth over the next 5 year period of time. Within this future growth area Section 15.2-2232 public review will not be required for the extension of water and sewer services. Outside and beyond these future growth areas, staff is recommending that no new utility lines be extended, no new pump stations be built and no new community well systems be allowed without the benefit of a Section 15.2-2232 public review. 5. Consider adopting a set of design guidelines and recommendations for future improvements to rural roads. Also, consider adopting the Virginia Department of Transportation Rural Rustic Roads Program. This program for unpaved roads is designed to pave rural roads in a more environmentally friendly and less costly manner. This program uses existing road widths for road improvements, rather than increasing road widths and is designed for areas with limited growth. 6. Consider minimum private road development standards for very large lot rural residential development. Shared driveways, flag lots or lots with no frontage should also be considered to minimize the amount of road frontage required and the visual impact of residential development from the rural roads. These standards should apply to five or fewer lots. Draft - Growth Management - Page 7 P-I 7. Protect steep slopes and ridgelines. Develop design guidelines and regulations for development on steep slopes. These should include provisions for "slope maintenance bonds", and should determine a slope above which development should not be allowed. The precise slope percentage should be determined after more research and analysis is conducted but should be specified in the future zoning ordinance amendment. 8. Develop and implement a Mountain Zoning District. This proposed district should prohibit multi-family residential, commercial and industrial development within the district and provide limitations on clearing, grading, building height and distance from ridgeline for all other development. Specifics of this ordinance should be researched and analyzed after the adoption of the Community Plan. 9. Develop design standards for Rural Village Centers. Review the areas currently designated as Village Centers and, with community input, determine which should stay on the list, which should be removed and if new areas should be added. There may be areas that are currently designated Rural Village Centers that, given growth patterns, may be better suited as Development and rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. In these cases, consideration should be given to the extension of public water and sewer to these areas. Rural Village Centers are rural locations where you would find small country stores, small family restaurants, schools, post offices and churches - those establishments that bring a sense of community to the surrounding countryside. These areas are not intended to be major employment centers for urbanlsuburban residents but rather to provide essential goods and services to the nearby rural residential community. These areas are often the rural crossroads. Design standards should consider the following: prohibit the creation of strip development along rural roads; appropriate scale of buildings; the re-use and renovation of existing buildings should be encouraged. Overall, rural design standards should be implemented not suburban design standards. It should be recognized that these rural village areas do not require the same signage, access, parking and lighting standards that more suburban and urban areas do. 10. Develop an ordinance to prohibit the clear-cutting of trees in certain zoning districts, under certain circumstances. Attention should be given to the provisions of State Code dealing with silviculture activities. Draft - Growth Management - Page 8 P-I Draft - PUBLIC UTILITIES (November 2,2004) Introduction Public utilities available in Roanoke County include water supply and production, water distribution, sanitary sewer collection, solid waste management, electrical service, telephone service, natural gas distribution and cable television. Public water production and distribution, and sanitary sewer services that are provided by the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVW A). Transfer of solid waste to the regional landfill and the management of that landfill is the responsibility of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. This section of the Community Plan discusses two public utility services - water and sewer, which individually and collectively, greatly influence growth in Roanoke County. The provision of these services to a previously unserved area will encourage growth and development in that community. As we learned over the last 10 years, the lack of water and sewer services to an area does not necessarily mean that community will not experience growth. Past history has shown that growth may still occur, but it will likely be at lower densities. As development pressures increase, the communities may experience the failure of wells and on-site septic tank/drainfield systems. As a community Roanoke County must recognize the influence that public water and sewer services and internal policies concerning fees, fee rebates and cost sharing have on growth management. The policies of the WVW A must be consistent with County policies concerning issues of land use, economic development, schools and the provision of public services such as police, fire and rescue. The WVW A is charged with providing public water and sewer service to the citizens of Roanoke County and Roanoke City. This Authority operates as an enterprise fund and receives no direct general fund tax dollars. As a result, the Authority is funded solely from the collection of water and sewer fees from the citizens of Roanoke County and Roanoke City. The WVW A is responsible for providing and maintaining a safe drinking water supply. The predominant source of this water for Roanoke County is the Spring Hollow Reservoir, which when full, holds 3.2 billion gallons of water. The reservoir can meet Roanoke County's water needs past the year 2040. Distribution of water from the Spring Hollow Reservoir is provided via two transmission lines. The 30-inch diameter South Transmission Line begins at the Spring Hollow water treatment facility, tenninates along U. S. Route 220 in the Clearbrook Community and serves major areas of southwestern Roanoke County between these two points. In addition, portions of southwest Roanoke City are served by the South Transmission Line. The north loop begins at Route 11/460 near Cherokee Hills and proceeds to Route 311, along Loch Haven Road to the Plantation Road area and includes a parallel line from Dixie Caverns to the Fort Lewis area. Major areas served by the North Transmission Line include the 1-81 corridor between Dixie Caverns and Plantation Road. Also served are portions of northeast Roanoke City. Draft - Utilities - Page 1 p- , Chapter 4: Community Facilities The WVW A continues to have limited dependence on ground water wells. Currently, approximately 22 wells located in Roanoke County supply drinking water. More than forty wells have been taken off-line since the construction of the Spring Hollow Reservoir. In addition, the WVW A has the capability of purchasing approximately 0.2 million gallons per day from the City of Salem. The WVW A is responsible for maintaining the wastewater collection system, including sewage pump stations for the wastewater conveyance system located in Roanoke County. Roanoke County participates in the regional wastewater treatment plant that is owned and operated by the WVWA. Roanoke County, Botetourt County, the Town of Vinton and the Cities of Salem and Roanoke are participating in an upgrade of the regional wastewater treatment plant. The WVW A has completed a Capital Improvement Plan through the year 2006. This Plan includes the most critical needs in the areas of water and sewer service that can reasonably be funded and constructed within the 2001-2006 timeframe. The WVWA develops a new Capital Improvement Plan every five years. Draft - Utilities - Page 2 t~-( Draft - Stormwater Management (November 2,2004) Introduction Stormwater management is the planned control of surface water runoff that results from rainfall. The goal of stormwater management is to prevent flooding and pollution. All development creates an impact to the overland flow of rain water. Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between development and water quality degradation/flood volume. This element of the Community Plan provides direction for ensuring that development impacts are mitigated by stormwater management facilities and water quality best management practices. A number of regulatory and safety factors influence stormwater management in Roanoke County. These include local, state, and federal regulations such as the Roanoke County Stormwater Ordinance, the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, and the County's Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS-4 Permit # V AR-040022. Following are the stormwater goals of Roanoke County. (1) Prioritizing drainage basins which need improvement through stream inventories and watershed impact assessment. (2) Addressing pollutant load and flood reduction techniques. (3) Inventorying stormwater management facilities and their condition through the storm sewer system mapping program. (4) Recommending capital improvement projects to improve stormwater quality. The primary issues of concern for the stormwater management section of the Roanoke County Community Plan are to (1) Minimize the impact of drainage on private property, (2) Alleviate existing stormwater problems, (3) Manage stormwater discharge control, (4) protect water and stream quality, and (5) Research potential stormwater management financing methods. The objectives and implementation strategies of this section direct Roanoke County to monitor maintenance of existing stormwater facilities and will also work towards meeting or exceeding the compliance requirements of the Federal Government's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Objectives and implementation strategies are presented to address the five primary issues of the Roanoke County Community Plan. Performance standards for stormwater discharge will be applied to new development to prevent downstream degradation. These standards will be imposed through regulations, but alternative methods such as low impact development methods or developer contributions to public facilities may be provided, where feasible. Detailed drainage system studies are proposed to identify feasible off-site discharge control opportunities and to identify other drainage conditions which warrant County action. More general policies for preserving water quality include the protection of natural drainage corridors and the incorporation of water quality consideration into various aspects of stormwater management. Implementing riparian buffer regulations to filter run-off, reducing stream temperatures, providing open space Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 1 1 p- f and wildlife habitat and preventing development of parking lots and structures within close proximity of a stream corridors are all means of water protection. Many drainage issues involve conditions that raise questions concerning the division of public and private responsibility. Polices concerning existing conditions emphasize a thorough study to identify conditions which may warrant County action either to correct problems on County property or to assume a new level of responsibility for those that are now considered private property. The creation of a framework for informed decisions concerning the expansion of the County role is proposed. The County has also determined that regional stormwater management facilities can provide a viable alternative to individual on-site controls and will work to include regional facilities as an important component of the countywide stormwater management program. Stormwater management regulations should be revised where applicable, so that land development activities can be reviewed and developed from a watershed-wide perspective. Until such time, regional or community facilities should be approved on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration all state and federal stormwater management compliance regulations. . In summary, the Stormwater Management Policy presented in this section emphasizes prevention of future problems and the development of information and procedures necessary for a proper evaluation of stormwater management practices. Consistent with the nature of the Community Plan, the policy is general and is intended to be a guide for more specific implementation actions. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 2 2 P-I Issue #1 Drainage on Private Property Objectives · Reduce future property damage, nuisance flooding and requests for public assistance. · Protect water quality and reduce the potential for flooding and erosion damage by preventing encroachment into natural watercourse areas. · Continue storm sewer drainage system studies to identify existing and future flooding and erosion damage. · Re-evaluate current County policy for stormwater basin inspections and maintenance acceptance. Implementation Strate2ies · Evaluate the existing floodplain regulations to determine if amendments are needed to reduce the exposure of new structures to flooding. · Preserve the natural character of drainage ways. · Apply appropriate standards for the alteration of private drainage facilities. · Work to upgrade the County's floodplain mapping to provide more accurate data on future flooding evaluations. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 3 3 1)--1 Issue #2 Existing Stormwater Problems Objectives The current understanding of existing stormwater problems indicates a level of severity which demands substantial immediate action by the County. The current system of responsibility provides remedies either by the affected party or through legal measures to obtain relief from a party causing the problem. Nevertheless additional requests for County assistance can be expected, and will require an expanded County effort. Any actions to expand County responsibilities for the correction of existing stormwater problems should be supported by a thorough analysis of needs, proper solutions, and appropriate levels ofpublic and private responsibility. These conclusions support the following objectives for policies related to existing stormwater problems: · To provide a high level of performance for drainage facilities on County property and for facilities necessary to manage the off-site effects of drainage from County property . · To establish the financial capacity, information base and decision criteria necessary for the County to assume responsibility of private drainage problems when conditions warrant such intervention. · To recognize the validity of private responsibility for a large portion of the drainage system and to maintain a consistent, understandable, and supportive posture regarding private responsibilities. · To increase coordination with V-DOT in urban Bio-infrastructure installation and maintenance. · To develop a system for the identification, correction and financing of a comprehensive storm sewer illicit discharge connections program. Implementation Stratee:ies The implementation strategies recommended below are intended to retain aspects of current practices which are working well, to adjust certain policies to minimize conflict over responsibilities, and to initiate expansion of County responsibilities for existing drainage systems when such expansion serves the public interest. · Continue studies necessary to identify deficient drainage structures and conditions on County property, evaluate the effect of these conditions both on and off County property using watershed impact analysis, identify appropriate corrective measures, and establish priorities for implementation. The purpose of this policy may be accomplished as a part of the drainage basin studies recommended in other elements of the overall Storm water Management Program as outlined in the current stormwater maintenance program and the County's Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS-4 Permit # V AR-040022. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 4 4 I~-( . Initiate studies necessary to identify feasible drainage projects on private property, establish the justification for County assumption of responsibility for these projects, and establish priorities for implementation. This policy may also be accomplished as part of a comprehensive drainage basin study. · Maintain annual capital budgeting for drainage improvements. Identify feasible projects which require scheduled maintenance and an annual budget. As the results of storm sewer system drainage studies identify additional projects, the budget level may be increased accordingly. Development of a drainage utility approach to funding shall be considered. Any program of sufficient magnitude to justify the creation of a drainage utility may require bond funding to support major capital costs in the early stages. . Use guidelines which recognize need, equity, and public purpose in determining the appropriateness of the County assuming responsibility for privately owned drainage facilities. · Develop an information/education program to increase citizen awareness of private drainage responsibilities and potential stormwater effects. · Develop an ordinance prohibiting illegal discharges into the storm drain system. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 5 5 ,~-. J Issue #3 Stormwater Discharge Control Obiectives · Manage the stonnwater effects of new development. · Manage the stonnwater effects of re-development. · Manage stonnwater quantity. · Manage stonnwater and stream quality. · Correct and fund existing drainage deficiencies. · To prevent significant increases in the potential for property damage, nuisances, or other negative impacts of stonnwater. · To equitably allocate the costs of controlling increases in stonnwater discharge to properties which are the sources of the increase. 1m plementation Strate!!Ïes · Controlling, through regulation or ordinance, stonnwater discharge from new development in pre and post construction. · To apply discharge control methods (stonnwater best management practices) which are economically, aesthetically, and environmentally acceptable, as well as effective in stonnwater management. · Develop a system for stormwater discharge control which emphasizes regional/community facilities. In addition, appropriate levels of on-site control for new development should be applied to a particular site where immediate downstream degradation or flooding issues exist. · Incorporate in site plan review, considerations for potential pre and post construction stormwater impact. · Develop ordinance and regulation to prohibit illegal and illicit stonnwater connections. This general policy related to discharge is intended to combine the strengths of on-site and off-site approaches, while minimizing the weakness of either approach. Accomplishment may require studies to create a fee in lieu of on- site facilities when plans have been approved for better off-site improvements. These improvements may include strategically located improvements. Design criteria for the discharge control system will be subject to further detailed consideration, but the following are appropriate: 1. Control the peak flow for the two and twenty-five year storm events 2. No increase in peak discharge after development 3. Stormwater Best Management Practices that enhance water quality 4. Provisions for future maintenance Draft - Storm water Management - Page 6 6 5. Authority and standards for the County to either require on-site performance, to accept alternative methods, or require fees in lieu of performance 6. A fee system based on the average cost of site control . Continue storm sewer drainage system studies to identify feasible regional facilities and other facility improvements that may be constructed as alternatives to on-site discharge control. The ongoing program of the storm sewer drainage system study will be necessary to establish the location and feasibility of regional facilities as part of the discharge control system. . The storm sewer drainage system studies should also identify actions which can be taken to expand the capacity of existing drainage systems to accommodate increased flow. Structural modifications and channel improvements may be the preferred management approach in some situations. · Continue to prioritize and evaluate watershed and urban bio-infrastructure health through the stream inventory and storm sewer system mapping programs. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 7 1~-1 7 I':) -- I Issue #4 Water Quality Obiectives · To sustain a stormwater and stream water quality program which meets federal stormwater discharge permit requirements, state water quality standards and local needs. · To preserve the natural character, ecological processing functions and biological integrity of drainage ways. · To incorporate water quality considerations into County actions related to public facilities and development regulations. Implementation Strateeies · Evaluate the County's stormwater and stream quality policies to meet federal stormwater discharge permit requirement, state water quality standards and to address local needs. Components of the County's plans should include discharge controls on new development, drainage basin and regional basin studies, illegal discharge identification and control, retrofit projects, water quality monitoring, and public education and participation programs. · Preserve the natural character of drainage ways by greenway acquisition, flood prone area regulation, drainage corridor protection, public design and construction, and the application of other public resources that may be identified in the future. The intent of this policy is to apply the various powers and resources of the County to the preservation of natural features which prevent pollutants from entering streams and reduce potential economic cost due to flooding, stream erosion and urban Bio-infrastructure degradation. · Incorporate water quality management practices into discharge control regulations and County design, construction and maintenance practices. Water quality and receiving water impacts will be considered during the design, construction, and maintenance of drainage facilities on County properties. Water quality will be fully considered as one of the factors which may justify assumption by the County of responsibility for the maintenance of drainage systems, including existing facilities on property which is currently privately owned. · Encourage where applicable, Low Impact Development Standards (LID's) to help alleviate stormwater quality or quantity issues within the county. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 8 8 p-( Issue #5 Stormwater Management Financing Objective · To develop an equitable system of stormwater financing based on relative contributions to the stormwater problem based on impervious surface assessment, water quality impact and watershed impact mitigation. Implementation Strate2ies · Develop a system for financing the public costs of controlling stormwater discharge from new development. A development fee system and/or stormwater utility district confined to basins with regional controls may provide financing for public facilities to be used instead of on-site controls. · Use general County revenues to finance the correction of drainage deficiencies affecting existing development until annual costs reach a level that justifies a drainage utility approach to financing. The storm sewer drainage system studies may identify additional needs and could lead to a substantially expanded County role in drainage facility construction and maintenance. If such an expansion should occur, the creation of a drainage utility approach to annual financing may be feasible. A drainage utility may be justified if widespread needs and long-term annual funding requirements are identified. Drainage utility fees may be charged to each property in the County based on the amount of uncontrolled runoff from the property as calculated by impervious area. · Identify target areas for future stormwater management facilities. · Investigate the feasibility of a regional stormwater management authority. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 9 9 p --( N ~- 2004 Community Plan County of Roanoke, Virginia f!mi/1 ~A Transportation element 1 Introduction Roanoke County has become a vital employment, retail, residential, and entertainment center for Southwest Virginia. Along with this growth and expansion, the County is experiencing the consequent transportation dilemmas that much of the nation is undergoing. In order to remedy the problems, one must closely examine travel characteristics, statistics, and trends to gain insight into the quandary. The population of the United States increased 33% from 1970 to 1998, while the workforce increased 66% over that same period. That means that about 55 million more people are commuting daily to work and the majority of those, some 88%, travel in an automobile. That means over 48 million more commuters by automobile on the road every day. The incredible magnitude of the problem becomes clear when one examines the data and realizes that the amount of vehicle miles traveled is almost doubling (increased 72% from 1980 to 1998) while the amount of road mileagelcapacity is holding steady as new roads are not being funded and built (total U.S. roadway lane-miles increased by only 3.6% during the same time period) (All statistics from Bureau of Transportation Statistics). Comprehensive and forward-looking solutions are necessary to address these problems and to meet the transportation needs of Roanoke County residents, visitors, and businesses. The Transportation element of the Community Plan provides a policy and program framework for these solutions. Transportation projects and plans developed and implemented within Roanoke County are guided by this framework. By achieving the goals set forth in this Plan, Roanoke County will provide accessible, attractive, economically viable and Draft Transportation - 1 \~/ I environmentally sound transportation options that meet the needs of residents, employers, employees, and visitors for safe, convenient, and efficient travel. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Commonwealth of Virginia owns, constructs, and maintains all of the public roads in the County. However, the County does have considerable input and say into what transportation projects are supported and funded within the County; and a close working relationship is and will be maintained with VDOT on County transportation issues. Roanoke County will also continue to participate in the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization to continue comprehensive transportation planning and to promote and provide additional opportunities for effective citizen input in concert with neighboring jurisdictions. Utilizing this Transportation element of the Community Plan and working in coordination with adjoining localities and the aforementioned entities will enable the County of Roanoke to achieve the goals laid out herein. It should be noted that this element of the Community Plan is a policy document rather than a transportation proposal; no specific projects or changes in traffic planning are mandated. II Transportation Components of Community Plan A. Goal: To consider present and future transportation implications when making land use decisions. i. Objective: To encourage growth where adequate roads and other transportation systems exist; to plan, design, and construct transportation infrastructure in areas where development is desired. a. Strategy: Growth Management Measures -- Transportation is one of the keys that unlock the door to irresponsible growth. Without the emergence of transportation, sprawl and suburban development would not exist. Additional transportation infrastructure, if not planned and placed in a reasonable context, leads to a furtherance of ad-hoc sprawl. The Draft Transportation - 2 1~- \ question arises, if transportation is a key factor in the creation and growth of sprawl, how is it a growth management tool? Every metropolitan area in the nation is shaped by the way its public infrastructure is financed and by the timing and geographical sequencing by which that public infrastructure is built. Generally, infrastructure can be financed by developers or by taxpayers; it can be targeted geographically according to a specific desired sequence; or it can be allowed to be constructed anywhere within the area. By design or by accident, these policies help to determine the geographical pattern of growth within a regIOn. Therefore, a growth management policy is simply an attempt to deliberately use public land acquisitions, land use regulations, and infrastructure investments to contain, influence, or direct growth to specific geographical locations to meet the needs of the locality. While Roanoke County may not be experiencing the population explosion that other areas are, it is imperative that the County encourage development in designated growth areas in order to support efficient expansion of infrastructure and services, including transportation facilities. Similarly, the County should attempt to negate taxing the existing transportation infrastructure with over-development by ensuring that if the existing roadway cannot handle the expected trips generated by a proposed development, then accommodations would be made by the developer or the taxpayers to safely and efficiently carry the expected traffic levels. One such eontainmentlgrovAh management tool the County can consider implementing is an ,\deq\::late Public Facilities Ordinance (:\PFO). (Currently, under the Commomrcalth øfVirgi1"lia law, a foeal gfJ',lemment emî11øt ade¡Jt and impl:cment an ..1PFO. ..1t the time øfthe ~Friting of this Cemmunit)' Plan, there is much debafe and diseblssien eeeurring with Virginia lawmakers en this topic. County staff ~l?iU eentÙme Ie meniter the pt'egress ef said preposal and defermine if this strafe?;)' is tlfJfJlieahl:c kJ the Ceunt)' and he,F it sheuld best be implemented. Other types of re':enue enhmwement t'Cchniques, sueh as eash proffèrs, ifnpact fees and ¡mhlic/prhwte part'nerships will als8 be researched, me1"litercd and ev¡:ÛNefed by CONnt)' staff) ,^.dequate Public Facilities Ordinances help local governments avoid the negative impacts of rapid gro':Ah, such as insufficient sewer capacity and traffic congestion. The main objective of :\PFOs is to ensure that ne,:" development has adequate urban services. They serve to give loeal governments more control over the timing and loeation of ne'1I development and pace the construction of public facilities to keep up '.'lÌth the demands of new residential development. ')/hile an ,^.PFO elm direct gro'.'lth in areas that can proyide the necessary infrastructure Draft Transportation - 3 Emptlasis to provide mobility of traffic with limited access to land ~_.., for de'¡elopment, it can also curb grovlth in areas intended to remain rural. Many localities already have some standards even though they have not formally adopted an APFO. In principle, land use planniFlg, zoniFlg, and public facility plans should prevent development in areas that lack adequate levels of urban services. In practice, hovlever, '^1PFOs eFlcourage better monitoring of urban service levels, and make clear the levels of service that must be available bef{)fe development happens. The key aspect of APFOs is that local governments can withhold or delay appro'18:1 of developments in areas where adequate urban services are unavailable. As the Roanoke Valley continues to grow, the demands of an increasing population create potential threats to the County's quality oflife: threats such as eroding livability, declining mobility, and rising transportation costs. Without careful planning designed to manage this new growth and implementation of some of the aforementioned strategies, these threats could become reality . b. Strategy: Balance Land Use Objectives with Street Functional Capabilities -- Transportation road networks provide two divergent objectives (see Figure T-I). One objective is to provide efficient mobility from one location to another, usually accomplished at the sacrifice of limiting access to adjacent land (e.g., limited access highway/freeway). The other objective is to provide access to each parcel of land, usually at the sacrifice of rapid, efficient movement from location to location (e.g., local or subdivision road). In between these two extremes of the transportation network spectrum, you will find many of the roadways that are located in Roanoke County. Functional Street Classification Emphasis to provide access to land and with limited mobility Figure T-l: Objectives/Emphasis of Functional Street Classifications Draft Transportation - 4 \~-I It is important to first establish and then assign a functional street classification to each roadway within the County; and then to institute a policy framework for balancing our land use objectives with the functional street classifications. The idea behind this practice is to ensure that inadequate roads, or roads that were never intended to handle large traffic volumes, are not overtaxed. It is also the intent of County staff to ensure that the access requirements of each land use designation are properly addressed by the roads in the respective classifications. Rather than "reinventing the wheel", the County will utilize the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) functional street classifications. This is done for unifonnity and clarity since the County is already using VDOT street classification in its Pavement Management System (mentioned in this element of the Community Plan). VDOT's functional classifications are based on mobility and accessibility. The streets and highways are grouped into classes according to the character of service they are intended to provide. The VDOT system parallels the federal classification system except that Federal Major Collectors are designated as Minor Arterials in the State system. The two major categories of roadways are Rural and Urban Functional Classification Systems. The distinction between Rural and Urban is based on population figures reported by the Bureau of Census. An Urbanized area is defined as one having a population exceeding 50,000 people. A Small Urban area is designated by the Bureau of Census having a population between 5,000 and 50,000. Rural areas are all areas not designated Urbanized or Small Urban (i.e., less than 5,000 people). Under the heading of Rural Functional Classification System, the classifications and their subsequent criteria and characteristics are as follows: ~ Rural Principal Arterial (e.g., US 220, between Franklin County line and Blue Ridge Parkway) · Serves corridor movements of substantial statewide or interstate travel; · serves all urban areas of 50,000 and over population and a majority of those over 25,000 people; · provide an integrated network without stub connections; · Primary function is the movement of traffic, access for individual properties is a secondary consideration Draft Transportation - 5 i~-( ~ Rural Minor Arterial (e.g., VA 221, between Floyd County line and Rte. 688 Cotton Hill Rd) · Link cities and large towns; · Provide service to corridors with trip lengths and travel density greater than those served by rural collectors or local systems; · Design should be expected to provide for relatively high overall speeds with minimum interference to through movement; · Direct access to individual property owners is discouraged. ~ Rural Major Collector (e.g., VA 311 Catawba Valley Drive, from Y4 mile North ofRte 