Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/22/2005 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda March 22, 2005 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for March 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 Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturday 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: Pastor Joe Coppolo Glad Tidings Assembly of God 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. Certificate of recognition to Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue, for receiving the Governor's 2004 Virginia Fire Services Award for Excellence in Virginia Fire Service Management D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to adopt a resolution stating Roanoke County's opposition to a proposal by the Federal Aviation Administration to close the air traffic control tower located at Roanoke Regional Airport between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Mark Williams, General Counsel - Roanoke Regional Airport) 1 2. Request to approve fiscal year 2005-2006 Roanoke Valley Television (RVTV) budget. (Elaine Simpson, Cable Access Director) 3. Request to approve health insurance contract and rates for County and school employees for fiscal year 2005-2006. (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) 4. Request to approve dental rates for County and school employees for fiscal year 2005-2006. (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) 5. Request to authorize the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department to enter into a contract with Nova Information Systems for the purpose of collecting fees for classes and programs over the internet. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) 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 rezone .52 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-1 C, Office District with conditions, for the operation of a general office located at 3663 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Christopher L. Irvine 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the construction of mini-warehouses on 5.602 acres located at 1918 Washington Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of KTP, LLC 3. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 79.09 acres from 1-2, Industrial District, to AG-3, 'Agricultural/Rural Preserve District, in order to construct a single family residence located at 4518 Morgan Conner Lane, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Alan and Gayle Jamison 4. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the construction of an accessory apartment located at 3216 Lawndale Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of James C. and Laura B. Parrish G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 2 H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a drainage easement along Glenmary Drive across property owned by the Board of Supervisors at the Center for Research and Technology, Catawba Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) 2. Second reading of an ordinance approving an agreement for acquisition of a radio tower and related equipment and assignment of lease for the tower on Twelve O'clock Knob from U. S. Cellular. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission 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 - March 1, and March 8, 2005 2. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $21,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for the continuation of Regional Citizen Corp Council and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training 3. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a competitive grant in the amount of $87,500 from the Department of Homeland Security for the purchase of a Wildland firefighting vehicle 4. Request to approve amendments to the bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 5. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a mini-grant in the amount of $2,000 from the Division of Motor Vehicles for DUI check points 6. Request to accept Leffler Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary system 3 7. Request to approve renegotiated lease agreement for house and one acre of property at Happy Hollow Park 8. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $863.38 9. Request to accept grants in the amount of $80,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate maps (DFIRMS) 10. Request to authorize execution of an updated contract with the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. to provide the CORTRAN services for Roanoke County for the period February 1, 2005 - February 28, 2006 11. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grand funds in the amount of $12,955 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of cardiac heart monitors K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid - February 2005 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended February 28, 2005 7. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report 8. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report 4 O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the terms or scope of a public contract concerning storm water management with the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA), where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. P. WORK SESSIONS (Training Room - 4th floor) 1. Work session to discuss budget development for fiscal year 2005-2006. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) EVENING SESSION Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Continued until April 26 at the request of the Plannina Commission. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower located at 432 Bandy Drive near Windy Gap Mountain, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Nextel Partners, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 2. Continued until April 26 at the request of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and to obtain a special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 3. Continued until June 28, 2005 at the request of the Plannina Commission. Second 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. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 4. Second 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) 5 5. 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) 6. Second 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. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) S. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to adopt a resolution approving and adopting amendments to the Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 2. Request to adopt the following tax rates for calendar year 2005: (Brent Robertson, Budget Director) (a) Real estate tax rate of$1.12 per$100 assessed valuation (b) Personal property tax rate of $3.50 per $100 assessed valuation (c) Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.00 per $100 assessed valuation T. FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BUDGET 1. Human Services and Social Services Agencies U. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Joseph B. Church 2. Michael A. Wray 3. Richard C. Flora 4. Joseph P. McNamara 5. Michael W. Altizer W. ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2005, AT 5:30 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF A BUDGET WORK SESSION TO RECEIVE FUNDING REQUESTS FROM CULTURAL AND TOURISM AGENCIES, ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, BOARD MEETING ROOM, 5204 BERNARD DRIVE 6 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C--I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Certificate of recognition to Chief Richard E. Burch, Jr. for receiving the 2004 Governor's Fire Service Award for Excellence in Virginia Fire Service Management Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. ~)/~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Chief Richard E. Burch, Jr. was nominated by his staff for the 2004 Governor's Fire Service Award for Excellence in Fire Service Management. Chief Burch was notified that he was selected to receive this award and it was presented at the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association 2005 Mid-Atlantic Expo and Symposium in February 2005 by Mr. Buddy Hyde, Director of the Virginia Department of Fire Programs, and Secretary of Public Safety John Marshall. This award is presented to an officer who has demonstrated exceptional dedication to sound management principles and excellence in fire service leadership not only in their own department, but also for the greater good of other fire departments within the Commonwealth. Chief Burch was selected in large part due to his ongoing efforts to support regionalism for the enhancement of citizen services. This regional effort has been demonstrated by the establishment of the Roanoke Valley Regional Fire/EMS Training Center, the Clearbrook Co-Staffing Agreement, and most recently by his work with the City of Roanoke to establish an Automatic Aid Agreement to enhance services to citizens in both jurisdictions. Chief Burch has accumulated 36 years of experience in all facets of the fire service, from volunteer to career to combination departments. He began his service at the age of 14 when he became a junior volunteer with the Mechanicsville Volunteer Fire Department. He is also a past president of both the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association and the Southeastern Association of Fire Chiefs. Today, he maintains an active role in these and other fire service venues. -, I , Q:-( STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that a certificate of recognition be presented to Chief Burch for receiving his 2004 Governor's Fire Service Award for Excellence in Fire Service Management. 2 (,0. of l\oanoke è..- CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION Awarded To RicbarJ€l E¡., BU!rJch~ JJt~ For receiving the 2004 Governor's Fire Service Award for Excellence in Virginia Fire Service Management · Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief, Fire & Rescue Department, was nominated by his staff for the 2004 Governor's Fire Service Award for Excellence in Virginia Fire Service Management. · This award was presented at the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association Mid-Atlantic Expo and Symposium in February 2005 and is given to an officer who has demonstrated exceptional dedication to sound management principles and excellence in fire service leadership, not only in their own department, but for the greater good of other fire departments within the Commonwealth. · Chief Burch was selected in large part due to his ongoing efforts to support regionalism for the enhancement of citizen services as demonstrated by the establishment of the Roanoke Valley Regional Fire/EMS Training Center, Clearbrook co-staffing agreement, and automatic aid agreement with the City of Roanoke. · Chief Burch has accumulated 36 years of experience in all facets of fire service including volunteer, career, and combination departments; in addition, he has served as Past President of both the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association and the Southeastern Association of Fire Chiefs. · The Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and commend Chief Burch for his service and leadership which resulted in receiving this Governor's Fire Service Award. Presentid this 22nd day of March, 2005 {lh~ '24. . Michael W. Altizer, Chairm n , """'~ O. W~ Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairman 2. "~k .~~ B. "Butch" Church ---2 \ õ.-.~ (. ~ c.-w a... Richard C. Flora ~~_._-- aoseph P. McNamara . ,~ ~ ~, Z' ~ ~ = ~ > ~, 0', . '. . == ~' ~ ~ ~ ~. Z o ~ ~ o U 'æ -< ~ < 00 ~ u ~ ~ ~ rJ'J. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & < t ~ .;3 z ~ ~ !::! ~ sš ~ t ~ u ~ * ~ Q Q N rJ1 f1'. ~ o ~ ~ >- o ø ~ ~ == U ~ Þ ~ . ~ ~ .<' = U ~ ~ U ~ > ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ H <Z ~ .~ i ~ ~ :~ ø .~ ~ ~ Çj, ~ ~,." ..'~ .~ ~ ~ ~..~ ~~ u z ~ ~ ~ ~ U Þ< .~ (j .1",) r-'. .... "-' ~1 ;:: .~ .,,~ "-' .~ ~ ~ ~ "I::ì ..." ....V) 8~ "" "-' ;::: ...., o - B-;S ~ .~~ ~".g ~.~ È'~ l~ "-'I..::: &..-:::¡ .~~ ~:~ ~. g ~' ';: .ct-' ~ iF', ·0 ':j'"')"~ O"" ~'\..:::: .... ..., ~"~ .,. o. ...., \-. ."? !::! '-E "" ..., P'ì ~'"5 ~' ~ - ... ~. .~ ~ 't ?:"ì,Q ;: ~ ... ... ~ .~ ... "" ;;~ ~ .::"B ~. ;:: .... ;::: \..:;¡')I..::: o ~ ..., ... I..::: ..., ;: .... ~-f ~ ~a: w . z a: .< ..' ,;:. cr ..0 crz .cr :'::w cr> <'0 ::E..\:) , . . 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 MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 Request to adopt a resolution stating Roanoke County's opposition to a proposal by the FAA to close the air traffic control tower located at Roanoke Regional Airport between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board met in joint session with the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission on March 7, 2005. At that time, Jacqueline Shuck, Executive Director for the Airport Commission, presented information regarding a proposal by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to close the air traffic control tower at the Roanoke Regional Airport from midnight to 5:00 a.m. Ms. Shuck reported that five years ago, the airport was successful in restoring the tower to 24-hour service and now, the FAA is attempting to reduce the hours as part of a cost saving measure. The following concerns were expressed regarding this proposal: · The Roanoke Regional Airport is the largest and only 24-hour control tower in western Virginia. · The terrain surrounding the airport presents specific challenges and there are safety concerns for planes landing in evening hours which cannot be adequately addressed by a control tower hundreds of miles away. · Failure to maintain a 24-hour control tower would jeopardize economic development opportunities for the Roanoke Valley. · Cargo and passenger carriers, including planes carrying Virginia Tech athletic teams, depend on the tower being in Operation 24-hours per day. Failure to operate E--I between midnight and 5:00 a.m. would result in passenger carriers refusing to land if the control tower is not in operation. At the joint meeting, the Commission, Council, and Board agreed to adopt resolutions expressing their opposition to this proposal. This attached resolution expresses the Board of Supervisor's opposition to the proposal by the Federal Aviation Administration to close the air traffic control tower at the Roanoke Regional Airport from midnight to 5:00 a.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached resolution. ·. .' [-\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22,2005 RESOLUTION STATING ROANOKE COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSAL BY THE FAA TO CLOSE THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER LOCATED AT ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT BETWEEN THE HOURS OF MIDNIGHT AND 5:00 A.M. WHEREAS, Roanoke County's Air Traffic Control Tower ("Roanoke Tower") was operated at the Roanoke Regional Airport ("Roanoke Airport") on a 24-hour basis for many years until its hours were limited by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") after the air traffic controllers strike in the early 1980s; and . WHEREAS, in order to protect the public and promote economic development in the air service area served by Roanoke Regional Airport, which consists of 19 counties and contains more than three quarters of a million citizens, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, City of Roanoke, County of Roanoke, and federal legislative representatives worked tirelessly for more than 15 years to restore 24-hour tower operations; and WHEREAS, the 24-hour local coverage was finally reestablished at ROA in July of 1999; and WHEREAS, the FAA has recently proposed that the Roanoke Tower again be closed between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. as a way to cut costs; and WHEREAS, the safety and terrain issues present in 1999 remain today; and WHEREAS, closing the Roanoke Tower during late night hours would unnecessarily jeopardize public safety and harm economic development in the Roanoke Valley in the following ways: Ë- , 1. The Roanoke Regional Airport is the largest airport and the Roanoke Tower is the only 24-hour tower in western and southwestern Virginia; the tower also is responsible for handling late night and early morning air traffic for the Lynchburg Airport. 2. In order to provide for the well-being of pilots, passengers, and the citizens of the Roanoke Regional Airport air service area, it is most desirable and safer to have controllers in the Roanoke Tower at all times who can hear pilots and see the airfield in order to assist aircraft in difficulty and respond to emergency situations. 3. The same level of safety and response to aviation users of Roanoke Regional Airport and Lynchburg Regional Airport cannot be provided by controllers located at the FAA's Washington Center, which is hundreds of miles from Roanoke, available only by radio and already serving many other air service areas and hundreds of aircraft. 4. The Roanoke Airport has cargo carriers operating large aircraft, general aviation aircraft, and occasional large jet charters, including, without limitation, aircraft carrying Virginia Tech athletic teams, which operate between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. in reliance on the Roanoke Tower being in operation. 5. Although passenger aircraft frequently need to and do land at the Roanoke Airport after midnight due to schedules, or weather and mechanical delays, passenger carriers will refuse to land at such times if the Roanoke Tower is closed. 6. Having the Roanoke Tower open and available to handle passenger and cargo aircraft on a 24-hour basis is vital to economic development and the growth of the Roanoke Valley. 2 ~ r¿-! 7. Due to visibility problems and the applicable FAA regulations, if the hours of the Roanoke Tower are limited, land between the Roanoke Tower and the intersection of the runways that is critical for future airport growth cannot be developed. NOW, THEREFORE, be Jt resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board adopts this resolution as the means of expressing its strongest possible opposition to the FAA's proposal to close the air traffic control tower located at Roanoke Regional Airport between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m.; and 2. That the Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to The Honorable John Warner, The Honorable George Allen, The Honorable Robert W. Goodlatte, The Honorable Rick Boucher, The Honorable Virgil Goode, FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council, Mayor and Members of Lynchburg City Council, and the governing bodies of the jurisdictions served by the Roanoke Regional Airport. 3 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: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve fiscal year 2005-2006 Roanoke Valley Television (RVTV) budget SUBMITTED BY: , Elaine Simpson Cable Access Director APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~ /J~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval. Mike Altizer and Dan O'Donnell are the County's representatives on this committee and they may have additional comments to add. RVTV provides a very beneficial service to Roanoke County and the citizens. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton jointly operate Roanoke Valley Television (RVTV, Channel 3). The initial equipment and facilities for the television studio were funded through a capital grant from Cox Communications in the amount of $480,000. The studio is located at the Jefferson Center, and currently employs five full time staff members. The staff produces videos and shows for the local governments and school systems, which are cablecast along with government meetings on Cox Communications Channel 3 and Adelphia Communications Channel 3 in the West County area. RVTV is governed by the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, which includes representatives from the City, the County, and the Town. The operational budget for RVTV is provided by the three governments, based on the proportion of Cox customers located in each jurisdiction. The governing bodies have informally agreed to provide up to 20% of the franchise fee paid by Cox Communications to fund'the operations of the facility. Roanoke County's share of the cable budget is 41 %. Cable Television staff is carried on the County's payroll and benefit system and will receive the same salary increase as County employees. E-~ During 2004-2005, RVTV produced the following for the County: (53) Videos and Television Shows, and RVTV covered (23) Live Board Meetings. Examples of RVTV productions include: Focus On Crime Prevention, Roanoke County Orientation and Roanoke County Schools Instructional Laptop video. RVTV monthly television shows include: "Roanoke County Today," which highlights local government issues and events, and "Accent Excellence," for the Roanoke County School System. During the past year, video production has increased by 19%. The approximate rate for video production in the private sector is $1,000 per finished minute. Roanoke Valley Television produced a total of 119 Video Productions last year for the three localities and their school systems. FISCAL IMPACT: The total RVTV budget request is $304,713 of which Roanoke County's share is 41 %, or $124,932. This is a $7,386 increase or (6%) from last year's budget. The increase excluding Personal Services (VRS, Health Insurance, Salaries etc.) is $2,334 or 2.8%. The total Franchise Fee paid by Cox to Roanoke County last year was $811,154. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the FY2005-2006 RVTV operating budget. 2. Do not adopt the FY2005-2006 RVTV operating budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee recommends that the Board adopt Alternative #1 and approve the FY2005-2006 RVTV operating budget. 2 , ' E-~ val&t¡ 5 ~ÚJ.n fR. V.5. V. efuuurel 3 2005 - 2006 Operating Budget Proposal RVTV 2004 Productions Edited Videos Title Client Insight Program New Orientation Water Authority Forum New Roanoke County Today Open (4) Smart Way Bus PSAs (4) Intros for OSHA Videos School Nutrition Program Drinking & Driving PSA Teacher of the Year Most Livable Community Award PSA (2) Recycling Awareness PSAs N ew Voting Technology One Stop Center Earth Summit PSA State of the County Schools Video State ofthe County Video Mulch Mowing (2) PHHS Changing For Tomorrow Book Fair PSA Ozone Early Action Plan School Funding Revised Hidden Valley High School Public Works Job Fair PSA Formals For Less PSA Blue Ridge May Days PSA Camp Roanoke PSA County Schools Roanoke County City/County Roanoke County City of Roanoke City Schools County Schools County Schools City Schools City of Roanoke City of Roanoke City of Roanoke City/County Roanoke County County Schools Roanoke County City of Roanoke City Schools City of Roanoke Roanoke County County Schools County Schools City of Roanoke City of Roanoke County Schools Roanoke County Roanoke County ~-~ Length 5:50 20:47 29:00 :30 :30 ea. :60 ea. 9:30 :30 2:00 ea. :30 :30 ea. 8:30 15:44 :30 4:36 4:32 6:00 19:47 & 8:48 :30 8:50 9:40 34:25 3:29 :30 :30 :30 :30 RVTV 2004 Productions Edited Videos Title Client Economic Development Accreditation PSA HHW Collection Day Vehicle Theft PSA Instructional Laptop DARE Camp Music Video (5) Attendance PSAs Instructional Special Education Vision Film Festival PSA City/County City/County City of Roanoke County Schools City of Roanoke City Schools County Schools Roanoke County City of Roanoke Roanoke County City Schools City of Roanoke Roanoke County Town of Vinton Town of Vinton County Schools County of Roanoke City of Roanoke New Police Recruitment Explore Park PSA Roanoke Adolescent Health Partnership PSA State of the City Address State of the County Address State of the Town Address Vinton Student Government Highlight Video (2) Bullying PSAs (3) Focus On Crime Prevention (9) Libraries In Action 2004 Shows Length :30 :30 :30 7:03 10:00 :30 ea. 17:00 :30 12:00 :30 :30 30:00 42:00 17:33 8:44 :60 & :30 6:30 ea. 6:30 ea. Total Title Client Time 12 Inside Roanoke City of Roanoke 30:00 each 12 Roanoke County Today Roanoke County 30:00 each 12 Spotlight On City Schools Roanoke City Schools 30:00 each 12 Accent Excellence Roanoke County Schools 30:00 each 3 Roanoke County County of Roanoke 30:00 each Business Partners E-~ ~--~ Total Productions Total Productions City of Roanoke Roanoke County Town of Vinton 119 64 53 2 Percentage 54% 44% 2% 2004 Meetings Totals 24 23 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Meetings City Council Meetings Board of Supervisors Meetings Roanoke City Schools - School Board Interviews City Budget Meeting State of the Town Address (Vinton) Business Appreciation Breakfast State of the County Address Community Meeting - Regional Jail (County) State of the City Address School Policy Meeting (City Schools) Vinton Student Government Day City Investiture Ceremony Vinton Investiture Ceremony · . RVTV Productions 2003 & 2004 2003 2004 Increasenoecrease V ideo Productions 57 68 + 11 (+ 19%) J Meetings 58 58 0 Shows 51 51 0 E-~ E-~ RVTV Proposed 2005 - 2006 Budget 2004-2005 Budget Proposed Remaining % Balance Expended 1010 Regular 151,132.00 167,042.00 71,008.42 53.02 (Actual 160,617 + 4%) 2100 FICA (Employer 7.65%) 11,562.00 12,779.00 5,804.13 49.80 2200 Retirement - VRS 20,403.00 21,684.00 9,761.02 52.16 2202 Deferred Comp Match (650 x 3) 480.00 1,950.00 -220.00 145.83 2300 Group Health Insurance 26,601.00 15,495.00 15,308.84 42.45 (Coverage canceled by (2) staff) 2310 Group Dental Insurance (-2 Staff) 904.00 646.00 376.18 58.39 3013 Professional Services - Other 27,500.00 27,500.00 18,048.46 34.37 (Closed Captioning, Dubbing etc.) 3204 Repairs Vehicles (By Garage) 300.00 800.00 204.00 32.00 3209 Repairs (Other Equipment) 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,910.00 4.50 3305 Maintenance Service Contracts 1,995.00 1,850.00 1,718.61 13.85 (Telephone & Non-Linear Editing) 5210 Postage 150.00 150.00 108.65 27.57 5230 Telephone 4,000.00 4,000.00 2,043.92 48.90 5235 Cellular Phones 480.00 480.00 293.85 38.78 5236 Pager Services 243.00 243.00 122.58 49.56 5305 Motor Vehicle Insurance 1,365.00 1,365.00 405.00 70.33 5308 General Liability Insurance 2,121.00 2,121.00 85.00 95.99 5410 Lease/Rent of Equipment 800.00 800.00 443.00 44.63 5420 Lease/Rent of Buildings 31,954.00 33,583.00 17,014.06 46.76 (8 x $2,770.83 4 x $2,853.96) 5501 Travel (Mileage) 200.00 200.00 127.99 36.01 5520 Dinner Meetings & Luncheons 150.00 200.00 -18.00 112.00 5801 Dues & Association Membership 275.00 275.00 227.00 17.46 6010 Office Supplies - General 900.00 900.00 687.79 23.58 6013 Small Equipment & Supplies 2,500.00 2,700.00 1,360.12 45.60 6014 Video Supplies 4,700.00 4,700.00 2,908.75 38.11 6080 Gas, Oil & Grease 850.00 850.00 608.60 28.40 6091 Tires, Tubes Parts 300.00 400.00 243.59 18.80 Total $293,865.00 $304,713.00 $150,581.56 48.76 Increase From Last Year: $10,848 or 3.7% Increase Excluding Personal Services (VRS, Salaries etc.): $2,334 or 2.8% RVTV expended 98.94% of its FY2003-2004 Operating Budget * Year to Date Expenditures F or the 06 Month Period Ended 12/31/04 ,,- ~-~ . .. RVTV Financial Report Current Account Balances as of December 31, 2004 213200 (Operating Budget)................................................................. $150,581.56 213300 (Cox Cable Capital Grant)...................................................... $31,122.82 213450 (New Cox Cable Capital Grant) .............................................. $575,000.00 213500 (RVTV Year-End Rollover Account) .................................... $143,389.50 Account 213500 (RVTV Year-End Rollover) represents the unused funds from the Operating Budget since 1991. RVTV does not lose these funds at the end of the fiscal year, rather they are rolled over into this savings account which will be used for future capital purchases. , . t-~ Cox Communications 2004 Franchise Fees Cox Communications paid a 5% Franchise Fee to the.local governments in 2004 which totaled $1,841,543. The local governments have infonnally agreed to allocate up to 20% of the Franchise Fees collected to the RVTV Operating Budget. For the coming year, that amount would be $368,309. RVTV is requesting an Operating Budget of $304,713. Cox calculates the percentage of subscribers (December 31,2004) in each locality as follows: Locality Subscribers Percentage City 31,008 54% County 23,593 41% Vinton 2,634 5% . Based on those figures, each locality's contribution to an Operating Budget of $304,713 would be as follows: 2004 - 2005 Budget 2005 - 2006 Budget City $161,626 $164,545 County $117,546 $124,932 Vinton $14,693 $15,236 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E ~3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 . Request to approve health insurance contract and rates for County and school employees for 2005-2006 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. l'1f County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ ·ðVff SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County of Roanoke and Roanoke County Public Schools participate in a joint health insurance program for eligible employees. As the County is self insured with fespect to health insurance provided to eligible County and School employees, the County purchases administrative services, access to the network physicians and facilities, and claims administration from Anthem. The Anthem contract also provides excess risk coverage that limits the County's dollar liability for any individual plan participant and the gfOUp as a whole. Since June 30, 2005 marks the end of a five year contract with Anthem, a request for proposal was prepared for the 2005-06 renewal. Using predefined criteria for determining the most qualified bidders formedical coverage, an evaluation prepared by OUf medical consultant, Palmer & Cay, and an independent review of the proposals submitted, the School and County Insurance Committee selected three vendors to interview. Based on the bids submitted, interviews conducted, follow up negotiations, references, and evaluations of each finalist, the committee unanimously agreed that Anthem was the most qualified bidder and should be awarded the contract effective July 1, 2005. ~-3 Anthem presented a proposal for an 8.4% increase for fiscal year 2005-2006. Subsequently, this increase was negotiated down to an overall increase of 5.5%. This increase compares favorably to national and regional trends of 11 % to 12%. Benefit changes focused on controlling the long term costs of the medical program will be implemented as follows: · Eliminate gastric bypass surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity. This is a standard exclusion of most major insurance companies because of the high mortality and complication rate of this procedure. · Remove the $300 cap on the wellness benefit to encourage employees to utilize this coverage. · Change the tier 3 prescription drug benefit from $35 copay for retail (up to a 31 day supply) to the greater of $35 or 20% of the drug cost (not to exceed $100 per prescription). A $3,500 annual out of pocket limit will be added to the plan. This potential increase in the patient's cost is geared at reducing utilization of high cost drugs. · Vision benefits will be added including a $15 routine annual eye exam and discounted frames, lenses, and contacts through a network vision center. · Anthem will fund $50,000 in annual wellness initiatives for each of the next three years for school and county employees. An employee committee will work together to design wellness programs with this funding. Through benefit management revisions like these, the County and schools have consistently kept overall medical costs below the national average for the past four renewals with annual increases of 5.5% for 2005~06, 9.7% for 2004-05,0% for 2003-04, and 12.9% for 2002-03 while national averages have ranged from 11 % to 20% during that time period. New insurance cards will be issued reflecting the above benefit revisions. Only those employees who are new or those wishing to change coverage will need to enroll or re- enroll for the plan year beginning July 1, 2005. Attachment A shows the current and proposed rates for eligible County and school employees as well as the monthly increase in cost. A request was made this year to consider adding an option for employee plus spouse coverage. Adding the spouse tier would reduce the required increase for the 212 employees who have their spouses' covered but would increase rates for 617 employees who would remain in the family tier. Actuarially, spouses typically cost the same or slightly higher than employees. However, a review of the claims experience of the spouses enrolled in our medical plan indicate that spouses cost 389% more than the average employee. Based on actual claims experience, adding a lower rate category for employee plus spouse cannot be justified. The schools are scheduled to consider this proposal at their meeting on March 23, 2005. \23 FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the renewal at an overall increase of 5.5% will increase the County budget $389,130 and the school budget $674,800. These increases are included in the draft 2005-06 budgets of the County and schools. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving a contract with Anthem to provide our medical program and the attached health insurance rates for fiscal year 2005-06. · ~ E-3 Roanoke County and Roanoke County Schools Health Insurance Renewal Rates 2005-2006 Attachment A PPO Plan Design Increase Monthly County Employee Employee for Premium Benefit Rate Pays Employee Current 2004-05 Subscriber Only 367.00 328,00 39.00 10,63% Subscriber + 1 minor 518,10 337.80 180.30 34.80% Family 850.00 517.74 332.26 39.09% Married School & County Couple 850.00 677.02 172,98 20.35% Renewal 2005-06 PPO Plan Desiç¡n Subscriber Only 387.20 346,04 41.16 10.63% $ 2,16 Subscriber + 1 minor 546.60 356.38 190.22 34.80% $ 9.92 Family 896.76 546.22 350,54 39.09% $ 18.28 Married School & County Couple 896.76 714,28 182.48 20,35% $ 9.50 Current Membership I County Schools Subscriber Only 511 1220 Subscriber + minor 54 115 Family 256 519 Medicare Carve Out 78 38 Total Members 899 1892 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. [-L\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve dental rates for County and school employees for fiscal year 2005-2006 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge . t(f County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County of Roanoke and Roanoke County Schools participate in a fully insured group dental insurance program for their eligible employees and retirees. The provider is Delta Dental and the group includes members from the Roanoke Valley Regional Health Care Consortium. Dental rates for employees are brought forward to the Board during the spring, along with group health insurance rates, for approval. The dental rates have not increased since 2001-02 but will need to be increased for 2005-06 as outlined on Attachment A. Retirees pay the entire amount of the premium. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the renewal will increase the County budget $25,000 and the school budget $60,000. These increases are included in the draft 2005-06 budgets of the County and schools. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the attached dental insurance rates for fiscal year 2005-06. A. E-~ Roanoke County and Roanoke County Schools Dental Insurance Renewal Rates 2005-2006 Attachment A Dental Plan Increase Monthly County Employee Employee for Premium Benefit Rate Pays Employee Current 2004-05 Subscriber Only 19.44 14,10 5,34 27.47% Subscriber + 1 31.64 16,76 14.88 47.03% Family 54.78 23.46 31.32 57,17% Married School & County Couple 54.78 37,54 17.24 31.47% Renewal 2005-06 Dental Plan Subscriber Only 22,38 16,24 6.14 27.44% $ 0.80 Subscriber + 1 36.42 19,30 17.12 47.01 % $ 2.24 Family 63.04 27.00 36,04 57,17% $ 4.72 Married School & County Couple 63.04 43.20 19,84 31.47% $ 2.60 Current Membership I County Schools Subscriber Only 351 849 Subscriber + minor 163 346 Family 215 483 Retirees 76 347 Total Members 805 2025 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. [-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to authorize the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department to enter into a contract with Nova Information Systems for the purpose of collecting fees for classes and programs over the internet. SUBMITTED BY: Pete Haislip Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge <f'Þ County Administrator' COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR~ ¡('~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department has used the CLASS computer-based registration system to organize, promote and take registrations for programs and services since April 1996. Following an extensive RFP process, the CLASS system was selected as a proprietary system for the department. The department has collected fees for its programs and services via credit card terminals since August 1997 through an agreement with Nova Information Systems, a credit card authorizing agency that credits payments to the department into the County's banking account. Advancements in technology have necessitated upgrading the CLASS system in 2005. The latest version allows for internet-based class registration and the ability to accept secure credit card transactions over the internet. Internet registration is the next big step in our customer service program, making it easier for participants to register any time, day or night. As a result, the department is seeking to establish an on line merchant account with Nova Information Systems to enable internet-based registration for its classes and programs. In order to accomplish this, approval by the Board is necessary to enter into a contractual agreement with Nova Information Systems. ... G-~ After establishing on line registration, the department will publicly promote the new service through several media channels including Roanoke Valley Television, notices at Roanoke County Libraries and Recreation Centers, print media, as well as prominently include notice within the department's standing marketing materials. FISCAL IMPACT None. The usual and customary merchant fees required for the on line merchant account will be covered by the department's user fees for programs and services. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County of Roanoke to enter into an agreement with Nova Information systems to establish an on line merchant account for conducting secure credit card transactions over the internet; said agreement to be on a form approved by the County Attorney's office. 2 ~ ~ : r. i j :. I ACTION NO, ITEM NO. F-I-Lf AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 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 t/I" County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: 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 April 26, 2005. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. The petition of Christopher L. Irvine to rezone .52 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District to C-1 C, Office District with conditions for the operation of a general office, located at 3663 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 2. The petition of KTP, LLC to obtain a Special Use Permit for the construction of mini-warehouses on 5.602 acres, located at 1918 Washington Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District. 3. The petition of Alan and Gayle Jamison to rezone 79.09 acres from 1-2, Industrial District to AG-3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve District in order to construct a single family residence, located at 4518 Morgan Conner Lane, Catawba Magisterial District. . 4. The petition of James C. and Laura B. Parrish to obtain a Special Use Permit for the construction of an accessory apartment, located at 3216 Lawndale Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 1 F )-"} Maps are attached. More detailed information is available in the Clerk's Office. 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 April 26, 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 1-4, 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 .. " -' f--I County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onl 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018- 0798 540 772-2068 FAX 540 776-7155 Case Number ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) XDRezoning 0 Special Use 0 Variance o Waiver o Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address wlzip Christopher L. Irvine P.O. Box 21384 Phone: 540-725-4348 Wod: 540-98Q-753S Cell #: 54 0;..; 5 37- 084 0 Fax No.: 540-989-7538 540-774-2361 Owner's name/address w/zip Glorine Largen 3663 Colonial Ave. 1 Phone #: Work: NA Fax No. #: NA Property Location Magisterial District: Roanoke, co. Community Planning area: Roanoke Co. SW Tax Map No.: Existing Zoning: Residential Existing Land Use: Res idential Size of parcel(s): Acres: . 52 REZONING SPECIAL USE PERMITAND WAIVER APPLICANTS (RIS/W) Proposed Zoning: C 1 Proposed Land Use: C 1 Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and fTontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST Ifrezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATWE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/W/AA) VariancelWaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal ofInterpretation ofSection(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICA nON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RJSIW V/AA R/S/W VI AA EE Consultation Application Justification I hereby certiJ)' that I am either the owner of the of the owner. JUSTIFICA nON FOR REWNING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR WAIVER REQUEST 2 ~ -\ ........J: Applicant Christopher L. Irvine The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use pennít 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 Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. I i -...._~ Please see attached. Please explain how the project confonns to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. Please see attached. 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. Please see attached. JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant Christopher L. Irvine 3 filii B(llI ~ - J IRVINE ACCESS FLOORS, INCa P. O. Box 21384 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-1384 (540) 989-7535 - FAX (540) 989-7538 February 7, 2005 1. If approved, this rezoning could help set a standard for other small businesses along the transitional Colonial Ave. corridor. The design plan would keep with the current residential look and feel of what is left of the existing neighborhood and could increase interest for other small businesses to also locate to the corridor thus increasing tax revenues. 2. This project should require minimal alteration to the property. Parking needs would be minimal for a business of this type. A pre-existing 16 (sixteen) foot wide "U" shaped driveway in front and adjoining carport to the rear side are more than enough for the proposed business with its staff of two and no visiting traffic. 3. As stated above, the required changes for the proposed- rezoning could be minimal. The proposed tenant is a small business that oversees design and installation of access flooring. This location would not be used for storage, but only as an office for a staff of two people. This will not be a show room or shopping facility. This business would keep normal daytime hours and would be closed on weekends. Businesses of this type would be ideal for this type of environment. DISTRIBUTORS OF Tate ACCESS FLOORING <a. ' 7 r I r" 'r, II I"n~n 11~10J l~J~ ~un~~ ~ JnJ IAII-! 7 I : I I C (\ (\ 7 ' I ' a ;¡ J <Pr"pD~a.J C h rlsfc,p¡'er L IrvIne LrVlr"l1! AcceS's FIDor ("Co. 3&1P3 C--Dft:>nuzf AvB-. Kr::~. Vc.. LDf 5/-re - fD{)y 12-'Z.ls, (Z2./ð¿"D S"c:¡ .ç+) ;)-1-65 t=-\: I I \ i .f' ¡tit) ct-?-e f?-1)f»Je-d ~ I f . l ~\ ~ ;;)- (1) ...r. "p ~ , ~! ... ' I:> : \) '" ... .... ..: v n r"rr,~ '<.'<.-- .21 i ------> EXI stl"~ Cvrpór-t .J C P~'h() Þ:'1.Ist,,,:) Hovse ::25')1. L-/(P ¡ ~--If.t, , --.-> G'd'ffu"9 f"~IS+I";! "D r¡,,~ \.)Jc, i /t;.....,It"ce-p,,;; Lc,... "C¡;P"", "- - I ........ ..-.....---~----- Wc.ll< "-~ //f / / , , I (;' 'Dr I\I,"¡..J C. '- / / / / j t' ~....~-' ~~"_."'. --...--............-, --------....-. "'----- ',,- /" ," , -' " I' / [' i ~ I I i .~ ~/ ~OI....D t.J (AL A \J Ë. ~- J 1;# F - ( 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 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 allow 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 shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. Name of Petition Christopher L. Irvine Petitioner's Signature ~./" -/ (' Date 2 / 7 / 05 8 111111 111111 Subject Property House Next Door House Next Door Adjoining Lot & Home Backs up to this house Across Street F -'J IRVINE ACCESS FLOORS, INC. P. O. Box 21384 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-1384 (540) 989-7535 - FAX (540) 989-7538 February 7,2005 Adjoining Property Owners 3663 Colonial Ave. 3663 Colonial Ave. Roanoke, VA 24018 Glorine C. Largen LT 2-A Resub LTs 1 &2 Block 1 Section 2 Map of Castle Hill Parcel id 077.18-04-07.00-0000 3671 Colonial Ave. Roanoke, VA 24018 Carol Royal Land . PT LT 1 Block 1 Section 2 Map of Castle Hill Parcel id 077.18-04-08.00-0000 3657 Colonial Ave. Roanoke, VA 24018 William C. & Tammy D StClair 75 (seventy-five) feet LT 17 Block 1 Section 2 Map of Castle Hill Parcel id 077.18.04-06.00-0000 3616 LanewoodDr. Roanoke, VA 24018 Harold D & Rehse L Martin PT LTs 1 & 2 Block 1 Section 2 Map of Castle Hill Parcel id 077.18-04-09.00-0000 3658 Martinell Ave. Uoyd W & Lana B Moore W PT LT 5 Section 2 Map of Castle Hill Parcel id 077.14-03-13.00-0000 3660 Colonial Ave. . Super Mart BP Mac Arthur ID Properties Inc. c/o Seven Realty Corp 11968 370 -ph Ave. Suite 618 New York, NY 10001 Parcel id 077.18-03-22.00-0000 DISTRIBUTORS OF Tate ACCESS FLOORING flltll 111111 Also across Street ~ -.\ IRVINE ACCESS FLOORS, INC. P. O. Box 21384 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-1384 (540) 989-7535 - FAX (540) 989-7538 February 7, 2005 Adjoining Property Owners 3663 Colonial Ave. - pg (2) 3664 Colonial Ave. Allsport Cycles Chivas Associates 5041 - A Benois Rd. 24014 Parcel id 077.18-03.00-000 DISTRIBUTORS OF Tate ACCESS FLOORING ~-\ ) Legend ". _AG3 _EP _AG1 \ AR _AV C1 .C2 \ '. C2CVOD : 11 _12 / .PCD _ PRO .pm / R1 R2 \ _RJ _R4 \ \ - Applicants Name: Christopher L. Irvine Existing Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: C-1 Tax Map Number: 77.18-4-7 Magisteriall District: Cave Spring Area: 0.52 February 9, 2004 No Scale Roanoke County Department of Community Development " f-d, County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only Received by: 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 . (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Application fee: '-{O.Co Placards issued: Check type of application filed (check all that apply) Rezoning /Special Use Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address wlzip KTP, LLC 2725 Franklin Turnpike, Suite C Danville, VA 24540 Phone: 434-836-5009 Work: Cell #. Fax No.: 434-836-4993 Phone #: 540 - 9 81 - 7 734 Work: Fax No. #: owner's name/address wlzip Carilion Medical Center 1315 Second Street, 3rd Floor Property Location 1918 Washington Avenue Magisterial District: Vinton Community Planning area: Roanoke County Tax Map No.: . 061.15-01-01.00-0000 Existing Zoning: C2CS Existing Land Use: Mini Storage Facility s the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No· IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? @ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FffiST . If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes VarianceIWaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zon4! Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA EE Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~ Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. 2 KTP, LLC J . // / 1/ /. .. .. Applicant Þ , /í I-e../L r ~~, ,.,. ~ o..,-v-: Ce;.;.\.;'" Mot J.;o..l C~h, b..:. ~Ã.n. . ~",r<- ~ . . . The Planning Commission will study rezoning, specialùSe þéñrut or waiver requests to detenrune the need and Jushficatlon for the change in tenns of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thorougWy as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. This property received a special use permit for the requested use in 1999. Delay in project completion requires a new request. No change in use from previous approved special use permit is requested. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. Planned mini warehouse use requires special use permit but conforms with approved uses for current zoning. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water /sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. No significant impact on other public services and facilities are anticipated. Impact on adjoining properties is minimal. Low water and sewerusage is anticipated. No change in traffic signalizations for area are needed. Traffic shall use existing cross access easement for vehicle movements from existing retail center. 3 List of Adjoining Properties Parcel ID# 061.01-01-03.00-0000 061.14-01-46.00-0000 061.15-01-01.04-0000 061.15-01-01.01-0000 ~-~ Owner Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Ramsey Enterprises Carilion Aston/Vinton t:-~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ i~ ~- cjO ~§ ~ :j~ ~8 Q. ~ BH~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 8 ~~ ~~ ;5 ~~ o o N o '" ,... t")co ~~ It") LL ~ c-:, o ~~ r-I o~ ~r-... ( )C\¡ .~ >0: ~~ r-I EX:I ~~ CI),... L"~ or-C\¡ . ~ oq a.....:iE cr)~- ~CI)~ ~UJs õ-.J o~UJ CI)~::I Cl)°S q:OCl) ~D:<: ;::EX:I¡::: U,j0)D: CI~- UJ~~ ~ co D w a. « 0.. w a. 0.. z ~ .....} a.. UJ l-- HO \I)' o l-~ a.. 10 UJ = u- z~ I/)o~ UJUI/) UJ ~ I- :1 t;; ~D LL :>z UJO ~:> I:¡~ z~ I/)~ :>\.!) LLO\ o~ o~ UUJ ~u.: \.!)D 0\ . ZZ (Y)I/) ~:> ION I/)UJ ,- 1-1 CD ll.,o::t, X 0 I/) ~ '";'UJ I- 1/)8-+01- ~N«)"I-Z U \!")'UJ -0 I/) UJ «O\~-z:E «l/)oUJ N«UJ\.!) \.!) ~~UZ~« 1ri«~~~z «\.!)~-Jz~ UJz:>l-Iz< ~I-II/)ªo~ «gD-JU~ ~I-I~-JI/)« 1-ª~~~3:~ ~ -J -J :d:¡ :E 1-1 I-~~~-J~¡:¡ oooUJ~I-~ -JI-I-I:>I/)LL ~- --, - Applicants Name: KTP, LLC Existing Zoning: C2 Proposed Zoning: C2S Tax Map Number: 61.15-1-1.4 Magisterial District: Vinton Area: 5.602 acres March 10, 2005 No Scale Roanoke County Department of Community Development County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning r3 . 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, Application fee:dl PC/BZA date: {/ If / s: {)O !-r:J 0 ~- Placards issued: os- VA 24018- 0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ALL APPLICANTS Case Number I '-]1'-'_' Cþeck type of application filed (check all that a~ply) " . MRezoning 0 Special Use 0 Vanance 0 Waiver CAdrrumstratlve Appeal Applicantsname/addressw/zip AIAII) .;.. G:/lYlf J.1¡JIÒ(¡,.J Php~:;", l.~~/()_3g ¡- ð3S-o J tGC; m l¡jl~'.;J /:}v¿,· víl Work:l~ ...'J 10( ~Sltt,. . J" Cell#: (S'LlùJ ~1'I-IY7'K é/1/; \ hc...I'S b t¡.c,; J.q ,:J.'!c}lJ Fax No.: Phone #: J ¿; (}~ ,;23 ( ;¿ Work: Fax No. #: - Existing Zoning: r;;¿ Existing Land Use: 1/4 tltul-tlifi? ( Ih,};J ¡(~siëlêf'd,~( ... REZONING SPECIAL USE PERMITAND WAIVER APPLICANTS (R/SIW) Proposed Zoning: /-1 Co ~ . Proposed Land Use: 5,)'\.<'311" .çt'~w-d", 1c:'Ç.¡¿{eYlce J J Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ~ No DI IF NO, A V AIUANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes ¡g/ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes [] Owner's name/address whip V/") /1 . - -- 'U LtJ/¡}"Ve.1/¡ J/- O· iJ- 4' .:5 7 ¡YJ a_ Lj rfr I ¡¿ _r, ,-S /.) t.. e. /-17') i \04. .;~ L/- I s...g Property Location ¡1 .. /- .... Lf r I <'i ;J r) rZ G i{,.J W, VI ¡; c R ¿¡¡IV, S,1LfM. 1/ A 2~ Ii) 3 Tax Map No.: L I. rJ(·,ç,i.Y)-OZ -70, OO~O()()t, Size ofparcel(s): Acres: '1', .(:.o't ( ¡)) Magisterial District: C¡-1fA L.j ß1\ Community Planning area: G-L f f\J V A ~ No 0 No [] VARIANCE, W AlVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLlCANTS (V/W/AA) V ariancefW aiver of Section( s) NIH , of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICA nON WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RISIW VIM RIS/W IAA RIS/W VIM ~ Consultation 8 I/2" x II" concept plan Application Metes and bounds description /' Justification ì~ Water and sewer applicaf n I hereby certifY that I am either the owner of the property or !!Je owner's agent 0 contract purchaser of the owner. /7 £. ' .{;:- v- Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners d am acting with the knowledge and consent JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPE Owner's Signature L USE PERMIT OR WAIVER REQUEST 2. ';. [) ill J4 ~. Applicant ~-3 The Planning Commission will study rewning, 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. -. ':JEf A HCi-LI,-",..e )-e fk { Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. 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. JUSTIFICA nON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant '1 r ., . ~ í/ III F-3 The of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 ofthe 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 harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. : O~(J· íV J!f F-3 JUSTIFICA TION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST Applicant Please respond to the following as thoroughly as possible. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. Reasons for appeal: 2. Evidence supporting claim: þt¡~ I CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST ~-3 I 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, COITect any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff ma exem t some of the items or su est the addition of extra items, but the followin are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. AIl property lines and easements h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the deveJopment J. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional iriformation required/or REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site I. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. }~~)Clr I I Date 14 !J#-f~fr' 6 Planning Commission Application Acceptance Procedure f-3 The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Penn it petition if the new or additional infonnation is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion ofthe majority ofthe 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 information and provide written comments 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 4/t\i'J J4/V¡¡SÖ;N Petitioner's Signature Il¿ £_ / Date ;:¿j¡tj05 I 8 )=-3 Roanoke County Planning Commission February 15, 2005 Ref: Re-zoning application for 065.00-02-40.00-0000 This letter is in regard to a re-zoning request for the property identified by Tax Parcel Number 065.00-02-40.00-0000. This property is currently zoned Industrial 12. The attached topographical map provides the location of the property and overall geography. Although the property borders a railroad track, numerous other features indicate the property may not be suitable for industrial development. The access to the property is via Morgan Conner Lane which terminates at the property as it crosses the railroad track. This limited access would be detrimental to the heavy traffic flow typically required for industry., Also, the portion of the property bordering the railroad track contains steep grades. The surrounding terrain indicates any industrial application to the property would require extensive grading in order to allocate significant usable area. We purpose re-zoning the land to agricultural zoning. The intention of the change is to allow the development of a single home site on the property. A single residence does not require the same resources as that of industry. The minimal traffic flow of a single residence is more suitabJe for the current access capabilities. Also, a single dwelling is self sufficient in terms of water and sewer utilities by the use of a well and septic system. The property currently contains an old fann house which has been vacant for a number of years and is oflittle value. Due to the Jack of maintenance, the home has deteriorated to the point of not being suitable for occupation. Re-zoning the property to agricultural zoning should have little impact to the adjacent property. This property currently resides next to Residential RI and industrial zones. The adjacent property across the railroad track is zoned industrial and is particularly contoured (flat) to support industry. A zoning of Agricultural should not affect the adjacent residential zone property. The terrain between this property and the other adjoining industrial plot is steep sloped and not conducive to development. Contract Purchasers:p ~1·L/j~ Alan J aniison / Current Owner: V.G. Conner Estate Representative(s ): ~ l J./ fj), I /;:)~. ~¿J~ß~ / ~-3 Roanoke County Planning Commission February 15, 2005 Subject: Proffers for re-zoning of property 065.00-02-40.00-0000 In regards to the re-zoning request for the property described by Tax Parcel Number 065.00-02-40.00-0000, the following proffers are provided to define the intended use of the property. Future structural development on the property will be limited to the addition of one single family residence and one outbuilding (detached garagelbarn). The current lot will not be subdivided without consultation with the Roanoke County Planning Commission. Contract Purchasers: 2 #, ). r..!" .,~__ Alan J¢ison t /J~. ~\ . . . "Jc .1",\, :.! 'I.-1A·7/J.-\.. Gayle amis~n Current Owner: V.G. Conner Estate Representati ve( s): ,¡Í iP '; ¥ í ,/ \/. (i~ é0»U/ / / F- ( ,~ ( - Applicants Name: Alan and Gayle Jamison Existing Zoning: 12 Proposed Zoning: AG3 Tax Map Number: 65.00-2-40 Magisterial District: Catawba Area: 79.09 acres February 18, 2005 No Scale Roanoke County Department of Community Development , - .. County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 For Staff Use Only f- i Date received: f' Received b~, ~. rz. Z-/\t¿ ZbbJ __Ij Application fee: . . . 0 J PCIBZA date: I ' - 4- u; 'zbt:? Placards issued: Check type of application filed (check all that apply) o Rezoning ~cial Use Applicants name/address w/zip B DoJf'ì oS k .To.t1'\(~ C Pû..rris. h ~ ~ro. . r' ') 'l.. '~\..o..wl\cl~l~ 1"-0 ~ O((t. # ~40 I~ Owner's name/acWress wlzip, \ __.. _ ß PCc.l'f'~.& t.. j W'tIt \ C. Po-rrt, ~ J. ~f.I'- . .3'2. 10 ~RJ, IC- ro.... J., 'f 0 C> Property Location 311 ~ ~~(" 'RJ.. '\OA.t)O f!¿ I 7/t:(. df.{O Tax Map No.: "77. \ b -1-7...4,- Size ofparcel(s): Acres:':i:. ..? CI..::..r~ o Variance o Waiver Phone: Work: Cell#: Fax No.: 5t.fb 5L{O ,1(,-/Y{pq 31LjLflO,L Phone #: Fax No. #: Magisterial District: \tJ iqolSø t" l+~ \ \s Community Planning area: \J.J \~ ':Ð~ r\-\LL ~ Existing Zoning: I .- \ Proposed Zoning: R - \, 7u..f Proposed Land Use: <:-L~S br- A- bu"'\-\'\'\~-t, KI:L'S ~~ ~ \ Does the parcel meet the minimum~t area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes 0 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 If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No 0 Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/SIW V R/S/W V R/S/W V m Consultation ~ 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~i Application fee l Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable I Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ;/.~ 13. P ~ y....'" I" cf ~ S;gn""" Applicant Lt.,;..../'I\. e;,.. -:r:~Q./ r a,..-r-~~'\1 F~'1 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. .\1)~ Cu:...~fA{\<=j ýf'rt-i"'\V\+'T-Gr ð.c..c.~»l>t) \.-\7<- 'i'l\\\ ~ Ct;..+~ f""" ~~\Æ~f'I') A,J ~bt~~:~ r~1r::..~~,) ~';¿V\~{"7 \,V¡\\ b<..G'\f) Fr\-Þ:1-\\~ b~$e¡'f\V\t-) 'H' ~i'ftì'\~t~4 (.,00 ,.,.. 7DD 71.."'¿U-e. ~~ 4'1~ ?h.c-.{\~ f'\c;f- ~~ttv~ 'Mf"c:t:-t\\~ è:..Cil"flfYIl.{f\rt-j /:)r c.~u5< ~~~j~?\iÞr\.. t-.\ï::> <..t.~ 6'1\ f',,",b\ìí:.. ·~d\rti·-.z' ð.{'€. '"~~. ~ì5 "'~~¡¡..') ~rr,V\r;¿¡ìt .~\\\ frv'¡ì~e ~~~Þ\-e. hc>'~>-''') '~r n-e\f¡(·~I\t-? Please explain how the project confonns to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. \Ï'\~ fr-:.-rz-<+j '7 ~~jV\~~~ ~""'~J~~t.u~ ~\7'¿""V;~C.,\· bj~~ V\9£:> c-~Ò'W\~-v..t'\,) f141\Þ c..c.'tY\f4-;1>~~ \}oJ H"~ -+\\~ Q,;.f\;h"" (,~~\:P.~hl>ut '.~ ~6+- ~Q.-.~ n þ'<. 6.V"\ \7>""~. ,~b ~~~ i-Þ ~~ þ\A~ \~~~ ~~~ w~\\ c~~l..\'" ~t\4 f'I~~jhÞ.Ói"~ <:.14():¡¡~ 'J-Í'\\ \>'"'- f~~~' \1'~ .p~~T-,? f¡t? \I..I'~~", ~~j~~-h~ CC\,\$~~~br\ \át\~ v.~~ ~~N\~"~~ ~ \~~:t~ J.Q.~' (2-<7'~'4\ttc;\{ ~4Þc\'~Vì7~~17 4f<2.- - ~\c>~ w\\~tr'"\ Q..~~~~~ R-\ Z.é~~~ j ~~"~4 ~~ 7~XV~ b) A \ex:ql ~$j~tV\ o.f'\~ Þ J l.\r\;>6.V\ ?~<vìCR. 7- 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. r ~Þ\ ì <:... \..\~ \ r\-\~~ ì r--Oc:.~7 ) ~d ~17 e.<\J< .p é d<~ $~b'-\ \~ (\~ Þe- V'\~<\-f¡ý~) ~Wf'tcÞ:..d '- 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 fiom the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to lùnitthe 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 ofa buildingpennit. 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 pennit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered mirúmwn: ALL APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. _ The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements h, All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights I. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other pub lie ways within or adj acent to the development J. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, stonn drains) and connections at the site 1. AIly driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. AIly proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. Ifproject is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Lf~ ~ ignature of applicant '2- --- J g' ~ C~ Date ~-~ 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.lfadditionaI space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. I, The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shaH be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose ofthe Zoning Ordinance. 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. F--<¡ 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 Pennit 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 comments 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 '1. Date (l~C f~ ·;:~;;"';;:;:;¡--IRf c¿g-_.~ .--/ -.~ .~ -.. ,," ~, .- -o. ~......._-,.. . a,...'-......~ , ~ ((:'"J) ·I~"'::.· I \. \ .... ..-"'-.....-- J---- F -, . .I .~-_/ C",J LD OJ C'-I ,.,- .... .," :'. ...........;::!...:::::::)......... ......¿:~:::>.. .... ", ..~I ", .... ,'-r CO I:.D CJ LD --....--................ l./""'-- ¡" F C"~ Lf) co C··J ~ ,::) r,,1 ~ r··J r-·~"! ¡ I .:) II ,"t-=:..J I H-;¡¡ ,__l :----'_._---~ ¡--' : ! ; g : ; ~ --.............. - .:..:: .~ , - ¿'j ~) 'of ."j i:.- ~ ~ r~ -- o C·J "=t c',·! ,-- -".. ... -. "'. r " \ \ '1"1. , ' I '., :,-~-) ] co ill CO l'J .' r9R~ 1:1 A:., " " c:) "7::¡ c: '=1 i.~._t ", .-- :"1:-', 111 ,~-) ...'::- \, i__j ~~ '_I .- iJJ C D - ,-¡', i) i :]J ,_'j .... ...,- c:) ~=! ....... I; : D 1_1 QJ r=¡ Il' '_' CI :=- .;... .,- \_~ I I' ", I,: ) ...._.r .....,. ....::.-.. ..l '-'-. ( "':~{ .ß·····.. ..;...-:. \ ,.:::.' II -- ,- '~...1 - ¡-¡ 'I -- - , , /.:..- .,./l'/~ "~ ("'.. -.......--- I II ... " ", ::(:~)) ~-:---~'" I ~. '.,., I:~ ~ ':11 '~::-:=.:::.:.., "... ~.~>.<-~~~·~:S~2"'-i.&'W2::.:z:,~ti31~~~1~~~::~~~~~ -----.-------¡ i ! i I ! ..,. IÏ(')07 ';::CI::JuL -<::';';'::;,-:) co to OJ r'-l '.--..- c.. => \'J LD CO r'~ C"I L[) CO r'~ "O-,Bl ~-/i 1 I - N I T""" I I I I I I I I I I,l ~ ,,~~-,9l I I I I I I E I I 0 M I 0 -' I c:r: M I N I 0 I Q) I c:r: I I I I I I,l "l/~ B-J ~ I I I I >- ~ I <{ b T""" I :t:: It) I w ëo I :¡:; I 0::'::: V Õ> <{CT ::> I b <II I I C)'<t ëo Z~ I I v 5"- I I :::::¡ I :-æJ- I I I I k-- ,,17/£ V-, I I I I I I I 119~/~ ~-,9~ = I - ...- I m I Õ> I T""" 119~/6 9-,U I I I I f I zsez I B9Œ ___J IIO~,BZ r -r} t=!eelwOOd li '" 0 '" ~ li '" 0 '" ~ ii > 0( III t=: Zoning I ,., ~ I!! ŒJ _AG3 ~ _:EP II ;;¡ _AG1 " t=: it AR j J _AV C, _C2 _ C2CVOD 11 _12 _ PC£) _ PRO' _ Pl'O R1 R2 _f{3 _R4 - Applicants Name: James C and Laura B Parrish Existing Zoning: R1 Proposed Zoning: R1 S Tax Map Number: 77.10-7-26 Magisterial District: Windsor Hills Area: 0.5 acre February 22, 2005 No Scale Roanoke County Department of Community Development ~.. 1.· .' ". ACTION NO. ITEM NO. +t - ¡ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of ordinance granting a drainage easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia situated along Glenmary Drive, Catawba Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge tif County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~1~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The first reading of this ordinance occurred during the March 8, 2005 meeting of the Board. Glenmary Drive was reconstructed and widened from its intersection with Route 647 (Dow Hollow Road) to the end of state maintenance at the entrance to the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. The project was funded through the Roanoke County Secondary System Six Year Road Plan and administered by Roanoke County under an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The proposed easement will contain a concrete V-ditch, pipes, and other drainage structures that will be maintained by VDOT. FISCAL IMPACT: No appropriation of funds is required for this action. ALTERNATIVES: (1) Approve the ordinance granting a drainage easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia, as shown on the attached plat. (2) Do not approve the ordinance at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. " H -, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG GLEN MARY DRIVE ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THE CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff is coordinating the development of the Center for Research and Technology; and, WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia requires a drainage easement on the County's property along Glenmary Drive as shown on a plat prepared by Lumsen Associates, P.C. entitled "Plat Showing New Permanent Drainage Easement (9,917 sq. ft.) to be granted to the Commonwealth of Virginia" dated November 1, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the proposed drainage easement will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of Roanoke. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on March 8, 2005, and a second reading was held on March 22, 2005. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and 1 .' \-\- f are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance of a drainage easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the completion of reconstruction of Glenmary Drive in connection with Roanoke County's development of the Center for Research and Technology. 3. That donation to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a drainage easement on the County's property (Tax Map No. 64.01..3-1) along Glenmary Drive as shown on the "Plat Showing New Permanent Drainage Easement (9,917 sq. ft.) to be granted to the Commonwealth of Virginia," prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., and dated November 1, 2002, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the County Administrator, or any assistant county administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 2 co ¡--... ¡--... ::tf::: W I- ::> o n::: ... ~ If) ~ i!:~ Q~ :1E;¡:.... ~~jS ~""æ ä:jSV) §<:L:i ~ ~~ <:Q.: ~ - ~(r¡~ ~I.o..CXJQ::" l°ì=~d õì=~~Q.. ..,: Ø:: ð ~ 0)' co~(..)~1") ......~4JV)~ ~CLð~crj ¡...;: ~"""é ~ Q:: I l&.I .. 0) ~ ~ co co <: w > ã: o >- a: « ~ z W .-J ð I -- O°lC) I V)V)Q -.t~V)~-.t ,......--9:: --:>-.~<.5d 01- Q.. "':Q::-:<..5 COLaJ lÒ _. Q t- :>-. co ~~ ~I ~ ~ !I /~ " )-ç; t>, <9l¿0¿ ~ ~:§ I ÝII'/J !:: Q3 .~ :S' ~ I § ~ ¡J ðn .10 t¡,l¿0/c:;t ~. ~ & I '~~/..I6I ;l°IS' ' ,n..... .g 'Jr/ l?1l¿1."" - "" , I, '''''..11.... 1 ~ I &-4~ ~O:o i ~ 2;~~ x 5~&-4 ~ I :r: ~ 2; '0:( ~~~~ I '0:( ~ ~ l1.J · ã: i2:: CI) QJ XI ~~ 2 2;~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '-I . (JJ ~ kJ c.b :$ I- ~ -<.J _ 0::: - ~ ~ a g: ,--. ". ~ ~ >-~ 6 ~ ~~ ~ ~'o:( ~ §§ r:: ~ ~<n ~ ~ ~ - ÞOo.I r-...¡ <: ~ 0 ~ a"'C ~ ~ -J~ o '0:( '0:( ~ ~ ß~ ~ .c¡ ¡.::::s: ~ o 'o:(~ c l.) 2 '0:( ~ (ì)ü ~ ~ ~ ::::~ ~ t- ~ 2t- ~~ ~o ~o ~~ ~ :::: o~ t-~ ~ð i5~ ~~ ~~vs t-~ e5~~ ~~¡ ~~~ . Q:: Q:: ~ t-::s . ~~~ ~iSCI)~ t-t-Ö ~æ~~ ~a~ ~~~~ M:!i:5t-~(f)eJ~a.: ~J:S~;::~~~ ~ffi)w~:5~~~ a::~2:a.:~;Z:a:i ~~~~~~§cS ~ft~~~~~S (f)(f) O;t- 0(5 ~~o§l~E~~ g~ ~~~ ~!.&J ð~~ ~~\&J :::Ea:~ ~~~ ~E ~ ;J:: ~J ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~o o Z ;;; in C'? o .;' o o N :;.; W -I c( o C/) f- ..... LO C'( ..... o ò z W ~ I- :::¡; c( 0 o 0 W -I ¡¡: D D c( o ..--lrI:¿: :;~o "1o;'~ ~NU ""0... ""z ~ ~ UJ ~~o ~~<J) .. .. :¿: UJ><~ z«-I aU-@) I -I 0... ::( :¿: ~ ::( ~ UJ UJ co ~ ..-- z 0 UJ ~ > N « « z z 8CT\G UJ...oc¿ ~~> ~ N - &x~ 0000 ooz ~ ,« ~qo ~o...c¿ UCf) . cr:: CL.µ.:¡ ~z f:2~ E-......J ~q- _Cf) ucr:: o~--< (f) µ.:¡ ~ (f»Z ~c:Cõ ::::::>cr:: ZCf)- m> µJcr::~ Qµ.:¡µ':¡ (f)µ':¡:::S:::: -.:::::'zO ~_Z ............ 0--< ...-J Z ° ----:!µ.:¡o:;:: ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance approving an agreement for acquisition of a radio tower and related equipment and assignment of lease for the tower on Twelve O'Clock Knob from U. S. Cellular SUBMITTED BY: Anne Marie Green Director of General Services. APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge £.jf County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: U.S. Cellular currently owns an 80 foot tower located on Twelve O'Clock Knob, and wishes to sell it to the County. It is no longer useful to the company for cellular phone technology, but is ideally located for the County's new paging system, and will also be useful for the future digital radio system. U.S. Cellular leases the .25 acre on which the tower is located, and will assign the lease to the County if this purchase is approved. The lease is fully assignable, with an initial term until 2016, and an extension until 2026. The rent is currently $722 per month, and escalates based on the Consumer Price Index. Staff and U.S. Cellular have negotiated a purchase price of $25,000, which is less than the estimated $175,000 it would cost to purchase land and construct a suitable tower nearby. U.S. Cellular has also requested that the County begin paying the lease as of March 1, 2005. The first reading of this ordinance was held on March 8, 2005, and there have been no changes since that time. H-c\ FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase price is $25,000, plus the rent of $722 for March, 2005, which is available in the account for the new paging system. The rent on the land is currently $8,664 annually, and that funding is also available in the paging system account for the first year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the purchase of this tower, and agree to the assignment of the lease currently held by U.S. Cellular for the property on which the tower stands. 2 H-^ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF A RADIO TOWER AND RELATED EQUIPMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE FOR THE TOWER ON 12 O'CLOCK KNOB FROM U.S. CELLULAR WHEREAS, the implementation of a new paging system for Roanoke County government departments will necessitate additional transmitter locations not currently owned or under lease by the County, including 12 O'clock Knob; and WHEREAS, Ohio State Cellular Phone Company, Inc., D/B/A United States Cellular Wireless Communications ("U.S. Cellular"), currently has a ground lease agreement permitting the construction and operation of a communications antenna tower at the top of 12 O'Clock Knob in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, which lease expires on December 31 2016, and which lease also contains an option for renewal of said lease for an additional ten (10) years; and WHEREAS, U. S. Cellular has offered to sell its antenna tower and related equipment and personal property on 12 O'Clock Knob and assign its leasehold interests to Roanoke County for the sum of $25,000; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of this antenna tower and equipment and the existing leasehold interest for this tower site will provide a necessary antenna site for the County's new paging system and avoid additional costs and potential delays to be anticipated from the acquisition of another tower site; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 8, 2005, and the second reading was held on March 22, 2005. \1-0\ THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board hereby approves the purchase of a communications antenna tower and related equipment located on 12 O'Clock Knob in Roanoke County and the execution of an assignment of lease with Ohio State Cellular Phone Company, doing business as United States Cellular Wireless Communications, in substantially the form as attached to this ordinance, and authorizes the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute this agreement on behalf of Roanoke County, upon a form as approved by the County Attorney. 2. The County is authorized to assume all responsibilities under the existing lease with the property owner, including payments of all rents, as of March 1, 2005. 3. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. !J:J Q) m () en o Z LO o o N .q- ...J:: () L- ea ~ +- C a.: E c c a.: :> ...... a.: 00 ... 53:È E S t:: - ea E c..E Q) C OC ACTION NO. ITEM NO. :I-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission The four-year term of Donald Witt will expire on April 8, 2005. S 1- \. \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 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 March 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 10, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - March 1 and March 8, 2005 2. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $21,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for the continuation of Regional Citizen Corp Council and Community Emergency Response Tam (CERT) training 3. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a competitive grant in the amount of $87,500 from the Department of Homeland - Security for the purchase of a Wildland firefighting vehicle 4. Request to approve amendments to the bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 5. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a mini-grant in. the amount of $2,000 from the Division of Motor Vehicles for DUI check points 6. Request to accept Leffler Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary system 7. Request to approve renegotiated lease agreement for house and one acre of property at Happy Hollow Park 8. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $863.38 () I-I ( 9. Request to accept grants in the amount of $80,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate maps (DFIRMS) 10. Request to authorize execution of an updated contract with the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. to provide the CORTRAN services for Roanoke County for the period February 1 2005 - February 28, 2006 11 . Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grand funds in the amount of $12,955 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of cardiac heart monitors 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. 2 .. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $21,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for the continuation of Regional Citizen Corp Council and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training Richard E. Burch, Jr. Chief of Fire and Rescue APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ø County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~ SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County Fire and Rescue, in cooperation with the American Red Cross (ARC) and other localities in the region, has participated in the implementation for the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training in the past two years. A total of 369 citizens have graduated during the current round of training. The acceptance and appropriation of these funds will allow future classes to be funded which will allow for additional citizens to complete the course and past participants to be offered refresher classes. The CERT initiative is designed to prepare citizens to help themselves and others during times of catastrophic events until emergency responders can arrive or to provide further assistance along with emergency responders. Several trained members utilized their skills when they assisted with the shelter operations during last summer's floods. Additionally, five members went to assist ARC following the 2004 Florida hurricanes. FISCAL IMPACT: The program is fully funded through grant monies appropriated to Fire and Rescue. No matching funds are required; however, staff time is necessary to the successful completion of the classes. .$-' J-~ ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of grant funds in the amount of $21,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to the Fire and Rescue Department's budget. " ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 3=-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22,2005 Acceptance and appropriation of a competitive grant in the amount of $87,500 from the Department of Homeland Security for the purchase of a Wildland firefighting vehicle AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch, Jr. Fire and Rescue Chief Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. tll County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S CO~ ~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department applied for grant funding through the Department of Homeland Security. These competitive grants are intended to provide local jurisdictions with funding for equipment or apparatus. The Fire and Rescue Department was awarded $87,500 toward the purchase of a Wildland firefighting vehicle. The. department is responsible for a 30% match totaling $37,500 bringing the total cost of this vehicle to $125,000. Due to the wildland/urban interface in our jurisdiction, this type of vehicle is essential to providing services in case of a brush fire. By utilizing a wildland firefighting vehicle, resources can be brought closer to the scene and provide the necessary tools to extinguish the fire. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fire and Rescue Department has designated the $37,500 matching funds from their fiscal year 04-05 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept and appropriate the amount of $87,500 to the Fire and Rescue Department for the administration of the grant and the appropriate purchasing procedures necessary to complete this project. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 3-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution approving the amendments to the Bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board is requested to approve the amendments to the Bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, a Community Services Board (CSB) formed under and governed by Section 37.1-194 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The amended bylaws require the approval of the governing bodies of the political subdivisions that participate in the CSB. The amendments and additions to the bylaws are summarized as follows: 1. Division of Duties between "Board" and "Orqanization". The CSB is an operating community services board pursuant to Virginia Code Ann. § 37.1-194. Section 36.1- 194.1, which defines "operating community services board," however, fails to make a distinction between the board of directors appointed by the participating political subdivisions and the organization that provides services to consumers. In article I, Section I, the amended bylaws have delineated the difference between the "board" which is composed of individual persons appointed by the governing bodies of the participating political subdivisions and the "organization" which provides services to consumers. The powers and duties of the CSB Board are set forth in Article IV, and the powers and duties of the organization are set forth in Article V. ~-f 2. Board Composition. Article III clarifies the various compositional requirements of the Board and establishes a process to assist in the appointment of members who have the characteristics required by the State Code. There is no change in the number of members appointed by the Board by each participating political subdivision. Article III, Section 3.b. includes the State Code requirement that one-third of the Board members be consumers receiving services or family members of consumers. Article III, Section 3.c. sets out the State Code requirement that local government officials shall not comprise a majority of the Board nor shall any local government appoint more than two of its officials to the Board. The Amended bylaws include the State Code prohibition against employees or board members of organizations receiving funding from the CSB being appointed to serve on the Board. ~ 3. Appointment Procedures. Article III, Section 5 establishes new procedures for appointment of Board members that are intended to be helpful to the governing bodies of the participating political subdivisions. Three months prior to the expiration of a member's term, the appointing local government will be notified of the date of expiration of the member's term and the requirements of the State Code as to make up of the Board. As to the three at-large members of the Board who are nominated by the Board and approved by the governing bodies, the Board will meet three months prior to the expiration of a term to discuss potential appointees and, after approval by majority vote, submit their nominee or nominees to the governing bodies. 4. Deleç¡ation of Authority. Virginia Code Ann. § 37.1-197 sets out the powers and duties of an operating community services board. The State Code is, however, unclear as to which and to what extent the delegated duties and responsibilities require the approval of the participating political subdivisions. Article IV clarifies that the CSB may make all delegated decisions on its own behalf (such as the decision to accept or refuse gifts and disburse funds in pursuit of its purposes) without obtaining approval from each of the individual political subdivisions each time such a decision is to be made. There is no change in the requirement that the CSB's annual performance contract be approved by the governing body of each participating political subdivision or in the requirement that the financial records of the CSB be audited annually by an independent auditor. 5. No Capacitv to Bind or Extend Credit. To provide additional protection to the participating political subdivisions, Article VI of the Amended Bylaws clarifies that the CSB shall have no authority to bind the participating political subdivisions or extend their cred it. Attached to this report is a copy of the amended bylaws. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the approval of the Amended Bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare by the adoption of the attached Resolution. 2 J-4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 RESOLUTION RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS OF BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEAL THCARE WHEREAS, the Board of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare has unanimously approved Amended and Restated Bylaws (the "Amended Bylaws") and has requested that the governing body of each political subdivision participating in Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare ratify the Amended Bylaws which are attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is a participating political subdivision in Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, and this Board of Supervisors desires to grant the requested ratifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that this Board hereby ratifies the Amended Bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, a copy of which are attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. EXHIBIT A ~--~ AMENDED AND REST A TED BYLAWS of BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEAL THCARE (effective , 2005) ARTICLE I - INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS Section 1. Background. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare is an Operating Community Services Board formed pursuant to and governed by the provisions of Section 37.1-194 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia (the "Code"). As described in 37.1- 194.1 of the Code, the term "Community Services Board" denotes both "the board, the members of which are appointed" by the governing body of the local political subdivisions which established it, and the "organization which provides . . . services, through its own staff or through contracts with other providers." For purposes of clarity, all further references herein to the "Board" shall refer to "the board, the members of which are appointed" by the governing body of the local political subdivisions which established it, and all further references to "Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare" shall refer to the "organization which provides . . . services, through its own staff or through contracts with other providers." Section 2. Statement of Authority_ Pursuant to the authority granted by 37.1- 197(A)(5) of the Code, these Amended and Restated Bylaws constitute a partial statement of the rules, policies, and regulations concerning the rendition and operation of services and facilities under the direction or supervision of the Board and Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. ARTICLE II - PURPOSE The purpose of the Board and Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare is: Section 1. To serve as an Operating Community Services Board formed pursuant to Section 37.1-194 et. seq, of the Code of Virginia, providing a system of comprehensive community mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services for the benefit and under the control of the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and Counties of Botetourt, Craig, and Roanoke ("Local Political Subdivisions"). Section 2. To relate and integrate existing and planned programs. Section 3. To assure quality service and continuity of care in the areas of emergency services, case management, prevention, case finding, consultation, diagnosis, treatment, care, training, prescreening, case and rehabilitation by the establishment of new programs under direct administration of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare and the Board where current programs are nonexistent or inadequate, or by entering into affiliatory agreements with agencies already providing services for the enhancement of those services, or for the creation of such services. 13742/411147902.4 Cf4 Section 4. To provide continuing education to thè public, ongoing research, training of personnel and evaluation of ongoing programs. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD Section 1. Number. The Board shall consist of sixteen (16) members. Section 2. Manner of Appointment. The Councils of the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Board of Supervisors of the Counties of Botetourt and Roanoke, shall each appoint three Members of the Board, while the County of Craig shall appoint one Member of the Board (the "Local Political Subdivisions Appointees"). The Board shall further nominate three persons to serve as Members of the Board ("Board Nominees"), who must be appointed by the five Local Political Subdivisions in the manner provided in Section S.b of this Article ("Board Nominee Appointees") (Local Political Subdivision Appointees and Board Nominee Appointees are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Appointees"). Furthermore, if the immediate past Chair of the Board is not reappointed as an Appointee by virtue of the fact that he is ineligible to serve another term pursuant to Section 4 of this Article, then he shall serve as an advisor to the Board for an additional one year term and shall be entitled to attend all Board meetings. Section 3. Composition of the Board. a. In General. The Local Political Subdivisions shall endeavor to appoint Appointees and the Board shall endeavor to nominate Board Nominees which are broadly . representative of the Local Political Subdivision communities. Prior to making any appointment to the Board, the appointing authority shall disclose and make available to the public the names of those persons being considered for appointment. b. Persons Specifically Included. Notwithstanding the generality of the forgoing, at anyone time, one-third of the Board Members shall be identified consumers receiving services ("Consumers") or family members of Consumers ("Family Members of Consumers"), and at least one Board Member shall be a Consumer. c. Local Political Subdivision Official Representation on Board. The Board shall not be composed of a majority of local government officials (whether elected or appointed) (both, "Local Political Subdivision Officials"), nor shall any Local Political ·Subdivision be represented by Appointees to the Board by more than two Local Political Subdivision Officials of such Local Political Subdivision. The former requirement shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Less Than Maiority Requirement," while the latter shall be referred to as the "No Morè Than Two Requirement." d. Nongovernmental Service Provider Representation on Board. In general, no employee or board member of an organization which receives funding from Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare shall be appointed a Member of the Board; provided, however, nothing shall preclude any member of the Board from serving as ·an officer, 13742/4/1147902.4 2 0=i employee, board membèr, 'or in any other capacity for Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., The Roanoke Mental Hygiene Service, Incorporated, nor any other similar organization organized and controlled by the Board, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, or its Board Members which exists to support Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, nor shall such status as an officer, employee, board member, or the like of such an organization prevent such person ITom serving on the Board. Section 4. Term. Each Board Member shall serve for a term of three years, which . tenn shall begin on the first day of January of the year of appointment. The Board Members' terms shall continue to be staggered in an effort to ensure that no more than six Board Members' terms expire in any given year. No person shall be eligible to serve as a Board Member for more than three successive three-year terms, provided that a person who is appointed to fill a vacancy on the Board may serve three additional successive terms after the term in which the vacancy was created terminates. Section 5. Mechanics of Appointment. a. Local Political Subdivision Appointees. Three months prior to the natural expiration and immediately upon the unexpected expiration (death, disability, and the like) of the term of a Board Member who is a Local Political Subdivision Appointee, the Board shall notify the Local Political Subdivision which appointed him or her of: (i) the date on which such Board Member's term will expire or has expired; (ii) the number of successive terms that the Board Member will be eligible to serve upon the termination of the Member's current term; (íii) the number of Consumers and Family Members of Consumers who will be required to be appointed to the Board upon tennination of the Member's current term; (iv) the number of Local Political Subdivision Officials who will be eligible to be Members of the Board pursuant to the Less Than Majority Requirement, and the number of Local Political Subdivision Officials that such Local Political Subdivision will be eligible to appoint pursuant to the No More Than Two Requirement, both as of the expiration of the Member's current tenn; (v) any such other attributes which the Board Members may be required by the Code to have; and (vi) a recommendation by the Board as to the attributes that such Local Political Subdivision Appointee shall have in order to comply with the provisions of this Article and the Code. 13742/411147902.4 3 0=-1 The Local Political SubdivisÌon who nominated such Board Member whose term has expired or will expire shall thereafter promptly appoint a person who is eligible to serve on the Board pursuant to the provisions of this Article and the Code to fill such vacancy as of the date on which such term has expired or will expire. b. Board Nominee Appointees. Three months prior to the natural expiration and immediately upon the unexpected expiration (death, disability, and the like) of the terni of a Board Member who is a Board Nominee Appointee, the Board shall convene to discuss the attributes that a Board Member who replaces such other Board Member will likely need to possess in órder to comply with the provisions of the Article and with the Code, considering all of the facts and circumstances. After due consideration, the Board shall, by majority vote, nominate a person to fill such vacancy as of the date on which such term has expired or will expire (a "Board Nominee"). The Board shall submit the name of such Board Nominee to each of the Local Political Subdivisions. If each Local Political Subdivision approves such Board Nominee, the Board Nominee shall be deemed appointed by all of the Local Political Subdivisions. If any Local Political Subdivision disapproves such Board Nominee, the Board shall then convene again, and after due consideration, nominate a second person to fill such vacancy (the "Second Board Nominee"). The Second Board Nominee shall be deemed nominated by all Local Political Subdivisions upon approval by a majority of the Local Political Subdivisions. If the Local Political Subdivisions do not by majority vote . approve . of the Second Board Nominee, the Board shall continue to nominate persons until a majority of the Local Political Subdivisions does so approve. Section 6. Removal. a. Local Political Subdivision Appointees. Any Board Member who is a Local Political Subdivision Appointee may be removed for cause by the Local Political Subdivision which appointed him or her after he or she is given a written statement of the causes for his or her removal, and an opportunity to be heard by the Local Political Subdivision which appointed him or her or, at his or her election, the Board. b. Board Nominee Appointees, Any Board Member who is a Board Nominee Appointee may be removed for cause by majority vote of the Local Political Subdivisions after he or she is given a written statement of the causes for his or her . removal, and an opportunity to be heard by the Local Political Subdivisions or, at his or her election, the Board. ARTICLE IV - POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD The Board shall have the following powers and duties: Section 1. To review and evaluate all existing and proposed public community mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services and facilities available to serve the communities of the Local Political Subdivisions, and to review and evaluate any private services and facilities which receive funds from Blue Ridge Behavioral 13742/4/1147902.4 4 -0-</ Healthcare, and to advise the City Councils and Boards of Supervisors of the Local Political Subdivisions as to its findings. Section 2. To review and evaluate programs either operated directly by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare or through contractual agreements to ensure the adequacy of service, conformance to standards accepted, and make certain that community needs for mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services are being met. Section 3. To' appoint an Executive Director of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare (the "Executive Director") whose qualifications meet the standards fixed by the Department and prescribe his duties. The compensation of such Executive Director shall be fixed by the Board and within the amounts made available by appropriation therefor. Section 4. To set performance objectives and evaluation criteria for the Executive Director, who will be responsible directly to the Board for all aspects of programs dir~ctly and indirectly under the purview of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. Section 5. To direct Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare to accept or refuse gifts, donatiõns, bequests or grants of money or property from any source, and to cause Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare to utilize the same as authorized by the Board, it being the intent of the Local Political Subdivisions to presently and expressly authorize the Board to make all such future decisions on behalf of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. Section 6. To apply for and accept loans as authorized by the governing bodies of each of the Local Political Subdivisions. Section 7. It being the intent of the Local Political Subdivisions to presently and expressly authorize the Board to make all such future decisions on behalf of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare (subject to the limitations provided for in Article VI hereof), upon recommendation of the Budget and Finance Committee, to cause Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare: . a. to establish and maintain a line of credit sufficient to maintain the day-to- day -operations of the programs under its jurisdiction; b. to guarantee the obligations of The Roanoke Mental Hygiene Service, Incorporated or Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., both of which are Virginia non-stock corporations controlled by the Board and which operate to support the mission of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare; and c. to enter into such other similar arrangements which support the objectives and purposes of Blue Ridge Behavioral Hea~thcare. Section 8. To cause Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare to disburse funds (in any manner :deemed appropriate, whether by loan, grant, or otherwise) in furtherance of its purposes or in the exercise of its powers or duties, it being the intent of the Local Po litical 13742/4/ 147902.4 5 J~1 Subdivisions to presently and expressly authorize the Board to make all such future decisions on behalf of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. Section 9. To take and cause Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maximize the involvement and participation of consumers and family members of consumers in policy fonnulation and services planning, delivery, and evaluation. Section 10. To gene"rally direct and supervise Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare's operations and the exercise by it of its powers and duties provided for in Article V hereof and by the Code, to the extent detennined reasonable by the Board, or as recommended by the Local Political Subdivisions. Section 11. To generally take any such actions which are reasonably related to any of the forgoing and which are consistent with Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare's purposes identified in Article II hereof. ARTICLE V - POWERS AND DUTIES OF BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE The powers and duties of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare are: Section 1. To be the sole recipient of local tax funds to be matched by State and/or Federal funds for the mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services programs and to have authority for the expenditure of all such local tax funds allocated to ~ . Section 2. To submit to the governing body of each Local Political Subdivision an annual perfonnance contract for community mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services (the "Annual Perfonnance Contract") for approval by each such Local Political Subdivision prior to submission of the Annual Perfonnance Contract to the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services (the "Department"). Section 3. Within amounts appropriated therefor, to execute such programs and maintain such services as may be authorized under such Annual Perfonnance Contract. Section 4. In accordance with its Annual Perfonnance Contract, to enter into contracts with other providers for the rendition or operation of services or facilities. Section 5. To make further rules or regulations concerning the rendition or operation of services and facilities under its direction or supervision, subject to these Amended and Restateq Bylaws and applicable standards or regulations of the Department. I Section ~. To prescribe a reasonable schedule of fees for services provided by personnel or facilities under the jurisdiction or supervision of Blue Ridge Behavioral 13742/4/1147902.4 6 ~~ Healthcare and for the ~anner of collection of same; provided, however, that all collected fees shall be included in the Performance Contract submitted to the Local Political Subdivisions and provided, further, that such collected fees shall be used only for the provision of community mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services. Section 7. To ensure that the financial records of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare are audited annually by an independent auditor approved by the Director of Finance of the City i of Salem, and that the auditor's report is submitted to the Local Political Subdivisions and to the Department. Section 8. To develop joint annual written agreements, consistent with policies and procedures established by the Virginia Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse. Services Board (the "State Board"), with local school divisions; health departments; boards of social services; housing agencies, where they exist; courts; sheriffs; area agencies on aging; and regional Department of Rehabilitative Services offices (the "Participating Agencies"). The agreements shall specify what services will be provided to consumers, and Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare shall make best efforts to cause each of the Participating Agencies to develop and implement the agreements and to review them annually. Section 9. To generally take any such actions which are reasonably related to any of the forgòing and which are consistent with Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare's purposes identified in Article II hereof, or which are otherwise expressly or impliedly required by the Code, it being the intent of the Local Political Subdivisions which have adopted these Amended and Restated Bylaws that all powers not expressly reserved herein to the Local Political Subdivisions or to the Board are granted to Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. ARTICLE VI ~ POWERS EXPRESSLY NOT GRANTED Neither the Board nor Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare shall have the power to bind the current or any future governing body of the Local Political Subdivisions, or the Local Political Subdivisions themselves, for any debt or other obligation of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. ARTICLE VII- OFFICERS Section 1. Officers. The Officers of the Board shall be Chair, Vice-Chair, Treasurer and Secretary. Section 2. Chair. The duties of the Chair shall be: a. To preside at all meetings of the Board and the Executive Committee. b. To appoint all committees deemed necessary for. the operation of the Board as authorized by the Board. 13742/4/1147902.4 7 Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. ~!./ c. To work closely with the Executive Director and staff. d. To perfonn any other duties detennined by the Board. Vice-Chair. The duties of the Vice-Chair shall be: a. To perfonn the duties of the Chair in his/her absence. b. To perfonn any other duties as assigned by the Board or the Chair. Treasurer. The duties of the Treasurer shall be: a. To perfonn the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair and the Vice-Chair. b. To serve as Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee. c. To perfonn any other duties as assigned by the Board or the Chair. Secretary; The duties of the Secretary shall be: a. To perfonn the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair, the Vice- Chair, and the Treasurer. b. To ensure that accurate records of all Meetings of the Board are maintained. c. To perfomì any other duties as assigned by the Board or the Chair. ARTICLE VIII - NOMINATIONS, ELECTION, AND TERMS OF OFFICE Section 1. Nominating'Committee. A Nominating Committee will be appointed by the Board in time to make recommendations to the Board with regard to a slate of prospective Board officers at least 30 days prior to the end of each calendar year. Section 2. Election of Officers. The Board shall elect its officers at the last meeting preceding the new calendar year. A majority of those present and voting shall constitute an election. Section 3. Tenn of Office. The tenn of office shall begin on January I and shall be for one year. No officer may serve more than two consecutive tenns in the same office. Section 4. Board. 13742/4/1147902.4 Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the officers shall be filled by the 8 3-1 ARTICLE IX - lyfEETINGS OF THE BOARD Section 1. Regular meetings. Regular meetings shall be held at a time to be detennined by the Board. Section 2. Special meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or upon written request of three Members of the Board, Section 3. Quorum. The quorum for all Board meetings shall be six Members, including one officer of the Board. Section 4. Executive Committee Meetings. The Executive Committee shall meet at the discretion of the Chair. Section 5. Executive Committee Quorum. The quorum for all Executive Committee meetings shall be a majority of the Committee. ARTICLE X - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Section 1. Executive Committee Membership. The elected officers of the Board and the immediately preceding Chair of the Board shall constitute the Executive Committee. In addition, if no Local Political Subdivision Appointee appointed by a given Local Political Subdivision has been elected an officer of the Board (the "Unrepresented Local Political Subdivision"), then one Local Political Subdivision Appointee appointed by such Unrepresented Local Political Subdivision shall also serve on the Executive Committee. The Chair and Secretary of the Board shall be, respectively, Chair and Secretary of the Executive Committee. Section 2. Duties. It shall be the duty of this committee to conduct the necessary business between meetings of the Board. All actions taken shall be subject to ratification at the next regular meeting of the Board. Section 3. Annuai Evaluation, It shall be the duty of this committee to conduct an annual evaluation of the Executive Director for presentation to the full Board and to act for the Board in contract negotiations with the Executive Director. ARTICLE XI - BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE STANDING COMMITTEES Section 1. Ex-officio Members of Committees. The Chair of the Board and the Executive Director shall be ex-officio members of all Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare committees to which they are not specifically appointed. Section 2. Standing Committees. There shall be the following standing committees, whose functions shall be limited to advising the Board: 13742/4/1147902.4 9 J:.L a. Budget and Finance. This Committee shall review the budgets, financial affairs and policies, and audit reports of the agency and its subcontractors, and make recommendations to the Board. In addition, it shall aid in the presentation of budgets to governments and other bodies or persons. b. Community Relations. This Committee shall implement a program of information for the various agencies and governments and the public in conjunction with the Executive Director. c. Community Support Services Committee. This Committee will review community support programs and make recommendations to the Board for the enhancement of these services. In addition, this committee will participate in the Board's planning process for the Community Support Services program area. d. Administrative Services Committee. The function of this Committee is to review and make recommendations to the Board concerning Human Resources and Quality Assurance policies and guidelines. e. Child and Family Services Committee. This Committee will review child and family services programs and make recommendations tö the Board for the enhancement of these services. In addition, this Committee will participate in the Board's planning process for the Child and Family Services program area. f. Prevention Assessment and Counseling Services Committee. This Committee will review assessment and counseling programs and make recommendations to the Board for the enhancement of these services. In addition, this Committee will participate in the Boardfs planning process for the Assessment and Counseling Services program area. ARTICLE XII - lNDEMNIFICA nON Section 1, Indemnification of Officers and Directors. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare shall indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative (including an action or suit by or in the right of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare to procure ,a judgment in its favor) by reason of the fact that he is or was a director or officer of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare or is or was serving at the request of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcareas a director or officer of a corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, against judgments, fines, amounts paid in settlement, and expenses (including attorneys' fees) actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection with such. action, suit or proceeding except only in relation to any claim, issue or matter as to which such person shall have been finally adjudged to be liable for his gross negligence or willful misconduct. Each such. indemnity shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors and administrators of such person. 13742/411147902.4 10 J:'f Section 2. Qualification for Indemnification. Any indemnity under subsection (1) above shall (unless authorized by a court) be made by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare only as authorized in the specific case, upon a detennination that the director or officer was not guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct in the perfonnance of his duty, and, in case of a settlement, that such settlement was, or if still to be made is, consistent with such indemnity, and the best interests of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. Such detennination shall be made (i) by the Board of Directors by a majority vote of a quorum consisting of directors who were not parties to such action, suit or proceeding, or (ii) if such a quorum is not obtainable, or, even if obtainable, a quorum of disinterested directors so directs, by independent legal counsel in a written opinion. If the detennination is to be made by the Board of Directors, it may rely, as to all questions of law, on the advice of independent counsel. Section 3. Expenses of Defense. Expenses incurred in defending an action suit or, proceeding, whether civil, administrative or investigative, may be paid by Blue Ridge BehavioraJ Healthcare in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit or proceeding as authorized by vote of the persons provided in subsection (2) of this section, upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of the director or officer to repay such amount unless it shall ultimately be detennined that he or she is entitled to be indemnified by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare as authorized in this section. Section 4. Nonexclusive Right of Indemnification. The right of indemnification provided by this section shall not be exclusive of any other rights to which any director or officer may be entitled, including any right under policies of insurance that may be purchased and maintained by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare or others, even as to claims, issues or matters in relation to which Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare would not have the power to indemnify such director or officer under the provisions of this section. Section 5. Insurance. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare may purchase and mairitain, at its sole expense, insurance against all liabilities or losses it may sustain in consequence ,of the indemnification provided for in this section, in such amounts and on such tenns and conditions as the Board of Directors may deem reasonable. ARTICLE XIII - CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT It shall be the policy of this Board to encourage, and be receptive to, consumer involvement. Meetings of the Board shall be open to the public. Liaison with identified consumer groups will be maintained to facilitate optimum consumer involvement. Periodic reports (such as the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Annual Report, Newsletter, and evaluation reports) will be available to the public, and copies distributed to appropriate consumer .organizations. 13742/4/1147902.4 11 ~-1 ARTICLE XIV - CONFLICT OF INTEREST Whenever a Board Member or Committee member has cause to believe that a matter to be voted upon would involve him in a conflict of interest, he or she shall comply with the provisions of the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict ofInterest Acts, Sections 2.1-599, et seq:, of the Code.- ARTICLE XV Robert's Rules of Order, revised, shall govern the Board in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these Bylaws. ARTICLE XVI These Bylaws shall be reviewed annually by the Board and may be amended at any regular meeting of the Board by two-thirds vote of those present and voting, notice having been submitted in writing 15 days prior to the meeting, subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the Local Political Subdivisions. Adopted at a regular meeting of the Board vote. , 2005, by unanimous Secretary of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Ratified by: Botetourt County Roanoke City Craig County Salem Roanoke County Ratification Reviewed as of Secretary of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 13742/4/1147902.4 12 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: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate a mini-grant in the amount of $2,000 from the Division of Motor Vehicles for DUI check points SUBMITTED BY: James R. Lavinder Chief of Police Elmer C. Hodge é-f:t County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County has been awarded a mini-grant in the amount of $2,000 to support the Police Department's efforts to address Driving under the Influence (DUI). These funds will allow the Police Department to establish DUI check points throughout the County. FISCAL IMPACT: No matching funds required. The County will receive $2,000 grant money. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of this grant in the amount of $2,000 from the Division of Motor Vehicles. ," ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 3-lt; AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept Leffler Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director, Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ê/l County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Subsequent to a submitted petition, adjacent property owners are requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requesting that they accept 0.12 mile of Leffler Lane, from the intersection with Poages Mill Drive, Route 1780, to its cul-de-sac. County staff has followed the procedures for Rural Additions, as approved by the Board of Supervisors. The road in question does meet all County and VDOT criteria for participation in the Rural Addition Program. Staff has prepared design plans to submit to VDOT that would bring Leffler Lane up to minimum State standards and make it eligible for acceptance into the Secondary System of State Highways. Speculative interest does exist for this addition, and the affected property owners have paid the necessary amount to fund their financial requirement. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. Project subsidized by speculative interest paid by property owners and by Rural Addition Program funds administered by VDOT. ~-b STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Leffler Lane into the Secondary Road System. 