419 to Craig County line) · Provide service to larger towns not directly served by higher systems; · Link the larger towns to nearby larger towns or routes of higher classification; · Serve the more important intra-county travel corridors; · Entrance controls (such as turn lanes, signals, signs, combined access points, etc.) should be utilized. ~ Rural Minor Collector (e.g., VA 711 Tinsley Road, near Bent Mountain Elementary School) · Spaced at intervals consistent with population density; · To collect traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a co lIector road · Provide service to the remaining smaller communities. ~ Rural Local (e.g., VA 617 Pitzer Road, from Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County line) · Serves primarily to provide direct access to adjacent land; · Provide service to travel over relatively short distances as compared to collectors or other higher systems; · Includes all facilities not on one of the higher systems. The Urban Functional Classification System includes the following classes and criteria: ~ Urban Principal Arterial (e.g., Rte. 11 Williamson Road, between Roanoke City and Botetourt County lines.) · Serves the major center of activity of a metropolitan area; Draft Transportation - 6 ~-, · Highest traffic volume corridors; · Roads serving the longest trip desires; · Carry a high proportion of the total urban area travel on a minimum of mileage · Limited access highway, direct access to individual properties is controlled. );> Urban Minor Arterial (e.g., VA 720 Colonial Avenue, from Roanoke City line to Rte 221 Brambleton Ave.) · Should interconnect with and augment the urban principal arterial system and provide service to trip of moderate length at a lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials; · Includes all arterials not classified as a principal and contains facilities that place more emphasis on land access and offer a lower level of traffic mobility. );> Urban Collector (e.g., VA 630 Kessler Mill Road, from the City of Salem line to Rte 311) · Provides land access and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial areas; · Distributes trips from the arterials through these areas to their ultimate destination; · Collects traffic from local streets and channels it to the arterial system. );> Urban Local (e.g., VA 1658 Cresthill Drive, from Rte 682 Garst Mill Rd to Rte 1647 McVitty Rd) · Serves primarily as direct access to abutting land; · Serves as access to the higher order systems; · Through traffic movement is deliberately discouraged · All facilities not on one of the higher urban systems. Once the functional street classification system is applied to the County's roads, the next step is to establish the framework for balancing land use objectives with those classifications. The following table, Table T-l, serves to accomplish that goal. In the first column are the County'sNDOT's functional street classifications. The second column contains the County's various land use designations that staff recommends as applicable and pertinent to the street classification. The land use designations are used to identify areas around the County where similar land use activities occur, and are used in conjunction with the Future Land Use Guide and this Community Plan (please refer to Roanoke County Community Plan Land Use Guide for further explanation of the designations). Draft Transportation - 7 t~-, Functional Street Classification Applicable Land Use Designations Rural Preserve Ru ra IP ri ncipal.Arterial Rural Village Village Center Rural Preserve Rural Minor Arterial Rural Village Village Center Rural MajorCollector Rural Preserve Rural Village Rural Preserve Rural Minor Collector Rural Village Conservation Rural Preserve Rural Local Rural Village Conservation Transition Urban Principal Arterial Core Principal Industrial Transition Urban MinorArterial Core Development Neighborhood Conservation Urban Collector Transition Development Urban.Local Neighborhood Conservation ... Development Table T-l: Functional Street Classifications vs. Land Use Designations For example, consider the land use designation "Core". As defined by the Land Use Guide, Core is a future land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem, and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally-based shopping facilities. Some common Core land use types are: general retail shops and personal services, office and institutional uses, and limited industrial uses. One of Core's land use detenninants is access. Locations that are or can be served by an arterial street system are grouped into the Core category. Therefore, based on these detenninants and the criteria outlined in the Land Use Guide for the Core designation, it is sensible to recommend Urban Minor Arterial and Urban Principal Arterial as the functional street classifications that could accommodate development that could Draft Transportation - 8 p-( occur in the Core areas. Urban Local and Urban collector roads would not address the requirements of most Core area developments, hence they are not recommended. It is important to point out that the recommendations presented in Table T -1 are not requirements or to be viewed as deterrents to a developer. Rather, they should be seen as a guide for developers and County planners in making land use decisions. A prospective developer or planner could determine what land use designation the prospective site is located in and the functional classification of the road serving the development, refer to Table T -1 in this document, and determine whether the adjacent roadway is capable of meeting the needs of the development. Once again, this policy framework is not intended to be a disincentive or restriction to development, but rather a planning tool to aid in balancing the established land use objectives with the capabilities of the road network that serves them. Utilizing the information in Table T -1 is but one idea to balance land use objectives with street functional capabilities. County staff is coordinating with VDOT to develop strategies to determine the existing level of service of all roads in the County and then to use that data to better enable planning decisions. Level of service, or LOS, is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Letters designate each level, from "A" to "F", with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Level of Service is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. General definitions of levels of service, as provided in the Highway Capacity Manual are as follows: LOS A describes completely free flow conditions at average travel speeds. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Operations are constrained only by the geometric features of the highway and by driver preferences. LOS B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. The general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to the drivers is still high. Draft Transportation - 9 P--I LOS C represents stable operations. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted and lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver. Minor disruptions can cause serious local deterioration in service, and queues will form behind any significant traffic disruption. LOS D is the level at which speeds begin to decline slightly with increasing flows and density begins to increase somewhat more quickly. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. LOS E describes operation at capacity, an unstable level. At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruption, and any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. Operations at this level are volatile, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. Maneuverability within the traffic stream is extremely limited, and the level of physical and psychological comfort afforded the driver is poor. LOS F represents breakdowns in vehicular flow. This level characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds below one-third to one-quarter ofthe free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high approach delays resulting. The Highway Capacity Manual contains no recommendations for the applicability of the levels of service in highway design. That is to say there is no "official" standard as to the minimum acceptable level of service. The choice of an appropriate level of service for design is properly left to the highway designer and the local agencies. Representatives from VDOT state that they do not have formal guidelines for this matter, rather they refer to the Green Book, otherwise known as A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The guidelines set forth in that document are as presented in Table T-2. Draft Transportation - 10 p-( Appropriate LOS for specified combinations of area and terrain type Functional Class Rural level Rural rolling Rural mountainous Urban and Suburban Freeway B B C C Arterial B B C C Collector C C 0 0 Local 0 0 0 0 Table T -2: Guidelines for acceptable minimum LOS standards Roanoke County will strive to provide the highest level of service practical. County staff will coordinate with VDOT in reviews of traffic impact studies to ensure that these guidelines are met. If the minimum acceptable standards are not met, staff will consult with VDOT as to what mitigation matters, if any, are necessary to meet the standards. County staff should research ordinances that other states/local agencies have implemented that affect development when it is shown that the development project significantly degrades the level of service. Along the same lines of thought, the County staff, specifically the Traffic Engineering department, desires to reserve the right to request a traffic impact study in situations where staff feels it is necessary. The conditions that could trigger a request for a traffic impact study include: rezoning or special use permit request that is inconsistent with Community Plan; potential impacts upon local and/or regional road networks; the site generates or attracts 100 total trips or more per hour during the adjacent street peak hour; among others. Currently, only the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Director of the Department of Community Development can request a traffic impact study. c. Strategy: Long Range Transportation Plan issues -- Federal regulations, implemented as a result of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-2I), require urbanized area MPO's (Metropolitan Planning Organization) to develop and approve a financially constrained long range multimodal transportation plan. The Long Range Transportation Plan (LR TP) is intended to guide the region in creating a more efficient, responsive, and environmentally-sensitive transportation system over the next twenty to twenty-five years. The plan examines transportation issues/trends and offers a list of specific projects for addressing the region's mobility needs. The LRTP provides the context from which the region's Transportation Improvement Draft Transportation - 11 \:)-1 Program (TIP), a capital improvement program for implementing highway, transit, and bikeway projects, is drawn. VDOT prepares travel demand forecasts using computer simulation models that relate travel demand to socioeconomic factors. Using the computer model, trips forecasted for the horizon year are assigned to the existing plus committed transportation network. The resulting traffic distribution is then analyzed to detennine at what Level of Service (LOS) the traffic would operate. Recommendations are then made to eliminate existing and projected deficiencies in the network. The Roanoke Valley MPO is required to conduct a review of the LRTP on a periodic basis, ideally updating the LRTP every five years. The review takes into account changes in socioeconomic and land use factors and trends. It also includes an evaluation of how well the travel demand forecasting process simulates actual travel. County staff works with the Roanoke Valley MPO and the RV ARC to consider VDOT's recommendations and compare those recommendations and projects to the County's future land use, zoning, impacts to the corridor, smart growth factors, etc. The final product, following the County's review and submittal to VDOT, is an updated LRTP. The plan may also be amended as a result of changes in projected Federal, State and local funding, major improvement studies, congestion management system plans, interstate interchange justification studies, and environmental impact studies. Please refer to Table T -3: Roanoke Study Area 2025 Recommendations & Priorities for the routes on the current LRTP and the recommended improvements (as submitted by Roanoke County staff. For the approved 2025 LRTP, see the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission website -- http://www.rvarc.org/work/lrpfinal.pdf).This represents a prioritized list of the County staffs recommendations and comments for each road section that VDOT has recommended based on their models. Note that the "U" and "R" designations in the "VDOT/Roanoke Co. Recommends" column represent Urban and Rural, respectively. The number that follows the "U" or "R" is the number of lanes proposed. It should be pointed out that the County has recommended allocation of funds (relatively more than has been allocated in the past) to be set aside for miscellaneous items such as traffic signals, signal optimization, spot improvements, intersection re-design, transit, bike and pedestrian improvements, and technological solutions to transportation deficiencies. Draft Transportation - 12 p- I e: ..c: ..... Þ '" gB 0 >- :- '" e: ( ) .& a. .!: :ë¡:~ Ü e: 0"0 ( ) ê: 1J~~ ( ) "0 <U ( ) e: :J <U a. ( ) 0 0 ( ) a:: a:: ( ) ( ) e: .0 .5 .0"0 u c.. E e: ..>< e U) ~ 0 ~ >-e: õ:S >. E o.e:o '" "0 ~ 0- a. ",<U-I £ e: 6 "O( ) .E -=::;¡; <U 0 <U <U ( ) ~ ( )( )<D ëõ' E ~.c Þ _u -I~ ã) æ£~ B '" 0 ..2 IE <Do > ( ) '" E -( ) "§ <U ~ ~ ( ) ( ) - -.0 2 ( ) '" -= <U > :J= <u..>< "0 CDgëñ 6 :J e: ¡,; ë "0 ( ) <U 'e: .- ~~ c..<u .~ u.!!! ( ) " ( ) >..c: a. ~'" a::-I ëii ('0. --.J ~ E E > <U '" ..c: Ó~ .!: E CD.5 ,:; ~tOo. -( ) 0 ..c:e: e: 0", :J E E '" <U 0) ,<U -10 Q¡::;¡; Q¡ <U .'. .2 '" <U Õ c :2 a::-;;; ci~ E -( )( ) Ü -( ) >- ~ ( )- , - 0) o ~ U ._ a. "O..c: to<Ue: '" t::( ) :>i a¡:2 U<D c:=: E :=:øca ( ) -u u= c:i a¡ ~E u "0 - :J E 0 '" ë.!: IE u .0 a¡ .~ ~ ,5: a:: "'C/J u o.a¡..c: a¡ .20 <U E 00 e: :>< - a¡ - U "0 ~ 0 " "0 ~ '" ~ ....; "0 e:"O a¡ ~ "0 ~m£ <U ~;; -...t:: ..>< '5 a.. <ua:: 00 a¡ C, 2"0 <I) C 0 .- '" õ -§,.~ U:.5 0)..... '" ~ e: :::0 <U a¡ 0 c u e: e: .: ~ë 0 '" t::.- a. -- '" o ~ .0 :J .- a. a¡:JO :J <U '- "0> ::s c Qi ~~ 0<U B::;¡; '<I"<u 0 "'..c:N <U 00 ¡:,: e: <U .c~ Nt:: C. 8.."0 N - .~E E E 0 0 a¡C/J ê: e: <U a¡ ~ NO .?:- .0 a¡ E ~ ¡::z::: "'..c: :JO a:: a. ~ - e: "0 <U a¡ e: .:J 5.50(1) ëii ~.c .~ C) ~ a¡ .- e:= B .5 o a¡ è 0) .0 - :;=a¡ <D O)~~"O ,:; <u"O goO e: ..c::J e: §>--I a¡~ :J a¡ -1'5 .¡¡¡ -0 -e: "'a¡ .5.::.!.~ g ~ a. <U>- CI .0 o ~ 0 ~E uBu "0 a¡ B e: ~ ~ '" e: 0 "O<U E _..c: "0 ~ > a¡<U æ~:S:g, -~ '5E >- ~- ~~ Õ ~.5 a¡ ::;¡; .. "0 0- 4Í 0)""; O)~ 4Í ..c:.!: 0,- ï::: ._ ..c: c=~ §~ 'õ..~'Cß ..c: e: <U ~O) a¡ Ó ~ . fÞæ e: <U a¡ ::::ca p... ~ o.:J <U'" '- C Q) c: '" a¡ -10 ~ o( ) ..c: .- ~~~.g ~ E t: ~~ I ÛÌ' ;:¡: '<1".0 Q:~Ü uLi: 0:5 u:5 C/J2 '" <I) .~ ! .~ .-::: ~ . '" -I -- '"' c"'" ï:::: .9 u c -I <D 0 a: " " -I -I -I -I <D ;,¡. -I :J ;,¡. -I '"' -" E a:: N -I N ï::: ¡:¡... c := '<I" '<I" '<I" '<I" ::J <D 6 <D '<I" ~ æ õ a:: a:: :J :J N :J :J N :J p... ~ <D a:: -I a:: ~J1 :J to 0<3 '" IQ :J t:: .S <I) .9 c: ('<') ..... À: .S cU '" "0 .... "'" -- c CI I:: t:: ~ f- " -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I ;,¡. -I -0 c: a: O.J 0 := N S 0 ¡: '<I" '<I" '<I" '<I" <D '<I" <D to <D <D c: .S § a:: a:: :J :J a:: a:: a:: :J :J N :J > Õ a:: 0 -- S <.J E CI Q) ~ " 1::: 01 0 ¡:,: E I:: u 0 CII O.J 0 0.. It ~ Q u <I) If) ~ 0 c: 01 ~ '" ¡::z::: CI N " -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I 0 ';( c .... I:: i '" C") N N N '<I" N '<I" '<I" '<I" N '<I" ¡..... 0 N ~....¡ V) ..,J cU N c:::: O.J 0 '"' N CI -< .... .J: CI a >, bh:=- ~ '<I" C1> C1> N '<I" to C") to ~ C1> 0 "0 c E ~ C") '<I: ~ I'- "! ~ to II) C1> .... ã " ~ ~ C"i ~ N C"i ~ ~ c::i -.i ~ c::i <e ;:J ....¡ ..... (fJ '.. ;;.-. ow O.J ,u E E -0 ~ '6 a¡ C/JI'- I'- a¡ a¡ t:: >- a¡ '<I" C1> ::s 0 ~ ..>< ..>< :J -- t:: ëii ._ C1> ~ ~ 0-1 0-1 B-1 ( ) ëii <D ~ r.F1 .!e c C/J EtO ~ ..>< <D '<I" cU f- a¡ æu æu 2U æ C/J 0 ~ -I 11)2 2 æ -I a¡ a¡ <U 0 0 0 èi5 æ æ ~ ~ ~ C":!a:: a:: a:: a:: CD u 0 "" C/J c: CI -I 0 ~ a¡ a¡ II) a¡ 0 u ¡::z::: N ..>< ..>< ~ '<I" ..>< >- C1> E ~ 'E~ 0-1 0-1 <D 0-1 N a¡ .!: to <D <D N ..>< <D c æu æu a¡ æu æ :>< ~ ~ a¡ II)<D æ a¡ a¡ e: a¡ æ ~ 0 0 æ 0 æ êi5 æ I a:: a:: a:: <U Eo-; ~ C/J It a¡ - ,.Q e: e: >- Q¡ -c::i -c::i >- e: ~ ~ ¿ 0 .2 .!: j! a:: a:: j! 0 Eo-; &' 3E '" 0) ã) r E ëG :>< ëii e: u u ëii :ë ,3 ê: ª ê: e: > j! .¡: .¡: > E '" a¡ <U a¡ ëii Ü Ü a¡ .... ~ a¡ ~ <U It <U ..c: a¡ a¡ <U <U CD iï: -, u iIi iIi -, as è" 0 "'~ <D ~ ~ II) 0 <D 0 C1> C1> <D N := " ~ N ~ N ~ <D ~ ~ ~ - C N ~ ~ N ~ '<I" '<I" ~ N æe>:: ~ ~ f ~ N C") '<I" II) <D I'- to C1> 0 ~ .9 ~ ~ ~ I~- .. --' oð ..¡- ~ "C ::> (ij 2! C C Cci --' '::; Cci =.Q '2 Q) N 0- Q) <;:::- 0 æ ::> 0 æ C _0 ë5 '" . Q) Ü .5 c B .5: 0 C ~ C> :æ¡ "C .- >-.2 Q) .5: --' _ "C C "'t) "C ë "C OJ.t: 0 '" Q)..¡- Q) C 00 - :;: Q) C, .0::> E Q) :: '" '::; '" -c'" :5: a. E . Q) ë ;,¡. a. a. .t:c .0 "C '" Q) OJ ' Q) 0 E C> " N o..ë5 o ._ E 2! 9~ ãi 0 OJ Q) c '::; N ~j "C > 0 E c ë¡¡ E 0:: ãi 0:: .. Q) 2! o.!!! .0 rJ:J 0 0- .t: Q) § "C ( ) 0 '" .. c U '" .?:- B.t: '" ....... '" "'0 C> E;: (ij '¡¡¡ 0 >- "C 2! c .5: 00 ~ Ü --,C> ;:j U "C Q) "'0 ã3 '" Q) "¡-5 j 0 " '" c .5~ .. '" Q) ~ ë.c ~ 2! C> Q) '" ~ "C ..I< ëñ _c E Q) ëñ 0 .- - .t: 0 (ij m c ~~ 0 è c Q) cC> C> 0 2! '" ñí to ~ "C ~'gj 2.9 0 c Q) '" 0 E ro ex: C> 'ã. :5 Q) "C 0:: "t:I 0 c a."C 0 '" c .t:Q) Q) B 'w .Qæ 0 .E '" '" .t: C>"'c = ~ 0 0 .0 ~.c rn '" ~ ñí OJ '" '" --' --' .. -c a. ø OQ)--, N N U ë c Q) ~ c "'>- E :'2E ::> ::> ( ) '" '" "C::> '" ~~ OJ r:/J a. a. "CO a. "C B .~ "'C =' B B Q)- "'.>< .5: ã. ë ¡,,:I-- Q) Q)>- I ~ ~ '" Q) ~ 'C ~ - Q) 0 ~ -'" 0 C> g';:: cb cb OC> cb ~o.. E ~:E.æ c rJ:J a.c '" ~>u .~ ÛÌ' 0'" Q) '" ~ c '" c c C "Co:: Õ ~ Q)~Q) .t: 0 0 ~.t: 0 E[D 0::8ü ü:ï; .~ ! 0..0 --' ü rJ> I-< (]) 0 :-8 ::. .¡: c . '" .... Q:: 0"", ....: ~ .9 u c ;,¡. ;,¡. o~ õ~ " --' ~~ ~~ cId .... ~ ~ ~ N N --' --' --' --' --' P-. N N ..¡- ..¡- N N g Õ N N ::> ::> ::> ::> ::> ::> rJ:J ~ ~ to U 0:: 0:: = o " ::> ::> .S rJ> ä ex: ex: ¡:; ....... .9 ~ """ ..... U "t:I ro Q '" = "'d ~ ] ( ) c:: ¡:; E- " ;,¡. N ;,¡. ;,¡. --' --' --' --' ;,¡. --' 8 = .!!! (]) ~ 0 E N N N N ..¡- ..¡- ..¡- ..¡- N ..¡- 8 .S Q. S 0 E N N N N ::> ::> ::> ::> N ::> S > 0 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0 ....... Q) § u U ~ 01 0 ~ ( ) 1:::: c:: u C ~ 0 (]) 0. cu p::: CJ 0::: or. rJ:J Lt) Q ... '" N = 01 N ~ '" " --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' 0 ro § I-< c:: 0 .¡;; N N N N N N N N N N N r-- 0 N ¡,Q....¡ ....¡ ro ~ ~ G:: (]) ( ) .... I-< ~ ~ c <t: I-< Q:: ..c 0 >. 'bOC to '" 10 to en en 0 ~ 10 ~ >-. c E ~ 10 N ~ en ~ to "! "'d ,,~ ~ 0 N ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 "t:I .E ä ....¡ ;:j ....... en r:/J (]) '::; "C --' ( ) ~ ,u rnl'- 0:: 0 0 ü Q) 10 C >- ~ 0 ~ > cø '-N N « ~ :¡:; Q) 0 ¡:; '6 0 EtO 0 N "E ~ .>< c Q) ro E- .¡:: ~ .2 c c æ Q)~ = 0 .~ ",Q) t) Q) Q) Q) Q) '" o..¡f ro co- Q) õ: õ: "C "C õ: ð êi5 0 p::: ~ 00:: [jj Q) LlJ [D ~ "" --' c c "'0 10 >- >- '" ~ 0 (ij 0 ( ) cø ü ã3 ã3 E ~ ~ Q) (õ 0--, '2 = ~ c Q) ~ c 15 15 2 Q)~ æ 0 æü 0 = u. .& o..¡f '" ë Q) E ë5 E .. êi5 êi5 õ: 0 .... 0:: :> a:: '" ü '" = [¡j [¡j 0 u (¡¡ ø !"') c c I (ij >- C> ~ 2! (ij E-- & '" ~ '" >- Q) (¡¡ :E '2 E 0 '2 "E .>< .0 ~ u... ( ) ,3 ë5 0 .>< '¡:: '" m .r: 0 - ë5 0 (¡¡ c ë5 to J: J: êi5 '" '" .Q u. ü OJ :ï; (¡¡ CJ c Ü ~ [D Q) J: 0.. E-- è " " ~ 0 en '" ~ ..¡- 10 N I'- 0 ]"5 0 N I'- (õ 0 N co co N §~ to I'- to to en to to to I'- '" ,~ ~ N '" ..¡- 10 to I'- co en 0 9 ~ 0:; , ' , I B. Goal: To make efficient use of Roanoke County's taxpayers' money allocated for transportation projects. i. Objective: To utilize staff expertise, knowledge, and abilities in making road improvement, design, and maintenance funding decisions. a. Strategy: Pavement Management System for Six- Year Secondary System Construction Plan and Revenue Sharing decisions -- The Six-Year Secondary System Construction Plan is VDOT's plan for the allocation of road construction funds for a six year period. The Six-Year Plan provides improvements to all roads with route numbers of 600 and above. It consists of a priority list of projects and a financial implementation plan. The Plan is based on local projects and priorities adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County and VDOT are continuously reviewing and updating the Six-Year Plan. Staff receives requests throughout the year concerning secondary roads in Roanoke County. In deciding which projects should be included in the Six-Year Plan and/or Revenue Sharing program, staff considers traffic counts, existing and future development, pavement conditions, drainage, safety, and the economic benefit to the County. Staff will make an attempt to incorporate the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) and growth management strategies into their decision making process for the Six-Year Plan; but it must be pointed out again that the Six- Year Plan is only applicable to secondary roads and the budget for this program is currently very limited. In the latter part of each year (usually November-December), VDOT and the Board of Supervisors hold a joint public hearing about these road improvement projects. After receiving public input, the Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution establishing the top priorities in road improvement projects for the next six years. As is usually the case, the Board of Supervisors approves a priority list of road improvement projects that would cost, in total, in excess of available funds over the six-year planning period. With such a list developed, subsequent VDOT Six-Year Plans can be prepared and revised in response to available annual funds. The Revenue Sharing program is slightly different. Whereas State money exclusively is used to fund major road improvement/reconstruction projects in the Six-Year Plan, the County must contribute financial resources for Revenue Sharing projects such as routine/preventive maintenance and smaller scale improvement projects. VDOT annually provides counties the opportunity to receive State matching funds for the construction, Draft Transportation - 15 p-/ maintenance, and improvement to roads in the State's highway system. Roanoke County, a participant in the program, must match dollar for dollar Secondary road improvements within the County. The Commonwealth of Virginia allocates $15 million for the matching program and limits localities to $500,000 each (dependent on the number of counties that participate in the program, the value may be increased or decreased proportionately). VDOT and County staff review and evaluate streets and drainage requests throughout the year. There is also contact made with the County's Economic Development Department, Utility Department, and VDOT's area superintendents. As a result of ever limited State and Federal funding, road construction funds must be carefully expended and road needs carefully identified and programmed. In the past, the County staff has used engineering judgment and opinion to select and prioritize road improvement projects in the County. However, the County is attempting to implement a pavement management system to identify maintenance options, help prioritize competing road sections for immediate attention, and anticipate future deterioration. Under the new system, the County will create and archive an inventory of all the roads in the County (utilizing staff GIS capabilities), assess the current condition of the road, select the appropriate treatment, prioritize the projects, and model its future budget requests. The pavement management system offers a rational, systematic approach, enhances professional judgment, and provides statistical backing for fund-allocations. The desired consequence of utilizing a pavement management system is selecting the right treatment, for the right road, at the right time, ensuring the tax-paying public gets the best value for their dollars. County staff has met with VDOT representatives to discuss their pavement management policy. VDOT uses a pavement management plan for the primary/interstate roads in the Salem District but do not presently have a plan in effect for the secondary/subdivision roads. VDOT has recommended that the County implement a plan for its secondary roads, predominantly for selecting and prioritizing projects in the Revenue Sharing program. VDOT staff has reviewed the software and methodologies that the County plans on using for its pavement management system and had no objections. Both entities have agreed to work in one accord on this undertaking to ensure the best results. At the writing of this element of the Community Plan, the inventory of the County roads is nearly complete and plans are being made to begin the condition assessment and subsequent work. Staff is confident that the implementation of this system is a step towards providing smooth, safe, and economical road surfaces Draft Transportation - 16 p-/ and achieving the best possible value for the available public funds. (Note: Interested citizens should consult the most recent "County of Roanoke Six Year Secondary System Construction Plan and Revenue Sharing" document for a current, prioritized list of road improvement projects in the County. The document is available for review at the County office and/or on the County website.) C. Goal: To guide the use of Roanoke County transportation infrastructure system to control air pollution, traffic, and livability problems. i. Objective: To reduce Roanoke County's dependence on single- occupant vehicle use as a primary mode of travel. a. Strategy: Bicycle Facilities & Greenways -- Bicycle facilities There are numerous benefits associated with bicycling. Bicycling offers health and fitness benefits through increased exercise; environmental benefits through reduced vehicular emissions; and transportation benefits by providing an alternative transportation option to the automobile. Bicycles may also serve as an excellent, all-around short-distance transportation alternative to the single- occupant vehicle for trips to work, schools, shopping, recreational facilities, and other intra-neighborhood destinations. The many benefits of bicycle facilities and reasons to invest in such infrastructure have been adequately explained in detail in both the 1997 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley and the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study - Phase I and II (both documents can be accessed via the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission (RV ARC) website: http://www.rvarc.orglbike/home.htm. or by contacting either the RV ARC, at telephone number (540) 343- 4417, or the County Traffic Engineer, at telephone number (540) 772-2080, to obtain a hard copy of the documents). For that reason, this element of the Community Plan will not attempt to duplicate the valuable infonnation contained in those documents; rather, explain how the County attempts to implement its bikeway plan. The following disclaimer is presented in the 2003 Regional Bicycle Suitability Study: Note: For bicycle accommodations to be considered as part of roadway improvements using Federal and State funding, the roadway must be included in an approved bikeway Draft Transportation - 17 P-f plan. The 1997 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area (R V AMPO, 1997) is the approved bikeway document for the MPO, thereby fulfilling this requirement. As such, the 1997 Bikeway Plan should be referenced when specific roadways are cited for bicycle accommodations. Phase Iof the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study is not intended to supercede or replace the 1997 Plan in this capacity. Instead it should complement the efforts and goals of the 1997 Plan and facilitate the provision of bicycle accommodation in the MPO. Due to the Virginia Department of Transportation's requirements and importance of having an adequate and complete list, the County is striving to provide input; not only on amendments to the 1997 Plan, but in the creation of a region-wide, connected network of bicycle facilities that will hopefully be an end product of the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study. The Regional Bicycle Suitability Study will consist of Phase I and Phase II Whereas Phase I of the Study introduces the applicable computer models, provides detailed analysis and summary of survey responses, gives an overview of local, regional, state, and national bicycle facility planning efforts, and lays the groundwork for the project, Phase II of the Study will consist primarily of the application of work products developed in Phase I A prioritized list of routes, corridors, destinations, and activity centers to be connected via a significant regional bicycling network; maps of existing and proposed bicycle facilities, and other spatial data relevant to the study; and potentially a new, approved, and updated bike plan are end products of Phase II. The primary goal of the Study is to provide planners, transportation engineers, citizens, and bicycle coordinators and enthusiasts the tools and data for use in developing facilities and other accommodations to enhance safe bicycle travel within the MPO area. Data and tools developed as part of the Study are useful in identifying current and future problems facing the bicycling public, facilitating the planning and design of a bicycle-friendly transportation system, and determining possible options regarding operational and design requirements for new facilities. End products will assist stakeholders in establishing consistency and connectivity along travel corridors, developing crucial linkages with the greenway system and public transit, and developing other components of a regional bicycling network. Draft Transportation - 18 ~-I Development of a regional bicycling network will require coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders in the study area. As a geographic region composed of several jurisdictions, Roanoke Valley governments should coordinate bicycle facility improvements to ensure that travel corridors are consistent in and between jurisdictions in the study area. As part of the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study, a planning committee, composed of interested stakeholders, was established to assist in various aspects of the study. Representation from a varied cross-section of stakeholders was sought in selecting members. The planning committee was composed of Regional Commission staff, local planning and traffic engineering staff (including Roanoke County staff), Greenway representatives, VDOT representatives, bicycling advocates, and citizens. The committee is assisting in the development of a regionally significant bicycling network by guiding the application of work products in Phase II of the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study, facilitating continued regional cooperation in bicycle facility planning, and data collection. The new Study will make it easier for the MPO and the localities to develop a new bikeway plan to replace the 1997 Bikeway Plan, but will not, in itself, be a replacement for the 1997 plan. Until a new plan is developed and adopted by the MPO, the 1997 plan will be the official plan that the County adheres to and thus, it is important to keep the 1997 plan up-to-date. Tools from the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study could be used to develop a new bicycle plan for the region in the next few years. Rather than waiting for the completion of a replacement or update to the 1997 Plan, the County will strive to utilize the computer models introduced and implemented in the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study to get a jump on the planning efforts. Before the design phase of scheduled road projects begins, County staff will attempt to measure the existing bicycle compatibility level and generate proposed options regarding an applicable bicycle facility; all the while consulting the 1997 Bikeway Plan. Study findings and work products will be available to localities in the region, and can be easily incorporated in the development of regional and local plans. Once the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study is complete and the localities have agreed upon a bicycle- friendly transportation infrastructure that has been developed on a regional basis (not only to meet existing demands, but also to encourage and facilitate bicycling as a viable means of Draft Transportation - 19 p-, transportation in the Roanoke Valley), County staff recommends that the County Board of Supervisors adopt the new plan and that it is utilized as the County's approved plan. In addition, the Virginia Department of Transportation released a memorandum in early 2003 stating their bicycle and pedestrian policies and procedures. In the memo, the Secretary of Transportation stated, among other things: that non-motorized transportation should receive the same consideration as motorized transportation in the planning, design, construction, and operation of Virginia's transportation network; and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should be included in the design of all new highway facilities and all major highway reconstruction efforts, unless special circumstances exist that prevent their inclusion or a local governing body has formally requested that bicycle or pedestrian accommodations not be included. The Secretary declared that the new policies should be in place by end of the 2003 calendar year. That policy became effective on March 18, 2004 and applies to projects that have not yet reached the scoping phase. The "Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations" can be reviewed on VDOT's website. The County will keep abreast of the developments pertinent to VDOT's bicycle and pedestrian policies and procedures. Ultimately, the County's objectives pertaining to bicycle facilities can be summed up in the following points: o To complete a network of bikeways that serves bicyclists' needs, especially for travel to employment centers, commercial districts, transit stations, institutions, and recreational destinations; o To provide bikeway facilities that are appropriate to the street classifications, traffic volumes, and speed of traffic; o To develop and implement education and encouragement plans aimed at youth, adult cyclists, and motorists; and to increase public awareness of the benefits of bicycling and of available resources and facilities; o To encourage bicycle parking and related facilities as part of all new construction or major renovation, including office, retail, industrial, and housing developments; o To encourage the construction of showers and changing facilities in all new or renovated commercial development; o To encourage bicycle parking facilities at all park and ride lots, commercial developments, and selected parking lots (such as bicycle parking facilities at public spaces such as County buildings, museums, libraries and civic centers). Draft Transportation - 20 P-I A regionally significant bikeway network in the MPO will include the Roanoke Valley Greenway system. The green way system is an integral component of the recreational and transportation infrastructure in the area, providing open and recreational space for Roanoke Valley residents. Some bicyclists, such as novice users, will not be comfortable with on-road facilities. The Greenway Plan presents an added opportunity to meet this need by providing facilities with little conflict from automobiles and by providing linkages and connectivity. The Roanoke Valley's greenway system is explained in the following section of this element of the Community Plan. Green ways A greenway is a corridor of protected open space managed for conservation, recreation and nonmotorized transportation. Greenways often follow natural geographic features such as ridge lines, stream valleys, and rivers, but may also be built along canals, utility corridors, or abandoned rail lines. Most greenways include a trail or bike path, but others may be designed strictly for environmental or scenic protection. Greenways, as vegetated linear parks, provide tree cover, wildlife habitat, and riparian buffers to protect streams. The environmental benefits include reduced storm water runoff, flood reduction, water quality protection, and preservation of biological diversity. The trails within the greenways provide access between neighborhoods and destination points, opportunity to travel without an automobile, outdoor education classrooms, and close-to-home paths for walking, jogging, bicycling, and roller blading. Tree cover and use of bicycles instead of cars provide for better air quality, fewer hard-surfaced parking lots, and reduced energy costs. Although greenways are a collateral component of a county-wide park system, they do not replace the need for additional park land. In the spring of 1995, the four local governments (Roanoke County, Roanoke City, City of Salem, and Town of Vinton) appointed representatives to a Greenways Steering Committee, supported by the Fifth Planning District Commission. A consulting firm was hired to develop a Conceptual Greenway Plan for the Roanoke Valley with input from elected officials, civic leaders, and the general public. This Plan was adopted by each of the four jurisdictions in 1997. The Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, appointed by the four Valley governments, replaced the Steering Committee in Draft Transportation - 21 p-/ 1997. It is an advisory body with the responsibility to facilitate cooperation and coordination among jurisdictions in greenway planning and development; recommend funding sources for greenway construction; develop uniform standards for design and construction; and, pursue public/private partnerships for greenway development. In August 1997, the first one-half mile of greenway in Roanoke was completed through Garst Mill Park along Mud Lick Creek. This was the first section of greenway in Roanoke County and is being very heavily used. Extensions of this greenway are planned to connect to the Hidden Valley High School and to Murray Run Greenway in the City of Roanoke. The Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail which travels through portions of Salem and Roanoke County opened in 1999. This Trail is included on the brochure Shenandoah Valley Civil War Trails and attracts tourists as well as local residents. The extension of this greenway will follow Masons Creek to the Roanoke River. In 2001 the Wolf Creek Greenway opened in Roanoke County, extending a section built in the Town of Vinton in 1999. This trail connects the new bicycle lanes built on Hardy Road to Goode and Stonebridge Parks in Roanoke County. The extension of this greenway will connect with the Blue Ridge Parkway to the northeast and with the Roanoke River to the south. A master plan for Tinker Creek Greenway was completed in 2000 in cooperation with Roanoke City, and plans for Glade Creek Greenway are being developed with the Town of Vinton. The backbone of the Roanoke Valley greenway system will be the Roanoke River Greenway which will run for over 20 miles through Roanoke County, Salem, Roanoke City, and Vinton. Master plans for the Roanoke River Greenway have been completed, and two sections of the greenway have been built - one in Salem and one in Roanoke City. The first section to be built in Roanoke County will be in Green Hill Park. In 1998, Roanoke County completed a prioritization of greenways within its jurisdiction. The priorities for off-road routes were: Wolf Creek, Roanoke River, Tinker/Carvins Creek, Glade Creek, and Mud Lick Creek Greenways. The priorities developed by staff in 2001 for on-road facilities needing major improvements were: Mountain View Road, Plantation Road, Hardy Road, Loch Haven Drive, and Colonial Avenue. While a significant amount of progress has been made on greenways over the last 7-8 years, there are substantial steps still to be taken. Draft Transportation - 22 P-I b. Strategy: Traffic Management Strategies -- For the most part, the effectiveness of existing roads should be maximized rather than using new road construction as a crutch. It has been proven in the past that we cannot build our way out of congestion; we must begin to be creative about the utilization of the existing infrastructure. Some potential strategies Roanoke County staff can implement include: · Encouraging motorists to carpool or rideshare; · Promote employer-supported vanpool programs; · Persuade the use of park-and-ride facilities; · Endorse shuttle transit service from fringe parking areas to urban centers or major destinations; · Encourage enhanced motorists infonnation services and systems (such as presenting the congestion crises on television, radio, or the internet; motorists would be advised to car pool or alter their driving patterns); · Advocate public transit, working with Valley Metro (Greater Roanoke Transit Company) and RADAR (Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride); · Support non-motorized travel, such as bicycle/pedestrian facilities (addressed in other sections of this Plan); · Teaming up with Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission (R V ARC) and their regional ridesharing program called "Ride Solutions". This program is a grant- funded program that provides free carpool and vanpool matching services for citizens of the Roanoke Valley and surrounding areas within southwestern VA. The program also provides directions to area park-and-ride lots, and infonnation about alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit service, walking, and bicycling. Infonnation on Ride Solutions can be obtained from the website www.ridesolutions.org or by calling them at (540) 342-9393. c. Strategy: Education on Transportation Systems & Livability Issues -- Americans perceive their car as a provider of the freedom that we have come to cherish so greatly. An aspect of that freedom is enjoying the privacy, convenience, and safety of automobiles. Our love of cars has grown out of necessity. That is to say, as residential developments are built without proximity to employment centers or shopping facilities, residents have no choice but to use personal automobiles. Transportation infrastructure has been designed and built for the personal transport vehicle, rather than designed on a human scale. Draft Transportation - 23 fJ-1 The public must be informed of the alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle. One method to consider is informing the younger residents of Roanoke County. Educating the young is highly important if you want to make a new transportation system work or even make an old one work better. Today's children are the potential mass transit users, bikers, and pedestrians of tomorrow, but the potential must be tapped through education. By educating children, not only is the next generation reached, but so are the parents. The children will hopefully influence the parents to consider alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. Roanoke County staff will consider working in conjunction with the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission in their educating/advertising endeavors. Staff should also examine informing and promoting the use of mass transit with the aid of Valley Metro (Greater Roanoke Transit Company) and RADAR (Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride). The County should also enlist the help of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and local bicycling clubs to publicize and market the facilities available to pedestrians and bicyclists. Roanoke County staff could also utilize the County website and the public access cable channel (Roanoke Valley Television, RVTV Channel 3) in its educating efforts. ii. Objective: To reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. a. Strategy: Traffic Calming -- Traffic calming measures are mainly used to address speeding and high cut-through traffic volumes on neighborhood streets. These issues can create an atmosphere in which non-motorists are intimidated, or even endangered, by motorized traffic. Along with the additional amount of traffic generated within the neighborhood, cut-through motorists are often perceived as driving faster than local motorists. By addressing high speeds and cut-through volumes, traffic calming can increase both the real and perceived safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Although the social results of traffic calming are slightly more difficult to measure, studies show that traffic calming measures can increase property values, decrease crime and noise levels, promote a sense of community, and improve the quality of life within the neighborhood. In an effort to induce motorists to slow down and drive responsibly, traffic calming purposely introduces additional self- Draft Transportation - 24 l~-I enforcing physical features in the design of the roadway, effectively changing the design speed. Traffic calming measures are generally implemented in a retrofit situation and traditional design standards require interpretation and modification. Some of the commonly implemented traffic calming measures includes: Horizontal Deflection · curb extension I bulb out; · chicane; · choker; · on-street parking; · raised median island I pedestrian refuge; · and traffic circle, etc. Vertical Deflection · textured crosswalk; · speed hump; · raised intersection; · and raised crosswalk, etc. Physical Obstruction · semi-diverter; · diagonal diverter; · raised median through intersection; · and street closure, etc. Signs and Pavement Markings · roadway narrowing with edge lines; · speed limit signing; · turn prohibitions; · one-way streets; · and commercial vehicle prohibitions, etc. Any of the above mentioned measures could be individually installed but may be most effective if used in concert with other measures. Tools not recommended for traffic calming include: STOP signs, "Children at Play" signs, speed dips, and speed bumps. Functional classification and land use should be primary criteria in detennining whether traffic calming measures are appropriate for a particular roadway. When conditions warrant, traffic calming measures may be appropriate on the following roadway types: · Local residential streets; · Collector streets with predominantly residential land uses; · Arterial roads located within downtown districts or commercial areas (with posted speed limits of 40 mph or less). Traffic calming is not appropriate for use on arterial streets which are intended to accommodate higher speeds and larger traffic volumes. It is important to detennine the Draft Transportation - 25 p- ) intended function of the roadway and remember that efficiently moving large numbers of vehicles is necessary on some roads. When implementing traffic calming measures, it is best to do so under the direction of an overall traffic calming plan for the area in question. Installing traffic calming devices in the absence of an area-wide plan could simply divert one neighborhood's speed and traffic volume problems to other streets. One more critical facet of traffic calming is gaining community support. A comprehensive community outreach program is important to ensure that the communities' needs will be met by a proposed project. A task force should be formed at the early stages of planning and concept development. This task force should have representation from the following groups: residents, business and property owners, emergency services, school representatives, transit authorities, local officials, utility departments, RV ARC, VDOT, and other interested parties. The idea behind this is to try to get up-front public involvement in order to ensure that the final solution has broad support in the community. It is the citizen's of Roanoke County that must live with the solution and the traffic calming measures will be largely unsuccessful without community support. By making the residents co-authors of the solution it will foster a sense of ownership and pride in the community. The role of Roanoke County staff is one of facilitator rather than director of the solution. County staff will also work to investigate citizen's traffic calming requests as they are submitted and will examine possibilities to include traffic calming to be included in repair/reconstruction projects on all applicable roads. Staff will determine (based on functional classification, land use, and other factors) whether traffic calming implementation should be pursued and if so, work with VDOT on the project. iii. Objective: To provide access to land development, while preserving the safety and capacity ofthe transportation system. a. Strategy: Access Management -- Access management is a fairly new response to the congestion, the loss of arterial capacity, and the serious access related accidents that are plaguing our roadways. It is defined as the careful control of the location, design, and operation of all driveways and public street connections to a roadway. Access management is intended for use on collectors and arterial roads that have many commercial and Draft Transportation - 26 p-/ residential driveways/intersections to increase the mobility of the traffic. There are different methods for attaining the goals and those methods are typically designed around the needs and problems of each particular area. The basic principles of access management include: Limiting the Number of Conflict Points A conflict point exists at any place that vehicle paths will cross, merge into, or diverge from one another along roadways, specifically at intersections or driveways. The potential for vehicular crashes increases as the number of conflict points along a roadway go higher. One method for limiting the number of conflict points is to decrease the number of driveways a business or neighborhood can have onto an arterial or collector roadway. Limitation of conflict points can also be accomplished with the use of reverse frontage and access roads. Decreasing the number of conflict points significantly reduce the potential for crashes. Separating Basic Conflict Areas Intersections of public streets as well as intersections of driveways and public streets represent basic conflict areas. High levels of activity can occur at these locations and, consequently, the through traffic needs time to react to the decelerations, accelerations, and travel paths of other vehicles at or near the intersections. Adequate spacing between intersections allows drivers to react to one intersection at a time and provides greater opportunities to avoid potential conflicts at each successive downstream intersection. Similarly, setting driveways and connections back from intersections reduces the number of conflicts and provides more time and space for vehicles to turn or merge safely across lanes. One way of accomplishing this goal is to close off or relocate existing entrances or establish a larger minimum lot size for corner lots. Reducing Interference with Through Traffic Traffic often needs to slow down for vehicles exiting, entering, or turning across the roadway. Providing turning lanes and restricting turning movements allows turning traffic to get out of the way of the following through traffic. Other measures include increasing the turning radius of a driveway, using a driveway flare, or increased driveway width and length. Providing Adequate On-Site Circulation and Storage The design of good internal vehicle circulation in parking areas and on local streets reduces the number of driveways that businesses need for access to the major roadway. Internal Draft Transportation - 27 P-f connections between neighboring properties allow vehicles to circulate between businesses without having to re-enter the major roadway. Subdivisions should be designed so that lots fronting the major roadway have internal access from a residential street (reverse frontage). Implementation of an access management measure is much easier when constructing a new corridor with wide right-of-ways and no existing development. Developers can follow certain guidelines or regulations that have been established. However, as is the case in most of Roanoke County, most of the corridors have already been developed and the right-of-ways are set. The designers and developers must try to "retrofit" access management measures into an already tight right-of-way. More often than not, access management projects will coincide with major road improvements. Some of the benefits of implementing Access Management are: · Saves lives and reduces the frequency of fatal, injury, and property damage accidents; · Maintains the transportation system travel efficiency necessary for economic prosperity; · Prolongs the functional life of existing highways by maintaining or increasing capacity, thereby reducing the need for new capital construction to meet increasing system demands; · Is an element of Air Quality Confonnance; · Reduces congestion and delay and provides property owners with safe access to highways; · Promotes desirable land use patterns, establishes unifonn standards, and promotes fair and equal application to the development of the community. Virginia Department of Transportation has Access Management guidelines that are available for adoption by the County. Roanoke County staff will consider adoption of said standards, coordinating with RV ARC and VDOT throughout the process. Until the time that the Board has approved and adopted the standards, staff will consider each major corridor project that is perfonned in the County as a candidate Access Management project. iv. Objective: To reduce noise levels where transportation activities are the predominant noise generating sources. a. Strategy: Noise Abatement Measures -- To the nonnal Roanoke County motorist, highway traffic noise is not a Draft Transportation - 28 P-I considerable concern. However, to the many County residents and business owners that are adjacent to a busy travel way, it is an unnecessary nUIsance. The level of highway traffic noise depends on three factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. With the number of registered vehicles and vehicle miles traveled increasing every year to nearly uncontrollable values, planners/designers must look to strategies other than traffic and/or speed mitigation. The highway noise dilemma can be solved with a three-part solution: motor vehicle control, land use control, and highway planning and design. Motor vehicle control: The Environmental Protection Agency has issued noise limit regulations for new trucks and many local and State governments have passed ordinances requiring existing vehicles to be properly maintained and operated. Land use control: Highway traffic noise complaints often come from occupants of new homes built adjacent to an existing highway. The majority of these highways were originally constructed through undeveloped lands. Prudent land use control can help to prevent many future traffic noise problems in these areas. It is important to point out that such controls need not prohibit development, but rather require reasonable distances between buildings and roads as well as "soundproofing" or other noise abatement measures. Another strategy is to promote the development of less noise-sensitive commercial buildings next to a major highway, with residencies farther away. Highway planning and design: Early in the planning stages of most highway improvement projects, the highway agency will do a noise study. The existing noise levels of a highway are measured or computed by models. Then, the agency predicts what the future noise levels will be once the project is constructed. If the predicted noise levels exceed Federal noise criteria, the agency must consider measures that can be taken to lessen the adverse noise impacts. Some noise reduction measures that can be implemented on existing roads include creating buffer zones, construction barriers (e.g., earth benns, noise walls, etc.), planting vegetation, installing noise insulation in buildings, and managing traffic. On a more local level, VDOT established its Noise Abatement Policy in 1989 to lessen the impact of highway traffic noise on people in neighborhoods and in other noise-sensitive areas. That policy maintains that VDOT will conduct a highway traffic noise study on proposed federally funded highway improvement projects. These projects must meet one of the following Draft Transportation - 29 P-I conditions: a highway is being built on a new location; an existing highway is being redesigned with a significant change in its alignment; or the number of through traffic lanes on an existing highway is being increased. The cost of the noise reduction measures are included with the other costs of the highway improvement and are eligible for Federal funding in the same proportion as other aspects of the project. State highway agencies may also use Federal highway grants for noise reduction project on existing roads on the Federal-aid system. The monies spent on the noise reduction measures are deducted from funds which would otherwise be available for highway construction. On non-federally funded highway improvement projects, the locality can obtain partial funding from VDOT to implement noise abatement measures if the locality meets eligibility requirements outlined in the aforementioned state noise policy. The County will strive to adhere to VDOT's Noise Abatement Policy when making decisions pertinent to Roanoke County roads. If alternative measures will not reduce the noise or are not desirable in a certain location, VDOT engineers will then consider installing noise walls. The noise walls must meet the following conditions: they will not present a safety or engineering problem; they will reduce noise levels by at least five decibels at all impacted locations; and they cost $30,000 or less per noise- impacted property. If the structure costs more than $30,000 per affected property, they can still be built if a third party - someone other than VDOT or FHW A, such as a locality or developer - funds the difference. The neighborhood or any other interested party can also participate as the third party and third party payments must be received prior to the start of highway construction. Noise problems are harder to mitigate after an area is developed. Consequently, local governments are encouraged to evaluate potential noise problems as part of planning and zoning decisions. Development standards can regulate the placement of noise generating activities adjacent to sensitive areas such as residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, parks, natural areas, and open spaces. Some of the action measures that the County can consider implementing include: . Coordinate with area RV ARC, MPO, and adjacent state and local agencies to minimize noise impacts of existing and future transportation facilities and other noise- producing land uses; . Ensure development complies with state noise regulations; Draft Transportation - 30 \~-I · Adopt development standards which require review of the potential noise impacts of new development, including roads, and the need for appropriate mitigating measures such as: o Building setbacks; o Berms, noise walls, and extensive landscaping; o Site design measures such as using parking, storage areas and buildings which generate little or no noise to separate noise sources from surrounding land uses; o Sound insulation and state of the art mechanical and processing equipment which generate little or no nOIse; o Measures recommended by DEQ or a qualified noise consultant and financial agreements to ensure required noise reduction measures are installed; o Increased rights-of-way for major arterials and berming, noise walls, sunken roadways, and planting of large shrubs and trees; and o Traffic management measures to discourage through traffic from using local residential streets. v. Objective: To help reduce and control air pollutants in the Roanoke Valley and surrounding area. a. Strategy: Air Quality/Attainment Status -- The primary objective of the Federal Clean Air Act, amended by the U.S. Congress in 1990, is to establish standards for various pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and to provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via state implementation plans. The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish minimum national standards for air quality, and assigns primary responsibility to the states to assure compliance. Areas not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), referred to as "non-attainment" areas, are required to implement specified air pollution control measures. Roanoke County, by its inclusion in the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), may possibly be designated as a non- attainment area. The Roanoke MSA has one ozone monitor located in the town of Vinton. Roanoke County and all other communities within the MSA are judged solely on that one monitoring station. To meet the I-hour ozone standard, the Roanoke MSA must have a monitored hourly peak ozone Draft Transportation - 31 \I,.....\~ P·~f concentration below 125 parts per billion (ppb). Since 1990, the Roanoke MSA has exceeded the I-hour standard on two occasions in 1998. However, due to the guidelines, the MSA remains in compliance for the I-hour standard. Similarly, the 8-hour ozone standard, found by averaging three years of the fourth highest 8-hour ozone levels in the area, must be lower than 85 ppb to meet the standard. Currently (as of 2003), the Roanoke MSA design value is 87 ppb. Therefore, it is probable, based on recent monitoring data, that the Roanoke MSA wiII be designated a non-attainment area when formal designations occur, by the year 2004. The region is volunteering to put itself into the Ozone Early Action Program (OEAP) process to expedite air cleanup and to avoid being labeled a non-attainment area. The two principal components of the OEAP are the Early Action Compact (EAC) and the Early Action Plan (EAP). The EAC is a memorandum of agreement to prepare and implement the EAP. SpecificalIy, the EAC sets measurable milestones for developing and implementing the EAP. The EAC is between the local governments representing the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, the Town of Vinton, the EPA, and VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). It is for the express purpose of developing and implementing a plan that will reduce ground-level ozone concentrations in the Roanoke MSA to comply with the 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2007 and maintain that standard until at least 2012. Failure to meet that obligation results in immediate reversion to the traditional non- attainment process and the subsequent negative impacts. A major advantage of the region's participation in the OEAP is the flexibility afforded to the signatories of the Compact in selecting emission reduction measures and programs that are best suited to local needs and circumstances. The Roanoke MSA's OEAP is designed to enable a local, proactive approach to ensuring attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard and, as a by-product of these actions, protect human health. Using the OEAP approach, the region could begin implementing by 2005 emission-reduction measures directed at attaining the 8-hour standard. This alIows for a significantly earlier start than waiting for formal EP A non-attainment designation and it gives more flexibility in choosing which emission reduction strategies to implement. The Roanoke ValIey Alleghany Regional Commission (RV ARC), in consultation with the aforementioned local governments, will develop the EAP in coordination with VDEQ, EP A, stakeholders, Draft Transportation - 32 p-/ and the public. The EAP will serve as Roanoke MSA's official air quality improvement plan, to be adopted and implemented by the local governments. By signing the EAC, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is committed to holding responsibility for the development and implementation of the EAP. Roanoke County Community Development staff has aided the RV ARC in the early stages of the EAC and EAP and helped in selecting the consultant that will work on this project. The staff will continue its efforts with the RV ARC, adjacent communities, and interested stakeholders throughout this endeavor; ensuring that the emission reduction measures that are selected are best suited to County needs and circumstances. (For more infonnation, please refer to the latest copy of the Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan on the internet at http://www.rvarc.org/work/eap.pdf) D. Goal: To play an influential role in shaping and implementing regional transportation decisions. i. Objective: To continue comprehensive transportation planning and to work in concert with neighboring jurisdictions and public entities. a. Strategy: Active role in Regional Transportation Issues and Funding -- In 1973, federal law began requiring the fonnation of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for urbanized areas with populations exceeding 50,000 to ensure that federal expenditures on transportation projects include cooperation at all government levels and provide for citizen input. The regional MPO consists of representatives from area localities, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, Roanoke Regional Airport, and the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RV ARC). The service area of the Roanoke Valley Area MPO includes Roanoke and Salem cities, Vinton, the urbanized portions of Botetourt and Roanoke counties and the extreme western portion of Bedford County. The MPO functions through regional forums where a series of participants address transportation issues. The Policy Board reviews and approves plans and programs and exercises administrative and fiscal control over MPO duties. It is made up of two representatives (at least one elected official) from each member locality and one member each from other participating Draft Transportation - 33 p-/ agencies. The Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) works closely with MPO staff in developing plans and programs and advises the Policy Board on technical and administrative issues related to regional transportation planning. It is comprised of planning and engineering staff from participating members of the MPO. An often underutilized component of the decision-making process is citizen participation. The public is invited to help develop, review and comment on proposed regional transportation plans. All MPO meetings are open to the public and serve as a regular forum for community transportation concerns. The Metropolitan Planning Organization is charged with developing plans and programs to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) in order for federal-aid dollars to reach their regions. Federal regulations (see discussion of TEA- 21 in this element of the Community Plan) mandate that each MPO develop a Long Range Transportation Plan and a Transportation Improvement Plan. The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is an urbanized area's guide to creating a more efficient, responsive and environmentally-sensitive transportation system over a twenty-year horizon. This plan examines transportation issues and trends and offers a list of specific projects for dealing with a region's mobility needs. The LRTP is updated every five years and public input is requested. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a three-year schedule of all federally funded and regionally significant transportation projects to be constructed in the urbanized area. To receive federal funding, these projects must first be approved by the MPO Policy Board for inclusion in the TIP. The TIP is updated annually and may include proposals originating from the LRTP. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is Virginia's version of the TIP, (earmarking state funds) established after annual TIP approvals. The Unified Transportation Work Program (UTWP) is a one-year schedule of all urban transportation planning activities that will be carried out with federal expenditures. Project suggestions can originate from the public or from any MPO member. The Policy Board and TTC determine the projects to be part of the UTWP which is updated each year. Roanoke County staff will continue in its efforts to work in concert with the RV ARC, collaborating on particular facility, sub-area, corridor, and system-level transportation studies, and representing the County on the associated boards and committees mentioned above. Draft Transportation - 34 P-I b. Strategy: Active role with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) -- Roanoke County staff seeks to work in a cooperative manner with Virginia Department of Transportation on all projects that occur in the County. This coordination of efforts is done to ensure the project progresses in a timely manner; all the while, looking out for the best interests of the County residents. Our efforts may involve forwarding citizens' comments, questions, and/or recommendations, ensuring compliance with County standards, and sharing data, information, expertise, etc. to assure timely and efficient completion of projects. Whereas County residents and staff have input on all roads in Roanoke County, the opportunity for citizen input is greater regarding the secondary roads, working within the framework of the annually updated Six - Year Secondary System Construction Plan. The public may advise county staff on needed safety or other improvements to the secondary street system. Staff considers these requests, investigates the matter, and takes the concerns to VDOT, hopefully to gain a spot in the Six-Year improvement program. Staff also gathers insight and input from the Board of Supervisors, VDOT, and the MPO prior to the inclusion of a specific road into the Six-Year improvement program (see Figure T-2 for an explanation ofVDOT's Project Development Process). In addition to the Six-Year improvement program, the County also works in conjunction with VDOT on Revenue Sharing (both the Six- Year Secondary System Construction and Revenue Sharing programs are covered in this element of the Community Plan) and the Rural Addition Program. County staffwill attempt to continue to grow and strengthen the working relationship with VDOT, specifically the Salem District of VDOT. Draft Transportation - 35 p-¡ VDOT Project Development Process Constrnjned Long Rang. j 20 'tr Pìan .h District Added to v..JPlanmng& ~ Tentati.....e~AlkÞcatKJnŒ!$ ~ddedto Programm",g 6 y, Plan H.."ng 0 Yr. PI)'n TIPAf'Sl""bY ~pl 0 Meetings. P1 CTB ~ T'.n;;:'~.tion ~ C¡fjzen'g Approval I~~~:nl Roquoots VeOTf Draft. SplYa'n 6 y, and C<J<Jnty Co nt S,"fI æ::$ w U ,/ ~ 6 y, EEi> Public EEi> Plan Recomrnen- 0 Plan Hearing Approved døtÎCIns SQß$lon FHWA& ~:~~I ElE) Project Agoncy for Oipproval ....MM_.______·_~...___M.._.WH_. .~. NolA::: Soo\e S1X;(lOOðfY Rood P~Ct$ reli l \;i¡hiI'l-1ne, ¡ MPO'$ urb;!.n studyar-eø C",ð ~JId bP. Ind;Þde<i j in ihI Caft.mirled Long RII'I¡,gor;::ID y, P:ar'l. . as pI!I~ I/'w O:::>unty'$ requcst , '"__......._,_...~~...H.~~._.".'""..MM"'~'~~,~,,~,.. "'n.___.