2 J:b THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 22nd DAY OF MARCH 2005, ADOPTED THE FOllOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF lEFFlER lANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described below was established on November 22, 1978, and is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has deemed this County's current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this County to recommend additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia, and WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this street, this Board finds that speculative interest does exist, WHEREAS, this Board has determined that the pro rata share of speculative interests is the sum of $14,784, as prescribed by Section 33.1-72.1 (D), Code of Virginia, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the following street be added to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 (D), Code of Virginia: Name of street: leffler lane From: Intersection of Poaaes Mill Drive, Rte 1780 To: Cul-de-sac length: 0.12 mi. Guaranteed R-O-W: 50 ft. Plat Recorded: November 22,1978 Plat Book: 9 Page: 122 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, this Board requests that VDOT improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards as shown in the submitted plans, funding said improvements pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 (D) Code of Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ~ >- ë :;¡ D Õ ü 1 ë '" E .r= 0 0) ~ :;( œ :t: .r:: J: a> ¡; - en '- 0 E Lr) 0 a> I õ) co 0 en I M 0 ..... c:;¡ ""0 -g t: ;; 0 a CJ Q en ~ Q .c. E - .s 0 .. .s 0'1 >. C ¡¡¡ :; 0 '" 0 f/J -c "'C E <1J ~ => .w " CU ""0 "Z! .w III lJ f/J en a: f.tJ .. 0 II ~ r-I 0 r-I '- '..-i 0- a. ::E " In Õ !IJ ~ "'C <1J \() l CU 0 c: 'iii p.., en ~ >:: D: Š i:: 0 0 E 0 Ll- e; "'" "> (f) ~ '5 .<: Z .!:!.. ..c :;¡ 0 g, f/J l- i õ 0 E '" .<: E 0 .9 r:I .:t" :;; :z; ..-. ..., ~ ~ > % ã '" 0 < <~~ ¿ ... ~ CI) "$ ~ Ë .,..:........'!..3. , .. o WI ¡:.. .¡; .! co ¡ :¡ ...J 0 ~ c: i <'I 'õ i ...- "'C . -< 0 0 00 g ~ ~ .w Q I- () <1J 'r-¡ 0 n ~ .. '5 ¡:: z 0 § 'r-! .w .. ...-i Ii :g 'i ~ <C ~ r-I CU ..¡ ::J ¡x; :: E. ò :; 0 å: "Q Lr) ~ ~ ~ ..- .... ~ ö .. ìô 0 ¡; ¡,; " '" ~ '" '" C> '" 0> " " " " ., " 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. II.. . . ¡x; .. 1:1 ., ~ 0 ~ "'C 'r-! ." ..¡ 'ã Q t: I '" 1 ~ ] ~ n r-I "8 ~ "8 æ ,... II> m II> II> ,,- ë -g "0 '0 ." "'" "'C ] "5 1 '..-i 0 C> C> " " ¿: " 0 " " " " 0 ... c c c 0 0 0 0 ~ I- ~ E !IJ .!! "" g} '5i ~ ~ '"t:! CU ~ -< 0 " Q p.., i " " l '::: ~. .b 4- to 0 i * .! ¡,; ä " " " .. " ã ã ë ¡; ;; ã u ...; ... d " 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 c: ¡:; ¿ '0 11 "Q ï: "" "" :c ä co " " " " H "Q 't> "0 "'" "'" '0 "Q 15 Is Is 11 15 h II ã g !j u u u u u 0 " 0 0 eo ~ ~ a: g c; ~ a: g a: g c: § ex: § ~ ë ã ;2 ë ~ ã ë ã ~ ¡; ~ ã ~ ¡; ~ ù: I- ë: ù: ä: It ë: ù: .... ii: oJ: ¡¡: ù: ¡¡: ù: ¡¡: ( 0 > <1J " ~ j '¡¡ 1: 0> g ..¡ .'" '¡¡ :. Q) .!;; CI) ,... :¡; '¡¡ l¡..¡ .~ " l¡..¡ "g ä j " 2; " " I ¡¡ " C) ..: .; .. .. - N '" ... II> .. r- ei ex: 2; Õ z J:l:, 'ò b '" ø 11 ëi u ';:j E ž w ::; :z: ~ ,s 1= õ -< :i ~ ~' z o ¡:: -< u ¡¡: ¡:: c:: w U ~ ë. J-b Rural Addition Acceptance - Roanoke County Department of Community Development Road Name: Leffler Lane Road Length: 0.12 miles . . Rt 1780 Description: from the Intersection of Poages Mill Drive, . to its cul-de-sac Magisterial District: Windsor Hills March 14, 2005 Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet ACTION NO. T-rJ ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve renegotiated lease agreement for house and one acre of property at Happy Hollow Park SUBMITTED BY: Pete Haislip Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Elmer C. Hodge t f! County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Ordinance 092298-7 authorized the lease of the house and one acre of property located at Happy Hollow Park to Andrew Bailey and a lease agreement dated November 11, 1998, was entered into between the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Bailey. This lease agreement has been renegotiated with Mr. Bailey, to provide for a phased increase in the monthly rental to bring it in line with current market rates. Effective April 10, 2005 the rate will be $500 per month and increase to $600 per month on September 10, 2005. His wife will also be added as a Tenant. The term(s) of the lease is for one year, thereafter the lease shall continue until one of the parties gives the other thirty days written notice. The lessee shall be responsible for all utilities and yard maintenance with Roanoke County being responsible for structural and major maintenance. By ordinance, rental fees are placed into a separate account for future house maintenance and repairs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the renegotiated lease and approval for the County Administrator or his designee to execute said lease. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J-R AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $863.38 SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Lorraine Lange Assistant Superintendent of Instruction Elmer C. Hodge t II County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County Schools and Virginia Western Community College (VWCC) have an agreement whereby the college provides college level courses in English, U.S. History, AP Calculus and certain technical and science subjects. These courses are taught by Roanoke County teachers who meet the college's criteria for adjunct professors. Monies that have been collected exceed the expenses; therefore, this is a request for these additional funds to be appropriated. Roanoke County Schools added students to the dual enrollment count for the first semester. VWCC has reimbursed the school system $863.38 for services rendered. FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County schools will be reimbursed $863.38 for expenses already incurred. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $863.38 to the instructional program. 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: March 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of grants in the amount of $80,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) SUBMITTED BY: George W. Simpson, III, P.E. Assistant Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge Vi County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has become one of four localities in Virginia to become a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) with FEMA in an attempt to improve floodplain management and flood hazard mitigation. Objectives of the CTP Program are to: (a) give recognition to communities that are actively working to identify and map their flood risks, (b) maximize limited funding by combining resources and aligning local, state, and regional goals with FEMA's national objectives, and (c) maintain national standards consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. We have offered to utilize our base mapping and staff time to use the FEMA funds to obtain Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM's) for Roanoke County. The DFIRM's will replace the current paper copies of the official flood plain maps making determinations easier and more accurate and will allow the flood plain data to be utilized in the GIS system. FISCAL IMPACT: The County will be receiving grants in the amount of $30,000 and $50,000 for a total of $80,000. No matching funds are required. Our contribution to the project will be the utilization of our existing base mapping and staff's time to administer a contract to prepare digital flood plain maps for Roanoke County. J"""";' , ~-cr STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting and appropriating the grants from FEMA in the total amount of $80,000 to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Roanoke County. 2 ., ACTION NO. ITEM NO. l]" -IÒ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to authorize execution of an updated contract with the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. to provide the CORTRAN services for Roanoke County for the period' February 1, 2005 - February 28, 2006 SUBMITTED BY: John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge é If County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR~~..¡~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR) provides the paratransit services of CORTRAN on behalf of Roanoke County. Riders must be at least 60 years of age or be physically or mentally challenged as per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The CORTRAN program provides service to qualified County residents during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Reservations are made on a first-come, first-served basis, utilizing any of the vehicles available through the RADAR system. Each passenger pays a fee of $3.50 per one-way trip. The new contract with RADAR is based, on a $30.30 per hour rate, less the fares received. The average one-way trip for County residents is approximately 45 minutes: By comparison, the hourly rate for last year was $28.50 per hour. The rate increase by RADAR is necessary to cover the increased cost of labor, fuel, and insurance. The CORTRAN service provides curb-to-curb service for qualified County residents to any destination within the outer perimeter of Roanoke County (including points inside the Cities of Roanoke and Salem and the Town of Vinton). County Staff determines the eligibility of the users of the CORTRAN system in an effort to contain costs and prevent abuse. ~'D FISCAL IMPACT: $273,000 is included in the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget for the net cost of this program. No new appropriation of monies is requested at this time. Staff feels that the enrollment process and monitoring of any abuse of the system will continue to improve the availability of this program to the citizens of the County needing such service. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends authorizing the County Administrator to sign the renewal contract for CORTRAN service based on the $30.30 per hour rate for the February 1, 2005 - February 28, 2006 service period. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~- :tí9 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grand funds in the amount of $12,955 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of cardiac heart monitors SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch, Jr. Fire and Rescue Chief Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. ê ff County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, will award these cardiac heart monitors which will give Roanoke County new technology in cardiac defibrillation. FISCAL IMPACT: The department has budgeted funds for the 50% match that the State requires for the grant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of grant funds in the amount of $12,955 from the Virginia Department of Health into the Fire and Rescue Department's budget. , N~I GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA % of General Amount Fund Revenues Prior Report Balance $9,738,285 6.61%1 Addition from 2003-04 Operations 2,050,000 I Audited Balance at June 30, 2004 11,788,285 July 1, 2004 Explore Park Loan Repayment 20,000 Balance at March 22, 2005 11,808,285 8.02% Note: On December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance for 2004-05 at a range of 7.0%-8.0% of General Fund Revenues. 2004 - 2005 General Fund Revl $147,255,793 7% of General Fund Revenues $10,307,906 8% of General Fund Revenues $11,780,463 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ¿If County Administrator N - 'J-.. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL RESERVES County Capital Reserve (Projects not in the CIP, architectural/engineering services, and other one-tírne 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. February 22, 2005 Appropriation for projects for fiscal year 2004-2005 Virginia (50,000.00) Department of Transportation (VDOT) revenue sharing program March 8, 2005 Appropriation for the purchase of an Emergency Medical Services (155,000.00) Data Reporting System Balance at March 22, 2005 $5,268,848.06 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 March 22. 2005 $1,416,838,00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge f If County AdministratOr Approved By {V.. 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 March 22, 2005 $43,300.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ~ /-f County Administrator 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 FY2000-20010riginal budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,801,579) 198,421 FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriation 2,OÓO,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 March 22, 2005 $ 6,242,387 Submitted B) Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ê If County Administrator rv-~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. N- 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid-February 2005 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge êlf County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors $ $ $ 5,130,853.30 Payroll 2/11/2005 789,080.75 109,591.23 898,671.98 Payroll 2/25/2005 807,953.89 117,805.13 925,759.02 Manual Checks 991.53 991.53 Voids Grand Total $ 6,956',275.83 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. \'. rv-& ~ ..Q ... r-- \0 '" .." 00 0 00 - - 00 N t"- ..;- r-- \0 0 '" \0 <= ;£ 0 0 '" N N N on " "" E .. <¡: r-- 0- or, .." 00 ~ 00 or, ""ê 0- r-- ~ '" N ~ ..;- or, or, M 0 0 or, or, \0 ..;- 00 '" ~ C = '/. .. ~ 00 ~ =' N or, ,..¡ ~ or, 0; 00 ~ - '" or, 0; ~ N ,...; M or, or, 0; ~ N ,..¡ S .. ... "" \0 or, \0 on or, or, on \0 \0 or, or, ~ \0 or, \0 \0 \0 or, ~ 0- r-- \0 ..;- 00 0- 00 ~ 0 Q. C 0 .. >< ... " = N ~ ~ t:: " ... o¡j " .. '" ;.. ... ~ - 0 M \0 or, .... 0- \0 '" ~ or, N 0- - 00 ~ or, or, r-- '" N or, 00 ~ ... .. or, '" '" .... \0 or, M 0 N '" 0- on 0- N N 00 N '" 00 ~ r-- - \0 r-- ..;- N ~ 8 ..Q .....; ~ =' ~ 0; ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0; ~ 0 ¡-.: = 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ r..: 0.. E .. '" or, '" '" ... or, '" 00 ~ 00 or, .." N N N \0 M N \0 r-- \0 00 M N or, or, or, \0 00 ..;- ~ = c ... " ..;- ..;- 00 t"- \0 or, M t"- ..;- N \0 <= 0- N. N '" or, ..;- 00 N 00 0- ..;- r--" \0 <= C õi \0" \0" \0" ~ "," 00" Ñ N" -" 0\ 0\ ,.¡ 00" N" N" 0-" "," r-: N" ..;-" \0"' N" ..;-" 0-" Ñ .. - c ~ N 0- 0- .... r-- 0 00 ..;- ..;- \0 t"- r-- 0- 0 '" 0 0- <= \0 00 00 N 00 ;;¡ 0 M or, ..;- ~ '" ..;-" ..;- - M N" 00 '" - Q¡ - "'" or, ..;- on ..;-" .,; ..;-" '" c-.f Ô N" - .." N" .,; .... 1j 0- .." t"- o t"- t"- oo \0 r-- 00 or, 0- 00 - 0- M or, or, '" 0 00 0- or, on C \0 0- ~ ~ ~ ""ê r-- \0 ~ ~ '" M 00 \0 or, 0 .... ~ r-- r-- - r-- N t"- O- N 00 00 ~ or, r-- .." .. = ..t = ~ 0; vi ¡-.: 0 0; 0; vi N N 0; 00 ~ 2 ..Q " or, or, 0; or, '" or, or, '" or, '" E ~ or, 00 ..;- ~ 00 <= \0 ..;- 0 '" on \0 \0 \0 0 ..;- ~ or, or, M N M M on :ï; = 0 r-- or, M 00" ..;-" M ..;- 0 -" M" ~ N M" 0- N" M M. N or, \0 0 M M" 0- <= C ... S ..;-" ..;-" N" ..... M M r-: ..;-" 0" ..¿ \0" 00 00" 00" or, ..;-" .... 0" ..,f 00" ..;-" or," 00" ,.¡ .. C .. or, 00 0- M ..;- 0 .." N or, t"- ..;- 00 00 0- M 00 .." M ..;- M M M M M on Q. ... " N 00 M \0 or, .-:. \0 ..;- \0" N ~ N ..;- N 00" \0 N t"- M or, or, - - t"- >< o¡j .. ..¿ ~ r-: r-: ... ;.. or," .... 00" \0" M N" N" N" N" N" .... '" C ~ 1j 0 0- 0 ~ 0 0 <= \0 0 0 00 .." \0 0 r-- or, 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 ~ .. C 0 r-- 0 t"- O 0 <= \0 ~ 0 M M or, 0 M N 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... ï: c ~ 0; ¡-.: 0 \Ô 0 0 = ..t M N 00 OÒ ~ 0 0; 0 0 0 \Ô 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 OÒ :ï; ..Q ..;- ..;- ~ 0- N or, M <= N N ..;- $ 00 00 Q. c E M 0 M r-- 00 N N .... \0 0-" or, 0 " ¡¡ 0 or) .,; or," or," M" .,; 00" ..;-" r-: .. on D M Q. $2 c '" .." M 0- M M - on Q. 00 = ... M .." - .... -< M 0 ;¡ ~ "'0 <= 'ë c 'S¡¡ ~ '" .!:: .. ;;.. (,, C .. ~ ... ~ <II .. ..:0: .. ... 2 \0 M N .... or, ..;- ~ 0 0- 0 <= 00 0 0- or, ..;- t"- oo 0 ~ 00 0 0 ~ 0 ~ = ,., \0 r-- ..;- 00 ~ N 00 \0 ~ '" or, t"- O- ..;- 0 M 0- 00 on 0- 0 0 0 0 0 .... c ë ¡.¡ :;: :ï; \Q M ¡-.: r..: M \Q =' 0 or, or, ,..¡ 00 0; ..t 00 0; 0 ,...; 0- 0 M .....; or, 0 0 =' ~ ::I ... ë c ..;- M ..;- M t"- oo on 00 r-- ..;- 0 <= 00 ..;- \0 or, or, M on \0 0 0 ~ 0 (,, " Q .. or:, r-- .." or:, ..;- <= 00 ..;- M or, M \0 M ..;- 0- N" 0- ~ \0 r--" M or:, 0 .... '£: Q. 00" M" ,.¡ or," ,.¡ 0" ~ r-: 00- .,; or," \0" r--" 0-- 0" Ô \0" 0 Ô ¡::t: c ~ >< r-- 0 ¡;¡J <II ... N M t"- r-- \0 .." N M N N .... N 0- \0 ..;- \0 N M 0- \0 ..;- or, on ... =- \0 ~ .... 00 \0 ..;- Q¡ N N 00 N ..;- N <= 0 .;; .c ..... Þ .. ë .. " c .a ~ ::I 0 ~ u c 00 .. <= Q. <II ~ .; ¡;¡J .. <¡: 0 \0 0 ~ M or, 00 \0 0- N 0 t"- O 0 0 0 0 0- ~ 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 M ... " .. 0 0 0 <= \0 00 .." 0- 00 ~ 0 r-- ~ 0 0 0 0 or, 0 ~ 0 ""ê 0 0 ~ .." 0 ... "" ¡-.: ¡-.: ~ = 0 ~ 0; 0; \Q =' 00 00 \Q ¡-.: \Ô \Q 0 0 ,..¡ = M M or, N or, M M or, .2! ~ 0 M ~ r-- r-- .." 00 \0 N 0- r-- 0- N N M r-- M ~ r-- 0 00 t"- O 0 00 M ::I or, N" ..;- .... or, 0-" on ..;-" M 0- ~ or, N" or, r-- 00 <= ..;- ..;- or, ..;- or, or, .... "'0 0 0-" ..... r-: ~ r-: 0" 0" ~ or," 0-" 0" ..,f r-: ~ N- O-" or) \0" 0-- M" 00- .,; .. 00 00 00 on M \0 \0 N on \0 00 ..;- N N 0 .." '" or, 0 - M \0 M ..c M 0- N ~ N" 0- .... 0- 00 ..;- M ..;- \0 ..;-" r-- 0- ..;- ~ ..;- 0-" - \0 - M (,, 0\ <=. Ñ N" 0-- \0" ~ ..;-" M N" Ñ M or," N" Ñ en .... M .... .... ... = = ... ë .. = " (,:, "' t; 'õ r.n 'š ca "'0 ·ü <t:1E caO .~ ~ .5 æ ~ 0 o( ¡:Q ca ... $a u '" W '" ,::: !9] .~ g ~c3 :¿ 0.. 00 N 0 1.0 ~ ~ ~ ... '" :=: ... = = ... - N M 000 0<=0 <; :: 00 'ë ·š "C -< ë o u u IE "' ... c E-< ,~ o( ë ë ~ ë~Q'ê ~~o( ë .2 ~ ,§ 8 ~§~~ ~ '" t:: '~- "' ... 0 ..Jii:u c .9 t) := ~ <r= .g r.n r.n ~ :5 ,§ '§ .§ ~ bI) <t:en~~ð ~~~u~ 'r;; r.n 'E 5 '~ 2 'E ~ ii <t: ,~ ~ ~ 5..~ .~ ~ 'ü § :E '" 'g ¡)5uæ..sen <:> <:> on <:> ... = .. E c .. .. ;.. o íJ '; .. .. c .. íJ '" "0 C ::I o ... CI o( ~ .. o ~ .. .. ~ ;¡ ~ "C C = £ '; .. = 1:: o c.. c.. ::I en ca 'ü 'Õ ::I '" .... 1:: t ::I -5 80 ç ~ = en .~ :ë ::I ~ '" '" ~ ro 0.0 ':;: ¡g ,5 L. c..:2 Q.) tI) ,_ c:nðá5 "æ ... '" c '" CI ;.< '" c.. ,~ ~ § ~ .g U ~ t} ~ ._ v ~ bl)c..æ ~]CI '; .¡;¡ :a ::I .... .~ :ë ::I ~ -5-5 õ3õ3 '" '" ::r:::r: '5,::! c - '" .r> ::2æ '" g¡ ë <¡:;, '¡;; ~::2 <:> <:> .... <:> <:> <:> M <:> <:> ¡;:¡ <:> <:> <:> .." <:> N 00 N N 00 N M";- 0000 ("I'ì ("I'ì ("I'ì ("I'ì 0000 ~N("I'ì-.:::tv)\O 000000 ..;- ..;- ..;- ..;- ..;- ..;- 000000 ("I'ì-.:::tV)\,()r---oo 0000000 lI")V)V)V)V)V)V) 0000000 N- t, ~ -= ... V) '" V) v¡ N \0 V) I"- 0 I"- \0 0 0 0 0 M V) I"- 0 " "'0 e " z or: '" 0-, \0 '" N \0 '" M 0-, V) '" ~ 0 .~ ~ \0 \0 \0 I"- M N '" Q c = ~ .. V) N \CÎ gÔ 0 0 N 0; ,,¿ 0 0 e>O 0 ,.¡ 0 0 0 ,..¡ S " " . "'0 V) \0 l"- v¡ "<t "<t I"- 0-, v¡ N "<t \0 V) .... V) \0 v¡ v¡ 0 Q. C 0 .. " ¡.¡ " = !::! ~ = " ¡.¡ o¡ " t:: " M ... " " ~ \0 0 0 \0 \0 \0 0-, 0 .... I"- "<t V) 0 0 0 0 \0 "<t v¡ "<t W " "" I"- 0 v¡ '" "<to 0-, 0 go '" ~ "" 0 0 0 0 0 N N "<t \0 I') -= " r-: r-: 0; ~ e>O 0; 0 ~ \CÎ 0; 0 0 0 or) ,.¡ 0; r-: ,,¿ 0 0.. e " '" "" "<t \0 '" N 0 M l"- N V) 0 0 0 "" "<t "" 0 \0 = c " " 0 "" 0 <:1\ N" "<t \0 "<t I"- "" "<t" 0 0 "'" N \0 V) "" "<t to) c -; \0" N" "<t" Ñ 1"-" 0" ~ 1"-" 0" 0-, 0" V)" '" ",," ..; 1"-" V)" ..¡ or) " C = \0 0 "<t .... "" V) I"- 0 "<t N 0 0 V) "<t "" \0 V) \0 M I"- ;;¡ 1"-" 0-, I"- "<t l"- I"- 0-, \0 1"-" .... "" "<t to) 0 Ñ ..; \0" r-: Ô ~ .... '" to) go " " \0 0 0 \0 "<t "<t 0 <:1\ '" \0 V) 0 0 0 0 "<t 0-, \0 v¡ .... C ~ :: ~ '" 0 "<t \0 V) 0 0 .... \0 0 0 0 0 <:1\ l"- I"- v¡ I"- " or) 0 ,.¡ 0 r-: \CÎ 0 ~ 0; e>O r-: 0 0 0 0 ~ N \CÎ ~ gÔ E -= " "" e Q 0 "" \0 v¡ "" 0-, l"- V) 0 N I"- 0 0 .... 0 0-, <:1\ to) :¡; = "<t I"- \0 0-," "<t "l "<t "" 0 "<t I"- 0 I"- M c " S 1"-" "," 1"-" r-: or) ",," "<t" 0 ",," "<t" "<t" V)" Ñ "," ",," .... Ñ c .. "<t .... to) <:1\ " ¡.¡ 0 0-, "<t N '" V) 0-, 0-, \0 V) I"- "<t Q. " go <:1\ M "<t " " N "<t" '" "<t 0-," l"- I"- "<t ¡.¡ o¡ ... N" ..¡ Ñ 1"-" r¡Ó r-: '" to) go '" c .5! " 0 "<t 0 "<t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... " 0 0 0 0 0 to) C 0 N 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \0 <II .. " ï: c .. 0 0; 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 gÔ c. :;; -= 0-, <:1\ go c e \0 \0 to) 0 v¡ " = \0" v5 ..; ... B " c. 0 c "<t C. Qõ = ¡.¡ \0 < M 0 ¡:::¡ .!S 't:I 0 C C 'Sj¡ <II '" ... .. ;; ... C ." .. <II .. ~ ... " ~ ." .. '" \0 0 <:1\ V) V) I"- 0 I"- \0 N 0-, 0 0 0 0 I"- "<t v¡ "<t 0 ..c = ... E l"- I"- 0 "<t ""': 0 N 0 l"- I"- "" \0 0 0 0 0 M 0 "" go v¡ c e ¡.¡ :¡; :¡; \CÎ e>O 0 or) ~ e>O N 0 ...; 0; 0; e>O 0 0 0 0 gÔ N ,.¡ 0 <II = ." ;; c "" '" 0 M ~ 0 "<t 0 \0 I"- "<t V) go 0 N M "<t 0 ... " " 0-, "<t v¡ '" 0" 0 V) go N \0 0 0-, I"- \0 \0 ~ 'C " Q. V)" V)" 1"-" r¡Ó N" "," "," v5 V)" N" \0" ..; 0" 0-," Ô Ñ c :;; " "" f;¡i¡ .. ¡.¡ 0-, I"- go '" ~ '" go N 0 to) N to) "<t ... =- N "<t N M 1"-" 1"-. .... 0 .;; .c .... r-: ;>, .. ë ... ... " c = ::; = ;!:: 0 't:I U C go .. 0 c. .. 001 f;¡i¡ oS z ... ... N 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v¡ " .. ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to) 0 "'0 ... = '" \CÎ 0; gÔ 0; 0; \CÎ 0 ~ \CÎ 0 r-: 0 0 0 or) gÔ N -.i ,,¿ ~ ~ = "<t 0 "<t <:1\ "<t N 0 V) to) 0 0 \0 0 0 0 "" v¡ N "" 0 <:1\ = ~ '" N" \0 "<t 0 l"- N 0 N 0 0 '" N 0 N" 0-, M v¡ 't:I "," \0" Ô \0" \0" N" V)" ~ \0" V)" "<t" 0" 0" "," ",," r-: "," or) r-: .. I"- 0-, 0-, \0 0 0-, N 0-, .... "<t '" I"- 0 ~ "<t "" <:1\ '" "" .... .... .c 0-," '" v¡ "" \0 \0 0-, "" \0 ~ I"- to) \0 ~" go v¡ ... '" N" v5 .... N" v5 "<t" or) r-: rFJ ~ .... l"- I"- \0 .... ;:;: 0.. 00 fri C? M æ ~ ." = = ... Ë .. = .. " <:> ~ ï:: OJ .ê u '§ ¡.tJ c .9 ~ OJ ... U OJ c:.: ~ ~] ~:9~ p........¡U ." = = ... N '" 000 \0\0\0 000 -¡¡¡ ... .E -; u ~ = ~ <II ~ '" .. ~ j ... <II Q., ~ 8 6D ·E o OJ ð: r/J § 5 § OJ).¡;; a a cc:O-= "2 £ .£ ::r: o ~ ~ £ N ¡.tJ OJ ~ .~ Q § OJ) ~ '§ ~ .5 i) 0 'C §ê"§ï:: _ 0 C,.) 0 p...U¡.tJU o o \0 o - N ("'f") V) 0000 1"-1"-1"-1"- 0000 ... = .. e c. o .. .. .. Q .G> 'c = e e " u 0- ª' u :.a § :r: ~ § .-Qc: i) ;> ~"'O_ i3gj] ª .~ u ~Q)Q) 8c:.:.â .~ ¡;¡ OJ ::Ef-<c:.: 0- = § OJ ü æ "'0 tÊ æ OJ .....¡ 5 Ê co OJ OJ .. OJ <II 6'u ~.~ a .~ ¡.tJQ OJ U OJ § U ëa § co ~"'O ...... E ,., <II g .¡:: ~8 .§ g; c: <II o c: U;:J o o I"- o N("f')~\O[""--OO 0000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000000 .!1 '" '= "" ." = e " ] = .. e 1:: <II C. .. Q = o Z '5 = 00 -; o ~ .:: '" = <II ... f-< '" '" ... ... ~~ § § ... ... f-<f-< "'0 "'0 jj ~ s ~ "E - - o o <:1\ o o o go o _ N 00 0-, 0-, 00 ~ ..., .. 'ë ~ ~ ... e N-6 0 c .. '/. '¡¡ 0 .9 .. '" .. Co ~ ... .. c .. ... ~ .. ¡.¡ ¡.¡ .. '" = .. o1J .. ;.. ~ ~ "i! :: 0.. 8 ... .. ..., E .. .. B c .. c ~ .. c ;;¡ '. .. .. '" c :: \:! ~ .: ..., .. e ~ :;; B .9 c .. c ... Co ¡.¡ ¡ .. o¡ ¡.¡ ;.. '" = 0 '';:: ~ ~ .¡: .. c C. .. ~ 0 :;; ..., ... on c e c. ~ S .. c. z¡ .. c -< ~ .. ¡.¡ 0 .~ "0 M = = <::> '6j¡ ~ ... '" ~ II> ... = 4i' ~ ..., .:.= ... " '" 0 ..c -g :: = E ¡.;¡ ~ .: ~ ::I ..., £ :;; 0 ~ ... .. c c = '¡: ., .. .... ¡.¡ " ~ Co .. 0 ~ ¡.¡ .G> Vi oS II> = ... C ::I ~ ::I .-:: 0 U "0 = QC II> <::> c. ~ " ¡.¡ oS .... ... <: 0 0 ¡.. .. ..S:! ... .. ::I = "0 II> ..c ... rJJ ¿ 0.. N 00 ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ .:.¡. ..., c .. ¡.. f " c ø =' =' ... ..., c .. ¡.. I 00 o "Ë t C ¡,¡ 'ê o ::;: ~ ¡¡; '" !2 00 ¡;; o .¡; ~ £ o ¡,¡ ~ ë t ~ ,:¡ '" o o N ! ¡,¡ ê' ] ¡,¡ ~ ::. .. ~ ¡¡; N-b ~ 0 0 ~ t:: M .... V) - M .... .... N V) V) r-- \0 M V) N 0 N 0 r-- a- 0 0 00 V) r-- V) M a- N \0 V) V) 00 V) 0 .... '" .!j '" ... N ~ 00 - - r-- ~ \0 00 \0 N 0 .... N 0 .... .... N V) 00 00 00 r-- ~ M N'OO 0 V) N - r-- N ~ V) .. ... '" - 0; M or) 0; ~ 00 ..t r-: 0 - V) 0 0 C'i 00 0; ~ M C'i 00 0 - Mo\ 0 C'i ..t r-: 00 00 V) ..t Q = ';!. ... .... a- .... V) V) \0 .... r-- r-- V) \0 \0 \0 \0 V) r-- a- V) \0 \D 0 \0 r-- .... a- M \D \D 00 M \0 M r-- v v S C OJ) - M N ... ... 1ä' 8 .. .. .. = 0.. ... '" = " ¡:.:: " ... ;.. \0 \0 0 - V) r-- M 00 \D \0 r-- r-- N V) 00 M N 00 V) r-- V) M , V) 00 V) J, V) 0 M M \0 \0 N a- N M M - 11 .... .... - N .... a- V) .... 0 .... \0 .... - .... 00 r-- .... r-- \0 r-- - a- a- 00 \D N a- \D - 00 .... N V) 0 0 00 r-- V) M 0 N. 00 \0 00. M N N 00 V) a-n V) \0 \0. r-- r-- a- r-- M a-. O. \0 M \D .... r--. M 00 N V) N .!:! ... or) \On V). a-. a-. - a-. ..... - or) or) O· V). r--. M c:i N· O· ..... ..... N· ..... N· - ..... o· 00· ..... 00· V). O· a-. ~ .. '" C M .... V) N .... 0 0 a- - N V) M - M .... N V) N N N N a- M 00 M 00 r-- .... V) 00 M V) N ... " r-- 0 - M N r-- V) M \0. M N N - N - '"'" 00 - N M M r--. N .... 00 \0 N r-- .. c .. N· V). M· N· N· -. M· 00· ;;;¡ = M N - ... r-- 0 .... 0 a- V) 0 r-- N .... .... M M 00 V) a- r-- 00 N a- M V) r-- \0 M V) \D 0 r-- 00 - V) r-- V) 0 00 00 V) 0 \0 .... V) a- V) M V) 00 V) 00 N 0 r-- \0 N 00 0 N r-- r-- \D N \0 M 0 V) 00 0 -; - .... \D a- r-- V) M - \0 r-- r-- - .... 0 V) or:. 0 '"'" V) N N N a-. M M a- 00 r-- \0. a- N M. '"'" a- a- Q '" a-. 00· ..... O· O· 00· V). V). OÔ ....n 0\ a-. a-. N· ~ r--. - M· 00· \D. V). - r--. ..... r--. N· M· - \On OÔ - M or) .s ... M - r-- r-- r-- a- .... V) N M M M 0 N \0 - r-- a- .... N r-- r-- - V) r-- M - \0 - M 0 V) .... V) N = r-- .... M N N .... a- - 00 N .... r--. - M N N 0 M \D - r--n OOn M .. C Nn ....n ....n Nn Nn Nn Mn Nn Nn ... " .. M ... ... ;.. ¡:.:: '" Q> or¡ ::I ~ 00 M \0 N \0 a- r-- \D V) .... a- V) r-- M 00 r-- r-- r-- V) N N 0 a- 0 0 .... - 00 V) r-- = 00 '" M V) 00 a- .... \0 .... V) 00 00 00 V) a- \0 - 00 00 \0 M .... 0 .... 0 .... a- 00 - r-- .... 00 Q> M .... ... 0 a- \0 - N a- .... 00 0 V) V) Nn r-- V) a- \D .... V) 00 O. 0 00 .... r--. N. 0 \D r-- a-n 00 .. ..... :;: = Mn OÔ OOn \On or) r--n Nn Mn Nn 0\ N· On On Nn ....n ..; r--. a-n or) V). \0. ..... N· Q> M C - M - 00 M M ~ => ë ... \0 - ) N r-- 00 00 a- - \0 \0 - N N .... - \D .... N r-- a- 0 N N ~ .. '" ... r-- \0 r--. - N M N M .... r-- ï: -; :Ë =: '61> = ... .... '" ;; < ... ... ~ '0 ... c ..:c = ¡.¡ 0 ~ ... = '0 '" ~ Q> .¡: 0 .... ... ~ ~ ~ ... ë .c 0 "P ë - 0 \0 0 0 0 0 r-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-- 0 0 0 V) 0 0 0 M r-- - 0 0 V) 0 .... 0 .... r-- r-- a- a- '" '" ... 0 .... 0 0 0 0 r-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-- 0 V) V) M 0 0 0 M a- .... 0 V) - 0 .... 0 V) r-- M 0 0 è ¡;.¡ :Ë OJ) O. 00 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-- \0. 0 Mn O. N 0 00. \D M 0 N - 0 '"'" 0 \0 N V) = ... ... V) ..; c:i O· O· O· or) c:i o· O· or) O· or) O· 0 00· Mn M M· M V) a-. O· - a-n \D. a-. oon ..... M· On a-. r--n ..... a-. N· = r-- \0 M 0 N 0 V) V) .... \0 a- r-- N \0 - N a- .... .... V) N a- 0 - .... 0 r-- .... M 00 \0 M r-- 0 V) = 0 oe = .... .... V) \D - .... a- 0 N. r--. - .... \D 00 - N N V) .... \0 a- M V) N 00 a-. \0 \D O. N 00 0 .... => -q: or) N r-: ~ or) -. N· Mn N· ..... V). N· OÔ N· U = Q> \0 N E ... Q> -5 .... .. ~ '" .... ~ ('J ... C = ~ Ë ... c ... c; cu Co o Q> 0: ~ ~ r:: 1;J¡:Q0 ¡- e- t:; rn>oO~ <!) 1:: U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ £.~ ~ s -..,~ rn ca CI') .~ ~ § .~ ~ «JE:Õ~ e.> e.> =' e.> O::c...c...c... '" <!) ~ ¡- ... o ::I :¡~ ~ ~ î::~ CU ë '" ~ g c........¡ ~ 1;J ¡-¡- .q ~ 5 8 ~ ;.:¡ <!) '" ë '" ::I <!) '" = c:: 'V) o ::I U¡:Q ;g ~ ~ CU ""'078 & = = .g 8 ~ ;.:¡] >: <!) U CI:S Û e.> ¡-:EO:: & > <5 :.2 .... rn § £ ~ ~~¡- '" <!) ~ E- ~ ~ e g ~ ~ '" ~~] ~'o_SO Æ -"a "2 1:: ~ 0 0. rn E 'S =' .8_ .: ~ <!) 0 ¡:Q 0 .....¡~c...1iiu"'O 2 .è~,;,E;:"'§.,= 0 ._ <!) cu <!) e "'0 = '" ~ 5~~ð~jÆÆö '" ~ <!) ::I OJ)- a ;.§ .<:: ... U 0 ;..,"'" c."'O 8 § o '" - <!) o r:: .<:: .- c...w.. >, 2 e Q> <!) <!) r:: Co ëi3 o 0 CI) C/j ~ 0: 8 'õ 'õ ·t ~ ~ e.>Q)~CI)bO~ ;:J ;:J .~ .~ 0 t ee~:go:o::~ o2C/)~]~O <t:1""......aou CI) rn~c.S...c: e.>"O !1)Q) rnC/)æ~ ªê~~~~~ ~ !: a a .9 ~ 8 ~~ÕÕ~~~ "'0 ~ OJ) <!) <;; y '" <!) ·E <!) en '" ëi3 ~ 'ü r:: 0 cu en ~078 ~ <!) ]J§ a " tJ~ "'0 ~ 8 ~ .~ o en æf:-§ ~ g Uen ~078 tí <!) ~ .E! -5" o~ "'0 ~ ëi3 .~ C5 OJ) E '" U '" <!) u ... ::I o en OJ) r:: ·ü § r:: ~ ~~ § ¡:: = ~ ëi3 "t o OJ) B '" U ~ o Z ... <!) <!) -5-5 00 ~ ~ '" u.. .;j ~ 0.. ; ... c = ~ O-N~~O-N~~~~~OO~O N~~oo~O-NooO ~o ~~O~NM ____ NNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMM~~~~~~~~~~~oooo~~ 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 V> 0 0 N-0 N t: '" ~ .. '" ... '" ~ Q <II Q - '" ~ = W ¿j .9 c ~ <II = 0., <II . .. "'" .. ~ .. "" = .. ¡:=: '" = <II .. ... "i! ,!:j <II õi ... ¡: ;: ;5 ~ oc '" N ..;- - "'" 0\ 0\ ~ .. Q :a .9 = ; ~ ~ ~ N fO\ fO\ ..; => - ~ '" '" OJ II) = c: ~ OJ ~ ~ "' OC ~ <II "'" ¡:¡: N = .~ => ..c c => c: -; ., <II 0\ .Õ/) Q ~ - = ~ ¡:=: II) ... - .or; ;; <J < "" ~ '0 <II "" ..:.: c: c 0 = ¡;,;¡ c: '0 "" = ~ Q 0 'C ¡:¡: = <II .... ê =- 0 <:: ..c Þ '" ., f;¡;; Q - 0\ c: ~ <II .... .. 0\ = 0 "" II) 0 - oc = r-:- u c: => = - OJ II) ê <II r-:- OJ -5 '" - - = .. - Q ~ ¡., ,.!!¡ .. ~ "" c E ¡,:¡ "" c = V> ¡." g ~ 00 V> ~ B 00 N 0 <II 0 0 0 E ~ N ~ .¡; .¡; ~ ~ 8: ~ ë OJ c 1:: -5 ~ OJ => 0 c ¿j ê' => 0 - ~ ::ö 'i3 t c ::E Õ 8- OJ "" ~ :a Co. = ~ '" ;;'; = ¡¡; ~ ~ - ¡., -¡; '" ~ "- .;,: ¡¡; N-1 , PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER BUILDING PROJECT BUDGET REPORT COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Northrop-Grumman Date Description Contract Amount Contingency 12/03/04 Opening Balance $ 26,030,769 $ 780,923 01/27/05 Change Order (001 ) 21 ,065 (21,065) 01/27/05 Change Order (002) * 53,835 - 01/28/05 Progress Payment #1 (1,456,157) - 02/24/05 Progress Payment #2 (403,222) - Balance at March 15, 2005 $ 24,246,290 $ 759,858 * The funds to be used for change order #002 were taken from departmental E911 funds. Submitted By, Rebecca Owens Director of Finance Approved By, Dan O'Donnell Asst. County Administrator N-8 PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER BUILDING PROJECT CHANGE ORDER REPORT COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Chanqe Order Number Date Approved Description of Change Order Amount 001 January 27,2005 6 GHz Microwave and Vinton Related Costs $ 21,065 002 January 27,2005 Delete several CAD servers, add CAD and related CAD software (paid from departmental E911 funds) 53,835 Total as of March 15,2005 $ 74,900 Submitted By, Rebecca Owens Director of Finance Approved By, Dan O'Donnell Asst. County Administrator .> ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ":þ-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 APPROVED BY: Work session to discuss budget development for fiscal year 2005-2006 Elmer C. Hodge eJJ- County Administrator AGENDA ITEM: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This work session has been scheduled to present an overview of the remaining items to be considered as part of the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget development process. On March 22, Human and Social Service agencies will present their requests for funding. Cultural, Tourism, and other agencies are scheduled to present their requests at the March 29 Board meeting. A ranking sheet will be distributed to the Board at the March 22 meeting for your use in allocating funding to agencies for the coming year. While the Board has had an opportunity to meet with some of the larger County departments to discuss budgetary matters, there are still several significant issues in the remaining departments which need to be considered: · The Social Services Department has advised that a new federal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is being mandated for the upcoming fiscal year. Information regarding this mandate will not be available until Mayor June; however, it is estimated that the local share to implement this plan could cost as much as $200,000 for Roanoke County. · The Information Technology (IT) Department has submitted a request to increase the budget by $260,000 for five additional personnel to meet the evolving demands of information technology and data management. · The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) priorities need to be finalized by the Board of Supervisors. ,. p-\ · Funding allocations to local agencies need to be finalized by the Board of Supervisors. · Discussion of the need to hire an internal auditor. · Discussion of the need to hire a records manager. It is anticipated that an additional work session will need to be scheduled to finalize some of the remaining budget items. It is recommended that the Board consider scheduling an additional budget work session to be held during the first week of April after all funding requests have been presented. 2 Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 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. PETITIONER: NEXTEL Partners, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 31-12/2004 Pf- , Planning Commission Hearing Date: April 5, 2005 (Continued from March 1, 2005) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 26, 2005 (Continued from March 22, 2005) A. REQUEST The petition of Nextel Partners, Inc., to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a . 199 ft. broadcast tower, located at 432 Bandy Drive, near Windy Gap Mountain, Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Steve Azar made a motion to continue the request for 30 days. Motion carried 4- O. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission ...'~ -~...:z ~, PETITIONER: Seaside Heights, LLC (Bojangles) CASE NUMBER: 32-12/2004 (Rezoning) & 33-12/2004 (SUP) Planning Commission Hearing Date: April 5, 2005 (Continued from December 7, 2004) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 26, 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: February 23, 2005 Re: March 1, 2005 Public Hearing - Agenda Item J. 2. Seaside Heights, LLC / Bojangles has requested that their petition, Agenda Item J. 2., be continued until AprilS, 2005. The petitioner has contracted a traffic impact analysis ofthe existing turn lanes and traffic signal timing. The study will not be completed prior to the March 1,2005 public hearing. Staff recommends continuing the petition until AprilS, 2005. .., .. I , f{:' 3 PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Spot Blight Abatement - 3821 Colony Lane 7-3/2005 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 7, 2005 (Continued from March, 1, 2005) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 28, 2005 (Continued from March 22, 2005)· A. REQUEST The Request of the Roanoke County Building Commissioner to consider spot blight abatement of property at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mary Stanley, 3820 Colony Lane Ms. Stanley stated the property had been an eyesore for years. She expressed dissatisfaction with the County's enforcement efforts up to this point. Bobby Cockram, 3815 Colony Lane Mr. Cockram stated that he lived next door to this property and that he is embarrassed by the condition. He stated his taxes increase even though the property has not been prepared. Margaret Sharp, 3651 Cedar Lane Ms. Sharp asked for further details concerning the continuance as well as the blight abatement process in general. She stated she represented the Green Valley neighborhood organization. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The petitioner, Joel Baker, Roanoke County Building Commissioner informed the commission that a response had been received that day from the owner's son. The response included a schedule for completion of the repairs and a contract for the work. A copy of the schedule and contract was provided to the members. The petitioner recommended the issue be continued to allow the owner to make the repairs. Mr. McNeil asked if the project could be completed in 90 days. Mr. Baker stated that was a reasonable amount of time for the work. At the request of the commission, Mr. Baker explained in detail the newly adopted blight abatement process and answered questions from the citizens in attendance. D. CONDITIONS 1. The project is to be complete within 90 days. 2. The Building Commissioner will make a progress report to the commission sixty days from the hearing. 3. If the project is incomplete after 90 days, a performance bond may be required for repairs to continue. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. McNeil made a recommendation to continue the request for 90 days with a status report being provided by the Roanoke County Building Commissioner in 60 days. Motion passed 4-0. G. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission R-3 Petitioner: Joel S. Baker, CBO, Roanoke County Building Commissioner Request: Consideration of Blighted Property 3821 Colony Lane Location: Magisterial District: Cave Springs Proffered/S uggested Conditions: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Board of Supervisors recently adopted a Spot Blight Abatement Policy Program designed to deal with individual properties that have become a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Under the program, the County is authorized, pursuant to a plan approved by the Board of Supervisors following a public hearing, to repair, or to acquire and repair a property designated as blighted under the program. The County may recover its costs in repairing the property either from the owner or from the proceeds from the sale of the property. The program allows an owner of blighted property to avoid any repair or other action by the County if an acceptable work plan for the elimination of the conditions that created the blight is prepared and implemented. 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 on February 6, 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 condition of the property and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Roanoke County Spot Blight Abatement Policy contains the following elements: . designation of the property as "blighted" · attempts to work with the property owner to correct the conditions · notice to the owner that official action will be taken unless an acceptable corrective plan is submitted. · notice to adjoining property owners and local civic organizations · consideration and public hearing by the Planning Commission · action by the Board of Supervisors · implementation of an approved plan by the County to correct the blighted conditions 1 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background - The property has a history of code violations with the County prior to the fire in February, 2003 that caused the current damage. The Planning and Zoning offlce has cited the owner several times for violations of the zoning ordinance related to improper storage. The Fire Department has documented through photographs that improper storage had continued up to the actual date of the fire. The fire investigator has commented that there was an unusually high quantity of storage in the building as well which can best be described as "hoarding". The building has not been occupied since the fire. Refer to the Fire Investigation Report which is attachment #8. ~3 A county inspector spoke with the owner's son shortly after the fire and advised that the building was required to be boarded to prevent entry. This was accomplished in a matter of days but, since that time the owner has failed to maintain the security of the building and several complaints have been received concerning neighborhood children entering the structure at various times. Reports were also received from the Police Department confirming this matter. On multiple occasions county employees returned to the site and re-attached the boards that had been applied to secure the building only to have them removed again by persons entering the building. The owner obtained a building permit to repair the fire damage on March 12,2003 but no inspections have been requested for the repairs and the permit is currently subject to suspension due to inactivity. Prior to requesting the public hearing, a courtesy letter dated February 2,2005 (Attachment #4) was sent to the owner stating that no response to the original notice had been received and the County was proceeding with the abatement process as described in the official notice. We received a phone call from the owner's son a few days later. We discussed the matter further and advised that if he would get a plan submitted within the next several days we would recommend that the issue be tabled. He stated he would submit a plan but as of this writing no plan has been received. TopographvN egetation - Property is relatively level and is improved with the single family residence that is the subject of this report. It is bordered on the north by Colony Lane, on the south by Route 419 and on the east and west sides by similar residential properties. This property and adjoining properties are zoned R-l. Surrounding Neighborhood - This is a very pleasant neighborhood with small to medium sized homes that are well kept and in generally good condition. Most of the homes in the immediate vicinity were built in the mid to late 50's and are assessed with a value of $110,000.00 plus. The property identified in this report is currently assessed with a value of $58,700.00. The Real Estate Valuation Office reports that adjustments have been made to nearby properties as a result of the ongoing issues with this property. 