___w.._· Figure T-2: VDOT Project Development Process c. Strategy: Support regional aviation efforts -- The Virginia Air Transportation Systems Plan classifies the Roanoke Regional Airport as a Commercial Service Airport. The Roanoke Regional Airport accommodates the aviation needs of the scheduled airlines, air freight carriers, general aviation, corporate, air taxi and charter operators, as well as the military, for a region including, but not limited to, the Roanoke Valley. The Roanoke Regional Airport's passenger service area covers an area which includes the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Counties of Roanoke, Montgomery, Pulaski, Giles, Craig, Botetourt, Alleghany, Rockbridge, Bedford, Franklin, Floyd, and portions of West Virginia. Public ground transportation service to and from the airport is limited to taxicab and limousine service. There are a few heliports located in and around the area. Although these heliports are important from a service and air traffic standpoint, their impact on overall transportation planning in the Roanoke area is minor. The need for improvements to the Roanoke Regional Airport spawned an Airport Master Plan Update in 1997 to estimate and accommodate future aviation demand, maintain flexibility for development opportunities and market changes, and to recognize physical constraints. Major long-range anticipated improvements (horizon year 2015) include pavement upgrades to airfield runways, relocation and widening of taxiways, installation of new runway navigational/landing aids, construction of a new air traffic control tower and changes to the passenger terminal and parking lots. The implementation strategies put forth in the County's 1998 Community Plan hold true for this update/revision. The strategies include: Draft Transportation - 36 P-I · Supporting improvement to the airport and airport access as a central factor in economic development; · Locating and operating aviation and related facilities in such a way as to minimize detrimental environmental and community impacts; · Evaluating land uses around existing aviation facilities during the development review process, to ensure compatibility in terms of height, noise, and the functional classification of the aviation facility; · Supporting the provision of transit service to the Roanoke Regional Airport, not only for passengers, but in support of the airport's role as a major employment center; · Encouraging the use and development of the Roanoke Regional Airport and seek international status; · Encouraging the Airport Commission to procure aviation and related facility easements where appropriate. d. Strategy: Collaborate with Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) -- Rail transport, once a thriving business and transportation choice in the Roanoke Valley, is not presently a popular mode of transportation for County citizens. There is currently no direct inter-city rail service available from the Roanoke valley. There is, however, rail service from Clifton Forge and Lynchburg, surrounding communities within a short driving distance of Roanoke. Roanoke County staff should cooperate with the VDRPT, RV ARC, and Roanoke City staff in revitalizing passenger rail service for the Roanoke Valley. ii. Objective: To stay abreast of recent legislation that pertains to transportation and investigate its availability for County infrastructure systems. a. Strategy: TEA-3 (An Update / Reauthorization of TEA- 21) -- TEA-3, or Transportation Equity Act- 2003 (third authorization) refers to the nation's surface transportation program previously scheduled for renewal in 2003. The original vision, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 introduced a series of reforms to national transportation policy, steering away from the automobile and towards pedestrian, bicycling, passenger rail and transit mobility. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty- First Century (TEA-21) continued those programs through the expenditure of $300 billion during the decade. The renewal ofTEA-21 could occur anytime from mid-2004 through late 2005 involving Senate Commerce, Science & Draft Transportation - 37 p--} Transportation, Finance, Banking, Environment & Public Works, and Housing & Urban Affairs committees and House of Representatives Transportation & Infrastructure, Science, and Ways & Means committees with the U.S. Department of Transportation as the lead agency. The challenge is to build on ISTEA's provisions for improving transportation through flexibility, local decision-making, long range planning, fiscally constrained budgeting, and environmental stewardship. Sound transportation investments can help communities thrive by providing a safe, healthy, and secure environment, enhancing neighborhood livability, and promoting energy efficiency and conservation. The most popular and visible use offederal funds has been conducted under the Transportation Enhancements Program (TE). TE was created under ISTEA and fosters local economic development and helps reconnect communities divided or negatively impacted by highway construction. Using only two cents of every federal transportation dollar, TE projects - bicycle and pedestrian facilities, main street revitalization programs, renovation of train stations and other historic sites, scenic easements, and billboard removal along highway corridors - are achieved. For example, the regional green ways program has been awarded nearly $3.88 million in Transportation Enhancement and other federal funding since 1996. County staffwill continue to monitor the progress of the TEA-3 authorization and investigate ways that County residents can benefit. iii. Objective: To remain informed and up-to-date on major road/transportation projects within the County. a. Strategy: Interstate 81 -- Interstate 81 extends for 325 miles throughout Virginia, with a substantial portion of it located in Roanoke County. Cut through rolling and mountainous terrain, I -81 has been recognized as one of the most scenic interstates in the U.S. The highway is essential not only to the economic vitality of Virginia; it also serves as one of the East Coast's most important transportation facilities. The route carries out- of-state tourists, through travelers, a growing number of intra- valley commuters, and more than a third of all college and university students in Virginia. The interstate closely parallels U.S. Route 11 and railroad lines. The nearly 40 year old route is experiencing capacity and safety issues. Traffic through this Draft Transportation - 38 P-I crucial corridor has tripled in the last 20 years, from around 20,000 vehicles per day to nearly 70,000 vehicles per day in the Roanoke Valley. Though mostly a rural corridor, 1-81 is one of the top eight truck routes in the U.S. On some sections ofI-81, the number of trucks nearly equals the number of passenger cars. The highway was designed for 15% truck traffic, but trucks now account for 20-40% of the traffic on 1- 81. VDOT accepted proposals under the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPT A) to design, build, improve, maintain, and/or operate all or parts of 1-81 through the Commonwealth. These proposals involved separating passenger vehicles and heavy trucks using physical barriers, adding additional lanes, adding truck climbing lanes, longer on- and off- ramps, tolls on all motor vehicles or tolls only on heavy trucks, utilizing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and other features. In early-2004, after much review and discussion, the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner directed VDOT to enter into negotiations with STAR Solutions as the potential operator for improvements to 1-81. The STAR proposal would widen 1-81 to at least four lanes in each direction, with the separation of truck and car lanes. The project would be partly financed with tolls applied to both cars and trucks. Plans or proposals to improve 1-81 cannot be implemented without the approval and concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). Because the interstate system is federally funded, any proposed changes to the highway must comply with all federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). In accordance with NEP A, in the fall of 2003 FHW A and VDOT launched an 1-81 Corridor Improvement Study. The study will objectively identify deficiencies along the interstate as well as opportunities for improvements throughout the corridor in Virginia. This study will lead to the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and ultimately a Record of DecÎsion from FHW A. Roanoke County will be working with neighboring jurisdictions, planning organizations, and VDOT during the completion of the corridor study and environmental review. County staff will continue to work in concert with all interested parties on this endeavor to best address the safety concerns and truck traffic capacity issues. Similarly, we recognize the Draft Transportation - 39 'P-( crucial link between land use and the transportation system. Staff must consider the impacts to existing right-of-way, be mindful of the project's effect on rezonings, special-use penn its, and planning projects, and determine if the corridor will playa role in the growth management measures under consideration. In addition, it must be stated that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has been very supportive of the 1-81 improvement project. They have adopted numerous resolutions, some dating back to 1997, corroborating VDOT's attempts to improve the corridor. Subsequently, they have resolved to "express its support for the development and promotion of rail freight and passenger service parallel to 1-81, to complement limited highway-widening and to move a large volume of the long- distance freight traffic from trucks on 1-81 to freight trains on dual track, high-speed rails parallel to 1-81" (Resolution 062403-6.d). (Note: To review the most current information pertaining to 1- 81, click on the link on the County's website to access VDOT's 1-81 website) b. Strategy: Proposed Interstate 73 -- The U.S. Congress designated Interstate 73 (1-73) a National Priority Corridor as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Congress made 1-73 official in 1995 by including it in the National Highway System (NHS). The purpose of the NHS "priority corridor" is to link the nation's regions and support economic growth. Needs were identified to improve goods movements between the port of Charleston, South Carolina and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. This would require an effective and efficient roadway that facilitates interstate travel between Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and North and South Carolina. 1-73 is an identified state and regional priority in Virginia to foster planned economic development between southwestern Virginia and the Piedmont Triad regions in North Carolina. Local manufacturers have business connections with the cities of Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point, NC. Improved access through the Roanoke Valley to 1-581 and 1-81 will link businesses in the study area with locations in the eastern U.S. Draft Transportation - 40 r~-J Another regional priority in southwest Virginia is to address safety concerns along U.S. Route 220 resulting from high percentages of truck traffic, poor sight distances, steep grades, and a large number of accidents. VDOT's consultant maintains that solutions to these concerns could be achieved by developing a safe and direct transportation link for business trucking between NC' s Piedmont Triangle and the Roanoke Valley's 1-581 and 1-81 corridors. The Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved a corridor location for 1-73 in May 2001. Starting at the northern end of the corridor, the approved location for 1-73 begins at the existing interchange ofI-81 and 1-581 and continues along 1-581 through Roanoke City to the Elm Avenue interchange. At this point in the route, there is a change to be made to the previously approved alignment. In 2004 it was deemed that the Southeast Roanoke neighborhood that would have been impacted by 1-73 was eligible for designation as a historic district. Therefore, an approximately 12-mile section of the corridor in southeast Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and northern Franklin County had to be re- routed. The re-routed corridor that is currently being studied at the time of this writing includes the existing alignment of Route 220 from Elm Avenue continuing south into the Clearbrook area of the County and then veering southeast of Buck Mountain Road along Route 657 (Crowell Gap Road) into Franklin County where it would rejoin the original approved corridor in the vicinity of Coopers Cove. Roanoke County's Board of Supervisors has supported this project and passed several resolutions pertaining to the issue in recent years. VDOT will be finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with specific information about the selected corridor. The Final EIS will then be forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) for consideration and/or approval. Completion of the Final EIS and approval by FHW A may take up to a year. Once the FHW A issues its approval- called a Record of Decision - final design, right of way acquisition and construction can begin. Roanoke County staff will continue to monitor the development of this project and work in concert with all involved. Along those same lines, staff recognizes the crucial link between land use and the transportation system. Staff must consider the impacts to existing right-of-way, be mindful of the project's effect on rezonings, special-use permits, and planning projects, and Draft Transportation - 41 p-¡ determine if the corridor will playa role in the growth management measures under consideration. E. Goal: To provide progressive and forward looking solutions and technology to users of Roanoke County's transportation network. i. Objective: To improve the management ofthe County's resources and data and to utilize computer technology as a decision making tool. a. Strategy: Geographical Information Systems (GIS) -- Roanoke County has attempted to stay on the leading edge of computer technology. This trend maintains as it relates to transportation issues the County encounters. Specifically, GIS will be used to develop and maintain an inventory of the transportation infrastructure. The inventory will include road lengths and widths, traffic counts, and functional classification, to name a few archived items. GIS will also be used in conjunction with a pavement management system to track and display road construction/maintenance. The inventory and pavement management system will be maintained in the ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) environment utilizing up to date versions of ArcGIS. We will incorporate a relational database to enter, store, and analyze the necessary data. The GIS software will be pivotal in preparing maps and presenting infrastructure inventory and maintenance recommendations to VDOT, the Board of Supervisors, and the public. ii. Objective: To improve the livability of Roanoke County residents by ensuring that transportation systems are properly designed and applicable to the community it serves. a. Strategy: Context Sensitive/Flexible Design -- An important, yet often forgotten, concept in highway design is that every project is unique. The setting and character of the area, the values of the community, the needs of the highway users, and the challenges and opportunities are unique factors that designers must consider with each highway project. For each potential project, designers are faced with the task of balancing the need for the highway improvement with the need to safely integrate the design into the surrounding natural and human environments. Often, over- engineered road design standards limit transportation choices, isolate neighborhoods, create hazardous settings, and Draft Transportation - 42 P-I otherwise hann the quality of life within a community. Unnecessarily wide neighborhood streets discourage pedestrian and bicycle use and increase car speeds. Flexible road standards would give designers more opportunities to use varying widths, medians, sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping to develop better streetscapes with more opportunities for transportation and recreation, while still providing roads that efficiently carry vehicles. Use of the aforementioned flexible standards is commonly referred to as Context Sensitive Design (CSD). CSD incorporates the streetscape, aesthetics, livability, and the application of devices aimed at changing motorists' behavior. However, in order to succeed, CSD requires neighborhood involvement before road design changes are initiated. CSD attempts to balance the level of service of a road with surrounding community values. CSD provides a higher level of safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists than conventional street design which focuses on vehicular movement at high speeds. Typical elements of CSD are somewhat similar to traffic calming measures. Some examples of CSD are: · Real or perceived lane width reductions or limitations · Intentional curvature · Textured pavement and/or markings · Extensive landscaping · Right of entry for all travel modes Context Sensitive Design calls for public involvement when defining the need for a road project. This requires public participation throughout the project, the early and continuous use of a multidisciplinary design team, the use of visualization techniques to aid the public, and the application of flexible design criteria. The reference most often used for project design criteria is the Green Book. Its official title is A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Although often viewed as dictating a set of national standards, this document is actually a series of guidelines on geometric design within which the designer has a range of flexibility. As stated in the forward to the Green Book: The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to the designer by referencing a recommended range of values for critical dimensions. Szifficient flexibility is permitted to encourage independent designs tailored to particular situations. Draft Transportation - 43 P-I Context Sensitive Design can provide significant improvements to collector and arterial roads scheduled for widening or reconstruction in Roanoke County. An example of a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) project that has incorporated CSD is the Colonial Avenue project (a one-half mile portion of Colonial between Penn Forest Boulevard and Route 419). Citizens along Colonial Avenue requested that the County and VDOT implement CSD along that corridor. At the time of this update to the Community Plan, that project is progressing with the input of the citizens along the Colonial Avenue corridor and will hopefully meet the needs of the residents and motorists. Roanoke County staff will attempt to monitor all VDOT road projects within the County and ensure that the proposed design is applicable to the needs and environment of the community while maintaining the desired function of the roadway. ii. Objective: To help take an active role in implementing and incorporating new technologies into the transportation system to increase the safety and efficiency of the system. a. Strategy: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) incorporate new technologies in information processing, communications, control, and electronics into the transportation system. When integrated into the transportation infrastructure, and in vehicles themselves, these technologies help monitor and manage traffic flow, reduce congestion, provide alternate routes to travelers, enhance productivity, and save lives, time, and money. Intelligent transportation systems provide the tools for transportation professionals to collect, analyze, and archive data about the performance of the system. Having this data enhances a traffic operator's ability to respond to incidents, adverse weather, or other capacity constricting events. Some systems, products, and services are already in place and at work throughout the country (a local example ofITS technology can be found between Blacksburg and 1-81 on the Smart Road). Various examples ofIntelligent Transportation Systems include: · On-board navigation systems; · Crash notification systems; · Electronic payment systems; · Roadbed sensors; · Traffic video/control technologies; Draft Transportation - 44 p-{ . Weather information services; · Variable message signs; . Fleet tracking and weigh-in-motion technologies. Roanoke County and other member governments of the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (RV AMPO) are seeking to take an active role in the Commonwealth's efforts to develop and implement ITS technologies. County staff will work with the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RV ARC) in this effort and cooperate with VDOT's Salem District when possible. F. Goal: To expand and emphasize citizen participation and comments during the early stages of transportation planning. i. Objective: To ensure that Roanoke County citizens have their voices heard on projects/issues that will affect them. a. Strategy: Comment form on County's website -- More and more people are utilizing the internet to gather and transmit information than ever before. The County should provide a platform for those individuals that want to communicate their inquiries, comments, and concerns to County staff, via this format. An addition will be made to the County's website that allows the citizens to voice their opinions, desires, and questions. The citizen will access the Transportation/Engineering portion of the County's website at: http://www. roanolœcountyva.gov/Departments/Engineering/TransportationI. Once here, the citizen will find contact information that will enable them to speak their mind on transportation issues in the County. b. Strategy: Citizen Input on Long Range Transportation Plan -- As noted earlier in this element of the Community Plan, the County's input into the Long Range Transportation Plan (LR TP) is vitally important. For that reason, staff is seeking the comments of County residents on the matter. Ultimately, the residents are the one that pay for and use the infrastructure; consequently, their voice should be heard. Comments received after the release of this updated Community Plan will be taken into consideration for the next update to the Draft Transportation - 45 p- LRTP, as the list has already been submitted (submitted in September '03) to VDOT for consideration. However, as stated earlier, the plan may be revised by the Roanoke Valley MPO through amendments. Therefore, County staff is requesting that the residents review the list (Table T-3) and subsequent map attached in this document. Any comments or questions about the LRTP can be directed to the County staff via the website (explained above), email, or telephone. Draft Transportation - 46 P-l TransportaUon Element-Implementation Schedule STRATEGY TIME FRAME COMMENTS Growth Management ongoing Dependent on APFO legislation; work with Measures VDOT on LOS for Countv roads Balance Land Use Functional Classifications designated by 2004; Objectives w/ Street by 2005 implementation of guidelines by planning staff Functional Capabilities will take a little more time. Long Range Plan Issues ongoing Officially updated every 5 yrs.; County will receive comments at any time Pavement Mgmt. Sys. for 6-yr Plan and Revenue Sharing updated Secondary 6-Year Plan & by 2005 annually; hope to implement PMS for Revenue Rev. Sharinq Sharinq for 2005 proqram. Bicycle Facilities & ongoing Continue working with VDOT & the Roanoke Greenwavs Valley Greenway Commission Traffic Management by 2005 Work with RV ARC Strateaies Education on Work with RVARC, Valley Metro, County Transportation Systems & by 2005 Livabilitv Issues website, RVTV, etc. Traffic Calming by 2005 Dependent on scheduling of potential projects Access Manaaement by 2005 Dependent on schedulina of potential proiects Noise Abatement Measures by 2005 Project specific; may be an issue that coincides with improvements to 1-81 Air Quality/Attainment by 2005 Must be in compliance by 12/31/07; being Status implementinq measures bv 2005 Active role in Regional Transportation Issues & ongoing Work with RVARC, MPO, and other localities Fundinq Active role with VDOT ongoing Support Regional Aviation Work with Roanoke Regional Airport and ongoing Roanoke Co.'s Economic Development Efforts department Collaborate with VDRPT onQoing Work with VDRPT, RVARC, and Roanoke City TEA-3 onQoing Interstate 81 ongoing Roanoke Co. will provide comments; work in conjunction with VDOT & MPO Proposed Interstate 73 ongoing Staff monitoring project progress Geographical Info. Sys ongoing Used extensively for road inventory and PMS (GIS) Context Sensitive/Flexible ongoing Project specific, time frame dependent on DesiQn project schedulinQ Intelligent Trans. Systems ongoing Coordinate efforts with RVARC & VDOT (ITS) Citizen can currently access contact info and Comment Form on County's by 2005 communicate to the County Traffic Engineer; Website will attempt to get more structured comment form in 2005 Citizen Input on Long ongoing Will receive comments at any time for potential RanQe Plan amendments and/or the scheduled updates Draft Transportation - 47 Z -----.::::! ~ ---:::l ..- ro § 0..'5 ..- ro en 0...:E~ .è~~ .~ ífJ ~ §;:J 8"0 8 § ~ o ....:¡ I:::::: u~o... .è58 ~ ... 0 g~~ u"O~ ~ ~ gf ~ 0 ro o o.....c ê2u o 0... I 0:: t) ro ¡... t- E ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ...c u ro ~ c: o :;:¡ ro c: OJ U) c: o Ü Q) ID c -g o>ëOJO 2i! OJ E -E c: >'- ü c.. 0 0 OJ.Q:ê~ ro 0> OJ 0> c: :S~È)(jj~ O::::>OZI- fJ, ro "¡:: û) :J "0 c: ro c.. ~ "g o "¡:: Üa.. II OJ c: c: o OJ ~ ~ c: .... OJ a.. ê ""ê 't:J 0 :J I: ü 0:::: Q) j I.'d I ~ o .- ... ro ~ .- en ~ o ~ ¡... o U o ... If) o o N " 'D ........ >-. ¡... ro 2 ~ ~ ¡.r... ... ¡:: ~ 8 0.. o ..- ~ >- ~ o >-. ... '2 ;: 8 8 o u ~ o ... ~ ~ ~ ro 0.. ~ o P-í COMMUNITY PLAN DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES (January 18, 2005) 1. Revise County street standards. 2. Develop (urban and rural) private road standards. 3. Revise Land Development Standards: These standards are the framework used to employ all of the different development regulations such as the subdivision, zoning, utility, E & S requirements, etc. The standards reference old code sections and regulations that are no longer valid and should include the Western Virginia Water Authority requirements. The document should incorporate the proposed Storm Water Ordinance and steep slope codes from the Building Department. 4. Develop and adopt Stormwater Management Ordinance. 5. Neighborhood Commercial: Identify and map areas. Develop design guidelines. 6. Develop new residential zoning district with increased density, revised permitted uses, and revised development standards. 7. Revise Cluster Ordinance. 8. Review and revise permitted and special uses throughout zoning ordinance. Update uses where needed. 9. Revise Landscape Ordinance to include tree canopy and tree replacement standards. 10. Revise densities in agricultural zoning districts (AG-3, AG-1 and AR). 11. Develop rural cluster ordinance. 12. Develop resource protection ordinances including steep slopes and ridgetops. 13. Village Center: Identify and map areas. Develop design guidelines. 14. Develop ordinance prohibiting clear-cutting in certain areas. 15. Develop commercial corridor studies (Routes 221, 460 east and west). 16. Assist in the development of the Capital Improvement Plan. Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. <:]-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TU ESDA Y, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MEETING DATE: February 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of an existing stormwater management easement, The Cottages at Wexford, and vacation of a stormwater management easement, Wexford Place Townhomes, Cave Spring Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director, Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~ /I~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Wexford Place Homeowners Association is requesting that a portion of the Stormwater Management Easement created in Plat Book 23, Page 83, as shown on Exhibit 1, be vacated. The developer, DAV, LLC, wants to expand the footprint of the building on the lots adjacent to the easement. The proposed buildings would encroach into the existing Stormwater Management Easement. Prior to the recordation of the subdivided lots in Plat Book 27, Page 183, Roanoke County Community Development requested the developer to submit stormwater calculations for review of any impacts to the stormwater management pond by decreasing the size of the easement. The calculations supplied by Lumsden Associates, PC showed no negative impacts to the functionality of the stormwater facility. The plat was approved by the Roanoke County Subdivision Agent and subsequently recorded. Wexford Place Homeowners Association is requesting a complete vacation of the Stormwater Management Easement created in Plat Book 18, Page 105, as shown on Exhibit 2. This easement was created with the initial submission of plans ofWexford Place Townhomes. However, no facility was built in this area and the easement is now an encumbrance in the road. <- ' 0~'¡ FISCAL IMPACT: DA V, LLC is responsible for all fees associated with the vacation of the easements. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve both vacations, as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2. 2. Approve the vacation of the easement as shown on Exhibit 1, but deny the vacation of the easement as shown on Exhibit 2. 3. Approve the vacation of the easement as shown on Exhibit 2, but deny the vacation of the easement as shown on Exhibit 1. 4. Deny both easement vacations, as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. 2 <s-{ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2005 ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT DEDICATED IN PLAT BOOK 23, PAGE 83, THE COTTAGES AT WEXFORD, AND REVISED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGE 183, AND VACATION OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT DEDICATED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGE 105, WEXFORD PLACE TOWNHOMES, AND REVISED IN PLAT BOOK 19, PAGE 200, LOCATED IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat for the Cottages at Wexford, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 23, page 83, a variable width Stormwater Management Easement was dedicated and subsequently revised in Plat Book 27, page 183, following a review and approval of revisions by the Roanoke County Subdivision Agent, as shown on Exhibit 1 "Portion of Existing Stormwater Management Easement to be Vacated"; and, WHEREAS, the developer, DAV, LLC, proposes to expand the footprint of the buildings on the lots adjacent to this easement; and, WHEREAS, the developer has submitted calculations performed by Lumsden Associates, PC, which indicate that the proposed decrease in the size of this easement will have no negative impacts upon the functionality of the stormwater facility for this subdivision; and, WHEREAS, by subdivision plat for Wexford Place Townhomes, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia in Plat Book 18, page 105, a Stormwater Management Easement was dedicated and subsequently revised in Plat Book 19, page 200, as shown on Exhibit 2, "Existing Stormwater Management Easement to be Vacated"; and 1 3-( WHEREAS, no facility has been built in this area and the easement is now an encumbrance in the dedicated right-of-way of Capulet Court; and WHEREAS, the developer, as the Petitioner, has requested that, pursuant to Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate a portion of the existing stormwater management easement as shown on Exhibit 1 and the complete stormwater management easement as shown on Exhibit 2; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and the first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on February 22,2005 and the second reading was held on March 8, 2005. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on February 22,2005, and a second reading of this ordinance was held on March 8, 2005. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the subject real estate (stormwater management easements) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public use. 2 ~-, 3. That a portion of variable width stormwater management easement, being designated and shown as "Portion of Existing Stormwater Management Easement To Be Vacated" on Exhibit 1 attached hereto, said easement having been dedicated on the subdivision plat for The Cottages at Wexford and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 23, page 83, and revised in Plat Book 27, Page 183, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 4. That the existing portion of a stormwater management easement, being designated and shown as "Existing Stormwater Management Easement to be Vacated" on Exhibit 2 attached hereto, said easement having been dedicated on the subdivision plat for Wexford Place Townhomes and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 18, page 105 and revised in Plat Book 19, page 200, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 5. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners. 6. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of 3 ~I Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 4 ~ s,.._( I.C") c c \() ( ::11 - "'") - I - Wf "1.1"~ ~ _rr (T _ K_""'_ -.J 8 IJ.4. _ A< '161 (5 V) C§ ~~'t. \\¥'" ~\ I J__u_.: ~ f-"·- ., ; ! ¡ ! ~ k1 II! i =-- i ~ i! , '.') ij .. L---j~-- r ----,---- ! _ i : \ ¿$_ {~,,~i::,~~$jJ' J__', .__. ·~r:_.L:~··-r I ~ ~ - ... I ¡ :s ¡ I ' ~-'---r- ._,___.__.'"L_._____.__f:-;:;~=.~ -¡---. ,-'. i" I ! ~ ] .. I , "& ! ~ I I ! \,,6 ! -·,.,'~iII I !!!! ; j ~~ :s [/ ~ e a I '''---'--- -_._-,~ - '17= , ill?' , ---: 8 ~ ~ .. ... I Q , ~ -.; --..--.,....,.-..-.... -t-- .-¡--..-- \ a I i :! M.l1f $ð 3JJI Þ'A ~ NÞ'.JN1CIf HV108 "'0 Q) .¡..¡ ro u ro > Q) .c .8 w ::E ~ (f) CJ") c :¡:; If ;B ..... o c o :e ~ .¡..¡ c Q) E Q) CJ") ro c ro"'O ::E2 ~ ro Q) U .¡..¡ro .,.-{3> \::;E~ c:¡~o -.8.¡..¡ I(f).¡..¡ G:) CJ") C C Q) ~~ 'x ::a Ww ..... o C o :e o CL 0) - r--: Q;) c:) ~ 0... ~ ~ ~ }..., ~ ~ o ¡¡j ~~ 5~ o~ ~~ ~~ ~8 ~I¡. '. 0 >.:..... tQ~ Q~ ~~ ~o: lli;: ~~ 120 g<25 0 2.5 38.5JI~ 120 N t:.. . N l -.;:j- \~ 1'\ LD (~~:1 '\ 55119 a) 1 0 5 51 B . ~ +-'> " J '\ 'J LD N U IN 107.50 g 1 1 1 07. 55~ 1 6 g g 55 15 B g :: 1 2 :: 1 j :: 1 4 :: 1 5 :: 1 6 ~11 ex) ~1B o CD " 5514 :: " +-'> Q) ~ r---I - ~ :: P; cd:: U " :: 551 3 7:: " 5512 5510 :: " 5511 5509 " 6 :: 5:: " 550B :: " 5506 5504 107.50 5502 " " :: 5501 4 :: " j :: 5505 5503 " 107.50 5501 1 ~ o CD 20 n South Mountain Dr TAX MAP NO. 87.19 Portion of Existing s.W.M.E. to be Vacated SCALE: EXHIBIT 2 Existing Storm water Management Easement to be Vacated PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1"=50' DA TE: 1-31-05 PETITIONER: Seaside Heights, LLC (Bojangles) CASE NUMBER: 32-12/2004 (Rezoning) & 33-12/2004 (SUP) T-' Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 1, 2005 (Continued from December 7, 2004) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: March 22, 2005 (Continued from December 21, 2004) A. REQUEST The petition of Seaside Heights, LLC, to rezone .98 acres from C1, Office District to C- 2, General Commercial District and to obtain a Special Use Permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Continued by request of the petitioner) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission County of Roanoke Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: David Holladay, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator Date: January 25,2005 Re: February 1,2005 Public Hearing - Agenda Item H. 2. Seaside Heights, LLC / Bojangles has requested that their petition, Agenda Item H. 2., be continued until March 1,2005. The petitioner is contracting a traffic impact analysis of the existing turn lanes and traffic signal timing. The study will not be completed prior to the February 1 public hearing. Staff recommends continuing the petition until March 1,2005. T-( ACTION NO. ITEM NO. T - '2- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20 foot waterline easement dedicated by subdivision plat of Stonegate, Phase 2- B, Lots 47-48, and creating a new waterline easement situated on Lots 47 and 48, Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This item has been continued until March 22, 2005 at the request of the petitioner. T-3 PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture 4-2/2005 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: February 1, 2005 February 22, 2005 A. REQUEST The petition of Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 24,400 square foot, multi-purpose, family life facility for the Ebenezer Baptist Church, located at 7049 Thirlane Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS One citizen spoke in favor of the petition describing ample space on church property for additional parking. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Hooker, Mr. Jarrell and Mr. McNeil discussed adequate parking for the additional facility since the structure was sited on existing parking spaces. D. CONDITIONS 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the master site development plan prepared by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture, dated December 6, 2004. 2. The exterior building and roof colors of the proposed multi-purpose family life facility shall match the existing muted color scheme of the existing church facility. (Brown, tan, white and brick colors) E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker made a motion to favorably recommend the rezoning request 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 STAFF REPORT· Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture ~ \- 3 Petitioner: Request: Special Use Permit to expand a religious assembly use by constructing a new 24,400 square foot, multi-purpose, family life facility. 7049 Thirlane Road Location: Magisterial District: Suggested Conditions: Catawba 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the master site development plan prepared by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture, dated December 6, 2004. 2. The exterior building and roof colors of the proposed multi·purpose family life facility shall match the existing muted color scheme of the existing church facility. (Brown, tan, white and brick colors) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Special Use Permit to construct a 24,400 square foot multi·purpose, family life facility for the existing Ebenezer Baptist Church. The property is designated as Neighborhood Conservation in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the Community Plan. Staff supports the request with the recommended conditions. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site plan review and approval required. Adequate parking shall be required with the expansion of the site. VDOT entrance requirements shall be met. An evaluation of the existing entrance design will be conducted by VDOT as part of the site plan review process. Building permits shall be required. Any expansion of the private well or septic system to serve the expansion of the facility shall require the review and approval of the Roanoke County-Virginia Department of Health. An extension of public water and sewer to serve the facility is recommended. The alternative to a public water extension may be to install a pump and water storage tank of sufficient capacity to serve a sprinkler system. A new Religious Assembly or substantial expansions of this use are permitted in the R-1 district with a Special Use Permit. A religious assembly facility expansion exceeding 15,000 square feet is a trigger to require a Special Use Permit. The proposed expansion is 24,400 square feet. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Baèkoround -The application provides a history of the Ebenezer Baptist Church. The current church was constructed in 1988 due to a growing membership. At this time the application indicates that there is a need for a family life center that includes a basketball court, locker rooms, a weight room, bowling alley lanes, classroom spaces, a kitchen and other space. The facility is proposed behind the existing church facility. TOPoQraphvNeqetation -The site is slightly higher than Thirlane Road. A portion of the rear parking area 1 · T-3 will be removed for the placement of the new facility. Additional parking shall be required. In order to construct new parking areas the undisturbed area with mature tree growth will need to be significantly graded. Due to the steep grades in this area it is highly probable that retaining walls will need to be constructed. The appearance of these retaining walls will not likely be visible from the surrounding neighborhood. Surroundinq Neiohborhood - The surrounding neighborhood is primarily single family houses and several churches on Thirlane Road and Woodhaven Road. The adjacent properties are all zoned R-1 Low Density Residential. Currently the houses in the area and the existing church facility are served by private water and septic systems. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Lavout/Architecture - The propose multi purpose facility will have an exterior constructed of a metal roof and a combination of brick, metal and EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System) wall materials. According to the petitioner the colors of the proposed facility, including the metal roof, will match the existing structure colors. The building colors of the existing church facility include exterior color tones of white, tan, brown and brick colors. These color schemes of the proposed facility should be consistent with the existing facility. Accessrrraffic Circulation - The site will be accessed from the existing single connection on Thirlane Road. The proposed concept plan shows new parking areas on the north side of the existing and proposed buildings and to the east of the proposed multi-purpose building. The concept plan submitted with the application shows the vehicles will continue to use only one access point on Thirlane Road. The latest traffic estimate on this section of Thirlane Road between Connie Drive and Sweetenberg Lane is 680 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit on Thirlane Road is 25 mph. VDOT has indicated that some grading may be required to achieve required sight distance of 280 feet in each direction. VDOT has also indicated that there should be upgrades to the existing entrance, which may involve the construction of tuming lanes to accommodate increased traffic. Fire & Rescue/Utilities -Emergency services will continue at their current level. The closest fire hydrant is located at the intersection of Connie Drive and Thirlane Road, approximately .2 miles form the site. The Fire Department recommends that a hydrant be located closer to the proposed facility due to the increased occupancy load. This will be evaluated during the site plan review process. The site is currently served by a private well and septic system. The Roanoke County Building Commissioner has indicated that the new facility will need to be sprinkled. The Ebenezer Baptist Church may need to extend public water and sewer to accommodate the expansion. This issue will be addressed during the plan review process. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The subject parcel and adjoining parcels are designated as Neighborhood Conservation in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. Neighborhood Conservation is a future land use designation where established single~family neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. Typical uses are single-family residential uses and neighborhood institutional centers. The neighborhood institutional uses may serve the neighborhood including parks, community meeting areas, schools and religious assembly facilities. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS 2 T-3 The Ebenezer Baptist Church has been a growing member of the Kingstown neighborhood for over a century. Multi-purpose facilities also known as family life centers are becoming popular with growing churches. The family life center concept supports a creative ministry mission in a recreational setting. The religious assembly use is consistent with the Community Plan in Neighborhood Conservation designated areas. The suggested conditions should help the new facility blend with the existing neighborhood setting. Staff supports the request with the recommended conditions. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DArES: # 4·2/2005 J. Murphy PC: February 1, 2005 BOS: February 22, 2005 3 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 712-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 1-3 For Staff Use Only Appli tion fee: c). c) 0 Placards ~ pc:.) J. ¡fJ PC/BZA date: 2. ( ""'S- Case Number Check type of application filed (check all that apply) o Rezoning II Special Use Applicants name/address whip Jerome Donald HeDschel,PC Architecture 1317 Peters Creek Road, NW Roanoke Vir inia 24017-2545 Owner's name/address whiP Ebenezer Baptist Lhurch 7049 Thirlane Road R k Vir iniB 24019 Property Location 7049 Thirlane Road Tax Map No.: 037.06-01-13.00-0000 D Variance o Waiver Phone: Work: 540562 3174 Cell#: Fax No.: 5405624174 Phone #: 540 362-1306 Fax No. #: Magisterial District: Catawba Community Planning area: KiBgSt9wmr~ iiI:! 1(I"!s Existing Zoning: Rl Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: Construction of new Multi-purpose (Family Life) Facility Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ïI No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Y es ~ NoD IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST Ifrezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes D No 0 VarianceIWaiver ofSection(s) of the Roanoke County Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RISfW V RlSfW V RISfW V rn Consultation ~ 8112" 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 t or contract purchaser and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature /~-/~-or T-3 THE EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH HISTORY FOUNDED AUGUST 19, 1881 In 1842, the Hollins Institute, now known as Hollins College, was founded by Dr. Charles Lewis Cocke. After the founding of this institution, Dr. Cocke was lead by the will of God to organize bible school to teach Negro Slaves God's holy word. But little did he know that some of the oldest churches in the Roanoke Valley would be born there. Out of this masterpiece of religious work came First Enon Colored African Church. in 1866 one hundred thirty three members founded this church which was located on Plantation Road near the lIT plant in Roanoke County. On August 18, 1866 the church was admitted to Roanoke Valley Association and on August 16, 1869 was dismissed to the Colored Baptist Association, which is now called the Valley Baptist Association. In August 1881 some of the people who lived in Kingstown saw the need to have a church close to home, so they fonned a trustee board to build their own church. In years prior to 1881 they would fellowship at Enon Colored Amcan Church. The name was later changed to Green Ridge Baptist Church. In late 1881 the new church at Kingstown was finished, it was dedicated and named Ebenezer African Baptist Church. Some years later the named was changed to Kingstown Ebenezer Church, in 1926 the name was changed to its present name Ebenezer Baptist Church. In late 1908 or early 1909 the First Ebenezer Church caught fIre and burned down due to a bad flue. On a Sunday morning while church was in service the flue caught on fIre and started the roofto bum. Mr. Watt Jones who lived next door to the church saw the blaze and came to the church to tell the members. He got them all out, but the church was lost, it burned to the ground. On August 19, 1909 the new church was finished and service was started on August 22, 1909. Ebenezer Baptist Church over the years has had some very good ministers. They are known as Rev. F.C. Patterson, Rev. T.C. Curtis, Rev. C.C. Harvey, Rev. Crowder, Rev. H.P. Horn, Rev. E.T. Browne, Rev. R. M. Owens, Rev. Taylor, Rev. O.N. Carter, Rev. E. Hopkins, Rev. A.T. Philpott, Rev. H.B. Henderson, Rev. T.B. Wright, Rev. G.T. Turner, Rev. A.T. Philpott, Rev. R.C. Pasley and at the present time, Rev. H.L. Word Jr. When the new Ebenezer Church was built in 1909 the Rev. T.C. Curtis was the Pastor. Rev. T.B. Wright was pastor when the parish hall was built. Rev. O.N. Carter was pastor when the electric lights were installed. Rev. G.T. Turner, Deacon C.C. Guerrant, Sister Mattie Young and Sister Rosa Newman were responsible for the pulpit furniture. The communion table was given to the church in memory of Sister Mattie Young, by her family. Due to ever increasing membership, in 1988 the third church was constructed on land purchased adjacent to the 1909 church. Today there is a need for a Family Life / Multi-Purpose Facility. Because of this we are asking for a special use pennit, waving the 15,000 maximum square feet and asking for 24,400 square feet. Our proposed Family Life / Multi-Purpose Facility hours and times of operation will be nights and weekends, for use by church members and families. Applicant Jerome Donald Henschel,PC Architecture c/o Ebenezer Baptist Church The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use pennit or waiver requests to detennine the need and justification for the change in tenns 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 OrdÍI)ance as well as the purpose fOWld at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. }O ~ _ This parcel of Band i~ acres in size. The area of construction is .68 of an acre, tbis leaves considerable amount of land for conservation purposes. Please explain how the project confonns to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke COWlty Community Plan. The use of this proposed faciDity will strengthen the bonding between community living through spiritual, clerical, theatrical, cultural and recreational activities. The younger generation as wen as the older generation will benefit as space will be provided for these activities. Since all of tbe activities will be performed indoors, no impact will affect the neighborhood. 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. This proposed multi-purpose/family life facility center will only complement the property, surrounding area, public/private senrices. Only minor impact will result on roads, water/sewer, scbools, parks/recreation, fire and rescue. T-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 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 Date, scale and north arrow Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions Location, names of owners and Roanoke COUDty tax map numbers of adjoining properties Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. The zotiing 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 -/ b. -L- c. ~ d. -L- e. -L í --.:L g. -L h. ~ I. ---L- j. Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS W/ þ.. k. -.-L 1. -Í... v \-..1/6- 'N/&.. hlÁ 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 21 n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. AI1y 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 th~hecklist above are complete. S' \1-z/ICp! '200 6r- , Date e of applicant NOV-22-2004 15:43 RKE CTY-COM DEV 5407722108 P.07/09 1-< .-J Plarming Commission Application Acceptance Procedure The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Pennit petition if the new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall aJ]ow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shaH consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. Name of Petition Ebenezer Baptist Church new Multi-purpose (Family Lif~) Facility perit oner"Signa~¿/¥~~ t4~~ ~ Date!'?- It -- (J '!/.. S'Y¿J· '3 ~f- £(~/7 - \--3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH UPON APPLICATION OF JEROME DONALD HENSCHEL, PC ARCHITECTURE TO CONSTRUCT A 24,400 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-PURPOSE FAMILY LIFE FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 7049 THIRLANE ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 37.06-1-13) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct a 24,400 square foot multi-purpose family life facility for the Ebenezer Baptist Church to be located at 7049 Thirlane Road (Tax Map No. 37.06- 1-13) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 1 , 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on January 25, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on February 22, 2005. 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 Ebenezer Baptist Church upon application by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture to construct a 24,400 square foot multi-purpose family life facility for the Ebenezer Baptist Church to be located at 7049 Thirlane Road 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: 1 1-3 (1) The site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the master site development plan prepared by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture, dated December 6, 2004. (2) The exterior building and roof colors of the proposed multi-purpose family life facility shall match the existing muted color scheme of the existing church facility. (Brown, tan, white and brick colors.) 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 Al.1l18V.=j 3S0dèJnd 11.1n1^J H8èJnH8 l.Sll.dV8 èJ3Z3N383 ÞL1E-Z9S(oK) ~ LIon: VA .......11 MN '1'1i 'P"J 1J000d LIEI ':Ðlfl.LJWHJW :::>d '¡~t¡:JSII~H p¡eUOa ~mOl~r .......~... -...__._._.__.u""-... .../' ...-.....~_.... .¡fOA¡· ,) J. .11 ..t! .L iie utH gUt I =-It· I!".!" ~ ..--..-.-- -··--·i~-·~.. " ~. .ÿ-~ .. , / I //../ ./ / ./ .../.... , ...~:¡¡:t.~.... .."~ / /.., ~- =1 .1 . s~ ;¡ ., /.~" / /~ £ <;' Q t:' ~ . ..._..... ....,.····¡;'il o IT :ð ~ ~ : ~ .--- -.-.--' ...... ....-/--_.0-. . ---' . ~"" .!.Ü .rt'~t rI . .- ·V/4.fJ·~'arIpv,J ~1010'L[O' -r ~,-r- - .~ -- -,._----~.. ,. ':" ~ M U 1-3 I- llJ Z '= I- W r--- -~ II en a. ;.. 0:::0 W..J ~~~ : ~ (L~I 51 ~ ~ ~ II:: ~ i:: 0.: ~ II '~Nft Ii !'Ihl ¡I ¡hid 1111I1Il Ii .llh!1 II IIUUe II dlUli ¡,HI ~i ~~~I lij~ !11~i d~ jj ~llli li~! ii i! Ii '8' M~I hi II:RI !d ~ ~i¡' III ~ hlu ! G ~ "> ~ ~ tL!(-m(Ot» ~ T-3 LIIm v.... '01 0""'1l ~ JAN 'p1l1'OQ "'1'd Lltl Z mIl1LJälIH:JID' ::>d 'I~I JSU~H P¡SUOQ ~WOJ~I § C/) ~ Z 0 U 2 ï= z ~ >< Zz:5 ~Z 0 ~I :5:)eL wO ï= z W eLeLO:: -..J- 0 0 §I~ 0 1-0::0 Wb W ï= moo z wWC/) 0 Z W 0 Z QC/)o W ~o-..J C/) ~ 0:: eL....Ju. ¡::: 0 C/)C>Z :> ~ ï= 1-26 ....J z ou.-..J -..J :5 1 j I- -..J....Jw ~ J:Q-..J ~ ! I C) :) ww> W C>....J- eL Z »w -..J w --:> :s z 0 WW....J W -..J o:::)m -..JZ 2 Q-..JO:: I- W oð!D1- «W eL w WZW Z ~ I-C)O:: OJ: u.. ~ ~ 0 0 U.zO -0 0 l-«eL eLl- ~ 0 _ eL 0:: « wOJ: ç~ 0 z C/)~:) u. m ....J....J(f) cr a::: .,.... ..... .,.... ('.1M ..q- It) <0 I'- CD .,.... .,.... 0 2 0 « «« « «««« ~ 0:: A.L1l18V::I 3S0d~nd I.L lnV\l H8~nH8 .LSI.LdV8 ~3Z3N393 en ~ z~ ~s ::Egj ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0.: ~¡¡¡ ~ ~~ ~g¡ ò ~ ~ ò z 0 Z S ~ 5 ~ Z co 0 ... N ..; ~ -..... o o o N U :Q ~ u :Q ~ ~ ;> ., ~ :; ::i g If) w w u a: < u 5; < ~~~g~~ ~ "- '" ..~ i 0" ,.,... ~ ¡; cO o ¡;¡ c f¥ .. ã 6' u ~~ < ... ~ ~~ a: w~ w 19 ~ >'" CL 0- _wü)~c ::E uJ: ~~5°~ ::; 5~ ¡z!Z....i!i>-" t;: ""x ~:i!~ ¡¡~~ " ~~ ¡¡; ~ Q.u. U)CI) ;¡: 0:: W .. ::E ::> z x < I- .. c :;¡ N ... ~ N ... ~ <> '" § ~ ... ... ~ :Q .. :; N N N N ... ;;; 0: n: n: n: n: 0: n: n: n: n: n: 0: ci ... 51 It: <::> ~ If) ~ 0 a: ~ ~ 8 w ~ § i5 0:: ~~ ~ S 0:: "- '" ~t ~~~~~35~~»S~»;~:: " '" ~ ~ "- ;¡: ~ ",0:: or: \:! S . '11: ~ ::) :q~~!i 11.D..D..D:.I1.EL.I1.Q.D..n.n. ,..: 1-9U ~ § ~ ~g::~~~~~ !s:;;¡;¡ ... 5\ªª~~5\~ª~ªªS:~ ß~8 c< ;f or; N N ::> ~ =_~_!ì: z ¡!: 0 w ~ 6 &::Ew", !! ...JO-'...JO w::i!~~[ jl:w&If)050W @!'}"",:i!;B~8 .5o-.a:0o;r:)::tw W ~ð ! mu> en ~8 ~ ",Itl g!~ ",0 W~ 8:æ '" ~8 ~ XII: u uJ If) < 8 t: t: ~~ 1;5 ~ ~ ~·\Do,...mØ) N 10 IÐIOCO n: 0.: ~o.:n: ~~!H!:: ~ ~ ~ a:n:o.:a:n.: n: . ~ o ~ ~ ~ fO gj~ ¡¡¡ =N!;¡ ~ ~~~¡g ='Ol=z "'!'}~w ~l2w9 ~8~~ w --' .. a; '" w o u < If) :g ~~ t; ¡:; s.if => ~ '" :I; 5 5!!; ~ 0 ¡;;~ a; "- ¡;;~ ~w ~ ffiw ~ ~~ .. g :: :! II: II: t w ~ ~ U U ª ~ n: 0: u a:: : "'::E'" N N '" ~ !!- ... ... ~H ~ iË~~ ~ ~ N..........r-- t"- CJ U)CI)Z Z Z '" If) ~ ~~z õ F.~O t; ~~i ~~~ ~ ißm g .. ~õS o~ 0""" + CJ uJ::!~ ~~ ~ ~~~ II! ~ ijJ ~;5 U) 0"..= u.I ffi dB;:: U) if ffiff~ ~ '!ó t:oQ¡ < ð ~ª15~~ :¡¡ 3: ~ ~U~~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ot<~u"':'" n1t:~ ~ i! ~ I.LLLU)l:í~ 0 ~ u. ... '" .. II: a:: II:: w w w i ~ ~ u u u .. ~DØ) II: II: II: ~ i i u u u ... a:: w !i: ~ z o ¡:: u '" ~ !i § - II: ~ ~::E~O < !!!:!\:! ~~!i ~ I.L ClHn U) Ii I z " - ¡¡; Ii: u ¡g º &!" ~ [¡ :>z ~/i:~ h g@~~~~ ~~fjj~H w z o ! ~ ~ 6~ ~dšl ~:;;¡¡¡ ~... ~~~ i§ "i co ~ g ~ I I I If) ~ ~ ~ ~ h II: If) Q"'æ~~13~ 0< 51f)~ t;~-~w_~ ""'9~... !!1.. !I!~w s:: az ~i3:e~,,- 9",-:1; >~ë! :I;~- ° iiI>1t080~1I:!;(:o!>-~~~0 a:JOO~2U'}.Q..ome"mll)~D:. ~ '" !! \!1 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ z ° ~ð ~~ 95 ~u !; ~ !!'ž _0 If)N "i'1i 0 !ä~ Ë ~If) ::E '" a:: o uJ a:: ... r¿e> UI O"'J'!~ ::E~~¡¡¡~ ~-+X::E ùj1;5:ï!S- NI.L,,",_~ U)OIri'IÕ~ ~ ~ ~ ,., ... N N no: n.: ~ ~ n.: cL ........ ¡;¡~~ 0.:0..:0.: '" ...'" ~ ¡: ¡: n: n:a: :g:gg¡g¡ ~ ¡¡~~ ¡¡~:i!fi?~ Otzzzz z~CJC)O R:~Ift~~~~~~~~ o w a:: 5 o w 0:: N '" ;:¡; I!: 0 a;¡'¡"'5 . . ~.I~~ ~g::r-.¡::~~¡!¡ "I"i cc ~ ~ i!! ~ '" ~ 101 Ii! i '" ¡¡: !: ",w nd ~ ~~~8>- \5~~!f~~..~!!i~§ If)~::E5I3wâlf)¡¡:!j!wlf) ~uuJiI:"'''UJ",wuð~ ìilo:g'"'~~I1!S~l-ou :::EO<U)~U)_Utn:Z...l< If) If) z æ £::E Q g¡ UJ~!I! 8 ~~ffi 9 ê <~ jl:15~ffih8 If) ::! ~ ~a 0i50::"'~1I:a: ~II: II!... ~ ~I:! ),~;¡:I-æ:i:;¡:;¡: ~8 "! 0 O;¡:!i! '" ~æ::J !;(If)( )<~ ~ ;¡;a::" ;:;>:i'1i:!!r,,- 1-0 g ~1I:;¡:uiii ~ fl)U "'"' w<F~~ II) ::¡ ~ ~ ~ ::: § ~ ~ II a'lal~ I", nllh i ¡hiil lit hill' J I~e~tif !I ¡!II!II i~ ihnll I oi k¡ hd ~ui ta__ I~- 5~lal bl !Mlld ra~. arR ifil~1 .8' j B H ,I~il E~~ I !Si !~I ~ Iljll flf ~ hail ~ ; 3 '" ~ ~ AlI118\7'.::J 3S0dèlnd IllnV\J H8}jnH8 .lSLld\f8 }j3Z3N383 tLI£·l9.((».) ~ Llotl V ^ ~,no¡¡ MN 'p¡¡ '1""" "'I'd Ll£1 IDlflLJ'iLLlHJ'tlV Jd 'pq:1StlaH P 1!UO(l ~WOJ:lr , /.... frï.~· "', ¡ ~ rIA i~!5 utli ~f!H ¡IL. ,~ ¡¡IElU" è.t) . ~. ~ / =f ¡f . 511;;: £ ~ o ~ ~ ~..., .·····òïû o cr ~ a ~ : ~ .--- -.-.---. ., .~ __. ._._'m M U T-3 I- LLJZ ô I- LLJ t"- -:2: II en a.. ;... 0::0 LLJ...J ~~~ 1~~~1 ¡:¡ I I J ! i i!:: ~ i5 ~ ~ ;I ~~I'h Ii 1111;1 it II II!I Ii IIdll Ii !~ndí !HI~lmi Uibm ,101 ¡i '~I! ~II h1i1il' lili ! ': .il _)11 ¡I~ ~I ~I ~~I mil H! 81~¡¡iB HE ~Mh m e ~ ~ Al.1118'if::l 3S0dtlnd 11.lnL^J H8HnH8 lSIldV8 H3Z3N383 tLIE-l9¡(ø",) ~ LlO'It VA'o1 otR"1I I>Ul 'pH ~"J:> U>1'd L lEI mIJU:J:ll.IHJW Jd 'pq~SUQH preUOQ QUIOJQI Ifir - . ~ ~ '-- ~-- ~t ~ ~ -- I~ J ~~ 0...:1 ~~ Z~ 8 iii ~§ Q~ 9 ~~ ;...., ~~~ ~~.....:¡ II V') N r-- \c 00 ('I) ,..- ..... ~ ~ ~ ~..... ;'; '" ¡:1 .-> ~I § ~ i ! ! I Ì!:: <::> ~ ~ \0 ¡;: ..... 1\ 110; ~ ~ N @J '" in 8 \0 <'d ..... ¡:¡.. '" \0 ..... ~ in ..... '<t @J II '~!'~I 00 ¡¿ 8 ~ <'d Ii !!ill ¡:¡.. 0 '" 11> ..... .. i ¡h~!1 IØ Ili l! -I I I-ii Ii ~IUs~1 Illnt ã5ii\'iãš Ii II HlI 1,01 ~¡ . ~~I! IiI slI_' hi lUll U~ i I 'I' Mil hi Inil !;, !:! I;~I! 'I' ~I ~ hlh ¡ I 5 '" ~ ~ Al.Il18'V.::I 3S0dèlnd 11.lnV'J H8~nH8 .1SIldV8 ~3Z3N383 tL¡£·t9¡(Ð~») ~ LlDtt VA ,>:\0"'011 I1\N'PIl~OJ;)WI'dLt£¡ mIf1lJ:WHJIlY ::>d 'pqJSU~H p¡eUOa ~W01~I ~ ]::3 J ~~ o.....¡ ~~ gµ:¡ z§ ~d S~ ~,...;¡ II æ~ ~ e-. ~ ... ~....... ~ g! ~ ~ ë¡> rl J L 12..~ 11=¡a aSC. ... :::;; 0 0 ~ ø:: II] c ~ ~ ¡:¡ fš :;¡; ..... ÌÌ"J ê 0 \D ø:: II] ...... ~ N &1 '~I'& :::;; 0 0 0 Ii ¡!¡lil ¡¡¡ ~ ø:: . 'I¡,d 0 ~ Q I~ Ie p ~ ël gl! I .... 8 j II~ I ::;¡ 0 @~ I ~ h!¡ 0 It IIIUi- ø:: II] ~ I~ IE hsl e..11 t¡ Cb I~!j! 'I! i"- , ~ i I~I ig' ihi II;!I III E tE~ Mrll~i In!1 !d ~ 1IIIs III ,0£ ,0"\7 ~hl!! ~ ~ ~ A.l1l18V.:J 3S0dHnd 11.lnV\l ÞLI£·t9\{OÞ¡) ~ T-3 LIOÞI VA ~ol! ('f') MN 'PI! ~" J "'I'd ¿In H8HnH8 .lSIl.dV8 H3Z3N383 mIIUJ111HJ1JV < ::>d '¡:¡¡PSU:lH P¡2UO. :I J:I[ ~ ~ ~ {\ Z = \.V.ot '+l,oi~~ot '- ..J 09 ~I ~ I æ I~ ~ ~ ~~! ~I O>~ , I o.J==. ~ ~-... {< oj ~I n II I II ~ I " b I II <'"> I " T II ! ! T II I I II e II -- ~ II II T II I il I II ¡ I 1Ic=J " -\ T 11c=J II e - ...w- I I II 1 II i!:: I c=J II ~ I c=J II II i:: II 0:: II ~ B - II ¡; --¡¡- II II II '.:~;: II II II BI '~I'!I G ',:;{ II - -tt-- Z t U,U /~ 1\ II !( ~~I in SSV1Ð II 0 \0 i~ ¡ p! ..... 3: MOl " ~ SMOGNIM II ~ 111¡!i11 W£1NIWflW ]1 Ii ; m!~ II G II ;> It liliUl - +I- ~ dOO-a II b ;1 iUI Wl.3:W II II ~ II ~ I ~Ir ~¡ II xmm "', il 0 {~d Iii ,¡, II ~ 5il~i h~ 0) - ' -. Ii ~ il!!lld ¡"'" il Q~ 't.;. II ! Ii tË' . '" ....j II !llil I~I >f§ II r II ~~ I hi !i, , " <' II tZ)~ 0 ~ qs Ii! ·f,-> II ~~ I ~ hi, H 8 \<~ II ~ - -tt-- II ;,':', <; ¡,i".f' II 00 S.!lI3: ;: ... II \D -;"!: 1-:': II ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 ~~ - 0) - :..:, ;.< -t:j--- ~ I. I. ~ I, ,,9-.'lt 'I ,,9-,¿t 'I ,0£ ~ A.l1l18V.:J 3S0dèJnd l.llnL^J H8èJnH8 .lSI.ldV8 èJ3Z3N383 . ~m·t9~(O~~) ~ ¿rOIl: VA '»!.".M .I\N'pM ~''Qcnl'dLIEI mIflLJ:I.LIHJHV Jd '¡;¡tpSU;¡H PIBUOa ;¡W01;¡r .!lOO'M 'N~aw I, '~ .Of: '1 ,01 ,OZ: n II )1 II II II II II II -{c::J " ] c::J II II II " II II II II II II II II II II 1/ \I II II II II II II O-"T Ii 11 II II II II II II II II II II II II II " c::J II \ -,bd. II " \ II \" II I I I I I I I I I I I II c::::::J I 1Ic::J II I II I I I II II u ~I ~I--;I;= ~ ~ I ;iÎ I ê:J I~ ~ ~ ít\ ít\ íi\ r '\ 't'.or 'fI.or '-t',or \... / ®-- e-- SSV1D 3 M.O'l SM.OGNIM. WilNIWnW e- fß ..... ®--- DNIŒS '1V~3W ®--- Ð- b ""' ~ \-3 z = Oc:¡> ~ ~ ~;> ~ U ", C < ::1 ..... ~I~ p.:¡ ~I ~ ! J J i ~ <::> ~ í5 I>:: ~ z 0 ¡I ~ ~I~~ ~ ~ Ii !I¡I!I >- i ¡h,!1 ~ Ii I äll' h !I¡¡dft ~ II IIIIII1 ~ 0 hid I ~ ~ I HI t= O~ ;~;! Ii! !il~1 hi ~~ 0 II¡II II! CI)~ I O~ M I 111=1 ~U II il~il s= (! .h 0< \0 ~ ¡;Is III ~~ M ~M d I --- M a ~ ~ Ài1l18V.:I 3S0dèJnd Ii lnV'J H8't1nH8 lS\ldV8 èJ3Z3N383 .L!E-m(o.~) ~ LIO\'!: V^ '.~"",O\! It.N 'P'I! ~">;) 'm'd LIEI mIf1lJ:illIHJW ;)d ' :HpsuaH P¡EU :JWOlar ¡¡..., \C ..... I. I 1- ,0£ -., ,01 ,0(; n II II II II II II " II L--::rc::J II ~ II II 1\ II II II II II \1 11 II II II II II II II II II II " II -;,g=, 1z-1-: \ II 1\ 11 II II II II II II " 1\ " II II í5 II t- II -lQ. II II \" II \ 1\ II II I I II II I I ¡ II I " I II T1 c::::J II 1 [ c:::::J It T TT II I 1 I II II u I 11_IOO~ ~ ¡g ~ ffi~ ~ ~I ~I ~I~ ~ ri'\ rt\ rt\ /" "\ \.}l.01 \.}l ,01 "-VIOl'\:.. 7 ®- dOO~ 1V~3]1i 0>- SSV1Ð 3: M.O'1 SMOClNIM. WflNIWH1V e-- e- mnms 1V~3:W e- e-- b '" 7 ~ 1-3 z - o ë:¡> ...... ;... ~ II ~> ~ ~~ Z¡ ..\ ~ ~ t') ~ ~ ! ! I ~ ~ is 00: ~ z 0 !I ~'It! ~ ~ I· il ¡=I ¡pit > i ¡hl!1 ~ Ii !lill' Ii ! mil ~ 1IIIIun ~ i"· =ill 0 ~~ II ¡~ ~ ~ I (I' t¡ Q~ hJ lie ï"'· , ~X ~d"1 hi 0 lil!1 !h rJ:J~ I o~ ~ !III' Iii ~u II r p.~ .!8 ." o~ \0 'W ~~ ~ ~ l~nR ¡Ii -- ~ hd 8 @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ <':> '" ~ METAL ROOFING INTERNAL GUTTER T ill~1 ~ n ¡¡ i ~ METAL i i r I FASCIA 'S; jil lål I~s' ~¡~ I~hl III li~ª1 iill~I;! MAIN FRAME \11 ¡h. i Ie 1m ~~ IU~ EXTERIOR INSULATION IB~Tä it FINISH SYSTEM OVER GYPSUM ¡Iii Ii h WALL BOARD ¡hili Ii ~ia! i II It .' R19BA'IT I~I ! r INSULATION Uilll J i~I~- II METAL FLASHING BRICK LEDGE 8' mGH LINER PANEL 6" CONCRETE FLOORS Mll.. VAPOR BARRIER OVER 6" GRAVEL BED ~ :o¡ ti1 ~ 'E I RECESSED COLUMN BASE AND FOOTING . -'~ o 0 °00 Ñ COLUMN /f-- . FOOTIN~ : L__ o 00 .', ~, TURN DOWN FOOTING 2 #5 CONTINUOUS BARS 3" CLEAR AT BOTfOM J n ~ I~ ~ ~~ ~ ...... t::J ~ en II tT! >-:: 9 q 0 z ~-J > -- 00 W- PROPOSED TYPICAL WALL SECTION 1/2" SCALE Jerome Donald Henschel, PC ~ARCHlTECTURE 1317 P..... Qed¡ Jld, NW j!oUlokt, VA 24017 (540)162-317. EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH MULTI PURPOSE FACILITY A..L1l18V.::I 3S0d~nd IllnV\J HJ~nH8 lSIldV8 ~3Z3N383 W,-I9,(OÞ,) ~ Ltott VA ·.~o..O¡¡ N.N 'p¡¡ ~Q "'''d LIt! mIflLJUIHJW Jd '(~qJSU;¡H PI~UOa :lIDO ~ ~ j b ¡::¡.. I ;.... ~ ~ U ..... "I~ ~ ¡.;; /--3 >- aJ aJ o -.J ~I L_____________ aOOH NOISS3HdnS 3HH ~ ! 1 I I J 191 I ¡ I 3 3H:I c:b SH I ! It c 0::: i L__ ~ 0 mJ is Q:¡ 0 ~ ¡¿ - "? 0::: Ñ '"d" 0::: ~ 0 U ~ >- Ü C) ~I '~I'! : ,Z ..£- ..9-,£ "£-117 IZ : 1¡llllil I . -hId , ¡~ ì 1'1 -p--, ~d ~Ië ! , h I Eni I n ~ h!~1 [j] SH :/~~ Ii I~III¡. I II il !Ril ! ~ ;¡!Ð i i 1101 ~¡ I I ¡~d li~ I r r ' ~i 'I hi [J[]oJ 'I~II u~ I I" 'a, !s il UI ~ mdS IU~I !i, ~s ~ ~ tIll! III i:o Å 1llNV d ¡¿h'ël .91 ~ .. ~ ~ Al/l18\f;:f 3S0dHnd IllnV\J H8t1nH81Slld\f8 H3Z3N383 b '" ¡;., \0 ...; + Ie¡ 9 tI) HdOlS .oç ~L1E'Z9)(O~) ~ LIOI't VA ''1'''''''!1 IdN 'PI! ~"'J SJO¡'d LI( mrillJtIlIHJHY Jd 'pqJSU:!H PI~UO(þ OJ:!f IDID1.H) ÐNllSIXH ¡¡¡ p.. o ,..;¡ tI) HdO'lS ~ .017 ~ \-3' ~ ër :J ;.., p.. II ~ \0 o ~ o ...; gl~ ~I ~ ! 1 ~ c ~ 15 1:1: ~ !I ~~I~!I ~. ~hl; II If lib Ii Mill II !¡mll IllilUH n ¡Iddl @j C5~~ ~~II 00 ~O~ ~~~ R=ol t¡ I~!~~ 1st ~i~~~ ,~ ¡d~1 hi III~!I n~ . i ~Ð~ !s ~I HI Ilhl !~¡ ~ ÐIU. III ~ iied ~h } ~ ~ ~ Al.1118V::I 3S0dtlnd 11.lnV\J H8t1nH8 l.SIl.dV8 tl3Z3N383 ILI£',~(OI¡) ~ LIOÞt VA 'O](O'lnOa .¥.N'p¡ ~="o"dL ¡ mIflL:J1J1HJlIY Jd 'pqJSU~H PlEua mOl~I dOO"M 1V.LHW I. 1 ,m: '1 ,01 ,0(; n II II 1/ II II II II II --{c:::::J II ] c:::::J II II II II II II II II II II II II 1\ II II II II II II II II II ---;.g;~ II II II 1\ II 1\ II II /I 1\ - II II i--- II /I II II 1 c:::::J II \ -u;;;:;;;;;¿ II II II \" II II \ II I I /I II I I II I II I II IB II -j- II I I II , I II II u r51 II OO_I~D~ ~ g: æ~ ~ ~I ~ I ê51~ ~ rt\ ffi rt\ f !\ "-V.m '-V,OI \fl,OI \:.. l7 ®- ®- SSV1Ð '3 MO'1 SMOCINIA\ WIlNIWŒIV e-- in \C ..... e- ÐNIGIS 'IV~3:Jo\,! e- e- b <') ~ < T-] ~ !! I lie c ~ is A: ~ z 0 ;1 ¡'I~~ ¡.....c ~ II ¡!I!li ~ i ¡hl!1 ~ Ii ¡I!!!I ,1 ~ !~U ~ II ; h¡¡1 IllilUi! ~ I~ ~~ alh 0 J g~ ii.U ¡.....c ~ Bioi ~¡ Q~ I~!~I II~ I~~~ ~ ~>< ò Sd~1 hi iU!1 Ii! rJ:)~ I ,.....¡ o~ II !Ihl hi ~U I ~'i !'~ !I .~I O~ \0 ~ ~ãl! III ~ÇQ ,.....¡ ~M~ u - ,.....¡ ~ '" ~ § AlIl18\f.:J 3S0dHnd IllnL^J H8HnH8 lSlld\f8 H3Z3N383 dO '1V~ b '" ~3An ;)lLL DNI '1V~ )J;)nIB 3;) MOCIN WflNIWn b '" ~3AI1 ;)lLL S .mo~'1V~ ~m-l9'(D1") ~ LlDtl V ^ ~~O"'H N.N 'PH ~oo.Q "'I'd LIE I mIf1.L:)'3lIHJW Jd '¡:IIPSU:lH P 1!UOQ :lWOJ:I[ @-J I} r ~ ,,9"",L1 z o H ~ > ~ Q~ 53~ Ot;jë:r ~tz~ ~~$ tn I~ - (-3 "~~ 1'lI ,,9-,L I @- 1..9-,L II --R-- O~ II II 3W II @- 1L- " II @-- II ~ II @r- " +l- II / II w 1L- 01: \1 " ~ II @-- II Tr-- II @- II +I- GIS II 3W II @- 1L- II II 0- II ~ II B-- II I[ .01 ,OZ B-- ;':~:;':~)i II :,1 ::; II 0- :,,:; l.L- II , II @- :~ II ~ VI! :,- II @- '", I +I- 1M '-- " '1V ~ ;-\ " ~ I-- 1L- r:; " I-- II ~ e- ~ I-- [\ II I-- -rr-- ~ II II @-- ~ (ì -tt- II ~ II @-- ':, 1L- '" " dI3 II @- i,'; ,'.., II I fI 3W .\ II II ',' tI) z 0= ~~ ~E-<~II ~:r:>- ~ r" ~ ~ LlJv",,¡-- ""¡~~~l ~I ~ ¡'! ! i II: <::> ~ ¡:: ~ Õ!; ;I'~I'~ Ii !f!!!1 i ih~!1 ~t ~ 1'1 Z ÈI ~I~ ~ 0 h ! m!~ H II Ëiil¡51 ~ n U ;~Ii > ~ I 01 t¡ ~!jllil ~ ¡I~~I h! ~ ilUII~1 @8 III1 th I ¡il ¡Iì ti ~ (/)(/) b I ;~I !i, ~~ I ~ ~~I& IJI ~ II ~M Ii: Od \0 ~H ~ ~~ - ~ ~ LI ~ ~ AJJ1IJ\f.:l 3S0d"è:Jnd LllnV\J HJ"è:JnHJ .lSLld\f8 "è:J3Z3N383 WE"Z9r(O,¡) ~ L lOll Y A ''''0'"'011 IåN '1'111">;) m¡'d LlEI mIflLJJllIHJW :>d 'l~qJSU:lH p¡eUOa :lIDOJ:lI ~i ~I ~ ~ 8~ iîi !5~~...¡ \0 ~~ '" C> ~ 9 ~ .... ;:J Z ~I ~6s ~13 ~ ~I s <") ~ - 1-3 f ! ! h CD dOOM 0 'IVT3J'i N ~HAOOl ...... ~ ~ CD i5 ~ :¡: scrnvoIDI;Jva ¡naY J..JViLLffiI ŒIZrnO~OW Il) ¡¡., z d '~I'~ \D 0 Ii II¡III ..... s~NIVW ~ ffiIf1L:JOnS . '1 hi u I~ ì in ~ I I H jlll¡~u v CI') d i . .hd 111111111 z ' :1 -i I ~ ~I i i~i :3 I 01 ~i Q~ C') ~ ~= ~!llli~ rl,· ~ CI') :Q cr ¡ 'I hi o ~ Ii II I!Ì ~ d II 'i~· h i F 'I, o z= ~ Iii ¡gl 'I I, 2 ~ o~ P~i !" N ~ ~;:¡ ~ r~nB 'II ¡g f I ~ ~ ~ ,0£ } ~ '" ~ ~ AJ..I118'V.::I 3S0dHnd LL 1nll\J H8HnH81SIldV8 H3Z3N383 SHNVI ÐNI'IMOa z 3Ð\US OJ.. Sd3.LS S1I3H:JV31H tflHYDW.Lffil ~L¡¡-Z9.(o~d ~ Lltwr VA ..~_ NoH 111 ~"I:J ....'d L (I mmL:JIDH:JHY Jd '¡~qJSU~H P¡EUOQ ~wol~I ï1 ,QZ r~ II J .0£ T-3 ~ - g 9 !3 ~ ¡:QZ~ E-<O~ ~I~~ ~I ~ ~ J I J! I ] õo ..... f-. z o 6 ~ tZ) d ~ 09 53Sb oÇQ~ ~~II 00= ~::o~ ~tZ);:¡ ;I ~'I~! U 111M it ihlil Ii 118bl '11 !~U II , hm!1 11I~I~nil u ~~ !BJi .~ ~~ i~U ~ ~ ~ "= ~ ¡... ~ o u ö 5 ø... ò ""' \n ..... I 01 tÎ ~!Bllli i~~- ~ M~I iU II~!I h~ . ee §a' Mr11=1 In~1 !i, ~ ~šldll ~M I d ~ ~ ~ Zoning _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR _AV C1 _C2 _ C2CVOD 11 ·12 .PCD PRD ~_-=~ PTD R1 R2 R3 R4 ~ Roanoke County Department of Community Development N A Applicants Name: Ebenezer Baptist Church Existing Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: R-1S Tax Map Number: 37.06-1-13 Magisterial District: Catawba Area: 10 acres December 20, 2004 No Scale T-Y PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. 3-02/2005 Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: February 22, 2005 A. REQUEST The request of Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. to rezone 0.68 acre from 1-1 Industrial with Conditions to C-2 General Commercial with Conditions in order to construct a retail building located at the northwest corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Tim Beard presented the staff report. Areas of concern to staff include the combination of three contiguous tracts (two owned by property owners represented by the applicant) only one of which requires rezoning and removal of conditions in order to construct a retail building and a lack of site plan details. Sue Whaley of Mid-Atlantic Realty spoke on behalf of the petitioner and presented a color rendering of the proposal indicating a centrally-located CVS store, landscaping and parking. Ms. Whaley stated that the existing billboard will be removed provided CVS becomes the actual occupant of the site, that exterior lighting will be installed per ordinance and that the sign square footage for CVS is currently unknown. Ms. Hooker asked if Mid-Atlantic would proffer its concept plan. Ms. Whaley replied that she could not do so because CVS may not be the future occupant of the property. Staff noted that the total project area included is 2.3 acres of which only the subject 0.68 acre requires rezoning and conditional change. Mr. Azar stated he would be more comfortable knowing who the final occupant will be. Mr. McNeil noted he favors C-2 zoning over 1-1 at this location. Mr. Thomason stated that he cannot support the request without additional site details and a proffered concept plan. D. CONDITIONS 1. The property shall be developed as a C-2 use. 2. Entrances onto Peters Creek Road shall be reduced to one (1) right-in and right out; entrances onto Cove Road shall be reduced to one (1) full movement entrance. 3. All buildings constructed on the property shall have exposed exterior walls (above finished grade) of face brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco, decorative split face block and/or glass or be of an equivalent, permanent architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered with or have exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or corrugated aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be asphalt shingle or standing metal seam if a raised roof; if a flat roof system is used, a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam and decorative split face block or brick shall be used. 4. The proffered conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated August 25, 1992 and Ordinance 102291-10 dated October 22, 1991 are hereby removed. T- '-I E. COMMISSION ACTION Ms. Hooker made a motion to favorably recommend the rezoning request with conditions. The motion carried 4 - 1. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE Mr. Thomason did not support the request. G. ATTACHMENTS: _Concept Plan _Staff Report _Vicinity Map Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission Petitioner: Request: Location: Magisterial District: Proffered/Suggested Conditions: T-i STAFF REPORT Mid - Atlantic Realty, Incorporated To rezone 0.68 acre from 1-1 Industrial with Conditions to C-2 General Commercial with Conditions in order to construct a retail building located northwest of the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District. 4909 Cove Road & 2730 Peters Creek Road Catawba 1. The property shall be developed as a C-2 use. 2. Entrances onto Peters Creek Road shall be reduced to one (1) right-in and right out; entrances onto Cove Road shall be reduced to one (1) full movement entrance. 