3. PLAN OF ACTION Staff has prepared a plan outlining the steps we believe that are needed to return this property to a useable condition. The plan is included as attachment #5. 2 R-3 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The property has a designation of Neighborhood Conservation in the current Roanoke County Community Plan. The objective being to preserve and enhance the existing character of established neighborhoods. Returning the property to a viable use as a single family home is in compliance with the objective of the plan and current zoning. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The property has a long history of code violations and has been the subject of many complaints as well as prior legal action by the county. The property has remained dormant since being substantially damaged by fire. The property has remained both an eyesore and a safety hazard to the neighborhood for over two years. The property should be confirmed as blighted and a recommendation made to the Board of Supervisors to implement the correction plan as prepared by staff. List of Attachments: 1. Notice of Determination of Blight. 2. Receipt for Certified mail. 3. Notice returned "unclaimed". 4. Notice of Failure to Respond 5. Blight Abatement Plan 6. Chronology of Zoning Violations 7. Chronology of Enforcement Activity 8. Fire Department Report 9. Roanoke County Spot Blight Abatement Policy CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: Joel S. Baker, CBO, Roanoke County Building Commissioner PC: 03/01/2005 BOS: 3 I Attachment 1 I R-3 QJuunf~ uf ~uanuk£ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS MAPPING/GIS PERMITS PLANNING & ZONING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVEY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GEORGE W. SIMPSON, III, P.E. CHIEF PLANNER, JANET SCHEID Notice of Determination of Blight and Request for Plan of Correction Property: 3821 COLONY LN Tax 10: 077.18-02-20.00-0000 Owner: SHELTON, BARBARA N Owner Address: 3821 COLONY LN SW, ROANOKE, VA 24018 Date of Notice: November 30, 2004 The above referenced property has been determined to be blighted as defined by the Roanoke County Spot Blight Abatement Policy. The following conditions are specifically identified as constituting a blighted condition: · Building has been vacant and/or boarded for at least one year. · Potential Trespass - owner has failed to take adequate measures to prevent access · Nuisance to Children - open basement · Substantial Dilapidation - structural members have been exposed to the weather by removal of roofing, sheathing and/or siding. · Repeated violations of county ordinances involving property use or maintenance Per the policy, the owner is required to submit a written plan of correction to the Building Commissioner within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice. The plan shall include a site plan identifying the blighted property and must detail what measures will be taken to correct the blighted condition. The plan must also indicate a definite date of completion which cannot exceed a period of ninety (90) days. Failure to submit the required plan or complete the plan within the required 90 days will result in the county instituting legal proceedings which many include but are not limited to the following: · Performing the necessary work and placing a lien on the property. · Having the property declared a public nuisance · Condemning the property and íns1ituting eminent domain proceedings to take possessíon of the property in order to correct the blighted condition Your immediate attention to this matter is required. Please submit your correction plan to this office as soon as possible. Any questions you may have regarding this matter should be directed to the Building Commissioner. Joel S. Balcer, CBO Building Commissioner P.O. BOX 29800 - ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018· PHONE (540) 772~2080 - FAX (540) 772-2108 @ Recycled Paper ~:-3 ì Ceriifie¡fMail Provide¡;:,····}).t-t III. A mailin.g rer:e1¡:¡t. i ",' I: Aun..ique; idëntffi¡;¡r lor y¡:;ur máì!þieCé 11 A record öldell\'~ry kept by the Postal Settwe for !WD Y~ars Important R~mif)ders: '. m C Cerijfjgd Mail may ONt Y bec:omb1n(!d with First-Class Mail;> Qr ?riorily Ma.it~ ~ Certified r\.~ait tS ,not' avaHabJe for at1y class of intc~natjQr.al n1ait. II! NO INSURANCE. CûVERAGS IS PROV,DED . wiihCert¡figd ¡'.I1aiL For vah.rabias) p lea:;e consrde-f Insured or A~gistered fV'ÌažL . cFor an addit.ionsl tðe-, a Return Rff.:::eipf máy be rsauest-ed to orOl,tide proof of d:sHv-s:y. ïOGbtain R~turn Receipt s(~n(icg:.,. pWâ$$ oornpJete: and aitach a Retum Rec=!p~ (PS'"Forrn SaIl) tçqhe B.rUc!~ anà õåd ðppik;ab!ê po5të¡ge to ~ver th~ fee. Endorse maifDiecs "'RetomReceipt!;1cquÐSt€:-?'J. To receive a 1es \o·.,-arveí fof Ë:. dtJpíìcate re~urn' rec~¡pt\ s, USPS~ po-strrtaik on your Certífi~d Maii r~c.ejpt rs fBqr"!j;-ed~ III For an ad:::I!tlDnai fee, deliver)' m¡;y be rE;$1ri::ted to 1n!;! addressee Clr a-:ióreS3e~'l~$ autfìo~iied Efaent P,dlf;',:¡e the clérJ, or mark ~hà ma:rlpìe:Gs wj~h fhe endorsement ·'Rest.;ipted1Je!í\fBry". !'J! if a postmark an ¡hæ Germ¡ed Mai1 recebt Ì!; dssksd, p!e2s", presentthe aru". cí'B at the þtJst office íOT p:Jstmarking, ' II a PQstrnar!\. 00 the Celtified. MßII iece¡pt is. not 'needed, detach and enïx iabe1 wIth postage, änd maJI. mWORTAwt: &¡n~e Ihis reteipt àlll: ¡;re1Jent ¡t whrm m¡¡kio¡} at! iní¡!!¡r~f. ir.ternet ¡;ccets to de !Ivery in!ormEtior. is (fat a\!aH~/Jle (Hi mail z j¡jriisstH! \13 !tPûs and FFQs. '--;"j. \ I /-t::;"'Þd' ) Attachment 2 \ .;,.....r~-~V '. ..". (i'S-J¡Y'~1::;) GOO;: eunr 'oog¡; ,u:": Sd ( ( ( ·~:- ~ ~.. :.t .:;. oIJ(; ,., .~ ('. '" -'- -- i\ L.:.i .-;:.. JE.. .... ;~;':! ~ .r::~- . -~ /.>:--;;. ....~ D' r4 a r:ai ."./. .. D ....D ....D ru D D D D 1.11 ('- I:::J ::T D D ('- <W ~ o == r.:: o ~ '" f- ~ ~ 9 u.:¡; ~ o~g~ f-..J"'''' ~~g)1 :¡;wxz ¡-ooa l!:>tDa: ~!::cj> U! z . o~a:~ :¡; 0 o z o ~ a: '+J o ~ .... - :t o ~ 0:> -.' , \.J . . := § ~ '~~"' r·,·~ -~ ~ en a rz: '" ~ ° );{iB '" '" ...~ ",::/:""Q "'3:"'Q ~o::=-':Q Q::/:"''''rz: c:.:.cè?-':~ c:c.....&.u&.u.=a ...o",,~rz: §~~~æ c..>.....:ë:'" 0 -..... ~..... .....Q..:!:-u., ~:ë~ù1..... ",~.,.c:.~ ~"'o¡".:ë: c:c.:ë:0:;:, OOO~· O~ ¡Attachment 3 ~ v $ .... , if v c:::: ? R-~ . . -. CJ CJ CJ n.J [J IT'" CJ ..l] -J CJ CJ .L: CJ -J l.n CJ ~ I:-' I:-' CJ I I I I 1______ ~ ~ g¡ ~ ë e - '" "D ~ :t ~ õ DO ¡ o Ò .. 0 ~z DEI C'- ~ i ~ E! g g¡ - !!! i:g .! .. '5[; ~~ "tI"tI U ~ '" .. ~c 1 ~ _CD dJ W "tI)- .!!~ ci CD ~ § _ø CD 0.. > B- E"Ô!!!::iii! oeCDoE O~:5~J! g" c_- . ~",°'Eõ~ t?~~~tí~ U~UCDßo.. ã'ij¡-g:5CDCD C\iOuE:5g -"i ã.3 0 g- .2 ~ÕCDI!!~~ "C !Hj!ij§f(é ; "==CDCø",,g E CDa::S~:2CD "C ø=o -.r= ~ ëi-.:t >.m.J:- EEë£~6 ~ 8,ª[tg~o ~ . . iii ..: ~ - ~ Z co ~~~ tI) <t . ~ > z9 ~ ~8~ ¡:QM~ ~~o roC")p::¡ ã. ~! i E è ¡ ~£ g : 000 @ C'- i:' 'ã = ~ 8.~¡::E~"~ ~~ '!õ "CI_C!> B ~ - CJ -ði'~"C: Æ ~ ~Õ ~ r:? -.:i .. .. '5 c ~ e .. ::E .... .e ., §!. o --- - / I, ~ * ~ ~ a co 0'1 o I.D I.D N o o o o Uì I"'- o -..::t o o I"'- ã. 1 a: E :J ¡¡; II: ¡ ~ I I ..... ¡;¡ ~ i ~ § Cñ a: <. >< ai o I ~ B 6. ~ 1 ~ .8e;: §,gc:o z~C') dJ '" E Ii & Ñ æ (' , Attachme~t 4 R-~ ([[nunt-g nf ~nttnnlu~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS MAPPINGJGIS PERMITS PlANNING & ZONING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVEY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GEORGE W. SIMPSON, III, P.E. CHIEF PLANNER, JANET SCHEID Notice of Failure to Respond Property: 3821 COLDNY LN Tax ID: 077.18-02-20.00-0000 Owner: SHELTON, BARBARA N Owner Address: 3821 COLONY L.N SW, ROANOKE, VA 24018 Date of Notice: February 2, 2005 On November 30, 2004, a notice was sent to you via certified and regular mail and a copy was posted on the property in question. That notice required that you respond within 30 days with a plan to correct the blighted condition identified on the property. A5 of today, February 2,2005 no response of any kind has been received. by this office. As described in the notice the county will now proceed to take the necessary steps to abate the problem. I have requested a public hearing by the Roanoke County Planning Commission to review the facts and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning final disposition of the property. Should the commission decide to hold said hearing, you will be duly notified so that you may attend and present any evidence you may have as to why the county should not proceed with the spot blight abatement process. Once again, any questions you may have should be directed to the Building Commissioner. ~~~ Joel S. Baker, CBO Building Commissioner P.O. BOX 29800' ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 . PHONE (540) 772-2080' FAX (540) 772-2108 @ Recycled Paper ¡Attachment 5 R-3 Bli~ht 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 from 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) Have independent engineering finn evaluate structural members for integrity and provide written report. 4) Have independent engineering finn 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 swfaces, woodwork and trim. 13) Clear gutters and down spouts ofleaves and debris. 14) Repair, scrape and paint exterior swfaces. 16) Replace\repair all exterior doors 17) Exterminate entire structure and remove all debris from the property. · . - . ¡Attachment 6 Shelton Property 3821 Colony Ln ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Field inspection/letter: Nov 4, 1985 Order to Correct: Nov 4, 1985 General District Court: Feb 3, 1986 COURT HEARING CONTINUED: 1/3/86 (Illness) COL;RT HEARING CONTINUED: 2/19/86 (With Warning to Property Owner) General District Court: Mar 26, 1986 COrRT HEARING: 2/26/86 ($100.00 Fine & 90 days [orpayrnent) FINE PAID: 6/26/86(No Corrections) New Charges instituted: 7/15/86 Order to Correct: Jul 15, 1986 Field inspection: Jul 29, 1986 General District Court: Sep 10, 1986 COURT HEARING: 9/10/86 (Another $100.00 Fine & 90 days for payment) Field inspection/letter: Sep 16, 1986 General District Court: Oct 15, 1986 CO"LRT HEAR1NG: 10/15/86 (Show Cause Order for 10/29/86) COURT HEARING: 10/29/86 CONTINUED TO (11/12/86 - FamiJyDeath) General District Court: Judge Harris, Nov 12, 1986 COURT HEARING: 11/12/86: Extension granted to 12/12/86 Field inspectionll&1/1 of 4 items met: Dee 16, 1986 COURT HEARING: 12/17/86: Contempt of Court: 2 days injail or $1000.00 appeal bond Field inspection: Jan 17, 1987 (Court requirements still incomplete) Circuit Court: Jan 20, 1987 (?) Circuit Court: Feb 12. 1987 COURT HEARING: 2/27/87: $150,00 Fine, Suspended Jail Time Fie1d inspection: Aug 17, 1987 (Unlicensed verncle) f~~3 SheJton Property 3821 Colony Ln -------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------- March 1990 Through July 1998 Three violation letters: May 15, 1995 Feb 9, 1998 May 6, 1998 ( 'Attachment 7 I rL~'3 \~ ¿' Shelton Enforcements: 1999 - 2005 Complaints received by phone during 2000-2001 Initial enforcement actions involved education, and service support. This was done during visits to property and by phone requests to Roanoke County General Services Department for bulk waste scheduling/freeloader trailer scheduling. Additional service assistance included the provision of a dump truck and loading help from a Roanoke County Community Development Department crew in February of 2001. The result for the neighborhood was that the property owner occupant did not appear to be motivated to maÍntain or continue improvements to the property and the conditions; deteriorated to an unacceptable level. Examples of these problems included like trash, debris and outdoor storage of household goods. A concerned neighbors or community meeting was held at Cave Spring Fire Station: August 2001. Discussions were held with the neighbors and with Roanoke County Planning and Zoning Staff and with Roanoke County Health Department staff. A determination was made at that time to work together to improve the property. Inspections occurred during August and September 2001 (including the listing below) Date reported: 9/24/2001 Date inspected: 9/24/2001 . Tax map number: 077.18-02-20 Address: 3821 Colony Lane Name: :Ms. Barbara N. Shelton No response from property owner; court action planned for November 2001 Contacted neighbors for available court dates; 1 complaÍning party had moved, 1 party did not want to be the only one to testify, and the third neighbor would not respond to multiple phone messages left at home. Legal actions postponed. A new round of complaints received by Roanoke County officials during early 2003 and a new inspection schedule was set up. Roanoke County continued to encourage the cleanup activities. The county's General Services Department provided a freeloader trailer for February 26,2003, On February 6, 2003, a fire occurred at the address of 3821 Colony Lane, the home of Barbara N. Shelton. The Roanoke County Community Development Department crew provided service assistance to the fire cleanup with the provision of a dump truck on March 7 2003. Shelton Enforcements: 1999 - 2005 Page 2 ( I. Information became knO'WIl in the neighborhood regarding the February 6, 2003 fire and that was that there was no insurance policy to protect the property owner and provide for repairs to the structure. Not only did repairs not occur to the property but the debris and outdoor storage of household goods continued. An official letter of violation was sent by certified mail on June 17, 2003 and court action was initiated on July 17,2003. The case was scheduled for August 21,2003. General District Court granted a 30 day extension to get the property cleaned up and the case was scheduled to be reviewed on September 22,2003. The review of the case determined that the property was still in non-compliance and Ms. Shelton was found guilty and ordered to pay court costs and a fme. General District Court decision was appealed to the Roanoke County Circuit Court and the case was scheduled for November 18,2003. Circuit Court took the charges under advisement and granted an extension to get the property cleaned up and the case was scheduled to be reviewed on December 16,2003. A second extension was granted as a result of the review on December 16, 2003 and a final review set for January 20,2004. One of the charges was dismissed because of compliance and the other two charges were merged for the final review in January 2004. Inspections of the property indicated that the all materials were stored inside and/or removed from the premises and that the debris materials had been cleaned up. The property was in compliance but a guilty verdict was rendered and a fine would be imposed if the property was to become non-compliant in the next year. ( O·r·· !- , ," ,.,; ~.: ....... ::. . y .. '. .< ; . ,.') < d· . '. . n.'·"·."·...'.u·¡'.·m"'.·.'." ¡ jl ,¡I!¡j: "..___, ....." <_ _.. .' '_.'~" _M" ..'..., ,'__.,_ 'f,"3 ¡Attachment 8 I From: ]oeJ Baker- BujIding Offki3l Gary D. FluD111<'U1 - Fire Marsha] Fcbrüary 17, 2005 382l CoJony lncident To: Date: Re: Joel, r have attached a copy of tile original report and some photos. The address is 3821 Colony and the incident occurred on Feb. 06, 2003. The investigator that was on the scene OfUlis fire, David CJlâplin, no longer is employed with us. I had two additional investigators go to this incident and ~"e have changed the cause oftbe fITe. The photos clearly support our findings. The fire started fi-om an eye left on the stove. It extended into tbe ca.binet::; and then into the attic. It burned through the root: It \vas also noted that the house had a huge fuel load and could best be descIÌbed as hoarding. ROANOKE COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT DIVISION OF FIRE PREVENTION FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT INCIDENT NUMBER: {),)OIQ)"3c; DATE: d/<.t/() 3, ALARM TIME: COlcàO LOCATION OF ALARM: 38à\ ~~ (O~ \ D.ocw..ol~ I vA ,.')'-/018 DATErrIME OF INVESTIGATION: ;) j~/O.3 REGULAR HOURS: S"' CALL BACK: ALARM/FIRE DISCOVERED/REPORTED BY: ~bb~ C.Jbc'v. 1'01.1", ; tJ(¿)(4- 600-4 ~i~k~)."¥, ADDRESS: 3'8 ¡s- ~~~ l Cr-t...{ HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPERTY STATUS: .-S~lt. -,~~\tï (e.~~ ,ðC2N';\\·c,. \ OWNER: þ:>c-b0,C>-. S\.Ü~ ~DDRESS: 3&l \ ~ ho...v.JI ¡ P'OCM.J..¡Ob TELEPHONE NUMBER: Home: 77<./ ~ ¡¡OJ.. Ousirress: QLÜ ~ ~~q 7~ 189:7 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: DATE OF BIRTH: :5!to!40 . . OCCUPANT: O.d..,~ o.H~,<-'oo.."4-- ADDRESS: 3 8)..\ ~ j.,o.-w I ¡;¿C»:~p TELEPHONE NUMBER: Home: I CG-c."'Q.v.~ì.-A.Q¡.t'"") Business: (/8Yr-J ~ td) SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: DATE OF BIRTH: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Heavy Timber Construction Ordinary Construction ; Wood Frame Construction ; Non-combustible/Limited Combustible v-; NUMBER OF FLOORS: / VEHICLE: 1J/A- LICENSE NO: YEAR: MAKE: MODEL: VIN #: COLOR: PROPERTY STATUS: Occupíed ~; Vacant LOCATION/AREA OF FIRE DEPARTMENT FORCIBLE ENTRY: AREA OF FIRE ORIGIN: l~- R.i¿O<" ~'Ñ1-\ ~. ~ POINT OF FIRE ORIGIN: f , 'l~ CAUSE OF FIRE: (Sí~ ~-.s) CiJ.A.ð 0.. +k-c... kJ~ '~j IJ H'-AI\ \. C I , TELEPHONE NUMBER: ESTIMA TED LOSS: .$ 40,0190 ð..<, à~\-\- ~f'~ G..v1~~ - ¿o.f"k. _ Sö..u...J .ç,~ OQ~Vl NVESTIGATOR: b, C:..Q¡\O~Ju~" DATE: c) /it./D3 , t ~3 ~3 c R-3 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. Other departments such as Police, Fire, Health, Planning, Real Estate Valuation and the County Attorney may be consulted as necessary to aid in the detennination of a blighted 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 ofthe 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 nonnal 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, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement of design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination ofthese or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community; 4. The following is a list of potential conditions that may cause a property to be considered blighted under the tenns of this policy: A. Condemned structure - A structure on the property has been continuously vacant for at least one year, has been condemned as unfit for human occupancy by the building official in accordance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, but has neither been demolished nor repaired by the owner as directed by the building official; ~-/~ B. Rat and rodent infestation - There is evidence of rat or rodent infestation or harborages caused by conditions on the property; C. Previous citations - The property has 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 occasions because activities or conditions on the property violate state or county laws or ordinances governing the use or maintenance of property, and those 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 has repeated conduct involving the use or maintenance of property for which the owner has been convicted of violating state laws or county ordinances in the past. D. Inadequate facilities - The property has inadequate sewage, septic, plumbing, well or heating facilities; E. Potential trespass - If the property is vacant, the owner has failed to take adequate precautions to prevent the use of or access to the property by trespassers; F. Nuisance to children - A potential attractive nuisance to children exists on the property, including, but not limited to, abandoned wells, basements, excavations or broken fences; G. Fire hazard - Any condition exists on the property that has been specifically identified as a fire hazard by the fire department or the building official: and H. Substantial dilapidation of buildings or structures as evidenced by either: a. Collapse 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. ~-~ 5. The Building Commissioner shall make a preliminary determination that a property is blighted in accordance with this policy and shall notify the owner by regular and certified mail, specifying the reasons why the property is considered blighted. The notice mailed to the owner also shall be posted on the property. The owner shall have thirty (30) days within which to respond with a plan that would cure the blight within a reasonable 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 Building Commissioner of the plan to cure the blight the owner shall have ninety (90) days to complete all work approved in the plan. The Building Commissioner, upon acceptance of a performance bond in the amount of the estimated cost of the work, may grant an extension of an additional ninety (90) days to complete work where it is determined that the owner has completed substantial portions of the work in compliance with the plan and is diligently pursuing completion of all work. 7. If the owner fails to respond within the thirty (30)-day period set forth in section three with a plan that is acceptable to the Building Commissioner, or fails to complete the work approved in the plan to cure the blight within the allotted time, including any extensions, the Building Commissioner; (i) may request the planning commission to conduct a public hearing and make findings and recommendations that shall be reported to the Board of Supervisors concerning the repair or other disposition of the property in question, and if a public hearing is scheduled, (ii) shall prepare a plan for the repair or other disposition of the 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 on the property. Hearing must occur within 21 days of 2rid 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 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 determines 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. Unless otherwise provided for in Title 36 of the Code of Virginia, if the blighted property is occupied for personal residential purposes, the county, in approving the plan, shall not allow for an acquisition of such property if it would result in a displacement of the person or persons living in the premises. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to acquisitions, under an approved plan, by the county of property which has been condemned for human habitation by the local code official for more than one year. In addition, the county, in exercising the powers of eminent domain in accordance with Title 25 of the Code of Virginia, may provide for temporary relocation of any person living in the blighted property provided the relocation is within the financial means of such person. 17. In lieu of the acquisition of blighted property by the exercise of the powers of eminent domain as herein provided and in lieu of the exercise of other powers granted by the Code of Virginia, the Board of Supervisors, by ordinance, may declare any blighted property to constitute a nuisance and thereupon abate the nuisance pursuant to state law. Such ordinance shall be adopted only after written notice by certified mail to the owner or owners at the last known address of such owner as shown on the current real estate tax assessment books or current real estate tax assessment records t\-3 Q) c: co -l >- c: o o t) T"" C\, CO ('t) ..... c: Q) E c.. o Q) > Q) o >- :'!: c: :J E E o t) - o ..... c: Q) E t:: CO c.. Q) o I I L_,___-.-.j 077: 18-02-40.00-0000 I I 077 .18-02-41.00-0000 I .! I ! ! 'I . _. I ¡ '------ 077.18-02-42.00-0000 ~\-3 i I ~,~ i 077.18-02-43~00=0000-' ~--------- -='.". .. "" --~_.-------. Site Colony Lane .,~. '- ~..------ -- '--~------------'/ ' r i c---.___.__. i --~ , ¡ I I < I I I 077 .18~02-20.00-0000 ----~ , I I I I} ! I· 077 .18-02~ 19.00-~OOO I J 'I-----~- I I I --- -¡ ~ 1__' /---- .// 1--·--- I I I I CLft I 077 .18-02-22.00-0000 ! -'. ---J I ' 077 .18-02-21.00-0000 J'': / --- .. ._----------. ,:' l,~ ;--"7,. --_.,_._---_.~ ~--"'--'--' ---- - -- -¡ ¡--cc- '. ~-:..-~._---;"::-\ - .~-~-_.- i Y. '/ "\( '\ / ',- ------""....- 'y--';....,. ---'-.- _1140 "-----.--;:--:::, - --.----.--.--- --- ~------- , . .~- v', . ...... '\ . .... -, ~_. /' '- , ~-~,¡-:----- ' , -. .\. I \...:1, .. "'_" ~ ..-' ,. .,' ~ ----~-- --- --- ----.:-- - --------------- ':_~L;j_,'"é~,~__:_~~~>- ". -c:-,- '. 1 1 n t~ --. .-., E' .t ',0Jj -----:.~~.__._--=-----_.--'-- ~ ' ------e:.-- '~ ._..:.-~-- - -. -:::--.~-::--------:~ --:--:--::- ------ -' / / / ~~ . ..---,..~~ " . . ..... '.' ::-'--~"--?C:::::~:B--~~~B_-' . ---_-'-'--~_~____ . >< ". ""', '." ',," .._----:.:::.~.~:~~.:'~ ~. . 1 . ". - ~ '" ..:---> .... -';~~~~f::;~~__;~;:-:.:..=::~=_ :.>-~~ "~\O " / 077.18-05-02,00-0000 ", .0"-- _~~_ ..---,/", , ',' . ,_087.06-04760.00-0000/--' -~------ ~\ " ' ", - ",I' "'f -'",", '1' < .-----. .,..-' - Applicants Name: Shelton Residence Tax Map Number: 77.18-2-20 3821 Colony Lane Magisterial District: Cave Spring February 3, 2005 Scale: 1 "=50' Roanoke County Department of Community Development ACTION NO. ITEM NO. lr-« 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 Second reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a 0.0348-acre parcel of land to Michael S. & DeborahW. Harless as a reversion of property in connection with an abandonment of the rural addition of Artrip Lane, Catawba Magisterial District AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director, Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~ /J County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The first reading of this ordinance occurred during the February 22, 2005, meeting of the Board, The previous owners of the O.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 pddition 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 are requesting 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. 2 /~ , ~, METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF OF DEEDS. PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFL ,pT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.. ~ "'!Ii _ø--ø--------...---- #4559 1 STORY FRAME DWELUNG ------..--..-----..--------...--- 100 >'FAR FlOODP~ ---- BOUNDAR Y TAX #54.04-7-25 LALL/A BRAMMER HILL LIFE ESTA TE D.B. 1272, Pc. 710 1.19 AC. e 18" HICKORY -.-" -----.--. -- -- N 89 '53'0011 E 103' EXISTING EDGE OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT .. £ "--:;1 '00 , N 6626Z.6° TAX /54.04-7-26 MICHAEL S. & DEBORAH W. HARLESS D.B. 1607, PG. 1575 PLA T - O.e. 1607, PG. 1578 1.317AC. , Z\ ~. ~05 ~ ~ /,~ I~ ~ S TAX /54.04-7-27 CLARICE 0. HARTWElL w.e. 45. PG. 893 o.e. 689, PG. 351 PLA T - 0,8. 555. PG. 11 5.82 AC:: r"''''''''';¡;;;'''''j 0.0348 Ac. ...........hm........h...h..... PARCEL ..................................... ..................................., ..................................... .................................... ?1:N;j;~::;:ti~~:~~:t::n::~i::i{: TO BE .................................... CONVEYED INSTRUMENT #200313127 14649 1 STORY BRICK DJ1I£lUNG TAX MAP NO. TAX# 54.04-07-26 SCALE: PLA T SHOWlNC PARCEL BÐNC CONVEYED TO MICHAEL S. AND DEBORAH ~ HARLESS BY ROANOKE COUNTY 1" = 30' Exhibit A PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: 01/13/05 R: \ CAD \LAND PROJECTS R2 \AR TRIPPLAN \DWG \AR TRIPplat. dwg .~!1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 0.0348 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO MICHAEL S. HARLESS 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 Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office as Instrument #200313127, Michael S. Harless and Deborah W. Harless donated a 0.0348 acre parcel of land to Roanoke County for said rural addition; and WHEREAS, the residents of Artrip Lane, including Michael S. Harless and Oebroah 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 as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the subject property is hereby declared surplus. 1 ~-. g..'., . ., ....... -!) 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on February 22, 2005, and tt:1e second reading and public hearing were held on March 22,2005. 3. That the conveyance to Michael S. Harless and Deborah W. Harless of a parcel of land consisting of 0.0348 acres located along Artrip Lane in the Catawba Magisterial District and shown on a plat entitled "Plat showing parcel being conveyed to Michael S. and Deborah W. Harless by Roanoke County" prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering Department, dated 1/13/05, be, and hereby is authorized and approved. 4. 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 conveyance of property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. -q-- f1 111 _ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 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: The Western Virginia Water Authority has requested the repositioning of a twenty foot waterline easement in Phase 2-B of Stonegate, which subdivision is located partially in Roanoke County and in Botetourt County. The subdivision plat created a twenty foot waterline easement on the east side of Lot 48. The request is to move this easement by ten feet so that a new waterline easement will be ten feet wide on lot 48 and ten feet wide on adjoining lot 47, with some additional easement at the front and rear of these respective lots. The lots in question are situated entirely in Roanoke County. FISCAL IMPACT: No expense to the County is anticipated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. ~5" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT DEDICATED BY SUBDIVISION PLAT OF STONEGATE, PHASE 2-B, LOTS 47-48, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGE 141, AND CREATING A NEW WATERLINE EASEMENT SITUATED ON LOTS 47 AND 48, (TAX MAP # 028.04-03-02.00) LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 27, page 141, for "STONEGATE PROPERTIES, LLC, CREATING HEREON NEW LOTS 30 THROUGH 32 & NEW LOTS 38 THROUGH 49 . . . TO BE KNOWN AS PHASE 2-B, 'STONEGATE"', dated November 17, 2003, the developer, Stonegate Properties, LLC, dedicated and created a 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT on Lot 48 of Stonegate, Phase 2-B, as shown on the above described plat; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner-Developer, Stonegate Properties, LLC, has requested that the subject 20' waterline easement, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, be vacated pursuant to §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, upon condition that a new waterline easement situated on Lots 47 and 48, Phase 2-B, Stonegate, be created; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, will not interfere with the provision of public services, and has been approved by the affected County departments; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 8, " ~-5 2005, and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on March 22, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the "EXISTING 20' WATERLINE TO BE VACATED" shown dotted on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been dedicated and created as "NEW 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT" by subdivision plat of "NEW LOTS 30 THROUGH 32 & NEW LOTS 38 THROUG 49 . . . PHASE 2-B, STONEGATE", dated November 17, 2003, and recorded as aforesaid in Plat Book 27, page 141, , located in the Hollins Magisterial District, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner, Stonegate Properties, LLC. 3. 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. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with § 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 2 , . R-:-··i; PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Wayne & Martha Pike 6-3/2005 Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: March 22, 2005 A. REQUEST 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. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Holladay presented a summary of the staff report. The Pikes described their four Yorkshire Terriers, and confirmed they were all spayed or neutered. Mr. Azar asked the petitioner if they were agreeable to the recommended conditions. The Pikes agreed. Mr. McNeil added clarification that the private kennel would be for the keeping of four dogs, and that it would not be a breeding or boarding kennel. Mr. Jarrell added clarification that there were no restrictions on the type of dogs. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. The private kennel shall be for a maximum of four dogs. 2. The Special Use Permit shall be issued to Wayne and Martha Pike only, and shall not be transferable to any other subsequent property owner. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Azar then made a favorable recommendation to approve the rezoning with conditions. Motion passed 4-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commis'sion to.' b,·· Petitioner: Wayne & Martha Pike Request: Special Use Permit for Private Kennel Location: 4509 Red Barn Lane Magisterial District: Vinton Proffered/Suggested Conditions: 1. The private kennel shall be for a maximum of four dogs. 2. The Special Use Permit shall be issued to Wayne and Martha Pike only, and shall not be transferable to any other subsequent property owner. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Wayne and Martha Pike are requesting a Special Use Permit for a private kennel for their four Yorkshire Terriers. The four dogs stay indoors, except when let out into the fenced back yard. Each dog has been spayed or neutered. The property meets all zoning ordinance use and design standards for private kennels. The property is designated Neighborhood Conservation in the 1998 Roanoke. County Community Plan. Special use permits for Private kennels are issued only as an accessory use to a single family dwelling. Approval ofthe requested special use permit would not change the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. The request is generally consistent with the policies and guidelines in the Community Plan. Ifrecommending approval of the request, the Planning Commission may wish to limit the number of dogs to four. The Planning Commission may also wish to limit the special use permit to only the Pikes, and not subsequent property owners. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Private Kennels are allowed by Special Use Permit in the Rl zoning district. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background - The Pikes recently moved to Roanoke County, and were in the process of obtaining dog tags for their four Yorkshire Terriers when they found out that the maximum number of dogs allowed in the Rl district is two, unless a private kennel permit is issued. They immediately applied for the special use permit. The property is 4.38 acres and zoned Rl, Low Density Residential. The home is located in the south central portion ofthe property. The Pikes have installed a picket fence around the back yard. The four dogs stay indoors, except when let out into the fenced back yard. Each dog has been spayed or neutered. The property meets all zoning ordinance use and design standards for private kennels. If recommending approval of the request, the Planning Commission may wish to limit the number of dogs to four. 1 R-b TopographyNegetation - The property slopes gently to the south. Some of the property is open, grass yard with intennittent landscape trees and shrubs. The southern portion of the property behind the home is wooded. Surrounding Neighborhood - The surrounding properties to the west, north, and east are large-lot rural home sites, ranging from approximately one to five acres, and are zoned Rl. A 33± acre tract adjoins to the south and is zoned AG1, and contains a single family dwelling. 3. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The property is designated Neighborhood Conservation in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. Neighborhood Conservation areas are where established single-family neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. Special use pennits for Private kennels are issued only as an accessory use to a single family dwelling. Approval of the requested special use permit would not change the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. The request is generally consistent with the policies and guidelines in the Community Plan. 4. ST AFF CONCLUSIONS Wayne and Martha Pike are requesting a Special Use Pennit for a private kennel for their four Yorkshire Terriers. The four dogs stay indoors, except when let out into the fenced back yard. Each dog has been spayed or neutered. The property meets all zoning ordinance use and design standards for private kennels. The property is designated Neighborhood Conservation in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. Special use pennits for Private kennels are issued only as an accessory use to a single family dwelling. Approval of the requested special use permit would not change the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. The request is generally consistent with the policies and guidelines in the Community Plan. If recommending approval of the request, the Planning Commission may wish to limit the number of dogs to four. The Planning Commission may also wish to limit the special use pennit to only the Pikes, and not subsequent property owners. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: 06-03/2005 David Holladay PC: 3/1/05 BOS: 3/22/05 2 .' " County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 R-6 For Staff Use Only Date received: II i ~ I as Receiv by: "" Application fee: ~a\00 PC/BZA date: Placards issued: Check type of application filed (check an that apply) o Rezoning I6Special Use Applicants name/address w/zip lJ At¡'" E: Cf /nll ~T HAP 11(£ 'I q Reò ß."tR.,J LArJt=- A :;J. Owner's name/address w/zip 5R17ì¿ ;95 A&JU6 Property Location L¡ S- () 1 J2- eci 'ß tcrh La- t:.... Tax Map No.: ~ D . I '¡ - (_ ] 7. ] o Variance o Waiver Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: $C¡ð ~~~ 977-3397 -~~~ = ~~~4 Phone #: Fax No. #: Magisterial District: 1/: ~ v~ Community Planning area: Existing Zoning: R-¡ Proposed Zoning: R l S Proposed Land Use: I(-iv'"j-~ ¡cø........e..1_ Does thÿParcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ¡g/ 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 If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 NoD VarianceIWaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION Wn..L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. i§s V R/ .. Consultation Application Justifica.tion I hereby cerrify tha! I am either the 0 consent of the owner. V R/SfW V 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~ ApplicatiDn fee Metes and bounds description ',¡:t Proffers, if applicable /~ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners er of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and Gro;h '177~ -Pi.RL Owner's Signature f{-b Applicant IJAl.fAJC ~ iJIAI2-Tt-IA P¡K£ The Planning Commission wiII 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. R-i o ---..L I n Vf'v'Tf -- ¡? ~ìJf-vt 1 Í'V'- '€-- ð S- {L-(. 5 ; J ~.J.. l-'st,,,( 2....? 1"-"""1 I~~ "\.d - t-èJ v l ~-e. f $1 ~4,) u) ¿ I~ - . t 'k-L V\.. Ll"'"'.... ,.... (t., c..-r-e.c0j e... "- &~ 4 7771cheJJ Lt; /~K- Please explain bow the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. ~-V'- -f-.'.,n,,- J L.v~ ~ IV -t.-'rý í\ ~~~~;¡-J- ~"-~ LrVlv+w" '-Iv~ I,c..-.} V~e... desi ~~tÌ)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. PJ/A R-Co County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning Page II: 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 terrier 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 :£Tom 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-l 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 designatiòn. We have attached related aerial and other related photos with this letter and application. Sincerely, Wayne and Martha Pike ~-b A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. Thç-toncept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the#an shall address any potential land use or design issues arising ITom the request. In such cases involving rezorungs, the a}Wiicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficienci;sThat may not be manageable by County pennitting regulations. / / The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot pl~,fuat is required prior to the issuance of a buildíng pemit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with Sfàte and County development regulations and may requíre 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 eþ:ent pennitted by the zoning district and other regulations. I I / A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use peTIl)it, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may v¥Y, 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 following are considered minimum: / ALL APPLICANTS / a. Applicant name and name of developmept / b. Date, scale and north arrow i. / Lot size in acres or square feet and 9imensions d. Location, names of owners and R/anoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties i Physical features sucb as grouni cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. The zoning and land use of al){djacent properties I I g. All property lines and easerýents / h. All buildings, existing ancrproposed. and dimensions, floor area and heights , Location, widths and naTes of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adj acent to the development Dimensions and locatiyj~ of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces ;' e. c. f. j. Additional information requir:dfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utí1íties (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site I. Any driveways,/entnlDces/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography Ilfap in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximat~;street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations qt all adjacent fire hydrants p. Any pr0tï;¥red conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. Ifproject/is to be phased. please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Signature of applicant Date f{-þ 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 Pennit petition ifthe new or additional infonnation is presented at the public hearing. Ifit 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 comments 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 SignatureGJ7/'U( 6\Þ-t Date j J¡ 8 !o,~ /1/bt;J~ Pih ~-~ 6~Z:~ rct.öv 1. V.L .J.. R--(., . '.' '~OOM 0"" '100yd Image courtesy of the U.s. Geologica! Survey © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement http://terraserver.microsoft.com/PrintIm~aspx?T= 1 &8= 1 O&Z= 17 &X =2998& Y =20651 & W... 12/15/2004 CD P\\<.E L.t. ~ß Ac... ~ f'J\.AtZ\{ ~í~ ~weu.. ,j~S 'i'T~+-r..\{tJ-r~tA 'þPNlbSD~ ¥1,,57 ~()"¡SÆc.K.¡(þ, 1.'1'14/14-", \6) ~ s~s tteb E:>Pt~ 4J" 5.8'\ A<- @'R\C.I~~I> ,q.,f- bl fiN£' S/N/< fîì (\ _ \A L-/ ('85 GfMt./.EN Gt::7L 11 v: 5. t¡ 2.. OAc.. \2J B\I._L.~ L..H14V"i'\81.\:::"1 a\ _ . r ¿ .. ~ 4~~1 BON$A-q,(" ~b. Lt. \ ~Ac.. (!; C. r\AALE~ ÆA't CD)( ~ ';7~ 10 i!:-b ·::J.-r;¡t!- ,t...¿¡¿ Lur<-.- t.1)~otJA~~ ß~t>.U.I<'~L- .VI1_I!J." 14'1'1.5 LAKE: ßAt-IA-O~~E"YoN6Þ~ 32.70.AG . I t.L. 1'1'..1· :;'>DC.-"':'+"'D~_. I ~O~ÍIJ C. Be \l ,. \ 1+ '1 MATTIE ·Y. ~Ut r I4AIRFIEL.D I' ~~ 1£11182 FG.~~'31' \ \ ~~ ~~ S2.q40t'S·oo~ e t '21.'50' 71tì... ~ . ~'" ~~ ~I '-I v . &\ « -TRACT ~. TRACT '2A." .. .8, C Þ¡'¡YLLIß ~! I~I "A" :0 '518 . ~ C. HOWELL~ lu '\JOW OR .' .~ :,¡. AC. ,tJ);- &- MARY I ." ;:O~MeR\..""" " LOCAYIOlJ t· 0.. . -. FJ Ñ SÉT¡. . OWEI.L I . 1 e.'-MER t'f MAÞ. '" ~AM~ \' CRAFT ~ ~ <9 t: J, . I O.S.If.S< ~.14IG ill I· . . tðO- 01. ...... I . "" . ::t.. .~ úI JJewt,i., ?4o.se- ~fêt~ 0 \ ....... .J( .., U 0 · "-~'" . L.1..~~ . .... .... rOO-s 0 I~ PI~ f\.. DJ ~ (q 1Ii'"J·.. -. r.. . ~~~ : 1 · - 01: ~ . II ~ - -.... ß<:;S·;:r,..~····- -~'~... R " A <00 en 8' OO'w 4%.1<: ..... t . . rn ~'..J . ~m~.... ~ 0« «Ú, 1.IaTE' .. ';<0', '" II . __ ~ . a",::l... ~ . " -r.......,. 2-A B&'IJQ P.1 III --,'JJ ... 0 ... It) ~ TO PI<'tu.I$ C. > a '" ",""- «::l(I () tII ""W<u.l.. &. ............. .111....... ":~j ..;.t...e.....___ . :C:2 ::z 0 """"'..u... .J4Mres"" IS'" . ..... '. = -::;õ...... () « 0 W - AC>O£C'To ""Rn: . p.............. -::::....~... ii - ;2 « oi At.JO .s....ar ~ 81: A ßEÞA~e ~è'(' .~\ 0.« 10 d ..¡ 'aun,."It.,,,, arTa, ""õ'Ø"" . ~;i' ~i ~. ~. .. ; LHNJJHrJ ~··Llll.. 14: 213 NO\! ~í' d1~4 11J - · 1:. AS~LE'( & ·'0 . t LtLL'AW L. . I 'GA~RA~,"",T"'f D.e..C) 8 PG.. l7!:;.:. )J l'Õo-4""<x::)~'!:! ___ :'2.Cõ'!t..~3' . . . ''-''--. ~......._-- J 1:>ì4J IZ-b TRACT "'2er . 4~'3ao AC. - APPROVED: ~J4/~. . AQC¡\.J"T ~ CiXE cou~ P\"A,\.,)).Jt'-1G C:OMM'ß~tOtJ . . SURVEY FOR. 'PI4YLLIS COOK ·~OWe.LL If.... A-~ 011.1/(1$ .š.:kL ~~W'\J<Õ OWIß10µ OF Þ.A.~e,- '2. . Cllt'l:JflJCATlIfO. It' . OF ~e.. ,e~TAïe OÞ AL~eo ~. Coote't ~re ~o Sq., ~ RUT\-{ CL.AU01 t.Je COO"" . '... .¡~ Þ.B.q PG.30\ . 7~ 1'1'" ''\.1~\J MA~'~"e~tA\.. CIQ~1<:'T. , t"N~ . . , ROA\..10\(E. c:ou~ . -r ~'" \/'ItGI.,. . 0.1= . . . . SON tCI,¡'I": ,',dOO' . C:'lC. -~l:4Y': T. ' P. PARKER " ~ut: .!:&L..l.~_ '11:!'.... i' r~. !NG NURS "SUIVeYOItS LTD, . _ _..._..... ;.... "-'0 --- . I 0.............., I ~_...~,. . - ""1.111. vr ta",'''. ; .,';:' '''''::~'. 0- . , . ---......~..,._.. - ~.. ,...1..... ..·.....fN ~..:.~:"., . I \.." '_ -..:;. , ,:.1,' , " - -, , _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR _AV è1 _C2 _ C2CVOD _ ] 11 _12 .PCO _PRO _ PTO R1 -- -~-- R2 S;,_ _ 3 R3 --oj 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 R-h AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO WAYNE AND MARTHA PIKE FOR A PRIVATE KENNEL TO BE LOCATED AT 4509 RED BARN LANE (TAX MAP NO. 40.18-1-33.03) VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Wayne & Martha Pike have filed a petition for a special use permit for a private kennel to be located at 4509 Red Barn Lane (Tax Map No. 40,.18-1-33.03) in the Vinton Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on March 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on February 22, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on March 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 Wayne and Martha Pike for a private kennel to be located at 4509 Red Barn Lane in the Vinton 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 condition: (1) The private kennel shall be for a maximum of four dogs. (2) The Special Use Permit shall'be issued to Wayne and Martha Pike only, and shall not be transferable to any other subsequent property owner. R-~ 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 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 5' -I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to adopt a resolution approving and adopting amendments to the Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia Janet Scheid Chief Planner Elmer C. Hodge t. /1 County Administrator SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~e(r SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors held its public hearing on the Community Plan on January 25, 2005. After that public hearing the Board scheduled several work sessions to consider revisions to the Community Plan. Three work sessions have been held to discuss revisions to the Community Plan. Approved revisions are as follows: (1) Addition of an Executive Summary (2) Growth Management, page 5, #11 format change; page 6, #1 remove reference to purchase of development rights and the Western Virginia Land Trust (3) Transportation, pages 3-4, remove reference to adequate public facilities ordinance; . page 15, add reference to capital improvement program (4) Land use maps - change Newbern-Bach property from Principal Industrial to Core in Hollins District; change portion of Crumpacker property from Conservation to Neighborhood Conservation in Hollins District. ß- None of these revisions are so substantive as to require an additional public hearing. Accordingly, the Board may adopt the Community Plan as revised by taking action on the attached resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the resolution approving and adopting the Community Plan. 2. Amend the Community Plan and adopt the resolution approving and adopting the amended Community Plan. 3. Disapprove the Community Plan and return it to the Planning Commission for its reconsideration with written statement of the reasons for its disap.proval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 . <g~1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the plan on November 2, 2004, after advertisement and notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, and adopted a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors review and adopt a revised Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the revised Community Plan on January 25, 2005, after advertisement and notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, has a long and successful history of community planning that has emphasized citizen involvement and participation; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission of every jurisdiction shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive (Community) plan for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-2230 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission shall review the comprehensive (Community) plan once every five years to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan; and WHEREAS, in 2003 Roanoke County began the process of revising the Community Plan to help guide Roanoke County's growth and decision-making in the future; and '. S-I WHEREAS, in 2003, a Citizen's Planning Academy was conducted, in 2004 a Smart Growth Task Force was convened and during this two year period many work sessions and community input meetings were held; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared a revised Community Plan for Roanoke County entitled "Roanoke County Community Plan," dated November 2, 2004, and said plan has been prepared in accordance with §§ 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the Code of Virginia; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1) That the Revised Community (Comprehensive) Plan, consisting of the following five chapters and maps, is hereby approved and adopted. The Revised Community (Comprehensive) Plan consists of the following component parts: a) Economic Development Plan b) Growth Management & Capital Facilities Planning c) Storm water Management d) Public Utilities e) Transportation f) Land Use maps 2) That the Planning Commission and County staff are directed to commence work on implementation strategies for the Community Plan, including amendments to the County zoning Ordinance and County Code in accordance with the guidelines in the Community Plan for the use and development of land within Roanoke County. 3) That this Resolution is effective from and after March 22, 2005. 2 .. J..' s-\ PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Comprehensive Plan 7/2004 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 2, 2004(Continued from July 6, 2004) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: March 22, 2005 (Continued from July 27, 2004) A. REQUEST Public Hearing to receive public comments on a proposal to adopt a revised Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. The proposed Community Plan is comprised of both text and maps. Once recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the plan will serve as a general guide for the long range use and development of all land within Roanoke County. The proposed plan has been prepared in accordance with guidelines contained in Sections 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the Code of Virginia, and Section 30-8-1 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Scheid summarized the two years work on the revised Community Plan and reviewed each of the 5 chapters. Mr. Holladay explained the land use maps. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Four members of the Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association spoke. They commended staff for their hard work and had the following comments: strongly urged Roanoke County to budget tax dollars to purchase conservation easements and viewshed easements; need to better define "lot" and "parcel"; allow but do not require rural cluster; adopt rural rustic road standards and allow private road developments; be careful with slope/ridgetop ordinances because many good building areas are accessed through steep slopes; RRHBA believe that there is not sufficient buildable land with access to public sewer and water to sustain the annual demand for housing; disagree with requiring 15.2-2232 reviews for "by right" development; do not think there should be any reference to "adequate public facilities" in the Community Plan; believe the Economic Development chapter should reference the importance of housing and the home building industry as a key component of the County's economy and also that there is the need for a strong residential base to support commercial development; RRHBA believe the Capital Improvement Plan must fund the County's infrastructure needs; agree with the recommendations on mixed-use developments; do not think a 40% tree canopy is in the County's best interest; disagree with reducing residential density in rural areas; think only VDOT, and not staff, should be able to request a traffic impact study; request that the Utility chapter expand on how the WVWA is funded and what their policies are; encourage the development of a Mountain Zoning District. 2. Elizabeth Abe (6909 Mary B Place) commended the staff on their work; asked that a Steep Slope ordinance be a high priority in the work plan; expressed concern about DEQ enforcement; recommended the 15.2-2232 review in the Community Plan. 3. Helen Sublette (5577 Valley Drive) expressed concern about higher density in areas already impacted by drainage and stormwater concerns. þ " " ~-, C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Planning Commission thanked staff for their work and thanked citizens for their participation in the process. Ms. Hooker asked Mr. Covey to explain the coordination between Roanoke County and DEQ for drainage and erosion complaints. Mr. Covey explained that staff had met with DEQ and were coordinating enforcement efforts. D. CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker made the motion to approve the Resolution. Ms. Scheid read the resolution. Motion passed 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission S-1 Counly of K oanokeJ Vírqínía REVISIONS TO TH E 1998 COMMUNITY PLAN Sections Revised: 1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT 3. PUBLIC UTILITIES 4. STORM WATER MGMT. 5. TRANSPORTATION 6. FUTURE LAND USE MAPS 7. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ---January 25, 2005--- TABLE OF CONTENTS S-1 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS.................................................................................... 2 PLAN UPDATES.................,..................,..........,........................,................................,............ 4 PLAN AMENDMENTS ....... ,....... ................. ....,... ................. ................. ........ ............,.... ......... 4 CHAPTER 2 - VISION STATEMENTS 5 INTRODUCTION ....... ...........,..... ............,.... ........ .......,......... ..............,.. .........,....... .....,.. .......,.5 CO MM1JNITY - WIDE THEMES.............................................................................................. 5 VI SI ON S T A TEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 3 - LAND USE ISSUES 13 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION................................................................................................... 13 DESIGN GUIDELINES ................................................,.............................,........................... 16 Land Use Designations ,.... ..............,.. ...............,. ........ .....,........... ................. ...., ,.. ......, 17 Design Guidelines .... ........ ................. .....,........... ................. ........ ............,....., ,........,... 18 Conservation.................,........,.........,......................,..............,.........,.............. 18 Rural Preserve and Rural Village.................................................................... 20 Village Center .........,...................,....................,............,......................"........ 20 Neighborhood Conservation. ............,.... ................. ..,..... ......,.......... .............,. 22 Development,............................................................."................................... 22 Transition...............................,......................,...........,..................................... 23 Core........,............................".........................................."............................. 24 Principal Industrial..,...........,.....................,.................,................................... 26 Scenic Corridors ......,.... ........ .......,.....,... ................. ........ .......,. ,....... ......., ....... 27 NEIGHBORHOODS,...............................................,......................,......................................, 28 QU ALITY 0 F LIFE..........,...................,.........,...............,..............................................,......,. 32 REGIONALISM....................... ....................................,.............................................,............ 36 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. ........ ................. ................. .........,............... ....,...., ,.... 39 Economic Opportunity Area Map - North County ......................................................45 Economic Opportunity Area Map - East County......................................................... 47 Economic Opportunity Area Map - South County ......................................................49 Economic Opportunity Area Map - West County ............... ........................................ 51 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ** Added Topic** ** CHAPTER 4 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES 53 PARKS AND RECREATION.................................................................................. ............... 53 LIBRARIES........ .............................................................,...................,...........,....................... 57 SCHOO LS .......................................................................................,..........................,............ 61 PUBLIC SAFETy......................,........,.................,...............,......,............................,.,........... 68 Police Department............................................,......,...................................,............... 69 Fire and Rescue Department...... ...............,. ........ ................. ................. ........ ...............70 Sheriff s Office........,.,.................."........"......,.....................,...................................... 71 PUBLIC UTILITIES................................,...............................",............................................. 72 STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT ...... ................. ................... ...... ................. ................. ...... 74 TRANSPORTATION...........................,................,.................,....................."............,........... 7 5 FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION - DESIGN REQUIREMENTS............. 82 County of Roanoke - Primary and Secondary Roads ............................................ ......85 BIKEWAyS..........................."........,....................................................................".... 8 6 Roanoke County - Recommended Roadways for Bicycle Accommodation ...............89 S-1 CHAPTER 5 - RESOURCE PRESERV A TION 95 INTRODUCTION......,....."..................................,............................,............................,........ 95 OPEN SPACE .................,.............,..........................................................,...........................,.. 95 GREENW A YS ...............................,............................".....................................................,.... 96 ROANOKE RIVER."...........................................................................,.................................. 97 SOILS.............................................,..........................,......,....... .............................................,.99 HISTORIC RESOURCES ............., ,...... .,...... ...........,..... .,.......,....... ........ ................. ............. 100 MOUNTAINS AND RIDGETOPS ............................................................. .......................,.. 101 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.................."..................................................................... 1 02 THE BLUE RIDG E PARKWAy............................................................ .............................. 103 THE APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL .........................................................105 CHAPTER 6 - FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE 113 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.............................................................................................. 113 Conservation.....,............................".........,............................................,................... 113 Rural Preserve............................ ......................................... ...................................... 114 Rural Village ............ ................................................................................................. 115 Village Center........... ................. ........ ................. .........,....... ........ ................. .,.,......,.. 116 Neighborhood Conservation...................................................................................... 118 Development ............ ......................... .,............... ................. ................. ......., ............. 118 Transition..............................."..........,.........,...............................................,..,.......,. 120 Core........................................".........................,......................................,.,..........." . 120 Principal Industrial...........................,........................................................................ 121 LAND USE POLICIES......................................................................................................... 123 GENERAL ...... ............,.................,.........................................................",.............. 123 RESOURCE PRESERVATION.. ............................................................................. 123 DESIGN.....................,........................................................................."................... 124 NEIG HBORHOO OS...........,.........,.....................................................................,..... 124 COMMUNITY FACILITIES.................................................................................... 124 TRANSPORTATION.................................. ............... ............................,................. 125 OPEN SPACE.................. ...................................................................."................... 125 GREENW A YS................. ......................................................................,.................. 125 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 126 CHAPTER 7 - PLANNING AREA ANALYSIS 127 COUNTY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD THEMES AND CONCERNS .................................127 FUTURE LAND USE MAPS................ ................................................................................ 133 BACK CREEK - FUTURE LAND USE MAP .........................................................135 BACKCREEK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA................................................ 137 BENT MOUNT AIN- FUTURE LAND USE MAP ..................................................139 BENT MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA .......................................141 BON SACK - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ...............................................................143 BONSACK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA..................................................... 145 CATAWBA - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ....... .................................. ........ .............147 CATAWBA V ALLEY COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ...................................149 CAVE SPRING - FUTURE LAND USE MAP. ....................................................... 151 CAVE SPRING COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ..............................................153 CLEARBROOK - FUTURE LAND USE MAP .......................................................155 CLEARBROOK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA .............................................157 S-1 GLENV AR - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ...............................................................159 GLENV AR COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA .....................................................161 HOLLINS - FUTURE LAND USE MAP .................................................................163 HOLLINS COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA .......................................................165 MASON'S COVE - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ....................................................169 MASONS COVE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ...........................................171 MT. PLEASANT - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ......................................................173 MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA ....................................175 VINTON - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ...................................................................179 VINTON COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA............................................... .......... 181 WINDSOR HILLS - FUTURE LAND USE MAP ................................................... 183 WINDSOR HILLS COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA .........................................185 CHAPTER 8 - COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 189 ** Added Topic Amended Topic - ¡ r:>_I' I S-1 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. SU..ffi!narv of Informaticm 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 Planning - 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 impç¡ct 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 S-1 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 S-1 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 ] 987 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 the 1985 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 S-1 3. To create and maintain a marketable inventory of quality industrial/commercial real property sufficient to meet market demand. 4. To promote and encourage regional participation in economic development activities, programs and services. Issues and Opportunities Competition among land uses for developable land: There is a limited amount of developable land in Roanoke County. Residential uses and tax-exempt activities are the major land uses competing with economic development for developable land. Potential commercial and industrial sites need to be identified, rezoned and reserved for future development. · Identify economic opportunity areas: The 1992 Economic Development Strategy delineated the 1-81 corridor, North County/Hollins Road, the Route 460 East Corridor, West County, Explore Park and the Southwest County/419 Corridor as economic opportunity areas. Since 1992, significant economic development activities have occurred in these areas. The following activities have occurred in the implementation of the Economic Development Strategy, and Business Plan: 1-81 Corridor - Coordinate with VDOT and Community Development to evaluate the impact on economic opportunity areas and ensure the preservation, creation and enhancement of marketable commercial/industrial property. Participate in interchange design and land use and coordinate any public policy changes necessary to encourage development in these areas. North 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 W al- 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 S-1 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 storm 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 of25 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 German Imports vehicle sales operation. Activity along Route 220 included a new Land Rover, Mercedes, V olvo 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, conform 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 EconomÍc 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 (108 aces), the Jack Smith Industrial Park (68 acres), and the Vinton Business Center (99 acres). Roanoke County also participated with The Greater Roanoke Valley Economic Development - Draft - 3 S-1 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 con finned 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 detennining 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 S-1 operations and their positive impact on the County. Funds are annually appropriated to an economic development fund and administered for projects in accordance with the policy, which gives staff the ability to offer incentives to targeted businesses. The County will consider financing eligible public improvements and employee training costs as a partnership if there is a "payback" or return on investment from new taxes/fees generated by a commercial or industrial project. Typical partnerships involve extensions of water and sewer service and related utility connection fees. All projects are subject to the execution of a performance agreement between the County and the private entity to insure that a proposed development meets its investment goals. Partnership agreements are audited by the County staff to determine if the projected taxes and fees are being generated by a partnership project. Business Retention & Expansion: Roanoke County carries out an ongoing existing business visitation program to companies located within the County. These visits provide a confidential update of a company's products, markets, operations and 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 S-1 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 S-1 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 of regional publicly owned business parks. (Obj. A, B, C, D, F) 8. Develop design guidelines for new commercial retail developments including "big box" retail structures, traditional shopping centers and the newer "life style"centers. Develop design guidelines for new industrial projects on a case-by- case basis taking into consideration the location of existing residential developments and valuable natural resources such as the Blue Ridge Parkway viewshed. The appropriateness of the design and the extent to which the developer is sensitive to the above mentioned items will be used as criteria when considering the use of financial incentives to spur development. The following Economic Opportunity Area maps include existing commercial and industrial areas and potential economic opportunity sites for future use. The blue areas identified on these maps as "Other" are areas that have not been specifically identified at this time as future commercial or industrial areas. They are areas where, based upon their location, access or topography, some potential for future economic opportunity exists. Economic Development - Draft - 7 S-1 DRAFT (January 11,2005) GROWTH MANAGEMENT & CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING GOAL: To protect, preserve, enhance and effectively and efficiently utilize Roanoke County resources by: . Guiding future growth and development to areas where land uses, facilities and infrastructure exist and are planned · Promoting compact and contiguous development and infill development · Focusing County infrastructure funding on these current and designated future development areas . Protecting and enhancing the following resources: historic, cultural, agricultural, forestry, water, recreational and scenic. INTRODUCTION The growth management goal is to direct development into designated areas that have or will have the capacity to accommodate future growth. This goal will facilitate efficient service delivery in those areas while preserving rural resources in outlying areas. To further this goal, the County land use map should delineate three areas of growth potential: 1) the primary growth areas of the County that are currently served by public water and sewer and where the majority of new growth should be encouraged; 2) the "future growth" areas directly adjacent to the primary growth area that should accommodate outward growth over a 5-year period of time and where the extension of public water and sewer can relatively efficiently be accomplished; 3) the rural areas where growth should be discouraged and public water and sewer services should not be extended. It must be recognized that the future growth areas should be periodically reviewed and updated. While it is the goal of Roanoke County to focus new development in those areas that currently have existing infrastructure and services it is recognized that some level of outward growth is necessary. To accommodate this outward growth in a manner that does not diminish the quality of life of current residents of these areas, the timing of new developments must be carefully orchestrated to coincide with the construction of public facilities and services to meet the needs of current and future citizens. Draft - Growth Management - Page 1 1 S-1 The growth management goal is clearly intended to discourage development in the rural areas of Roanoke County and recognizes that incompatible development in these areas of the County is costly both in terms of service delivery and the irreversible damage to critical resources. In order to implement the growth management goals it should be recognized that the provision of adequate public infrastructure and services to those areas designated to receive growth is a critical component. The growth management goals of Roanoke County can only be achieved if needed capital facilities improvements are timed and coordinated to accommodate future growth. Conversely, it must be recognized that the inefficiencies of providing these same public services to dispersed rural populations is not in the overall public interest. The provision of public facilities and services requires significant public funding for construction, operation and long-term maintenance. The County should ensure that the highest benefit is provided to County citizens in exchange for this cost. In order to achieve the stated growth management goals, future emphasis should be placed on providing public service delivery to those designated growth areas where future development should be directed. To accomplish this, public facilities and services should be provided at a much higher level in these growth areas than in the non-growth or rural areas. LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GROWTH AREAS Primary growth areas - those areas currently served by public water and sewer and where the majority of new growth should be encouraged - include the following land use designations: Principal Industrial, Core, Transition, Development and Neighborhood Conservation. Future growth areas - those areas adjacent to primary growth areas where outward growth over the next 5 years should be accommodated - include the following land use designations: Development and to a limited extent Village Center. These growth areas must be attractive places to live and work. Development in these areas should be more efficient and at higher densities than in the past in order to help prevent sprawl development and keep suburban development patterns from encroaching into rural areas. The continuation of low-density suburban areas should not be encouraged in designated growth areas. Design strategies should be developed to ensure that these growth areas are harmonious with surrounding areas but mày include different uses and different densities than those surrounding Draft - Growth Management - Page 2 2 S-1 areas. Careful design of these growth areas should result in development that is beneficial to the community. 1. The majority of new residential growth in the County should be in designated primary and future growth areas. 2. Development within the growth areas should have public water and sewer. 3. Rezoning of property within these designated primary and future growth areas should consider and address the impacts on public facilities and services that would result from the rezoning. 4. The residential growth areas should be developed at densities that allow efficient use of the land. Gross densities should be increased. 5. Design of residential growth areas should reflect the following principles: a. Transportation - Neighborhood streets (both public and private) should be of a scale that complements the area, should incorporate landscaping and should encourage walking and biking. Private streets, and public streets in accordance with VDOT guidelines, should be designed to calm traffic. Sidewalks and paths should be provided for pedestrians. b. Parks and Open Space - To compensate for increased residential densities parks and open space should be incorporated into the design. Environmental resources such as floodplains, slopes and forested areas should be protected. 6. Steep slopes - New development, infill development and redevelopment on slopes between 10% and 33% should be sensitive to existing grades and where possible should promote architectural design elements that work with, rather than against, these grades. Develop design guidelines and regulations for development on steep slopes. These should include provisions for "slope maintenance bonds", and should determine a slope above which development should not be allowed. The precise slope percentage should be determined after more research and analysis is conducted but should be specified in the future zoning ordinance amendment. 7. Infill development - new development on vacant lots within urbanized/suburbanized areas - should be encouraged. Design guidelines should be developed to: Draft - Growth Management - Page 3 3 S-1 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 4 p-- f S-1 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.f. Street and Access Requirements including: 1) length of private streets; 2) number of dwelling units allowed on any single private street; and 3) private street design requirements. b.g. Conservation Areas, Primary and Secondary: review and clarifydefinitions including section relating to slope. c.h. Open Space Requirements and the relationship to lots and property lines. 12. In compliance with the ozone Early Action Plan, Roanoke County should adopt a 40% tree canopy coverage (calculated at ultimate growth of trees) as a target for all new development. Encourage developers to site structures and parking lots around stands of mature trees and where needed, require the replacement of trees. Recognize the important role trees lay in air quality, aesthetics and cooling. 13. Develop corridor studies for future commercial areas including Route 220 South, Route 221 and Route 460 west. LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RURAL AREAS Rural growth areas - those areas where growth should be discouraged - include the following land use designations: Rural Village, Rural Preserve, Conservation and to some extent Village Center. Roanoke County should make a commitment to preserve its rural areas. Without this, we will see the continued fragmentation of large parcels of land and the conversion to residential development. This pattern results in a declining agricultural economy, the loss of plant and wildlife habitats, and the loss of natural resources and the rural character of much of Roanoke County. The subdivision of rural lands for single-family residences has serious implications for resource conservation and the preservation of the rural character. Draft - Growth Management - Page 5 r) , \ S-1 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. Rathor than dovolop a consorvation oasomont program (or purchaso of dovolopmont rights program) of its own, tho County should adoquatoly fund tho 'Nostorn Virginia Land Trust (\.^NL T) to run such a program within tho County. Tho 'l-NL T has staff and exportise to conduct such a program and, '....ith sufficiont funding, should be able to do so much more officiontly than tho 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 S-1 development costs, more marketable lots, and the preservation of substantial portions of land. Citizens would gain the benefits of permanent preservation of large tracts of land that could be used for agricultural or forestry uses, recreational uses and the preservation of water, natural or scenic resources. Many issues need to be considered in developing standards for a rural cluster program. The protection of the natural environment should be ensured. A minimum size of the preservation parcel should be determined. The standards should ensure that a minimum amount of land is used for residential development. With that though, and in keeping with the growth management goals of Roanoke County, the use of rural cluster developments should not be a justification to extend public water and sewer to these rural areas. In order for this program to work, alternatives for wastewater treatment and water supply should be considered that would allow reduced lot sizes for the residential parcels and, thereby, allowing significant portions of land to be available as preservation parcels. 4. Proactively manage the extension of water and sewer services. Recognize that the availability of public water and sewer, among other things, greatly influences the development and density of land. Sewer pump stations have made the extension of public sewer feasible to areas of the County where it would not otherwise be. Staff has mapped recommended "future growth" areas, contiguous to the current utility services boundary, that should accommodate growth over the next 5 year period of time. Within this future growth area Section 15.2-2232 public review will not be required for the extension of water and sewer services. Outside and beyond these future growth areas, staff is recommending that no new utility lines be extended, no new pump stations be built and no new community well systems be allowed without the benefit of a Section 15.2-2232 public review. 5. Consider adopting a set of design guidelines and recommendations for future improvements to rural roads. Also, consider adopting the Virginia Department of Transportation Rural Rustic Roads Program. This program for unpaved roads is designed to pave rural roads in a more environmentally friendly and less costly manner. This program uses existing road widths for road improvements, rather than increasing road widths and is designed for areas with limited growth. 6. Consider minimum private road development standards for very large lot rural residential development. Shared driveways, flag lots or lots with no frontage should also be considered to minimize the amount of road frontage required and the visual impact of residential development from the rural roads. These standards should apply to five or fewer lots. Draft - Growth Management - Page 7 7 S-1 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 shourd be given to the extension of pUblic water and sewer to these areas. Rural Village Centers are rural locations where you would find small country stores, small family restaurants, schools, post offices and churches - those establishments that bring a sense of community to the surrounding countryside. These areas are not intended to be major employment centers for urban/suburban residents but rather to provide essential goods and services to the nearby rural residential community. These areas are often the rural crossroads. Design standards should consider the following: prohibit the creation of strip development along rural roads; appropriate scale of buildings; the re-use and renovation of existing buildings should be encouraged. Overall, rural design standards should be implemented not suburban design standards. It should be recognized that these rural village areas do not require the same signage, access, parking and lighting standards that more suburban and urban areas do. 10. Develop an ordinance to prohibit the clear-cutting of trees in certain zoning districts, under certain circumstances. Attention should be given to the provisions of State Code dealing with silviculture activities. Draft - Growth Management - Page 8 8 S-1 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 tankJdrainfield systems. As a community Roanoke County must recognize the influence that public water and sewer services and internal policies concerning fees, fee rebates and cost sharing have on growth management. The policies of the WVW A must be consistent with County policies concerning issues of land use, economic development, schools and the provision of public services such as police, fire and rescue. The WVWA is charged with providing public water and sewer service to the citizens of Roanoke County and Roanoke City. This Authority operates as an enterprise fund and receives no direct general fund tax dollars. As a result, the Authority is funded solely from the col1ection 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 Hol1ow 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 I S-1 Chapter 4: Community Facilities The WVW A continues to have limited dependence on ground water wells. Currently, approximately 22 wells located in Roanoke County supply drinking water. More than forty wells have been taken off-line since the construction of the Spring Hollow Reservoir. In addition, the WVW A has the capability of purchasing approximately 0.2 million gallons per day from the City of Salem. The WVW A is responsible for maintaining the wastewater collection system, including sewage pump stations for the wastewater conveyance system located in Roanoke County. Roanoke County participates in the regional wastewater treatment plant that is owned and operated by the 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 S-1 Draft - Stormwater Management (November 2, 2004) Introduction Stonnwater management is the planned control of surface water runoff that results from rainfall. The goal of stonnwater management is to prevent flooding and polJution. AIJ development creates an impact to the overland flow of rain water. Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between development and water quality degradation/flood volume. This element of the Community Plan provides direction for ensuring that development impacts are mitigated by stonnwater management facilities and water quality best management practices. A number of regulatory and safety factors influence stonnwater management in Roanoke County. These include local, state, and federal regulations such as the Roanoke County Stormwater Ordinance, the Virginia Stonnwater Management Handbook, and the County's Virginia PolJutant Discharge Elimination System MS-4 Penn it # VAR-040022. FolJowing are the stonnwater goals of Roanoke County. (1) Prioritizing drainage basins which need improvement through stream inventories and watershed impact assessment. (2) Addressing pollutant load and flood reduction techniques. (3) Inventorying stonnwater management facilities and their condition through the stonn sewer system mapping program. (4) Recommending capital improvement projects to improve stonnwater quality. The primary issues of concern for the stonnwater management section of the Roanoke County Community Plan are to (1) Minimize the impact of drainage on private property, (2) AlJeviate existing storm water problems, (3) Manage storm water discharge control, (4) protect water and stream quality, and (5) Research potential stonnwater management financing methods. The objectives and implementation strategies of this section direct Roanoke County to monitor maintenance of existing stonnwater facilities and will also work towards meeting or exceeding the compliance requirements of the Federal Government's National PolJutant Discharge Elimination System. Objectives and implementation strategies are presented to address the five primary issues of the Roanoke County Community Plan. Perfonnance standards for stonnwater discharge will be applied to new development to prevent downstream degradation. These standards wilJ 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 stonnwater management. Implementing riparian buffer regulations to filter run-off, reducing stream temperatures, providing open space Draft - Storm water Management - Page 1 1 S-1 and wildlife habitat and preventing development of parking lots and structures within close proximity of a stream corridors are all means of water protection. Many drainage issues involve conditions that raise questions concerning the division of public and private responsibility. Polices concerning existing conditions emphasize a thorough study to identify conditions which may warrant County action either to correct problems on County property or to assume a new level of responsibility for those that are now considered private property. The creation of a framework for informed decisions concerning the expansion of the County role is proposed. The County has also determined that regional storm water 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 storm water management program. Storm water 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 S-1 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 stonn sewer drainage system studies to identify existing and future flooding and erosion damage. · Re-evaluate current County policy for stonnwater basin inspections and maintenance acceptance. Implementation Strate~!:Íes · Evaluate the existing floodplain regulations to detennine 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 - Stonnwater Management - Page 3 3 S-1 Issue #2 Existing Stormwater Problems Objectives The current understanding of existing stonnwater problems indicates a level of severity which demands substantial immediate action by the County. The current system of responsibility provides remedies either by the affected party or through legal measures to obtain relief from a party causing the problem. Nevertheless additional requests for County assistance can be expected, and will require an expanded County effort. Any actions to expand County responsibilities for the correction of existing stormwater problems should be supported by a thorough analysis of needs, proper solutions, and appropriate levels of public and private responsibility. These conclusions support the following objectives for policies related to existing 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 Strate2ies 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 Stonnwater Management Program as outlined in the current stormwater maintenance program and the County's Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS-4 Pennit # V AR-040022. Draft - Storm water Management - Page 4 4 · Initiate studies necessary to identify feasible drainage projects on private property, establish the justification for County assumption of responsibility for these projects, and establish priorities for implementation. This policy may also be accomplished as part of a comprehensive drainage basin study. · Maintain annual capital budgeting for drainage improvements. Identify feasible projects which require scheduled maintenance and an annual budget. As the results of storm sewer system drainage studies identify additional projects, the budget level may be increased accordingly. Development of a drainage utility approach to funding 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 storm water effects. . Develop an ordinance prohibiting illegal discharges into the storm drain system. Draft - Stormwater Management - Page 5 S-1 5 S-1 Issue #3 Stormwater Discharge Control Objectives · Manage the stormwater effects of new development. · Manage the stormwater effects of re-development. · Manage stormwater quantity. · Manage stormwater and stream quality. · Correct and fund existing drainage deficiencies. · To prevent significant increases in the potential for property damage, nuisances, or other negative impacts of stormwater. · To equitably allocate the costs of controlling increases in stormwater discharge to properties which are the sources of the increase. Implementation Strate2"ies · Controlling, through regulation or ordinance, stormwater discharge from new development in pre and post construction. · To apply discharge control methods (stormwater best management practices) which are economically, aesthetically, and environmentally acceptable, as well as effective in stormwater management. · Develop a system for stormwater discharge control which emphasizes regional/community facilities. In addition, appropriate levels of on-site control for new development should be applied to a particular site where immediate downstream degradation or flooding issues exist. · Incorporate in site plan review, considerations for potential pre and post construction stormwater impact. · Develop ordinance and regulation to prohibit illegal and illicit stormwater connections. This general policy related to discharge is intended to combine the strengths of on-site and off-site approaches, while minimizing the weakness of either approach. Accomplishment may require studies to create a fee in lieu of on- site facilities when plans have been approved for better off-site improvements. These improvements may include strategically located improvements. Design criteria for the discharge control system will be subject to further detailed consideration, but the following are appropriate: 1. Control the peak flow for the 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 S-1 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 7 S-1 Issue #4 Water Quality Objectives · To sustain a stormwater and stream water quality program which meets federal stonllwater discharge penllit requirements, state water quality standards and local needs. · To preserve the natural character, ecological processing functions and biological integrity of drainage ways. · To incorporate water quality considerations into County actions related to public facilities and development regulations. 1m plementation Strate2ies · 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 green way acquisition, flood prone area regulation, drainage corridor protection, public design and construction, and the application of other public resources that may be identified in the future. The intent of this policy is to apply the various powers and resources of the County to the preservation of natural features which prevent pollutants from entering streams and reduce potential economic cost due to flooding, stream erosion and urban Bio-infrastructure degradation. · Incorporate water quality management practices into discharge control regulations and County design, construction and maintenance practices. Water quality and receiving water impacts will be considered during the design, construction, and maintenance of drainage facilities on County properties. Water 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 S-1 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 Strate2;ies · 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 10ng-tenl1 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 S-1 ~ ~~~~ 2004 Community Plan County of Roanoke, Virginia ~ ~GJU~ @~Q~~ Transportation element L Introduction Roanoke County has become a vital employment, retail, residential, and entertainment center for Southwest Virginia. Along with this growth and expansion, the County is experiencing the consequent transportation dilemmas that much of the nation is undergoing. In order to remedy the problems, one must closely examine travel characteristics, statistics, and trends to gain insight into the quandary. The population of the United States increased 33% from 1970 to 1998, while the workforce increased 66% over that same period. That means that about 55 million more people are commuting daily to work and the majority of those, some 88%, travel in an automobile. That means over 48 million more commuters by automobile on the road every day. The incredible magnitude of the problem becomes clear when one examines the data and realizes that the amount of vehicle miles traveled is almost doubling (increased 72% from 1980 to 1998) while the amount of road mileage/capacity is holding steady as new roads are not being funded and built (total U.S. roadway lane-miles increased by only 3.6% during the same time period) (All statistics from Bureau of Transportation Statistics ). Comprehensive and forward-looking solutions are necessary to address these problems and to meet the transportation needs of Roanoke County residents, visitors, and businesses. The Transportation element of the Community Plan provides a policy and program framework for these solutions. Transportation projects and plans developed and implemented within Roanoke County are guided by this framework. By achieving the goals set forth in this Plan, Roanoke County will provide accessible, attractive, economically viable and S-1 environmentally sound transportation options that meet the needs of residents, employers, employees, and visitors for safe, convenient, and efficient travel. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Commonwealth of Virginia owns, constructs, and maintains all of the public roads in the County. However, the County does have considerable input and say into what transportation projects are supported and funded within the County; and a close working relationship is and will be maintained with VDOT on County transportation issues. Roanoke County will also continue to participate in the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization to continue comprehensive transportation planning and to promote and provide additional opportunities for effective citizen input in concert with neighboring jurisdictions. Utilizing this Transportation element of the Community Plan and working in coordination with adjoining localities and the . aforementioned entities will enable the County of Roanoke to achieve the goals laid out herein. It should be noted that this element of the Community Plan is a policy document rather than a transportation proposal; no specific projects or changes in traffic planning are mandated. 11 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 2 ,,-"--;..~.: S 1 ,....) i - ~ .·~f· ~ , 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 ofthe locality. While Roanoke County may not be experiencing the population explosion that other areas are, it is imperative that the County encourage development in designated growth areas in order to support efficient expansion of infrastructure and services, including transportation facilities. Similarly, the County should attempt to negate taxing the existing transportation infrastructure with over-development by ensuring that if the existing roadway cannot handle the expected trips generated by a proposed development, then accommodations would be made by the developer or the taxpayers to safely and efficiently carry the expected traffic levels. One such containment/growth management tool the Count)' can consider implementing is an l'\dequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). (Currently, und-cr the Commonwealth oj Virginia la~l', a local go~'erml1cnt cannot adopt and implemcnt an "iPFo. "it the time ojtlie ~ITiting oj this Community Plan, therc is much debatc and discussion occurring with Virginia lawmakers on this to-pic. County staff ~I'il! continue to monitor the progress oj said proposal and detcrmine [f this st:-ategy is applicable to thc COllnty and how it should best be implemented. Other typcs of rc'cl1ue cnhancemcnt techniques. such as cash proffirs, impact fces and public/primte partnerships will also be researched, monitored and emlz;ated by COllnty staff.) Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances help local governments avoid the negative impacts of rapid grov,1:h, such as insufficient sewer capacity and traffic congestion. The main objective of ,,\PFOs is to ensure that ne\', development has adequate urban services. The)' serve to give local governments more control over the timing and location of ne"v development and pace the construction of public facilities to keep up "vith the dcmands of new residential development. V/hilc an ,,\PFO can direct groV,1:h in areas that can provide the necessary infrastructure Draft Transportation - 3 (~ _~ ¡ S-1 for development, it can also curb grov,1h in areas intended to remain rural. Many localities already have some standards even though they have not formally adopted an APFO. In principle, land use planning, zoning, and public facility plans should prevent development in areas that lack adequate levels of urban services. In practice, however, APFOs encourage better monitoring of urban service leyels, and make clear the levels of service that must be available before development happens. The key aspect of ;\PFOs is that local governments can withhold or delay approval of developments in areas '.vhere adequate urban services are una';ailable. As the Roanoke Valley continues to grow, the demands of an increasing population create potential threats to the County's quality of life: threats such as eroding livability, declining mobility, and rising transportation costs. Without careful planning designed to manage this new growth and implementation of some of the aforementioned strategies, these threats could become reality . b. Strategy: Balance Land Use Objectives with Street Functional Capabilities -- Transportation road networks provide two divergent objectives (see Figure T - I). One objective is to provide efficient mobility from one location to another, usua11y 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 Empll3SlS to ~/~ provide /" mobility of traffic < FREEWAY ARTERL<\.LS COLLECTORS \þ.litll-Ii mite d -..--~~ access to land ~ ì~~-... Emphasis to ~ provide access LOCALS '> to land and ~ vvith limited l//" mobillt)/ Figure T -1: Objectives/Emphasis of Functional Street Classifications Draft Transportation - 4 S-1 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 uniformity 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: y Rural Principal Arterial (e.g., US 220, between Franklin County line and Blue Ridge Parkway) · Serves corridor movements of substantial statewide or interstate travel; · serves all urban areas of 50,000 and over population and a majority of those over 25,000 people; · provide an integrated network without stub connections; · Primary function is the movement of traffic, access for individual properties is a secondary consideration 5 S-1 >- Rural Minor Arterial (e.g., VA 22], 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 of Rte 4] 9 to Craig County line) · Provide service to larger towns not directly served by higher systems; · Link the larger towns to nearby larger towns or routes of higher classification; · Serve the more important intra-county travel corridors; · Entrance controls (such as turn lanes, signals, signs, combined access points, etc.) should be utilized. >- Rural Minor Collector (e.g., VA 711 Tinsley Road, near Bent Mountain Elementary School) · Spaced at intervals consistent with population density; · To collect traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a collector road · Provide service to the remaining smaller communities. >- Rural Local (e.g., VA 617 Pitzer Road, from Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County line) · Serves primarily to provide direct access to adjacent land; · Provide service to travel over relatively short distances as compared to collectors or other higher systems; · Includes all facilities not on one of the higher systems. The Urban Functional Classification System includes the following classes and criteria: >- 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; 6 S-1 · 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; · CoJ]ects traffic from local streets and channels it to the arterial system. ~ Urban Local (e.g., VA 1658 CresthiJ] Drive, from Rte 682 Garst MiJI Rd to Rte 1647 Mc Vitty 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 foJ]owing table, Table T -1, serves to accomplish that goal. In the first column are the County'sNDOT's functional street classifications. The second column contains the County's various land use designations that staff recommends as applicable and pertinent to the street classification. The land use designations are used to identify areas around the County where similar land use activities occur, and are used in conjunction with the Future Land Use Guide and this Community Plan (please refer to Roanoke County Community Plan Land Use Guide for further explanation of the designations), 7 S-1 Functional Street Classification Applicable Land Use Designations Rural Preserve Rural Principal Arterial Rural Village Villaqe Center Rural Preserve Rural Minor Arterial Rural Village Village Center Rural Major Collector Rural Preserve Rural Villaqe Rural Preserve Rural Minor Collector Rural Village Conservation Rural Preserve Rural Local Rural Village Conservation Transition Urban Principal Arterial Core Principal Industrial Transition Urban Minor Arterial 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 detem1inants is access. Locations that are or can be served by an arterial street system are grouped into the Core category. Therefore, based on these detenninants and the criteria outlined in the Land Use Guide for the Core designation, it is sensible to recommend Urban Minor Arterial and Urban Principal Arterial as the functional street classifications that could accommodate development that could 8 S-1 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-l 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-l 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 H;ghway Capadty Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. General definitions of levels of service, as provided in the H;ghway Capadty Manual are as follows: LOS A describes completely free flow conditions at average travel speeds. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Operations are constrained only by the geometric features of the highway and by driver preferences. LOS B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. The general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to the drivers is still high. 9 S-1 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 of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high approach delays resulting. The Highway Capacity Manual contains no recommendations for the applicability of the levels of service in highway design. That is to say there is no "official" standard as to the minimum acceptable level of service. The choice of an appropriate level of service for design is properly left to the highway designer and the local agencies. Representatives from VDOT state that they do not have formal guidelines for this matter, rather they refer to the Green Book, 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. 10 S-1 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 D D Local D D D D Table T-2: Guidelines for acceptable minimum LOS standards Roanoke County will strive to provide the highest level of service practical. County staff will coordinate with VDOT in reviews of traffic impact studies to ensure that these guidelines are met. If the minimum acceptable standards are not met, staffwill 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 21 st Century (TEA-21), require urbanized area MFO's (Metropolitan Planning Organization) to develop and approve a financially constrained long range multimodal transportation plan. The Long Range Transportation Plan (LR TP) is intended to guide the region in creating a more efficient, responsive, and environmentally-sensitive transportation system over the next twenty to twenty-five years. The plan examines transportation issues/trends and offers a list of specific projects for addressing the region's mobility needs. The LRTP provides the context from which the region's Transportation Improvement 11 S-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 & PriorWes for the routes on the current LR TP and the recommended improvements (as submitted by Roanoke County staff. For the approved 2025 LR TP, see the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission web site -- http://www.rvarc.org/workllrpfinal.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. 12 c: ctI ã: Q 0) c: ctI a:: 0) c: o -J '" .2:: :;:: È3 .¡:: P-. ~ '" ¡:: .8 .... ~ "d ¡:: (l) S S o u (l) ~ l!') N o N ~ (l) ..... -< >. "d ;j .... r.f) (l) ~ o ¡:: ~ o ~ Wi' Qj .... ::s Q a: ~ IQ ,$ It ""' ~ § Q C,) Qj .ì( Q t: IQ Q a: t: ,S .... ,u '6 ,WI '= ::s ~ '" c ... a a o u o u " -'" o r: <0 o 0:: ooô u - ... ~ ~ § 8 6Zc:! '" '" r: öË o E > ;:; " 0:: . '" t: " .- r: '" '" u.¡,...¡ ~:::- r: a ...~ ,...¡ o I- a o ~ ~ z¡ '" "'"' è... '" ~ ¡:: ;:J _ 0 ;,to:: q .9 ð: e 0) 0) e 0) 0 .c 1::J >-e 1::J0) '" 0) O).c -æ~ 0) '" >L '" If) Le If) '" .~ c.. 1::0) ~E o 0 ~ If) c.. .. If) e e . _ 0 '- ~ ~~ o ~ (/) ~ .~~ e L::;¡ 0ã5 ~ e ~ -£ "0 '" ~ :;:¡: ª E ,g "0 0) > o E ~ 0) .c "0 "5 o u -' "<t- o:: -' "<t- o:: -' cry ~ m ~ E 0) ro UJ -' ~ N <0 0) ëY. ~ J: 0) 0) -' o <0 ~ ~ 0- ._ L ~O) c.::;¡ -'0 "<t-.D en g.s W 0"'0 ãí 0::0:: [L E e .E 013 ,g~ þ:§~ <i5~ ~Q cn~ :J= C. ~-;;; ~~ -§'6~ :S§ :E á:.2 0-= j¿ Q):E (.)-.J u ""0....... <0 ¡g .;::¡¡ ~a: __Q).....;"'C c:::~ -§, .;: '" 0:: ~ 5a; ~~ ë ~Cõ "'ã;;; en We ~g :: 2E ~~-' Þc ~ Q) 8 _0 0 OLE "O>c.o õ~:§ a.> > _ c ._ ~ ~ Ó~ .~z.æ ~ ct:~ÜSë3Li: >- ë ::;¡ o o -' "<t- o:: -' "<t- :::J -' "<t- :::J -' "<t- a:. -' "<t- :::J -' "<t- :::J -' N -' N -' N "<t- cry M '" "<I: ~ m ~ N UJr-- .- '" Eco Ll)2 ~o:: r-- ~ ~ 0) ëY. 0) ëY. :5: 'Ë ó'; Ll) <0 ~ ~ 0) -'" 0-, ¡ijo o a:. 0) -'" 0-, ¡ijo o a:. ¿ ~ e o If) E Æ ~ e o ~ ë '" c: ë 0) [D ~ N N Ll) ~ ~ ~ N cry "<t- e o c. 0) ë ~ 0) >; ~ '" 0 ~ ã; ~ 0) > '" -'" 0) [L '" "0 0:: -' ro (J).5 'ü Q¡~ Q¡ 1::JL E e:=: E ::;¡ E 0 If) UJ U O)~"O o 0 0) 0)"- If) ':Þc: 0 ~-ê g- N 0 c.. o::c..:..; o.£: <0 ;~:::J "'C Q) .9 ~ > 0)""; §~ o 0) 0:5 -' <0 0:: :::J <0 :::J ~ N N 0:: -' <0 a:. -' "<t- a:. -' "<t- -' N N I"-: cry "<t- "! ~ 0) -'" 0-, ¡ijo o 0:: 0) -'" 0-, ¡ijo o 0:: Ll) ~ r-- 0) ëY. UJ "<t- <0 <0 0) ëY. .!: :;< e '" Li: >- 2 ro > 0) '" -, o N N <0 ~ Ll) <0 .!: L :5.- .~ [Qw--.J e~~ c.eo If)"'-' 0)0)<0 æ:5~ .8 -........D 0 Cú g'~ ('-. --.J 0 "§.. ~coc. c ~ a) a; .Q I ....... C) 1:5 ~ -ffi æ ~ g.~-5 Q) ~ æ2 ~ 10... C 0, ~5~ g. ~LN _ Q.-o N :?:- ~~ 25 en rn O>?:~"O.¡:; .s~uo ~ ~ C"- '- en ¡ij~B~O) 'ã.""" 1::J..'!! ai ,-CQ)C ~ ~~~.g:t 0) '" O)~ e '" '" If) L·- 0:5 -' <0 :::J -' <0 :::J o -' co :::J -' <0 a:. -' co :::J -' "<t- -' "<t- co '" cry ex:> o ~ 1:: ::;¡ 0-, ãío Õ [D >- 0) -'" ~ 115 0) -'" 0-, ¡ijo o 0:: o N N 0) ëY. Q¡ 0> e 2 ro L o 1::J 0:: U .¡;: o 0) ¡¡¡ o <0 "<t- '" ~ "<t- r-- co 0) e o If) £ -' <0 :::J -' <0 :::J -' "<t- co Ll) -.i E 0) ro UJ -' o UJ >- 0) ~ '" 115 -0 0:: U .¡;: o 0) ¡¡¡ '" ~ "<t- '" "0 '" .c "0 e '" If) 0) If) ~¡g U.!!:! õ~ If) '" õ~ - U ë.S .20 0- "'w ~ ~ ::::0 en '(ij" .2' E .DO) O).D -'" ","0 -'"5 5 ~ ~ .. J:: .S ~rn E t: UJ2 ~ N N 0:: ~ N N a:. -' N "<t- '" ~ "<t- <0 <0 0) ëY. -' o E :;< e '" Li: >- 2 ro > 0) '" -, <0 ~ o ~ S-1 "- If) o '" c. .£: o '¡n E If) 0) E ::;¡ o >- If) u= !EE ~.g 2"0 '" 0) 1::J> o 0 E E E ~ o 0) B.D "'>- "0'" "5E 0,· Le If) 0) ,¡~ en Q) ..... ;:j o ~ >--. ..... cd e P:: I en Q) ..... 'C o 'C ¡:l.., åó -' "<t- :::J -' <0 :::J en t:: .2 ..... cd "'0 t:: Q) £3 £3 o u Q) ~ <n M o M cd Q) -< >--. "'0 ;:j ..... r:rJ Q) ...::.:: o t:: cd o ~ -' "<t- m m o m ~ "<t- O) ëY. '" co <0 0) ëY. !") I Eo-< ~ ,¡:¡ ~ E-- e o ãí :c E '" [I¡ ~ N N ~ t:: cu a: C!I tI) t:: cu a:: ~ o ..,J '" :E .9 ... p., o?J '" ::: .8 .... ~ '"C ::: Q) a 8 o u Q) P::: 1.1") N o N ~ Q) ... <t:: >. '"C ;J us Q) ..>:; o ::: ~ o P::: ~ ! ~ Q a:: ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ § ~ ~ r:: ~ Q a:: r:: .S2 .... .C,) ~ .~ ~ "" '" ~ ¡; a a o u o u " -'" :2 æ o r>:: . '" 0" u c " ~ § <: - '" 0 ~~ '" "0 f-- ß o " a ~ > g u " r>:: ~ ~ '>; § ¡¡¡,....¡ ~.-=- 5 E ,....¡~ o ¡.... E o u: q ,:; '" "" è '" " "0 ~ ~ ::> 8~ " '" q .Š ¿: 1:) ~ 'S a- u (1 >. 1:) (1 ~ ñ.i S o rr ë (1 ëi. :;., c1J <: o ;¡. C\ C\ 0:: 't C\ C\ 0:: ....J C\ CD ~ ~ U)r- .- C\ ECD MO) ex)- 00:: I,{) ~ ~ 0) ã: II) :E õ I ~ o <0 ~ ;¡. C\ C\ 0:: II) (1 1:) 0) <: 0> .¡¡; 0) 1:) 0> <: ë¡; D <: (1 ëi. :;., c1J <: o ro 0) ro .~ c >..Q (1 - S: ~ ~II) ro 0) c..õ 0::'<:: CDS: . - <: (1 0 ~ <: (1 0 .;: ~ -<: <:0> Q) eñ EO) a. 1:) o <: ~2 0) ~ 1:)::J 1:) 0 0)- II) 0) do> a.<: 0(1 ~.<:: c..u ;¡. C\ C\ 0:: N C\ C\ 0:: ....J C\ M I,{) o 1:) 0:: .g Ü 0) W <:¡¡; <: Q) 0) ~ c..æ ñ.i 'c o õ ü o C\ r- C\ ....J C\ ::J ;¡. C\ C\ 0:: ....J C\ I,{) C\ N o C\ C\ 0) ã: >. 0) ~ ro ü5 <: ~ ~ u =' CD '" r- <0 M ....J C\ ::J .9 0) 1:) ~ 0> a. OJ 1:) ã3 .<:: 0> .S ãí 0) E 0> <: '6. o u U) <: (1 ëi. :;., cD <: o ....J C\ ::J ;¡. C\ C\ 0:: ....J C\ <0 ""-: ~ o 't <0 ~ Q) ã: >. Q) """ ro ü5 <: (1 E .'" Q; :2; M ~ <0 't .- 1:) ~ 'S a- u (1 0> '~.....J O)'t D::J Sa. óæ . ~ 0:: .. 0) 15 §~ II) 0) ._ II) ~ tv ro ð 0) II) £: ~ .~ ~ -ta. (1 >. ~~ .~ ~ .::. (1 ~c.. 1:)0:: ECD ....J 't ::J ....J 't ::J ....J C\ '" '" o ....J Ü 1:) o :¡;; 0) CD ....J Ü <: o ë :> >. 1:) ro I 't M <0 I,{) ....J 't ::J ro 0) ro .!; ë 0) E a. o ã3 > 0) 1:) ñ.i ~ 0) 1:) .¡¡; ~ 1:) <: (1 ~ II) OJ 1:) £ Õ II) Õ ....J ....J 't ::J ....J 't ::J ....J C\ '" M ~ 0) > ~ <: 0) 1:) w M <0 0) ã: >. 0) """ ro ü5 't o '" <0 <: .Q ¡;¡ 1:) <: 0) E E o u ~ ~ ü 0) ~ o <: (1 o 0:: .<:: u ¡;¡ E .9 ã. E 0) ~ "3 <: <: iEg ~~ 32:r5 OJ.<:: ~ ~ _ 0) £.~ E ~ o.!!! .9.<:: ....JO> 't ~ c.c ~~ 2£ '<::0)0) g>~æ OO)....J L...~ U c ~~:s ë ...:1- 0) 0 ~ ~:E2 II) ~ <: ~8<3 13_ 13- ~~ ~~ ::J ::J ....J 't ::J ....J C\ o <0 o I,{) ~ 0) ã: 0) ~ O....J æü o 0:: Q; 0> Q; D .<:: II) Q; I I,{) C\ <0 r- ....J 't ::J ....J C\ 't ~ ~ <: 'õ <: (1 cj <: o ãí :õ E (1 00 ~ 0; ro 19 C\ ex) CD ex) ....J C\ ::J .9 0) 0> <: (1 .<:: Ü ....J C\ ::J ;¡. C\ C\ 0:: ....J C\ I,{) <"'! ~ >. 0) ~ m ü5 ñ.i 'c o õ ü 0; 0) o u.. <: <: 0) c.. r- ex) <0 '" S-1 oö ñ.i 'c o õ Ü <: o 'S D 0> <: ,ii D II) 'ro j '" Q) ..... ;::j o ~ >. å '"0 t:: o (.) Q) r/) I '" .~ .-::: 5 -;:: p... 0;3 .<:: u ¡;¡ E .9 ....J C\ ::J .9 0)>. 0>- æ5 .<::u ü:2; ....J C\ ::J '" t:: .S ..... ro '"0 t:: Q) 6 6 o (.) Q) ~ IF) N o N ro Q) ~ >-. '"0 ;::j ..... r/) Q) ..::.:: o t:: ro o ~ ....J 't ::J ....J C\ 't M o <:0; <: 0) 0) ~ c..æ <: o ãí :õ E (1 00 "0 Q) ::s .S - = o (.) ~ I E-- ..9:! ,.Q ~ E-- ñ.i 'c o o ü o C\ r- o ~ /"'., S 1 ;-J_. r - 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 S-1 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 ofthis system is a step towards providing smooth, safe, and economical road surfaces ]6 S-1 and achieving the best possible value for the available public funds. (Note: Interested citizens should consult the most recent "County of Roanoke Six Year Secondmy 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 1 and 11 (both documents can be accessed via the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission (RV ARC) website: http://www.rvarc.org/bike/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 information contained in those documents; rather, explain how the County attempts to implement its bikeway plan. The following disclaimer is presented in the 2003 Regional Bicycle Suitability Study: Note: For bicycle accommodations to be considered as part of roadway improvements using Federal and State funding, the roadway must be included in an approved bikeway 17 S-1 plan. The 1997 Bikeway Planfor the Roano/œ Valley Area (RV AMPO, 1997) is the approved bikeway document for the MPO, thereby fulfilling this requirement. As such, the 1997 Bikeway Plan should be referenced when specific roadways are cited for bicycle accommodations. Phase 10f 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 wiII hopefully be an end product of the Regional Bicycle Suitability Study. The Regional Bicycle Suitability Study wiII consist of Phase 1 and Phase 11. Whereas Phase 1 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 11 of the Study will consist primarily of the application of work products developed in Phase 1. 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 potentialIy a new, approved, and updated bike plan are end products of Phase 11. 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 detennining possible options regarding operational and design requirements for new facilities. End products wiII assist stakeholders in establishing consistency and connectivity along travel corridors, developing crucial linkages with the greenway system and public transit, and developing other components of a regional bicycling network. 18 S-1 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 netvvork by guiding the application of work products in Phase 11 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 app1icabJe bicycle faciJity; aU the whiJe consuJting the 1997 Bikeway Plan. Study findings and work products wiU 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 10ca1ities have agreed upon a bicycle- friendly transportation infrastructure that has been deveJoped on a regional basis (not only to meet existing demands, but also to encourage and facilitate bicycling as a viable means of 19 S-1 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 AccommodaÜons" can be reviewed on VDOT's website. The County will keep abreast of the developments pertinent to VDOT's bicycle and pedestrian policies and procedures. Ultimately, the County's objectives pertaining to bicycle facilities can be summed up in the following points: o To complete a network of bikeways that serves bicyclists' needs, especially for travel to employment centers, commercial districts, transit stations, institutions, and recreational destinations; o To provide bikeway facilities that are appropriate to the street classifications, traffic volumes, and speed of traffic; o To develop and implement education and encouragement plans aimed at youth, adult cyclists, and motorists; and to increase public awareness of the benefits of bicycling and of available resources and facilities; o To encourage bicycle parking and related facilities as part of all new construction or major renovation, including office, retail, industrial, and housing developments; o To encourage the construction of showers and changing facilities in all new or renovated commercial development; o To encourage bicycle parking facilities at all park and ride lots, commercial developments, and selected parking lots (such as bicycle parking facilities at public spaces such as County buildings, museums, libraries and civic centers). 20 S-1 A regionally significant bikeway network in the MPO will include the Roanoke Valley Greenway system. The greenway 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 21 S-1 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 Stone bridge 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 200] for on-road facilities needing major improvements were: Mountain View Road, Plantation Road, Hardy Road, Loch Haven Drive, and Colonial Avenue. While a significant amount of progress has been made on greenways over the last 7-8 years, there are substantial steps still to be taken. 22 S-1 b. Strategy: Traffic Management Strategies -- For the most part, the effectiveness of existing roads should be maximized rather than using new road construction as a crutch. It has been proven in the past that we cannot build our way out of congestion; we must begin to be creative about the utilization of the existing infrastructure. Some potential strategies Roanoke County staff can implement include: · Encouraging motorists to carpool or rideshare; · Promote employer-supported vanpool programs; . Persuade the use of park- and-ride facilities; · Endorse shuttle transit service from fringe parking areas to urban centers or major destinations; · Encourage enhanced motorists information services and systems (such as presenting the congestion crises on television, radio, or the internet; motorists would be advised to car pool or alter their driving patterns); . Advocate public transit, working with Valley Metro (Greater Roanoke Transit Company) and RADAR (Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride); · Support non-motorized travel, such as bicycle/pedestrian facilities (addressed in other sections of this Plan); · Teaming up with Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission (RV ARC) and their regional ridesharing program called "Ride Solutions". This program is a grant- funded program that provides free carpool and vanpool matching services for citizens of the Roanoke Valley and surrounding areas within southwestern VA. The program also provides directions to area park-and-ride lots, and information about alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit service, walking, and bicycling. Information on Ride Solutions can be obtained from the website www.ridesolutions.org or by calling them at (540) 342-9393. c. Strategy: Education on Transportation Systems & Livability Issues -- Americans perceive their car as a provider of the freedom that we have come to cherish so greatly. An aspect of that freedom is enjoying the privacy, convenience, and safety of automobiles. Our love of cars has grown out of necessity. That is to say, as residential developments are built without proximity to employment centers or shopping facilities, residents have no choice but to use personal automobiles. Transportation infrastructure has been designed and built for the personal transport vehicle, rather than designed on a human scale. 23 S-1 The public must be infonned 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 infonning 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 cab]e channel (Roanoke Valley Te]evision, RVTV Channe] 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 main]y used to address speeding and high cut-through traffic vo]umes on neighborhood streets. These issues can create an atmosphere in which non-motorists are intimidated, or even endangered, by motorized traffic. A]ong with the additiona] amount of traffic generated within the neighborhood, cut-through motorists are often perceived as driving faster than ]oca] motorists. By addressing high speeds and cut-through vo]umes, traffic ca]ming can increase both the rea] and perceived safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Although the socia] results of traffic ca]ming are s]ight]y more difficuJt to measure, studies show that traffic ca]ming measures can increase property va]ues, 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 responsib]y, traffic calming purposely introduces additional self- 24 S-1 enforcing physical features in the design of the roadway, effectively changing the design speed. Traffic calming measures are generally implemented in a retrofit situation and traditional design standards require interpretation and modification. Some of the commonly implemented traffic calming measures includes: Horizontal Deflection · curb extension / bulb out; · chicane; · choker; · on-street parking; · raised median island / pedestrian refuge; · and traffic circle, etc. Vertical Deflection · textured {;rosswalk; · 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 25 S-1 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 fonned 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 detennine (based on functional classification, land use, and other factors) whether traffic calming implementation should be pursued and if so, work with VDOT on the project. iii. Objective: To provide access to land development, while preserving the safety and capacity of the transportation system. a. Strategy: Access Management -- Access management is a fairly new response to the congestion, the loss of arterial capacity, and the serious access related accidents that are plaguing our roadways. It is defined as the careful control of the location, design, and operation of all driveways and public street connections to a roadway. Access management is intended for use on collectors and arterial roads that have many commercial and 26 S-1 residential driveways/intersections to increase the mobility of the traffic. There are different methods for attaining the goals and those methods are typically designed around the needs and problems of each particular area. The basic principles of access management include: Limiting the Number of Conflict Points A conflict point exists at any place that vehicle paths will cross, merge into, or diverge from one another along roadways, specifically at intersections or driveways. The potential for vehicular crashes increases as the number of conflict points along a roadway go higher. One method for limiting the number of conflict points is to decrease the number of driveways a business or neighborhood can have onto an arterial or collector roadway. Limitation of conflict points can also be accomplished with the use of reverse frontage and access roads. Decreasing the number of conflict points significantly reduce the potential for crashes. Separating Basic Conflict Areas Intersections of public streets as well as intersections of driveways and public streets represent basic conflict areas. High levels of activity can occur at these locations and, consequently, the through traffic needs time to react to the decelerations, accelerations, and travel paths of other vehicles at or near the intersections. Adequate spacing between intersections allows drivers to react to one intersection at a time and provides greater opportunities to avoid potential conflicts at each successive downstream intersection. Similarly, setting driveways and connections back from intersections reduces the number of conflicts and provides more time and space for vehicles to turn or merge safely across lanes. One way of accomplishing this goal is to close off or relocate existing entrances or establish a larger minimum lot size for comer lots. Reducing Interference with Through Traffic Traffic often needs to slow down for vehicles exiting, entering, or turning across the roadway. Providing turning lanes and restricting turning movements allows turning traffic to get out of the way of the following through traffic. Other measures include increasing the turning radius of a driveway, using a driveway flare, or increased driveway width and length. Providing Adequate On-Site Circulation and Storage The design of good internal vehicle circulation in parking areas and on local streets reduces the number of driveways that businesses need for access to the major roadway. Internal 27 S-1 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 28 S-1 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. lfthe 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 berms, noise walls, etc.), planting vegetation, installing noise insulation in buildings, and managing traffic. On a more local level, VDOT established its Noise Abatement Policy in 1989 to lessen the impact of highway traffic noise on people in neighborhoods and in other noise-sensitive areas. That policy maintains that VDOT will conduct a highway traffic noise study on proposed federally funded highway improvement projects. These projects must meet one of the following 29 S-1 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 wil1 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 wil1 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; 30 S-1 · 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 31 S-1 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 will 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. Specifically, the EAC sets measurable milestones for developing and implementing the EAP. The EAC is between the local governments representing the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, the Town of Vinton, the 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 allows 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 Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (RV ARC), in consultation with the aforementioned local governments, will develop the EAP in coordination with VDEQ, EP A, stakeholders, 32 S-1 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 R V 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 R V ARC, adjacent communities, and interested stakeholders throughout this endeavor; ensuring that the emission reduction measures that are selected are best suited to County needs and circumstances. (For more information, please refer to the latest copy of the Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early AcÛon Plan on the internet at http://www.rvarc.org/workJeap.pdf) D. Goal: To play an influential role in shaping and implementing regional transportation decisions. i. Objective: To continue comprehensive transportation planning and to work in concert with neighboring jurisdictions and public entities. a. Strategy: Active role in Regional Transportation Issues and Funding -- In 1973, federal law began requiring the formation of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MFO) 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 33 S-1 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, (earn1arking state funds) established after annual TIP approvals. The Unified Transportation Work Program (UTWP) is a one-year schedule of all urban transportation planning activities that will be carried out with federal expenditures. Project suggestions can originate from the public or from any MPO member. The Policy Board and TTC determine the projects to be part of the UTWP which is updated each year. Roanoke County staff will continue in its efforts to work in concert with the RV ARC, collaborating on particular facility, sub-area, corridor, and system-level transportation studies, and representing the County on the associated boards and committees mentioned above. 34 S-1 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 staff will attempt to continue to grow and strengthen the working relationship with VDOT, specifically the Salem District ofVDOT. 35 S-1 VDOT Project Development Process Constr.'lined L<'.'119 Ran~t! ] 20 Yr P¡SC1 ~~. ~ Di.trkt Add d to ";,:~~~~~g 0::; T~~~lveo::;.,,:;" ~~~~i~~nŒþ :~~.e~I)~~' Approval Meetings. 6 r. €In TIPS by MPO CTB ~ Tran;;:~:~21iOn 0::; Citizen's Approv21 Im~~~~~:nt Rgquo:õts VDOTI Dmft" Óp¡¥.rn 6 ¥r and County_.",:"" Count)' p S"'ff 0::; Work EE\> ~!~~ EE\> Publio 0::; '.. :~~ed Reco,:"m~n- Seos;sÎDn Hearing J-\þp da1tons Ff-M'A S. Federal Transít c::> Proj&i Agoncy for approval ~~. ~~"Ic:: $Or!)I; $ccol~mv G:QüGl P 'C>'f',Cl:tc hili "",i:hi", ,~ MPO'1o ~.rt:an rt.dy ' rt:fI (:~ ....'01.110 ~ tnd~C in me C[ ;,;~rained Lo~ RIII~ 21:' Yr ."¡<lI'I. B; per Itió: County'~ IE:.: LI~ 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 welJ as the military, for a region including, but not limited to, the Roanoke VaHey. 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 overalJ 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 navigationalllanding aids, construction of a new air traffic control tower and changes to the passenger tenninal and parking lots. The implementation strategies put forth in the County's 1998 Community Plan hold true for this update/revision. The strategies include: 36 S-1 · 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 ofthe 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 forrenewal 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 & 37 S-1 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 flexibiJity, local decision-making, long range planning, fiscally constrained budgeting, and environmental stewardship. Sound transportation investments can help communities thrive by providing a safe, healthy, and secure environment, enhancing neighborhood livability, and promoting energy efficiency and conservation. The most popular and visible use of federal funds has been conducted under the Transportation Enhancements Program (TE). TE was created under ISTEA and fosters local economic development and helps reconnect communities divided or negatively impacted by highway construction. Using only two cents of every federal transportation dollar, TE projects - bicycle and pedestrian facilities, main street revitalization programs, renovation of train stations and other historic sites, scenic easements, and billboard removal along highway corridors - are achieved. For example, the regional greenways program has been awarded nearly $3.88 million in Transportation Enhancement and other federal funding since 1996. County 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, 1-81 has been recognized as one of the most scenic interstates in the U.S. The highway is essential not only to the economic vitality of Virginia; it also serves as one of the East Coast's most important transportation facilities. The route carries out- of-state tourists, through travelers, a growing number of intra- valley commuters, and more than a third of all college and university students in Virginia. The interstate closely parallels U.S. Route 11 and railroad lines. The nearly 40 year old route is experiencing capacity and safety issues. Traffic through this 38 S-1 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 ofI-81 through the Commonwealth. These proposals involved separating passenger vehicles and heavy trucks using physical barriers, adding additional lanes, adding truck climbing lanes, longer on- and off- ramps, tolls on all motor vehicles or tolls only on heavy trucks, utilizing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and other features. In early-2004, after much review and discussion, the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner directed VDOT to enter into negotiations with STAR Solutions as the potential operator for improvements to 1-81. The STAR proposal would widen 1-81 to at least four lanes in each direction, with the separation of truck and car lanes. The project would be partly financed with tolls applied to both cars and trucks. Plans or proposals to improve 1-81 cannot be implemented without the approval and concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). Because the interstate system is federally funded, any proposed changes to the highway must comply with all federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). In accordance with NEP A, in the fall of2003 FHWA and VDOT launched an 1-81 Corridor Improvement Study. The study will objectively identify deficiencies along the interstate as well as opportunities for improvements throughout the corridor in Virginia. This study wi1llead to the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and ultimately a Record of Decision from FHW A. Roanoke County will be working with neighboring jurisdictions, planning organizations, and VDOT during the completion of the corridor study and environmental review. County staffwill continue to work in concert with all interested parties on this endeavor to best address the safety concerns and truck traffic capacity issues. Similarly, we recognize the 39 S-1 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 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. 40 S-1 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 A venue 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 A venue continuing south into the Clearbrook area of the County and then veering southeast of Buck Mountain Road along Route 657 (Crowell Gap Road) into Franklin County where it would rejoin the original approved corridor in the vicinity of Coopers Cove. Roanoke County's Board of Supervisors has supported this project and passed several resolutions pertaining to the issue in recent years. VDOT will be finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with specific information about the selected corridor. The Final EIS will then be forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) for consideration and/or approval. Completion of the Final EIS and approval by FHW A may take up to a year. Once the FHW A issues its approval - called a Record of Decision - final design, right of way acquisition and construction can begin. Roanoke County staff will continue to monitor the development of this project and work in concert with all involved. Along those same lines, staff recognizes the crucial link between land use and the transportation system. Staff must consider the impacts to existing right-of-way, be mindful of the project's effect on rezonings, special-use permits, and planning projects, and 41 S-1 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 of the County's resources and data and to utilize computer technology as a decision making tool. a. Strategy: Geographical Information Systems (GIS) -- Roanoke County has attempted to stay on the leading edge of computer technology. This trend maintains as it relates to transportation issues the County encounters. Specifically, GIS will be used to develop and maintain an inventory of the transportation infrastructure. The inventory will include road lengths and widths, traffic counts, and functional classification, to name a few archived items. GIS will also be used in conjunction with a pavement management system to track and display road construction/maintenance. The inventory and pavement management system will be maintained in the ESRl (Environmental Systems Research Institute) environment utilizing up to date versions of ArcGIS. We will incorporate a relationa] database to enter, store, and analyze the necessary data. The GIS software will be pivotal in preparing maps and presenting infrastructure inventory and maintenance recommendations to VDOT, the Board of Supervisors, and the public. ii. Objective: To improve the livability of Roanoke County residents by ensuring that transportation systems are properly designed and applicable to the community it serves. a. Strategy: Context Sensitive/Flexible Design -- An important, yet often forgotten, concept in highway design is that every project is unique. The setting and character of the area, the values of the community, the needs of the highway users, and the challenges and opportunities are unique factors that designers must consider with each highway project. For each potential project, designers are faced with the task of balancing the need for the highway improvement with the need to safely integrate the design into the surrounding natural and human environments. Often, over- engineered road design standards limit transportation choices, isolate neighborhoods, create hazardous settings, and 42 S-1 otherwise harm the quality of life within a community. Unnecessarily wide neighborhood streets discourage pedestrian and bicycle use and increase car speeds. Flexible road standards would give designers more opportunities to use varying widths, medians, sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping to develop better streetscapes with more opportunities for transportation and recreation, while still providing roads that efficiently carry vehicles. Use of the aforementioned flexible standards is commonly referred to as Context Sensitive Design (CSD). CSD incorporates the streetscape, aesthetics, livability, and the application of devices aimed at changing motorists' behavior. However, in order to succeed, CSD requires neighborhood involvement before road design changes are initiated. CSD attempts to balance the level of service of a road with surrounding community values. CSD provides a higher level of safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists than conventional street design which focuses on vehicular movement at high speeds. Typical elements of CSD are somewhat similar to traffic calming measures. Some examples of CSD are: . Real or perceived lane width reductions or limitations · Intentional curvature · Textured pavement and/or markings · Extensive landscaping · Right of entry for all travel modes Context Sensitive Design calls for public involvement when defining the need for a road project. This requires public participation throughout the project, the early and continuous use of a multidisciplinary design team, the use of visualization techniques to aid the public, and the application of flexible design criteria. The reference most often used for project design criteria is the Green Book. Its official title is A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Although often viewed as dictating a set of national standards, this document is actually a series of guidelines on geometric design within which the designer has a range of flexibility. As stated in the forward to the Green Book: The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to the designer by referencing a recommended range of values for critical dimensions. Sufficient flexibility is permitted to encourage independent designs tailored to particular situations. 43 S-1 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 perfomance 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 oflTS 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; 44 S-1 . 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 CRV 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 CRV 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. roan okecou ntyva. gov/De partmentsEngineering/Transportati on/. 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 (LRTP) is vitally important. For that reason, staff is seeking the comments of County residents on the matter. Ultimately, the residents are the one that pay for and use the infrastructure; consequently, their voice should be heard. Comments received after the release of this updated Community Plan will be taken into consideration for the next update to the 45 S-1 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), emaiJ, or telephone. 46 S-1 Transportation Element -Implementation Schedule STRATEGY TIME FRAME COMMENTS Growth Management ongoing Dependent on APFO legislation; work with Measures VDOT on LOS for County roads Balance Land Use Functional Classifications designated by 2004; Objectives w/ Street by 2005 implementation of guidelines by planning staff Functional Capabilities will take a little more time. Long Range Plan Issues ongoing Officially updated every 5 yrs.; County will receive comments at any time Pavement Mgmt. Sys. for 6-yr Plan and Revenue Sharing updated Secondary 6-Year Plan & by 2005 annually; hope to implement PMS for Revenue Rev. Sharing Sharing for 2005 program, Bicycle Facilities & ongoing Continue working with VDOT & the Roanoke Greenways Valley Greenway Commission Traffic Management by 2005 Work with RVARC Strateç¡ies Education on Work with RVARC, Valley Metro, County Transportation Systems & by 2005 Livability Issues website, RV1V, etc. Traffic Calming by 2005 Dependent on scheduling of potential projects Access Management by 2005 Dependent on scheduling of potential projects Noise Abatement Measures by 2005 Project specific; may be an issue that coincides with improvements to 1-81 Air Quality/Attainment by 2005 Must be in compliance by 12/31/07; being Status implementinq measures by 2005 Active role in Regional Transportation Issues & ongoing Work with RVARC, MPO, and other localities Fundinq Active role with VDOT onqoinq Support Regional Aviation Work with Roanoke Regional Airport and ongoing Roanoke CO,'s Economic Development Efforts department Collaborate with VDRPT onQoinq Work with VDRPT, RVARC, and Roanoke City TEA-3 ongoing Interstate 81 ongoing Roanoke Co. will provide comments; work in conjunction with VDOT & MPO Proposed Interstate 73 ongoing Staff monitoring project progress Geographical Info. Sys ongoing Used extensively for road inventory and PMS (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 .Q P-I ro 2: Q; I "t"""" ~ o.r I õ ·ê 0 U) ü ..-.. "§ -- aJ ..... "0 N ;> (¡) Q; "E 0 -õ 7 ~~ ~---=: õ ~ 0) ë ~ 0 c \:;,) .'fJ ¡f) ª IlJ .J::. æ ü is. 15 Q -¡¡¡ 2: c.. :> C) 0 ..0 -- CL t, Q) ê 0) -¡¡¡ ÕJ (f) ~ g (f) TI c c g > 'ffi C'V 0 ~ 1:) 0 ;:¡ x (.) ~ .¡;;; 2 c ü r::::: :> CJ z ü Cl.. ( ,) I II .D æ I" ,~ ( ,) l' -..J .~J -< .T :::. o ;/:; <".J 1""'1 - ~ ."" ~ C ...- - ." ;; ~.:: - (/) ~~2 >. ~ ."::: ~ -= S ......-' ¡ , ~ - 5 .~~ '-" ::.i ~::: ..... ...... ::: ~ - -' .... 'T ,..... - .'-' v"'::i :'..) ~ ~ ,.... a ç ~ ,..... ;;; ....... ...... :3 ...... :::: ,..... Õ E u c.; > .D ::..J ;;. I"'" ... -< ::,) ~~ Z $j ...... -' ,..... ...... ::: () E ,.. ." ,.... "" '-' v ....... ,.... ...... ....... ..... é.) ,... :::. t ç::; ""' î) I"'" ~ Ò N '-' ~ 0 l1.J~ C\J C') 0 c:, Ll) I '" 0 II ~~ ~ = ,.... (\ ::J .c ~~ ( ) LL ~ >. UJ t ~§ I Q) c.. 0 ..... ~~ a.. ..... Q) ~ 0 ro O~ c.. E ~ :J ..... U -J '0:( o z ,....~:¿ ~~O "I""'U .¢ N . I'--I'--U I'--I'--a... 66r5 "1""1"0 ~~(/') ù.j .. :¿ Z~~ Ou..-' I @J a... == « :¿ .:..; <: ~ L.U L.U ~ co Z ,.... L.U ~ ~ N Z ~ o z f-",G ::J"'c.::: c:¡"'- :¿~>- ~X~ c:¡00 "I"C:¡Z '" .« ",00 "I"o..:c.::: c.JCI) '0::: Q..c...J -Z C/)z µ.J<: E-.....J ~q.. _CI) uO::: O~-< C/)c...J - C/»Z -,,",0:::- ""'-'-<=>O ZCI)O::: 1- µ.JCI» .........0:::- 1--1 c...J c...J C/)c...J::.G :E~~ ~O-< .,ZO .......c...J0::: 1!!I¡II:'I'I':illllll':'~i!11 (1) (1) r.rJ ~~~ g~""O ro A.. ~ o >.. ro ~ ~.~ 4-< . 2 (1) o ~ H þSE ~ S & ~0""O °U(1) U r.rJ o 0.. o H A.. Cñ c 1J 0 c u !I ro ro C') ã) L.. L.. ro > ::J ::J == Q) 0::: 0::: > 0 I -§,.~ Q) '(3 -w ~ 0 .§ Z I- U Q... III 0.. ro ~ U H ro ~ ....... ~ (1) S 0.. o ......... (1) ;> (1) Q Þ '2 S S o U 4-< o ....... ~ (1) S t ro 0.. (1) Q ~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. s;- J (D.} AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of the Real Estate Tax Rate for the Calendar Year 2005 SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget Elmer C. Hodge tIt County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~o/tT~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Real Estate Tax Rate for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31 , 2005, was advertised on February 22 and March 1, 2005, at $1.12 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. The public hearing for citizen comment on the above advertised tax rate was held on March 8, 2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed budget for fiscal year 2005-06 is predicated on the current Real Estate Tax Rate; therefore, staff recommends that the Real Estate Tax Rate again be established at the rate of $1.12 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation for the 2005 calendar year. ... Ð.- ~ (a) .' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 ORDER SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL ESTATE SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2005 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31, 2005, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of J1.12 per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable real estate and mobile homes classified by Sections 58.1-3200, 58.1-3201, 58.1-3506.A.8, and 58.1-3506.B of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, situate in Roanoke County. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. s- ~ (b) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22,2005 Adoption of the Personal Property Tax Rate for the Calendar Year 2005 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget Elmer C. Hodge 8 If County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Personal Property Tax Rate for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31,2005, was advertised on February 22 and March 1, 2005, at $3.50 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. The public hearing for citizen comment on the above advertised tax rates was held on March 8,2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed budget for fiscal year 2005-06 is predicated on the current Personal Property Tax Rate; therefore, staff recommends that the Personal Property Tax Rate again be established at the rate of $3.50 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation for the 2005 calendar year. B!- ~Cb) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 ORDER SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON PERSONAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2005 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31,2005, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of J3.50 per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property, excluding that class of personal property generally designated as machinery and tools as set forth in Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and excluding all those classes of household goods and personal effects as are defined in Sections 58.1-3504 and 58.1-3505 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, but including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1-3500,58.1-3501,58.1-3502,58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service corporations based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation Commission and duly certified. 2. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1- 3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and adopted by Ordinance No. 121592- 11, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans. 3. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31, 2005, be, and hereby is, set at fifty (50%) percent of the tax rate established in paragraph 1 for the taxable, tangible personal property as herein established S-Xb) as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by Section 58.1- 3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. s- ;{ (C) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 22,2005 Adoption of the Machinery and Tools Tax Rate for the Calendar Year 2005 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget Elmer C. Hodge t I! County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Machinery and Tools Tax Rate for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31,2005, was advertised on February 22, and March 1,2005, at $3.00 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. The public hearing for citizen comment on the above advertised tax rate was held on March 8, 2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed budget for fiscal year 2005-06 is predicated on the current Machinery and Tools Tax Rate; therefore, staff recommends that the Machinery and Tools Tax Rate be established at $3.00 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation for the 2005 calendar year. , $,~ ~(6 ) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 ORDER SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON A CLASSIFCATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - MACHINERY AND TOOLS - SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2005 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal . property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1- 3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery and tools. 2. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31,2005, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of J3.00 per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property as herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as . machinery and tools. .. .1 :" ... 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: March 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Funding requests from health and human service agencies for fiscal year 2005-2006 SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget Elmer C. Hodge ll! County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for presentations to allow health and human service agencies the opportunity to orally submit funding requests to the Board of Supervisors for inclusion in the FY2005-2006 budget. Consistent with prior years' process, the requesting organizations have been categorized into two groups and presentations will be heard at separate Board meetings. At the March 29, 2005 Board of Supervisors meeting, presentations from cultural, tourism, and other organizations requesting contributions from the County for inclusion in the FY2005-2006 budget will be heard. All organizations that submitted funding requests for FY2005-2006 were contacted by letter indicating the date their group would be making presentations. Organizations were instructed to submit an Appearance Request Form to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's if they wanted to make an oral presentation. Please find enclosed a report of FY2005-2006 health and human service agency requests for your review during the presentations. Based on input received from the Board, the County Administrator will make recommendations for funding and present them as part of the FY2005-2006 proposed budget that is planned for April. The written requests and accompanying literature submitted by each organization has been placed in the Clerk to the Board's office for review. .. .....j I- )-( FY2005-2006 Contribution Requests Health and Human Service Agencies BOS Work Session March 22,2005 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 Agency Name Adopted Adopted Request Adult Care Center of the Roanoke Valley $10,000 $10,000 $12,000 American Red Cross $0 $1,333 $4,000 Bethany Hall $500 $667 $12,240 Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Roanoke Valley $3,000 $3,000 $7,500 Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care $117,755 $118,585 $125,332 Blue Ridge Independent Living Center $0 $0 $5,000 Blue Ridge Legal Services, Inc, $0 $0 $3,732 Bradley Free Clinic $5,000 $5,000 $7,000 Brain Injury Services of SWVA $0 $1,000 $17,000 Child Health Investment Partnership (CHIP) $16,660 $17,500 $23,360 Children's Advocacy Center of the Roanoke Valley, Inc $3,500 $3,500 $5,500 Conflict Resolution Center, Inc, $0 $500 $5,000 Council of Community Svcs - Nonprofit Resource Center $0 $0 $5,000 Council of Community Svcs - Info and Referral Center $3,000 $3,000 $3,300 Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) $2,000 $2,000 $8,000 Family Service of the Roanoke Valley $4,000 $4,200 $5,000 Goodwill Industries of the Valleys $4,000 $3,667 $4,500 Habitat for Humanity $0 $2,000 $5,000 Literacy Volunteers of America-Roanoke Valley $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 LOA Area Agency on Aging $13,750 $13,833 $30,696 Mental Health Association $700 $700 $1,200 National Multiple Sclerosis Society $0 $500 $1,500 Presbyterian Community Center $0 $0 $3,000 Roanoke Area Ministries $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 Roanoke Valley Interfaith Hospitality Network $0 $0 $8,500 Roanoke Valley Speech & Hearing Center $1,000 $1,000 $1,250 Saint Francis of Assisi Service Dog Foundation $1 ,000 $1,383 $10,000 Salvation Army $2,000 $2,167 $3,000 Southwestern Virginia Second Harvest Food Bank $4,000 $4,000 $5,000 TAP $30,000 $30,000 $31,500 TAP - Dumas Center $0 $0 $50,000 TAP - Transitional Living Center $20,000 $20,000 $21,000 TRUST $4,750 $4,833 $7,500 Total FY2005-2006 Requests $248,615 $256,368 $437,610