3. All buildings constructed on the property shall have exposed exterior walls (above finished grade) of face brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco, decorative split face block and/or glass or of an equivalent, permanent architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered with or have exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or corrugated aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be asphalt shingle or standing metal seam if a raised roof; if a flat roof system is used, a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam and decorative split face block or brick shall be used. 4. The proffered conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated August 25, 1992 and Ordinance 102291·10 dated October 22, 1991 are hereby removed. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request by Mid-Atlantic Realty representing property owners Thomas and Evonne Hubbard to remove existing proffered conditions on a 0.68 acre parcel zoned industrial and combine said acreage to existing C-2 zoned property (0.37 acre) for commercial development purposes. The proposal also includes adding 1.25 acres of adjacent C·2 property under different ownership in order to construct a pharmacy. The project does not fully comply with policies and guidelines of the Transition future land use designation which encourages careful development involving controlled highway corridor access and aesthetics aimed at avoiding commercial strips and traffic congestion, but offers an opportunity for business redevelopment. Transition sites are generally more suited to office, institutional and small-scale coordinated retail uses than to one intense retail development. The petitioner has worked with county staff to provide proffered conditions aimed at developing a functional commercial site while significantly improving architectural and landscape conditions at the subject property. If the Planning Commission wishes to favorably recommend this petition, acceptance of the proffered conditions listed above is suggested. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Retail sales, which includes drugstores per ordinance, is defined as the sale or rental with incidental service of commonly used goods and merchandise for personal or household use. Such uses are permitted by right only in the C-2 district which also allows a wide variety of civic, office and other basic commercial uses by right. Building and site plan review and VDOT approval for a commercial entrance will be required. No specific ordinance use and design standards apply to retail sales per Section 30-85-24.5 outside of the Clearbrook village. 1 T-i 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS BackQround - The subject 0.68 acre was developed commercially in the 1970's and later purchased by the petitioner who rezoned the property to light industrial and operated Hubbard Heating and Air from that site and purchased the adjacent 0.37 acre service station parcel and redeveloped it into personal service (existing Caribbean Tan). October,1991 M-1 proffered conditions on the 0.68 acre tract required the following: a) no outside storage of materials; b) cosmetic improvements to the building exterior; c) new shrub plantings in front of the building; d) primary use to include sale of heating and air conditioning systems and guttering and related components and for inside storage and fabrication of materials incidental to such sales and for office, administrative and other purposes reasonably related to the activities described; also the site will be used to operate a taxi cab service; e) total area of all business signs on the property will not exceed 1.25 square feet for each street frontage foot and in no event more than 300 square feet; f) storage of motor fuels in bulk, above or below ground, shall be prohibited. In August, 1992 these conditions were amended to prohibit inoperative vehicles, automobile body and fender work, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, truck repairing or overhauling and wholesale businesses and storage warehouses. Sale of the subject property and adjoining 0.37 and 1.25 acre parcels is pending rezoning. Existing buildings and equipment on the property will be removed. A Lamar, Inc. billboard stands near the northeast corner of the subject 0.68 acre. The petitioner has stated that provided CVS is the actual future occupant of the property, that off-premises sign will be removed. Mid-Atlantic Realty is unable to make further commitment regarding the billboard. The proposed CVS pharmacy is drawn at 11,970 square feet with a maximum height of 30 feet at the top of the parapet wall. TopographvNegetation -- The developed (south) end of the subject parcel slopes gently downhill toward Peters Creek Road. Extremely limited grass islands exist. The north half of the overall site is fiat and generally dirt-covered. Surroundinq NeiQhborhood -- South across Cove Road are fast-food and convenience stores and east across Peters Creek Road stand a gas station/convenience operation, a small building sales/rental business and to the southeast a bank - all in the City of Roanoke. To the north of an approximate 50-foot wide C-2 parcel is a vacant conditionally zoned tract and to the east is a large, undeveloped R-3 conditionally zoned tract, all located in Roanoke County. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Lavout/Architecture - Per proffer, building(s) shall have exposed exterior walls of brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco or decorative split-face block and/or glass or an equivalent finished material. Roofing materials shall be asphalt shingle or standing metal seam (for a raised roof) or a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam, decorative block or brick (for a fiat roof). Building area is proposed at 11,970 square feet. Not shown on the concept plan is required landscaping that will include Type B screening and buffering along the west boundary with consideration for terrain, 10-foot wide planting strips along both rights-of-way containing trees and shrubs and interior parking area landscaped medians, peninsulas or planters. Signage could reach a maximum of 500 square feet based on total road frontage for the overall 2.3 acre proposed development. 2 J-k.f Access/Traffic Circulation - The concept plan indicates minimum 24-foot wide access points from Peters Creek Road and Cove Road. By proffer, the Peters Creek access will be right-in and right-out only; the Cove Road access will accommodate left and right turns. The parking lot provides 75 spaces and a dual drive-through for the pharmacy is shown. Year 2003 VDOT traffic counts revealed 2,200 vehicles per day on this segment of urban collector Cove Road and 18,000 vehicles on this portion of urban principal arterial Peters Creek Road. The county Traffic Engineer reports that,as a pharmacy at the projected size and with a drive-through window, the facility could generate 1,055 trips per weekday, 32 trips per weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic, one hour between 7 am - 9am and 103 trips per weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic, one hour between 4 pm - 6 pm. These figures should be used with caution due to a lack of background studies of pharmacies. These numbers would vary if a different use occupies the site. Mr. Ford also states that the need for a right turn lane on Peters Creek Road and both right and left-turn lanes on Cove Road should be investigated. The cycle timing of the existing intersection traffic signal may need to be reviewed including proposed traffic generated to ensure that the signal will be operating efficiently upon project completion. The applicant should verify and show sight distance on development plans to ensure required standards are met. Fire & Rescue/Utilities - Public water and sewer are available to the property. Hollins Fire & Rescue would be the primary responding station within a five-minute window. With a sprinklered building proposed, a fire hydrant is to be located within 100 feet of the sprinkler connection per Battalion Chief Poff. The property is located outside the 500-year floodplain. VDOT reported that any changes to the existing drainage system would require review and approval to ensure maintenance of adequate outfall. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The 1998 Community Plan designated the subject site and the remaining 1.62 acres Transition. As noted by the traffic engineer, recommendations are made in the draft community plan to balance land use objectives with street functional capabilities and the Transition land use category applies in the case of the two roads bordering this proposed development. Transition policy encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels with a high degree of architectural and environmentally sensitive site design. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in Transition unless coordinated as small-scale retail uses. Relative to design guidelines, the project would reduce the number of entrances and remove a large billboard if occupied by CVS. Attractive architecture and improved vehicular access is proffered and opportunities for improved landscaping, exterior lighting and signage exist.. 5. 5T AFF CONCLUSIONS Although better suited for a Core designated area, the proposed project would redevelop a corner location in need of such improvement. Economic Development staff note that this proposed C-2 use is appropriate for the Peters Creek Road commercial corridor. Other quadrants at this major intersection, all located within the City of Roanoke, are developed with high intensity retail and service commercial uses. Staff can support this proposal if a more detailed site plan including screening and buffering, parking, lighting and signage per ordinance are in effect in addition to proffered conditions listed on page 1 of this report. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: 3·· 2/2005 Timothy Beard PC: February 1, 2005 BOS: February 22, 2005 3 DEC-28-2004 10:07 RKE CTY-COM DEV County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning ., 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, V A 240 18- 079& 540 772-2068 FAX 540 776-7155 ALL IIPPUCANTS ChcI<k type ofapplicarioll fi1ed (check III mal "pply) oni:tlg [j Spccial Use G Variancc 5407722108 P.02/02 For Staff Use Onl \-1 Dstc: =ci~: Rcc:civcd \)y: A¡rpIic:a1100 f~~: PClBZA dat<:: Plo=ds issued: BOS d.3.!c; (:uc Num~ o Waivcr C Admirosuative Appeal Phone: Work: Cell II: Fax No.: Phone #: 5~ Work: Fax No. #: Magisterial Di!tricl: ~ 171 J,t)ß 11 Community Plmning atea: Tax: Map No.: " 17. (JI-/)S~ DO. ððO Siz: ofparcel(s): Acres: ' b?A REZONING SPEÇlAL USE PERMITAlVD WAlJ"BR OPUC4NTS:{RJS1W) Proposed Zoning: C" Z- Proposed Land Use: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot ¡¡tea, wídth, IIJd frDD1age reqwrcnents of the requested disttict? Yes V No rFNO,A VARlANCEISREQt1IREDFJRST. Doe~ the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes V No IF NO,A VARlANCEIS REQIJIRED FIRST lhezoning request, are cOlltlitions being proffcred wjth tbis ~uest'? Yel No YARJANCE, WAnŒR AND ADM:1NIST1«mŒ APpro AP'pL1~ (J"IW/AA) Vari311œ1Waiver of Section(s) Appeal of Zoning Adminis!I1I.tOr"s decision 10 Appeal oflntetpmatioD of Scåion(s): AppW of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County ZŒÚÐ& OnlinaDce il\ ord~T to: of ¡h~ Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLJCA nON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR IN'COMPLETE. RIS/W VIA^- R/SIW V/AA BJS/W V/AA rn ConslllWion Ei 8 112" It II" concepcplan ~ ApplÎtltion fee Applic&:Îo:J. Mc:1cs u¡dbounds dçsaiptìon Pro~ if applicable ]ustificBtion Water and SCWet' l )JJücation Adjoining property ~11crs Ihcr1:by ççrtify t":1I T am either !he ClViUCt' of the property or the OWllel" ugeAt!ll' ODnU'aCt purchuef and am actiag with the kDowledge and consent of the own.er'þlj)-AI),AJ.J{!t:, /è£ALJY; ..z:¡(/¿::. _ ¿I,,=~ . . . f ~. Owner os S. &lure JUSTIFICATION'FOR REZONING; Sl"ECtU. USE:PERMIT·OIi.:W AlVER. REQUEST ~...J c~n~_~'¡"Q I T / 2 TOTAL P. 02 ~~Tea~ ~t~ueI~~-p~W eLI:OI VO 82 ~aa Applicant A1/fJ - A n.l1ttJT/L J!.,£2JL'llj I JJtf(!.. T-'-f The Planning Corrunission will study rezoning, special use pennit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. W¡AJ(ýS -Ill¿, ~ ~ Cð7t~ t~ ~ 7~~ e-Z- ~ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Corrununity Plan. tuhf3v'. ~~ ~ -z;(1L- .~ C.V5/ph~. ~ .ft; v/U I<J ~- ¿;¿ oJ~ btt<M~f: V~ 1/fAA-d (~~&t~fv k~) 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, parkslrecreation and fire and rescue. W~ f ~ ~~tJv ~ (Y1A~ . t~~u; ~ f~CœdL ~~k~~ I rlÃAd-~/~ rJYï:t ~ tV.f!! ~ ß71GYe~, ~-~ ~. ~ cÞ~l7)~k 'Þ-1'~ ~~~ ~{4,dt/h ~. (3~ ~ fie ~~ I JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE REQl;JEST Applicant 3 T-1 Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. P.G.Box 3247 Gettysburg, PA 17325 717/642-9794 Fax 717/642-9026 Via FedEx December 16, 2004 Mr. John Murphy Associate Planner County of Roanoke Department of Community Development Planning Division 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 RE: Rezoning Application Hubbard Property Peters Creek Parkway & Cove Rd Roanoke, VA Dear John: Weare the contract purchaser of the Hubbard property located at the comer of Peters Creek Parkway and Cove Rd. Enclosed please find the following: 1. Application for Rezoning of Parcel 37.17-1-5 (.68 acres) 2. Site Plan showing the checklist requirements of the property to be rezoned as well as our proposed development 3. Aerial of the property under consideration 4. Check in the amount of $977 for the application fee 5. Draft proffer I am also having our engineer forward to you two (2) full size plans and one (1) 8 %" X 11" for your use. We will also supply you with additional copies of the color aerial. As discussed I have enclosed a draft proffer. I hope to have the opportunity to discuss 1 T-i this further with you before you distribute the package to all concerned. Thank you very much for your assistance. It: in the meantime, you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~- /iælR4¡/ cJYW /t11- ð Susan Whaley cc: Mr. Hubbard Ms. Millie Moore 2 ~1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.68- ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PETERS CREEK ROAD AND COVE ROAD (TAX MAP NO.37 .17 -01-05) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 1-1, INDUSTRIAL WITH CONDITIONS, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF MID-ATLANTIC REALTY, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 25, 2005, and the second reading and public hearing were held February 22,2005; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 0.68 acres, as described herein, and located at the northwest corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road (Tax Map Number 37.17-01-05) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of 1-1, Industrial District with conditions, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District with conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) The property shall be developed as a C-2 use. 1 1-1 (2) Entrances onto Peters Creek Road shall be reduced to one (1) right-in and right-out; entrances onto Cove Road shall be reduced to one (1) full movement entrance. (3) All buildings constructed on the property shall have exposed exterior walls (above finished grade) of face brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco, decorative split face block and/or glass or be of an equivalent, permanent architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered with or have exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or corrugated aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be asphalt shingle or standing metal seam if a raised roof; if a flat roof system is used, a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam and decorative split face block or brick shall be used. (4) The proffered conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated August 25,1992 and Ordinance 102291-10 dated October 22,1991, are hereby removed. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at an iron stake on the northwesterly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road (VA Rte. 117) 146.29 feet northeasterly from an angle point at the northwesterly corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, said beginning point being the northeasterly corner of the property of Humble Oil Co.; thence leaving Peters Creek Road and with two lines of the Humble Oil Co. property N. 74° 21' W. 100.0 feet to an iron stake; thence S. 34° 28' 30" W. 165.00 feet to an iron stake on the northerly right-of-way line of Cove Road (VA Rte. 116); thence with same, leaving the Humble Oil Co. property N. 74° 21' W. 113.00 feet to an iron stake, a corner to the property of Mrs. Dorothy H. Whitesell, Mrs. Geraldine H. Waring and Frances H. Easley; thence with same and leaving Cove Road, N. 35° 12' 10" E. 250.0 feet to a point, a new corner; thence with a new division line through the property of William Kenney S. 62° 16' 50" E. 201.59 feet to a point on the northwesterly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road; thence with said right-of-way line with a curved line to the left, having a radius of 2334.83 feet, a chord bearing and distance of S. 36° 59' 35" W.40.0 feet and an arc distance of 40.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.685 acres, as shown on plat made by David Dick & Associates, dated February 26, 1973, which plat is recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Deed Book 968 at page 99. 2 T-4 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. 3 ~I Ja IljJ I I :u! 11 " o If) IW '<tF 00:: w ,..,Q. ~o ,,"",~g: ~03: o::"~ uQu.. «...J.. u~\jf5 r') ·000Z N<I:~ a:: -=::"Cl.. 0 :§ ~ i.!:! '8... e.§ .æ.~ .r~ !i].sð '" g ~c ~ ~.!õ I æ-g ~~ (.)_10 .§~O"'N .. "., - I .. .... '" ~ ~Z:,J,¡'¡(Q - ¡:.- !5 I Sõ!"'~.c2! Þ)UNQ.OJ to-£o-n I-LJ -- ,.o-£o-n \fNIÐ8IA '3)10N\f08 -- BO~ ...- BO~ .III IIIIOa:I y¡¡p¡ N'V1d 3l.IS .)1001 )I:)lno. 1'Vnld3~NO::> .....- :a:xxra:a .... .., I ( \ I I \ ,\ \ l I I ,\ '------.. þ 11 II< :!! g J.J= ü-< .- :Iz C::a a ~ a: '. III I! e ~ I I .i~ , èb c:: cp, CDo « o c:: ~ w w c:: u (f) a:::: ~ .W (L ~ 'it \ \ \ I I I I ~ ~ ~ t t Î--.. ~ I ......- - "0 a> ~ . I I >-~ o::g «1= 211) -15 :::Eu :J(š W"- 0::1- (La z ¡ m :II EI ~ ~ ~O :> o c:: z [L « .-J (f) (L W Ü w « I- [L ¡¡¡ (f) (f) W ü « [L (f) () 2 ~ 0:: « (L o -1 W () « (f) 2 => 2r ~ I- o 0:: fu c:: « ü (L (L z /I Lf) 8 ®~ '0 N '0 <0 . o I '0 <0 II '0 I') . .... W .-J <C U (f) o ==== ==:-=%=:==~=::: _~'- ------ -- I I I (:J ':i! I ~ T-4 RECORD OWNERS Thomas R. and Evonne R. Hubbard, Jr. December 15,2004 The undersigned, Thomas R. and Evonne R. Hubbard, Jr., owners of parcel designated 037.17-01-05, ("the Property"), voluntarily agree for themselves, their agent, personal representatives, successors and assigns (collectively "the Property Owner") that, in the event the Property is rezoned from I-I to C2, the development and use of the Property shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be developed as a C-2 use. 2. The entrances onto Peters Creek Road shall be reduced to one (1) right-in and right-out. The entrances onto Cove Road shall be reduced to one (1) full movement entrance. 3. All buildings constructed on the property shall have exposed exterior walls, (above finished grade) of face brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco, decorative split face block and/or glass, or of an equivalent, permanent, architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered with or have exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or corrugated aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be asphalt shingle or standing metal seam, if a raised roof, or if a flat roof system is used, then a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam, decorative split face block or brick shall be used. 4. The conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated August 25, 1992 and Ordinance 102291-10 dated October 22, 1991 are hereby removed. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] T-'f WITNESS the following signatures (SEAL) &~1fLth-.SstAL) Evonne Hubbard / / STATE OF VIRGINIA: CITY/COUNTY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of January, 2005, by Thomas R. HUbb;~ ~_ Notary pubr My commission expires: June 30 I 2007 ST ATE OF VIRGINIA: CITY/COUNTY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of January, 2005, by Evonne Hubbard. ¿ ~ ~~ Notary Public My commission expires: June 30 I 2007 . 2'd T-Lj LegaJ Description of Property owned by Thomas R Hubbard, Jr. and Evonne Hubbard, Tax Map No. 037.17-01-05 BEGINNING at an iron stake on the northwesterly right- of-way line of Peters Creek Road, Virginia Highway Route 117, 146.29 feet northeasterly from an angle point at the northwesterly corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, said beginning point being the northeasterly corner of the property of Humble Oil Co.: thence leaving Peters Creek Road and with two lines of the Humble Oil Co. property N. 74 deg. 21' W. 100.0 feet to an iron stake: thence S. 34 deg. 28' 30" W. 165.00 feet to an iron stake on the northerly right-of-way line of Cove Road (Virginia Highway No. 116); thence with same, leaving the Humble Oil Co. property N. 74 deg. 21' W. 113.00 feet to an iron stake, a corner to the property of Mrs. Dorothy H_ Whitesell, Mrs. Geraldine H. Waring and Frances H. Easley; thence with same and leaving Cove Road, N. 35 deg. 121 10" E. 250.0 feet to a point, a new corner: thence with a new division line through the property of William Kenney S. 62 deg. 161 son E. 201. 59 feet to a point on the northwesterly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road: thence with said right-of-way line with a curved line to the left, having a radius of 2334.83 feet, a chord bearing and distance of S. 36 deg. 591 35" W. 40 .0 feet and an arc distance of 40. 00 feet to the point of BEGINNING, containing 0.0685 acres, as shown on plat made by David Dick & Associates, dated February 26, 1973, which said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 968, page 99. 920S-2V9 ¿1¿ 920S-2v9-¿I¿ ~55:S0 50 02 u~[' - ; _-< I I i '"-l " ,~:-, , .JJ '.... - ·f . : \....i' \ ¡ ~~'o:O: o. " ",';': ~ II: . :' J J ' ~ Zoning COve _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR _AV C1 .C2 . C2CVOD 11 12 .PCD PRO ,- -- ì PTD R1 R2 R3 R4 Roanoke County Department of Community Development City of Roanoke r /1 City of Roanoke City of Roanoke N Â. Applicants Name: Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. Proposed Zoning: C-2 Tax Map Number: 37.17-1-5 Magisterial District: Catawba Area: 0.68 Acres December 17, 2004 No Scale ! i i ~ II ~'~ ì / ¡'jl o~~~ \ / I "'~~\ j-f ' , ~, ,:~/ f~.11 (~/'·. ., " -)- i ~; j! wa ~ tO~~ 'b:§ I ~ t~~ V'NI!)!:M '3) ONV'O!:l Ilii I " ~'" ~ ~ 80' ~~~~ ¡,! ~- - --- -- -- - r &-" ."" ',~ §~ Iz,J,. .. ~ a_ "'"' NV'ld 3lJ8 .)(OOl >l8InO. lV'nld38NO:) ~! i :th!] H~l H ~a_ w_ * ( I \- 8 en .:¡: !2V 51 6 C>:: Z L! "-- <{ Z .....J ::::( (/) Q.. er: ~ w « « >- 0... 0... ü) o (f) .....J t:=: Ü c:{ o 7 ~ Q "" 0.. o a::: w C>:: « U c.. 0.. Z o u I I I '0 cO o "\ ®~ -- ~- -- "~~~~ >, ! / ~~ .- -j '\ ~ -" -, ~ ~ì \>o",Q co..¡l ~ ~ ~ ~ \ , ",,< ! - ! 0 '" 1 '" '" <l '" ~ " ~ oc -" 0 ~ ~ ~ w '" 8 a: is il ~ 0- ~ '" w § > > 'ª c := ~ v '" "' Q ~ w :; " '" 0: Q 'Õ " ::> ::> ~ .Š ~ '" c :~ ¡¡; 3i a: '" ~ I \ \ ... ~i ~&~~mIHD ((,i i --I GRŒN p.e-::;[ ROAO \ . - ---- _.__.--~. g - I I I ~ >-" 2i~ ~g :::;" a~ "'~ o..¡¡ r-- PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless 5-2/2005 \-5 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: February 1, 2005 February 22, 2005 A. REQUEST The petition of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities, located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Azar inquired about the reasons for rejecting co-locating on the U.S. Cellular tower on Catawba Valley Drive. Ms. Hooker inquired about the possibility of the FAA requiring lights on the tower. The petitioners responded that the U.S. Cellular tower available space was at or below the tree line. They also responded that the consultants they hired to analyze their FAA requirements found no hazard and no reason to light the tower. Ms. Hooker asked if the recommended #2 could read: "The broadcast tower shall not be lighted", and strike "unless required by the FAA." The petitioner agreed to the change. D. CONDITIONS 1. The broadcast tower shall be a monopole design, with a maximum height of 199'. 2. The broadcast tower shall not be lighted. 3. The broadcast tower shall be constructed of non-reflective materials to reduce visibility and reduce light reflection. 4. The broadcast tower shall be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. 5. The broadcast tower shall be located in the lease area shown on the concept plan entitled "Verizon Site Name: Bradshaw Road", prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc, with engineers stamp seal date of 12/10/04. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker made a motion to favorably recommend the rezoning request with conditions. With her motion, Ms. Hooker offered the following findings of fact: 1. The broadcast tower is located in the valley floor, rather than on a mountain side or ridge line. 2. The broadcast tower is a monopole design and can structurally support three other vendors. 3. The broadcast tower would not be lighted, and therefore would have less visual impact on the surrounding community. T-5 4. The proposed site is already developed and would be served by an existing driveway and electric service. 5. The proposed site is at least 1/5 to 2 miles from the Appalachian Trail, and significantly lower in elevation than the trail. Motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission T-5 Petitioner: Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless Location: Special Use Permit for 199' Broadcast Tower (with antenna) on AR zoned property 3233 Catawba Valley Drive Request: Magisterial District: Catawba Proffered/Suggested Conditions: 1. The broadcast tower shall be a monopole design, with a maximum height of 199' 2. The broadcast tower shall not be lighted unless required by the FAA. 3. The broadcast tower shall be constructed of non-reflective materials to reduce visibility and reduce light reflection. 4. The broadcast tower shall be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. 5. The broadcast tower shall be located in the lease area shown on the concept plan entitled "Verizon Site Name: Bradshaw Road", prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc, with engineers stamp seal date of 12/10/04. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Verizon Wireless proposes to construct a 199' broadcast tower at the Moose Lodge property at 3233 Catawba Valley Road. The height of the proposed tower would be the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance. The proposed broadcast tower would be centrally located in the valley in order to serve customers in Masons Cove, Bennett Springs, and those traveling on U.S. Rt. 311. The tower would not be lighted and would be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. The site is designated Rural Village in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The Rural Village areas are where limited development activity has historically occurred and where suburban or urban development patterns are discouraged. The Rural Village designation does not specifically address Broadcast Towers, although references to locations of towers may be found in other sections of the plan. Broadcast towers are discouraged on ridge lines and within critical scenic view areas. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Broadcast Towers are permitted by Special Use Permit in the AR, Agricultural Residential zoning district. Site development review shall be required. Building permits shall be required. Sealed engineering "as-built" plans shall be required to certify actual constructed height. r-s The site shall comply with the Emergency Communications Overlay zoning district, where applicable. Subject to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approvals. 2. ANAL YSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background - The Moose Lodge at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive was constructed in 1983. The property is 25 acres and zoned ARC, Agricultural Residential with conditions. In 1985 a "Use Not Provided For" pennit was issued to allow a campground for Moose members, thus resulting in the conditional zoning. Verizon Wireless is making improvements to their coverage in the Masons Cove area of Roanoke County. The company currently has a site at Pinkerton Chevrolet on Electric Road, but the coverage toward Masons Cove ends at the ridge tops of Fort Lewis Mountain and Brushy Mountain. The proposed broadcast tower would be centrally located in the valley in order to serve customers in Masons Cove, Bennett Springs, and those traveling on U.S. Rt. 311. TopographyN egetation - The proposed tower site is on a small knoll in the Masons Cove valley. The Moose Lodge property rises up to the east from Catawba Valley Road. The tower location would be in the rear of the Moose Lodge, at the edge of an existing parking area. Most of the Moose Lodge property is open grass fields, parking areas, the lodge building and recreational facilities. Surrounding Neighborhood - All adjoining properties are zoned AR, Agricultural Residential. Most adjoining properties are large tracts between four and ten acres, and contain single family dwellings and some wooded areas. Roanoke County's Whispering Pines park adjoins to the north and east. 3. ANAL YSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture - Verizon proposes to lease an 80' X 100' area adjacent to the existing parking lot, in the southeastern corner of the Moose Lodge property. The tower would be in the center of the lease area; approximately 220' from the eastern property line and approximately 115' from the southern property line. A 199' monopole tower is proposed. An accessory equipment shelter and perimeter fencing are also proposed. A row of evergreen trees is proposed around the outside of the perimeter fence. The site is open and relatively flat, and should require very little land disturbance. The lease area would be at the edge of an existing tree line. Many of the adjoining neighbors are separated from the proposed site either by the rest of the 25-acre Moose Lodge property, or the county-owned Whispering Pines Park which lies to the north and east. Adjoining neighbors to the south of the site would be the closest homes to the new structure. The proposed tower would meet all required setbacks ftom property lines and adjacent residences. The location is not within two miles of Roanoke Regional Airport, and does not exceed 2,000' elevation, so a referral to the FAA is not necessary, and lighting is not required. The tower is a monopole design and would be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. 2 T=-s The proposed tower may be visible from certain points along the Appalachian Trail. Section 30- 87-2(D) of the zoning ordinance prohibits broadcast towers within critical view sheds of the Appalachian Trail as shown on any official map designating those view sheds and pre-approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County does not have a pre-approved view shed map of critical views from the Appalachian Trail. The United States Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service has provided Roanoke County with digital maps of view sheds from ten "key observation points" in and around Roanoke County. From each observation point, the view is depicted up to a distance of four miles. One of these observation points, located south of the Rt. 311 parking area, has a view that includes the Moose Lodge property. The observation point is approximately 2.5 - 3 miles from the site, and at an elevation of2,000+ feet. The tower base elevation would be 1,254', and the top would be 1,453' elevation. Factors such as the distance from the observation point to the proposed site, along with the elevation difference (the view looking down on the property), and the fact that the site is already developed with the Moose Lodge should be considered when evaluating if the broadcast tower would have an impact to the Appalachian Trail. Representatives of the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) have expressed concern, and a desire for further review of the proposed broadcast tower. The A TC may have other maps of trail views to submit for consideration. The Planning Commission may wish to ask members ofthe Appalachian Trail Conference for additional input. Verizon has examined and rejected co-locating on an existing U.S. Cellular tower at 4000 Catawba Valley Road. According to the applicant, the U.S. Cellular tower does not have an acceptable mounting height above the surrounding tree canopy. No other co-location options, or possible alternative sites for new towers were discussed in the Verizon application. The Planning Commission may wish to inquire about other possible alternative sites. Access/Traffic Circulation - Access would be via the driveway to the Moose Lodge. Traffic to the site would be limited to infrequent maintenance visits. Fire & Rescue/Utilities - Fire and rescue services would be provided by the Masons Cove Fire and Rescue Station. Water and septic services are not required for the development. Electric service exists on the property. Community Meeting - A community meeting is scheduled to be held at the Moose Lodge on the evening of January 27,2005. A synopsis of the meeting will be presented to the Planning Commission at the February 1, 2005 public hearing. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated Rural ViIlage in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The Rural Village areas are where limited development activity has historically occurred and where suburban or urban development patterns are discouraged. The Rural Village designation does not specifically address Broadcast Towers, although references to locations of towers may be found in other sections of the plan. Broadcast towers are discouraged on ridgelines and within critical scenic view areas. 3 T-5 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Verizon Wireless proposes to construct a 199' broadcast tower at the Moose Lodge property at 3233 Catawba Valley Road. The height of the proposed tower would be the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance. The proposed broadcast tower would be centraJly located in the vaJley in order to serve customers in Masons Cove, Bennett Springs, and those traveling on U.S. Rt. 311. The tower would not be lighted and would be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. The proposed tower may be visible from certain points along the Appalachian Trail. Factors such as the distance from the observation point to the proposed site, along with the elevation difference (the view looking down on the property), and the fact that the site is already developed with the Moose Lodge should be considered when evaluating if the broadcast tower would have an impact to the Appalachian Trail. Representatives of the Appalachian Trail Conference have expressed concern and a desire for further review of the proposed broadcast tower. The Planning Commission may wish to ask members of the Appalachian Trail Conference for additional input during their public hearing. If the Planning Commission forwards the petition to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation, the following conditions are recommended: 1. The broadcast tower shall be a monopole design, with a maximum height of 199'. 2. The broadcast tower shall not be lighted unless required by the FAA. 3. The broadcast tower, hardware and antennas shall be constructed of non-reflective materials to reduce visibility and reduce light reflection. 4. The broadcast tower shall be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. 5. The broadcast tower shall be located in the lease area shown on the concept plan entitled "Verizon Site Name: Bradshaw Road", prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc, with engineers stamp seal date of 12110/04. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: 05-02/2005 David Holladay PC: 2/1/05 80S: 2/22/05 4 T-S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/AI VERIZON WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT A 199 FT. BROADCAST TOWER AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED AT 3233 CATAWBA VALLEY DRIVE (TAX MAP NO.16.03-1- 46) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities to be located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive (Tax Map No. 16.03-1-46) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on January 25, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on February 22, 2005. 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 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities to be located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive 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: 1 - /-s (1) The broadcast tower shall be a monopole design, with a maximum height of 199 ft. (2) The broadcast tower shall not be lighted. (3) The broadcast tower shall be constructed of non-reflective materials to reduce visibility and reduce light reflection. (4) The broadcast tower shall be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. (5) The broadcast tower shall be located in the lease area shown on the concept plan entitled "Verizon Site Name: Bradshaw Road," prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., with engineers stamp seal date of 12/10/04. 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 T-s Findings of Facts Cellco Partnership d.b.a. Verizon Wireless Moose Lodge Site, 3233 Catawba Valley Drive When making your recommendation on this Special Use Permit, please make your motion and read the reason(s) for making that recommendation. Reasons to offer a positive recommendation: The broadcast tower is located in the valley floor, rather than on a mountain side or ridge line. The broadcast tower is a monopole design and can structurally support three other vendors. The broadcast tower would not be lighted and therefore would have less visual impact on the surrounding community. The proposed site is already developed and would be served by an existing driveway and electric service. The proposed site is at least 1.5 to 2 miles from the Appalachian Trail, and significantly lower in elevation than the trail. Reasons to offer a negative recommendation: The applicant provided little information about alternative new and co-location sites. There is concern from the Appalachian Trail Conference about potential impacts to the views from the Appalachian Trail. --Æ .AG3 _EP _AG1 AR .AV C1 .C2 . C2CVOD 11 12 .PCD PRO -- '. ---J PTD R1 R2 R3 Roanoke County Department of Community Development N A Applicants Name: Cel/co Partnership Existing Zoning: ARC Proposed Zoning: ARCS Tax Map Number: 16.03-1-46 Magisterial District: Catawba Area: 25 acres December 27, 2004 No Scale """- 1,- C ....;) .~.. venmflwireless December 17,2004 County of Roanoke Department of Community Planning Mr. David Holladay, Zoning Administrator 5204 Bernard Drive P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 RE: Special Use Pennit - 3233 Catawba Valley Drive Dear Mr. Holladay: Please accept the attached application for the special use pennit by the Cellco Partership (d/b/a "Verizon Wireless") for a new 199-foot telecommunications monopole located at the headquarters for the Loyal Order of the Roanoke Moose Lodge (No. 284) located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive in Salem, VA (tax map #16.03-01-46.00-000). The property contains 25 acres and is zoned ARC. Currently the subject property is used for a club house for the Moose Lodge at the front of the parcel, and has conditional zoning to allow for camping by members on the property. Below are explanations addressing the provisions outlined in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance as well as the pre-application Checklist. The following are the Application Standards set forth in Section 30-78-2(C)2 of the Zoning Ordinance: A, B) The coverage objective for the proposed monopole for Verizon Wireless includes that section of SR 311 (between the existing sites labeled "Peters Creek" and "Pinkerton" on the County-wide propagation study) which has little to no wireless coverage as demonstrated by the propagation study labeled "Existing Verizon Wireless Coverage." The existing structure(s) considered and rejected by Verizon include the existing 90'+- telecommunication tower owned by U.S. Cellular, Inc. and located on Catawba Valley Drive, 0.75 mile west of Oakey-Dol on Road (Tax Map No. 8.04-1-42). Based upon the -r'-,· 5>A . ~. mounting height available on this existing tower, which is below the existing tree canopy, Verizon Wireless would not be able to satisfy its coverage objective. C) Attached are photographs taken of a balloon test that occurred at the proposed monopole location on Tuesday, December 7,2004. These photographs demonstrate the visual impact of the proposed monopole from several locations, both along SR 311 and along portions of the Appalachian Trail. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing on this Special Use Permit request, photo simulations based upon the attached balloon test results will be submitted to the Planning Department. D) Attached is a computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility of the proposed tower at the requested height and location. No additional road, access or utility corridors are proposed. E) Please see proposed propagation study entitled "Existing Verizon Wireless Coverage in Roanoke County" F) Verizon Wireless will conduct on-site balloon tests prior to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings on the Special Use Permit on dates provided by Roanoke County Zoning. G) The proposed Verizon Wireless tower based on Airspace, Towair, and Slope Analysis tools does not require any notice or filing to the FAA under FAA regulations due to its height (under 200') and location. . The following are the General Standards requirements set forth in Section 30-87-2 (D) of Zoning Ordinance: 1. The maximum of the proposed monopole and antenna shall not exceed 199 ft. in height. Propagation studies demonstrating the need for the proposed monopole at this height and location are attached. 2. The monopole equipment compound meets all setback requirements. In fact the location, exceeds the minimum setback of 40% of the height ofthe monopole on all sides. The proposed site is also buffered by existing forest on the subject property on the east and south sides of the proposed compound location. 3. (See 2.) 4. NA 5. The proposed Verizon Wireless tower based on Airspace, Towair, and Slope Analysis tools does not require any notice or filing to the FAA under FAA regulations due to its height (under 200') and location. 6. (See 5.) 7. The proposed site is not located within the airport overlay or emergency communications overlay districts. 8. The proposed site will be a monopole design. "r-5 9. The monopole will be designed to accommodate at least three (3) other carriers/vendors in addition to the applicant. 1 O. A Phase I Environmental Assessment and NEP A checklist has been prepared for the proposed monopole. A copy ofthe reports may be submitted ifneeded. 11. In the event ofterminationlabandonment ofthe proposed site, Verizon Wireless agrees to remove the monopole and facilities from the property. 12. The proposed monopole shall be flat matte finished galvanized steel. The compound will be fenced and landscaped. 13. No business signs will be located on the property except those required by the FCC to properly identify the tower owner and those signs to identify individual carrier equipment. Therefore, we respectfully request review, consideration, and approval of this Special Use Permit request by the Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors. S. in...cere.l.....y'~/___../~.. ~ #¿/~// ~'¿- ;eb£c;"J ~" ¿" Bill Waskey & Greg Tully for Verizon Wireless Enclosures .- -r ~" -- '.. \/ ~ \ >. ..>0: "'C u ... '" CI III J: I: . 0 CO + Q) C) ca ~ Q) > o o Q) JJ ca - c.. Q) o o ca - o z Q) C) ca ~ Q) > o o Q) JJ ~ - c.. Q) o o « ( - ë¡¡ C! c: :;; !J 'x w Q. CI C) ~ ~ o .!: æ. /"~ fi.""'-/ · I: ~ 1: ~ c . ~ Q) ..>0: I: ¡:: . ~ £: ::J o o ~ o c CI o a:: c .... CÞ m tCJ ... ø > o ~ th ø CÞ 1 i c: o N .- .... CÞ > æ c .- <fJ (/ .- )C w . "'C CI o CI:: .5: :>2 I: E u.. - Ë~ E :I en . «; In .~ I: Q) > < Q) VI o ... Q; :æ · E "*. r~ en-.....-J iU ~ en £ . I: ~ C . .x Q) Q) ~~ ~... ~ I: ~~ Q) ..>0: I: ii: . "E CI ..c: u è5 ~ Q) .Q ~ g . ::,¡: ..>0: U o Ü N .... . ¿ ~ '" 15 Q) Q. .. / CÞ 0) ! CD > o o ", t/' CÞ ! - ~ c o N - .. d) > CJ) c i )< w \~ ". - ~ Ii 'C t'II o D: ¡c t'II .r: f 'C t'II .. ro 'C œ f o C- O .. !l. ·,i~.. .. ~..", , r'-~ Q) C) IV ~ Q) Q) C) > IV 0 ~ 0 Q) \ > Q) 0 :c 0 ca ..! - c. .c Q) ca 0 - 0 ... C. 9, ca ~, Q) - Q 0 0 0 ¡, ~ « z tLl .' LJ ~ " ') .', . ...~ " -\ , ,. \ \ Q) - .a 'w .¡¡¡ g> f ~ ::::J II) ..... ';( æ w I,,' . ;! ' Q) CJ) i! ø ~ o (I) ø Q) - G) .. i c o N - a- G) > 'tJ G) fI) o a. e a. L__ ". J J i I , f + , ,. -. -,. ~ \.. .... . r- -':, - \ ~ ~, (II' æ¡ . ,¡ L' , - I \ I ~-.:...! . ' \¡ þ.~- ,.... '..... " '\ :. ... . ., r ~, -.-.,) Q) t» C'CJ ~ Q) > o o ~ .0 C'CJ - C. Q) o o <t Q) t» ~ Q) > o o Q) ::ë C'CJ - C. Q) o o C'CJ - o z -I I ! (II 2 i "C¡ (II CI ... C ~ .. _ II) ~ 'x II.. W -,.f.,..'. " ') c .I / I ~.~ "'_1 ~ ~ Q. (t ~ o - o ët i' /'A ~ ~ , ~ ì- :t ! z .ì . I. " . ' ã ...J 01 ,I:: ~ &: "C '" <:> :t ~ }.;; I:: .'" ~ (,) ~ tt: Q. Q. ~ II ... .... 'Z ::;I' o 1. ." ':,- :,1. " ~, .,....' }, ~:.;"'CP , .' ~.. ~ . " . .' .~. <:> '" c: '" :: ~ <II .go o ...J (! '" o o ~ II '" "C '" ~ '" .Q :!: ~ '" (,) ~ II o, b ~ I/) 0'" a.; t~ ,r·. i, ,..' , ~< Å. ~ -;. ,', do y... ~' V ,I"', ,..\ ,. "C I:: ~ "C '" o Q:: OJ :>- o (.) '" .s :>- '- '" "C U .. .... 0 OQ: C:'¡:: 0- ~ "ê <llCI) ~ E ..!!! 0 c:- _ tt: II 13 ....~ t' .. 0.. '" Q £ 0> 'E <II Q. ,'" ~ II It) )" / _/5·'·'-:;~·~o<' 21 .' ' ,¡, .,.,' " . ··...\l ," "C '" o Q: <:> :>- o U '" .c: ~ c'J II CD ./ ,'"' ,. ¡.': p:' , , ,- " -" f .', .~I'~~~' : "I I ~' I '" 01 't! o ...J OJ '" o o :!; õ :¡: õ ~ >- ,... o, Q '5 ~ II I'-. !\.. .~ '~--:. ......:..- ~, .\ , \ :;- :i. .;.,. . ~ "'<, i'- ~.-:. ... '~ ¡. ~ "'- ., ,. ':\ ~', ~ .' ~ . (, ~" .., o <.> "" "C C .... <:> '" o c ::E .... c -S '" o CI) .S:! :ê Q> ~ g .... ::! II - CQ~ <: ~'" ~ ~ € .. ~ Q. Q> ~ Q E Q> ,'- ~ w: ( J Q> :>- "C :>- 0 <II C (,) 0 U Q: -'" -'" c: ~ 0 0 .:c: '" I:: '" ~ '" .. it ~ II II II Q O ,... ,... ,... o 't-;" of ", " ,~ '.\~ '0 '" ó> ~. .. , } /.......". i :k<-~;:~;':~>~< ,,..-/ . /~~ 'r: ' __~-_:--r~~"":"''':'/~-~ .~ " .. ~ :It. '" ~ ", ;. ~ ~ " '" ,.. ~ ? o 1. - .. :z ., ::¡ '. '" !::: ... ~ ~ '", :¡ ;;. '. "¡.. . ~J. . ç " , > v - \ I .. ' "~/ <D <D C') ~ ,,,= OJ '" Q) C/)-o:;;:~ -0 0 N ¡..:c ro-1«<lJ Q<D>O 0::: UJ _,0- o è: 0 3 0 ~ § ro¿ m¿ .J:: (f) , (/) aim -0 > m ~ ð '0 CO :>,(1) QJ (f _ 0 - 0- ~ e roc... .Q 3: ro ro o C') C') N C') . o \ ~ u z 0 ; z a:: (/)~ 0 ~. -1 ::;.' ,~ ?- J.¡J b: " r. .. '" J.¡J ,"::.: , Z J.¡J ~ ~ U Z ¿ ::: Z 0 J.¡J , U - " C) Q) C .£:I 0 :~ ~ > u _ 0 o ---I Z en en :c C -- o E o 0 - .... ro 4- (() ...--- >, ill ~ 0. m ¿ -.. ~ .V -.... ' ::""-:--:-_. L""," ..¡;.- , :7:- .-..... . '-.... -,>-- '. .- ~ ;.,....<: .' --'~;~~'~ ~-~- _.....~- .-.~~~k-. ..~ ~ - .-. -.,,' ' ........ ~.......~¿. -~3:;~~" ," _If ..' .. ~.Y. ~. . ""- ,. .~__~~ ~ J: " ~ .~\~":'. ~Î. . \. ... ,"....' - ~ -4:~' .. , . \. '-............ ~ _;-.r. ',' . ~~~ ;.- ". .~ '. .......~:~:.~:r~ ..~. ~, ,-'~ - ~ -~~~~, , ' --'';' "~ ~' ~ ~- - .r-'~ 'l·~·· ~~'L., to: ..... - - ." ,., _ - ."iL-;~';' - ~. ,.....r-~~~~ ,~ -~;.,.-;.(~~,,-' ; ..."'".. "'II:.¥-~-"" ~ _" ·..·IIC...Jt":"· ~~. 1- ...~/ -' ,~ ! J~ ~ :._~ " .~~ ~::~: -.. "~(- .:.- . ~ I ... '... ~.. T,-!:' ..~,; '~ - Q)\-........c ~ Q) 0.- Cf) ~ ....I .9 ° Q') c -0 t-= c ~ ro ~O OC:Cõ¿ a:: ° 0.. CO ::>:.j:::j"'C..c >roco5: roÜa>CU ..c: . c: I CO (j) ::J == U -oE~c ~EI-O en ° æ -oOE Q)Q)~ (j) - 0- co a.0a. ° a. a. \- ° <! 0... c: E 00 ~~ - ~ 0) a> 0)'- ~> c: ° N .¡:: ~ ... .~; '. - .. (!)u z ~ " - f51i n~ l.L.I t- 0 . zl.L.l -u ' (!) z "CO Z 0 '"- l.L.I V -, =:' ~ N >. Q) ~ Q. m ~ ,1, t :'.~ :t. \ ;;r'~; \ - _:. '~- \ - :*: \ -~:~~ - \ i -:t' - .. C) Z .... tJ) - X w (, ,,' ; , .,,-, .'~ t'~~ ,', ., . ,.~" -H",!<. ",4;" ~,-_ --',; :",-;,~ i" ~J 'i.\~ '. " .. , , --...~ --\ -:, ., T-~) Q)~ .¡.....oQ) "- ~ (/)0 "O¡.=. COc °0 ~.- ....... ~~ CO.- .!:c CJ)~ "OE ~E mo "Oü O>Q) CJ)_ 00 0..0.. 00 ~c Q..o ~ Q) ü c m I..- ..¡-> c:: W Q) 0) ""0 o -.J Q) en o o ~ E o l..- LL ~ Q) :> Q') Q') T"'" c o N "C ~ u (,:>z z -: :s; ~f/) ~::: UJ I- ~ __ . wCL ..,. w "-.- :::: u ::: ~ (,:> z "-. Z 0 ,_ ~ - - \ , ' ">.J Q)s..... Cl) ........cu ü i:n~ c: co -o~ ~ c -- c: w roc w N en 00 Cl) >. 0 a:: ._ 0') <D Q. ........ ""'0 ~ 0 ~~ 0 -...J c.. c:::: ro.- m a.. .!:c Cl) ~ en en::J 0 \:JE 0 ~E ~ (()o E 0 \:JO ~ (J)(J) LL en_ ~ 00 Cl) a. a. :> 00 '-c 0...0 ~ (j) (j) ~ C 0 N .¡:: ~ ... ( ) ~ ~ "0 Q) rJ} o a. o Q: , I F. .!f .. . "I -~ ~!. ~., - .¡;;'. .Lf " .,-,J. , -"( " ,';,1' I. ",t", ~- , - .. \ ':~ \' ,~'" / '\ ,'.It ~ ~"-W;. \ . -A. ~_ ~, ~.f . .. t .'- . , ¡:.,. ,~,', !II): u ~z z - , Q: ti ~ ~.J lLIl- lLI iJ.. " - I.1.i - ~ U cO 0:' ~ z ',: Z 0 ;;:':' ~ C") >. Q.) ~ 0.. co ~ C) z .... en - x w / , , - (]) c: .D 0 Ii) '-æ -¿ 15 o ----'---- Z (J) --. (J):.ë -- c: +-- o E .Q 0 CO .::: m _. -~...... ¿o- ~T' (])"- :::::G.'J cn3: -o~ 00 oc 0::: . 0 .- 3:00 00.° ..cc OO::J -oE ~E COo -00 Q)Q) 00_ 00 Q. Q. 00 "-c a.. 0 ~ ø~ z- å:cñ ¿z; w ~ -'.' w c.. . . z UJ I~ - l5u ;" z Z _.~~ w8·- ~ -.--' "'0 rn o 0:: rn ..c ~ rn +-1 (\j Ü "'C o +-1 « Q.) c: ~ (j) (j) ~ -¡:: Q.) ~ o a.. E o ~ LL ~ Q.) :> c o N "- ~ .. ---~ Q.)!o....-o"'C ~Q)roro C/) :s: 0 0 """ a::: a::: >- C) -o~Q).c Q) z cu > :!::: ~ - OC:°E Cl. .... 0::: . 0 0 if) co CI) +-I C/) E ~ - :s:cuc x ü'- 0 w CO.- ~ CO ..c:c:coCf) en::sü.c -0 E-« CO 0 !o.... E c-g CO 0 .Q co ....... -oUt) Q)Q)~ en - èi; 00....... o..o..c 00 E !o....c: (LO 0 I- ~LL - ~ 0'> .~ 0'» T""" .~. I ~~ c: 0 N !o.... ," ~ , , - ~'- >.- ;~~ -" -:.~~~:- ,.; -,~,'-,~ i .';' ',.....,.;., .- ;"', ~ ~~., ...... "::..~' . i &1 '"':;it':'~ ' j' 'I~-" ~ ~. ~:t'-::~f-" :z' ..¡¡¡" - __ ".... ¡;.;".~ '-'i:< , ~'..c."' ~'"'. ~':t -i .'~, -'iÆ-~ -, ,. ,..-. ., - . _..~ - ,.. ... - , U <-,z z - ,,-, c:: v5' " .. UJ I- - -, UJCl. Z w ~,.- - u "- <-' z -- ~ 8-> ~ ~ >. (]) ~ Cl. rn ¿ fal rJ) o a.. o c::: CL. ~ ... . ( ) : 3; ~ "0 CD en o 0- e c.. ".;- f' Q)!.....""O :-:= Q) rn""O U) ~ ° CO "0 0 cr:: & ro ~ OJ..c O >....... c 0-- O::OUE :.¡::¡ en (f) ~ r5 .~ E ro"_ è: ° ..c c rn co CI)::JUCf) "0 E -.Q cuE°« !..... c ""0 CO 0 0 c: "OüTIC\J Q)Q)G.> CI)_ ~ 00G.> c.c."E 00- !..... c E (Loe ~LL - ~ O')Q.> 0'» ~ c o .N ~ ~ ~~ z- ã: t..~ ~~:~ LiJ I- ,. LiJa.. zw - u ' (!)z ~;::.... ~ 0 .,c. ......v ~ ~ \:\1i1.~ ~ , ' ~~, . :>~\ - . .'. - ,~.,- ..J ~. L() >-. ill ~ C. eo ~ ~ '-t ."- f Q)r.... .¡........oQ) .- ~ CJ)0 "Dr=- CUe: 00 0::: ._ +-' ~~ CU.- .s:::.e: OO::J "DE ~E (1)0 "DO CDQ) 00_ 00 0... C- oo r....e: 0..0 ~ ~ I- m 0... (/J Q) c 0... CJ) c ï::: Q) a. en -C: S E e u.. ~ Q) ;; 0) 0) 'or- e: o N "¡:: ~ u (!)z __ z -~ u;~ a:: (/), . UJ f- . _, < ~fu ~> -u ~." ~ Z /, Z 0 é;:: t) Q)~ ~ ~ +-'Cl) m 003: 0.... ""O~ (/) Q) cue c °0 0.... L-:J 0::: ._ 0') +-I C >. 3:~ ·C Q) Q) ~ cu.- c... 0... ..c::e (/) OO~ .- m ...c::: :2: ""OE ~ ~E E CCo 0 ""00 ~ LL C])C]) ~ 00_ Q) 00 :> 0.. a. 00 ~e (La ~ .;- -------. aæ ww (j)~ °0 0-1- o cr:: a. .. -. ". Q) Q) ~ e o N ·C Q) > u ~ z __ z -~ ?::; C¡::1.fJ WI- W a.. . z w."~ -u (.!) Z ";:; Z 0 -_ ~ "-r- i -, , ,,-; Q) ..... ""0 -- (l) m (f)S 0 0::: CO C) "D~ ill >. Z CO > Q) aC 0 y: ¡:: 0::: . 0 0 Q.. (/) ....... en m - ~CO c :::2: >< () è w co.- ..cc::: m en::J 0 "DE E ~E 0 ~ (1)0 u.. "DO ~ Q)Q) Q) en_ S; 00 c.. c.. 00 L...c::: a.. 0 ~ ~ 0> 0> T"'" C 0 N L... ~ u ~z z- 0::;;: L¡J I- - L.I.IC- ZL.I.I ¡:;U ZZ lu 8 ~ ill >. Q) ~ 0.. CO :2: Q UJ CI) o c.. o D::: a.. -:'""...... (J)\.- -, Q) i.:r.>~ -a~ COc 00 0:: ._ +-I 3=~ CO.- ..r::c Cf)::J -aE ~E cao -aO Q)Q) Cf)_ 00 c.. c.. 00 ~c a.. 0 ~ "'0 m o 0::: Q) > o Ü (j) c .~ CO Ü E o ~ u. ~ Q) ;; Q) Q) ~ c o N ·C ~ u ~z Z --:.. ,_ 0:: (/), ,: .. WI- wfu ~~, ~u ~: ~- : <..!) Z /.u ZQ ~ - r-- >. Q) ~ el- m ¿ C) Z - I- en X w ~;. ~.I: .~ \"_. .i._ ill ~ Q.)....- +-' Q) ü""- if) ~ c (V) O ro Q) '"Dt..=..t:;...... CO r- C ::) Oc:wo o:::.Q &r; 3:cu"8§ roü--1- ..c: . e Q.) « cn::JCfJ l:JE8 ~E~ COOõ l:JÜ..c CD ", t::: cn\Uo OOZ Q..Q..CI) 00-0 s.... "- Q.§~ ~8 ~ ~ mE mo """" "- eLL o ~ N .92 "C > ~ u (!)z z- ~ vi ,:': ~ WI- 0> LLJ a.. -- ., ., z w -~- -u.- (!) z;; r5 8 ,~-- ~ I"- >- <D ~ a. cu ~ o w en o a.. D c::: D. ~ .... Q.) 3 ~ "0 Q.) (/) o Cl.. o ct ( . . L ' --1 Q)'- :t=<D8~ if) ~ c ('f) "'0 ¡..=o jg 2 co c:J ocwo et: ° <D n::: ~ 0)0) 3:~-g§ ro.- .....J <C .J::CCD 00 :::J en "'CEo ~E~ coo'+- "'CO~ Q)Q)t 000 - 0 OZ Q.Q.en eo"E o..§~ ~o o Ô)~ Q)E ~o I- CLL ° ~ N CD ";:: :> ~ ~u z~ ë:: - 3>'; W ~ - We.. - z W "0 l5U F~ z Z i;- LL!g i~; () - (l) c: ,.Q .9 en 10 :> u _ 0 o ....J Z U) eni: c - o E o 0 rnU: aJ co >- Q) ~ 0.. CO ~ .j~: --:" .-o;-_;.c" ':]," ~ z i= en x w ¡- _, <. . <J) ~ Q) :::: cD en :;: en 3: "0 C') o -o~--!2 rn Q)::J ocr.nO 0::: 0 0 a:: ._ 0 0) ~ro~C n'tü,+-O \,U.- 0 <! ..cc...c (f)::J....... -OE5 ~E(/) co 0 .~ -oUE Q.) i'I'I N (f)\U- o-~ a.&E 00° "--'- o..._LL o ~ ~Q) - :> 0') 0') "'r"'"" '··f cf: c o .N "- ~ (!)~ z- Q:: en ~,: LLI I- '. -- LLle.. ZLLl' - U 0>- (!)z Zo LLI u' 0 ' ~ - - 0') >- ill ~ Cl. m ~ ø z ¡:: en - >< w . ':1WJW': . ~(. .- . I~~·-' . .,. I . "? ".'., >~. ,!-. .., ) : ,~ _ J" l" ,~ <D C ::ë 0 ïi.i :;:¡ :> B ...... 0 o ...J Z en en 1: c: ...... g § - ~ (t u.. OJ .1- "-. -r-:'j¡!~- ~\.. , ; .. J=-?t.;~ ,.~~ ~ ...-Þ.- ·l':'~:· ' -~~ '~·-··1~ Q)~ +-,Q) "- S (f)o "01-= COC o·º cr:rn ü ~·c co:J ..c:E enE -00 COU L..Q) ce- O -oCl. Q)0 enc 00 Q.~ om L..m o...T'""" c o N 'C ;g -c _..J >- I- m ..... C ill E ill ill ill > o Ü _en C o en m ~ E o l- LL ~ .~ > 19~ z - ' " Q2c.ñ ~.?~ UJ t- ~: ~. UJa.. ~~::¡ zw -u 19z '0 I.!.! U ,~., è ~ - ....... \ -~=- .-> Q)~ +-' :=;:Q) c (l) 0 if) 5 ~ ~ "C~ .... +-' >. " '- m CD Z cu 0.. ~ - OC Q) 0.. t- o::: . 0 0 co en ...... ~ X 3:ro Q) L- W ro.o LL ..c:c:: (l) OO::J > "OE 0 ~E ü }/'J aJo C "OÜ 0 (/'J Q)Q) co 00_ ~ 00 E c.. c.. 00 0 L- s....c:: LL 0...0 ~ Q) c ~ 15 0 (l) 'ëi) :;::; :> ~ - :> 0 m õ -' m z VJ ~ VJ ;5 c E c:: 0 0 .Q e -ro LL N en s.... ~ ( i .... ,/,/ / ../. /.... " .,,- . , u ~ z ~ z - ~" ~¡¡) I.L.I I- ~-- I.L.I a.. ~ :- ., Z I.L.I -' -u ~ Z ':<- Z 0 / Wu ~ Q)~ -0 ~Q) cc or- 00$ +-' 0r- +-' -o~ Q} >. C) .:::t::. Q) Z ro c ~ - oc: :::J 0.. ..... a:: .0 (L ro (J) +-' E 2 - ~ro X w ro.o 0 I- ..c:c: LL (J)::::J ~ -oE Q) ~E :> enO -00 Q)Q) (J)_ 00 c..c.. 00 "-c a.. 0 ~ ~ 0) 0) T""" C 0 N "- ~ u ~ Z 0 Z - ::r, ::J::: ú} "" ,¡J!- c., ,¡J(L. Z ,¡J ^ -u ~ Z ;,< () -ì " j ~- ' ..-- Q)~ '"(J ,- ~Ij) cc: >. (/)$ Q) c +-' -o~ +-' ~ W Q.) .:£. 0.. CJ) ro c:: CíJ 0 oc: :J 2: c.. a::: . 0 a.. 0 +-' E 0::: 3:ro ro.ü 0 c.. L.. ..cc: u.. OO::::J ~ "DE .~ ~E > COo "DÜ Q)Q) 00_ 00 Q. Q. 00 ~c 0..0 ~ - 0) 0) ~ c 0 .N ~ ~ ... /l) ~ ¡2 "C Q) I/) o D- o ... a.. ~~ z- ~ ~ ~::~ UJ a.. - Z I.iJ ~ ~ ~ ¡:;U ;<: zZ .- w8 ~~-~ ~ County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 - 1-5 For Staff Use Only Date received: Received by: Application fee: PCiBZA date: Placards issued: BOS date: Case Number 4!:,~ µ!'ª~lV"" , ' " ,'ic,· ,', ' ';, ,;" ;, Check type of application f~check all that apply) o Rezoning Special Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver Applicants name/address whip. . , .(.,l.A-S~) Phone: ~(Jt¡ .. 1.2.~ .. Irt J if C e../I c. ð P o-f:} (\t.. ~.s\. \ f (d I.~/~ 1/ f..#\"1..ð" \,.¡AJ. Work: NA :1 cJ () N\c...1 '" W S C. \ r , \ <- I .s:..11 t c... ,.. ð , Cell #: 't41 - .Â.Sl - If£ 73 , I.;,N3 VPI vv II , :...,,^ ~ 2..) I 'l " Fax No.: ") Owner's name/address wlzip Phone #: 5 ~ (1- 351 ~ - 7 I 72... f-.o-:Þ."" ì<,- La dt~ Nð '2- 'l ~ £'°1 ~ I olðú òf "" Ù 1~':- )1..3 ~ rei +¿; VV " V :<lll~ Ôl": V (, Fax No. #: ..)'" ! (.; f"I i vA "Lt, , <¡'?> Property Location Magisterial District: . (.:5' ... ~"c- eo ~ ,,10 .:;v~) Community Planning area: Tax Map No.: I\, a 1._ 0 I .. '1 ~ oó-- ðOO Existing Zoning: AR- C old: 11 J .- .; " " Size ofparcel(s): Acres: 1..5 Existing Land Use: ~ J L I L (j J (~v !llk~tnV!N(J/~PlJçf4L,.'!iitPl!Mll'f )'fJ'..wIl!lAPl'fIC~ ~IW) ;', Proposed Zoning: tJ IA. Proposed Land Use: ''I 'f (. 1.1,-1 ~">J..)u mJ ~' MaMtlr.llc... .¡. duo 1"\ MI.M" (. ",* \ tI^ ....",'-\ I '1M 'G\L,í:~"':'~ J Does~parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes r/ No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No 0 JlA~NÇ!,~¡"W~~f¡;'f4~;œlM " , Variance/Waiver of Section(s) ofthe Roanoke County Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/SIW V R/S/W V R/SIW V ~ Consultation bi 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~' ' Application fee " Application Metes and bounds description,/'l'" Proffers, if applicable , ¡""'fi"t;o. / W"" ond ",w" '1',1;0";0' . Adjo;.;.gpm,orty o~"" I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. _ æ d / £/ X Owner's Signature ~ T- JUSTIFICATION FORREZQNING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR WAIVER REQUEST Applicant (e... \ (. 0 P Q\. (1- r U~ \'\ ~ V e-.r: ì... 0 /', w\ f {. Vv) 5 "'- The Planning Commission 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. ( p ¡ (..." ~ )..u..., ~ ++ 0. L-kð s h.u.A "') Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. '-- c p u...,,'(\.- ý(N ,,,,--\--t PI L.u..J ..:5 Luft) Please describe the impact(s) ofthe request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ( p u...,Ó\ ~ ~ ..-t-t ql"vJ $" lu.A. ') T-S I JUSTIFICATION. FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant The Board of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in hannony with the intended s¢it and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. I " // 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce undue harci$hip; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished ITom a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibh 6r unreasonably restrict the use of the property. '"- 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in th,i same zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Z?Ìng Ordinance. ,/ / I / / / 4. The variance will not Qlof a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. / -r-s I CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST 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 ofa 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 --.L a. ~b. / .JL c. -Ld. ~e. -Lf Jg. Jh. d i. / ~ J. Applicant name and name of development Date, scale and north arrow Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties All property lines and easements 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 requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS L k. L 1. ~m. A~n. .Lo. ~IiP. Á~ q. Existing utilities (water, sewer, stonn drains) and connections at the site Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections Locations of all adj acent fIre hydrants Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed Ifproject is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. I ¡/r¡,/ J 4 Date ~ \-5 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST For Roanoke Lodge No. 284, Loyal Order of Moose & CeJlco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) 3233 Catawba Valley Drive Salem, VA 24153 1. Please explain how the requestfurthers the purposes for the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purposefound at the beginning of the Agricultural/Residential (AR) zoning district. The proposed Verizon Monopole promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the public by enhancing and promoting the following specific purposes articulated in SEe. 30-3: 1. The proposed telecommunications monopole will improve Verizon's coverage in the vicinity and provide an opportunity for other wireless carriers to co-locate and provide improved coverage in the County. This enhances the public's ability to communicate with a cell phone in case of an emergency such as a fire, flood, or car accident. 2. n/a 3. The ability to communicate via cell phone creates a more convenient community. The proposed site for the telecommunications monopole provides needed coverage along the Route 311 corridor. The site at the Moose Lodge property due to large setbacks and the terrain in the vicinity minimizes visual impact on the surrounding area which maintains an attractive community. This location also will benefit a key community service organization with a long history in the community. 4. Often times commercial wireless service is a key back up to primary police, fire and public safety communications systems. The proposed facility will enhance the number and ability of citizens to communicate in this area in case of public disaster or emergency. 5. The proposed monopole does not encroach upon any historic buildings or districts. 6. The proposed monopole is unmanned and involves the disturbance of a minimal ground area, and therefore places no burden on public facilities. 7. Quality wireless coverage and service enhances the ability of business owners to communicate which makes the community more attractive to business development and employment activities, thereby enhancing the county tax base. 8. The proposed site has no impact on existing agricultural or forestal lands. "- " ::...c:. ~ 9. The proposed site does not interfere with any approach slopes or safety areas of any licensed airports and will comply with all Federal Aviation Administration (F AA) regulations. 10. The proposed facility is unmanned and does not require water or sewer services and therefore will not burden ground water resources. 11. n/a The proposed Verizon monopole at the Moose Lodge is consistent with the purpose outlined in SEe. 30-34-1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the AR zone: The proposed facility is an unmanned facility which requires no water or sewer services. Therefore, it will provide the agricultural and residential land uses in the area and the citizens driving through the Route 311 corridor with important wireless communications service without burdening public facilities or generating traffic in the AR zone. II. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") of 1998 lays out multiple guidelines to guide the process of land development in the County for both the present and the future. Of particular relevance to this application for Verizon Wireless is the section on Public Safety which states as a goal, "To provide the highest level of public safety services in the most cost effective manner." Verizon would submit that the proposed monopole in question, to be constructed at the expense ofVerizon Wireless, will provide not only a tower with the structural capacity to support the County's emergency services equipment (911), but also a location and a RAD center height that should significantly enhance the County's emergency services wireless network should their be a need in this parti cular area. In addition, and in the Plan's section on Economic Development, it states, as a goal, "To create a healthy, viable, diverse economy in Roanoke County, VA by: one, carrying out a coordinated program to target and attract compatible business and industry to locate in Roanoke County to increase the commercial and industrial tax base and related employment opportunities, and two, by increasing the number of visitors to Roanoke County, V A." Again, Verizon would submit that a comprehensive, seamless and competitive wireless infrastructure is an essential component for attracting modem business and industry to the Roanoke Valley. Moreover, with the parameters of a technologically advanced society, tourism is often quite dependent on the ability of travelers to maintain communications with both business and personal contacts. III. 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 andfacilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, park/recreation and fire and Rescue. - )-5 While the proposed monopole will have a visual impact on both adjoining properties and the surrounding area, Verizon Wireless would submit that the location chosen, both in tenns of the parcel and the location on the parcel (with a wooded buffering on the rear property line), goes a long way toward minimizing that visual impact. In addition, the proposed tower poses no impact in tenllS of water and sewer. In tenns of roads, the proposed tower will use the existing entrance for the Moose Lodge and will cause no increase in vehicular traffic on Catawba Valley Drive. Finally, as space will be made available on the tower for County emergency services wireless systems, the proposed tower could very well serve as a benefit to fire and rescue and public safety. BftÓADCÂsT fÓwÊk PREAPPLICA TION CONSULTATION CHECKLIST; Date: II I Lj .ó"-( Applicant Name: :; , I, ¡; I~.r'l (,A ,~ L,¡/{v eA è-f/ Consultant Staff Member: i) ~"t/,-'J 1+0 ¿{ <,J '(.'7 ... > ..' " ( .... '.,' . BROADCASTING TOWERS AND ASSOCIATED ANTENNA PERMITTED BY RIGHT: · New and replacement broadcasting towers and associated antenna not exceeding thirty (30) feet in height and located within any commercial or industrial zoning district provided: a) the proposed tower is a monopole type design: b) the general area of the proposed tower is currently served by above ground utilities including electric power and telephone poles: and c) all other use and design standards for the construction of the broadcasting tower and associated facilities are met. · Antennas may be installed on any existing structure within the County provided said antenna does not meet the definition of a broadcasting tower, does not increase the height of the existing structure more than ten (10) feet, and does not result in the structure and antenna exceeding the maximum structure height for that zoning district. · Temporary towers erected for a period not to exceed twenty-one days. 1-5 The following information shall be required as part of the Special Use Permit for a Broadcast Tower in addition to standard application requirements. Proposed Site Oualities Utilities that are currently present on site: d -&c -rn. t.- -:+ '-¡ '<I' +-€--l e,¡J iw k e Utilities required that are not currently present on site: r Expected route of linkage: ViA , Estimated noise level in decibels: lj.~ úJ fJ z +: "J,'L \.',,~ ¿, (J ." 'c r I l r J Broadcast Tower Structure Type: ~oPole o Lattice Tower o Guyed Tower o Stealth Design (description) o Other (description) Proposed height oftower excluding antenna: I i..i 51 1 \ Existing height of surrounding tree canopy and/or buildings: I '-1 C i S -+-0".-- VI ' }). '- ", Jf} ¡1 rc- )Ii J to v: ,,- l... (j Construction material and finish of tower: Specific tower location I .; Material: If cd (/,VV:, ;...u 5-+-,.!t..l Finish:-f{ tif '1~ ¿¡Longitude 3 7 0 ¡ l 'Sf>:' \ Latitude: ;? / ~ " "'v (.) '-( '1 . '-t Ground Elevation in mean sea level ofthe proposed'tower site: I J- 5"'1. ì ¡ - Tower has structural ability to accommodate: DOne DTwo ffThree other providers. T es s of Antenna or Other De ices Attached to Tower o Omni-Directional Antenna Directional Panel 0 Parabolic Antenna o Other Material and finish of the proposed antenna(s). Material: I Finish: -T.l v ;,\.,\,'"v- 1 r'é... o Whip Antenna Dimensions of Antenna(s)-heightlwidthldepth f I . ¿, , .' / I tt / t' IJ -r t..1 b ( ! 1 ¡--5 The following information must be submitted separately in either a written or mapped format. @/Infonnation on how the proposed site relates to the applicant's existing communication system including number of other sites within the Roanoke Valley, and the location of the antenna at each site. ITYÁ. map designating the specific coverage area(s) desired with any overflow areas denoted separately. B' A list, with a map, of all the alternative sites considered or evaluated to serve the area of this proposed tower, including other existing tower sites in the vicinity. This should include any co-locations considered and the specific technical, legal or other reasons the other site(s) were rejected. B'Provide conceptual site plan drawn to scale, depicting the location of support structures, equipment enclosures, landscaped areas, fences, lighting, access, limits of disturbed land, average slope of the site, ownership and use of adjoining properties, etc. Ðt Provide accurate, to scale, photographic simulations showing the relationship of the proposed broadcast tower and associated antenna to the surroundings. Photographic simulations should include the relationships of any new or modified road or utility corridors necessary to serve the proposed broadcast tower site. B'Provide computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility ofthe proposed broadcast tower and antenna at the requested height and location. Ifnew or modified road, access or utility corridors are proposed, the terrain analysis shall also show the visibility of these new or modified features. Lj"Provide detail sheet for broadcast tower structure. ff Provide an accurate description and photograph of the proposed tower structure, including antenna. ø' Provide detail sheet of any antenna or devises attached to tower including electrical and mechanical specifications for antenna systems. Notes: I hereby certify that: · All required submittals to the FAA, as required by Zoning Ordinance Section 30-87-2D.6, have been submitted. · A required on-site balloon or comparable test will be performed on the dates of for the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for , and on the dates of for the Board of Supervisors public hearing scheduled for · 1, the applicant, shall be responsible for all fees associated with the filing of the application, including the reasonable cost of any independent analysis deemed necessary by the County to verify the need for the new broadcast tower. Signature: //.-~ ';jf:,:/ /' ~ ~;~fJ...·.. /1/ ç/~!, ./ \1 ' r V t:.( -z:. ~ .'\3 2 Date: /Z/I7Þf I I l-:!; List of Adioinin2 Property Owners for 3233 Catawba Vallev Drive Tax Map# 16.03-1-46 Edward D. & Nona W. Watkins 3914 Old Catawba Rd. Salem, VA 24153 Tax Map# 16.01-1-68 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Tax Map# 16.01-1-69 Tax Map# 16.01-1-70 Tax Map# 16.03-1-5 Christopher K. & Penny S. Francisco 3134 Carvins Cove Rd. Salem, VA 24153 Tax Map# 16.03-1-18 Debra L. Hunter 3072 Catawba Valley Dr. Salem, VA 24153 Tax Map# 16.03-1-45 ðgenda Item T. 5 There are oversized maps and drawings associated with this agenda item that were too large to scan. They are included with your agenda packet. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. T-\ü AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation, quitclaim and release of portions of various easements in Valley Gateway Business Park to the Commonwealth of Virginia in connection with providing clear title and an unrestricted right-of-way for Integrity Drive, Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director, Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~ J/~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~-f~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The first reading of this ordinance occurred during the February 8, 2005 meeting of the Board. The easements mentioned above have been dedicated to Roanoke County via multiple instruments during the development of Valley Gateway Business Park. The now established right-of-way boundary for Integrity Drive of the Valley Gateway Business Park encompasses portions of these easements. The easements involved are as follows: 1. 20' storm drainage easement recorded in Instrument #200313258 2. 20' storm drainage easement recorded in Instrument #200313725 3. 20' public utility easement recorded in Plat Book 19, Page 166 4. 20' public utility easement recorded in Plat Book 27, Page 23 5. 30' sewer and waterline easement recorded in Deed Book 1273, Page 605 6. 20' waterline easement recorded in Deed Book 1620, Page 587 All of the above listed instruments are recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. T-h The specific portions of these easements considered for quitclaim and release are shown on a plat prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern Inc., dated January 21,2005, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In order for Integrity Drive to be accepted into the State Secondary Road System, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that the right-of-way be free and clear of any third party rights or encumbrances. The quitclaim and release of the storm drainage easement and the sewer and waterline easement would be subject to VDOT issuing a land use permit for the existing facilities and the condition that the existing facilities within the right-of-way boundary of Integrity Drive may continue to occupy the roadway in their current configuration. The quitclaim and release of the storm drainage easement and the sewer and waterline easements will only be effective for as long as the section of Integrity Drive that spans the subject easements is a public road as part of the State Secondary Road System. In the event that the involved section of Integrity Drive is ever withdrawn from the State Secondary Road System, Roanoke County will exert their prior rights and the subject easements will revert to the County's possession. The quitclaim and release of the public utility easements inside the right-of-way boundary of Integrity Drive would not be subject to reversion since the portions of the public utility easement to be released are not occupied by any utilities, and replacement easements have been dedicated along the outside of the right-of-way. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached ordinance to quitclaim and release the subject easements within the right-of-way boundary for Integrity Drive. 2. Decline to adopt the attached ordinance, which could result in Integrity Drive remaining a County road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance. \"'6 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2005 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION, QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE OF PORTIONS OF VARIOUS EASEMENTS IN VALLEY GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING CLEAR TITLE AND AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR INTEGRITY DRIVE IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the development of Valley Gateway Business Park has necessitated the creation of several easements for public utilities and drainage; and, WHEREAS, the said easements were created prior to the establishment of the full right-of-way boundary for Integrity Drive and portions of the said easements are within the currently established right-of-way boundary of Integrity Drive; and, WHEREAS, the various easements to be vacated were dedicated to Roanoke County as a 20' storm drainage easement recorded in instrument # 200313258 and a 20' storm drainage easement recorded in instrument # 200313725, a 20' public utility easement recorded in Plat Book 19, page 166, and a 20' public utility easement recorded in Plat Book 27, page 23, a 30' sewer and waterline easement recorded in Deed Book 1273, page 605, and a 20' waterline easement, recorded in Plat Book 19, page 166 and Deed Book 1620, page 587, respectively, all of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that the right-of-way for streets to be added to the state system of highways be unrestricted and cleared of all encumbrances; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County desires to request the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Integrity Drive to the state system of highways and the affected T-b County departments have raised no objection to the vacation, quit-claim and release of the above described easements; and, WHEREAS, published notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended and pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on February 8. 2005; and a public hearing and second reading was held on February 22, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That portions of existing easement designated and shown as "EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED" on a plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING THE VACTION OF EASEMENTS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTEGRITY DRIVE, VALLEY GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK" prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. dated January 21, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, be, and hereby are, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, subject to the conditions set forth herein; and, 2. That the vacation, quitclaim and release of the storm drainage easements, the waterline easement and the sewer and waterline easement is subject to, upon the acceptance of Integrity Drive into the state system of highways, the issuance of a land use permit by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) such that the existing waterlines, sewer lines, storm drains and their appurtenances may continue to occupy, in their current configuration, the area within the right-o-way boundary for Integrity Drive. 3. That conveyance of the property identified as "INTEGRITY DRIVE" on the above reference plat to the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby authorized and approved. 2 \-6 4. That in the event said existing facilities are subsequently not within the right- of-way boundary due to street abandonment or realignment, the County will exert its prior rights and the subject easements shall revert to the possession of the County of Roanoke. 5. That the County Administrator or any assistant county administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this quitclaim and release of easement interests and conveyance of property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 3 ~~ tt:~ ~>- "'s "'iD ~~ . ~~¡¡; i~~ 1:\ í.1 ~l\\'" ~¡::¡¡ ,,~'" ..."IE f~~ \.-~~ ~~ I!!I!:!"~ ~ ì!:-<::i ~ ~ " , ~ I"';:~'" ..< :t!\!S! .... ...~ ~ ~~.!. ~ _ c:. t:Q~~ <:ì It : ~ / i , I , I , , I , , , , ' \ I , I , I , , \ , ''¡ ~ ~ " , . "'~i8!!! - i -otj I iii.,;' .'< r¡;¡¡;ë) .... n~~ ~ "-,,,~ ~ ~~o.:~ : ~ .'" .1:; i ~fi ~'< I ~ ~ ~, I~; I~~! ~i I!~ ~¡~~ i ~ o¡ ~~~~ ~~t -< .... ia ~~ ~~i E: ~ ¡,¡ ~~'E ~~I Q)liJ~ ~~ ~.. &!s>¡ ~'" is¡ . "t:I ~w.._ 6" ~~;:;I$' , ~ ~ . ..r~iI!~S ~ lIi~~~! t} ~~~ ~ ~ -:cà~ ~ ~~o..:~~ : ~ ~:; ~ hl~~ ~~~Q:Q ,,:S:~~~ ~~~.. . í!i~",c:¡~ ,;¡¡ ~ _..-- A<.~ , .e;;:.Qy / I , , , I I ._J ""'(......- ," , I ' I ' I , , , " , ,/ \ I , ~ .~ ;... .~ ~ ~ Iª~~ l·~';" ~"'Q R:¡:~ <~(t'li i·"t!;! .. R <:>'" '" ~ I ~ ~ ~ a:: IE I ~ ~ t 1: ~ ... !!. ~ \0- ~ ~'" IS) ~(:¡!.L.l-~~~'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; :2 U~~ ~ ~ ~ Ci ~ 3! ~ ~ '~~i i~~~~~§ ~ Ui! s~~~t,5~¡i'" ~ :~~~ II.;~;!: ~~ !:! U"'~ ¡::: ~ ..... r., ~ J1fi'J - ~i:::lS J:~ ~ ~ à 'E :::¡:; - . ~ ~ E-i H ~ T-b ~ .. ~ ~¡¡> , . ilì~¡; IQ I!! B w; .~ ~~~~ I ..- ei '" ~~i ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ , '" /, , " I I.\¡ : f I J ;. I I, I ~ / ,':: t : /:: ! , ,1, , I.IJ I, ~ ~ ~ ~ '" "8 ... ~ ~ \S') ~ ~" ~ . ril1æa c:. :!- orj . ~~~ I _œ' ¡e!:~ ~~...~ ~ 8 -", :! .' ~ ~~~~ il!l~~! ;ì~? ~~~~; ~ ~~~ I.>~~ Ii",i: ..18;; ~"~ ~~<I\ <,j ~¡!;œ; ~...~~ i!1:;¡f;': ~~~~ <.J ~~~ ¡¡~~ -<:~¡¡j :8 ~§~ ~2! II: '" 0.: ~es ~:2:g ~G¡:¡ a . t ! ~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. U- \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for regional jail reimbursement funding to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections SUBMITTED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator APPROVED BY: John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrato~ Elmer C. Hodge ~ fJ County Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: County Administrator Remarks: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, The agenda item in your package is a request to submit an application to the Virginia Department of Corrections for permission to construct a 592 cell regional jail on behalf of Roanoke County, Salem, Montgomery County and Franklin County. This must be done by March 1, 2005 to meet the state imposed deadline. During the board meeting, I will provide an overview of our staff presentation and Mr. John Chambliss will review the material that will be included in the application package. There will be representatives from our partner localities in the audience who will be introduced. We appreciate their support and participation. Sheriff Gerald Holt will also be in attendance along with staff from the firm Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern (HSMM) in the event there are any engineering questions related to the project. We have come a long way since we began serious discussions about expanding or building a new jail more than twelve months ago. Constructing a jail is not for the weak of heart and this one has had its trying moments but we have put together a very good plan that we think will be accepted by the State. Localities in Virginia must get permission from the State to build or add on to a jail. We obtained that permission during the 2004 General Assembly. A copy is included in your package and it states that our application must be submitted by March 1 2005. The General Assembly has not granted an extension beyond u oF \ this date. Montgomery and Franklin counties, two of our partners, applied to the General Assembly this year. Building a jail is a lengthy process but, with good luck, your approval will allow us to open the new facility in 2008. At our January 11 Board meeting, you voted to authorize staff to obtain an option on the Higginbotham Farms property on which to build the jail. That has been done. HSMM has completed geotechnical work and prepared a preliminary design that fits well on the site. We are also pleased that the projected cost for our share of the new facility remains in the range of the $20 million that we presented to you several months ago. A year ago, we told you that the Department of Corrections advised that a rule of thumb when planning for jail construction was to set aside $100,000 per cell. Anticipating a need for 600 new cells for all four localities, our estimates have been in the $60 million range to be shared by the State and all four participating localities. The projected budget that you will see as part of your material is based on approximately $120,000 per cell or roughly $88.7 million. This is significant but not altogether unpredictable. Construction costs (especially concrete and steel) are rising sharply and the DOC has suggested that we project annual inflation costs of 8% for 30 months (or the midpoint of construction). We have done so and have provided a suitable contingency amount. This is good project planning. Roanoke County's projected share of the construction cost remains within the range of the original $20 million budget. The annual debt payments for this $20 million debt are included in the projected debt service fund for the school and county capital, which is funded with the new $600,000 incremental increase that will be included in the 2005-06 budget. Upon your approval of this request, we will submit the application to the Department of Corrections by March 1. Below are a few of the other steps that must be taken by the County and/or the Authority to meet our opening date of 2008. · Negotiate and form a Regional Authority - Spring, 2005 · Receive Board of Corrections approval of our plan - Summer, 2005 · Funding request in the Governor's 2006 Capital Budget - December, 2005 · Design and engineer building - Summer, 2005 · Request construction bids - Summer 2006 · Close on the property by either County or Authority - Spring, 2006 · Seek County rezoning of the property - Winter, 2005 · Conduct a 2232 Comprehensive Plan update - Winter, 2005 · Consider a Special Use Permit - Winter, 2005 To reiterate, the request that is part of this agenda item is not for funding. We will not need money to close on land or for construction for almost a year. It may even be possible to have an Authority finance the project for all participating localities. We are asking for your permission to submit the application and for your continued support of this much needed project. In the meantime, we will continue negotiations with our partner localities to form an Authority. 2 U-I Assistant County Administrator Remarks: The attached resolution (Attachment A) is requested to authorize the County Administrator to file a joint appl ication to the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections as well as to demonstrate support of a regional jail with Franklin County, Montgomery County and the City of Salem. This application must be filed by March 1,2005 to allow the project to be considered for funding in the 2006 state budget process. This application is based on the Higginbotham site, however, this action does not authorize the purchase of the Higginbotham site nor does it prevent consideration of any other site. The current Roanoke County - Salem jail, which is operated by the Roanoke County Sheriff, was opened in 1980 with a rated capacity of 108 to serve the corrections needs for Roanoke County and the City of Salem pursuant to an agreement dated August 8,1977. This facility was built as a regional facility and also provided coverage for Craig County (which has recently joined with Botetourt County). The average inmate population for July, 2004 was 280 with another 120 on electronic monitoring or in other diversionary programs. In 1996, the Virginia General Assembly, by language in the Appropriation Act, imposed a moratorium on the review of Community Based Corrections Plans and Planning Studies by the Board of Corrections. This moratorium has been continued by each subsequent session of the General Assembly. In the 2004 session, an amendment was approved to allow the County of Roanoke and the City of Salem to proceed with plans for an expansion project for the Roanoke County - Salem Jail complex to be submitted prior to March 1, 2005 (Attachment B). As staff began to look at our needs, it was suggested that we contact Franklin County and Montgomery County who were also severely overcrowded and were not part of a regional facility. The Franklin County facility has a rated capacity of 49 and in July, 2004, had an inmate population of 151, part of which was housed in the City of Roanoke facility. Montgomery County has a rated capacity of 60 and housed 154 in July, 2004. These two localities have participated in the planning studies and have had language included in this year's legislation allowing them to be part of our regional facility. The study is based on the continued use of each of the three local jails with the new regional facility being used as a post-sentence facility. The application process for a new or expanded jail requires two studies which drive the size and cost of the facilities. The first is the Community Based Corrections Plan which is a needs assessment looking at population statistics, corrections programs, the history of the courts and jail of the community, and other driving factors to predict the future needs. The four localities jointly contracted with Powell Consulting Services to provide this study. This study further projects the population ten years after the planned improvements are made. According to the study by Powell Consulting Services, the projected inmate population for July 2018, ten years after a proposed expansion would occur, is 1006. Assuming that we continue to use the rated capacity at each of the three existing jails (total of 217), we should look at a new capacity of 789 beds. Of the 1006 projected population, 328 would be for 3 U-I Franklin County, 226 for Montgomery County, 100 for the City of Salem and 352 for Roanoke County. The second required study is the Planning Study which includes the schematic drawing of the facility, site plan information, capital budget information, reimbursement funding request, and other pertinent data. Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern was contracted to provide this study on behalf of the four localities. After working with the corrections officials from the four sheriffs offices, a concept plan has been developed using a modular design which should provide 592 new rated beds with the necessary support facilities (food service, medical, recreational, program space, etc.). Of those 592 beds, 200 will be equipped with double bunk equipment giving a capacity of 792 to address the projected population for ten years out. The number of rated beds is a critical number because it drives the number of staff and expenses that the state will share in for future operations. Being a regional facility, the state may share up to 50% of the eligible capital costs of the project. It is suggested that the four localities form a regional authority in the near future to build, finance, and operate the new regional jail. This request will be brought to each of the four jurisdictions in the spring of 2005. The site proposed in the application is the Higginbotham site with a planned facility of approximately 592 rated beds. The projected cost of the facility including land and utilities and related equipment is $88,742,017 (Attachment C). Of this amount, the projected State share of eligible cost would be $35,496,807. Of the total cost, approximately $17,748,403 would be non-eligible cost including capitalized interest cost, start up costs, capital equipment that is not a part of the construction, debt issuance costs, and the establishment of a debt reserve fund for the repayment of the debt (revenue bonds). Attachment 0 is a depiction of the non-eligible costs and sample per diem information. Attachment E projects the sharing of cost for the regional jail showing the current jail capacity, the projected population, and the locality share of the local capital costs associated with the regional jail. The operational costs will drive the per diem cost and will reflect the approved staffing levels and the reimbursements from the State or other agencies. The attached resolution authorizes the County Administrator to jointly sign the application transmittal letter with the representatives from the other jurisdictions and expresses the support of Roanoke County to this application process. All documentation will be turned in by HSMM, Powell Consulting Services, Morgan Keegan (Financial Advisors) and staff prior to March 1,2005. Should we need to amend the application, this may be accomplished after the March 1 filing date. 4 U ..I FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact at this time. The Board of Supervisors has previously appropriated the funding for the study reports required as a part of this application. In the future, other funds will be needed for further work by the Architect, for the purchase of land, etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution authorizing the County Administrator to sign the transmittal letter for the application and submittal of the package to the Department of Corrections prior to March 1, 2005. 5 Attachment A u- , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2005 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGIONAL JAIL REIMBURSEMENT FUNDING TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, BOARD OF CORRECTIONS WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the City of Salem have determined that a need exists to construct additional jail space to supplement their current jail facilities, and WHEREAS, these localities have contracted with Powell Consulting Services to prepare a Community Based Corrections Plan and with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern to develop a Planning Study as required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections, Standards for Planning, Design, Construction and Reimbursement of Local Correctional Facilities, and WHEREAS, these four localities have requested a waiver from the moratorium so that the regional jail plan may be submitted to the Department of Corrections prior to March 1 2005 in accordance with §53.1-82.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, and be considered by the Board of Corrections for recommendation to the Governor to be included in the 2006 budget for appropriation by the General Assembly, and WHEREAS, these four localities intend to negotiate a cooperative agreement and to form an authority pursuant to §53.1-95.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, to construct and operate said regional jail on behalf of the four localities, and WHEREAS, the proposed authority (or the localities) shall be eligible for reimbursement of up to fifty percent (50%) of eligible project costs of the regional facility pursuant to §53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. 1 Attachment A u-\ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, 1. That it hereby supports the submittal of an application by Roanoke County, Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the City of Salem for the construction, operation, and reimbursement of a regional jail to serve the correctional needs of these localities, and requests favorable consideration of this application by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections. 2. That it requests reimbursement from the Board of Corrections and the Commonwealth of Virginia of 50% of the eligible project costs for the proposed regional jail as provided in the Planning Study, pursuant to §53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia. 3. That it hereby authorizes the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute such documents and to take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution. 2 ITEM 416. Item DetaiIs($) First Year Second Year FY2005 FY2006 Division of Community Corrections (767) 416. A. Subject to the conditions stated in this Item, and with the prior written approval of the Director of the Department of Planning and Budget, there is hereby reappropriated the unexpended balances remaining at the close of business on June 30, 2004, and June 30, 2005, in the Financial Assistance for Confinement in Local Facilities program. The reappropriations shall be applicable only for payments owing for physical plant projects for local jails which have been approved by the Governor and for which contracts are in effect June 30, 2004, and June 30, 2005, respectively. B. From July I, 2004 to June 30, 2006, except in the circumstances listed below, the Board of Corrections shall not approve or commit additional funds for the state share of the cost of construction, enlargement, or renovation of a local or regional jail facility: 1. Emergency projects needed to comply with Board of Corrections' standards or life safety code requirements; 2. Projects mandated through consent decrees or memoranda of understanding, pursuant to the Civi] Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.s.e. § 1997 et seq., and required by the United States Department of Justice; 3. Adjustments to previously approved project funding levels, which had been based on planning study estimates, to conform to the actual project costs as determined by competitive bid. 4. The Clarke-Fauquier-Frederick- Winchester Regional Adult Detention Center, in order to proceed in planning for an expansion project involving the development of a new community corrections facility with approximately 204 beds, and a 120-bed expansion of the existing jail. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 53.1-82.3, Code of Virginia, the governing body of this proposed facility may submit the required community-based corrections plan, facility specifications, and the expected financing costs to the Department of Corrections and State Board of Corrections for review prior to March I, 2005. Furthermore, the Governor may include a recommendation for funding such project, for consideration by the General Assembly at its 2005 sessIOn. C. The following projects are hereby exempted from the provisions of Paragraph B. in order 10 proceed in planning. Pursuant to the provisions of § 53.1-82.3, Code of Virginia, the governing bodies of these proposed facilities shall submit the required community-based corrections plans, facility specifications, and the expected financing costs to the Department of Corrections by March I, 200S. Furthermore, the Govern(H may include a recommendation for fund ing s'u ch projects for consideration by the General AssembJy at its 2006 Session. The review by the Board of Corrections of each of these pmjects sha!\ be consistent with B-1 u - \ Appropriations($) First Year Second Year FY2005 FY2006 ITEM 416. Paragraphs D. and E. below and with Item 420 D. I. Appomatox. Amherst and Nelson Counties, in order to proceed with planning for a regional jail. 2. The Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority, for a planning study. No funds shall be obligated for reimbursement of the proposed planning study or for reimbursement of the state share of construction costs without approval of the General Assembly. 3. The Gloucester County Jail. 4. The Roanoh County-Salem Jail. 5. The Pittsylvania County Jail. 6. The Riverside Regional Jail Authority. 7. The Rappahannock Regional Jail Authority. D. The Board of Corrections shall not approve or commit additional funds for the state share of the cost of construction, enlargement, or renovation of a local or regional jail facility, except when such project is consistent with the projected number of local and state responsible offenders to be housed in such facility. E. The Board of Corrections shall not approve or commit additional funds for the state share of the cost of construction, enlargement, or renovation of a local or regional jail facility, except when such project is proposed to be built using Community Custody Facilities Standards, as adopted by the Board, unless the use of more expensive construction standards is justified, based on a documented projection of offender populations that would require a higher level of security. F. The Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority, with the assistance of the Departments of Corrections and Menta] Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, may prepare a preliminary report on the feasibility of developing a speciaJized facility at the regional jail complex for jail inmates referred by the criminal courts of the Commonwealth for evaluation and treatment, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 19.2 of the Code of Virginia. Such facility would be owned by the Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority, and operated under contract by the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, with the goal of reducing waiting times for emergency treatment, evaluation of competency to stand trial andlor sanity, and restoration to competency to stand trial. The Departments of Corrections and Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services shall provide all necessary technical assistance to support this study in cooperation with the Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority. A report on this study shall be provided to the Secretaries of Public Safety and Health and Human Resources, the 2 Item Details($) First Year Second Year FY200S FY2006 B-2 u- \ Appropriations($) First Year Second Year FY200S FY2006 ITEM 416. 3 Chairmen of the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees, and the Chairman of the Joint Commission on Health Care, by October 15, 2004. Item Details($) First Year Second Year FY2005 FY2006 B-3 u- i Appropriations($) First Year Second Year FY2005 FY2006 February 11. 2005 TABLE 1 . ROANOKE REGIONAL JAIL PROJECT -- PRELIMINARY COST ANALYSIS VADOC PART I FORMULA 2005 Means Median Jail Building Costs -- sf Marshal & Swift Multiplier Median Local Costs ($/sf) 592 Inmates @ 400 sf each (VDOC Guidlelines) Median Construction Cost PART I - PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS A. MEDIAN JAIL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COSTS B. UTILlTIES/STORMWATER C. EARLY SITE WORK - GRADING FOR FINISHED PAD D. FINAL SITE WORK E. AREA LIGHTING SYSTEMS NEW JAIL AND ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: INFLATION TO MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION - SEPT 1, 2007 (8% per year for 30 m PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUBTOTAL PART II - PROJECT SPECIFIC COSTS A. ADD'L SUPPORT - FUTURE BEDS (13675SF@$184.50/sf) B. OFFSITE UTILlTIES/STORMWATER C. OFFSITE ACCESS ROADS D. ON-SITE WORK FUTURE EXPANSION PROJECT SPECIFIC COSTS SUBTOTAL: INFLATION TO MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION - SEPT 1, 2007 (8% per year for 30 m PROJECT SPECIFIC COSTS SUBTOTAL: PART III . OTHER PROJECT COSTS A. AlE FEES B. CBCP & PLANNING STUDY C. VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY D. EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROUOFF SITE CIVIL E. MUL TICONTRACTUAL DESIGN/BIDDING/ADMINISTRATION F. PRINTING/REPROD/ACHIVING/RENDERING G. GEOTECH/SOILS INVESTIGATION/SURVEY/ENVIRONMENTAL H. QUALITY CONTROL TESTING I. PERMITS J. RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE CONTINGENCY (5% OF UNINFLATED PARTS I & II) OTHER COSTS SUBTOTAL: lAND TOTAL ELIGIBLE PROJECT COST: TOTAL ELIGIBLE PROJECT COST PER BED @ 592 BEDS: Building Cost Per SF (w/ inflation and contingency) VDOC Reimbursement @ 50% Total Project Costs (Eligible and Non Eligible) Total Non Eligible Costs State Share Local Share Use ratio of 60% Loca I and 40% State when Total Project Costs are considered. Attachment C u-t Estimated Costs $205/sf 0.9 $184.50 236,800 sf $43,689,600 $43,689,600 $619,700 $702,600 $677,195 $200,000 $45,889,095 without inflation & contingency $9,177,819 $55,066,914 $2,523,038 $1,000,000 $750,000 $364,100 $4,637,138 without inflation & contingency $927,428 $5,564,565 $4,543,723 $162,100 $40,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $250,000 $400,000 $150,000 $250,000 $2,526,312 $8,722,135 $1,640,000 $70,993,614 $119,922 $23o.s3 $35,496,807 $88,742,017 $17,748,403 $35,496,807 $53,245,210 U.. \ Misc Jail Costs 021605 Revised 02/16/2005 Attachment D This chart shows the list of major items which are not eligible for capital reimbursement by the State for the Jail Project, but will be needed as we borrow for the construction and start up of the facility. The Projected non-eligible costs total relate to the estimate included on the project cost sheet for the Jail. We will likely borrow through a line of credit style arrangement for the purchase of land, AlE. and grading, and secure the bonds once the construction bid price is known. This will be structured to recognize the State reimbursement once construction has been completed, the State has inspected the facility, and the authorized eligible costs have been approved for reimbursement. 592 Capacity 8% Inflation Method Based on 492 Inmates 592 Capacity 8% Inflation Method Based on 597 Inmates Capitalized Interest Cost (6% '"2 Years) 6,389.425 6,389,425 Operating Budget Start up costs (8 months Exp, 6.5 months Rev) 3,297,269 3,297,269 Other non-eligible capital and operating items 2,250,000 2,250,000 Debt Issuance Costs and Prof Fees 1,000,000 1,000,000 Debt Fund Reserve (1 Year Debt Service) 4,642,184 4,642,184 Projected non-eligible costs 17,578.878 17,578,878 Debt Service based on 6% debt, 20 year level payment for illustrative purposes only Assumes 592 bed facility with occupancy of 492 and 597 respectively Local Share of Jail Cost 53,245,210 53,245,210 25.85 21.30 20.41 18.74 25.85 2130 46.26 40.04 Debt Service per diem based on 492 beds Sample Per diem Info Operations factor debt factor total sample per diem rate (for illustrative purposes only) Other Debt Service Illustrations Debt service based on 6% for 30 years for illustrative purposes only Annual level debt payment Debt factor for per diem based on 492 or 597 3,868,211 21.54 17.75 Debt service based on 5 1/4% for 20 years for illustrative purposes only Annual level debt payment Debt factor for per diem based on 492 or 597 4,363,551 24.30 20.03 Debt service based on 5 1/4% for 30 years for illustrative purposes only Annual level debt payment Debt factor for per diem based on 492 or 597 3,563,010 19.84 16.35 Attached D-2 U-I Roanoke-Salem-Mom:gomery-Franklin Regional Jail Project Cost Eligibility February 3, 200S I. Total Project Budget = Total Eligible Costs + Total Non-Eligible Costs II. Who determines which costs are 'eligible' for reimbursement? Virginia Department of Corrections (VOOC). 50% of VOOC approved eligible costs are reimbursed to the Regional Jail Authority by the State. III. Which costs are 'eligible'? A. Building construction B. On-site utilities and sitework C. Off-site utilities O. Off-site access roads E. Additional support space and site work for future facility expansions F. Construction inflation G. Construction contingency H. AlE Fees (Basic and Additional) I. Land Current maximum ceiling for 'eligible' costs is estimated on the order of approximately $120,OOO/bed (or slightly higher) at planning/design stage of the project (subject to approval by VDOe). Thus, any 'eligible' cost over that number is essentially 'non eligible'. VOOC will consider a 'one time adjustment' to this cost per bed during construction phase if adequate justification can be provided. Maximum adjustment is 10%. Board of Corrections and General Assembly approval is required. IV. Which costs are 'non-eligible'? A. Fixtures, Furniture, and Equipment (unattached) B. AlE Fees in conjunction with item A above C. Capitalized interest (by far the highest non-eligible cost) O. Start up and transition costs E. Financial Advisor and Underwriter F. Legal Counsel and Bond Counsel /lJ c: Q) E .<:: o "' "" « '" o to N o U) ü) o Ü ñj ""> Õ Q) ì;; .<:: en E .!!! U) >- U) :[ c: ~ " o >- .D c: o ~ "5 a. o a. '" c: .§ o .<:: U) c: '" ã: '" c: o ~ 1!' <5 () u Q) U) '" CD ~ ï:: " E E o () ~ .2: Q) CJ) Q) c: ., "5 U) c: o () a; ~ o Cl. c: o u Q) U) '" .D U) .!!! '" E ., U) LU c: o ~ "5 a. o Cl. c¡; Õ t- ~ c: :J o () i':' Q) E o B' c: o ::¡; ~ c: :J o () .5 :;¡: c: '" Li: E Q) c¡; en ~ c: :J o () ~ o c: "' o tl: E Q) ¡¡; en to o o to '" '" Q) '" (ry '" '" '" CD ~ o '" c: .2 ¡¡¡ "5 a. o Cl. .$ '" E .E u .$ u Q) 'ë' Cl. ..... N o to '" '" CD o ~ ë3 "' a. "' () u .$ "' tl: .ñj ""> Q) c: ., U) ·x /lJ U) U) Q) --' '" Q) ..... to CD '" ..... '" ~ '" u Q) u ( ) ( ) z ~ CD u !! '" tl: ~ Q) Z ~ ·u "' "- .ñj E "">Q) ñ;ñi c:en o .¡;' Q) tl: ( ) :5 ¡¡¡ U) u ( ) CD ~ ( ) z Õ c: o .~ o ;:¡: u ( ) U) o a. o a: 19 o t- ~ c: :J o () i':' Q) E o '" ë o ::¡; ~ c: :J o () .5 :;¡: c: "' Li: ~ c: :J o () ( ) -'" o c: "' o tl: o o o '" '" (ry CD '" ~ U) u Q) CD Õ ( ) Q) .!!I ~ Q) Cl. o N '" '" '" a;; ;: "': '" CD o to '" '" '" '" '" Ñ '" !!l- U) u Q) CD u ( ) x ü: Õ 1!' '" .<:: en o o o '" o c:i '" o ..;' CD o <ci ..... o o '" ô o ~ -'" c: :J CD Q) :ä :J o C Õ 2! '" .<:: en o N '" ..... '" a;; '" '" M '" '" ~ a '" '" .,,; ..... Ñ '" t:. ( ) :ä .!!! .ñj ~ U) u Q) CD ~ ( ) z c¡; ;§ ~ ·u J!! ~ ( ) c: Õ Q) ì;; .<:: U) ( J '" .!!I c: ê 8. c: o u 5! '" .D U) ü) o Ü c: .2 Ü 2 ü) c: o Ü § --' Õ 2! '" .<:: en o o c¡; Õ t- ~~ c: :J o () i':' Q) E o Q) ë o ::¡; '" (ry ~ c: :J o () .5 :;¡: c: '" Li: Q) (ry ~ c: :J o () ( J -'" o c: '" o tl: o E Q) ¡¡; en Q) Q) .!!I c: Q) t,! ( ) Cl. 'ª' 13 o --' ",¡::::: 0 0 ó~ N N N- w- Lti 10- "o:tm v v t'--v N N ai tri M- M- CX)~ l{) Lt) (iìU) u- o U) ::¡;ß .§ ~ êtí"ÕJ ¡¡::: :.= .E/lJ ~õ Q)( ) ::-m u).<:: DC/) () ( ) u- ( ) "' õÜ> .~ ~ ~ Q) Cl.--, UJ '" '" o '" '" to ci ..... to '" CD- (ry o r-: o Q) c<i (ry '" ci '" N '" ",- '" '" to u 2! '" .<:: en Q) .D B U) o ü 13 o --' "$. c: o u Q) U) '" .D 2! '" .<:: en :E Q) c Õ c: .2 T§ .Q ¡¡: