HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/27/2007 - Regular
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
February 27, 2007
Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for February 27, 2007. Regular meetings
are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings
are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this
schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3,
and will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. The
meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special
arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact
the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance.
A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.)
1. Roll Call
2. Invocation:
Reverend Bob Lanier
Salem Baptist Church
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag
B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Japanese students visiting the Roanoke Valley
2. Proclamation declaring the week of March 11 through 17, 2007, as Girl
Scouts Make the World a Better Place Week, and congratulating the Girls
Scouts of the USA upon their 95th anniversary
3. Recognition of the Budget Department for receiving the Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for
fiscal year 2006-2007
1
D. BRIEFINGS
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of a reduction in real estate tax rate and establishment of a rate
to be used in advertising the public hearing on setting the real estate tax rate
for calendar year 2007. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; Brent
Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
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.
G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance to amend and reenact Sections of Article II,
County Vehicle License, of Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the
Roanoke County Code to delete provisions for vehicle decals and to enact a
vehicle license fee as permitted by state law for the year 2008. (Kevin
Hutchins, Treasurer)
I. APPOINTMENTS
1. Grievance Panel
2. League of Older Americans - Advisory Council
3. Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
4. Western Virginia Water Authority
J. CONSENT AGENDA
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION
IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
1. Approval of minutes - January 27,2007, and February 13, 2007
2
2. Confirmation of committee appointment
3. Acceptance of Edgefield Circle, a portion of Edgefield Drive, and the
remaining portion of Fountain Lane into the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System
4. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a
grant from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs in the amount of $8,000
for a portable fire extinguisher training simulator
5. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a grant from
the Department of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of $38,494 for the
Violent Crimes Against Women Unit
6 Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate grant from
State Farm Insurance in the amount of $5,500 for an enclosed car trailer and
winch
7. Request to appropriate technology trust funds in the amount of $115,555 from
the state to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for fiscal year 2006-2007
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. Accounts Paid - January 2007
5. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month
ended January 31,2007
6. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report
7. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report
3
O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1)
discussion regarding the appointment of specific public officers, namely
appointments to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission and the Western
Virginia Water Authority; and Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration
of the acquisition of real property for public purposes, namely Mount Pleasant
Library.
P. WORK SESSIONS (Training Room - 4th floor)
1. Work session to discuss the secondary roads system six-year improvement
plan for fiscal years 2007-2013 and review the revenue sharing priority list for
fiscal year 2006-2007 and potential projects for fiscal year 2007-2008.
(Teresa Becher, Transportation Engineering Manager)
2. Work session with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Review
Committee to review results of the evaluation process. (Brent Robertson,
Director of Management and Budget)
3. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2007-2008 budget development. (Elmer
Hodge, County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Director of Management and
Budget)
EVENING SESSION
Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of congratulations to Glenvar High School volleyball team for
winning the State Group A Championship.
(a) Certificate of recognition to Anna Gustafson, Glenvar High School, for
being named the State Group A Volleyball Player of the Year and being
named to the Volleyball All-State First Team.
(b) Certificate of recognition to Lara McDonald, Glenvar High School, for
being named to the Volleyball All-State First Team.
2. Resolution of congratulations to Cave Spring High School volleyball team for
winning the State Group AA Championship.
(a) Certificate of recognition to Jennifer Harvey, Cave Spring High School, for
being named the State Group AA Volleyball Player of the Year and being
named to the Volleyball All-State First Team.
4
3. Resolution of congratulations to William Byrd High School Cheerleading
Competition Team for winning the State Group AA Cheerleading
Championship.
S. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
1. Withdrawn at the reQuest of the petitioner. Second reading of an
ordinance to remove proffered conditions on 35.14 acres of property, located
south of Interstate 81 and west of Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District,
upon the petition of Oppidan Investment Company.
2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone approximately 10.363 acres from
AG-3, AgriculturallRural Preserve District, to PRO, Planned Residential
District, and to amend the PRO Master Plan on the adjacent 94.229 acres to
construct a planned residential community on the entire 104.455 acre parcel
located at 3804, 3672, and 3796 Sterling Road, Vinton Magisterial District,
upon the application of Loblolly Mill, LLC. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director
of Planning)
3. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a
recreational vehicle sales and service facility on 38.65 acres located at 8010
Plantation Road and Interstate 81, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Oppidan Investment Company. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director
of Planning)
1. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
U. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. Richard C. Flora
2. Michael A. Wray
3. Joseph B. "Butch" Church
4. Michael W. Altizer
5. Joseph P. McNamara
V. ADJOURNMENT
5
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
c-\
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
Recognition of Japanese students visiting the Roanoke Valley
Elmer Hodge ~ fY~
County Administrator
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
We are pleased to have four Japanese students visiting the Roanoke Valley from
February 17 -March 11. They are:
Satomi Oshikane (Kawaguchi Junior College)
Yoko Kondo (Kawaguchi Junior College)
Ayumi Tomita (Tokyo Kasei University)
Hitomi Yajima (Tokyo Kasei University)
They are accompanied by their chaperone Rikyu Fujita. Virginia Western Community
College is the official host for the students. Dr. Jennifer Mulligan from VWCC has been
instrumental in arranging their stay in the Roanoke Valley. The students will be introduced
at the afternoon session.
CERTIFICATE OF HONORARY CITIZENSHIP
Be it hereby known tbat
Satomi os6iiJt",
of Suitamu City, Japan
has, on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, been named an
HONORARY CITIZEN
OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, USA
and shall hold and enjoy a place of high esteem in
the minds and hearts of the Citizens
of the County of Roanoke.
ph P. M~Namara, Chairman
anoke COUllty Board of Supervisors
~ !fsP~
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
ATTEst:
~ J. CIdrJw:u
Diane S. Childers, CMC
Clerk to tbe Board
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
C-'h
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Proclamation declaring the week of March 11 through 17,
2007, as Girl Scouts Make the World a Better Place Week,
and congratulating the Girls Scouts of the USA upon their 95th
anniversary
Elmer C. Hodge d~ fi ~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
In honor of the 95th anniversary of the Girls Scouts of the USA on March 12, 2007, the
week of March 11 through March 17, 2007, has been designated as Girl Scouts Make the
World a Better Place Week. The Girls Scouts of the USA has issued a proclamation
recognizing the observance, and the County has been requested to issue a similar
proclamation.
Wedy Mellenthin, Chief Executive Officer, Girl Scouts Virginia Skyline Council, will be
present to accept the proclamation. Ms. Mellenthin will be accompanied by other staff and
volunteers. Also attending will be Debbie Clark, Troop 546 Co-Leader, and several girl
scouts.
. I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,2007
PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MARCH 11
THROUGH 17, 2007 AS GIRL SCOUTS MAKE THE WORLD A
BETTER PLACE WEEK AND CONGRATULATING THE GIRL
SCOUTS OF THE USA UPON THEIR 95TH ANNIVERSARY
WHEREAS, Monday, March 12, 2007, marks the 95th anniversary of Girl Scouts
of the USA, founded by Juliette Gordon Low in 1912 in Savannah, Georgia; and,
WHEREAS, throughout its distinguished history, Girl Scouting has helped build
millions of girls and women of courage, confidence and character; and
WHEREAS, through the dedication, time, and talent of volunteers of different
backgrounds, abilities, and areas of expertise, the Girl Scout organization thrives for
girls in many settings; and
WHEREAS, through Girl Scouting's unique leadership development program,
girls define leadership by making the world a better place by discovering, connecting,
and taking action in their communities; and
WHEREAS, Girl Scouting takes an active role in increasing girls' awareness of
the opportunities available to them in math, science, sports, technology, health and
fields that can expand their horizons; and
WHEREAS, more than 3.7 million Girl Scout members nationwide will be
celebrating 95 years of this American tradition, with nearly 50 million women who grew
up participating in Girl Scouting and exemplify the impact of this amazing Movement.
. I
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby, on behalf of its members and the citizens of
Roanoke County, proclaim the week of March 11 through 17, 2007 as GIRL SCOUTS
MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE WEEK; and
FURTHER, the Board commends the Girls Scouts for their commitment on behalf
of America's girls, and expresses its congratulations to the Girls Scouts upon their 95th
anniversary.
2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
C-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Recognition of the Budget Department for receiving the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year
2006-2007
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane S. Childers
Clerk to the Board
Elmer C. Hodge ~ I~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke County has been awarded the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the
budget document for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007. This
award is the highest form of recognition in government budgeting.
The award was established in 1984 and recognizes exemplary budget documentation by
state and local governments. Each budget document is evaluated using a comprehensive
evaluation checklist by three independent reviewers who are members of GFOA's Budget
Review Panel. The Department of Management and Budget first received this award in
1987, and this will be the 20th consecutive year that they have been recognized for this
achievement.
Accepting the recognition will be Brent Robertson, Budget Director, and Holly Salvatore,
Budget Manager.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E:--I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of a reduction in real estate tax rates and
establishment of a rate to be used in advertising the public
hearing on setting real estate tax rates for calendar year 2007.
SUBMITTED BY:
Brent Robertson
Director of Management and Budget
ElmerC. HOdge,/'d.~ I-/~ ~
County Administ~;- - ~ ~
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Real estate market values in Roanoke County continue to experience strong, consistent
growth year after year. This growth is important as Real Estate Tax revenues comprise
approximately 50% ofthe County's General Fund budget. While these revenues are used
to fund basic services, increases in real estate values also represent a direct tax increase
to property owners.
As the result of the 2007 annual reassessment, assessed values in Roanoke County
increased an average of 7.12% (excluding new construction) over 2006 assessments.
Based on this increase, the Board of Supervisors expressed interest in lowering the real
estate tax rate for 2007. The current rate is $1.11 per $100 of assessed valuation
(lowered from $1.12 for 2006).
State statute dictates the procedure that must be followed in order to set tax rates. To set
the real estate tax rate for 2007, a public hearing on the proposed rate must be held, and
notice (advertisement) published once a week for two successive weeks prior to adoption
of the tax rate. The advertised rate is the maximum rate that can be adopted. While a
lower rate can be adopted, a higher rate cannot be adopted without repeating the public
notice and public hearing requirements.
The schedule for adopting the tax rates is prepared by consulting with the Roanoke County
Treasurer to ensure the adoption of the tax rate allows ample time for the Treasurer's
office to program the rates, print, and mail tax bills to the citizens to comply with state
statutes and guidelines ofthe Treasurer's Association of Virginia. The planned schedule
is as follows:
March 13 & 20
March 27
April 13
April 20
April 27
Advertise Tax Rates
Public Hearing and Adoption of Tax Rates
Run Personal Property Tax Bills
Run Real Estate Tax Bills; Mail PP Bills
Mail Real Estate Bills
Even though the Board's intention is to reduce the 2007 real estate tax rate, it will still be
necessary to advertise and hold a public hearing regarding a proposed "effective" real
property tax increase. State code (58.1-3321) dictates that when reassessment of real
property results in an increase of 1 % or more in the total real property tax levied, the
locality shall reduce its rate of levy for the forthcoming tax year so as to cause such rate of
levy to produce no more than 101% of the previous year's tax levy. This rate is known as
the "reduced rate." The locality may increase the rate above the reduced rate by holding a
public hearing proposing an "effective" real property tax increase. The advertisement for
this public hearing shall be at least 7 days before the date of the public hearing and will be
held on March 27, the same date as the public hearing on the tax rates.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Based of current assessments, a $0.01 reduction in the real estate tax rate would equate
to a revenue loss of $730,000 for FY07-08 and a revenue loss of $352,000 for FY06-07
(current year).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In order to satisfy state regulations, advertisement of the March 27 public hearing on 2007
tax rates must be placed by March 9 (for advertisements on March 13 and 20). Staff would
like Board consensus on a "not to exceed" real estate rate that will be listed in the
advertisement.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. H-I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Second reading of an ordinance to amend and reenact
Sections of Article II, County Vehicle License, of Chapter 12,
Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Roanoke County Code to
delete provisions for vehicle decals and to enact a vehicle
license fee as permitted by state law for the year 2008
SUBMITTED BY:
F. Kevin Hutchins
Treasurer
Elmer C. Hodge e.e::-- * ~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~-r~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At the second reading of the ordinance on February 13, 2007, the Board of Supervisors
requested that residents of Roanoke County who purchase one vehicle and delete one
vehicle be given the opportunity to transfer their registration fee for $1.00 versus a full
registration fee of $20.00. This change has successfully been made, while maintaining
revenue neutrality. A second change was required to gross weighted vehicles in excess of
4001 pounds. A new tier has been added which changes the vehicle license fee for these
vehicles to $25.00 versus the originally proposed $20.00. The new tier of $25.00 is the
lowest rate that would currently apply to the gross weighted vehicles in our current decal
system. In addition, a new definition has been added to set forth the requirements for
eligibility of the fee transfer. These changes are not substantive enough to require a new
public hearing or first reading.
The elimination of decals is a growing trend across Virginia. To date, 37 localities have
eliminated decals, and 10 localities are in the process of eliminating decals. During a work
session with the Board on December 19, 2006, we discussed the elimination of the vehicle
decal requirement for 2008. We have determined that the decal can be eliminated as a
collection tool for the Treasurer's Office due to other proven collection sources that have
been developed and utilized the past several years. We also recognized that enforcement
of decals will become more costly and less effective due to the current trend in the
Commonwealth toward decal elimination.
Roanoke County also has a unique opportunity to eliminate the decal at an extremely low
cost implication due to the HP migration project that is currently underway. It is necessary
to make a decision at this time, even though it will not be implemented until 2008, because
of the installation of this new software.
The State Code of Virginia S46.2-752 was amended last year to allow localities the ability
to add a Vehicle License Fee without having to physically issue a decal. This Code
Section has been utilized by over 80% of the localities that have already eliminated their
own decals.
The attached ordinance covers all of the provisions necessary to enact a straight, non-
prorated Vehicle License Fee. It addresses the fee structure to the residents of Roanoke
County as well as exemptions and exceptions.
The first reading and public hearing for this item were held on January 23,2007, and the
second reading was held on February 13' 2007, and continued until February 27,2007.
Attached is a comparison of revenues under the current decal system versus the new
changes to the proposed vehicle license fee illustrating the requested revenue neutral
impact (Attachment 1).
FISCAL IMPACT:
This change will be revenue neutral with no budgetary implications.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance.
2
Attachment 1
Roanoke County
Comparison of Decals vs. Vehicle License Fee
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 2006 - 2007
FOR FEE CONVERSION I QUANTITY $ AMOUNT TOTAL
Free decals, includes antiques, volunteers,misc 1,909 $0.00 $0.00
$1.00 decals, includes transfers and Move In's 4,214 $1.00 $4,214.00
Prorated between $1.01 - $19.99 No Transfers 5,822 $20.00 $116,440.00
Boat Trailers 2,267 $6.50 $14,735.50
Motorcycles 2,313 $15.00 $34,695.00
Normal Fee for Auto's and Trucks 63,953 $20.00 $1,279,060.00
Prorated Truck collapsed from multi tiers 15,363 $25.00 $384,075.00
undeterminable items prorated
Anomaly within report query, margin of error 300 $0.00
TOT ALS 96,141 $1,833,219.50
ISSUI::D DECAL TOTALS FOR SAME PERIOD 96,141 $1,849,739.53
-$16,520.03
~
~
in
on
or
ia
owner or
or
d
a
u
cou
a
WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing for this ordinance was held on
January 23, 2007; and the second reading was held on February 13, 2007, and was
continued to February 27, 2007.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Sec. 12-28. Levy and amount of tax; special provisions for antique
vehicles; exceptions., Sec 12-29. Application for license and payment of tax., Sec. 12-
42. Violations; penalty., and Sec. 12-43. Duties of Treasurer., of Article II, COUNTY
VEHICLE LICENSE, and Sec. 12-13. Removal and disposition of certain unattended
vehicles., of Article I, IN GENERAL, of Chapter 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
of the Roanoke County Code, be amended and reenacted, and that Sec. 12-30,
Proration of tax., Sec. 12-31. Refund of tax., Sec. 12-33, Issuance of decal., Sec. 12-34.
Display of decal generally., Sec. 12-35. Display of expired decaL, Sec. 12-36. Permitting
use of decal by another., Sec. 12-37. Transfer of decal to another vehicle., and Sec. 12-
38. Duplicate or substitute decals., be repealed, as follows:
Sec. 12-28. Levy and amount of tax; special provisions for antique vehicles;
exceptions.
(a) There is hereby levied an annual license fee ~ on every motor vehicle,
trailer and semitrailer required to be licensed under this article. The annual license fee
imposed by this section shall be in addition to any other county license tax or
fees, including personal property tax. Tho amount of such tax sh:::lll be ::lS set forth in
the following subceotions of this ceotion.
(b) On every motor vehicle, trailer and semitrailer not taxed under other
subsections of this section, there shall be a fee ~ of twenty dollars ($20.00) per
annum, except that the fee ~ on motorcycles shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00) per
annum, the fee on vehicles with a gross weight in pounds of four thousand and
2
one (4,001), or more, shall be twenty-five dol1ars ($25.00) and a trailer designed
exclusively to transport boats shatJ not exceed six dollars and fifty cents ($6.50).
(c) On o::wh truck or tr::lilor thoro E:h::lll bo ::l t::lX por ::lnnum ::locording to tho
follmving cchodulo:
Gross Vehicle ~ Trailer
A . ~L :~ D"" .~,.,~
1,500 or loss $20.00 $ 6.50
1,501 to '1,000 20.00 15.00
1,001 to 6,500 25.00 20.00
6,501 to 10,000 30.00 20.00
10,001 to 20,000 10.00 20.00
20,001 to 30,000 60.00 20.00
30,001 to 10,000 70.00 20.00
10,000 and ovor 80.00 20.00
The f.cc t:1X for :1 tr:1ilor dosigned exclusivoly to tr::lnsport boats shall not oxceed six
doll::lrs ::lnd fifty contE: ($6.50).
(c) (at The owner of an "antique motor vehicle," as defined and licensed in title
46.2 of the Code of Virginia, may be recognized socure ::l loc::llliconE:o or doc::l1 ::It no
charge upon filing an application for same with the treasurer and payment of a five
dollar ($5.00) fee and the payment of the appropriate personal property taxes. This
application shall remain valid so long as the vehicle is titled to the applicant.
(d) (e) The following owners of motor vehicles are hereby exempt from the
annual license fee ~: An honorably-discharged prisoner of war, any person awarded
the Medal of Honor, and any disabled veteran. Any member of the Virginia National
Guard shall be entitled to be licensed::l loc::llliconco or doc::l1 upon the payment of a an
annual license fee in the amount of one-half ( 1/2) of the license fee ~ prescribed in
this section.
These exemptions shall be limited to anyone passenger vehicle, pickup or panel
truck owned by an eligible person. The commissioner of the revenue shall determine
eligibility based upon the criteria utilized by the commissioner of the department of
motor vehicles of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the issuance of special license
plates. The treasurer is hereby authorized to recognize issue :1 loc::llliconso or doc::l1 to
owners eligible under this subsection.
(Code 1971, ~ 10-41; Ord. No. 1929, 12-13-78; Ord. No. 83-99, ~ 1, 6-14-83; Ord. No.
84-195,11-13-84; Ord. No. 6987-5, ~ 1, 6-9-87)
Cross References: Taxation generally, Ch. 21.
3
Sec. 12-29. Application for license and payment of fee ~.
Application for a license required by this article shall be made at the office of the
commissioner of the revenue on forms supplied by the treasurer or commissioner of the
revenue. At the time of such application, the license fee ~ prescribed by this article
shall be paid. A license fee of one dollar ($ 1.00) shall be paid for a license for a
vehicle which replaces a vehicle currently licensed in Roanoke County which has
been sold or disposed of within sixty (60) days of the application for such new
license upon the presentation of adequate written proof of sale or disposal of the
currently licensed vehicle.
(Code 1971, 9 10-45)
Sec. 12-30. Proration of tax.
VVhenever ::my license tax prescribed by this article becomes assessable in any
month aftor tho month in whioh the tax for tho full yoar is assossablo, tho tax chall be
prorated on a monthly b::lSis, "'Jith tho t:::lX due equ:::l1 to one t'Nelfth of the tax set out in
thic artiolo multiplied by the remaining number of months in the tax yoar from tho d:::lto of
licom:ing of tho 'Johiclo in the :::lpplic:::lnt'c n:::lme.
(Code 1971, ~ 10 13)
Sec. 12-31. Refund of tax.
I\ny person holding :::l ourrent oounty vehiole Iioense who dicpoces of the vohiole
for '.vhich it was issuod :::lnd does not purch:::lse :::lnother vohicle m:::lY surrender the
lioense to the county treasurer, 'lAth a statement that the vehicle for which the lioence
W3S issued h:::ls been dispocod of, and requect :::l rofund for tho unusod portion of tho tax
paid under this article. Tho tre3surer sh311 refund to the applicant one half of the tax
paid under thio artiole, if :::lpplic:::ltion for ouoh ref.und io m:::ldo on or before No'.'ombor
thirtieth of the current license year. No refund shall be made 'Nhen :::lpplication therefor is
m3do :::lftor Novembor thirtieth of the ourrent lioonce year.
(Code 1971, ~ 10 46; Ord. No. 84201,11 2784)
Sec. 12-33. Issuance of decal.
Upon receipt of a proper application and payment to the licenco tax prescribed by
this article, the county treasurer sh:::lll issue :::l license doc:::l1 for the '.'ehicle upon 'lIhich
the tax 'Nas paid.
(Code 1971, ~ 1015)
4
Sec. 12-34. Display of decal generally.
(0.) ^ licence deoal issued under this o.rticle sho.lI be o.tto.ched to ~:md dispbyed
on the windshield of the vehicle for 't.'hich issued in such mo.nner o.s to be clearly visible.
(b) It shall be unlmvful for o.ny person to foil to obto.in 3nd dispby or to oper3te
3 motor vehicle, tr3iler or semi tr3iler required to be licensed under this 3rticle on any
street, highw3Y, road or other traveled way in tho oounty, unless 3 current lioence dec31
ic displayed thereon as required by this seotion. The foct th3t the current license t:Jx h3s
been p3id on such vehicle sho.lI not b3r prosecution for a violation of this section. ,11,
violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty five dollarc
($26.00) and not more tho.n tvY'O hundred fifty dolbrs ($260.00). The owner or oper3tor
of 3ny vehicle receiving 3 p3rking ticket or uniform tr3ffic summons under subsoction (c)
may pay a fine in the amount of t\venty five dollars ($26.00) in tho manner pro'.'ided for
in sections 12 56 3nd 12 67 of this Codo in full so.ticKlction of such 'Jiobtion. Any
violation of this section may not be discharged by paymont of such fine except upon
prosont3tion of c3ticf3CtOry evidence th3t tho lioence herein required h3S been
obtained.
(c) E3ch d3Y that a vehiole is opor3tod without 3 current licence dec31 boing
displo.yed Sh311 bo considered 3 separ3te offense for purposes of this section. L3w
enforcement officers in the County of Roanoke shall h3'/e authority to issuo citations,
summonses, p3rking tickets or uniform traffic summonses to residents of and
businessm: loc3ted in R03noke County in 'Jiobtion of this article.
(Code 1971, ~~ 10 -10,1015; Ord. No. 3312, ~ 1, 12 11 82; Ord. No. 111186 228, ~ 2,
11 11 86; Ord. No. 92689 12, ~ 1,92689; Ord. No. 22691 4, ~ 1, 22601; Ord. No.
91493 7, ~ 1, 9 1493; Ord. No. 121493 5, ~ 1,12 1493)
Sec. 12-35. Display of expired decal.
It sho.lI bo unbvfful for the owner of any motor 'Johiole, trailer or semitrailer to
display upon such vehicle 3ny license doc31 of the county, 3ftor the expir3tion d3to of
cuoh deoal. 1\ '/iolation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding
twonty doll3rs ($20.00).
State Law Ref-erenccs: Authority for above section, Code of Virgini3, ~ 46.2
~
Sec. 12-36. Permitting use of decal by another.
It Sh311 bo unlawful for any person to '....hom a license decal is issued under this
artiole, to give, loan, rent, sell, assign or transfer such dec31 to 3nother or to otherwise
permit 3nother to use, in any m3nner, such dec31 during the licence tax year for 'Nhich
the S3me is issued.
(Code 1971, ~ 10 15)
5
Sec. 12-37. Transfer of decal to another vehicle.
In tho ovont ::my per::;on decirm: to tr::mder ::my licence docol issuod undor the
provisions of this 3rticle to 3nothor vohiclo, such person shall make applioation for such
tr~msfor to the county tra3suror, who chall trom:fer such decol, upon the p::Jymont of 0
fee of one dollar ($1.00) or the prorated f-ae based upon weight for trucks or trailers.
Such tr::Jnsfor m::JY occur only upon ovidonce of paymont of all outct::Jnding porsonal
property taxes 'Nhich havo beon proporly assessod or ora ::Jssecs::.lblo ::.lg::.linst the
applicant by the county.
(Code 1071, ~ 10 10; Ord. No. 111186 228, ~ 2,11 11 86)
Sec. 12-38. Duplicate or substitute decals.
In tho event ::.lny licence dec::.l1 icsued under the pro'/isionc of this ::.lrticlo sholl be
lost or mutilated or shall have become illegible, the person '.vho is entitled thereto shall
m::Jke immedi::J.te application f-or and obtain a duplicate or cubstitute dec::Jl, upon
furnishing information of such fact satisfactory to the county treasurer and upon
payment of a f-oe of one dollar ($1.00).
(Code 1971, ~ 10 47)
Sec. 12-42. Violations; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle, trailer or semi-
trailer on any street, highway, road or other traveled way in the county unless a valid
annual license fee has been paid pursuant to Sec. 12-28 of this Article or a local
license decal issued by the situs jurisdiction of such vehicle is displayed thereon as
required by the ordinance of such situs locality. The fact that the current license fee or
tax of the situs jurisdiction has been paid on such vehicle shall not bar prosecution for a
violation of this section. A violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less
than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) and not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
The owner or operator of any vehicle receiving a parking ticket or uniform traffic
summons as provided for under subsection (c) of section 12 34 may pay a fine in the
amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) in the manner provided for in sections 12-56 and
12-57 of this Code in full satisfaction of such violation. Any violation of this section may
not be discharged by payment of such fine except upon presentation of satisfactory
evidence that the annual license fee herein required has been paid licence herein
required has been obtained. Any fine paid under this section shall be deposited to the
credit of the general fund of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and no accounting need
be made thereof to the situs jurisdiction of such vehicle.
(Ord. No. 42694-4, S 1,4-26-94)
Sec. 12-43. Duties of Treasurer.
6
(a) The Treasurer of Roanoke County shall carry out the responsibilities
imposed upon him by section 12-56 and 12-57 for all tickets issued under section 12-42,
in the same manner as for all other parking tickets. At the same time as the treasurer
shall send to the owner or operator of the motor vehicle the notice required by section
12-57(a), he shall forward a copy of the original ticket and such notice to the treasurer,
or his equivalent counterpart, of the situs jurisdiction of such vehicle.
(b) Tho treasurer shall on an annual basis confor with tho treacurerc, or thoir
counterp::uts, of each juricdiction which is a party to tho compact authorizod by section
12 11 f{)r the purpose of solocting a st::mdard color or background for the ',ehiole decals
of oaoh partioipating juricdiotion. The ohief law enforcoment officer of e3ch p3rticipating
jurisdiction shall be consulted prior to the formal selection of a common decal color or
background. However, the refusal by one or more jurisdictions to agree to a oommon
deo31 color or b3cl<ground shall not prohibit p3rtioipation in suoh oomp3ct or terminate
any existing comp3ct.
(Ord. No. 42694-4, ~ 1,4-26-94)
Sec. 12-13. Removal and disposition of certain unattended vehicles.
(a) Whenever any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer is found on the public
roads or highways or public grounds unattended by the owner or operator and
constitutes a hazard to traffic or is parked in such manner as to be in violation of law, or
whenever any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer is left unattended for more than ten
(10) days upon any public property or privately owned property, other than the property
of the owner of such motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, within the county, or is
abandoned upon such public property or privately owned property without the
permission of the owner, lessee or occupant thereof, such motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer may be removed for safekeeping by or under the direction of a law-
enforcement officer to a storage garage or area; provided, that no such vehicle shall be
so removed from privately owned premises, without the written request of the owner,
lessee or occupant thereof; provided further, that the owner, lessee or occupant of any
private property within the county which is normally open to the public for parking shall
post or cause to be posted in a conspicuous manner signs warning that vehicles left on
the property for more than seventy-two hours will be towed or removed at the expense
of the vehicle owner.
(b) The person at whose request a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer is
removed from privately owned property under this section shall indemnify the county
against any loss or expense incurred by reason of the removal, storage or sale of such
vehicle.
(c) For the purposes of this section, it shall be presumed that a motor vehicle,
trailer, or semitrailer is abandoned if:
7
(1) It lacks either a current state license plate or decal, ~ current county
licenso plato or doc~l, or a valid state inspection certificate or sticker; and
(2) It has been at a specific location for four (4) days without being moved.
(d) Each removal under this section shall be reported immediately to the chief
of police and notice thereof given to the owner of the motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer
as promptly as possible. The owner of such vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, before
obtaining possession thereof, shall pay to the county all reasonable costs incidental to
the removal, storage and locating the owner of the motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer.
(e) Should the owner fail or refuse to pay the costs referred to in subsection
(d) above, or should the identity or whereabouts of such owner be unknown and
unascertainable, after a diligent search has been made, and after notice to him at his
last known address and to the holder of any lien of record with the department of motor
vehicles against the motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, the chief of police may, after
holding the motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer thirty (30) days at the impound lot of the
authorized towing service and after due notice of sale, dispose of the same at public
sale; provided, that if the value of such motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer is determined
by three (3) disinterested dealers or garagemen to be less than one hundred fifty dollars
($150.00), it may be disposed of by private sale or junked.
(f) The chief of police shall forward the proceeds of any sale made pursuant
to this section to the county treasurer. The treasurer shall pay from such proceeds the
cost of removal, storage, investigation as to ownership and Hens and notice of sale, and
the balance of such funds shall be held by him for the owner of the motor vehicle, trailer
or semitrailer and paid to such owner, upon satisfactory proof of ownership. If no claim
has been made by the owner for the proceeds of such sale, the remaining funds may be
deposited to the general fund or any special fund of the county. Any such owner shall
be entitled to apply to the county within three (3) years from the date of such sale, and if
timely application is made therefor, the county shall pay the same to the owner, without
interest or other charges. No claim shall be made nor shall any suit, action or
proceeding be instituted for recovery of such funds after three (3) years from the date of
such sale.
2. That this ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2008. fFem
~nd 3ftor tho d3to of its 3doption.
8
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
T\-Y
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane S. Childers, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Elmer C. Hodge <" It
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. Grievance Panel
The three-year term of Karen Ewell expired on February 23. 2007. Ms. Ewell is no
longer a resident of Roanoke County and is therefore not eligible for reappointment.
Following discussion in closed session on February 13, the Board requested that
Joanne Thompson, alternate member, be appointed as a full member of the Grievance
Panel. Ms. Thompson has advised that she is willing to serve in this capacity for a
three-year term that will expire on February 23. 2010. Confirmation of this
appointment has been placed on the consent agenda.
2. League of Older Americans - Advisory Council
The one-year term of Beverly Eyerly will expire on March 31,2007.
3. Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
The four-year term of Arthur M. Whittaker, Sr., expired on February 11, 2007. A
closed session has been scheduled to discuss this appointment.
4. Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA)
John Williamson, at-large member, resigned from the Board effective November 16,
2006. This four-year term will expire on June 30, 2008. At-large members are
selected by the majority vote of the other six members of the Board and confirmed by
Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. A closed
session has been scheduled to discuss this appointment.
2
51-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET
FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE
DESIGNATED AS ITEM J. CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for
February 27,2007, 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 7. inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes - January 27, 2007, and February 13, 2007
2. Confirmation of committee appointment
3. Acceptance of Edgefield Circle, a portion of Edgefield Drive. and the remaining
portion of Fountain Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary System
4. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a
grant from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs in the amount of $8,000 for
a portable fire extinguisher training simulator
5. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a grant from the
Department of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of $38,494 for the Violent
Crimes Against Women Unit.
6 Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate grant from State
Farm Insurance in the amount of $5,500 for an enclosed car trailer and winch
7. Request to appropriate technology trust funds in the amount of $115,555 from
the state to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for fiscal year 2006-2007
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.
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 DArE:
February 27,2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Confirmation of committee appointments
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane S. Childers, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Elmer C. Hodge t ff
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. Grievance Panel
The three-year term of Karen Ewell expired on February 23, 2007. Ms. Ewell is no
longer a resident of Roanoke County and is therefore not eligible for reappointment.
Following discussion in closed session on February 13, the Board requested that
Joanne Thompson, alternate member, be appointed to fill this vacancy. Ms. Thompson
has advised that she is willing to serve in this capacity for a three-year term that will
expire on February 23,2010. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the
consent agenda.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. ::J- 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Acceptance of Edgefield Circle, a portion of Edgefield Drive,
and the remaining portion of Fountain Lane into the Virginia
Department of Transportation Secondary System
SUBMITTED BY:
Arnold Covey
Director of Community Development
Elmer C. Hodge ce- ff ~~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Charles R. Simpson, Inc., the developer of Edgefield, Section 1, requests that the Board of
Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
requesting that they accept 0.16 mile of Fountain Lane from the intersection of Meadow
Springs Circle to the intersection of Edgefield Drive; 0.09 mile of Edgefield Drive from the
intersection with Fountain Lane to the intersection of Edgefield Circle; and 0.11 mile of
Edgefield Circle from the intersection with Edgefield Drive to its cul-de-sac.
The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of VDOT and finds the road is
acceptable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No County funding is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they
accept Edgefield Circle, a portion of Edgefield Drive, and the remaining portion of Fountain
Lane into the Secondary Road System.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN REGULAR
MEETING ON THE 2yth DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007 ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF EDGEFIELD CIRCLE, A
PORTION OF EDGEFIELD DRIVE AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF
FOUNTAIN LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A) , fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered
into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which
applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form LA-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a copy of
this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer,
whichever occurs last in time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
A Copy Teste:
Diane S. Childers, CMC - Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development
Virginia Department of Transportation
File
~~ \
-- ~
- . s~ ~
- '" .t .,.
\J' v~. ~.:.~,
ro"Ii"'" c';[F' ~
LMIE ~,~O~...
'. ./"
'// 10
. ~ ,OEWARTS
10 1II"10N ====~;;. IiIll(
VICINITY MAP
4
~
NORTH
I~ r. t.or Ill'
~~ ~ Q.;'II~ ..c
! tr3 ~..};r"l"
,.1
:';~u.
10J':
~ :0
"~ti, ".?J:~ /
~~.. C!I
,
lor :!
"l.~l: ~
S~
lor II
0001 _C
~
6.
..3<;
i:~.I-
~ .
- ~
The Hills of Spring Grove
PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY
DESCRIPTION
Fountain Lane - from the intersection of Meadow
Springs Circle to the intersection of Edgefield Drive.
Edgefield Drive - from Intersection with Fountain Lane
to the intersection of EdgefieJd Circle.
Edgefield Circle - from the intersection with Edgefield
Drive to its cul-de-sac.
LENGTH R1GHT OF WAY ROADWAY WIDTH SERVICES
Miles Feet Feet Houses
o 16 36 50 14
009
28
40
5
o 11
28
40
15
,
""'
ROANOKE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPivlENT
Edgcfield, Section I
Acceptance of Edgeficld Circle, a portion of Edgeficld Drive
and the remaining portion of Fountain Lane into the
Virginia Depallment ofT ranspoctation Secondary System
.\...
~
CI.I
tE
v
1ij
+J
CI.)
4-<
o
S
V
+J
CI.I
CI.)
ro
'""0
t::
o
u
v
CI.)
v
..c
+J
o
.....
CI.)
z
o
.......
~
.......
~
~
~
~
CI.)
o
0...
o
~
0...
I
~
'"
(5
'"
E
...
0-
;:l
VJ
tr) '-
1 0
~ ]
~ c'E
~~
o b
~ ~
CI.) ~
Z ~
o t:
[=: ~
....... E
~ c:
~ ~
;3
<:
~
tr)
I
~
~
E
o
~
-I
'-
o
-I
-=
...
E
..t::
u
r.:I
.::
<<
1-01
e
~
-i:i
...
OJ
o
....
i::
...
E
E
'"
-=
>-.
1!
;:l
VJ
.::
9
;;
'0
'"
.,
~
t:
~~::.:~'" 1
..
I: I:
.~ = =E ~
::= ~~==
"0.........
"0 ,I:oe
<......
v
~
=
:::I
o
U
(oil
:::I
o
C (oil
~ ~
- oW
~ 0
ColZ
(oil
~
a.l
~
o
@
o
P:::
~;c::
o:=~
ci:~-
......
c
~
u
o
en
r
"
....
c
e
-
~
~
=
o
-.0
:t;
~
<
o
tH
o
OIl
"0
~
c
o
...
(oil
E
'0
.Q
::I
rJ'J
.....
o
~
e
~
Z
....
~
~
-
....
rJ'J
:;
~
....
~
~
'"
....
en
.....
o
~
E
~
Z
'"
'0
~
o
~
.... .
~ 0
~z
\0
.......
o
rr'l
Q
e,;'
g.:t
~~
a:ia:i
c.:c.:
-~
Q 0"\
..... .....
~t"'
ee
..... .....
_"'<2"
-0-0
... ...
-0 -0
... ...
o 0
u u
.. ..
c::a:
.. ..
-;:~~
..cc-
o
I,f')
.
OJ
~
c:I
.... U g.
U .~
gfo.
i:"Cl
~u.Ei
q:: 0
~~~
-g~1i
0) ""' ..
;::Eoc
<.... C
o 0..
g E ~
'':: ~ ..
~ ~ ~
r; ,E ~
.!! (l) L
c-'=o
-f-<~
E c::
0(:;-;
~f-<C::
c
.-
ro 0
~ ~
o~
t.I-.
~
.".
<:'!
0) ...:
@ Cl.) 0
....l '~ ~
,~ 0 c;
c:s!ii:
~ 0)_
o t;:; 0
P.. ~r ~
..<:: -a'o
-;; U.1 --.
"'<....0
C 0 '_"
g c::
u .g C
III U .",
~ QJ U
OJ ~ "E
]Of:
......c '"
e c::
~ Q ~
lo.f-<C::
0-
o
o
......
......
o
o
<;t
o
"<t
rr'l
o
..
~
'"
g.
Cl.)
...
'I::
o
"Cl
QJ
t;:;
~
~ ~
"'<l'
~ Q
~~ (5
c u
.9 ~ ~
u ~ Q
~-!.~
QJB"E
c: V1 8
.... u
s""" c::
e 0 ~
lo. f-< c:
-0
d) 0
tH :>
o .-
~o
~
-0
""i)~
tH C)
11.) '-'
~u
~
N
~
8
i:l
~
'"
g.
'<t
N
...
'0
o
=
...
'"
is:
s
E (;;
to.f-<
"<:t
..
DL
c:I
g.
~
e;
ll.
..:.:
o
o
=
c;
is:
'"
u
;;
Q
"""
'"
...
l..
Q
'"
..
c:: ..
;:; ~ 0
c:ttf-<
If'l
~
...
g.
..:.:
Q
o
c:l
...
<1
a::
..
..
u
;;
Q
.",
..
...
..
o
..
..
c:: E
;. ~ 0
_lo.f-<
~
t.i
cJl
..
c
e
-0
-0
~ a
~~
E
..:.:
o
o
c:l
.;'
;i
...
~ L...
o .2
o ....
c:l e
...
!:
.,
:!J
...
...
e;
a::
...
c:I
is:
'"
c;
Q
"""
'"
"Cl
l..
8
..
:: E
.:: E
i:l.lo.
~u ~
;; -.
Q ~
""" ...
.. c
""" >-.
... c
8 ..
.. '-
c:: 0
...
;>
Vi
~
U
,.,
...
>.
r.:I
:::
'-
o
-5
'C
'-
o
..c
~
.~
o ';:
f-o c:
t-.
\0
r<1
o
u
llII
..
~
~
r:
"5
f-
-0
...
...
e
~
;:l
'"'
E-c
Z
t.J
~
t.J '"
::r:: .~
U~
<
E-c
E-c
<
~.,g
O~
'"
.,
"0
?;
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
J-Lj-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and
appropriate a grant from the Virginia Department of Fire
Programs in the amount of $8,000 for a portable fire
extinguisher training simulator
SUBMITTED BY:
Richard E. Burch, Jr.
Fire and Rescue Chief
Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. ~ /{~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Virginia Department of Fire Programs has awarded the Fire and Rescue Department a
training grant in the amount of $8,000 to purchase a Portable Fire Extinguisher Training
Simulator. These funds will be utilized by Fire and Rescue for this purchase and no match
is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The department will follow purchasing guidelines to select and purchase this equipment.
No match is required.
ALTERNATIVES:
The department will not be able to purchase the training simulator.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of the funds in the amount of $8,000
into the Fire and Rescue Department's budget.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. ::S:-S
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate
a grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services in the
amount of $38,494 for the Violent Crimes Against Women Unit
SUBMITTED BY:
James R. Lavinder
Chief of Police
Elmer C. Hodge ~;J/+
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Violent Crimes Against Women Unit consists of a full time detective who is dedicated
to investigating crimes of violence perpetrated against women. The Violent Crimes Against
Women Unit has been in existence since 1997, and has been supported by this grant since
its inception. The major areas of investigation are domestic assault, sexual assaults,
stalking, threats, and rape. This grant cycle begins on January 1, 2007, and expires on
December 31,2007.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The grant requires a local match of $23,923. The local match will be provided from existing
Police Department funds.
ALTERNATIVES:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the Department of Criminal Justice Services grant in the
amount of $38,494.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
.:5- to
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate
a grant from State Farm Insurance in the amount of $5,500 for
an enclosed car trailer and winch
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
James R. Lavinder
Chief of Police
Elmer C. Hodge ~ j(~~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Roanoke County Police Department has been awarded a grant from State Farm
Insurance in the amount of $5,500. This grant will be used to purchase an enclosed car
trailer and winch. The trailer will be used to transport a small crashed vehicle and will be
donated by State Farm Insurance with no associated costs incurred by Roanoke County.
The car will be used by the Blue Ridge Regional Crash Team to help facilitate traffic safety
presentations throughout the jurisdictions represented by the Blue Ridge Regional
Transportation Safety Board. No matching funds are needed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. No matching funds will be needed.
AL TERNATIVES:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the State Farm Insurance grant in the amount of
$5,500.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
31
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Request to appropriate technology trust funds in the amount of
$115,555 from the state to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for
fiscal year 2006-2007
SUBMITTED BY:
Brent Robertson
Director of Management and Budget
Elmer C. Hodge if~!I~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Technology Trust Funds, representing fees collected by the Roanoke County Circuit Court
Clerk's office, have been received from the State in the amount of $115,555. These funds
have been earmarked for the purpose of purchasing software, hardware, maintenance, and
related upgrades to the indexing software utilized by the Courts. These funds need to be
appropriated to the Clerk of Circuit Court so that the necessary computers and equipment
can be purchased.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact -- 100% state funds
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriating technology trust funds in the amount of $115,555 from the
state to the Clerk of Circuit Court for fiscal year 2006-2007.
N -\
GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
% of General
Amount Amount
Prior report balance $13,281,742 8.08%
Addition from 2005-06 Operations 1,506,678
Audited balance at June 30, 2006 14,788,420
July 1,2006 Payment on Loan from Explore Park 20,000
Balance at February 27,2007 14,808,420 9.01%
Note: On December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to maintain the General
Fund Unappropriated Balance for 2006-07 at a range of 8%-9% of General Fund Revenues
2006 - 2007 General Fund Revenue $164,315,790
8% of General Fund Revenues $13,145,263
9% of General Fund Revenues $14,788,420
The Unappropriated Fund Balance of the County is currently maintained at a range of 8%-9% of
General Fund revenus and will be increased over time to the following ranges:
2007 -2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
8.5%-9.5%
9.0%-10.0%
9.5%-10.5%
10.0%-11.0%
Submitted By
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Elmer C. Hodge C II
County Administrator
Approved By
6Y-:l-
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRG1NIA
CAPITAL RESERVES
Minor County Capital Reserve
(Projects not in the CIP, architectural/engineering services, and other one-time expenditures.)
Audited Balance at June 30, 2006
Amount
$5,834,217.61
Remaining funds from completed projects at June 30, 2006
631,412.94
Transfer from Department Savings 2005-2006
453,189.00
12/5/2006
Renovations to Roanoke County Courthouse
(184,775.00)
1/23/2007
Back Creek Station Addition
(50,000.00)
$6,684,044.55
Balance at February 27,2007
$5,000,000 of this reserve is being used to upgrade Public Safety Radio System
Maior County Capital Reserve
(Projects in the CIP, debt payments to expedite projects identified in CIP, and land purchase opportunities.)
Audited Balance at June 30, 2006
$679,628.00
2006-07 Capital Improvements Program-New County Garage
(500,000.00)
Appropriation from 2005-2006 Operations
869,992.00
$1,049,620.00
Balance at February 27, 2007
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Elmer C. Hodge [ If
County Administrator
N/3
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Audited Balance at June 30, 2006
Amount
$ 23,297.00
From 2006-2007 Original Budget
100,000.00
July 11,2006
Appropriation to hire County Gypsy Moth Program, Inc.
to serve as the Gypsy Moth Coordinator
($10,000.00)
July 11, 2006
Appropriation for Legislative Liaison
($18,000.00)
Balance at February 27, 2007
$ 95,297.00
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Elmer C. Hodge C g
County Administrator
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
fY -~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Accounts Paid-January 2007
SUBMITTED BY:
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Elmer C. Hodge { /1
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Direct Deposit Checks Total
Payments to Vendors $ $ $ 6,917,491.53
Payroll 1/12/07 927,397.96 102,085.49 1,029,483.45
Payroll 1/26/07 960,723.89 121,030.30 1,081,754.19
Manual Checks
Voids
Grand Total $ 9,028,729.17
A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
r--
o
o
<::'
~
N
: ~
c.. 0
=
'2
.~
..
;>
~
~
o
=
=
o
c:.::
...
o
C
==
::I
o
U
::s
-0:
00
:;:
z 8
c;:
'"
I:
o
~
=
";:
c.
o
..
c.
c.
-<
"'Cl
=
=
'"
~
'"
=
=
..
~
8
::I
'"
==
f;;;l
~
...
..
=
-
:a
I:
...
C.
0<
f;;;l
...
o
~
;;
"'Cl
~
-=
'"
'"
~ "l:J e 'E
= c ~ ;f.. ~
~S:;~
;:..
~
..
"
.Q "
e ...
" c
... '"
c -;;
~ =
~
"
'"
c
E ~ ~
.: e Cl
~ e ,g
" c ..
Q, ... ..
~ 0I:l ~
r-
~
-
~
-
o
"
'"
c
0Jl '"
C ..
:s .c
" e
~ ~
i ...
o
..,
...
..,
c
r.l
..,
e
';:
...
Il.
.c
C
=
~
"
..
..
>. 3
::c :a
= ~
.. Q,
:; ~
r-
o
...
;:
..
e
...
r-..;-'O
~v:v:
'" '" <'"I
10"''''
r- 0 -
O~
00;0;
N N..;-
t'-- N, '0
-oOOM
<'"I ~ ..;-
t'--
'<i
<'"I t'-- 0-
~'Ooo
~.o.o
'" '"
~ 00, '"
..;-..;-'<i
"'0-'0
M 0-,
'"
0\00
0<'"10
ot--=o
t'--
o
'<i
N
o '" \0
t-;O';oo
00
..;-0-0-
..;- 0-, <'"I
~..;- ..;-'
N '"
00
~
..
0Jl
"0
"
=
Ot'--O
0"'0
t--=.o.o
t'-- 00 \0
"l 0,
<'"Ir--:-
0-0-0
">t'--,,>
0'
..,
C
::l
...
';
..
...
c
"
'"
g
en
02 t.t:l
'2 -;;
"e 'u
<15
o
Oc:l
'"0
....
"
o
~
-;;
'u
'"
'"
'"
~
.~ Oc:l
~~e
:"0 ~ ~
~ ~ Q)
.....loiil
=
=
....
..,
C
::l
...
N ">
000
000
....
<Xl
iii
I()
00 M
..;-0
~.o
..;- '"
<Xl
o
a;
~
I()
r-:
r-
o
iii'
'0 ">
~~
'" N
'" 0
N '"
o~
o
t'--'"
~
"'i'
00
-
""'
~
-
"'i'
'It
N ">
~t'--
..;- t--=
o t'--
00 a-,
~~
o
\0 '"
'0
<"l
r-:
t'--
""'
..;
....
-
00
00
.0.0
-
I()
....l
<"l
<Xl
iii'
~
<Xl
0-
M ""
~OO
0- N
~-"
00 t'--
r-
I()
r-:
-
'0.
-
~
"'i'.
-
-
00 '0
00
0; .0
'" 00
o ..;-,
r--:-M
N
~O....
OJ
~
'2
'5
"'Cl
-<
....
=
Q.l
e
'"
..
Q.l
0-
o
~
OJ
..
Q.l
=
Q.l
~
1::
o
p.
g.
r/l
OJ
'u
:a
;j
.....,
~ ti
o ..c:
va
o
o
-
o
N
00
N N
00
-
o
00
"'i'
V'lNanN
00 '" ..;-
NOt--=O
lJil.&;)V)\O
~
<Xl
r-:
I()
r-
'It
-
.....
-
~OOOI.ll
~O~~
.......c-:~N
N N
Ot-,M,'"
~rf')NM
0- 00
MMOO
t-' ..;-' M
I()
-
....;
<Xl
r-
...,
....
-
...:
NO- '"
000
oci~t'--M
t.r'l L.rl 0 N
O,NO,
o-'NO
\0 00
OOOOOON
t-..... 1.0.... ("f')'"
o
o
=
'000
~<'!~O
("")MOOO
0-00
~_ 0
M r-:-
M 0
'"
o
<Xl
..;
....
I()
....i"
I()
-
Oo,M("t')N
N~r--:~
~l,(")r-r-
o-Ot'--..;-
..;-Ot'--,t'--
0'0'''' ~
OooM
00 '"
"'i'
o
=
"'i'
I()
<:5
"'i'
<"l
....i"
'Oo-~O
oo~~~
0; t'--\O
;g~f:j~
an..... N -.::i M
t- N\O
:;:..... ~.... ~'" v
OJ
'0
:a
::l
..,
'i'i
o
v
u
15
~ '"
E- .9
Oc:l 'i'i
Q)
~ f1) t)
~ ~ ~ i
cE"'138
!:: -0 ''';:
"-l C u '"
~ ~ g .5
:L;: 8 ~
o
o
....
o
NM..;-
0000
M M M M
0000
I()
....
-c
I()
O'\O'\-l'-NV'l
r'fj\O ~('l'joo:::t
o~oOariOI..O
\OV)V)..q-\Ot-
r-
<Xl
=
<Xl
"'i'
...,
o
-e
..;
-
M N'O
'<l:~",,~
NNV~
";-00'0\0\0
0'1 00..... M.., an.., ~"
OOr-"'("")M-l,()
OO'Ot'--..;-No-
N\O,~";-
N'
N N
..;-t-;
~
r-
-
..;
..;-
....
....i"
r-
r-
atS
-
000000"""00
V:~l/")MVV
OOVo.:N~N
o 0<-, OOOtnoo:::t
~"~N~6v",
OOMM,,>..;-
N\OM~\O("l'1
M" M
r-
~
....
o
~
-
....
-e
Ot'--\O
~~'<l:
'" 0 M
'" '" ..;-
;;, ~ ..;-'
t'--
<Xl
..;
....
o
~
<"l
I()
....
000
~o~
~.ot-
N 0
'"
M 00 t"'i V t.r'l rf")
~~o~~~
NO M\ON
''It'-- \0";-
00 rr1 N" rt').....
..;- t'--
M
....
o
..;
....
~
iii'
r-
<"l
...;
<"l
000
;;~:::i
NM~
~"'o-
~'" ~ v)
t'-- 0- 0-
'<1'000-
"",,"'~
c
~
01
rn
.~
:c
::l
a..
en en
Q) '" OIl
.~ tf.l ~
t: 8. 31
(1) t.t:l ._
r/l;5&
~ ~ ~
~ ~ "@
o~~
o
o
....,
o
",or-
t- 0 M
~ocit--=
'<I' 0
\0 '" '<I'
a'" N'" r-:
00\00
M 0 '<I'
('.,..;'-"
en
'"0
t::
;j
o
~
Oc:l
><
Q)
Q.
gf '" E
'C 13 8
Q) "..c
~ u ~
'bJJ & r:
~]~
M,,>..;-"'\O
000000
'<1''<1''<1''';-'';-'<1'
000000
I()
...,
..;
I()
oot-OOOOOOO
co 00......-10',0
~Lr)("<jOOOooo
t-VVlVlOOr-O
I()
"'I'
....
~
<:5
Q'\
"'i'
'It
VI OOOf'f')VlOOO
OO""OOC"J"> 0
NI"Q~OIXil,(')O
oo:::tI"QOONt""-OO
t-, 0- M '<1', 0 ~
00 ~ ci VI O\~ -6.
t- 00
N N... l,(') l,(')
NM
r-
'C
=
~
atS
....
r-
r-:-
"'ON
'"
",NO
~~~~
t'--N 0
o '<I' 00
N 0" \0" 00
OONt-
~M
N ~
<'"I 0 00
~~ ~.., 00..,
N N 00
N '"
N'
...,
-
iii
QCl
.....
,,;
....
0000000
0000000
0000000
00
0-
-e
o
iii
I()
I()
~
I()
00'<l't'--",00
t-:OM"'O~O
NOll1oo~od
..;- t'--'<I'N 0
Vi... ~..,~..,~.., ~
'O~OO '<I'
M\ON
-:.
....
-
..;
....
o
~
-
....
..;
-
000'<1'000
~~~~~~d
t-'Ot'--~OOO
v\ON'l:j"'l.() 00
N"Q'>,"N"r--:'o\('t')"'OO
MO\O Mt-
'" 00 \0
..;-" -.0 M
'"
~
...
o
~
C en
.9 t) c
~ ~ .9
rJ"J U'.l ~
';:: ~ .;::
'2 '~ '"
'"0 Q) OIl
~r/l~~O
~ .~ ; u ~
.~ rJJ ~ u
t: ~ .~ ] .~
J:l ~ < ,2 J:l
-;; ~ ~ ,~ OJ
"g 0 .g t; "g
r/lv~'=;r/l
.~
:;:;
::l
a..
-=~
OJ '"
Q) ll.l
::I:::I:
-;; u
'i'i:'::
Q) ..g
~ ~
o
o
....
=
("<")Vl4")'C(--OO
0000000
l,(')l,(')l,(')l,(')l,(')'nl,()
0000000
~-s
-
Q'\
=
>0
~
Q'\
a;
r-
I()
<:5
~
iii'
I()
Q'\
a;
....
r-
....
....
r-
atS
o
o
=
0Cl
~
>0
o
-c
Q'\
.....
....
~
...,
...:
....
~
~
""'
...,
...,
I()
....
i
~
...
~
Ql
~
"'Cl
C
01
-=
-;
~
=
o
o
I()
o
" .Q .... 0 <D ~ 0> N "<j" QC ~ 0- r- 0 0 0 0 ..... on N '-0 ~
':< ... E '" '" N '" "l ~ t-: "! ~ IT) ~ ~ "" ~ 0 ~ ~ r-; "" "<j" QC Q
c- O ~ ~ ;; .. N ~ a-: .., on r- "<t on ...; "" ~ 0 - a-: r...: 0; ..;
N .2 ... on on "<t IT) "<j" 'D 0> IT) "" on on - "" on .., ."
0 ... "
0 .. "
N ... .. r.l '" o:c
i<; .. r.l
... <>lI ..
N >-
~ 00 "" on ~ on "<t 0 Q r- 0> "" 0 0 0 0 Q N on l- N
~ ~ ...
'" " "! on 0> 'Xl "! N '"'! ~ Q r- on on 0 0 0 ~ 0'1 ~ 'D '-0 I-
~ 0 .Q 0 0; \Ci 00 8 0; 0; 0 0 r...: = 0 ...; ..;
<'< e 1:: <; - on on 0 '"
1l " '" 00 N 0 "'" "'" Q 0 ~ 0 0 0> N Q r- N 0'1 I-
.. "" "" 0>. ~. N a-_ '" r- ..... 00 N 'D 0 0 N "<j". ." r- oo IT) -
C OJ 0' 0{ ~ r...:- ~ d 0' ",,' v-\ 0' v-\ v-\ r:rS 0' M ..; ..;
" - 00
C o:c on "<j" on IT) ." 00 '" I- a- N N 0 on a- 00 I- a- 00 l- I-
;;> 0 --: N ." on N QC N. 1-. 'D I- IT) 0 a- Q 0'1
N- M ..; r:rS 00 0;- ..;
- "" ." =
-
1:: N "" on Q on \0 a- 0 Q "" 0 0 0 Q 00 0'1 N
C ~ 0
'" .. ~ "" ~ '-0 ~ t-: t-: 0 c: N "<j" ~ ~ 0 0 0 - 0> a- 'Xl Q
" ... r...: r...: N 0 0; 0 0 0 0 ...; r...: -<i .,;
... .Q .. 00 0> \0 on ..... "" 0 .....
s e Q "" on ..... :2;. I- 0 ." N 0'1 0'1 0 - I- 0'1 I- -
:a 1l s 0_ ~ QC 1-_ \0. on IT) '" 1-. q M 0 00 0'1 QC
" c 0' on on d on l- I- M ..; 0' 0{ on ~ 1-- 'D- M ~
" ... "" I- "" IT) on N 0 Q l- N on >0 0'1 N ..... .....
... r.l .. N "<to N 0'1 "<j" "<j" Q. N ." IT) ~
... --: "'.
.. olJ >- N' M N' N N N
r.l
"" M QC
'"
=
Q 1::
<:: "<j" 0 0 ." 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q Q
~ .. C ~ 0 0 'Xl 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 M
..
01: c ... 0 0 - .:;; .:;; .:;; .:;; = .:;; .:;; .:;; .:;; .:;; 0 0 = .:;; .:;; = 0;
:a .Q 0> on ." QC
Q. c 8 00 I- >0 ."
Q I- ~ " on N' r:rS M
... ..
Q. ~ ;; " 0
Q. - r.l oc
< ~ 0
~ "Cl -
0
'2 =
'5il ~
'"
... ~
;> ..
=
or ~ .... '"
... ... "
..:.: .... ... 0> on 0 ." 'D 0'1 0 ~ N "" 'D 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -
Q .c 0:: ;.. S I- 0 0 QC 0 '" "'" 0 QC '" 0\ 0\ 0 0 0 0 ..... a- ~ IT) I-
= IE ~ ::;; :a -<i \Ci 0 = r...: 0; 00 .:;; ..; M \0 0 .:;; 0 0 N r...: 00 -.c .-:
0:1 = .... c " N ." 0 'D 0 0 oc M "" 0 I- "'" N I- 0
Q .. '" ... on. 0 IT) 0 M \0, on ." 00 N, t-: l- t- "<j" - .,..
'i: '" ... 0' on ~ 00 d 0' ~ ~ N' 0;- 0;-
Q:: = :; .. on on N ::0
f;IJ " r.l ..... on M 0 M 0'1 "" 00 ..... QC
.... g. N N ." - on IT) "<t IT) I-
Q ~ ..c ~ ~ M
.0 ~ -= -
... '"
= = ~
= ...
Q :a
U = I-
~ 0
Q. a;
>'! fi
f;IJ i.
.... ... 0 I- 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'D >0 ."
Q '" ... 00 'D 0 ." ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ""! IT) I-
"'" " 00 r...: 00 ..; M on = -<i 0 M .:;; 0 r...: .:;; ;! on -.c 0;
~
'3 co "<t 00 0 ." N 0'1 N IT) '" 0 \0 0 0 0\ N on ~ QC
on "" 'D IT) 0'1, on 0, N I- --: 0 00 0 0 N, "<j". t- oo t- IT) 0'1
"C 0' .,; r-:- N 0'1- on 00- ..; v-\ ",,' 0' 0' on 00 ..; r...:- 0' r:rS d
~ 00 N 0> 0 0 0\ 'D 0 ~ 'D "" on 0 0\ 00 ." 00 0'1 0
.c: N \0 "<t .,.. 0_ \0 QC. "<to 0'1 \0 t-, O. N M IT). I-
.. ~ N' r-.:' M 0{ N' r-.:'
00 - "<t
N t- Ile Ile
-
'"
'i
'S
~
-; ....
0::
.. '"
.a ;: ...
-; "
E " g- o.
U d) S ~
ell U
~ .. '~ c. 0 u
Oll Q ell ;;; -;
= 0 d) "il ~
Q .. [/l U 0 ;:
p... ;.- ell d)
:c: "l: 0 " ::r: u .. :; :;
0:1 0 d) ell ~ E 0 .s -
.. 0 E 0(3 0 d) 0 0 ::s
"l: .. 'iii E t> "Cl 0 U ell 0
!: u Oll 0. ::s en "l: 0 -;;; .. en en
9 d) .. 0 !: 0 ::r: '2 oE !: >> '" ~ 0:1 .. .. '"
E .2l '" -;::: c. ~ ~
~ Q:: 2 03 .....l ::; -;;; ..
..c: x E ::s d) 'l> "Cl .. en '" ~
.... '" u '" 0 L\.l ;0- S 0 en en "Cl - ~ .. ~ 0 0
.. N '" d) ::s ~ '"
0:: 'C .:.: 0 S E ;;; '" == ell ell C
U '" CI ~ 0 >> .. ..
" " !: .. 0(3 ,::: ,9 d) d) u 'C I-< I-< 0:1
"'" ~ L\.l 0:1 u Q d) ;0- d) .. 0 Q ..
:; U 0 ,~ 0. Z
-; 0(3 -; c. Oll '" 'S d) '" ~ U d) 0 "Cl "Cl f0-
e !: .. .D SU "0 Oll .. 0 0
... .. d) "0 d) ,e c. <2 <2
" en ~ 2 'i:: 0. 0 '.E - d) ~ en 0.
0:: ..:.< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. ,- u ..z "l: '" 0 .. '" 0
" li3 ..0 '3 0 E .~ en X 11) ..
" 0 '" 0 u 0 0 ~ OJ Q) 0 0 0 .5 .5 0
(:l... ;J U >0 ii: U L\.l U I- L\.lCl I-< ~ U ;::J QC 0'1
::B <:> 0 0 0 0
-< <:>
00 -
'" c.; .... N '"
..0 N M on N "" "" \0 I- 00 <; N
~ ':"! 0:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
::s \0 <D 'D l- I- l- I- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0'1 0'1
"" "'" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r--
o
o
t:'
~
N
~ .!:!
0.. c:
..:I
"a
"So
...
;;
.;
.::c
Q
C
..:I
Q
~
...
Q
.c
C
=
Q
U
::E
-<
'.0
'" N
~ ~
G::
'"
Q,>
=
C
Q,>
;..
Q,>
~
-;
=
...
..
~
"Cl
C
..:I
"Cl
Q,>
...
..:I
.5
...
'"
~
...
Q
...
C
Q,>
e
Q,>
....
..:I
....
rJJ
~ ...
o~Qt;
g ~~.g
~&! ;=
;..
't:l
'"
.~ '"
"; ~
~ co
= 0;
;;l =:I
'"
'"
Q ~
.s ~
... =
co OJ
OJ ..
;.. ~
I"-
~
-
~
-
o
~
;., '"
:a 6
~ ~
co OJ
~ "
't:l
OJ
't:l
=
'"
't:l
co
.;:
OJ
g.,
.<:
;:
<:>
~
I"-
o
OJ
;5
...
co
'"
M~~~~~~8~~oo~~~~~v~~~g~8~~~~~~~~~~~8$g~
~ ~OO ~~~~~O~~OO~~~OO~~N~N~~ ~OO~NOO 000000
7 ~~~~7 ~ ~~~~O~~77~ ~~~~~~O ~~ ~~70
v
M~ 0 ~70,
(""'l("'.l Nl..Oo...anv
~ ~ 00 ~ :2 6' 0,-;,;;.
\00 0\0 If)
t- lr) (""f") 0\", l.()_ -.::t
r- ...0 ('f') f"") v"'
M N
N
MOO
00. 0,.
N I"-
~ 1"-.
N70,00,Voo
or----oo 00 ("'(")000
6~00~'6'~~
If'l.0\00 00 t-'o:::::t0
~7~.N ..,r~
M
I"- ~M
00 0'1 0 ("'(")
~~"'OO ~"'
7 '"
'"
0,00
'" ~
o O.
-..:;(OOr*")
...-, a,
a, I"-
00 '" l"-
N 7"'-'
'" ...-, ...-,
0,' ..,r C
\0 00 \0
\o...-,N
Ml.()("'f')M
r- an \0 00
7\O"\O~
C"'o\1"-
oo\Or-\C
00 l""')~
...-,I"-No,NO",O
7\00\00,000,0,
~l("}~;:~~~~6~~
r--~M OOMOOO
r-V':lt.rl("'-4 M
oo~:!
...-,...-,'"
N' 0\ 0\
N
7.
1"-000'>0,
ri"') 00 rf"') l.r) 0....
r"')-.::tri"') f"")
..,r~.,tM
MNI"-
N
N \0
7
\0. 7
M.,t
I"-
N 0..
\070'>
r"-f"")f'f1
Co\...-,
\O"'-'N
onO
N
07
0\
N
rA...of")
\0 0 r-'o:::::t
I"- ~. \0
OoooO~
...-, V
M f"") 00",
M I"- 00
\0 0'>
0,. \0. 7.
I"- ...-,
\0 00
-
"
..
't:l
"
=:I
onOOOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOI"-OOoooo
NOOOOOvOOOOOOOOOOOOooOO\OO
~OOOl.r)ONlf)O~OOOO~O If)ONl("}lf)~~
..,rCCC~CoOo\C"'CCCC"'~~~oO~ ~C"'-'
Ng~~"'-'~~~~~~~~~ON~~7'" $~N
.,t~~ oO~on ...-,
I"- N
't:l
=
"
'"
0;
...
"
=
"
"
Il.l
c..
o
....
Il.l c..
~ ~ i::
~ CO 0
..... e- ~
~ e 8 ~
~8.8:S
..... 0 ._
~Q:~~
~ c; rJ) .~
UJ g .~ ";;j
(;~:O~
q) v ::s 1IJ
P::c..c..c..
<:>
<:>
't:l
=
"
'"
<f>
Il.l
~
.....
...
o
::l ><
Il.l <'i
;J.....
i:: '"
_ Il.l
i: ";;j
Il.l rJ]
E ";;j
~ 15
c....J
~
~ ~
Il.l
'" Od
X ~ 8
~ ~ ';j
~ X ~ ]
u CU U 1IJ
~;J""':EP::
lIJ u'2 lIJ (I) t::
g~1i>o
Ul l: <.)
g "~ ~
UC04..
.... '"
o Il.l
"0 ><
~~
en
Il.l
~
.....
E
>< 0
<'i 0
.....p::
~ -0
i:: "0
"~ ~
..JOd
,f' ;;
::; a
;:J::r:
'"
-0
o
o
'"
-0
Il.l
....
'"
0.. '"
Il.l Il.l
.... ><
c.. '"
'.....
'" ....
Il.l Il.l
X .Q
~i5
l""')'Oo..."TOv-.oo
0"1. MO""","l'"fi",,"f"')
f"'--.-\OM lr)OOOr.
a-,"'OI'SO::('f')~lr)("")
t.rl.O Nr-OON
v. 7\O~1"-
NOo, No,07
r-oo rr'lt-("'(")o 7
~ ~;;::'~'2~~
N \0 \Ol.()t-
...-,0, v N
~~
I"- v v 0
N7l.(")NN
\0. I"- v. ?"-
M ~~ 00 M
...-,
en
Il.l
Il.l
~ '"
Il.l 00
~ ;;:
'2il
c 'S
o al
U-o
ca 1;1
E -0
~j
;...
Il.l
i::
o
~
...
o
~ ;"~ 6
'" ~ E
~ 0 8 e
8 ;...4.. <i-<
~ ~8~~
OE Vl ~ .9 ~ ~
t:: llJ Q.J 0 C >
~~ut;ii:~
N\oO"'-'O
00 If) ("'(") ("'(") If)
Ooolf)oo
~ 00' ",' o' ~
000",0000("'(")
OO""C:
0'> ",-,ooool"-ON
o oo\Ot---- 00\0
~~~~("'(")"O\",:",N,,~
'O::j"'OO\O ("'(")\0
vN ...-,1"-
N ...-,
'" ...-,
'"';.
0...-,
on I"-
":,1"-
on
r--
000000
o 0 I"- 00
O. O. \0
N ~o\
N \0'"
"'NO.'"';.
'"
-0
~
";j Uf) ~
u ~ u
"g ~ ~
~ ~ Od
~ uJ Q.J
'-t1lJi!
8 ~ di
zc.'i5~
o 7 I"-
07'"
7 I"-
0\ 00'
\0 0 N
\0. O. '"
M
o
N
v
C
N
N.
N
><
<'i
.....
~
;:;
I"-
o 00
F)":l""'")
.,t...-,
€
Il.l
c..
o
....
c..
...
o
Il.l
;:5
E
o
....
'"
E
Il.l
ca
<l rJ]
.; a Il.l
Il.l '" ;:l
~rJ]So~
"E ~ ~ ~ ~
Q.J~'"Ocno
'2~~5u
~::~~~
g ~~..o QJ ~
~ ~ ~ e ~ g
~OO~~~
VlVlt----O
t---- 0 ("'(") 0
\0 0"'-'
o\C.,toO
\0\00'>7
N. ...-, 7
N~
N7\O
N"'O'>
0'> 00 ...-,
~~C
...-, 0
v7N
"'0'>700
1"-70\0N
ON.I"-...-,7
~ 00 If) 00" 0'"
("'(") \0 V N
0'>. M. O. N.
on ...-,
N
-0
'';;: ~
"E
Il.l
rJ]
en
00
i::
-oil
'';;: '5
CO
ca-o
.~ ;;
o -0
S ~
'" ..J
U...
.... 0 ....
~ Q.J ~
oJio
en
Il.l
<.)
~
o
rJ]
00
l:
"u
i::
<'i
i::
~
ca
<.)
'J::
o
00
~
'"
U
Il.l
'(;j
Cii
o N("'(")vO N("'(")Vl.rl\Ot----OOO",O Nv~OO~O NroO \00 ~~("'(")O\OON
00oo08~88888~~~888888833~~~~~~~~~8~~~g
N c-
o
0
C:'
00
N
:: ~ '"
.. ...
u Q '" ~ '<t
u = ..
'" C ~ """
&: Q .s '" ~ ~ r--
.... ;. ..
~ =
.. ~ ~
OJ ..
;..
1:1
'"
.t::l '"
"i ..
'" =
.... ..
:5 ~
'<t
N
'D
r-.:'
'<t
0_
.. l""'\
CO N
Q ~ l""'\
.s '" 00
::I V)
.... = 0
.. '" '"
'" ;.
;.. ~
'"
Ool
= t'-
C ~
Ool
.. ~ ~ 00
Ool ..... .. '<t
<'II ~ - fl ::I 'D
'a 0 = '"
-; = ..
.~ 0 ~ '<t
= ~
...
:; ~
-<I: .",
JI "Cl '"
.",
c c
Q <'II ...
C "Cl .",
<'II ~ 0
~ .;:
<'II OJ
.... S ~
Q .. ..c
... =
c '"
foil ~ .. 00
c .... ~ ~ '<t
= Q '"
Q ... t'- ::I or}
U c 0 ll:l 0
Ool
S '" .,f
~ ;
;! ....
00 ~
.",
=
::I
'"
';
....
OJ
=
'"
C
g ~
~
::E - 00
~
..: .", i:!
'" =
~ N ::I E-<
0 ;.; '"
Z ~
1;:
l""'\
'"
0
t-
o
0
C:'
l"2
N ~
.. :tl ... -
" ~ Q = = 'C
"" 00
, 8 .9 = ~
"" <ll ...,
... .. ..
.. ~ '"
<l> ..
>-
"'"
<l>
.!:l
..
<l>
...
=
~
<l>
...
=
..
..
Cl:I
~
~
~
~
...,
....
iii'
-
-
..
';;
Q
.9
~
..
=
... =
.. <ll
<l> ..
>- <l>
=
Itl
~
Itl
vi
'C
~
N
I:"-
'"
~ I:"-
::l
I:: ~
~ - ~
~ Q()
~ ~ .. 0
- =
<II 0 -= = 0
'a ;; 'I: .. 0\
'6Ji = .. ...,
::l ~ ~ Q()
.. ... vi
;; .-
~ "'Cl
~ '0 <ll
"'Cl
.:.: I:: =
Q <II '"
I:: '0 "'Cl
<II ~ 0
Q ... 'C
~ <II ..
.... .5 g"
Q .... .;
.c '" =
riiil 0 ... 0
I:: ~ <ll
::I .... .. ="
<:I "'Cl ="
Q .... I:"- = e
u = 0 = 0
~ l:"-
E <ll r:-
~ .; Q()
-
<II ...
... ~
rr,
~
3
~
'!:l
=
..
...
"
'!:l
= t-
=
"" e
.. ':' t-
t- o
... 0 0
<ll 0 N
= i:i
<l> 1 1
" t
~ ~ c
-" " '"
c ~ ""
c 0 0 .5
.... ;:;; -0
::E t: ~
~ ~ '"
<l: "'Cl u ~
'D = u: ~
,., N = ~
on "" ""
0 ~ ]
z
u: ....;
u:
('v-to
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 $ 780,817
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)
03/24/05 Progress Payment #3 (375,678)
05/13/05 Progress Payment #4 (855,272)
06/10105 Progress Payment #5 (401,210)
06/20/05 Change Order (003) - Establish Guaranteed
Maximum Price (51,387) 51,387
06/28/05 Change Order (004) - Foundation change 319,034 (319,034)
07/14/05 Progress Payment #6 (378,417)
07/27/05 Progress Payment #7 (445,669)
08/10/05 Progress Payment #8 (759,513)
08/23/05 Change Order (005) - Sewer Line Replacement 124,407 ( 124,407)
1 0/05/05 Progress Payment #9 (774,442)
10/13/05 Change Order (006) - Convert Citations and
Warrants Databases no cost
10/20/05 Progress Payment #10 (664,909)
12/08/05 Progress Payment #11 (1,196,297)
12/08/05 Change Order (007) - Minor Changes to Radio
Equipment no cost
12/08/05 Change Order (008) - Additional conduits for
redundant 911 feed no cost
Northrop-Grumman
Date Description Contract Amount Contin~ency
12/08/05 Change Order (009) - Regrading slope from
road cut south side of Cove Road 3,737 (3,737)
12/08/05 Change Order (010) - Coordination of sewer
line with Glen Cove School water line no cost
12/28/05 Progress Payment #12 (1,130,054)
01/03/06 Change Order (011) - Refrigerated storage
for evidence storage 24,621 (24,621 )
01/20/06 Change Order (012) - Modifications to voice radio
transition plan (cost offset by E911 funds) 84,060
02/02/06 Progress Payment #13 (1,099,134)
03/09/06 Progress Payment #14 (1,164,468)
04/05/06 Progress Payment #15 (1,464,883)
04/18/06 Change Order (013) - Extension of 8" Fire
Service Line to rear property line no cost
04/20/06 Progress Payment #16 (1,671,792)
06/01/06 Progress Payment #17 (1,307,330)
06/15/06 Progress Payment #18 (1,902,683)
06/21/06 Change Order (014) - Modifications to IT
Carpet Squares, DAC ES Cards &
Console Upgrades 4,823 (4,823)
06/21/06 Change Order (015) - Utility/Permit Allowance
for WVWA new Fire Hydrang Fee no cost
07/20/06 Change Order (016) - Additional security features
and office space addition to Police
Evidence Storage area 31,723 (31,723)
07/20/06 Change Order (017) - Addition of EIFS material
to roof screens for improved appearance
and additional electrical boxes in Police
Polygraph area 49,085 (49,085)
07/27/06 Progress Payment #19 (1,592,012)
09/13/06 Change Order (018) - Increase in size and
structural support for Police records
section, addition of plumbing in Police
Northrop-Grumman
Date Description Contract Amount Contingency
forensics section, deletion of transformer
structure and additional WAN links for
communications redundancy 8,090 (8,090)
09/28/06 Progress Payment #20 (1,110,618)
1 0/26/06 Progress Payment #21 (1,451,867)
11/30/06 Progress Payment #22 (1,579,614)
12/14/06 Progress Payment #23 (556,132)
01/08/07 Change Order (019) - Minor changes to wiring,
outlets, fencing, landscaping, signage, etc. no cost
01/08/07 Change Order (020) - Changes to access control
system to allow better remote operations
from inside the building and at the vehicle
gates 12,926 (12.926)
01/25/07 Progress Payment #24 (1,117,716)
Balance at February 27, 2007 $ 1,857,699 $ 232,693
. The funds to be used for change order #002 were taken from departmental E911 funds.
Submitted By,
Dan O'Donnell
Asst. County Administrator
Approved By,
Elmer Hodge
County Administrator
N ~7
L() L() t::' ~ I'- - - - I'- - ..-- a - C"')
<0 C"') eo C"') a III III III C"') III N <0 III N
...... a a a a a
e a eo C"') a ~ (.) (.) (.) I'- (.) <0 a (.) eo
::l ..-- C"') ..-- (J) ~ a a a C"') a ~ ~ a ~
0 N L() ~ ..-- N e e e r:::: N eo r::::
E C"')
<(
~
Ii)
"0
r::::
~ E ::l
......
co CD .... ~
::: - ..--
III (J) a
~ >. CD
a (/) r:::: L.U III
III r::::
0 L- >. a
0 <( "0 CD .D a
<( co - -
L- a a a co CD 06
Q) ::: 0::: ::: ~ y)
'0 '0 CD III CD (5 a "E
.... CD >
.... 0 ...... r:::: r:::: a (j)
co L- a a .c. co
(.) Q) ~ EL a :;:; a (.) a 0
W III ...... co ...... Cf) ~ CD
...... ~ III (.) a ...... (/)
.., e III '0 CD ;;::: '0 <L> r:::: 'w L.U
co a r:::: ~ '(3 <L> <L>
0 Ii) III > E ~
:$ ..c a co co CD ~ ~ a III a
0:: () 0 '0 .D c.. III a a c.. III <(
'0 CD a
Z <( r:::: (.) co III ..-- a r:::: L- 0
a. ..... <L> ::l ...... .... .c. r:::: 0::: a (.)
0 ...... a ...... 'C .!!2 co ...... (J) ...... ~
C) m 0... '0 0 r:::: ::l CD :2 co y)
C) .... e Q) '0 ..-- CD ...... a c.9 III CD CD
0:: 0:: .2 0::: '0 ..-- E III III E r:::: III Ol C C L-
Z m (J) il::: <L> C m ~ .c. co ~ m
0 > ..... L.U ::l r:::: c.. '0 ...... L- ....J ::l
- c E a ~ ::l r:::: (.) .~ a ...... 0-
0 a ~ III ...... <L>
a. 'C 'x L- 0- ::l Cf) .Q III
~ (.) ...... m <L> L- '0 (.)
...J W W c <L> C co .8 ::: m L.U '0 m <L> <L> '0 .~ ......
(f) :> 2: <L> c <L>
0:: ~ Q) <L> ~ CD <L> s: a L- a (.) ~ c..
=>> <L> L- C <L>
0 '0 E ::l III L- L- L-
a::l 0 III '0 '0 '0 "0 a E CD <L> <L> (/) co
0:: r:::: t:: CD 2:- c m ...... ::: '0 (.) (.)
Z co 0 co <L> r:::: co 0::: a 'S; '0 <L>
0:: w <( c.. - a ~ ~ L- CD L- !::
<( <L> r:::: III .8 ...... L.U >
C > 0 <L> :;:; ::l <L> III LL
W ~ c c
0 m '0 m m a '0 c.. ...... <L> .8 .8
.... 0:: ::: m m '0 III r:::: a .c. Co
E III ~ <L> a
Z 0 0:: a L- ::l C Ol a c ...... III ...... III III
L- CD a c.9 ::l CD ...... (.) III a .8 c a r:::: <L>
W .S:2 > L- .g .c. G c Ol a .Q "0
W LL <L> ...... ...... m ro :;:; :;:; c ~
(.) ~ .c. .c. c co III a -a;
0 III '0 .!:Q "0 <L> t:: r:::: c CD co
C) 'ffi <L> (.) (.) a '0 (.) 'w (.) Ol
~ N <L> .D III m <L> L- eo "0 Ol ~ c ~ c..
Z >- I Q) ..9: > a ...... L- L- C :J
m 'S; 0.. r:::: "0 Ol a m '0 CD '0
<( .... " Q) (j) CD CD a r:::: "0 <L> a .c. a x a
W ::I: Z <0 0 L.U 0::: 0::: a ~ <( 0::: 0 0 ~ L.U ~
LL
<( (.) =>>
en 0
(.) (.)
...J '0
Q) L() L() L() L()
a::l > L() L() L() L() a a a a <0
e a a a a a a a <0 a
=>> a a L() L() a a N N N N a a <0
a. N N a N a N <0
a a N as a5 a5 as N a a
a a a 0
<( I'- I'- N N M C"') L- L- L- L- a N N
N N ..-- <L> <L> <L> <L> C"') N
a> 2:- 2:- 0 eo N L- .D .D .D .D 2:- 2:-
...... ...... <L> E E E E eo ..--
co co m N N III .D m m N
0 ::l ::l CD <L> ::l a <L> <L> <L> <L> ::l ::l <L>
c c r:::: r:::: Ol ...... (.) (.) (.) (.) r:::: r:::: 'C r::::
co co ::l ::l ::l (.) <L> <L> <L> <L> m m c.. ::l
, , , , <( 0 0 0 0 0 , , <( ,
....
a>
..CI
E
::l
Z
....
a> ..-- N C"') ~ L() <0 I'- eo (J) a ..-- N C"') ~
'0 a a 0 0 a 0 a a 0 ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..--
....
0 a a 0 a a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0
a>
e
co
..c
()
....... C"') L() 0 ....... <D O'J
en N CO O'J en N ...--
- a t- o 0 a O'J 0
c::: u U
:J a ..-- O'J co a N <D
0 c C"') "<t c co
E <D
<t:
(fl
c E
<Ll a
u '0 :E >- a
u L-
c c '0 ......
<Ll ctl '0 c: cS en
'0 <Ll ctl ctl c
.:; L- '0 Q) a
u C <Ll c
:i: UJ c: E :J a) ~
<Ll <Ll ctl a L- '0 L-
c: L- n .2 <Ll Ol <Ll
U ctl L- ctl 0..
<( (5 <Ll <Ll en en c a
s: 0.. en c: Ol
0... 0.. ctl c: <Ll
> ctl en L- a en .......
a '0 - ~ a
s: - '0 ctl L- ...... Ol E
<Ll a a
L- c: <Ll L- U U C ~
Q) L- a > ctl <Ll c c: 0..
"'C .2 E a L- a :J ctl L-
L- '0 L- J:: :g <Ll
0 <Ll 0.. 0.. <Ll E u
U '0 E ~ .~ en -
c: ctl Q) E '0 Q) en
Q) ctl <Ll L- ~ 0 '0 a c .0 <Ll
0... ~ .......
c::: :i: u a 0 C u :i: ctl
ctl ...... L- L- Ol
co .Q 0.. en 0... a a a Ol a
..c <i: en c: ...... :;::::; ...... c: ro <Ll
U <Ll <Ll t u en ~
~ <Ll <Ll .~ a <Ll ~ 'u .8 J::
'+- E u L- 0.. en c c
0 ~ u 0 <Ll <Ll
L- (/) 0... 0.. en - ...... E >
c::: <Ll a :J .~ Z
...... <Ll <Ll
0 0... '0 a c: en (/) <( en ....... J::
+:; ~ c: a c Q) en
en ro s: >- -
ctl L- <Ll :;:::; .......
<Ll L- en
.;:: a :J L- :J ctl
() :5 en - x 1:) .2 ro a
<Ll a a '0
en <Ll L- ro .0 :J <Ll c: L- C
Q) E <Ll :J .;:: L- .~ a Ol C ctl
0 LL Cii - :;::::; c:
a <Ll ctl (/) 0 .;:: a Ol
L- <Ll ~ Cii U '0 .~ U c
..... .;:: '0 0... '0
(/) (/) ~ E - c ctl (/) 32
=> u (/)
'0 ";:: <Ll ctl .S; '0 a <Ll
c - ctl Cf) ....... :J
c: :J <Ll Q) <Ll Ol c U .0
:J LL .!:::! (/) u
..... ~ U L- C ctl <Ll
..... <Ll ctl UJ ro (/) Ol ctl <Ll
'0 .0 <Ll
a >- en <Ll ..... c .S; E L- c: a ;;
ro Ol a a :J ctl -
c: :r: <Ll
a ~ ;e <Ll :J 1:5 J:: (/)
C C C. <Ll '0
:;:::::; ~ a a a '0 en :J u Ol '00
ctl ctl L-
:E - ~ '0 ...... - L- C c:
U LL Cf) ctl <Ll a en a
.Q '0 '0 L- C ctl
'0 '0 U J::
<i: <( <( c: :2: ()
"'C <D
Q) 0
0
> N t-
o t-
L- <D M 0 0
0 <D <D 0 0
0 0 0 N N
<t: 0 0 L-
N <Ll as
N N .0 co
Q) ..-- 0 0 E C"' C"'
-
co N N N <Ll ctl ctl
0 <Ll ~ ~ c.. :J :J
C C C
:J :J :J <Ll ctl ctl
"""') """') """') Cf) """') """')
t-
L- 0
0 L-
Q) N a
.0 -
E t- ctl
L-
N -
:J (/) L-
Z C"' .S; a
L- ctl E ~
Q) :J -
L() <D t- co O'J 0 L- '0 .~
"'C ..-- ...... ...... ...-- ...... N .0 <(
L- >'Q) >, <Ll .S;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <Ll >-
LL m c C mOlE
Q) ..... '0 c: '0'0'0
a a :J
en <Ll o a <Lla<(
r:: ~ >:r:~
co ctl - ()
..c ro E o . e (jj c:
U - .0 cU; o..E :J
a :J ctl en 0.. _ a
f- (j) 0<( <(UJ()
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
7-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session to discuss the secondary roads system six-year
improvement plan for fiscal years 2007-2013 and review the
revenue sharing priority list for fiscal year 2006-2007 and
potential projects for fiscal year 2007-2008
SUBMITTED BY:
Teresa H. Becher, P.E.
Transportation Engineering Manager
Elmer C. Hodge ~ ~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following summarizes the changes made to this year's secondary roads six-year
improvement plan, including the revenue sharing priority list and rural addition priority list.
Roanoke County received $3.08 million in Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
allocations during this current fiscal year for secondary road improvement projects.
Roanoke County's budget for FY 2007-2008 is estimated to be approximately $2.68 million
(a 12.9% decrease of funds or$397,151).
Those funds will be divided into two funding categories in the six-year plan: County-Wide
Incidental Improvements and Numbered Projects, which are both briefly explained below.
Countywide Incidentallmorovements: ($67,775 in FY 2007-2008) include any operation,
usually constructed within one year, which changes the type, width, length, location, or
gradient of a road, facility, or structure. It could also include the addition of features not
originally provided for such road, facility or structure. Some of the services included under
this category include subdivision plan review, right-of-way engineering, preliminary
engineering and surveys, traffic services, safety projects, and minor drainage
improvements. Another item that has historically been included in this category is the
Rural Addition Program. VDOT is not allocating any funds to the County for this program
due to a balance of $894,648. Staff will be present to answer pertinent questions and
discuss the feasibility of several projects on the current priority list, based on the
preliminary information obtained from Engineering Concepts, Inc.
The bulk of Roanoke County's allocation of funds, approximately $2.61 million, is for
Numbered Proiects. For clarification, these are the projects commonly referred to as
"being in the Six-Year Plan". The following projects are scheduled to receive funding this
year: Hollins Road, Mountain View Road, McVitty Road, Colonial Avenue, Buck Mountain
Road. Cotton Hill Road, Boones Chapel Road, Catawba Creek Road, Merriman Road,
John Richardson Road, and Rocky Road.
Roanoke County normally handles minor improvement items that can be completed
generally within one year, such as drainage improvements, safety enhancements, and
pavement overlays through our revenue sharing program. As of the date of this request,
Roanoke County has not been notified of our allocations. Even though Roanoke County is
still waiting on our funding allocation from VDOT, staff would like to take this time to review
the projects previously approved for the FY 2006-2007 and discuss potential projects for
FY 2007-2008.
The complete secondary roads system six-year improvement plan for fiscal years 2007-
2013 will available for your review and staff will be available to discuss the plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts to County funds are involved at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Board of Supervisors is requested to authorize staff to schedule a public hearing on
the secondary road system six-year improvement plan for fiscal years 2007-2013 on March
27,2007. In addition, staff recommends that another work session be held once Roanoke
County has been notified of our allocations regarding the revenue sharing program.
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:
February 27,2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Review Committee to review results of the evaluation process
SUBMITTED BY:
Brent Robertson
Director of Management and Budget
Elmer C. Hodge ~ I/~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside for a work session to hear the results and recommendations of
the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Citizens Review Committee for capital planning for
FY2008-2012. The committee began their process in October by agreeing on procedures,
objectives, guiding principles, and evaluation criteria. Work continued through the fall and
winter with the committee hearing presentations on submitted capital needs and conducting
site visits to view requests for capital upgrades and replacements. A report outlining the
committee's prioritization of capital needs and recommendations has been finalized.
This time has been set aside to review the final report of the committee and to discuss the
findings and recommendations with committee members.
Qtountp of l\oanoke
FY2007-2008
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Review Committee
Evaluation and Recommendations
February 2007
Roanoke County CIP Review Committee
Table of Contents
I. Committee Appointments ......................................................................................... I
II. Capital Project Recommendations
Capital Proj ect Prioritization ........................................................................ 2
Project Score Summary - By Category ..................................................... 4
Recommendations............................................................................................ 6
IV. Appendix
Committee Goal & Objectives ..................................................................... Al
Project Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................ A2
Evaluation Scoring Factors ........................................................................... A3
Proj ect Specific Comments ........................................................................... A4
Roanoke County CIP Review Committee
Committee Appointments
In developing the FY2008-2012 Roanoke County CIP, the Board of Supervisors
approved a CIP Review Committee comprised of Board-appointed representatives for
each magisterial district and members of County-appointed commissions and boards.
This unique approach allows a diverse perspective in reviewing and prioritizing capital
needs that exist throughout the county. The FY2007-2008 CIP Review Committee is
comprised of the following appointed members:
Appointment: Representim!::
Mr. King Harvey Catawba Magisterial District
Mr. James Anderson Cave Spring Magisterial District
Mr. Steven A. Campbell Hollins Magisterial District
Mr. Charles Wertalik Vinton Magisterial District
Mr. Brian Garber Windsor Hills Magisterial District
Mr. Linwood Windley Economic Development Authority
Ms. Lisa Boggess Library Board
Vacant Planning Commission
Ms. Debbie Clark Public Safety
Mr. Roger Falls Parks and Recreation Commission
Facilitated bv Roanoke County Staff:
Mr. W. Brent Robertson Director, Management and Budget
Ms. Holly Salvatore Budget Manager
Roanoke County CIP Review Committee
Capital Project Prioritization
During development oflast year's CIP (FY2007-20ll) the Board of Supervisors adopted a listing of
"approved" projects that were scheduled over the 5 year planning period and tentative funding was
identified for each project. This year's Committee (FY2007-2008) was made aware of these projects
and received status updates, but did not include the projects in the prioritization process. Therefore,
these projects represent priorities of the Board of Supervisors; not necessarily the Committee's
priorities. These approved projects are reported as Previously Approved Projects.
The Committee prioritized all other capital project requests by applying a set of evaluation criteria to
each individual project. After scoring was completed by committee members, each project's average
score was calculated and listed in numerical order with the highest score representing the greatest
priority. The Levell projects represent capital needs that have the highest perceived community
value, but have no identified funding associated with them. Succeeding levels were determined by
grouping projects together that had successively lower scores; therefore, a lower perceived priority.
The Committee's recommendations on capital priorities are as follows:
Department - Project
Average Total
Score
Total Capital
Cost
Previously Approved Projects:
General Services: New County Garage
Renovations to Local Jail
Public Safety: 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade
Community Development: VDOT Revenue Sharing
Library: South County Library
Economic Development: Center for Research Technology
Information Technology: Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade
Levell Projects:
*Information Technology: Replacement of HP3000
Parks & Recreation: Greenways & Trails
Library: Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation
Library: Glenvar Library Expansion
Parks & Recreation: Land Acquisition for Passive Parks
Community Development: Regional Storm Water Management & Flood Control
*Parks & Recreation: Garst Mill Improvements
Information Technology: Enterprise Storage & Backup
Fire & Rescue: New Plantation-Hollins Road Station
Library: Vinton Library Renovation
81.3
75.4
74.0
73.5
73.3
72.5
71.9
71.8
70.9
70.9
* - Request is for an expanded scope of the previously approved project.
2
$2,080,000
$2,550,000
$13,000,000
$5,000,000
$12,840,000
$5,750,000
$2,076,500
$400,000
$5,449,000
$1,864,250
$3,567,700
$2,000,000
$7,500,000
$627,500
$350,000
$2,225,000
$1,305,850
Level 2 Projects:
Parks & Recreation: Arnold Burton Softball Complex
Police: South County Police Precinct
General Services: New Public Service Center
Parks & Recreation: Brambleton Center
Parks & Recreation: Green Hill Park Phase III
Information Technology: Voice Over IP
Fire & Rescue: Station Renovations
Police: Training Academy
Greenway Development: Roanoke River Greenway - Western Section
Fire & Rescue: Masons Cove Bunkroom Addition
Parks & Recreation: Multi-Generational Center
Greenway Development: Mudlick Creek Greenway
69.5
69.3
69.1
67.9
67.3
67.3
66.4
66.0
65.9
65.5
65.4
65.4
Level 3 Projects:
Greenway Development: Tinker Creek Greenway
Parks & Recreation: Vineyard Park Phase III
Information Technology: Internet & Intranet Upgrade & Redesign Project
Information Technology: Wi-Fi 'Hot Spots' Expansion
Parks & Recreation: Camp Roanoke
Information Technology: Microsoft Exchange Project
Fire & Rescue: New Oak Grove Station
Parks & Recreation: Whispering Pines
Parks & Recreation: Walrond Park Phase III
Parks & Recreation: Hollins Park
Fire & Rescue: New Hanging Rock Station
Parks & Recreation: Taylor Tract
Library: Bent Mountain Library Expansion
Police: Bomb Disposal Unit
Fire & Rescue: Station Fuel Control System
Parks & Recreation: Hanging Rock Trail
Parks & Recreation: Spring Hollow Reservoir
64.1
64.0
63.0
62.3
62.0
61.3
60.4
60.3
60.3
59.8
57.9
56.6
55.8
53.4
49.4
47.9
46.9
3
$206,625
$625,000
$6,300,000
$500,000
$2,898,300
$983,480
$524,535
$11,458,160
$6,951,000
$262,000
$19,852,435
$730,000
$1,914,000
$461,000
$180,000
$854,000
$267,500
$500,000
$2,065,000
$343,000
$632,000
$410,000
$2,275,000
$985,500
$166,450
$170,000
$145,000
$150,677
$2,940,000
Department: Project
Public Safety
Fire & Rescue: New Plantation-Hollins Road Station
Police: South County Police Precinct
Police: Training Academy
Fire & Rescue: New Oak Grove Station
Fire & Rescue: New Hanging Rock Station
Police: Bomb Disposal Unit
Technolo2Y
Information Technology: Replacement ofHP 3000
Information Technology: Enterprise Storage & Backup
Information Technology: Voice Over IP
Information Technology: Internet & Intranet Upgrade & Redesign Project
Information Technology: Wi-Fi 'Hot Spots' Expansion
Information Technology: Microsoft Exchange Project
Fire & Rescue: Station Fuel Control System
Quality of Life
Parks & Recreation: Greenways & Trails
Library: Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation
Library: Glenvar Library Expansion
Parks & Recreation: Garst Mill Park Improvements
Library: Vinton Library Renovation
Parks & Recreation: Arnold Burton Softball Complex
Parks & Recreation: Brambleton Center
Parks & Recreation: Green Hill Park Phase III
Greenway Development: Roanoke River Greenway - Western Section
Greenway Development: Mudlick Creek Greenway
Parks & Recreation: Multi-Generational Center
Greenway Development: Tinker Creek Greenway
Parks & Recreation: Vineyard Park Phase III
Parks & Recreation: Camp Roanoke
4
Average
Total Score
Total
Capital
Cost
70.9
69.3
66.0
60.4
57.9
53.4
$2,225,000
$625,000
$11,458,160
$2,065,000
$2,275,000
$170,000
81.3
71.8
67.3
63.0
62.3
61.3
49.4
$400,000
$350,000
$983,480
$180,000
$854,000
$500,000
$145,000
75.4 $5,449,000
74.0 $1,864,250
73.5 $3,567,700
71.9 $1,305,850
70.9 $339,000
69.5 $206,625
67.9 $500,000
67.3 $2,898,300
65.9 $6,951,000
65.4 $730,000
65.4 $19,852,435
64.1 $1,914,000
64.0 $461,000
62.0 $267,500
Department: Project
Average
Total Score
Total
Capital
Cost
Parks & Recreation: Walrond Park Phase III
60.3 $632,000
60.3 $343,000
59.8 $410,000
56.6 $985,500
55.8 $166,450
47.9 $150,677
46.9 $2,940,000
Parks & Recreation: Whispering Pines
Parks & Recreation: Hollins Park
Parks & Recreation: Taylor Tract
Library: Bent Mountain Library Expansion
Parks & Recreation: Hanging Rock Trail
Parks & Recreation: Spring Hollow Reservoir
Service Infrastructure
Parks & Recreation: Land Acquisition for Passive Parks
Community Development: Regional Storm Water Management & Flood
General Services: New Public Service Center
73.3 $2,000,000
72.5 $7,500,000
69.1 $6,300,000
66.4 $524,535
65.5 $262,000
Fire & Rescue: Station Renovations
Fire & Rescue: Masons Cove Bunkroom Addition
5
Roanoke County Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Review Committee
Recommendations
Long-term capital planning and the need to fund capital assets essential to the well-being of the
community is one of the most important functions undertaken by local government. Advantages of
formal capital programming include focusing attention on community goals and financial
capability, improving public awareness, avoiding the waste of resources, and helping to ensure
financial stability. Service quality can be maintained only if governments are committed to keeping
their capital assets current and in good condition. In order to implement an effective capital plan,
the CIP Review Committee discussed and reached consensus regarding several capital planning
options that should be considered by the Board of Supervisors and staff.
Long Range Capital Planning
. Comprehensive Planning: While current capital planning efforts have gained momentum
and improved over the last several years, it is necessary to have a comprehensive view of all
County needs in order to prioritize and schedule (and fund) projects to meet the needs of all
citizens. It would be advantageous to prepare ajoint CIP that includes all needs and
available resources for the County, School Board, and Western Virginia Water Authority
(i.e. County water and sewer needs related to upgrades and continued growth of the
systems).
. Future Capital: Most projects identified in the CIP address capital needs that exist today. It
is important to keep realistic projections of future growth in mind when making current
policy and operational decisions. To plan adequately for future capital requirements, the
CIP process should be more closely associated with long-range planning initiatives that
project population trends, residential growth, and commercial development along with the
types and levels of services that are anticipated. A stronger linkage between the Community
Plan and the CIP is key in addressing these issues.
. Operational Capital: Master planning for capital needs related to on-going operations
(operating departments) is very important. Recent funding of Information Technology
upgrades/replacements and the Parks & Recreation Master Plan results have highlighted the
need to stay on top of capital requirements related to existing service levels. CIP requests
related to Libraries, Parks, and Fire & Rescue facilities underscore this point.
Land Banking
Land banking can be a responsible, cost-effective way to ensure that public agencies acquire future
sites under the most desirable terms, without operating under a burden of tight time frames. Given
the scarcity of available undeveloped land, the County should identify opportunities to purchase
land where future public facilities can be located. Current County practices indicate individual
departments are responsible for identifying potential sites for future facilities. It may be desirable to
designate a position within the County to have responsibility for maintaining inventory, assessing
value, and identifying potential real estate prospects for future County use.
6
Capital Maintenance
Capital maintenance of existing facilities continues to be a concern of the CIP Review Committee.
Many of the proj ects submitted by department directors have the character of maintenance and
repair. However, the cost and scope of the requests were large enough to qualify for a CIP
submission.
It is the consensus of the Committee that greater attention must be given to the maintenance and
upkeep of existing County facilities. This should be a priority. With increasing demand for
services, cost increases, and relatively flat operating budgets, it is easy to defer maintenance;
however, putting off maintenance has a long-term cost impact and also can negatively affect
services provided to the taxpayers.
In addition, a number of new projects have just been completed, are currently under construction, or
are in the serious planning stages. It is important to identify and fully fund the maintenance
requirements "up front" for new capital projects that are currently underway.
Capital Project Financing
General Obligation Bond Issue
Based on recent history and current plans, the County's primary financing option for capital is cash
(Pay-as- You-Go). While this method has advantages, the advantages of issuing debt through
general obligation bonds (or other financing instruments) must be considered as a viable alternative.
The list of needed projects is long-and expensive. A pay-as-you-go approach will save interest
and other issuance costs; however, this approach will only accomplish a few projects at a time.
Debt financing will allow a larger number of the most important projects to be undertaken (and
funded). While interest costs make projects more expensive, incurring interest charges on a current
proj ect may be cheaper than accumulating cash over time to pay for a proj ect, due to escalating
construction costs. The cost of constructing facilities will not get cheaper. In addition, debt
financing encourages intergenerational equity. By extending the payment over the life of the asset,
those who will use the facility will pay for it.
Operational Costs of Capital Projects
Implementing a comprehensive capital program represents a large financial investment; however,
capital cost alone does not represent the total cost of funding a capital project. Operational costs
related to a project are a significant factor in deciding the total cost or ownership, scope, timing, and
need for a project. While estimates of the operational impact of capital projects are included in
most of the individual CIP project descriptions, additional information and discussion should be
part of the decision process. Identification/recognition of potential operational cost savings would
likely be a significant factor in recommending and funding a particular project.
7
Appendix
Roanoke County CIP Review Committee
Goal & Objectives
Committee Goal
The CIP Review Committee is a collaborative group established to evaluate and
prioritize identified capital projects from a community perspective based upon
countywide priorities articulated by the Board of Supervisors.
Committee Objectives
1. To be acquainted with the history of the County of Roanoke's
Capital Improvement Program and the proposed process for the
development of the CIP.
2. To become familiar with countywide capital needs identified by
department heads through the review of proposals, participation in
site visits, and interviews as needed.
3. To evaluate submitted capital projects based on criteria that support
the County's mission and guiding principals.
4. To make recommendations on capital planning for the Board of
Supervisor's consideration by February 2007.
Al
Roanoke County CIP Review Committee
Project Evaluation Criteria
Providing effective and efficient services and improving the quality of life of its citizens
is the County of Roanoke's mission and the foundation of the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). The Capital Improvement Review Committee has identified the
following Guiding Principles for evaluating and prioritizing capital project requests in
making recommendations to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. These principles
are based on the stated priorities and approved plans of the Board of Supervisors. These
principles are presented in no particular order of importance, as individual perspective
will influence the relative value of each principle when compared to one another. The
Guiding Principles are as follows:
. Provide effective and efficient governmental services to the citizens.
. Enhance public health, safety, and/or welfare issue(s).
. Promote the safety and security of our citizens while at home, at work, and at
play.
. Consider solutions that extend beyond the County's boundaries in meeting
future challenges.
. Use public investment as a catalyst for economic growth in a manner
consistent with the Community Plan.
. Safeguard the environment and natural beauty for present and future
generations.
. Maintain and sustain effective land use planning.
. Maintain or enhance cultural, recreational, educational, and social
opportunities for all citizens.
. Protect existing investment in facilities and infrastructure that are vital in
delivering fundamental services to our citizens.
. Anticipate future facility and infrastructure needs to best leverage capital
resources of the community.
. Comply with applicable state and federal mandates.
A2
County of Roanoke
FY08-12 CIP Evaluation Scoring Sheet
Department:
Project:
Points (1-10):
Improve Public Safety or Public Health:
Does the project address public safety, life protection, health, and welfare issues that benefit our
citizens? Does the project mitigate an existing or potential liability issue.
Improve Public Quality of Life:
Does the project directly address a major demand or meet a community obligation for cultural,
social, educational or leisure services?
Legal Requirements:
Is the project required by law, regulation or mandate from local, state, or federal government?
Economic Development Impact:
Does the project directly or indirectly increase net community wealth/resources?
Increases Tax or Fee Revenue:
Does the project directly increase County's recurring revenues?
Enhances Existing Services:
Does the project maintain or enhance existing service levels that are at risk without the project?
Benefit/Cost Factor:
Does project implementation produce a community benefit that exceeds investment of resources
or will the project generate resources/investments from outside sources (grants, donations, etc.)?
Address Obsolescence:
Does the project address requirements for asset replacement, due to age and wear, that supports
essential services or addresses the need for a new or changing service demand?
Investment to Reduce Future Costs:
Will investment in the project reduce/contain increased expenditures at a future date?
Extent of Service Area:
Does the project benefit a large population (i.e. a project that benefits a larger population/area
will have greater value than a project that benefits a smaller population/area)?
Project Supports Existing County Plans or Policies:
Is the project directly referenced in existing county plans or policies as a priority?
Urgency of Need:
Does the project meet an urgent need?
Other Comments:
A3
Information Technology: Replacement of HP3000
Average Total Score: 81.3, Levell
. Equipment must be replaced by 2008 as the old system will not be supported after that date.
. No choice here - it has to be done.
. Appears to be no other option with current system obsolescence.
Parks & Recreation: Greenways & Trails
Average Total Score: 75.4, Levell
. This project meets the needs of the # I requested amenity from the PR&T Master Plan Survey as well as
providing passive recreational venues. It is also a selling point for Economic Development.
. This project ties in so well with one of the most basic methods of personal health and fitness:
WALKING! And it helps improve the overall good-looks of the County, since some land must be
acquired and maintained in good shape. This is another no-brainer.
Library: Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation
Average Total Score: 74.0, Levell
. This is growing area that is vastly underserved by our library system. Current facilities are an
embarrassment to the County.
. This community is long over due for a library that can offer full service.
. Pursue strongly joint library with Franklin County.
. The current Mt. Pleasant library is so outmoded, it's ajoke. Even though the population level in this area
is fairly low, it is growing, especially through a couple of upper-income developments. Cost sharing
with Franklin County (already a known "plus" factor) makes this project a bargain.
Library: Glenvar Library Expansion
Average Total Score: 73.5, Levell
. Maybe they should call it a multi-generationalleaming facility if they truly want funding.
. Libraries need to be maintained up to snuff in order to have any significant value to the community.
Parks & Recreation: Land Acquisition for Passive Parks
Average Total Score: 73.3, Levell
. Land prices and availability will not diminish.
. I think it's a great idea to think to the future, but we have facilities and properties inadequately
supported and maintained already - they should be considered first.
. This project complements several of the other projects and attempts to anticipate future land needs
within a reasonable time frame and for a reasonable current funding level. The County should by all
means go fOlWard with land acquisition.
Community Development: Regional Storm Water Management & Flood Control
Average Total Score: 72.5, Levell
. Increased density in the County will make this project a necessity in the coming years.
. With available land for development diminishing, the regional approach would offer more options for a
group of small to large developments.
. This project is extremely important for many reasons, not the least of which is the increasing
unpredictability of the weather. Roanoke County has been VERY fortunate in the past 5-10 years in that
no severe weather has visited the area. This good fortune will obviously not last forever, so we must
prepare NOW and expedite this project ASAP.
A4
Parks & Recreation: Garst Mill Park Improvements
Average Total Score: 71.9, Levell
. This park is always well utilized.
. Erosion along the stream is threatening the road that parallels the park. The stream bank needs
There are some grants that have been applied for and are expected to be received.
. A very popular park, in constant use, must be kept in good condition.
. Since part of this project has already been completed, it needs to be continued so as not to waste the
work and resources already invested.
Information Technology: Enterprise Storage & Backup
Average Total Score: 71.8, Levell
. Should probably be included with overall network infrastructure upgrade.
. Computer Technology and hardware are a major part of doing business today. A 10-20 year
comprehensive plan for upgrades and replacement should be done with 1-2 year revisions for future
purchasing.
. This should be completed as soon as possible.
. This is another project that makes sense to implement now. Tying together all the disparate storage and
backup systems is a smart move that pays for itself now and in the future. It's a one-shot budget move,
too, so let's take Nike's advice and do it now!
Fire & Rescue: New Plantation-Hollins Road Station
Average Total Score: 70.9, Levell
. Land Purchase should be done as a minimum to insure that it could be built when funds are available.
. This station was needed YESTERDAY. It will already handle a huge volume of calls when it is
completed - calls which are currently going out to other stations with delayed response times as a
result.
Library: Vinton Library Renovation
Average Total Score: 70.9, Levell
. Only real library in the east county area.
. Heavily used at all times.
. Some of this is maintenance and had it been done on an ongoing basis (as part of a budget line item) it
would not be a capital expenditure now. ADA upgrades should have already been done regardless of
project ranking.
. This library is located smack in the middle of "downtown Vinton" and as such receives a lot of use. It
needs to be kept up to date and deserves this renovation.
Parks & Recreation: Arnold Burton Softball Complex
Average Total Score: 69.5, Level 2
. I would like see the whole area, not just Salem, support facilities that can be used by local teams and
generate fee income and other ancillary revenue from tournaments.
. Tournaments produce Economic Dollars for the area.
. This is a very worthwhile park for our valley and must be kept in excellent condition.
. The mere fact that the Burton Softball Complex underpins several million dollars of Roanoke Valley
income is enough justification for me to recommend funding this project on a priority basis. Money
talks.. .loudly!
AS
Police: South County Police Precinct
Average Total Score: 69.3, Level 2
. Could utilize existing or shared space in South County. Possible surplus building or the old library when
the new one is built.
. Look at existing county buildings, like the headquarters library facility. Careful scheduling could make
this happen.
.The growing needs of South County continue to make themselves known. You can't argue with the 40%
figure that represents the number of police service calls made in that area; it's a high percentage.
General Services: New Public Service Center
Average Total Score: 69.1, Level 2
. Don't see how putting this off will make it go away.
. A location close to or on the new Vehicle Maintenance Facility or at the proposed PPEA Proposal for
the Multi-Generational Center & Industrial Park that would allow for joint use offacilities.
. This facility is not accommodating the needs of the county and should be replaced.
. The number of County vehicles has increased to the point where a new, larger servicing facility MUST
be provided. The savings realized by not having to send vehicles to outside vendors will most likely
enable the new facility to pay for itself quickly.
Parks & Recreation: Brambleton Center
Average Total Score: 67.9, Level 2
. Seems to get a lot of use from multiple generations.
. This facility serves a wide variety of ages and interest in our valley and is a valuable asset.
. This is all maintenance, and taken separately, they should have been dealt with accordingly so as not to
become a major capital project.
. It would be a waste of the investment already made in the Brambleton Center, not to continue the
improvements and repairs made to the facility. I'd definitely like to see this project move forward.
. This is a frequently used facility that is in need of renovation.
Parks & Recreation: Green Hill Park Phase III
Average Total Score: 67.3, Level 2
. One of the few large parks in the County. Seems well used on weekends.
. This will enhance the existing facilities and produce a better venue for attracting world class softball,
baseball and soccer tournaments to the area.
. A way to showcase our valley assets. The orderly development must continue.
. Green Hill Park is a valuable County resource, and this project will enhance its overall value a LOT! As
good as the park is at present for sporting events, it will be even better with the proposed development.
Information Technology: Voice Over IP
Average Total Score: 67.3, Level 2
. Could join with the school system to utilize their fiber optic lines and share technology.
. All communications within our community will be enhanced by this upgrade.
. This project makes a lot of sense; it uses the computer network already in place and greatly improves
communication capabilities.
Fire & Rescue: Station Renovations
Average Total Score: 66.4, Level 2
. Why build new stations if we don't keep up the one's we already have?
. Most of these requests are maintenance items or projects that result from lack of or low maintenance.
. While maintenance on the buildings is important, I would prefer to see maintenance items in
operating budgets, not as capital expenditures.
. This maintenance should be handled as something other than capital improvement. Continued
deferral of maintenance only contributes to increased expense of having the work done "when the
A6
funds become available."
. It's better to fix these items now while costs are lower and before problems become worse... "a stitch in
time..."
Police: Training Academy
Average Total Score: 66.0, Level2
. Would like to see this happen as ajoint project between several municipalities to take advantage of
economies of scale.
. Would require joint agreements with other localities to be cost effective.
. I can hardly think of a more important need than to maintain the training of the County's police and
other public safety personnel at the highest possible level. The fact that Roanoke County already owns
land that is suitable for this project is a huge and wonderful cost saving.
. Project needs to be scaled back some. Based on the information the committee was given, a 40,000
square foot facility sounds too large.
Greenway Development: Roanoke River Greenway - Western Section
Average Total Score: 65.9, Level 2
. Project would enhance the appeal of Green Hill Park and take further advantage of this great facility.
. This section of the Greenway has already received support from the business community with cash
donations and are looking for other sponsors and grants.
. This appears to be one of the most attractive programs in our valley.
. Although the Roanoke River Greenway mostly benefits/is concerned with the City of Roanoke, I fee
myself forced to score this project the same as the County's Mudlick Creek and Tinker Creek Greenway
projects. The overall benefit to the greater Roanoke Valley, as stated in my comments on those two
projects, is my major reason.
Fire & Rescue: Masons Cove Bunkroom Addition
Average Total Score: 65.5, Level 2
. Seems to be overdue.
. Safety Personnel should be well provided with proper housing and living facilities.
. It is imperative that we provide the best accommodations we have at our disposal to those who provide
health and safety services to our community. This is help insure continued commitment to providing
these services.
Parks & Recreation: Multi-Generational Center
Average Total Score: 65.4, Level 2
. North County area seems to be already well served with parks and recreation centers.
. This project follows the Assessment Survey of the PR&T Master Plan and meets the needs of Roanoke
County's 10 Comprehensive Plan. Its is also the anchor building in the PPEA proposal submitted to
Roanoke County for a new Industrial Park in NW Roanoke County. It is also a strong Economic
Development Tool.
. Need more concrete cost and facts regarding overall operations.
. This project looks like a done deal to me (per info from media), so why are we bothering to rank it? It
appears they have already decided to fund it one way or another. I'm not convinced everyone will use it,
even though they say that's what they want.
. It seems the residents of Roanoke County would definitely like to have a facility of this type. None of
the private membership athletic clubs have anything remotely resembling the proposed Center, and the
County has no public swimming facility (and Roanoke City does...hnnn and shame, shame).
Membership fees, which shouldn't be too high, would make this a pay-as-you-go setup. Looks like a
winner, folks.
. Cost is not in line with need. Rec Center will probably not be used by South and West County
residents because of the travel distance to the proposed location.
A7
Greenway Development: Mudlick Creek Greenway
Average Total Score: 65.4, Level 2
. Current Greenway that will attach to this one gets tremendous use. As the County because more
metropolitan there is more need for recreational space is the most populated areas.
. Roanoke Counties Master Plan for Parks,Rec and Tourism's # 1 request to the survey was for more
Greenways. Community funding and grants should help pay for some of work.
. This is a valued county asset and should be enlarged and enhanced.
. The possibility of utilizing the greenway as an integral part of a comprehensive storm water
management system lends credence and importance to this project. Other aspects (recreational
opportunities, enhancement of adjacent property values, etc.) are self-evident.
Greenway Development: Tinker Creek Greenway
Average Total Score: 64.1, Level 3
. Continue the fine Greenway that is started in the East County area.
. Greenways was # 1 requested survey amenities in The PR&T Master Plan Survey.
. This is a very popular community activity.
. The remarks I made with respect to the Mudlick Creek Greenway apply also to the Tinker Creek
Greenway.
Parks & Recreation: Vineyard Park Phase III
Average Total Score: 64.0, Level 3
. This is a very nice park with good space for various sports and is the East County's version of Green
Hill Park, just a bit scaled down. As such, it deserves to kept up to snuff. The cost for this project is
quite reasonable, considering the obvious importance of the facility.
Information Technology: Internet & Intranet Upgrade & Redesign Project
Average Total Score: 63.0, Level 3
. Has to be done to maintain service.
. This must be done in order to stay current with software support.
. This is obviously needed in concert with other technological improvements to overall County
computer and computer-related "stuff."
. This should be part of IT's normal workload/budget.
Information Technology: Wi-Fi 'Hot Spots' Expansion
Average Total Score: 62.3, Level 3
. Should be done in conjuction with the radio conversion.
. Better information exchange brings about better government efficiency.
. I'm definitely in favor of the County's being in the forefront of technology, but this seems to be an
expensive toy instead of a really solid investment in must-have equipment. The need for replacement
every three years doesn't thrill me, nor does the external placement of the antennae where weather can
affect the equipment adversely.
. This is the type of service that attracts/keeps younger people and business to the Valley.
Parks & Recreation: Camp Roanoke
Average Total Score: 62.0, Level 3
. This project could produce additional fees with increasing enrollment at Camp Roanoke. It is one of the
up and coming camps in Va. and beyond.
. As with ongoing work on the Brambleton Center, this project should receive the funds needed to
complete it. Coverage of the annual operating costs through fee revenues is a big plus.
Information Technology: Microsoft Exchange Project
Average Total Score: 61.3, Level 3
. I would probably include with network infrastructure upgrade.
A8
. Will have to be done in the early future.
. Not to implement this project would be just plain stupid. The benefits of the project are numerous and
very obvious.
Fire & Rescue: New Oak Grove Station
Average Total Score: 60.4 , Level 3
. Doesn't seem that urgent and there is limited room for growth in this area.
. The future need for this station should justify the price of finding a suitable location and purchasing or
placing an option on the land.
. Joint staffing with Roanoke City and Salem should be a part of the planning for this station.
. Land needs to be purchased now and plans made for building as soon as possible so that station is
ready in the next 2 years. Needs of SW county are already escalating.
. As I mentioned with the proposed new Hanging Rock station, could there be some sharing of
expenses/operational considerations with the City of Salem?
. Cave Spring FireIRescue stations are ~2 miles from the Oak Grove area. I'm not convinced a new
station is needed that close to existing facilities.
Parks & Recreation: Whispering Pines
Average Total Score: 60.3, Level 3
. At least the facilities portion seems necessary.
. If there's to be a park in this location at all, it should be properly equipped, esp. with rest rooms and
drinking fountains. I'd suggest this part of the proposed improvements, along with the septic field, be
done now and do the rest within the next two years.
Parks & Recreation: Walrond Park Phase III
Average Total Score: 60.3, Level 3
. This project will fix several areas of Walrond Park that really need fixing, esp. the paving of the
parking lots. This is an attractive park and adds much beauty to North County.
Parks & Recreation: Hollins Park
Average Total Score: 59.8, Level 3
. This project should be continued to completion...NOW! The price is reasonable, and
we shouldn't delay getting this job done.
Fire & Rescue: New Hanging Rock Station
Average Total Score: 57.9, Level 3
. Low growth mostly residential area.
. Proposed Station could be used with a Joint-Staffing Agreement with other localities like Reed Mt.
. Joint staffing with Salem should be discussed prior to finished planning.
. Land will continue to increase in cost and should be purchased now so it is available to build on as soon
as feasible.
. Could there be some tie-in with the City of Salem such as exists among the Mt. Pleasant/City of
Roanoke/Town of Vinton areas? I'm thinking about not only financial but also operational
considerations.
. Location of Hanging Rock area is such a small sliver of the county. Money would be better spent
somewhere else, or perhaps joint staffing with Salem.
Parks & Recreation: Taylor Tract
Average Total Score: 56.6, Level 3
. Seems like the County should do something with this property.
. It makes more sense to develop this property before buying additional passive space (even though
rankings don't reflect this sentiment).
. Ijust don't see or have sufficient information to make an informed recommendation on this project. The
A9
idea for a park in the proposed area of Southwest County seems to be a good one; we just need some
financial data. Would there be enough "wiggle room" in general operating revenue, along with grant
money, to purchase the land?
. Since County already owns the land, this project could probably be put on hold in favor of other
projects that will cost more in the future due to increases in land costs.
Library: Bent Mountain Library Expansion
Average Total Score: 55.8, Level 3
. The least urgent of the library projects, especially with the new south county library being built.
. Since the estimated project cost is quite low and the library is truly an important part of the Bent
Mountain community, it would seem reasonable to do it now and have it out of the way.
Police: Bomb Disposal Unit
Average Total Score: 53.4, Level 3
. Maybe Salem would go in on it with us.
. The cost and training for this would be best suit as a Regional proposal with several localities. Possible
Home Land Security Funding.
. Look for federal financial assistance on this project.
. Has any consideration been given to the purchase of a robot device that could greatly reduce the
human risk factor in bomb disposal situations? Just wondering; I'm sure such devices are very
expensIve.
. This should be ajoint purchase with nearby localities. The need is not great enough for Roanoke
County to have their own bomb unit.
Fire & Rescue: Station Fuel Control System
Average Total Score: 49.4 , Level 3
. With the ever increasing cost of fuel, I believe it is necessary to provide adequate monitors and
controls.
. Should this be considered as equipment replacement?
. Need better control and security of fuel distribution. Preventative maintenance on schedule vital to peak
performance of apparatus.
Parks & Recreation: Hanging Rock Trail
Average Total Score: 47.9, Level 3
. This project is so close to completion that it's silly to do anything but GET IT DONE.
Parks & Recreation: Spring Hollow Reservoir
Average Total Score: 46.9, Level 3
. Too many variables exist regarding the criteria for developing the site. I'd want figures on these
(Health, Water Authority requirements, etc.) before going any further. This one goes on the bottom of
my list.
. Project would be great but cost is too high for a park that is not quickly accessible by the majority of the
county population.
AlO
Cou nty of Roanoke
DRAFT
CIP Project Detail
FY2008-2012
DRAFT
ClP Project Detail FY2008-2012
Table of Contents
Eco no mic Dev elo p m ent........................................................................................................................................ 1
Center for Research & Technology................................................................................................................. 2
Sheriff.................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Regional Jail Project....................................................................................................................................... 6
Renovations to Local Jail................................................................................................................................ 8
Fire & Rescu e...................................................................................................................................................... 1 0
New Plantation-Hollins Rd Station...............................................................................................................11
Masons Cove Bunkroom Addition................................................................................................................ 13
Station Fuel Control System........................................................................................................................ .15
New Oak Grove Station................................................................................................................................ 17
New Hanging Rock Station........................................................................................................................... 19
Station Renovations.................................................................................................................. ....................21
Police ................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Training Academy .............................................................................................................................. ..........24
South County Police Precinct....................................................................................................................... . 26
Bomb Disposal Unit............................................................................................................................ ..........28
Pu b lic Safety ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
800 MHz Radio System Upgrade .................................................................................................................31
Co mmu nity Dev elo p m ent .................................................................................................................................. 33
VDOT Revenue Sharing ............................................................................................................................... 34
Regional Storm Water Mgt/Flood Control.................................................................................................... 36
General Services ................................................................................................................................................. 38
New County Garage........................................................................................................................ ..............39
New Public Service Center........................................................................................................................... 41
Parking Garage in Salem..................................................................................................... ..........................43
G reenw a y Dev elo p ment ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Roanoke River Greenway - Western Section.................................................................................................. 46
Tinker Creek Greenway................................................................................................................................ 49
Mudlick Creek Greenway..................................................................................................................... ........52
Library ................................................................................................................................................................ 54
South County Library.................................................................................................................................... 55
Glenvar Library Expansion........................................................................................................................... 57
Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation................................................................................................................... 59
Vinton Library Renovation.............................................................. ............................................................. 61
Bent Mountain Library Expansion................................................................................................................ 63
Parks & Recreatio n ............................................................................................................................................ 65
Multi -Generational Center........................................................................................................................ ....66
Greenways and Trails........................................................................................................................ ............68
Garst Mill Park Improvements................................................................................................................... ...70
Whispering Pines. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 72
Land Acquisition for Passive Parks ............................................................ ..................................................74
Taylor Tract.................................................................................................................................................. 76
Green Hill Park Phase III......................................................................... ..................................................... 78
Walrond Park Phase III............. .................................................................................................................... 80
DRAFT
ClP Project Detail FY2008-2012
Table of Contents
Arnold Burton Softball Complex.................................................................................................................. 82
Brambleton Center........................................................................................................................................ 84
Hollins Park.......................................................................................................................... ........................86
Vinyard Park Phase III............................................................................................................................. .....88
Camp Roanoke....................................................................................................................... .......................90
Hanging Rock TraiL.......................................................................................................................... ............92
Spring Hollow Reservoir ...................................... ........................................................................................ 94
Info rmatio n Techno 10 gy .................................................................................................................................... 96
Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade.................................................................................................. 97
Replacement of HP3000 ............................................................................................................................... 99
Enterprise Storage and Backup .................................................. ................................................................ .10 1
Voice Over IP ........................................................................ .................................................................... .103
Internet & Intranet Upgrade & Redesign Project........................................................................................105
Wi-Fi 'Hot Spots' Expansion......................................................................................................................107
Microsoft Exchange Project....................................................................................................................... .109
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Economic Development
Center for Research & Technology
1
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Economic Development
Center for Research & Technology
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The Center for Research & Technology (CRT) is in the ninth year of ownership. The early years
of the Center's development included planning initiatives, community meetings and the
construction of infrastructure improvements needed to market the property. The official Grand
Opening of the Center occurred in 2000, celebrating the initial completion of paved entrance
roads, a graded site and infrastructure serving Phase I of the Center.
Additional improvements followed, including the extension of a natural gas line and three-phase
power into the center based upon the location of the first tenant, Novozymes Biologicals. A
storm water drainage engineering plan was initiated, and water and sewer lines were extended
to the Novozymes site. The Paving of Corporate Circle was also completed based upon the
location of Novozymes.
The reconstruction and paving of Glenmary Drive from Dow Hollow Road to the main entrance
of CRT was then completed, as well as construction of the Glenmary Drive Visual Enhancement
Landscaping Project and the installation of street lights and permanent signage along the main
entrance road and Corporate Circle. Grading was completed on the second site within Phase I
and a regional storm water management facility designed to serve Phase I was constructed.
The Economic Development Authority purchased a strategically located twenty five acre parcel
adjacent to the CRT thus increasing the total acreage of the Park and creating a buffer between
the developing areas of CRT and the adjoining residential neighborhood. In the future this land
could be used for development purposes as well as a right of way for the future Dow Hollow
Road Extension.
The Economic Development Department recently coordinated the selection of a land planning
and engineering firm to prepare a Master Plan for the future development of the CRT. This
process will include a detailed analysis of existing infrastructure with recommendations for
future improvements, as well as identifying future sites available for development. Staff will
coordinate a series of community meetings with citizens and the Design Review Team to
receive input on the Master Plan and to ensure acceptance and understanding of the goals and
objectives for the future build-out of the Center.
Future construction and improvement plans include:
* Design and construction of roadway extensions into Phase II of CRT
* Design and construction of necessary regional storm water management
facilities to serve Phase II of the Center
* Continuation of grading the individual sites within Phase I and Phase II of the project.
* Ongoing maintenance of roadway and grounds including snow
removal, mowing and care of vegetation
* Additional landscaping enhancements along entrances and roadways
* Utility extensions and additional street light installations as Glenmary Drive and
Corporate Circle are extended
* Rights of way acquisition for the Dow Hollow Road extension
* Preliminary design for the Dow Hollow Road extension
construction of the Dow Hollow Road extension
Marketing plans include:
* Concentrated staff participation in regional organizations and programs such as
the New Century Technology Council, the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional
Commission and the New Century Venture Center
2
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Economic Development
Center for Research & Technology
* Building more strategic relationships with developmental partners such as the
RVEDP and VEDP.
* Staff participation in marketing missions/trade shows for specific targeted industries
* Emphasis on the existing business and retention program for expansion into
CRT
* Strengthening the relationship with Virginia Tech and the Virginia Tech
Corporate Research Center
* Ongoing improvements to the Economic Development web site and the production of new
marketing materials for use with prospective businesses
* Marketing and utilization of the CRT Technology Zone, offering attractive incentives to
qualifying companies
Justification
This project has been identified by the Board of Supervisors as a priority economic and
community development project for Roanoke County. Continued improvements to the CRT are
critical to the County's preparedness and development success of the park in a highly
competitive marketplace. The funding needed for park development is prospect dependent.
The construction schedule is a graduated plan of action for development of the park with public
and private infrastructure, roadways, and storm water drainage. If a qualified and confirmed
prospect announced its intention to locate in the park, the development and funding schedule
would require readjustment according to the parameters of the project. In addition, identification
of land for acquisition next to the park requires flexible funding as potential tracks become
available.
The location of Novozymes Biologicals and Tecton Products to CRT is validation that this
project is realizing the goals set forth by the Board of Supervisors when the project was initially
approved. These projects represent a $22 million investment, the retention of 65 jobs, and the
creation of over 100 new high paying technical jobs for Roanoke County citizens. Further, both
companies are committed to significant expansions within the next 5 years.
Operating Budget Impact
Operational costs require annual budgeting for maintenance of Glenmary Drive and interior
roadways due to VDOT's inability to perform road maintenance in a timely and suitable
manner. Budgeting for the maintenance of landscaped public areas will continue to be included
in future budgets.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will provide new tax revenue that will benefit Roanoke County in the future, in
addition to providing well-paying jobs for our residents.
Conformance with County Obligations
The Planned Technology Development District (PTD) approved by the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors was applied to the CRT and included in the Comprehensive Plan,
the 1998-2000 Economic Development Strategy document and the Economic Development
Business Plan. It also furthers the goals set forth in the Regional Economic Development
Strategy, which was endorsed, by the governing bodies of all Roanoke Valley jurisdictions
including Roanoke County.
Funding Sources
The funding source for this project will be General Fund operating revenue. Additional
resouces committed to this project may come from state funds including VDOT industrial access
3
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Economic Development
Center for Research & Technology
funds, Governor's Opportunity Funds, or funds allotted at the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$5,750,000
Annual commitment of $1.1 to $1.9 million
None
$9,174,950
Associated Operating Costs
Road and landscape maintenance costs are included in annual budgets.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$1,150,000
FY09
$1,150,000
FY10
$1,150,000
FY11
$1,150,000
FY12
$1,150,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$5,750,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $9,174,950
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
4
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Sheriff
Regional Jail Project
Renovations to Local Jail
5
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Sheriff
Regional Jail Project
situation at the jail is causing serious strains on the physical plant, normal operations of the jail
and on staff and inmates who must work and live in these crowded conditions. The current
conditions hinder the delivery of services and routine duties that provide for a safe, secure and
healthy facility (inmate supervision, staff and inmate safety, etc.). Reducing the overcrowding
conditions of the inmate population will provide a safe and secure environment for staff,
inmates, and citizens, and should minimize the liability to the County.
Conformance with County Obligations
This regional jail project will conform to Roanoke County's objective to provide for a safe,
secure and healthy environment for all citizens, staff, and inmates. The main object of this
project is to address and resolve the critical demand for jail beds in response to current and
future correctional needs of Roanoke County and other participating jurisdictions.
Funding Sources
The funding source for this project will be temporary and permanent jail bonds issued through
the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority. The Authority will seek 50% reimbursement from
the state and the balance will be shared proportionally by each participating jurisdiction
according to their intended use of the facility.
6
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Sheriff
Regional Jail Project
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$20,000,000
Construction costs.
None
$25,197
Associated Operating Costs
$1,5 million per year for salaries, vehicles & maintenance
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$20,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $25,197
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$9,666,040 $9,896,991 $10,133,716 $10,376,100 $0
7
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Sheriff
Renovations to Local Jail
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The Jail was opened in 1980. Since that time there have been minor repairs to the major
machinery in the facility. A recent Engineering Systems Condition Assessment Study by the
Architectural firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern (HSM&M) concluded that "several of the
building mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering systems are in poor condition and in
need of replacement or repair."
Justification
According to HSM&M, the cooling tower, necessary to maintain a habitable environment inside
the jail during hot weather, seems likely to catastrophically fail at any time. Also, electrical
systems that, if not augmented, would allow power surges or loss of power to compromise jail
operations. There are repairs that need to be done to HVAC systems that can either, no longer
meet cooling loads, or that provide inadequate ventilation. The security systems are sub-par
compared to latest security needs or are old enough that replacement parts are difficult or
impossible to find (this is the central control room and its functions - intercoms, cameras and
recorders ).
Operating Budget Impact
The work that will be done on the jail facility should make the heating and cooling more efficient
and will probably reduce the cost of energy to make them perform (although the amount is not
certain until they are up and running). The longest life expectancy for any piece of equipment
that needs to be replaced, is 20 years. In essence, the cost savings for this project has already
been put off for at least five years too long.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The efficiency of the new cooling tower and heat pumps should be a tremendous savings over
the antiquated equipment that was put in the facility 25 years ago. The replacement of
equipment will also allow the RCSO to remain in compliance with the American Correctional
Association (ACA) and Department of Corrections (DOC), hopefully for the next 25 years.
Replacement of control panels, door locks, cameras and wiring, should enable us to make
repairs on equipment that is less expensive and easier to find.
Conformance with County Obligations
This jail facility, while structurally sound, will not continue to pass standards that are mandated
by State Code or National Accreditation without continual updates to machinery and space.
The loss of the water cooling tower would probably shut down the entire facility. The loss of
service to electrical services, HV AC, door locks, intercoms, cameras and ventilation, would
surely have a negative impact on inmate's Life, Health and Safety issues, as well as possible
loss of medical treatment, food service and safety for staff members.
Funding Sources
The total cost of the repairs is estimated to be $3.3 million, of which Salem will be responsible
for $825,000 and Roanoke County will be responsible for $2,500,000. During FY06-07,
Roanoke County will commit $500,000 to this project from the year end capital fund balance.
For remaining years, $500,000 will be committed each year from unidentified new revenues.
Some of the smaller repairs that were suggested by the report from HSM&M will be funded by
the "Dollar-a-day" that is collected from housing of inmates.
8
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Sheriff
Renovations to Local Jail
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$2,500,000
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Design and construction costs; will be offset by Salem contributing 25% of
project cost.
None
$300,000
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$500,000
FY09
$500,000
FY10
$500,000
FY11
$500,000
FY12
$500,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$2,500,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $300,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
9
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
New Plantation-Hollins Road Station
Masons Cove Bunkroom Addition
Station Fuel Control System
New Oak Grove Station
New Hanging Rock Station
Station Renovations
10
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
New Plantation-Hollins Road Station
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Provide a new fire and rescue public safety building, including land purchase, in the area of
Plantation and Hollins Road. This would be a three-bay station to house a pumper and two
ambulances. Also included would be adequate living areas such as offices, male/female
sleeping/restroom/shower areas, storage areas, and meeting rooms.
Justification
Roanoke County continues to see an increase in call volume in the Williamson, Hershberger,
and Plantation Road corridors. The existing station is dispatched to approximately 3,000 calls
per year resulting in multiple calls that the current Hollins station is unable to handle. Thus,
response goals in this first run area cannot be met because of travel time to the Hollins
Road/Hershberger Road corridor and due to travel time from other stations that assist.
By building this station, Roanoke County will improve response times and increase service to
the citizens of Roanoke County. In addition, this station will also be able to offer backup to the
growing Read Mountain area.
Operating Budget Impact
The operating budget would still have to be addressed; staffing projections include the addition
of 3 Captain positions, 3 Lieutenant positions, 6 Paramedic/Firefighter positions and 6
Firefighter/EMT positions. Completion of this project would result in increased operational
expenses.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
Completion of this project would result in the reduction of reaction/response times to the citizens.
Conformance with County Obligations
The addition of this station is directly related to our departmental business plan goal of providing
"expedient emergency response to the community" and meeting our performance measure of
providing ALS response to 80% of the citizens in the County within six minutes when service is
needed.
Funding Sources
Unknown
11
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
New Plantation-Hollins Road Station
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$2,225,000
Includes land purchase & construction of the new building.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $1.1 million per year for personnel & utility costs.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$2,225,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,225,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$0 $1,047,051 $1,078,761 $1,111,436 $1,145,107
12
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
Masons Cove Bunkroom Addition
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will provide sleeping quarters for career and volunteer personnel at the Masons
Cove station. The current area being used is not large enough or adequate to house the 24-
hour career personnel and the volunteer personnel who work evenings and weekends. An
addition similar to that added at the Mount Pleasant station would provide for the facilities
necessary for personnel to stay overnight including sleeping, bathroom and shower areas for
both male and female personnel. Completion of this project will also allow for the upgrade of
the current electrical system, backup generator, and water purification system for the entire
station.
Justification
Calls in the Catawba/Masons Cove area have increased in recent years to the point that 24-
Hour/? days-a-week ALS coverage is provided from the Masons Cove station. At the time the
personnel were approved, areas within the station were rearranged to provide an area for 24-
hour personnel to sleep. These accommodations are crowded and are not adequate for
continued use. The area was originally part of the meeting room and not designed to be a living
area. An interior wall was added to partition off the area currently used for a bunkroom. HV AC
flows are not at an optimal level since this partition disrupts the air flow. Bathroom facilities are
not located near the sleeping quarters. There is a need for a building addition to the rear of the
existing building to allow sleeping quarters for the 24-hour career personnel and volunteer
personnel. The completion of this addition would supply more efficient and quality facilities for
evening personnel.
Operating Budget Impact
There would be a slight increase in utilities to heat and cool the additional space. Water
consumption should not see an increase since personnel are already assigned on a 24-hour
basis at this time.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
Completion of this project would provide a more energy efficient and adequate environment for
24-hour personnel and volunteer personnel on duty.
Conformance with County Obligations
The addition at this station is directly related to our departmental business plan goal of providing
"expedient emergency response to the community" and meeting our performance measure of
providing ALS response to 80% of the citizens in the County within six minutes when service is
needed.
Funding Sources
Not known
13
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
Masons Cove Bunkroom Addition
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$262,000
Includes construction of the additional sleeping quarters, upgrading electrical
system, and purchase of a backup generator and water purification system.
None
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$0
Associated Operating Costs
A slight increase in utility costs have not been calculated.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$12,000
FY09
$250,000
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
TOTAL
FY08-12
$262,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
14
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
Station Fuel Control System
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project would provide for the installation of an automated fuel technology at all fire and
rescue stations.
Justification
Currently, the fire and rescue stations do not have fuel security/control/accountability
technology on the station fuel pumps. Fuel is tracked and monitored by an honor system solely
dependent on the individual's manual entry of information. The use of pen and paper to track
the usage of fuel has become an antiquated method that is prone to the human error factor.
This facilitates the loss of accountability due to incomplete documentation on the fuel tracking
sheets. With fuel costs on the rise, it is more important now than ever to ensure the proper
dispensing and tracking of fuel as it has a major impact on departmental budgets. By
implementing this project, the fuel will be tracked via a computer technology system and
accountability will be maintained by individual apparatus. In addition, there will be the added
benefit of tracking odometer readings for each apparatus to schedule preventive maintenance.
This would also perpetuate the possibility of generating reports from the system for projections
and future planning. The main goal is to help control and monitor fuel usage. The added benefit
we will see is a method to ensure that our apparatus meet their equipment maintenance
schedules.
Operating Budget Impact
Since the existing stations have all been networked into our system, there would be little cost to
implement the system other than the purchase of equipment, installation, and future
maintenance. These annual projections are shown.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The implementation of this system would improve overall efficiency by offering more monitoring
capabilities for fuel consumption and increased performance of the apparatus due to the
completion of preventative maintenance on schedule.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is directly related to our departmental business plan goal of providing "accurate
records and reporting to meet departmental needs" and ensure compliance with local mandates.
Funding Sources
Not known
15
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
Station Fuel Control System
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$145,000
Cost includes purchase and installation of the automated fuel control
technology.
None
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $6,050 per year for monthly netv~orking costs.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$145,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $145,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$6,050 $6,050 $6,050 $6,050 $6,050
16
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
New Oak Grove Station
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Provide a new fire and rescue public safety building, including land purchase, in the Oak Grove
section of the Cave Spring area. This would be a three-bay station initially to house a pumper
and an ambulance. Also included would be adequate living areas such as offices, male/female
sleeping/restroom/shower areas, storage areas, and meeting rooms.
Justification
This area is undergoing rapid development and the response times to calls in this area are
increasing due to the demographics of the population. This facility would serve the general
areas of Oak Grove, Hidden Valley, Fairway Forest and Grandin Road Extension. These areas
would then be under the six-minute response time goal instead of the current 6-10 minutes. As
this area is further developed, this response time is and will continue to increase. All of the
above mentioned areas are within the Cave Spring first-due district, which is our second busiest
station.
This new station could also provide second-due back up coverage to the Cave Spring, Fort
Lewis, and Mason's Cove stations thus reducing the time for arrival on the scene of an
emergency. This could also include a mutual aid response agreement with the City of Salem
and Roanoke City or a possible joint-staffing agreement similar to that at Clearbrook.
Operating Budget Impact
The operating budget would still have to be addressed; proposed staffing would include the
addition of 3 Captain positions, 3 Lieutenant positions, 6 Paramedic/Firefighter positions and 6
Firefighter/EMT positions. The approximate utility costs are shown. Costs could possibly be
shared with another locality should a joint-staffing agreement be established.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
Completion of this project would result in the reduction of reaction/response times to the citizens.
Conformance with County Obligations
The addition of this station is directly related to our departmental business plan goal of providing
"expedient emergency response to the community" and meeting our performance measure of
providing ALS response to 80% of the citizens in the County within six minutes when service is
needed.
Funding Sources
Not known
17
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
New Oak Grove Station
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$2,065,000
Includes land purchase and construction of new 3-bay station.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $1.1 million per year for personnel and utility costs.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$2,065,000
FY08
$400,000
FY09
$165,000
FY10
$1,500,000
FY11
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09
$0 $0
FY10
$1,079,504
FY11
$1,113,035
FY12
$1,147,687
18
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
New Hanging Rock Station
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Provide a new fire and rescue public safety building, including land purchase, in the area of 1-81
and Route 419. This would be a three-bay station initially to house a pumper and an
ambulance. Also included would be adequate living areas such as offices, male/female
sleeping/restrooms/shower areas, storage areas, and meeting rooms.
Justification
This area is undergoing more development and the response times to calls in this area are
increasing due to traffic. This facility would serve the general areas of Red Lane, Laurel
Woods, Loch Haven, Montclair, Glen Cove, the backside of North Lakes and the 1-81/419 area
to include Cove Road. These areas would then be under the six-minute response time goal
instead of the current 7-12 minutes. This station could also provide second-due back up
coverage to the Fort Lewis, Mason's Cove, and Hollins stations thus reducing the time for arrival
on the scene of an emergency. This could also include a mutual aid response agreement with
the City of Salem and Roanoke City or a possible joint-staffing agreement similar to that at
Clearbrook.
Operating Budget Impact
The operating budget would still have to be addressed; proposed staffing would include the
addition of 3 Captain positions, 3 Lieutenant positions, 6 Paramedic/Firefighter positions and 6
Firefighter/EMT positions. The approximate utility costs are shown. Costs could possibly be
shared with another locality should a joint-staffing agreement be established.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
Completion of this project would result in the reduction of reaction/response times to the citizens.
Conformance with County Obligations
The addition of this station is directly related to our departmental business plan goal of providing
"expedient emergency response to the community" and meeting our performance measure of
providing ALS response to 80% of the citizens in the County within six minutes when service is
needed.
Funding Sources
Not known
19
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
New Hanging Rock Station
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$2,275,000
Includes land purchase and construction of new 3-bay station.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $1.1 million per year for personnel and utility costs.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$2,275,000
FY08
$400,000
FY09
$0
FY10
$175,000
FY11
$1,700,000
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09
$0 $0
FY10
$0
FY11
$1,113,035
FY12
$1,147,687
20
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
Station Renovations
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will encompass major renovations and upgrades of Fire and Rescue Public Safety
Buildings throughout the County. The work will include HVAC upgrades, window replacements,
roof repairs and parking area improvements. The buildings included are Bent Mountain,
Catawba, Cave Spring, Fort Lewis, Masons Cove and Hollins. Due to difficulties in continued
operations, this project is requested to be on-going over several years with bids for similar work
(HVAC, concrete, bay doors, and windows) to include all sites to realize a cost savings. It is the
goal of the department to continue the work over a multi-year period where vehicles and/or staff
could be temporarily relocated to accommodate the work and still continue to provide services
to the public. Fire and Rescue is working with General Services to coordinate the renovations
and to facilitate multi-location bids for the most efficient use of funds.
Justification
The Bent Mountain and Catawba Stations were both built and opened in 1980. While routine
maintenance has taken place, neither building has undergone any major repair or renovation
since the initial construction except for the replacement of the bay heat at Bent Mountain. The
replacement of the windows is necessary to ensure that the station operates at its most energy
efficient capacity. Major concrete and asphalt repairs are also needed on the exterior. In
addition, areas of the initial pre-fab construction that have begun to rust need repairs to prolong
the life of the facility. These would be the first two buildings receiving work.
Masons Cove has not received any upgrades since 1987 when bays and living quarters were
added to the original station. The bay doors need repairs and the parking lot is in need of re-
paving.
Hollins, Fort Lewis and Cave Spring stations have all had some work completed since the
original construction but are still in need of repair/replacement of essential systems due to the
high traffic and call volume. Restrooms, HVAC systems and some roofing areas necessitate
work to remain both functional and efficient. The sewer line at Fort Lewis is experiencing
frequent backups, resulting in extensive cleaning and monitoring to ensure that sanitary
conditions within the station are maintained.
All of the above would receive some cosmetic repair (painting) in any areas where other work to
upgrade systems was performed. Additionally, each site would have significant work performed
on the bay doors to include seals and switching units. This should assist in reducing utility
costs at all locations.
Operating Budget Impact
The overall operating needs should slightly decline due to more efficient systems being utilized
and repairs/replacements to the buildings resulting in a more energy efficient structure.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The overall efficiency will improve at each site due to the more efficient systems in use coupled
with the energy saving repairs/replacements completed on the buildings will result in lower utility
costs at each site renovated.
Conformance with County Obligations
These station improvements are directly related to our departmental business plan goal of
providing "expedient emergency response to the community" and meeting our performance
measure of providing ALS response to 80% of the citizens in the County within six minutes
21
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Fire & Rescue
Station Renovations
when service is needed.
Funding Sources
Not known.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$524,535
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
HVAC upgrades, window replacements, roof repairs and parking area
improvements. Cost of renovations would be spread out over several years.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$176,000
FY09
$176,000
FY10
$172,535
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$524,535
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
22
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Police
Training Academy
South County Police Precinct
Bomb Disposal Unit
23
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Police
Training Academy
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will provide for the construction of a training facility for use by the Roanoke County
Police, Sheriff's, and Fire Departments as well as other partnering public safety agencies in and
around the Roanoke Valley. The proposed construction would involve the reconditioning and
excavation of land located on Kessler Mill Road that is already owned by the County of
Roanoke. During the past year, the Police Department has contracted the services of the
Community Design Assistance Center of the Virginia Tech College of Architecture and Urban
Studies to prepare site plans for the creation of an 86,496 square foot training facility to be
located on the Kessler Mill Road site. The plans include administrative offices, tiered
classrooms, physical training room, a dormitory for out of town students, auditorium, water
training tank, computer laboratory, and research library. The facilities have been designed as
"Green Buildings" using the principles and the guidelines of Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design. This facility will serve as a location for both new employee and in-
service training. The initial partnering agencies, in addition to Roanoke County Sheriff and
Roanoke County Fire and Rescue, are the Franklin County Sheriffs Office and the Town of
Vinton Police Department.
Justification
The nature of the public safety profession dictates a high level of training for all personnel and
such training is mandated by the State of Virginia. In today's environment, with its rapidly
developing technology and increasing sophistication of threats to public safety, proper training
has evolved as a key element to the effectiveness of all public safety agencies. This joint
training facility would provide economies of scale by having the Police, Sheriff, and Fire
departments share joint facilities, preventing needless duplication of physical facilities and will
allow for economies of scope through the interaction and transfer of knowledge and expertise
between the departments.
Operating Budget Impact
Staffing of the facility will require the addition of 5 additional positions. The first full year salary
increase would be approximately $225,000 for these 5 additional positions. The construction of
the new facility would result in first full year utility costs of approximately $172,000. The utility
costs are expected to rise by an average of 3.5% per year.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
All of the Roanoke County Public Safety Agencies are efficient and professional organizations
as evidenced by the high quality of service provided to the citizens and the formal recognition of
state and national public safety accrediting organizations. Quality training will enable all county
public safety agencies to maintain this high level of service. This facility will provide the public
safety agencies with a facility to provide quality training to their personnel, thereby improving the
level of service provided to the citizens of the County of Roanoke.
Conformance with County Obligations
The County's Community Plan recognizes the need for intergovernmental cooperation in the
provision of public safety services, Chp. 4 page 16. The Community Plan also recognizes the
theme of regionalism in its Vision Statements, Chp. 2 page 1.
Funding Sources
Partnering public safety agencies from around the Roanoke Valley will pay a tuition fee for
training services rendered by the County of Roanoke.
24
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Police
Training Academy
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$11,458,160
Includes construction and equipment/furnishings; will be offset by about
$135,000/year in tuition fees.
None
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$9,424
Associated Operating Costs
$27 ,OOO/year for minor maintenance and electricity.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$5,838,480
FY10
$5,778,880
FY11
($69,600)
FY12
($89,600)
TOTAL
FY08-12
$11,458,160
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $9,424
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$190,691
FY11
$341,607
FY12
$358,445
25
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Police
South County Police Precinct
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will provide for the construction of a new Police Precinct building in South Roanoke
County. This new building will meet the increasing demands upon the Police Department to
provide close, available police services to the citizens of Roanoke County. The new building
will provide space for patrol officers, investigative personnel, and supervisors. The new building
has a projected size of 5,000 square feet. The building could be built on land already owned by
Roanoke County or land could be acquired for the facility.
Justification
The strong growth in Roanoke County has resulted in an increase in the demand for police
services. For the past several years, the area southward from Lewis Gale Hospital and
Tanglewood Mall has represented 40% of the police service calls in Roanoke County. The new
south county precinct building will enable both patrol and investigative personnel to originate
their tours of duty in south Roanoke County without travel being necessitated to the main police
station located in north Roanoke County. This will enhance the overall delivery of police
services by retaining personnel in the south Roanoke County area for the duration of their tours
of duty. The location would also provide heightened opportunities for police interaction with
members of the south Roanoke County communities.
Operating Budget Impact
The operating costs for the first year are estimated at $10,000. It is further estimated that the
operating costs will rise by approximately 3.5% per year. These costs estimates include
electric, gas, water, maintenance, and custodial. No additional staff would be added to staff this
facility.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The department anticipates that the need for the south precinct building will continue to exist
into the foreseeable future. Long term leasing of a building would result in significant recurring
payments. Due to the high demand for commercial property, it is unlikely that a suitable
building could be leased at a rate significantly below prevailing market rates. After the initial
construction costs, these future lease payments could be avoided. The presence of the south
Roanoke County Precinct would increase the efficiency of the department by permanently
stationing resources in south Roanoke County.
Conformance with County Obligations
The Community Plan, Chapter 4 page 16, recognizes that the level of service provided by the
police department is a significant factor in the quality of life enjoyed by County citizens and the
importance of minimizing response time and increasing opportunities for citizen interaction.
Funding Sources
Capital expenditures
26
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Police
South County Police Precinct
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$625,000
Incudes construction of the new precinct and equipment/furnishings.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
~v1aintenance & utility impact of about $5,OOO/year.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$625,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $625,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$0 $10,000 $10,350 $10,712 $11,087
27
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Police
Bomb Disposal Unit
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The creation of a bomb disposal unit will both enhance and expand the Department's ability to
provide services and increased safety to the citizens of Roanoke County. The bomb disposal
unit will enable the Department to respond, investigate, and resolve incidents involving
suspected explosive devices. The bomb disposal unit will also serve to both complement and
leverage the existing Department explosive detection K-9 unit.
Justification
The changing nature of threats and the increased sophistication of criminals dictates that local
law enforcement agencies possess the capability to handle incidents that occur within their
jurisdictions. From January 1, 1998 thru September 1, 2006, the Department has responded to
88 calls for service involving bomb threats. Of those 11 involved governmental buildings, 33
involved schools, and 38 involved business establishments. The Virginia State Police has a
single bomb disposal unit serving 13 counties in southwestern Virginia. The large geographic
area of the 13 counties could result in a significant delay in a response to an incident in
Roanoke County. In the event of an actual explosive device, a time delay can lead to a higher
potential for injury. In the case of a hoax explosive device or a false bomb threat, a delay in
response can lead to higher levels of concern and apprehension for those directly involved in
the incident and for the public at large. The creation of a bomb disposal unit will eliminate the
possibility of a delayed response and will enable the Department to quickly address incidents
involving explosive devices.
Operating Budget Impact
Adoption of this project would result in yearly costs incurred of approximately $2,500 for
equipment maintenance and $2,500 for personnel in-service training.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will provide for the enhanced safety of Roanoke County Schools as well as all
County residents. The creation of the bomb disposal unit will enable the Department to handle
explosive threats in a timely manner. The timely handling of calls involving explosive devices
will provide for efficient services to the citizens of Roanoke County and minimize extended
disruption of commerce and education in Roanoke County as the result of incidents involving
threats of explosive devices.
Conformance with County Obligations
The County's Community Plan recognizes the need for the efficient delivery of public safety
services with minimal response time, Chp. 4 page 16.
Funding Sources
General operating revenues supplemented by grant funding if available.
28
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Police
Bomb Disposal Unit
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$170,000
Equipment cost.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
$5,OOO/year for training and routine maintenance to equipment.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$170,000
FY08
$150,000
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$20,000
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09
$0 $5,000
FY10
$5,175
FY11
$5,356
FY12
$5,544
29
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Public Safety
800 MHz Radio System Upgrade
30
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Public Safety
800 MHz Radio System Upgrade
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
In order for public safety to keep up with an ever changing technology, the current analog radio
system needs to be upgraded to digital. This upgrade will be a coordinated effort with the City
of Roanoke to maintain radio coverage levels and to enhance personnel safety. This upgrade
will allow for continued inter-operability between the City and the County while positioning us to
upgrade outdated communications equipment.
The FY2007-2011 Expenditure Summary reflects project costs of $13,000,000 which is for
Roanoke County's share (50%) of the total cost of the project.
The project will include a complete upgrade from an analog radio system to a digital system,
and replacement of the radio system infrastructure and subscriber field units.
Justification
An upgrade of the existing Radio System consoles in the Dispatch Center from Centracom Gold
to Centracom Gold Elite is currently in progress. These units, installed in 1996, operate on
older style DOS PCs. The software is not designed to run on newer faster PC's and is not
supported on those PCs. The units are no longer available from Motorola and expansion of the
existing units, if needed, would be unavailable. The latest version available for this upgrade is
Windows network based and would vastly improve management of these resources. This
upgrade will prepare the Dispatch Center for the digital radio system migration.
Operating Budget Impact
Maintenance costs are shared on a 50-50 basis with the City of Roanoke through a contract
with Motorola. Those costs have historically increased 2-3% each year. These improvements
will not impact the maintenance costs beyond the annual 2-3% cost increase.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will simply keep our Regional Radio System up to date. It will provide the best
radio coverage to our Police, Fire & Rescue, and other emergency/non-public safety agencies.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project meets the County's overall objective of providing the best Public Safety response
possible to County Citizens.
Funding Sources
During FY 2007-2008, $5,000,000 will be committed to this project from the Minor County
Capital Fund. The remainder of the project costs will be funded through a lease purchase
during FY 2008-2009.
31
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Public Safety
800 MHz Radio System Upgrade
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$13,000,000
Equipment costs.
None
$1,000,000
Associated Operating Costs
No operating impact.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$5,000,000
FY09
$8,000,000
FY10
$0
FY11
FY12
TOTAL
FY08-12
$13,000,000
$0
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $1,000,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
32
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Community Development
VDOT Revenue Sharing Road Improvements
Regional Storm Water Management & Flood
Control
33
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Community Development
VDOT Revenue Sharing Road Improvements
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) annually provides localities the opportunity
to receive state matching funds for the construction, maintenance, and improvement to primary
and secondary roads in the state's highway system.
Justification
The Revenue Sharing Program allows Roanoke County working with VDOT to expedite needed
safety and road enhancements and improvements that normally take many years to accomplish.
Operating Budget Impact
Considerable staff time is needed to administer this program.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This program allows Roanoke County to utilize additional State funds to improve Roanoke
County's transportation system.
Conformance with County Obligations
The Revenue Sharing Program is identified in Charter 4 of the Community Plan. One of the
objectives of the Plan is to continue to maintain and update Secondary and Primary road
improvement plans based on consistent policies and criteria.
Funding Sources
The funding source for this project will be the County's General Fund operating revenue.
34
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Community Development
VDOT Revenue Sharing Road Improvements
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$5,000,000
$2 million per year
Continued annual commitment
$6,746,000
Associated Operating Costs
Annual salaries & benefits to administer the program.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$1,000,000
FY09
$1,000,000
FY10
$1,000,000
FY11
$1,000,000
FY12
$1,000,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$5,000,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: Continued annual commitment
Appropriations to Date: $6,746,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$23,750
FY09
$23,750
FY10
$23,750
FY11
$23,750
FY12
$23,750
35
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Community Development
Regional Storm Water Management & Flood Control
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Stormwater management will consist of the construction of projects identified in the Roanoke
Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan and the continuation of flood mitigation projects
already underway in Roanoke County. Examples of projects are regional detention ponds,
channel improvements, flood proofing, and purchase of flood prone properties. Roanoke
County is in the third year of compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act.
Justification
Roanoke County has committed to participating in a regional approach to storm water
management and floodplain management as indicated in the adoption into the comprehensive
plan of the Roanoke Valley Regional Storm water Management Plan. As witnessed in the flood
of November 1985, the Roanoke Valley is prone to the devastating impacts of flash flooding and
has suffered loss of life and millions of dollars in damages.
Operating Budget Impact
Roanoke County currently budgets $900,000 annually for the purpose of maintenance of
existing storm sewer and drainage facilities and the construction of a new storm sewer and
stormwater management facilities. Two four-man drainage crews and a full-time drainage
engineer are dedicated to this activity.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
There is currently over 160 million dollars worth of residential and business properties and
contents at risk in identified flood plains in Roanoke County. The goal is to identify ways to
mitigate disaster effects from flooding before they occur rather than spending money after the
damage has been done. It has been shown that pre-disaster mitigation is much more effective
and efficient than post-disaster relief. Projects funded with federal grant funds are required to
show cost-to-benefit ratios of greater than 1.0, that is the benefits received from the project
must outweigh the costs by more than a factor of one.
Conformance with County Obligations
The Roanoke Valley Regional Storm water Management Plan is a part of the Community Plan
and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan.
Funding Sources
The Code of Virginia allows for the collection of stormwater utility fees, General Operating
revenues, bonds, and other sources. Roanoke County currently earmarks a portion of the
motor vehicle decal fee for use in stormwater management and drainage maintenance.
Previous funding has been used to match federal/state monies in grant opportunities, resulting
in significant reimbursement on projects.
36
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Community Development
Regional Storm Water Management & Flood Control
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$7,500,000
Annual commitment of $1 million to $2 million
Continued annual commitment
$0
Associated Operating Costs
$900,000 annually for maintenance of existing storm se'v"v'er and drainage facilities is currently budgeted.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$1,000,000
FY09
$1,000,000
FY10
$1,500,000
FY11
$2,000,000
FY12
$2,000,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$7,500,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: Continued annual commitment
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
37
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
General Services
New County Garage
New Public Service Center
Parking Garage in Salem
38
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
General Services
New County Garage
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The county garage is located in Salem, has four bays and was designed to handle a fleet of 200
vehicles. The garage is now responsible for maintaining over 700 County and Western Virginia
Water Authority vehicles, including police cars, ambulances and solid waste trucks. The
parking lot has only 9 spaces, whereas it should have at least 30 in order to accommodate staff,
shop and customer parking. There is no place to park garbage trucks and other large vehicles.
The garage is responsible for maintaining the fleet and equipment in the highest state of
readiness and this is jeopardized by obsolescence and severe gridlock. Thus, as the garage
and staff are pushed to the maximum, there is a potentially serious impact on the provision of
service to the citizens when garage repairs cannot be completed on a timely basis. The
alternative is to outsource some work which results in at least 50% higher repair costs.
Industry standards recommend 1 bay for each 50 vehicles in a commercial fleet whereas we
have 1 bay for every 150 vehicles. Two neighboring municipalities have facilities at least twice
as large with thrice the staff for similar sized fleets. Productivity and efficiency are compromised
continuously and the parking area becomes jammed on a regular basis. Necessitating juggling
vehicles in order to pull them in and out of bays. In the recent past, many repairs were
outsourced, but this resulted in quality control problems and excessive downtime, not
acceptable in the delivery of essential services and public safety. Thus, in order to improve the
quality and timeliness of services, the garage has been charged with repairing most of the
county vehicles in house.
Justification
The county garage supports a variety of county services either directly or indirectly in
maintaining the fleet, and saves money by performing as many repairs as possible in house. If
the facility were larger, in addition to increased efficiency, even more large vehicles could be
served, cutting down further on outsourcing costs. Additionally, vehicles could be serviced
faster, as additional bays would be available for extensive service and currently take up space
when others arrive for routine oil changes and cannot be pulled inside.
Operating Budget Impact
We anticipate hiring additional mechanics and with a larger facility, we also anticipate increased
utility costs, although we intend to incorporate as many energy efficient systems as possible.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
Two county departments, Fire and Rescue and Solid Waste, currently send almost all work to
outside vendors, due to the size of the vehicles. Much of this work can be done in-house in a
larger facility, which will greatly reduce cost and wait time for the repairs. At outside vendors,
county vehicles are not given priority, whereas the garage puts public safety and vehicles
delivering direct services at the top of the list for service.
We anticipate that a new facility will save the County several hundred thousand dollars annually
in repairs.
Conformance with County Obligations
The location of the new county garage will be determined with input from the committee
currently preparing a long term plan for location of county facilities.
Funding Sources
During FY 2006-2007, $500,000 will be committed to this project from the Major County Capital
39
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
General Services
New County Garage
Fund. During FY 2007-2008, $370,000 will be committed to this project from the County's
General Fund operating revenue. During FY 2008-2009, $600,000 will be funded from General
Fund operating revenues, and $710,000 will be funded from unidentified new revenues.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$2,384,200
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Includes site improvements, engineering/design, construction and equipment;
offset by the sale of current garage. Does not include the cost of land
acquisition.
None
$500,000
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $210,000 per year in additional staff and utilities.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$1,434,200
FY09
$2,000,000
FY10
($350,000)
FY11
($350,000)
FY12
($350,000)
TOTAL
FY08-12
$2,384,200
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $500,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$402,989
FY09
$419,134
FY10
$435,898
FY11
$453,293
FY12
$471,424
40
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
General Services
New Public Service Center
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The Public Service Center at Kessler Mill Road was purchased by Roanoke County in the mid-
1980's. It was renovated at that time to provide office space for Parks and Recreation, Utilities
and General Services. Storage for county records and other materials is located in the building,
as is the Communications and Welding Shops, and the storage for items which will be sold at
surplus auction. Additionally, over the past several years, other operations have been added,
such as Roadway Drainage and the Roanoke Valley Greenways.
The building leaks through the garage doors, and occasionally in roof areas, which destroys
records and other materials stored on site. In 1985, the building flooded, largely due to
drainage issues, both from the hill behind it, and the guttering on it. While some of these issues
have been addressed, the potential for further problems remains, as was evident during
Hurricane Isabel in 2004, when the water came up to the loading docks. This building is also
visible from Interstate 81, and does not present a positive image of Roanoke County operations.
In addition to major drainage and flooding issues at the site, the building needs the following
work, which would cost at least $2 million.
Sprinkler heads need to be lowered below ceilings in some areas.
Install fire alarm system
Replace HVAC, including redesign to meet current requirements
Repave parking lot, area on hill and entrances
Drainage improvements between building and hill
Upgrade/improve building exterior
Replace and improve roof gutters and down spouts
Renovate the 3 main restrooms
Drop ceiling in rear hallway and close off open ceiling area of heated rooms
Install 6 new garage doors
Seal gable roof at west end of building
Replace flat roof
Replace steel Underground storage tanks with fiberglass and replace fuel pumps
Install new energy efficient light fixtures.
The Communications and Welding Shops will be moving to the new vehicle maintenance
facility. The remaining departments will not entirely fill the building, leaving large heated areas
with no occupants and wasted space.
Justification
A new service center will provide more energy efficient space, meet current fire and ADA
standards, and provide a more practical work environment for the different operations. It is
more cost effective in the long run to build a new facility than to renovate the current 50+ year
old building. Remodeling the facility will not change the floodplain issues, nor deal with the
excess limited use space. After the building is demolished and the site regraded, it will be
available for other uses, such as a regional police training facility.
Operating Budget Impact
A new building may actually cost less to operate, due to the inefficiencies of the current facility.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
A new service center will allow operations to share common space such as locker rooms,
41
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
General Services
New Public Service Center
kitchen and break rooms and copier rooms. Cost may decrease due to reduced energy
consumption, and shared space.
Conformance with County Obligations
Construction of a new facility elsewhere in the County would allow the plan for a regional police
training facility to be constructed at the Kessler Mill Road Site.
Funding Sources
General Operating Revenues; bond referendum.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$6,300,000
Includes engineering/design and construction costs.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
$1,300,000
$5,000,000
$0
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$6,300,000
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$100,000
FY12
$0
42
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
General Services
Parking Garage in Salem
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Roanoke County owns several large office buildings in downtown Salem, specifically Salem
Bank and Trust (which houses the Department of Social Services), the Court Services Building
and the County courthouse/jail complex. The Courthouse and the SB& T building have some
parking areas as part of the property, but not enough for the employees, let alone the public.
The Court Services Building has a very small amount of parking in the rear, which is reserved
for the Sheriffs office.
The county has leased property at the corner of East Main and Thompson Memorial Boulevard
to assist in alleviating the lack of dedicated space. However, when court is in session, this lot
becomes full, and many employees have no option but to pay for parking.
The City of Salem is also interested in this problem, particularly since the jail and Social
Services Department also serve Salem citizens. The City will assist in locating a parking facility
and in the cost of building it. Land has not yet been identified, although we maybe able to build
a structure at the courthouse or the property attached to the Salem Bank and Trust building.
Justification
Parking is limited in the downtown Salem area, and what is available is generally taken by
County employees, leaving users of the County facilities, such as social service clients, police
officers and attorneys, with a lack of parking.
Operating Budget Impact
It is anticipated that parts of the facility would be available for use by the public for a fee during
regular business hours. These fees may offset operating budget issues, which will include
cleaning, utilities, and landscaping upkeep.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The cost of a facility is estimated at $5 million. This is dependent on the size of the garage and
the construction costs at the time, and does not include the cost of land.
Conformance with County Obligations
Salem has indicated that a parking deck would conform with plans for the downtown business
district.
Funding Sources
General fund, with shared cost with the City of Salem.
43
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
General Services
Parking Garage in Salem
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$5,230,000
Costs will be shared with the City of Salem
Planning, Engineering, Design and Construction
$0
Associated Operating Costs
~v1aintenance and Utilities
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$5,230,000
FY08
$30,000
FY09
$200,000
FY10
$5,000,000
FY11
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: Planning, Engineering, Design and Construction
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09
$0 $0
FY10
$0
FY11
$40,000
FY12
$0
44
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Roanoke River Greenway - Western Section
Tinker Creek Greenway
Mudlick Creek Greenway
45
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Roanoke River Greenway - Western Section
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project is design and construction of the western section of Roanoke County's portion of
the 31-mile Roanoke River Greenway. In the western part of the County Roanoke River
Greenway will be 7 miles from Spring Hollow to Green Hill Park. [The section of Roanoke River
Greenway in the eastern part of the County will be 6 miles from the Roanoke City line to Back
Creek in Explore Park; that section is included in the Parks' CIP request titled Greenways and
Trails.]
Justification
The Roanoke River Greenway is a regional project being built by Roanoke County, City of
Salem, City of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton. This bicycle/pedestrian path has always been
considered the backbone of the greenway system. Design and construction are underway
across all jurisdictions. A master plan for the section from Green Hill Park through Salem was
completed in 1998; engineering is almost complete, and construction for the County's Green Hill
Park portion is scheduled for 2007. In Roanoke City a master plan was developed in 2000, and
the trail construction is included in the Corps of Engineers flood reduction project. The section
from Wasena Park to Rivers Edge Sports Complex has been completed, and construction from
there to the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) is expected to be completed in FY 08.
Roanoke County and Vinton developed a master plan for the eastern part in 2003 and there are
opportunities to coordinate sections with development of Explore Park. Both Franklin and
Montgomery Counties are including connections to Roanoke River Greenway in their plans.
In 2006 the Greenway Commission began an update to the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan.
Although that process is not yet complete, the overwhelming public input from citizens and
corporations has been that the Roanoke River Greenway is the top priority for the valley. A
coalition of businesses has formed to assist the localities in finishing Roanoke River Greenway
within five years. These businesses see this project as important to quality of life and critical to
their ability to attract highly educated employees to the valley. Novozymes Biologicals has been
leading the corporate charge, with a pledge of $250,000 to finish construction of Roanoke River
Greenway.
The Roanoke River Greenway is the greenway project with most potential for economic, health,
environmental, and social benefits. The greenway will be 31 miles long. A 2003 economic
impact study of the Virginia Creeper Trail, which is 34 miles long between Abingdon and
Whitetop, showed that non-locals coming to the trail spent $1.2 million in the trail communities.
The trail generated $1.6 million in economic impacts and 30 jobs, even though the area is
predominantly rural. On the Creeper 47% of the use is by locals. Comparably, the Roanoke
River Greenway will be a facility open to all ages at no cost and will help residents improve their
health by providing a significant resource for recreation and exercise. In addition to health and
economic benefits, Roanoke River Greenway will offer increased opportunities to enjoy and
protect the river, connections among valley parks and facilities, including the Blue Ridge
Parkway, and quality of life improvements which may attract new businesses and corporations.
Other communities reap substantial dollars from races for runners and walkers, and Roanoke
could offer its own marathon. In addition, the greenway will serve as a central park through the
valley providing unique opportunities for river oriented activities, festivals, and community
interaction.
Operating Budget Impact
For each mile of greenway constructed, the cost of annual maintenance is estimated to be
$5,000-$10,000. This cost includes routine maintenance of the trails, signage, and facilities. The
46
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Roanoke River Greenway - Western Section
sections of greenway within parks, such as Green Hill Park, will be maintained as part of routine
park maintenance. The eastern and western sections will be like adding new park land.
Volunteers and use of an adopt-a-trail program will be used to help hold down operating costs.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
Funding for Roanoke Valley greenways has been coming from federal, state, local, and private
sources. The Greenway Commission has secured for the localities over $6.3 million in federal
and state funds for planning and construction of greenways. Most of these grants require 20%
match.
While the greenway itself will not generate revenue, other communities have shown substantial
economic returns from such greenways. Typically, small businesses locate along the greenway
and property values increase. The City of Roanoke, using a study done in conjunction with
Virginia Tech, estimates that the increase in property values along its 11 miles of the greenway
will generate $13 million in revenue.
Conformance with County Obligations
The County endorsed the concept of developing a regional system of greenways and trails in
1995 and in 1997 adopted the "Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan". The Greenway
Plan was incorporated in the 1998 Community Plan and the 2005 update to that plan. The
Roanoke River Greenway is specifically mentioned in the Community Plan and in the "Virginia
Outdoors Plan "(p. 188).
In 2006 Roanoke County Parks and Recreation developed its first master plan. Citizen input on
a statistically valid survey showed greenways as the most important facility to respondents,
greenways as the most needed facility, development of greenways as the most important and
most supported action to improve County parks.
Funding Sources
The Greenway Commission will continue to work with the County to secure outside funding,
such as federal and state grants and private donations. Cost estimates have been updated
based on recent engineering designs and estimates. These estimates are based on contracting
all of construction, but volunteers and corporations may be able to help reduce construction
costs. The Greenway Commission has already coordinated the connection with the Parkway,
and federal funding for a bridge across the river is a possibility.
47
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Roanoke River Greenway - Western Section
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$6,951,000
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Includes land acquisition, engineering/design, and construction of greenway
miles.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
$5JOOO-10,OOO/year per mile for maintenance.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$520,000
FY09
$837,000
FY10
$1,672,000
FY11
$1,750,000
FY12
$2,172,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$6,951,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$20,000
48
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Tinker Creek Greenway
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project is engineering and construction of four miles of Tinker Creek Greenway from the
Roanoke City line to Carvins Cove. In the 2006 update to the "Roanoke Valley Conceptual
Greenway Plan," Tinker is a priority 2 greenway route.
Justification
The Tinker Creek Greenway will be a major arterial greenway connecting the Roanoke River
Greenway (Priority #1) to the 12,000-acre Carvins Cove Natural Reserve. This is a very historic
corridor and an environmentally unique stream with connections to numerous parks, as well as
Read Mountain, the Appalachian Trail, and Carvins Cove, with possible ties to Hanging Rock
Battlefield Trail.
In spring 2000 a Master Plan for Tinker Creek Greenway was completed by Roanoke City and
County with the assistance of a Virginia Tech Urban Planning class. Over 100 people attended
the public meeting held in conjunction with the master plan. The Plan did an excellent job of
identifying resources and alternatives. Roanoke City opened the first one-mile section of Tinker
Creek Greenway in January 2003. The City is working on engineering now for the section near
East Gate and Masons Mill Parks and has received Enhancement funds to begin the bridge
connection to Roanoke River Greenway.
In the County most of Tinker Creek is in private ownership. Several rights-of-way have been
donated or proffered for this greenway. There are increasing development pressures along the
Tinker corridor in the County and several new developments, such as the Village at Tinker
Creek. Final design and engineering are needed to ensure preservation of the greenway
corridor, facilitate right-of-way acquisition, and continue cooperation with the City to complete
this greenway. With final design completed, there will be more opportunity to have the greenway
incorporated into new developments, to actively seek right-of-way, and to apply for grants to
help with construction costs.
In general, greenways function as non-motorized transportation routes and recreational
opportunities, enhancing adjoining property values, increasing tourism, and boosting economic
development efforts. By following existing stream channels, greenways become important
natural areas with educational and ecological value, as well as an aide in improving air and
water quality. Some communities have utilized greenways as an integral part of a
comprehensive storm water management system, ensuring that riparian areas along stream
channels remain undeveloped to filter water and serve as flood storage areas.
Operating Budget Impact
For each mile of greenway constructed, the cost of annual maintenance is estimated to be
$5,000 - $10,000. This cost includes routine maintenance of the trails, signage and facilities.
Volunteers, use of an adopt-a-trail program, and coordination with other routine park
maintenance will help hold down operating costs.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The project will not decrease county costs or impact efficiency, but it may decrease costs of
gasoline for many residents by providing them a way to exercise and access Mountain View
School, Hollins University, and Carvins Cove without a car. Also, property values along the
greenway may increase, thus providing more property tax revenue.
49
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Tinker Creek Greenway
Conformance with County Obligations
The development of a regional system of greenways and trails was strongly supported and
endorsed by the citizens in the "Roanoke County Vision - 2010" document completed in 1995.
Roanoke County adopted the "Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan" in 1997 and
incorporated it in the 1998 Community Plan. Greenways are endorsed in the 1998 "Roanoke
County Community Plan" (p.97) and its update and in the "Virginia Outdoors Plan" (p. 188).
Tinker Creek Greenway was one of the top five priorities in the County's prioritization of
greenways completed in spring 2000 and a master plan for the project has been completed. In
the 2006 update to the "Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan," Tinker is a priority 2
greenway route, where the goal is to finish in 5-10 years.
Funding Sources
Funding for the Master Plan for Tinker Creek Greenway was provided by the Greenway
Commission and through pro-bono work by Virginia Tech. Funding for construction will come
from grants, private donations, and federal, state, and local funds. Roanoke City's construction
of the first mile was built with locality funds. The Greenway Commission will continue to work to
obtain grants; local funds will be needed to leverage these monies.
50
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Tinker Creek Greenway
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$1,914,000
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Includes land acquisition, engineering/design, and construction of greenway
miles.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
$5JOOO-10,OOO/year per mile for maintenance.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$90,000
FY09
$15,000
FY10
$435,000
FY11
$974,000
FY12
$400,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$1,914,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$10,000
FY11
$10,000
FY12
$15,000
51
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Mudlick Creek Greenway
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project is a 1.7 -mile extension of the Garst Mill Park Greenway along Mudlick Creek and
McVitty Road to Hidden Valley High School. From the current end of the greenway at Cresthill
Drive to Rt. 419, right-of-way would need to be acquired along an existing sewer easement near
the creek. The greenway can cross under 419, and from 419 to McVitty Road right-of-way was
dedicated for the greenway as a proffer for the McVitty Forest development. VDOT is currently
working on plans for reconstruction of McVitty Road. In 2003 the Board of Supervisors agreed
to VDOT's designing McVitty Road to include paved shoulders for bicyclists, with staff
recommending the greenway be in the stream corridor. CIP funding will be used for land
acquisition and construction, to be coordinated with VDOT's work on McVitty Road. Funding in
subsequent years will build the greenway between Garst Mill Park and the high school.
Justification
The greenway in Garst Mill Park opened in 1997 and has continued to receive intensive use
and high praise from citizens. Extension of the greenway will connect Garst Mill Park to the
headquarters library and Hidden Valley High School, allowing residents to access these
facilities without automobiles. While, in general, greenways provide recreational opportunities,
natural areas with educational and ecological value, and bicycling routes, the greenway in Garst
Mill Park has particularly provided health benefits to citizens of all ages. The greenway is used
regularly by groups and individuals with mobility impairments and heart conditions, and has
been a selling point for adjacent residential development. Children and families are seen at all
hours, and morning walks are the norm for hundreds of nearby residents. Extension to the high
school will allow students and parents the opportunity of walking or biking to school and ball
games. With the current gasoline prices, this will provide a savings for many County citizens.
Also, as an integral part of a comprehensive storm water management system, the greenway
can help ensure that riparian areas along Mudlick remain vegetated and serve as a flood
storage area, reducing downstream flood damage.
Operating Budget Impact
For each mile of greenway constructed, the cost of annual maintenance is estimated to be
$5,000 - $10,000. This cost includes routine maintenance of the trails, signage and facilities.
Volunteers assist with special projects and trash pick-up. In Garst Mill Park maintenance of the
greenway has required minimal additional cost, but between the Park and High School where
the Parks Department is not currently doing any other maintenance, costs will be higher.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The project will not decrease county costs or impact efficiency, but it may decrease costs of
gasoline for many residents by providing them a way to get to the library and the high school
without a car.
Conformance with County Obligations
The development of a regional system of greenways and trails was strongly supported and
endorsed by the citizens in the 'Roanoke County Vision - 2010" document completed in 1995.
Roanoke County adopted the "Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan" in 1997 and
incorporated it in the 1998 Community Plan. Greenways are endorsed in the 1998 "Roanoke
County Community Plan" (p.97), its update in 2005, and in the "Virginia Outdoors Plan" (p.
188). Improvements on McVitty Road are included in the 6-Year Plan, and bike facilities along
McVitty are in the 2004 Regional Bicycle Suitability Study and 2005 Bikeway Plan.
The trail in Garst Mill Park was the first greenway to open in the Roanoke Valley and continues
52
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Greenway Development
Mudlick Creek Greenway
to receive heavy use from neighboring residents as well as groups of school and pre-school
children, elderly citizens, and handicapped and disabled groups. Mudlick Creek Greenway was
one of the top five priorities in the County's prioritization of greenways completed in spring
2000. In the 2006 update to the Conceptual Greenway Plan, Mudlick Creek Greenway is a
priority #3 project in the County, to be completed in 5-10 years. In development of the Roanoke
County Parks Master Plan greenways were ranked by citizens as the most needed and
important facility for residents.
Funding Sources
The Garst Mill Park section of the Greenway was built with a state trail grant, FEMA
reimbursement, local bond monies, and Board appropriation. The Greenway Commission
anticipates being able to receive a Va. Recreational Trails grants for this greenway. CIP funds
requested herein will be used to leverage the grant and provide required match. Also some
grading may be possible in conjunction with improvements to McVitty Road.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$730,000
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Includes land acquisition, engineering/design, and construction of greenway
miles.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
ct'c;. ('In" 1" ('\"('\1.,,,..... ............ ........il...... f:........ ...........i.....+................."'......
""'''"',VVV-IV,VVV1JIl;;;OUI fJl;;;Ol IIIII~ IVI 1110111""'11011'"''''.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
TOTAL
FY08-12
$730,000
$120,000
$162,000
$158,000
$128,000
$162,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$5,000
FY09
$10,000
FY10
$10,000
FY11
$10,000
FY12
$15,000
53
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Library
South County Library
Glenvar Library Expansion
Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation
Vinton Library Renovation
Bent Mountain Library Expansion
54
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
South County Library
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project would replace the existing Headquarters/419 Library with a 56,000 sq. ft. building
constructed to meet both current and anticipated needs for size, lighting, design, handicapped
accessibility, and telecommunication infrastructure. It would include expanded stacks, children's
programming areas, young adult collections, a browsing area, additional Internet stations, a
computer training lab, display space, auditorium and conference rooms, and a coffee shop.
The design would also consolidate service desks, incorporate logical traffic patterns, redesign
support work spaces, and add a security system to protect valuable materials and allow the
introduction of self-checkout modules. Externally, the building would have safe parking lot
entrances and exits, improved traffic flow and longer turning lanes, and an additional 96 parking
spaces.
Justification
With a public area of approximately 18,500 sq. ft., the present Headquarters/419 Library is less
than 40% of the size specified by state standards for its current population base. It is the only
library that serves two magisterial districts, Cave Spring and Windsor Hills. Designed for a
service level of 600 visitors per day, it now averages more than 1,120 citizen visits daily
[375,797 in FY05-06, with an annual circulation of 524,309 items, a 5% increase over the
previous year]. The building was recarpeted and painted in 2003 and the circulation desks were
refurbished but no square footage was added. The majority of the furnishings and fixtures date
from the original construction of thirty-three years ago and are heavily-worn. It is overcrowded,
with a disjointed layout that forces inefficiencies and compounds congestion during peak
periods. Shelves are at 120% of capacity. There is no archival or storage space for the
collection, so the acquisition of any new materials requires that less-used books be discarded.
This facility was designed for library services as they existed in the 1970's. New formats,
including Internet access, instructional labs, and media products require more space, a robust
technological infrastructure, and greater flexibility than the building can accommodate.
Remodeling the existing structure would be difficult and expensive. The building is landlocked
on a 2.5 acre lot, with the maximum allowable number of parking spaces.
Roanoke County has contracted for architectural and engineering services for a new library and
the project is proceeding within its established timeline.
Operating Budget Impact
Additional staff (5.5 positions) would be needed to provide service in the larger public work area
and for support functions in technical services. Although this represents a much larger building
size, maintenance and utilities in a more efficient structure should not increase by more than
30% annually.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
When completed, the department's operational costs would rise but overall efficiency will be
improved by combining three public service desks to maximize staffing resources and eliminate
poor traffic patterns. The installation of a security system would reduce collection theft rates. A
coffee shop and FOL gift shop could become revenue streams to help support children's
programming expenses and mandated literacy-based initiatives.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project has been identified as the highest priority by the Library Citizens' Review Team and
the Library Board. It is in conformance with the Library Facilities Study and the Comprehensive
55
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
South County Library
Plan. The current building is not in conformance with state standards for a public library or with
requirements for handicapped accessibility.
Funding Sources
During FY 2006-2007, $600,000 will be committed to this project from the General Fund
operating revenues for A&E work. During FY 2009-2010, $600,000 will be committed from the
General Fund operating revenues for the purposes of debt service. During FY 2010-2011, $10
million will be committed to the project from a bond issue, and $600,000 will be funded from
General Fund operating revenues.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$12,795,000
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Includes land acquisition, site improvements, construction, equipment and
furnishings.
None
$2,016,838
Associated Operating Costs
^...............vi..........+......I., cr'2An ('\('\('\/".. ~".. ...........i+i..............1 .......H +.........h....i"'...I ...."........"'... ...........i............................... P I...ili+i.......... .....~.......... h" cr'lC:: f'\('\('\ i.... ,.."H,......../...i.f+
r\t-'t-'IV^"llo."o;;;;" \ojIoJ"'TV,VVV/Y' IVI o.\..IUILlVllo.l vlOl', ""'''"'11111'"'0.1 ,,;JUt-'t-'V'", 1110.11 1 ll;;O' 1 10.1 I,,",'" Ul. ".U.III LI"',,;J, VII,,;Jll,;;;l IJJ \ojI"-'-',VVV III ,",VIII;;O'I;;O/l::::fIlL
shop revenues per year.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$1,740,000
FY09
$4,000,000
FY10
$5,475,000
FY11
$10,605,000
FY12
($25,000)
TOTAL
FY08-12
$12,795,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $2,016,838
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$373,425
FY12
$183,500
56
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
G/envar Library Expansion
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project would add 8,400 sq ft to the Glenvar Branch Library for increased public space and
readers' seating, twice the number of book stacks, an improved children's area with
appropriately-scaled shelving, a more functional meeting room, a conference room, and high
speed access to electronic resources, including Internet work stations and a computer
instructional lab. The existing library would be renovated with new fittings and fixtures. Space
would be allotted to system support functions, including archival storage. The parking lot would
be expanded and redesigned to better accommodate through traffic from the nursing home
located behind the building.
Justification
The Glenvar Library was constructed in 1975 and has had no renovations since, despite three
decades of patron use. It does not meet state standards and is not A.D.A. compliant. Worn
furniture, packed shelves, and cramped conditions make it unappealing to the public and
inefficient in which to work. Severely limited shelf space requires the removal and disposal of
approximately 1,000 items annually. Designed to be a cozy neighborhood library, it is now
located in a mixed environment of housing subdivisions and industrial development.
In its current configuration, the building inhibits services to both traditional library users and
business clientele. Expanding and refurbishing it would restore basic library functionality for
patrons, especially children, who presently have no study, browsing, or quiet reading spaces.
Unlike the other large branches, there is no computer instructional lab, which means the system
is unable to offer the same full range of classes for the public that it does elsewhere. It is
surrounded by small-to-medium sized businesses, so it typically has more requests for
commercial meeting and training space than other branches. Many of them can't be
accommodated because the existing space is small and does not have the necessary
technological amenities. Upgrading the facility would enable businesses, developers, and civic
groups to use the facility as a mini-conference center, while the rental fees could create a
revenue stream for the library.
Operating Budget Impact
Departmental costs for staffing, maintenance, and utility expenses would increase by
approximately $83,500 per year, which is proportionate to the size of the expanded building and
the change in service level more patron traffic would require. It would require approximately
$20,000 per year to begin to restore the collection after years of discarding books due to lack of
space.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The library itself will operate more efficiently if it has better design, logical traffic patterns,
improved lighting, and stable access to technology. Books won't have to be discarded simply
because there is no space for them. Based on current request rates that cannot be
accommodated, commercial meeting room/computer lab usage could immediately generate
$6,000 per year. With promotional efforts, that number would be higher.
No funds have to be allocated for the purchase of additional land because the current site has
room for expansion.
Conformance with County Obligations
The project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Library Facilities Study.
Expansion of the Glenvar Library was the third-highest ranked Level One capital project by last
57
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
G/envar Library Expansion
year's CIP Citizen Review Committee and is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Library Facilities Study. It is supported by standards published by the Library of Virginia
and is a primary capital priority of the Library Board of Trustees.
Funding Sources
An appropriately equipped small-scale conference center could generate $6,000 or more in
revenues annually.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$3,567,700
Includes engineering and design, construction, furnishings and equipment.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $83,500/yr for additional staff, utilities and supplies; offset by $6,000-8,000 per year in conference center
rental revenue.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$1,244,500
FY10
$2,337,700
FY11
($7,000)
FY12
($7,500)
TOTAL
FY08-12
$3,567,700
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$191,000
FY11
$42,250
FY12
$47,325
58
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project would relocate the one-room, 529 sq ft Mt. Pleasant Branch Library to a separate
structure outside the elementary school. The new 6,000 sq ft library would include stack space
to accommodate general reading, adult nonfiction, and juvenile collections. It would have
approximately 25 work/study seats, appropriate furnishings for children, new shelving, an area
for pc/Internet stations, and a programming/meeting area for small groups. It would include
handicapped accessible parking and entries.
Justification
The current library is housed in a small classroom inside the Mt. Pleasant Elementary School. It
is too restricted, both in size and by school operations, to support a standard collection and
appropriate library services. This branch was characterized as "completely inadequate" in the
consultant's preliminary assessment for the Library Facilities Study. A new building would
improve services to a section of the County which does not have ready access to other
libraries. A separate facility would also avoid some of the security and control issues that arise
when public library operations are located on school grounds. With the surrounding area
experiencing substantial residential growth, library services and facilities should be upgraded to
meet the needs of this population.
Selection of a site for a new and enlarged facility will be an issue which will impact building
plans. State standards indicate that the branch should have a minimum of 3,500 sq. ft. by the
year 2010 to meet the needs of Roanoke County alone. However, the Library Boards of both
Roanoke and Franklin Counties have agreed in principle to study the feasibility of constructing a
joint library on Rte. 116. Serving two populations would require a minimum of 6,000 sJ. A site
on the highway would improve access, convenience, visibility and promote increased use of the
library by both populations.
Roanoke County has successfully managed a similar arrangement with Botetourt County, jointly
operating the Blue Ridge Library for nearly 20 years.
Operating Budget Impact
Annual operational, maintenance, and utilities costs would increase proportionate to the larger
space and the need for more staff. If a joint facility were to be built, costs would be divided
according to contractual agreement.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The classroom currently occupied by the library would be vacated which would free the room to
be used for school operations. If the new library is a joint project between the two counties,
costs could be offset by as much as 50%.
Conformance with County Obligations
The current space fails to meet state standards for a public library facility. Expansion and
replacement of the Mt. Pleasant Library was the second-highest ranked Level One capital
project by last year's CI P Citizen Review Committee and is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Library Facilities Study. The possibility of a joint library project is
a priority of the Library Boards of Trustees of Roanoke and Franklin Counties, which have
directed staff to investigate this option.
Funding Sources
This is a possible project for shared funding by Roanoke and Franklin Counties for construction
59
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
Mt. Pleasant Library Relocation
and operational costs.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$1,864,250
Includes land, engineering, construction, equipment, and book collection.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $59,OOO/yr for additional staff, utilities, supplies & deliveries.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$200,000
FY09
$170,000
FY10
$1,494,250
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$1,864,250
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$83,000
FY11
$87,460
FY12
$81 ,225
60
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
Vinton Library Renovation
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project would refurbish the interior of the Vinton library. New chairs and tables would
replace worn furnishings and provide comfortable seating for casual reading or studying. It
would make shelving areas fully-accessible and upgrade lighting fixtures to meet current
standards. The entire adult section would be reconfigured to improve traffic patterns and allow
space for the computer lab. The layout for telecommunication lines and electrical outlets would
be upgraded. Twenty-three public workstations would be reconfigured. The project would also
include a reoriented circulation desk and central corridor work area for more efficient workflow,
improved line-of-sight, appropriate media shelving, and added storage. Public restrooms would
be redesigned to allow handicapped accessibility. When finished, this would be the first
complete renovation of the interior since the building's construction. The parking lot would be
expanded by 16 spaces.
Justification
The Vinton library was built in 1969. Although the Friends of the Library have donated a
substantial part of their treasury to provide some new furniture, most fittings and furnishings are
original to the building and show more than three decades of wear. Upgraded lighting fixtures
are necessary to meet state standards. Space for the existing computer lab was cut out of the
magazine display area; the resulting configuration has partially blocked ambient light in the
reference area. The lab needs to be re-sited for better staff oversight and resized to allow more
room for computer workstations. The wiring and telecommunications infrastructure for a large
computer network has been grafted onto old lines.
Handicapped accessibility is compromised; public restrooms are narrow and inaccessible for
wheelchairs. [In fact, the only restroom that is available to the handicapped is in the meeting
room. Wheelchair-bound patrons who need to use it must intrude on groups in the meeting
room, which is embarrassing and inconvenient.] Expansion of the parking lot is long overdue.
There are only 14 spaces for the whole library, less than 47% of the minimum standard of 1/300
sq. ft.; any program, meeting, or event overwhelms the lot capacity.
Operating Budget Impact
There would be a minimal impact on the department's operating budget for utilities. Renovations
draw more patrons into the library, which would increase circulation and reference requests and
therefore, the need for part-time staff.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
Although ongoing operating costs would increase, functionality, building supervision and
workflow would be improved. Total construction costs could be reduced if the Town of Vinton
will share parking facilities created by its renovation of the nearby War Memorial building.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Library Facilities Study and
is supported by the Citizen's Review Team, the Library Board or Trustees, and by building
construction standards from the Library of Virginia.
Funding Sources
According to the terms of the Vinton Library's small Alford Trust, $25,000 could be used for
furnishings for this project. As noted, a cooperative arrangement with the Town of Vinton might
be possible, which could offset some of the expenses of creating new parking areas.
61
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
Vinton Library Renovation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$1,305,850
Includes engineering and design, construction, equipment, and book collection.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $77,OOO/yr for additional staff, utilities & supplies.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
$0
FY10
$75,000
FY11
$1,233,000
FY12
TOTAL
FY08-12
$1,305,850
FY08
FY09
($2,150)
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$144,004
FY12
$8,650
62
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
Bent Mountain Library Expansion
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project would add 550 sq. ft. to the Bent Mountain Library to provide additional readers'
seating, more open space for programs, and appropriate wall surface for shelving for various
formats in the adult collection.
Justification
The Bent Mountain Branch Library is an 850 sq. ft. facility, which was built in 1985. It is
adjacent to the Bent Mountain Elementary School and is situated on school property. A 150 sJ.
addition was completed in the spring of 2005 and is now being used to house the children's
collection and one small table for children. Even with the addition and an adjusted floor plan,
the open areas are very small and accessibility remains questionable. There is enough land
behind the building which could be used for a second expansion. A bigger building would
create a more suitable environment for story times and other children's services, as well as
improving study space and reader's seating for other patrons. This library serves as a focal
point for its community, as demonstrated by the citizens' fund raising campaign that culminated
in the building of the children's addition. There are very few options for public meeting spaces
in the Bent Mountain neighborhood.
Operating Budget Impact
Increased collection development, part-time staffing, maintenance and utility costs should
average approximately $22,000 per year.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The project would upgrade the level of service offered at this branch, particularly in children's
programs and accessibility for citizens. It also would provide the community with meeting space.
Conformance with County Obligations
The project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Library Facilities Study, and
has been approved by the Library Board of Trustees.
Funding Sources
Bond issue or General Operating Revenues.
63
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Library
Bent Mountain Library Expansion
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$166,450
Includes engineering and design, construction, equipment, and book collection.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $22,OOO/yr for staff, supplies & utilities.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$11,100
FY12
$155,350
TOTAL
FY08-12
$166,450
FY08
FY09
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$25,000
64
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Multi-Generational Center
Greenways & Trails
Garst Mill Park Improvements
Whispering Pines
Land Acquisition for Passive Parks
Taylor Tract
Green Hill Park Phase III
Walrond Park Phase III
Arnold Burton Softball Complex
Brambleton Center
Hollins Park
Vineyard Park Phase III
Camp Roanoke
Hanging Rock Trail
Spring Hollow Reservoir
65
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Multi-Generational Center
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Design and development of an 83,500 square foot multi-generational center to include indoor
aquatic spaces, gymnasiums, fitness areas, a walking track, meetings rooms, and outdoor
aquatic spaces.
Justification
Based upon the information received from the Master Plan, citizen input, survey data, and
identified recreation space needs; the top priority for Roanoke County is to develop an indoor
multi-generational center. Through a statistically valid survey conducted, the citizens were
asked the most important actions to improve or expand parks and recreation facilities. Fifty two
percent of respondent households indicated that the development of a new indoor recreation
facility is one of the most important actions to improve/expand parks and recreation facilities.
Operating Budget Impact
The feasibility study conducted indicates that our target projections are to operate between 97-
100% recovery rates which include an annual allotment of $100,000 for the center CIP needs.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The multi-generational center will enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Roanoke County.
It will serve as a positive economic growth opportunity for new business and industry looking to
relocate to Roanoke County.
Conformance with County Obligations
The multi-generational center will help to meet identified needs in Roanoke County's 10 year
plan Comprehensive Plan as well as meet the top priority identified within the Parks,
Recreation, and Tourism Master Plan
Funding Sources
The funding source has not been identified at this time. A PPEA proposal is anticipated within
the next 90 days.
66
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Multi-Generational Center
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$19,852,435
Includes planning and construction costs.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$19,852,435
FY08
$2,283,908
FY09
$17,568,527
FY10
$0
FY11
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09
$0 $0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
67
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Greenways & Trails
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project addresses the need for hiking and biking opportunities throughout Roanoke County
and responds to recent citizen input gained during the preparation of the Parks and Park
Facilities Master Plan. In a community attitude and interest survey conducted to help guide
future improvements to the County's parks, greenways, open space, recreation facilities and
programs, 59% of the 1,021 households that responded to the survey indicated that there was a
need for greenways for walking and biking. From a list of 24 various park and recreation
facilities, greenways for walking and biking had the highest percentage (36%) of respondents
select it as one of the four most important facilities. This project request would fund the
construction of a six-mile section of the Roanoke River Greenway in Roanoke County that
would extend eastward from the Roanoke City line to Explore Park. This project would also
help fund the construction of approximately nine miles of trails in existing County parks, some of
which have been included as requested CIP improvements in those parks.
Justification
This project responds to the expressed need for more greenway and hiking trails expressed
through citizen input gained during the preparation of the Parks and Park Facilities Master
Plan. Through a statistically valid survey conducted, the citizens were asked the most important
actions to improve or expand parks and recreation facilities. Fifty eight (58) percent of
respondent households indicated renovation/development of greenways for walking and biking
as one of the four most important actions to improve/expand parks and recreation facilities.
Operating Budget Impact
The project requires a small amount of additional staff hours to undertake maintenance,
maintenance materials and supplies.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
The development of greenways and trails promotes healthy lifestyles and physical fitness, helps
preserve important natural areas, contributes to the protection of water quality and overall
serves to enhance the quality of life of Roanoke County residents.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives, and policies of the 1998
Roanoke County Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding sources would be General Operating Funds, private foundation grants,
federal, state and local grants, private grants, individual and corporate donations, stormwater
and impact fees, and/or General Obligation Bond.
68
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Greenways & Trails
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$5,449,000
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Costs includes Land Acquisition, Engineering, Design, Construction and
Equipment.
None.
$0
Associated Operating Costs
None.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$410,000
FY09
$464,000
FY10
$650,000
FY11
$1,675,000
FY12
$2,250,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$5,449,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None.
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
69
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Garst Mill Park Improvements
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The scope of this project includes the stream bank stabilization Phase II, a placement of a
perimeter loop trail, upgrading the park restroom, an additional playground, replacing the walk
bridge to the shelter, adding a new walk bridge upstream, upgrading the tennis courts and
lighting system, improving the landscaping and paving the basketball court and older parking
areas. Recent improvements include a parking lot expansion project, the installation of a new
metal roof; interior ceiling; and stone pavers at the shelter, an accessible bridge on the
Greenway, new roadside fencing, and park benches.
Justification
The stream and stream bank is a prominent recreation feature of Garst Mill Park. This stream is
subject to flooding and has created significant erosion problems threatening existing facilities.
The first phase of a stream bank stabilization project has been completed. The second phase
will make repairs below the accessible Greenway Bridge which is vital in order to prevent further
erosion and damage/loss to park property. A matching grant of $148,000 from the Department
of Conservation and Recreation is available for the stream bank repair, and this project will
provide our match to the grant. Minor repairs are also necessary to the stream bank above the
shelter to maintain the integrity of the Greenway and open space area. Replacement of a failed
culvert will also facilitate drainage. Replacement of the concrete walk bridge with an AD.A.
Accessible Bridge will improve access to the shelter. A second bridge is required above the
shelter for reasonable access to the Greenway from remote parking areas. This project will
provide safer public access to the park facilities and improve accessibility for disabled patrons.
Operating Budget Impact
The project requires part-time staff hours, utilities, maintenance materials and supplies.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will reduce infrequent costs required for park clean-up after major flooding events.
It will also prevent further loss of park property along the stream bank that is eroding into the
stream. The ballfield lighting will reduce the need for new fields.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County
Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Funding from general operating revenues or bond issue. Includes grant from the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation.
70
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Garst Mill Park Improvements
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$627,500
For improving the site, replacing the bridge, upgrading restroom/shelter, and
adding play apparatus. Total cost is $775,500, however a grant for $148,000 is
expected.
None
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$35,000
Associated Operating Costs
For salaries and supplies.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$52,000
$500,000
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$627,500
FY08
FY09
FY10
$75,500
FY11
$0
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $35,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$9,600
FY11
$6,500
FY12
$6,500
71
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Whispering Pines
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will add bathrooms to an existing restroom/concession shell building from a past
matching grant program, expand parking, add an additional picnic shelter, build a perimeter
loop trail, and improve the landscaping. Additional improvements will provide the design,
engineering, and construction of a new soccer field and parking lot as identified by the Master
Plan. Capital Maintenance Funding will complete the enhanced water purification system for
the public water system, install the septic system and replace the existing playground.
Justification
Whispering Pines Park lacks basic restroom facilities that should be available for a Community
Park. The current level of use by the recreation league, field rentals, picnic shelter rentals, and
general park visitation warrants the new ballfield, a loop trail, and the other amenities typically
available for a park this size.
Operating Budget Impact
This will require additional part-time staff, utilities, and maintenance materials and supplies.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is consistent within the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County
Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues.
72
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Whispering Pines
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$343,000
For site improvements and construction.
None
$32,000
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $6,700 per year for additional part time staff, utilities and maintenance supplies.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$108,000 $235,000 $0 $0 $0 $343,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $32,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$0 $7,950 $8,950 $8,950 $8,950
73
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Land Acquisition for Passive Parks
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department needs to acquire parkland for reported deficits in
Roanoke County as defined in our new Comprehensive Masterplan. Emphasis is placed on
land in areas of Southwest County. Current outdoor recreation needs are at or near capacity in
the Southwest area, and reports of future development show facility needs growing in the future.
Justification
There continues to be deficits in almost all areas and at all levels, i.e. neighborhood,
community, and district parks. In anticipation of the results of the on-going visioning and
comprehensive planning process, resources need to be identified for acquiring needed parkland.
Operating Budget Impact
None.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project meets the goals as established in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan.
Funding Sources
General Obligation Bond
74
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Land Acquisition for Passive Parks
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$2,000,000
Land acquisition spread out over 3 year period.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$350,000
FY09
$375,000
FY10
$400,000
FY11
$425,000
FY12
$450,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$2,000,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09
$0 $0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
75
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Taylor Tract
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This once proposed 28 acre school site was transferred this year to the Parks Department. A
master plan of this site was administered in 1997 as part our visioning for the area community,
which was identified to serve mostly as a passive area. The plan consisted of an amphitheater,
picnic shelters, environmental center, boardwalk through the wet land area, playground, parking
lot, etc. The Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department are currently completing the final
process for a ten year Comprehensive Master Plan. Existing ideas include the creation of a
boardwalk through the wetlands, parking, creating open space areas, picnic shelters, etc.;
however actual components of this park will not be decided until the completion of the master
plan.
Justification
The Comprehensive Master plan has determined parkland needs throughout the county, with
the greatest deficit in the southwest area. Also the plan has identified a strategy to acquire
parkland in the Community Park size of 10-40 acres. Greenways have been greatly identified
as an amenity desired by the public, a trail through this park could link adjoining Shell Park with
Starkey Park and the Merriman Complex, thus collectively creating a much larger park.
Operating Budget Impact
To be determined.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
To be determined.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project type is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke
County Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues and available grants.
76
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Taylor Tract
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$985,500
Includes site improvements, engineering and design costs.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
To be determined.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$985,500
FY08
$287,500
FY09
$400,000
FY10
$298,000
FY11
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09
$0 $0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
77
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Green Hill Park Phase 11/
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will continue the development of Green Hill Park by providing an amphitheater and
restroom building, a large picnic shelter, installation of electric and water to the existing two
shelters, improving security lighting, add parking, expanding the barrier system, installing an
accessible playground, add fencing, and improving the landscaping. Additional items include
improving the existing softball fields into a five field tournament quality "Sports Complex",
lighting two soccer fields, develop walking trails, add three blueways, replace the fishing pier,
and construct a maintenance yard and outbuildings. An update of the Green Hill Park Master
Plan is required to ensure optimum use of the available space.
Justification
These enhancements will continue to develop this park as the Roanoke County's Parks,
Recreation and Tourism's major event site. This project will develop a "Sports Complex" as
identified in the Comprehensive Master Plan and complete the facilities for the home of the
Glenvar Youth Boosters. It will provide for a medium to stimulate and encourage growth in
tourism and provide a venue for sports marketing initiatives.
Operating Budget Impact
This will require additional part time staff, utilities, maintenance materials, and supplies.
Additional budget for the sport complex will be determined in the comprehensive master plan.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is consistent with the general goals, objectives, and policies of the 1998 Roanoke
County Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be general obligation bonds.
78
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Green Hill Park Phase 11/
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$2,898,300
For engineering/design and construction of amphitheater, restrooms, shelters,
and ball fields.
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $19,800 per year for additional part time staff, utilities and materials.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$375,000
FY09
$1,998,300
FY10
$525,000
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$2,898,300
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$8,400
FY10
$20,600
FY11
$20,600
FY12
$20,600
79
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Walrond Park Phase 11/
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will develop Walrond Park by resurfacing and replacing the lighting on the upper
five tennis courts, expanding parking, paving the upper baseball area parking lot on Enon Drive,
developing a perimeter trail system, improving the pond and wetland areas, adding a picnic
shelter, improving security lighting, lighting two soccer fields, and improving the landscaping.
Also included is the replacement lighting for the football/baseball combo field and baseball field
#2. In addition, the Walrond Cabin is serving as a senior citizen center and a deck needs to be
added as well as overall repairs to the log cabin. Capital Maintenance Funding has provided
improvements to the existing park restrooms and storage area, and will pave the main parking
lot.
Justification
This will complete the development of Walrond Park as the North County Regional Park,
providing additional recreational amenities that will enhance the recreational experience for the
citizens of North Roanoke. Ongoing remedial repairs have kept these lights operational;
however they are both near complete system failure. Several underground utility improvements
along with normal pavement failure have rendered the parking lots into a deplorable condition.
Operating Budget Impact
This will require additional part-time staff, utilities and maintenance materials and supplies.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
Current sports lighting repairs for this park average $2,500 - $4,000 annually in order to keep
them operational. There will be a reduction in lighting repairs after replacing the systems.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County
Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be general obligation bonds.
80
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Walrond Park Phase 11/
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$632,000
Includes site improvements and construction of additional recreational
amenities.
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
None
$8,000
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $14,000 per year for additional part time staff, utilities and maintenance supplies.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$335,000
FY09
$0
FY10
$172,000
FY11
$0
FY12
$125,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$632,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $8,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$1,450
FY10
$6,100
FY11
$6,100
FY12
$6,100
81
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Arnold Burton Softball Complex
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This facility is located adjacent to the Arnold R. Burton Technology Center and serves as the
site for adult softball league and tournament play. It contains three regulation softball fields that
supplement the state, regional, and national tournaments held at the Moyer Athletic Complex,
and often is the only site for USSSA and NSA Softball Tournaments. Recent funding provided
sideline fence replacement on one softball field. This facility needs general security lighting,
athletic field lighting replacement on two fields, parking lot paving, and major fence replacement
on the remaining two fields. Proposed landscaping improvements and a playground would
complete this project.
Justification
This project will provide much needed basic level amenities for the citizens who use the park on
a daily basis. It will also provide facilities for tournament participants, which contributes to the
economic development of the community through tourism. The recent 2006 N.S.A. Softball
World Series brought 175 teams, 29 teams local, who visited the Roanoke Valley to participate
in the tournament jointly sponsored by the City of Salem, Roanoke County, and the City of
Roanoke. Based on the formula used by the Convention and visitors Bureau, there was a total
of $5,605,350 million in direct spending by these guests while staying in the Valley.
Operating Budget Impact
Requires additional part-time staff, utilities, maintenance materials, and supplies.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is consistent with general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County
Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues.
82
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Arnold Burton Softball Complex
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$206,625
For lighting replacement, paving lots, adding a playground and landscaping
improvements.
None
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $10,000 per year for additional part time staff.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$206,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $206,625
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$0 $9,220 $9,220 $9,220 $9,220
83
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Brambleton Center
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project continues the renovation of the former RCAC facility on Brambleton Avenue into a
Community Recreation Center with a focus on programming for senior adults, citizens with
disabilities, teens, and youth. This facility also houses the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service for the Roanoke Valley. Recent improvements include interior and exterior painting, a
partial roof replacement, HVAC upgrades, replacing the four boilers, seal coating the parking
lot, construction of a dumpster enclosure, and 50% carpet replacement. This project request
would complete the remaining roof replacement over the community room, repair the building
foundation and underground drainage, replace the failing floor foundation in the main wooden
hallway and flooring, replace the remaining carpet in the building, replace the floor tile in the
ceramic rooms, upgrade the restroom plumbing and fixtures, and encapsulate the asbestos in
the boiler room.
Justification
This building is the main Community Recreation Center for Roanoke County with over 84,000
participant visits annually. The center serves as the regional home for Therapeutic Recreation
programs, Senior Citizens, and the Teen Center. Many of the past repairs have been funded
through emergency purchases to keep the building open such as the leaking roof and failed
boilers. This project will complete the building's main structural problems as well as maintain a
presentable appearance for its high use.
Operating Budget Impact
None.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives, and policies of the 1998
Roanoke County Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be General Operating Fund and/or General Obligation
Bond.
84
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Brambleton Center
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$500,000
Repair building foundation and drainage, replace part of roof, upgrade
plumbing, and replace floor tiles and carpet.
None
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$237,000
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$500,000
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$500,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $237,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
85
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Hollins Park
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The entrance road, two soccer fields, and the parking lot are complete. The North Roanoke
Recreation League engaged in fundraisers and lit one soccer field. Roanoke County recently
acquired an additional 5 acres to expand this park. This project will light the second soccer
field, pave the existing parking lot and entrance road, construct a picnic shelter and restroom
facilities, and add playground improvements, and enhance the landscaping. Current funding
will master plan the new property.
Justification
The Roanoke County Facilities Plan for Parks identifies the need for parkland and soccer fields
in North County. In order to meet current recreational demands, the second ballfield needs to
be lit. A park shelter, restrooms, large playground, and landscaping are standard amenities
provided in a community park.
Operating Budget Impact
This will require additional part-time staff, utilities, maintenance materials, and supplies.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is identified as a priority of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be general obligation bonds.
86
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Hollins Park
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$410,000
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Includes paving parking lot and entrance road, constructing picnic shelter,
improving playground & landscaping.
None
$163,000
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $10,000 per year for additional part time staff, utilities and maintenance supplies.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$280,000 $130,000 $0 $0 $0 $410,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $163,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$0 $9,470 $9,470 $9,470 $9,470
87
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Vinyard Park Phase 11/
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Funding from the new Roanoke Catholic partnership has provided expanded parking, sports
field lighting for a large baseball/football combination field, and a new park restroom and
concession building. This project requests funding to add traffic barriers, expand the
playground, fencing improvements, and a picnic shelter. Also included is a greenway bridge to
connect the Vinyard Park I & II sections, walking trails, handicap trout fishing area, parking lot
improvements, and other park amenities and passive development of the Vinyard II tract.
Justification
This will complete the master plan, and provide a comprehensive regional park in the easy
county area. New facilities will improve access and recreational opportunities to a broader
segment of the population.
Operating Budget Impact
This will require additional part-time staff, utilities and maintenance materials and supplies.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County
Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be general obligation bonds.
88
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Vinyard Park Phase 11/
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$461,000
Expand playground; construct traffic barriers, picnic shelters and basketball
courts
None
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$0
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $28,400 per year for additional part time staff, utilities and maintenance supplies.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$375,000 $86,000 $0 $0 $0 $461,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$0 $13,800 $13,800 $13,800 $13,800
89
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Camp Roanoke
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will complete the renovation of Camp Roanoke as a residential camp and retreat
center. Renovations have included the upgrading of the dining hall, restrooms, and grounds.
Community donations, in-kind services, and in house staff provided for the renovation of the 8
residential cabins, the lodge, ropes course, log cabin shell, three bathroom/shower facilities, a
water system, trail upgrades, and a parking lot. The remaining items to complete the renovation
will be the construction of a new camp pool and a canoe dock to access the Spring Hollow
Reservoir for canoe and kayak programs, paving the parking lot, and enhancing the
landscaping.
Justification
This site could potentially become a premier park facility within the system as a major regional
park with the potential to generate tourism as well as local interest. Camp Roanoke will provide
an exceptional site for youth programs and a revenue producing opportunity to cover partial
operating cost of the program. The camp has cabins, a large picnic shelter, dining hall, a lodge,
challenge course, and trails. This provides a unique opportunity to develop a one of a kind
facility in the region.
Operating Budget Impact
The camp is operating with general fund for full-time staff and revenue from fees for direct
expenses.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is identified as a priority project of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Private donations or General Obligation Bond.
90
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Camp Roanoke
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$267,500
Upgrade dining hall, restrooms and grounds. Construct new pool and canoe
dock.
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
None
$258,000
Associated Operating Costs
Approximately $30,000 per year for additional part time staff, utilities and maintenance supplies - these costs 'vvould be
covered with revenue from fees.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$150,000 $117,500 $0 $0 $0 $267,500
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $258,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$0 $31,800 $31,800 $31,800 $31,800
91
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Hanging Rock Trail
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will provide the pedestrian bridge, creek bank enhancements, trail refurbishing,
landscaping, and signage.
Justification
The installation of the pedestrian bridge is a vital component necessary to cross Masons Creek
and link the Hanging Rock Trail to the main trail head parking area on Rt. 311. Currently, trail
users cannot use the trail head parking area and access the trail without walking across the Rt.
311 Bridge. Enhancements to the creek bank and trail will stabilize minor erosion that occurs
from storm events. Additional landscaping and trail signage will make this project complete.
Operating Budget Impact
This will requires contractual maintenance for bridge inspections.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County
Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Funding from general operating revenues or bond issue. Includes VDOT Enhancement Grant.
92
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Hanging Rock Trail
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$150,677
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Includes engineering/design and site improvement costs. Total cost is
$348,675, however a grant of $198,000 is expected.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
$4}000 per year for maintenance
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$64,002 $86,675 $0 $0 $0 $150,677
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$0 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
93
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Spring Hollow Reservoir
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The Spring Hollow Reservoir site is adjacent to Camp Roanoke and both facilities are on Dry
Hollow Road that leads to the reservoir. This project consists of developing the 700-acre site
around the reservoir as a public park for fishing, hiking, picnicking, and other appropriate
outdoor recreation interests. Development of the reservoir depends upon Health and Water
Authority requirements. The Master Plan has been developed and includes the cost projections.
Justification
This site could potentially become a premier facility within the system as a major regional park
with the potential to generate tourist as well as local interest.
Operating Budget Impact
Not available at this time.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
None.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project is included in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan.
Funding Sources
Recommended funding source would be bond issue.
94
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Parks & Recreation
Spring Hollow Reservoir
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$2,940,000
Development of a 700-acre public park over a 4 year period.
None
$75,000
Associated Operating Costs
Not available at this time.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$875,000
FY09
$650,000
FY10
$525,000
FY11
$525,000
FY12
$365,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$2,940,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $75,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09
$0 $0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
95
Cou nty of Roanoke
FY2008-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade
Replacement of HP3000
Enterprise Storage & Backup
Voice Over IP
Internet & Intranet Upgrade & Redesign Project
Wi-Fi 'Hot Spots' Expansion
Microsoft Exchange Project
96
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
The County's network infrastructure is the nerve system of the county. This system connects to
every department and supports Public Safety. Network infrastructure is vital to supporting
business operations. This project allows the County to provide citizens and staff with reliable
access to information, security for our computer network from ever increasing complex threats
and creates a plan for server replacement on an industry standard three year cycle.
Justification
Roanoke County has found that upgrading its network infrastructure annually on a three to five
year life cycle maintains its integrity, ensures security measures, and supports operational
requirements. Maintaining this infrastructure life cycle is crucial to supporting our citizens and
staff. Possible adverse affects of delaying this network infrastructure upgrade cycle include
slowdown of 911 response times, the inability to store or back up critical business information,
and the reduction of security effectiveness. The County has only experienced one major outage
over the past 7 years and this has definitely been attributable to the maintenance of the
network. An independent assessment of our network, dated 8 August 2005, recommended
continuing our current maintenance cycle while increasing security whenever possible. Cost
beyond fiscal year 2010 represents the beginning of the network infrastructure replacement
cycle.
Operating Budget Impact
There will be an impact on our operating budget to implement additional hardware maintenance
contracts. There will be cost savings from the replacement of current hardware maintenance
contracts. It should be noted that each increase in operating cost becomes a required yearly
operating expense upon its implementation.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will improve overall efficiency by maintaining the County's network and allowing the
County to conduct its daily business. Maintaining this infrastructure life cycle is crucial to
supporting our citizens and staff. There will be cost savings from the replacement of current
hardware maintenance contracts.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project conforms with the stated mission of the Board of Supervisors to provide high quality
services at reasonable costs to the citizens of Roanoke County. This project also conforms to
the County's listed objective to ensure that all citizens have full and appropriate access to
information concerning their government, as found in Chapter Two of the 2005 Community Plan.
Funding Sources
The funding source for this project will be the County's General Fund operating revenues.
97
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrade
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$2,076,500
Includes equipment costs.
None
$400,000
Associated Operating Costs
$3,000-7,000 per year in maintenance costs.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$415,000
FY09
$435,000
FY10
$426,500
FY11
$400,000
FY12
$400,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$2,076,500
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $400,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$2,300
FY09
$3,600
FY10
$5,500
FY11
$3,000
FY12
$3,000
98
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Replacement of HP3000
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will move the County's eighteen critical business applications off of the, soon to be
obsolete, HP/3000 computer system. These critical business systems support the daily
operations and functions of vital citizen services such as Real Estate Valuation, Personal
Property, Billings and Collection, etc. Without these business systems, Roanoke County could
not support daily business functions or provide citizens and businesses with the information and
services they require.
Justification
In November 2001, Hewlett Packard announced the discontinuance of the HP/3000 computer
hardware and operating system as of December 31,2006. Last year Hewlett Packard
announced they were extending their support until December 31, 2008. The HP/3000 is our
primary hardware and operating system platform and hosts critical business applications and
interfaces.
The replacement of these critical business applications by 2008 is an ambitious undertaking.
The success of this project will require intense project management, departmental cooperation,
full support of senior management and the Board, as well as project funding.
This project will affect most County departments such as Treasurer, Commissioner of the
Revenue, Real Estate Valuation, Finance, as well as, the School System. If we fail to replace
these systems, these departments will be running critical business systems on an unsupported
platform. This means if the hardware or operating systems fail, we run the high risk of not
having a repair source. Any such failure would severely impact our ability to provide services to
our citizens and prove extremely detrimental to the County's bottom line.
To date, the Board has appropriated $3.5 million towards the project. We originally thought
these dollars would be sufficient until our primary vendor filed bankruptcy. Software and
maintenance costs overall have also increased as we have moved through implementation of
the project. Additional funding would provide for departmental solutions offering current
functionality, solutions for data sharing and integration and position us for enhancing E-
Government in the future.
Upon completion of the application migration, IT will be able to deploy simplified management
and security methods for all of the applications that have been moved from the HP3000 to
various servers and SQL databases. Effective consolidation will occur with storage allocation
management, backup and security tools that have matured significantly during the life of this
project. Consolidation will increase overall system efficiency of the hardware and applications
in order to facilitate other important County projects such as disaster recovery planning and
implementation.
Projects of this magnitude take substantial resources, whether it is money, staff or time to
maintain the high quality of service to the County's citizens and businesses.
Operating Budget Impact
There will be significant operating budget impacts over the next few years. These increases are
due to maintenance contracts and hardware acquisition costs, which historically have not been
incurred with in-house systems. The increase in operating costs become required yearly
operating expenses upon implementation.
99
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Replacement of HP3000
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will improve overall efficiency and may provide opportunity for cost avoidance in
effected County departments.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project conforms with the Board of Supervisors stated mission to provide high quality
delivery of services to the citizens of Roanoke County. This project also conforms with the
County's 1998 Community Plan. Chapter Two contains a Technology and Communication
vision statement to provide its citizens the capability to access local and global community
services through the latest communications technologies (p.11). Lastly this project has had the
full support of the Board of Supervisors as evidenced by previous funding totaling $3.5 million.
Funding Sources
General Fund.
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$400,000
On December 31,2008, Hewlett Packard will discontinue the HP3000
hardware and system, making it obsolete.
None.
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$3,500,000
Associated Operating Costs
None.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$150,000
FY09
$150,000
FY10
$100,000
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$400,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None.
Appropriations to Date: $3,500,000
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
100
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Enterprise Storage & Backup
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will establish a standard platform for storage and backup of critical data, such as
that related to public safety, financial reporting, etc.
Justification
Currently Roanoke County has 30 separate storage and backup systems in several different
locations, which jeopardizes our ability to backup critical data and safely secure all stored data
in the event of an emergency or natural disaster. Consolidation will increase overall system
efficiency of the hardware and applications, such as Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and in
Public Safety areas. The consolidation of this project will create a more dynamic environment
to complete data backups, by simplifying the processes of completing data backups.
Operating Budget Impact
There will be a slight operating budget impact, related to software maintenance costs, which
becomes a required yearly operating expense upon implementation. These expenses will be
offset by the savings from unnecessary replacement parts from antiquated tape loading devices
and server hard drives.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will decrease County costs by standardizing our storage media. It will also improve
overall efficiency as all storage and backup will be standardized and managed from one
location.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project conforms with the stated mission of the Board of Supervisors to provide high quality
services at reasonable costs to the citizens of Roanoke County. This project also conforms to
the County's listed objective to ensure that all citizens have full and appropriate access to
information concerning their government, as found in Chapter Two of the 2005 Community Plan.
Funding Sources
The funding source for this project will be the County's General Fund operating revenues.
101
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Enterprise Storage & Backup
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$350,000
Equipment cost.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
$15,000 per year in softv"v'are maintenance.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $350,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
102
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Voice Over IP
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will bring voice over IP (Internet) technology to all County buildings. Voice over IP
allows telephone conversations over our internal computer network, eventually eliminating the
need to maintain separate networks. Our plan is to switch over the various phone systems one
at a time. This will require replacing all phones, outgoing local and long distance lines, and
increasing network bandwidth throughout our network to provide this service.
Justification
This project addresses both future infrastructure needs and equipment obsolescence. It will
consolidate phone management and cut down on the number of leased phone lines. We
presently have 42 phone systems, which must be individually maintained and managed, and
cannot connect to each other through a intercom system. This project will increase security and
safety, in case of an emergency, by having the entire county on one system. An example of this
would be the ability to intercom between building floors during a fire or other emergency. This
capability does not exist anywhere in the County at the present time. The new phone system
will greatly increase emergency communications through centralized and remote management
capabilities.
Operating Budget Impact
This project will not have a significant impact on operating budgets. Any additional expenses
will be offset by savings on equipment costs.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will improve overall efficiency by allowing the use of the same equipment to support
the computer network and the telephone system infrastructure. It will also cut down on field
support and increasing communications capabilities.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project conforms with the stated mission of the Board of Supervisors to provide high quality
services at reasonable costs to the citizens of Roanoke County. This project also conforms with
the County's listed objective to promote the use of the most effective & efficient methods to
communicate issues and policies to the citizens and to receive their input and suggestions, as
found in Chapter Two of the 2005 Community Plan.
Funding Sources
General Fund
103
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Voice Over IP
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$983,480
Equipment costs spread over a 3 year period.
$108,000
$0
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$192,006
FY09
$253,955
FY10
$171,842
FY11
$136,986
FY12
$228,691
TOTAL
FY08-12
$983,480
Future Costs Beyond 2012: $108,000
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$15,804
FY10
$16,913
FY11
$17,724
FY12
$18,240
104
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Internet & Intranet Upgrade & Redesign Project
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will include critical upgrades to the following software that currently supports the
County Internet:
* Upgrade of web content management software
* Upgrade of website development software
* Upgrade the website search engine
This project will also include the redesign of the County Internet and Intranet, which includes the
following features:
* Graphical redesign, including colors and images
* Content template redesign including navigation and menus
* Creation of a central online forms repository and improved forms management
* Central document repository and improved document/records management
* Cross-departmental collaboration on projects (including internal and external customers)
* Online workflow capabilities
Justification
The software upgrades are necessary and critical in order to retain future support for the
software. The current web content management software (MCMS 2002) that is used to
maintain the County Internet will need to be upgraded by June 2010. It is being discontinued as
a stand alone product and will be integrated into the new Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server
2007 suite, scheduled for release 4th quarter 2006. In addition, the development software
(Microsoft .NET 2003) that is being used to support the Internet and the current website search
engine (Ultraseek) also need to be upgraded to supported versions by 2010.
The need for increased use of web applications, online forms, project collaboration, enterprise-
wide search, content management and workflow capabilities, as well as, the ability to quickly
and efficiently share information between employees and citizens continues to grow. Upgrading
to the new Office Sharepoint Server 2007 platform will position the county with the ability to offer
these much needed services as well as bring the existing software to a supported platform.
Operating Budget Impact
There will be a slight operating budget impact related to the server replacement plan, but there
will be no required yearly operating expense for maintenance
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will insure the County Internet is upgraded to a supported platform. The redesign
aspect of the project will allow the County to meet the ever-growing demand for use of e-
government services on both the Internet and Intranet.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project conforms with the stated mission of the Board of Supervisors to provide high quality
services at reasonable costs to the citizens of Roanoke County. It helps support the Technology
and Communications Vision in the Community Plan and it conforms with the County IT
Department's Strategic plan, revised 2006, to expand and enhance
e-government services for citizens and County government.
Funding Sources
The funding source for this project will be the County's General Fund operating revenue.
105
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Internet & Intranet Upgrade & Redesign Project
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$180,000
$41,000 in training for FY07-08 and $102,000 in training for FY08-09.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
$0
$0
TOTAL
FY08-12
$180,000
FY08
$0
FY09
$43,000
FY10
$137,000
FY11
FY12
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
106
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Wi-Fi 'Hot Spots' Expansion
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
This project will bring wireless network access through Wide Fidelity (WI-FI) "Hot Spots" to
selected locations through out the County for use by Police, Fire & Rescue, Community
Development, and other County employees serving our citizens. WI-FI "Hot-Spots" will allow
secure access to the County Computer Network from areas currently unavailable. Our plan is
to begin installing these "hot-spots" one building at a time. This will require installing antenna
systems and networking equipment, and microwave radio systems into County administrative
buildings, fire houses, and libraries to provide this service.
Justification
This project addresses both public safety and future infrastructure needs. It will speed the
reporting and information dissemination process while reducing fuel cost. It will also take full
advantage of the bandwidth available from the digital microwave system installed with the
Public Safety Center project. An example of this new capability would be a police officer having
the ability to file reports without having to return to the Public Safety Center during the patrol
shift. This would increase the efficiency of the reporting and allow the officer to maintain a
community presence for longer periods of the shift. Community Development inspections and
permitting would also be enhanced by allowing for "in-the-field" approvals and reporting. This
capability has been tested on a limited basis in the County at several fire houses and has
proven extremely effective in the EMS Reporting System.
Operating Budget Impact
This project will have an impact on operating budgets as equipment is mounted outside of
structures and will have to be replaced in approximately three year cycles.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will improve overall efficiency by allowing the County Staff to perform vital job
functions in the field, improving citizen service. It will also cut down on fuel cost, reduce vehicle
wear, and increase communications capabilities.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project conforms with the stated mission of the Board of Supervisors to provide high quality
services at reasonable costs to the citizens of Roanoke County. This project also conforms to
the County's listed objective to promote the use of the most effective & efficient methods to
communicate issues and policies to the citizens and to receive their input and suggestions, as
found in Chapter Two of the 2005 Community Plan.
Funding Sources
The funding source for this project will be the County's General Fund operating revenues.
107
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Wi-Fi 'Hot Spots' Expansion
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
$854,000
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
Equipment is mounted outside of structures and needs to be replaced every
three years. $854,000 in equipment costs FY09-12
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
None
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$190,000
FY10
$278,000
FY11
$153,000
FY12
$233,000
TOTAL
FY08-12
$854,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08
$0
FY09
$0
FY10
$0
FY11
$0
FY12
$0
108
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Microsoft Exchange Project
Description FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Our present email system is over ten years old. The viability of its vendor, Novell, support, and
maintenance are becoming a challenge. It has limited capabilities, no integration with our other
office productivity applications, and is no longer considered a best of breed in its product
category.
Justification
Transitioning to a Microsoft Exchange Server messaging platform would ensure the county's
email capabilities, increase efficiency & productivity through integration with our other county
productivity applications, provide increased capabilities, and protect the county from
obsolescence. This would be a major undertaking requiring an additional Network Engineer for
administration, additional yearly operating expense for software licensing, and additional
security measures to protect the system.
Operating Budget Impact
This project will have an impact on operating budgets as software licensing and necessary
security measures will have to be purchased yearly.
Cost and Efficiency Impact
This project will improve overall efficiency and may provide opportunity for cost avoidance in
effected County departments.
Conformance with County Obligations
This project conforms with the Board of Supervisors stated mission to provide high quality
delivery of services to the citizens of Roanoke County. This project also conforms with the
County's 2005 Community Plan. Chapter Two contains a Technology and Communication
vision statement to provide its citizens the capability to access local and global community
services through the latest communications technologies.
Funding Sources
The funding source for this project will be the County's General Fund operating revenues.
109
DRAFT
FY200B-2012 CIP Projects
Information Technology
Microsoft Exchange Project
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs
Total FY08-12 Project Cost:
Project Cost Notes:
Future Capital Costs Beyond 2012:
Appropriations to Date:
$500,000
Includes land acquisition, equipment and software.
None
$0
Associated Operating Costs
$100,000 each year for maintenance.
Department Request for Allocation
FY2008 - 2012 Expenditure Summary
Capital Costs TOTAL
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-12
$50,000 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000
Future Costs Beyond 2012: None
Appropriations to Date: $0
Associated Operating Costs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
$65,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000
110
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
r:p- 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session to discuss fiscal year 2007-2008 budget
development
SUBMITTED BY:
Brent Robertson
Director of Management and Budget
Elmer C. Hodge cL j ~ ~
County Administrator ~
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside to provide an update on FY2007-2008 budget development.
The following will be reviewed:
. Update on FY06-07 (current year) and FY07-08 revenue projections
. Advertisement of Tax Rates for Public Hearing on March 27,2007.
. Review FY07 -08 Budget Development Time-line.
~~
C'lS0
E~
EcD
:::::lo
C1)~
G)G))-
~:::::l11.
o e:: ...
e:: G) _0
C'lS >
o G) en
D::D::e::
_-0
0;=
~E~
e:: e:: .0'
:::::l ... ...
oG)D..
0>...
o G)
C)~
C'lS C'lS
... :::::l
G)O
e::-c
G) ...
C)CV)
"
QI
"
C
QI
E
<(
-
QI-
" ~
~:c
....<C
oli
';'0
0_
01/1
N ...
>
LL
"
QI
-
Q,
o
"
<c
CD
C'lJO
::::I.n
tiO
<c~
If)
C'lJq
::::Iv
tiO
<c>
LL
v
C'lJq
::::1M
tiO
<c~
o 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 ro 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 moo ~ 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ 0
OONOOOOoooo~~rom""~~MOO
o 0 M 0 ~ 0 ro ... 0 ... ~ ID ro N MaID m ... ~ ....
o ID 0 V ID V V ~ .... .... N ~ ~ ID .... 0 ro ID ... V ~
~~riro~~ ri N ciM
.... N
~
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSNO
.... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID ~ 0 ~
~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID 0 ~ ~ ro ro ID
~O~OOO ~OOOOO~MM...ONr-:
~ffi~~BM V~....~ ~ V~~~B~
~
~ 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID 0
N 0 0 0 0 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ID 0
~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 000 0 0 ~ 0 .... M 0 ro 0
va.... 0 0 m O~ 0 00 ~-~C"") cD~ID N cDNO
... 0 N ID 0 ID ro ID ~ V m ~ C"") C"") mom N ID m ....
~ 0 ~.... C"") V ~ ~ ID ~ ~ ~ ID ID ID ro .... ... C"") V
v....C"")rov~ C"") N mri
.... N
~
~ ~ ~ N ID ... ... 0 m ID ~ ~ ~ ... C"") V V ~ N m 0
.... ID ... C"") ~ ... ID ro ~ ID ~ V ~ C"") C"") m ro C"") 0 ~ m
ro V ~ ro m m ~ V N ro V V ID ID 0 N .... .... ro 0 m
V ID ro ID 0 ID.... ID ~ricDm-cD~~ ~ci~N ci~
... .... 0 V N ro V m N m N 0 ID 0 ~ ro C"") .... C"") .... N
.... .... ... ~ ~ V ~ ~ ID ~ ~ ro .... ... 0 ID ~ ro ~
mIDC"")rov~ C"") C"") ci~
ID N
~
C"") 0 0 0 ... N .... V ~ ~ ~ vIDa ... ...... ~ ~ m
... N 0 ID N N ro C"") ro ~ ~ ro ro vOID ... C"") ro m m
ID ID ~ ~ .... N ~ ... N ro N ~ m ~ C"") ~ ro V .... ~ ~
Ll"icD~.... Ll"iNci~ Ll"icDoriro ria... rom riro ro
~ ID N .... m .... 0 N N N m ~ 0 ID 0 C"") C"") ~ m m V
~ ~ ... C"") ~ ~ ID ro ~ ID m C"") ~ ID .... ~ ~ .... ~ ... m
V ~ C"") .... V V N N ci ri
co N
~
V V V
co ro ro
ro. m_ ~
ID N N
ID ... ....
a. ro_ ~
... C"") C"")
ID N
~
~ ~ ID C"") 0 .... m ... .... C"") N m .... ID ID N
C"") m ~ ... ro ~ 0 m C"") ro ... C"") ... 0 ~ ro
o.~m_C"")_o ~ ~ o.~~ ~ ro ro co m C"")
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ t ffi g
~C"")...._~~ro_"'V.""IDC"")~ro ~ro
V N N rori
C"") ro
~~
~ ~
a.
.... ~
><
III
I-
ell
(,)
>< c ~
III III VI 1::
~ I- ~ ~ ~ ell
>< >< Q) > C 0 ::::I
III VI >< III VI C ell VI ~ VI C
(/)I-~ I1lI-~c<3 >< (,)~a...~~
~ ~ ~ >< ~ ~ I- ~ ">< ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ .~ & i ~
~~~~~&~~ffi~ ~~~~~~~<311l
* a: ~ ~ ~ ::J g ~ .~ Q5 >< B ~ Cf ~ 5 .E ~ " ~
~ ~ a: ~ <3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ro
~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ 0 ~ ~ 6 ~ ~
~ & ~ 0 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ & ~ ~ ~ 6 & ~ ~ B ~ & <3 ~
QI
D::
ro
o
ro
V
~
~
....
~
~
o
ro
V
N
...
m
m
~
ID
co
...
~
...
m
m
V
~
...
V
m-
V
...
~
o
V
r..:
...
V
o
o
ID
...
ci
C"")
~
o
N
Lri
...
m
ro
LO
N
~
N
C"")
...
~
o
::;;
'"
'"
o
N
'"
o
o
~
N
~
Lri
:;
'"
"
(j)
-,!:
:i:
(j)
o
'"
>
"
a:
o
~
QI
::::I
C
QI
>
QI
D::
5
o
I-
'"
"
vi
...J
X
'"
"
'"
c
'"
-5
'"
:s:
":'
:'
9
....
a
E
'"
"
f-
>
"
g:;
"
:J
C
"
>
"
g:;
f-
co
o
o
"I
-
~r--
caO
E~
E>
~LL
U)"C
CD CD CD
~ ~ U)
o c:: 0
c:: Cb Q,
ca > 0
o Cb ~
a::a::Q.
'f-..."C
o c:: c::
CD ca
~Er--
C::c::o
~~o
OCDN
0>-
OCD
CJg
-"I
~>
CbLL
c::
Cb"C
CJS
Q,
o
"C
<(
'i-1lO
cnCUO
o Q~
Q, "C 0
O~>
~mlL
"C_.....
cucuq
- QU)
go "C 0
"C~>
<(mlL
li')OOoSO
r--OOOOO
li')01i')001i')
.r).n~cici.n
CON Vl.OO
r--v ...............C')
c.6 T""-
fA-
----
000000000000
0000000001i')
000000 V 1.0 1i')~00_
Ii') 0 0 Ii') ci .n c.6 N- C') T""
O)Ii').......CO<<>v vo'<t
..... N V........
SSN
Ii') aii')
(J)OO<<>
0("\1<<>
(")(")N
........ ........ T""
00000000000000000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT""O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOIi')OIi')O)OVNIi')O
ci.r)Ncici.r)cicicici.n.r)cimm~~ci~rim.r)
ONC')OIi').......CO<<>OT""r--T""COC')C')OOIi')O)C').....O
OV.....~<<><<>VO)r--.......C')Ii')Ii')<<>r--OCOO<<>T""Ii')V
~oorioo~.n ~~ ri~~ ~ N mC')
~N
fA-
li')0000000000000000000<<>0
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOIi')O<<>O
VOIi')001i')0000000T""1.00r--0C')0~0
~ci~ciomci.ncioci.n.nric.6~c.6oNc.6Nci
T""ON<<>O<<>~<<>I.OVO)Ii')C')C')o)OVIi')N<<>o)""'"
NOT""O.......C')V~Ii')<<>OVIi')<<><<><<>~or--T""C')V
~~rioo~~ ~~ ri~~ N mC')
.......N
fA-
en
eLl
)( en )(
C'U )( C'U
I-~ C'UI-~
m~C'U l-eLll-
)( eLl I- )( lD en CD
C'U a. >- C'U E e .!!!
1-01::1- ~L:
O)""O)en~:.:Ju
-a.. a. CD e e
1!(ieC'UoenC'U
cu .TI e a.. CJ) 0 :G U:
~ O""->-e~
i ~ ~ :5 g ~ .~ ~
> 0:: a.. 0 -.J ::> m m
cu
0::
)(
C'U
I-
CD
u
)( e
C'U C'U
I-~
0) >
en e
e 0 )(
CDO C'U
U
:.:::i"O)( l-
e C'U eLl
cuC'U1- e
.Q e _ 0
OO))(L:
.c .- - a..
eLl-OC'U
>~:!I-~
..............en-
.98~C'U~
o 0) 0 CD 0)
:!O::I:!O
0)
u
~ "2:
en 0) 0)
~ a. CJ)O)
~eneen.E2
u~a..CD 0)
!r. :.:J ~ "0 . ~ :g ii) en
x__:!::C:2:u..~"""
C'Uuu CDC'U 0) en
en 't: >- CJ) cu en 0
1-0)00) ~~O
-culLe""OO
rJu."O 0.E en CD "0
o e:!encue~
-.Jen C'U_CDO::.!!! CD
.... ;!:: en 0 Q 015 0) >
~ECDCU~cu~8
_ 0) e en L: .... .- 0)
o a.. ii:::>0 ii::!o::
.c
:!::
aJ
0)
;:
e
0-
E ~
E cu
0"0
O~
r--
N
o
V
N
C')
o
.....
~
.....
o
N
0)
0)
T""
<<>
T""
T""
0)
0)
.......
<<>
<<>
T""
Ii')
T""
0)
:;,
e
CD
>
0)
0::
C'U
-
o
.....
o
o
o
en
"0
e
:;,
u..
....
0)
L:
o
E
e
-
....
0)
-
en
e
~
I-
.......
N
o
V
N
C')
o
T""
fA-
00
T""
o
N
en
en
T""
<<>
T""
fA-
T""
en
en
.......
<<>
(0
.....
1.0
.....
fA-
~
.....
..,
.n
to-
8
~
N
~
III
E
E
::J
III
'"
::J
c:
'"
>
'"
a::
-
c
CU
E
c
...
CU
>
o
C)
i!
cu
c::
CU
C)
J!
o
I-
,
..
~
III
--'
)(
iii
'"
Cl
c:
III
.c
u
to-
o
~
~
~I
to-
o
E
co
'"
1-
>
'"
g:
'"
::J
c:
'"
>
'"
g:
~
County Of Roanoke
FY 2007-2008 Budget Calendar
February, 2007
. February 27 - CIP Review Committee's recommendations to Board of Supervisors; Work
Session: Tax Rates; Revenue Update; Budget development calendar review
March, 2007
· March 13 - Joint Work Session: School Board; Contribution requests from Human Service
agencIes
. March 20 - Special Board Meeting: Contribution requests from Cultural, Tourism, and Other
agencIes
. March 27 - Public Hearings: Tax Rates, Effective Tax Increase; General Comment on FY07 -08
Budget; Adoption of Tax Rates
Advertisement of Tax Rates: March 13 & March 20
Advertisement of Effective Tax Rate Increase: March 20
April, 2007
· April 1 - State code: School Board submits budget to Board of Supervisors
· April 10- County Administrator's proposed budget to Board of Supervisors
· April 24 - Board of Supervisors adopts School budget; Public Hearing on FY07 -08 budget
May, 2007
· May 8 - First reading of FY07-08 Appropriation Ordinance
· May 22 - Board adopts FY2007-08 Budget and FY2008-20l2 CIP; Second reading ofFY07-08
Appropriation Ordinance
q
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,2007
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a
closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance
with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements
by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution
applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the
closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
R - \ ( a - b")
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Resolution of congratulations to the Glenvar High School
volleyball team for winning the State Group A Championship.
(a) Certificate of recognition to Anna Gustafson, Glenvar High
School, for being named Group A Volleyball Player of the
Year and for being named to All-State First Team
(b) Certificate of recognition to Lara McDonald, Glenvar High
School, for bein~~ed to the All-State First Team
Elmer C. Hodge 0- /1 ~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Glenvar Highlanders won the State Group A Volleyball Championship for the first time
on November 18, 2006. The Highlanders were undefeated throughout the season with 28
wins and won 84 of the 87 games the team played in 2006. The team won all eight of their
matches in the Three Rivers District, Regional C, and Group A tournaments.
In addition to winning the championship, Anna Gustafson was named State Group A
Player of the Year and to the All-State First Team, and Lara McDonald was named to the
All-state First Team. Head Coach Mark Rohrback was named State Group A Coach of the
Year, Region Coach of the Year, and District Coach of the Year.
In addition to the team members and coaches, the following individuals are expected to
attend the meeting: Marian Roark, School Board Member; Dr. Lorraine Lange, School
Superintendent; Curtis Hicks, Principal; and Art Lawrence, Athletic Director. The parents of
Ms. Gustafson and Ms. McDonald are also expected to attend.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,2007
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GLENVAR HIGH
SCHOOL VOLLEYBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE STATE GROUP A
CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship, and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, the Glenvar Highlanders Volleyball Team won their first State Group A
Championship on November 18, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Highlanders were undefeated throughout the season with a record
of 28 wins; and won 84 of the 87 games the team played in 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Highlanders were undefeated in the post season winning all eight of
their matches in the Three Rivers District, Region C, and Group A tournaments; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the accomplishments of the team, Anna Gustafson was
named State Group A Player of the Year and to the All-State First Team, and Lara
McDonald was named to the All-State First Team; and
WHEREAS, the Highlanders are coached by Coach Mark Rohrback, who was
named State Group A Coach of the Year, Region Coach of the Year, and District Coach of
the Year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the
GLENVAR HIGHLANDERS VOLLEYBALL TEAM: Meredith Buckley, Anna Gustafson,
Kelley Knoebel, Lara McDonald, Casey Moore, Jessie Moore, Ashley Owen, Liz
1
Trinchere, Kara Turner, and Courtney Webb for their athletic ability, their commitment,
and their team spirit; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes
to the members of the team, the coaches, and the school in their future endeavors.
2
€,ountP of l\oano~
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
AWARDED TO
AttttA G14stafs,,"
GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL
for being named
Group A Volleyball Player of the YeaF'".~t the State, Region, and
District Level and for being named to All"Slate First Team
+ Senior Anna Gustafson received this honor for her accomplishments as a captain of the
Glenvar Highlanders Volle.yball Team.
.. The Highlanders were undefeated during the season and post season. winning the State
Championship.
.. Ms. Gustafson played in 82 of 87 games with 34 aces and a serving percentage of 95.
.. The Board of Supervisors congratulates Ms. Gustafson upon her athletic achievements
and wishes her all the best in her future endeavors.
Presented this 27rcl day of February 2007
'Ow..-5> Go ~ CH "-
Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman
Ihuk/?J~
Michael W, Altizer .
2. ~/;afd. .~~
B. "Butch" Church
\l\'~Q.W
MichaelA. Wray ~
(to- of l\oano~
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
AWARDED TO
Lara M~Dotlalb
GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL
for being named
All-State First Team
.. Senior Lara McDonald received this honor for her accomplishments as a captain of the
Glenvar Highlanders VolleybaU Team.
+ The Highlanders were undefeated during the season and post season, winning the State
Championship.
+- Ms. McDon.ald made 878 assists, a new school record, served 27 aces, and achieved a
serving percentage of 94 in the 84 games she played.
.. The Board of Supervisors congratulates Ms. McDonald upon her athletic achievements
and wishes her all the best in her future endeavors.
Presented this 27rd day of February 2007
,c:.)... -S) l. ~ ~ ....
Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman
Ihuk/#.~
Michael W. Altizer
8. ~~:Id. '~dJ
B. "Butch' Church
",,'~ Q. W
Michael A. Wray ~
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
<R _ .)( lA.)
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Resolution of congratulations to Cave Spring High School
volleyball team for winning the State Group AA Championship.
(a) Certificate of recognition to Jennifer Harvey, Cave Spring
High School, for being named Group AA Volleyball Player
of the Year and for being named to All-State First Team.
Elmer C. Hodge c/--.---- /~) ~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Cave Spring Knights won the State Group AA Volleyball Championship on November
18, 2006, for the second consecutive year. The team has played in the state
championship finals for the past five years and won the title four times. The Knights
finished the season with a record of 27 wins and 1 loss and have amassed a five-year
record of 134 wins and 7 losses.
In addition to winning the championship, Jennifer Harvey was named the State Group AA
Player of the Year and to the All-State First Team. Head Coach Tamalyn Tanis was
named State Group AA Coach of the Year by the Virginia High School Coaches
Association for the third time.
In addition to the team members and coaches, the following individuals are expected to
attend the meeting: Bill Irvin, School Board Member; Dr. Lorraine Lange, School
Superintendent; Dr. Martha Cobble, Principal; and Jonathan Hartness, Athletic Director.
Ms. Harvey's parents are also expected to attend.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,2007
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE CAVE SPRING HIGH
SCHOOL VOLLEYBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE STATE GROUP AA
CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County, teaching cooperation, sportsmanship, and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, the Cave Spring Knights Volleyball Team won the State Group AA
Championship on November 18, 2006, for the second consecutive year making this their
fourth championship in five years; and
WHEREAS, the Knights' record for 2006 is 27 wins and 1 loss, and their over-all
record for the past five years is 134 wins and 7 losses; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the accomplishments of the team, Jennifer Harvey was
named Group AA Player of the Year and to the All-State First Team; and
WHEREAS, the Knights are coached by Head Varsity Coach Tamalyn Tanis who
was named Coach of the Year for the third time and Assistant Varsity Coach Mark Tanis,
Junior Varsity Coach Keesha Meek, and Assistant Junior Varsity Coach Mike Wiegand.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the
CAVE SPRING KNIGHTS VOLLEYBALL TEAM: Lauren Bosche', Piper Hagan,
Jennifer Harvey, Katherine Jetton, Jocelyn Kellinger, Kelsey Kerr, Kelsey Largen,
Allyson Paone, Maggie Wagner, Meredith Walker, Emily White, and Taylor Yarber, for
their athletic ability, their commitment, and their team spirit; and
1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes
to the members of the team, the coaches, and the school in their future endeavors.
2
~untP of l\oano~
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
AWARDED TO
Jennifer Harvey
Cave Spring High School Volleyball Team
for being named the
Group AA Volleyball Player of the Year and All-State First Team
+ Senior Jennifer Harvey received this honor for her accomplishments as a member of the
Cave Spring Knights Volleyball Team.
... The Knights won the state championship for the second consecutive year and have been
state champions four of the last five seasons.
+ In addition to being named Player of the Year and All-State First Team, Ms. Havey was
named AlI-Disuict, All-Region, and All-Timesland.
... The Board of Supervisors congratulates Ms. Harvey upon her athletic achievements and
wishes her aU the best in her college career at Virginia Tech.
Presented this 2ih day of February 2007
,~..S> '- ~ a.., _
Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman
lnuAd 71-. ~
Michael W. Altizer
B. ~1P~.~d,./
B. "Sutch" Church
\Yl~ A.. W
Michael A. Wray ~
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:
February 27, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
APPROVED BY:
Resolution of congratulations to William Byrd High School
Cheerleading Competition Team for winning the Group AA
state cheerleading championship
Elmer C. Hodge c:L tfv
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The William Byrd High School (WBHS) Cheerleading Competition Team won the Group AA
state championship for the second consecutive year on November 11, 2006. The
competition team dominated the final around of competition by scoring 296 points out of a
possible 300. The squad has won four state championships in the past six years. The
team is coached by Monica West, Competition Coach, Jessica Wheeler, Head Coach, and
Marcia Patterson, Assistant Coach.
In addition to the team members and coaches, the following individuals are expected to
attend the meeting: Dr. Lorraine Lange, School Superintendent; and Dr. Ben
Helmandollar, Assistant Principal.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,2007
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WILLIAM BYRD HIGH
SCHOOL CHEERLEADING COMPETITION TEAM FOR WINNING THE
GROUP AA STATE CHEERLEADING CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, teamwork is essential in the sport of cheerleading with each member
contributing to the success of the team; and
WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Cheerleading Competition Team is
comprised of members of both the Junior Varsity and Varsity squads who are judged
and selected for membership on the competition team; and
WHEREAS, the competition team won the Group AA state cheerleading
championship on November 11, 2006, for the second consecutive year, and dominated
the final round of competition by scoring 296 points out of a possible 300; and
WHEREAS, the competition team has won four state championships in the past
six years; and
WHEREAS, the team is coached by Competition Coach Monica West, Head
Coach Jessica Wheeler, and Assistant Coach Marcia Patterson.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
members of the WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL CHEERLEADING COMPETITION
TEAM:
Hannah Angel, Lindsey Booth, Jared Brammer, Amber Cannaday,
Courtney Canterbury, Jordan Eddy, MolIi Flowers, Samantha Hayden, Ashley
Lester, Catherine Lyon, Meghan Morris, Jordan Mullen, Kylee Mycock, Morgan
Nicely, Sam Nolen, Pamella Palmer, Alisha Penton, Ashley Simmons, Alisha
Smith, Kayla Smith, Stephanie Thomas, Taylor Tran, Kara Turner, Holly Walker,
Morgan Wills for their athletic ability, their team spirit, and their commitment to each
other; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to the members of the team, the coaches, and the school in their future
endeavors.
2
S-I
PETITIONER: Oppidan Investment Company (Remove Proffered Conditions)
CASE NUMBER: 2-2/2007
Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 6, 2007
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: February 27,2007
BOS 1st Reading 1/23/07
A. REQUEST
The petition of Oppidan Investment Company, to remove proffered conditions on 35
acres of property, located south of Interstate 81 and west of Plantation Road, Hollins
Magisterial District. (Withdrawn by 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
Philip Thompson, Secretary
Roanoke County Planning Commission
~w OFF1GES
OSTERHOUDT, PRILLAMAN, NATT, HELSCHER,
YOST, MAXWELL & FERGUSON, PLC
Edward A. Nail
Please reply to:
P. O. Box 20487
Roanoke, VA 24018
Direct: (540) 725-8180
Fax: (540) 774-096\
E-mail: enatt@opnlaw.com
3140 GHl\PARRA>L DRIVE, SUITE 200-G
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-4370
(540) 989-0000 . FAX (540) 772-0126
WWW.OPNLAW.COM
SALEM. VIRGINIA 24153
P.O. Box 279
105 N. COLORADO STREET
(540) 389.2349
FAX (540) 389-9560
January 24,2007
HAND DELIVERED
County of Roanoke
Planning & Zoning Department
ATTN: DAVID HOLLADAY
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Re: Oppidan Investment Company
Dear David:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation in which I advised you that Oppidan is
withdrawing its request to vacate the existing proffers on the 35 acre parcel. In light of the citizens'
concerns raised at the neighborhood meeting, we felt that this was the most appropriate path to follow.
I would appreciate your advising all of the residents who attended the meeting of the fact that we
are withdrawing this request. If you do not feel it is appropriate for you to do so, please provide the list
to Compton M. Biddle in our office, and we will notify them of such. However, I do think it would be
more appropriate coming from the County staff. Since the filing fee on the request for withdrawal of
petitions was rather significant and since we are not proceed ing with that, I would ask if there is any way
to obtain a reimbursement of that filing fee, less any costs of advertisement or other direct costs incurred
by the County.
We will be proceeding with the request for the Special Use Permit for the 8.85 acre parcel of
land. We look forward to receiving the staff report on that.
With best personal regards, I am
Very truly yours,
OSTERHOUDT, PRILLAMAN, NA TT, HELSCHER,
YOST, MAXWELL & FERGUSON, P.L.C.
t~OQ~
Edward A. N att
EAN:dw
Cc: Larry Barrett, Oppidan
Kevin T. Barnes, Lumsden & Assocjates
Compton M. Biddle, Esq.
s-~
PETITIONER:
CASE NUMBER:
Loblolly Mill, LLC
1-2/2007
Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 6, 2007
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: February 27, 2007
BOS 1st Reading 1/23/07
A. REQUEST
The petition of Loblolly Mill, LLC to rezone 10.363 acres from AG-3, Agricultural/Rural
Preserve, to PRD, Planned Residential District, at 3804 Sterling Road in the Vinton
Magisterial District, and also to amend the PRD masterplan on an adjacent 94.23
acres at 3672 and 3796 Sterling Road in the Vinton Magisterial District. The purpose
of this request was to construct a planned residential community.
B. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Three citizens spoke in opposition to the project, citing a major change in the
community, uncertainty in the success of the project in such a rural area, viewshed
impacts from the additional homes, fire safety concerns, and ridge top development.
C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Mr. Joshua Gibson presented the staff report. Representatives of the petitioner
addressed questions from the Commission. Members of the Planning Commission
posed questions to the petitioner and staff concerning traffic, fire suppression, roads,
planting areas, and utilities. Commissioners cited support for the rezoning and master
plan amendment due to the numerous improvements from the previous conceptual
plan that were outlined in the staff report.
D. CONDITIONS
None, but the petitioner stated during the public hearing that an additional proffer will
explicitly outline that the community shall not be a gated community.
E. COMMISSION ACTION(S)
Mr. Azar made a motion to favorably recommend the rezoning request to the Board of
Supervisors. Motion passed 5-0.
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
None
G. ATTACHMENTS:
_ Concept Plan
_ Staff Report
_ Vicinity Map
Other
Petitioner:
AFFR.EPOR
.,',,,L >. .. '} ",C ,'...... . '':'_':'':''.>,:k'~:Tc.:,V~:cc.,,:[,,:: i' '"
Loblolly Mill, LLC
Request:
Rezone 10.363 acres from AG-3 to PRD; revise masterplan on 94.229 acres
currently zoned PRD
3672,3796 and 3804 Sterling Road
Location:
Magisterial District:
Vinton
Staff
Recommendations
· In the section of the application packet entitled Homeowners Association,
additional infonnation should be included stating that the homeowners
association is ultimately responsible for the provision of private trash and
bulk services if Roanoke County does not provide these services.
· The petitioner has noted that no trash cans will be allowed along Sterling
Road. General Services will indicate whether they will provide trash can
pickup. If the development will be gated, trash and bulk pickup will be
addressed by a private vendor or some other method. Otherwise,
Roanoke County and its Department of General Services will not
guarantee trash pickup on privately maintained streets. This information
may need to be included on the subdivision plats.
· Additional information should be included that requires the developer to
replant and upgrade the existing disturbed entrance to a sufficient
standard to be incorporated into the open space and trails system.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Loblolly Mill, LLC wishes to rezone 10.363 acres from AG- 3 to PRD in order to construct a planned
residential development called Loblolly Mill. Two adjacent parcels are presently zoned PRD. A 2006
rezoning of the two parcels was approved by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. It is the intent
ofthe petitioner to incorporate the 1 0.363-acre property into this existing PRD district. In order to
accomplish this, a master plan revision must occur. A revision constitutes an update of the regulations
and conceptual plans for the proposed development, and must be completed when major changes to the
approved plan are proposed.
1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Per Section 30-47-5 (B) of the zoning ordinance, any application to rezone land to the PRD
designation shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30~ 15. Once the Board of Supervisors
has approved the final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to
Section 30-15.
Major revisions to the Masterplan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and
requirements of Section 30-47-5. The following application qualifies as a majorrevision rather
than a minor amendment because:
I.Density will increase.
2.Access will be substantially altered.
A VDOT commercial entrance permit will be required for the proposed development.
Virginia Department of Health approval is required for all private well and septic system permits.
Roanoke County site development review will be required.
Demolition permits will be required prior to the destruction of any existing structures.
2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Background
The petitioner wishes to have property at 3804 Sterling Road in the Vinton Magisterial District
rezoned from AG-3 to PRD. The petitioner also wishes to revise the masterplan for the PRD
zoning district at 3672 and 3796 Sterling Road. The purpose of these actions is to construct a
planned residential community called Loblolly Mill. A 94-acre portion of this development was
rezoned in 2006 and if rezoned and revised, the 1 O-acre parcel will be part of an adapted and
expanded development. The total size ofthe development is 104.455 acres. Two single-family
homes currently exist on the property, and these are expected to be removed during development.
T opographyN egetation
The area to be rezoned varies in elevation from around 940 to 1100 feet. The topography consists
of a knoll rising adjacent to Turner Branch and Sterling Road. Slopes vary from 0% to more than
50% on the property. Vegetation on the property varies: much of the property is wooded, but a
prominent grass area fronts part of Sterling Road and a large open field is located behind the
existing home.
Surrounding Neighborhood-
Properties immediately to the north, east and south of the parcels are zoned AG-3,
Agricultural/Rural Preserve District. Many of these parcels, ranging in size from 1 to 78 acres,
have large wooded tracts, and some contain single-family homes. Properties to the west are AG-
1, AgriculturallRural Low Density District, and AR, AgriculturallResidential District. Vegetation
on these parcels is a combination of wooded tracts and open fields and pastures. Many of these
properties, and many along nearby Sterling Road, contain single-family residences. Adjoining
land owned by Loblolly Mill, LLC is currently zoned PRD. The Blue Ridge Parkway is located
approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the property's northern boundary. No part of the property
appears to be visible from the nearby main Parkway thoroughfare; however, some of the
proposed home sites are clearly visible from the Roanoke Mountain Overlook located 2 miles to
the west. It is possible that one or more homes on the new parcel may be visible from the Blue
Ridge Parkway overpass at Jae Valley Road ifhomes are constructed to their maximum heights.
3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Layout! Architecture
The rezoning request includes a master plan revision that alters the entrance to the site and adds
an additional 5 homes to the development. These are the major changes to the master plan that
constitute a master plan revision per section 30-47-6.
Several other changes were also submitted and include the following:
Private open space boundaries have been adjusted so that no drain fields will be located
within the private open space. This may allow an additional shift in the proportion of
common and private open space.
At the request of staff, the petitioner has submitted a plan showing all clearing and
grading work that has taken place up to the present. As a part of mitigation for this work,
the petitioner has noted that should the rezoning be approved, the original road entrance
would be replanted and incorporated into the trails system.
Language that allows road grades up to 18% has been removed. The entrance proposed
2
on the master plan revision allows the construction of a road with a lesser grade (16%).
A restriction on signs at the entrance to the property has been added. Signs will be limited
to monument style, will have a height limitation of 6 feet and backlighting will be
prohibited
The possibility that the community will be gated remains. However, notation has been
added by the petitioner that trash and other public services will only be considered ifthe
community is NOT a gated community. Otherwise, the Roanoke County Department of
General Services will make a decision on whether public trash and bulk pickup will occur
on the private streets.
Trails have been extended slightly to incorporate the property currently proposed for
rezonmg.
A note has been added that will require that all retaining walls in the development be
signed and stamped by a professional engineer.
Two "planting areas" were added to the masterplan to mitigate viewshed impacts from
neighboring properties and Sterling Road.
The net change in density is a decrease in the average land per unit of 0.17 acres. This
translates to an increase of 0.02 units per acre. The overall density remains at an average
greater than 3-acre lots.
A development schedule has been included with the master plan revision. Road
installation, shared driveways, and amenities will be installed first; lots will be developed
individually as they are sold.
The master plan for the proposed Loblolly Mill residential community shows a 104-acre tract that
would be accessible from Sterling Road by way of the property proposed for rezoning.
The plan shows 34 clustered single-family home lots predominantly situated near the tops of rises
on the property where slopes are more conducive to development. The lots generally border the
perimeter of the property, surrounding the pond and some wooded slopes that comprise the core
of the development.
Minimum lot size is 0.5 acre, with lot frontages of 100 feet (30 feet on the cul-de-sacs). Normal
minimum lot size for the existing zoning is 3 acres, but the proposed rezoning allows the
applicant to cluster homes on the property in order to allow for larger contiguous tracts of open
space and to preserve natural features. Taking into account the total size of the development and
the number oflots, the average density of the proposed development is 1 house per 3.08 acres or
0.33 houses per acre. PRD zoning district regulations allow proffering up to 5 dwelling units per
acre. The maximum area allowed for clearing trees for a home site is 16,500 square feet. This
number is exclusive of any drain field areas, but drainfields are disallowed in privately-owned
open space easements.
The PRD zoning district requires at least 15% of the gross area of the project to be common open
space and/or recreational area. A minimum of 50% of this site has been proffered for
preservation through dedicated open space and conservation easements. No roads or homes will
be allowed in these areas, which will include the steeper slopes, streams, and pond. Most
development will occur near the tops of knolls in order to preserve areas at the lower elevations
of the property.
The historic grist mill and covered bridge on the property will also be preserved for scenic
purposes and incorporation into the trails system. Areas of clustered home development will be
connected to natural features through a network of maintained trails. Maintenance of these and
3
other amenities will be performed by a homeowners association. Open space areas counting
toward the final percentage must be 5,000 contiguous square feet and cannot include road right-
of-ways or driveways per the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County.
All utilities will be placed underground and heating and other equipment will be screened from
view. The developer has proffered a 50-foot natural buffer at all adjacent property. Staff suggests
that the applicant consider increasing the buffer and adding trees in areas wherever possible to
reduce the impact on adjacent properties.
Architectural design will be regulated by the homeowners association through an established
architectural review board. The board will review all improvements to ensure that they are in
harmony with other improvements and that no new improvements will adversely affect other
property values in the development.
Two planting areas were included with the latest submission of the rezoning application. These
areas are meant to mitigate viewshed impacts from nearby Sterling Road and neighboring
properties. Planting Area A is located near the base of the open field below home on the property
at 3804 Sterling Road. Planting Area A includes 2 rows of evergreens (minimum height = 6')
and an additional 30 deciduous trees per acre of planting area. Planting Area B is located at the
western boundary of lot 31. Planting area B will include two rows of 6' minimum evergreen
trees. In addition, any existing trees that are removed during construction will be replanted at a
density of 30 deciduous trees per acre of Planting Area B.
Li ghting
All lighting shall be residential in style and scale and shall adhere to residential zoning
requirements for lighting. All lighting shall be top-shielded and no "uplighting" will be allowed
on any of the homes.
Access/Traffic Circulation
The petitioner has maintained that all roads within the development will be private. They will be
a minimum of 18-feet wide with 4-foot gravel shoulders. The development will be accessible
from one main entrance on Sterling Road. Three main roads will be constructed in the
development, and additional driveways will provide access to the homes from those main roads.
The entrance design and sight distance shall be in accordance with VDOT standards.
The predominant access to the site will come via Jae Valley Rd and Sterling Road. Jae Valley
Road is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial from the City to the Blue Ridge Parkway and then
is a Rural Major Collector from the Parkway to the Franklin County line. As such, Jae Valley
Road should be capable of handling an additional 340 trips per day (the trip generation as stated
by the applicant). A small proportion of the 340 trips per day is expected to originate from Bandy
Road to the south of the development and Sterling Road.
As a result of the new entrance proposed, maximum road grades have been reduced from 18% on
one section of road and 16% across the rest of the development to 16% throughout the
development. The applicant contends that most road grades will be as low as 14%, but this figure
has not been proffered. The reduction in road grades from 18% to 16% has the potential to
reduce problems arising from future provision of County services.
Driveways will be a minimum of 14 feet wide with 2 foot shoulders. This is sufficient for
purposes of fire and rescue access according to Fire and Rescue officials.
4
The petitioner has noted that no trash cans will be allowed along Sterling Road. General
Services will indicate whether they will provide trash can pickup. If the development
will be gated, trash and bulk pickup will be addressed by a private vendor or some other
method. Otherwise, Roanoke County and its Department of General Services will not
guarantee can pickup on privately maintained streets. This information may need to be
included on the subdivision plats.
Inclusion of a similar statement may also be appropriate for the provision of school bus service
on private roads not meeting standards for school bus service. School buses will not travel on
roads with grades in excess of 14%, therefore the applicant should provide plans to have school
children board buses at Sterling Road.
County Schools
County School systems appear adequate to handle a development of this nature. At full build-out,
a scenario assuming 1 school-age child per home in the development would be expected to add an
additional 17 children to elementary schools, 8 to middle schools, and 8 to high schools.
Fire & RescuelUtilities
Fire and Rescue service would be provided by the Mount Pleasant station. Mr. Steve Poff,
Division Chief of the Fire and Rescue Department, has expressed concern that there are no public
fire mains available in the area. The previous rezoning required the installation of at least one dry
hydrant in the development. Dry hydrants allow for quicker hookup by fire apparatus to begin a
drafting operation for obtaining water, saving valuable time in getting water to the scene of a fire.
Details ofthe installation of this hydrant have not yet been approved by fire and rescue from the
previous rezoning, but must be included as a part of the site plan review process. The dry hydrant
location is shown on the conceptual plan at the northwest comer of the pond. According to the
petitioner, details pertaining to access, shoulders, and additional hydrants will be approved by the
Fire Marshall prior to installation.
Mr. Poff also noted that the access off of Sterling Road must be designed to handle a tanker truck
full of water. The current International Fire Safety Code suggests a minimum width of 20 feet for
streets with two-way traffic. The roads proposed for this property are 18 feet, and will have 4-
foot gravel shoulders. During site plan review of the roads from the previous rezoning, the road
design was considered sufficient by fire and rescue based on the fact that two-way traffic is
expected to be minimal and because the 4-foot shoulders offer sufficient pull-off space. The fire
department also noted that 40-foot cul-de-sacs are sufficient for turnaround only in the even that
parking is strictly prohibited in cul-de-sacs. The newest fire engines have a wall-to-wall turning
radius of36'4" and parking will inhibit turnarounds. The petitioner has responded by noting that
signage or other methods for prohibiting parking will be included if the turning radius remains at
40'. Should the paved radius be increased to 45', then parking need not be prohibited.
Water and sewer will be provided by private well and septic systems. Public water and sanitary
sewer is not available to the site. All private well and septic systems must be approved by the
Virginia Department of Health.
The soil has not proven conducive to traditional drainfields on a portion ofthe property. The
developer has noted that on at least some of the properties, alternative drip septic systems will be
utilized. These drainfields are an alternative to conventional drainfields that allow drainfields in
poorer soils, but also may allow drain field installation with decreased tree removal (according to
the applicant).
5
Community Meeting
A community meeting was held at the Mount Pleasant fire station on Monday, January 22,2007
at 7:00 pm. Approximately 12 citizens, staff, and County personnel attended the meeting. Mr.
Sean Home with Balzer and Associates presented the proposed development and its goals,
followed by a period of questions and comments. Some of the concerns voiced by many of those
in attendance included issues resulting from stormwater runoff, fire protection, provision of
county services, and road details.
4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN
The proposed rezoning site is designated Rural Preserve in the 2005 Roanoke County
Community Plan.
The properties surrounding the proposed rezoning are designated Rural Village and Rural
Preserve according to the County of Roanoke Future Land Use map. Rural Preserve regions are
generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal,
recreational, and remote rural residential areas. Residential uses here should be single-family
residential, generally averaging a gross density of one unit per three acres. Cluster developments
are encouraged here to protect natural resources. Rural Village regions are areas where limited
development activity has historically occurred and where suburban or urban development patterns
are discouraged. These rural community areas are generally found between the intense suburban
development patterns already established in the County and the designated Conservation and
Rural Preserve areas. Residential uses here should be low-density, single-family residential
generally averaging one unit per acre, with cluster developments encouraged where applicable.
A portion of this development (29 homes at 3672 and3796 Sterling Road) was approved by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 2006. As such, the new portion proposed for rezoning
must remain consistent with both the 2005 Roanoke County Community Plan and the intent of
the PRD master plan approved in 2006. According to the new, unapproved masterplan, the
overall density of the development will increase slightly: average lot size for the development
will decrease from 3.25 to 3.08 acre lots (net -0.17), and the number of houses per acre has
increased from 0.31 to 0.33 houses per acre (net +0.02). The density remains at an average of
greater than 3 acre lots, as is recommended in the Community Plan chapter for Rural Preserve
future land use areas.
The proposed rezoning generally conforms to the policies and guidelines of the Roanoke County
... - -..~ Community Plan and its future land use designations. The rezoning would allow a slight increase
in the density of the PRD, but also provides an opportunity for a more desirable road system.
There are also several improvements to the overall PRD and existing master plan that have
resulted from the most recent master plan revision and rezoning process.
One of the Community Plan discrepancies in this rezoning and revision request involves the
proposed project's suitability with respect to County services. Trash and bulk service mayor
may not be available to residents in the PRD dependent upon an evaluation and determination
from Roanoke County Department of General Services.
The 2005 Community Plan has listed "rural view and vista preservation" as an objective for Rural
Preserve and Rural Village land use designations. Most of the proposed sites in the approved
Loblolly Mill PRD appear to be removed from the view from adjacent public rights-of-way, butethe addition of houses onto the property at 3672 Sterling Road will make some of the homes
6
clearly visible from Sterling Road; some ofthe tops of the homes may also be visible from the
Jae Valley Road overpass ofthe Blue Ridge Parkway depending on the positions and heights of
the homes (maximum house height allowed=45 feet).
One objective of the Rural Preserve and Village areas states that "while allowing future
development, employ design strategies that leave land available for productive agricultural
activities and open space". This rezoning application takes into account some of those strategies
and includes plans to cluster home sites in order to preserve natural features while allowing an
overall density which is allowed by-right in the current zoning classification.
Staff notes that care should be taken to incorporate homes into the natural surroundings as much
as possible in order to preserve viewsheds from surrounding properties. This is particularly
important since steeper slopes on the property have dictated that home sites be situated near the
tops of the property's knolls, where topography is less severe. This might include preserving
natural buffers or including landscaping where necessary near home sites as a means of screening
them from public rights of way and neighboring homes.
Chapter 3 of the 2005 Community Plan (Land Use Issues) encourages cluster developments that
set aside more than 50% of the development for open space in Rural Preserve and Rural Village
areas. The proposed master plan sets aside 50% of the property for open space and communal
use by PRD property owners. Throughout the site plan review process, the county suggests
additional increases wherever possible.
S. STAFF CONCLUSIONS
The proposed rezoning and masterplan revision includes several significant improvements to the existing
PRD regulations for Loblolly Mill. Many of the development's site design guidelines have become more
restrictive and/or less ambiguous. Access to the property has also been improved with respect to public
safety and services, and matters pertaining to open space have been improved. Rezoning the parcel to
PRD allows clustering, so that lots are smaller and open spaces are larger and more contiguous.
Clustering homes in the PRD also reduces the amount of grading and tree removal that must take place in
order to build roads.
As with the previous Loblolly Mill PRD rezoning, there are several drawbacks in addition to these
improvements. Density, though still in compliance with Community Plan recommendations, will
increase slightly with the addition of 5 new homes on a I O-acre parcel. Furthermore, the potential exists
that some of these homes may be considerably more noticeable from surrounding properties and rights-
of-way than those in the plan from the previous rezoning. The petitioner has attempted to mitigate some
of that potential impact with planting areas. However, neither the impacts ofthese planting areas nor the
impacts of the additional houses on adjacent viewsheds can be accurately predicted until site plans are s
with precise house locations and dimensions.
The private roads proposed in Loblolly Mill can be problematic with respect to the provision of County
services, such bulk and trash pickup or school bus service. Although the roads are improved from the
previous rezoning and design standards are very near those of public roads, Roanoke County Department
of General Services and the Roanoke County School Board will make the final determination about
whether these services will be provided.
7
CASE NUMBER:
PREPARED BY:
HEARING DATES:
ATT ACHMENTS:
1-02/2007
Joshua Gibson
PC: 2/6/07 BaS: 2/27/07
Aerial Photo and Parcels Map
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Topographic and Surface Water Map
Site Photographs
Rezoning Application
PRD District Regulations
8
Loblolly Mill, LLC PRD Rezoning ~
I .. ~ ~
Aerial Photo and Parcels Map Roanoke Counry
Departmenr ofCommun1ry D~....<::loprnent
52n4 Bern~ rd Drive
SCALE: 1 inch equals 662.29] 547 feet DATEJan 29, 2007 Roanoke, Virgtl1la 2401 g
(54(1' 772 2(165
<;)\1
1
.."an DR L -;:__ '\ \
~ l! '1'-,-
.~ ~
\
\
\
~
~~
\~
D
f-'i.RO
,oje-r~
R RousE ll.O
c.~
.~,,~
~
"~p
; 9 ~~~
/q
Legend I
_ Conservation I
_ Rural Preserve 'I
_ Rural Village \
Village Center '\
\
Development \
Neighborhood Cons~rvation
~,lll\lil~~
~
~
~
~
I'-
?3
'y-~ I
M~~~
~'l 1'1)
~
~
Loblolly Mill, LLC Rezoning ."~, :~"
Future Land Use "Nlap
I)Lll"Jr'tIlll"tU nr C,)tt1muflit), J}c\'ckrpn'll:'nl
521)4 lkm;t1J Drivt:
SCALE: I inch c(juals 1,506.536520 fcet DATE :\0\1. 7,2006 RI);l00kcl ViqjniJ 24l'llB
""~, 7":'.)'"
Loblolly :MilJ, LLC PRD Zoning J\ilap .
R(}~ookC' Cclunt)'
Dll'anm,,:nr of c...I1ununj~'1"k".,-'lormcnr
52fH Bemard D';l'e
SCALE: I inch cCI"a" 696.552171 fecI J:l!1uary 29 2007 Ro:ulnkl", Vjr~nb 24018
(<;-Im 77?_?l\('~
I
,
I
I
j\
.
I
,,1
..
'"
~
I
I
I
.._.!eJS~---...1
\ J'
'\
V
,
" EDENS~E RO /-__
v--=-......r ,
"
\
Legend
t-- Surface wale11
r---- Streets
\
')t
o
"~ _-!2li!!!2L~D!! /~
-, i.~.i6il"MI!l Tit .
.':.~~;;oo--
I ~,~-r. lit" " /
I ~----./-
~~GlJSO~v,,~"'-*'
- - - . ............
Loblolly :Mill, LLC PRD Rezoning Property .
Surface Water and Topographic Shade Map Rn:ll"klll.1:CoufilJ
I)qnrtmem nfCa-nmuniry lkH'l(JpIllCnl
52!H llcffi",j Dri",'
SCALE, 1 inch equals 662.291.147 feet DATE: Jan 29, 2007 Rn,JIlflKc? Vir,!o:;inb 2"018
1<,.111\ 712-;W,S
~
a::I
11
m
~
c:c
en
c
~
CD
E
E
CI
=
en
c
':i:i
Cf.I
0;:;
1.&.1
'1
'\
I
- -/--...
/-0.
I
/
I
==
o
~
~
V
o
-
QJ
V
=
~
....
-
=
QJ
QJ
-
~
=
.;:;
o
....
c..
c..
~
"C
=
~
~
=
o
'.0
~
V
o
-
~
QJ
....
~
01)
=
.-
-
=
~
-
c..
QJ
-
~
=
.;:;
o
....
c..
c..
~
01)
=
.~
o
-=
~
"C
~
o
~
01)
=
.-
i:
QJ
-
r.IJ
=
o
..::
-
~
~
QJ
-=
....
o
=
01)
=
~
o
o
-
01)
=
.;:
QJ
"C
=
QJ
....
:::
~
-
r.IJ
""
~
u
~
I:l.
W'l
=
Cl.l
I:l.
Q
"CS
=
~
W'l
-
.;
I...
....
I...
~
"CS
Cl.l
I...
Q
,1'. .,~; ,:, ~
~ . r I ~
. '. 'j; ~..c
":d~ :...:;~',' .~ =
,.~ ,....,.,"" ' - ~ ....
., ,f " J~'" :t
\..~~~...: \:'':', ' I ~
.l~};..... , _~ I...
.t ~ ; -, _ .....: ~
. . ::"1~.. - ..}: .~
i ~...o:. ... '. , .=
,i~ ','. .......
,. .'~ .7 W'l
., ,/.c~". ,'-;",~' ~
.;' l'J:;!', 'l:,"',ro..~" .' Q
".':" '",.{.', " I:l.
. 'I!;,.. ~' ,,;I', '1' . Q
. II ....;., ~. ~' . ....
';..".l[!.t IS -. l."'. I:l.
. . " ~ I...
.~ ' Cl.l
-"1. =
'.f Q
r 1"..C
"..C
Cl.l
Co!
~
. ,
,
'. (
-d
Cl.l
....
Cl.l
-
I:l.
5
Q
u
~
0:- I...
..:: Q
:t
L.U Ol)
~ =
........... .-
I ::z: -c:I~
c::c ~-5
.... -c
E:!::::: C ~
I-- Q
a:I I...
::z: Cl.l
- U
=
u.J ~
,~! t!:J ~ I...
....
L. =
Cl.l
....
tJ :\:.J ::z:: ~ =
Cl.l
-'-"'; - -CI I...
.:~_.; I-- I...
:::l
.... r.I:I CI u
tI - .... 5
>< Q
~ ----- ..::
"'t. ~ " L.U :=:
~ Cl.l
.-
:>
.;:
I,..... ..
- ..
~. ~'".~";'r.I";'
- '.#
..
I.,
.., :t..
- cl
L~ :::
,.::::li
. 0..:..... ..
~_ --.'.; "'M
- -=..
0...
~
j , .~~ ...:
.~ '.
~ \: fIl
. .\ ~
. ~ ~
... .' 'I .. .c
I " ....
....1'. . =
0
fIl
CJl
.~ =
'y
~ 1'1 ., "', I " ~ e
I " A.
"
= ~
0 ....
'"
~ ....
(j '"
~ '"
',t " '"
.. .;
, . ~
, .... l::
I .... .5
I~" ~
11'1: "t:l .c
. .". I ~ ....
J> "t '",J 0 .5
, t', ..
" . .. =
-J, "' 0 0
.- 'r;;
..
-~lf' -
..,1"
",
-'"...."
"'1:
';;5
5
'.' ~~
County of Roanoke
Community Development
Planning & Zoning
For Staff Use Onl
Date received:
Received by:
5204 Bernard Drive
POBox 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
(540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155
. ALL APl!J.,iCANtS
Check type of application filed (check all that apply)
~Rezoning D Special Use D Variance 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review
Applicants name/address wlzip
L-o'old\'1 I\IL'Ll.., w..c.
7~1S' mt::.7:wNtr otZ,v.: ,;th4P,tf"$ rL. sq//~
Phone:
Work:
Cell #:
Fax No.:
'1&5.~~'1'1
, . u. b folic, W\'ll L(.. uc.
Owner s .name/address WIzIP '7 '5 3S tn-""Utol~DClPhone #:
~61>>1I C; f3En'1t - s.... yJ>c'z. :r.. t:t..../T"Sc.H ^",PL l,.i!S 1:l. 391J'f Work:
3809- <$ T1S (2.c..,;'/ ~ iUnA I:> Fax No. #:
~b~~ VI::! 2.l(OI'/
Property Location n' "-
~72, "3\304"1 ~?., '" S77:,_I-INu. '1'e.
q B~ -Go ~~C{
Magisterial District:
V, NTaJ
Community Planning area: j\(.Oo/'4
Tax Map No.: 81,00 - O~ -0(...
~.oa - 0;. '7.
Sizeofparcel(s): Acres: IOq .1/55
.oo-o"S'os
Existing Zoning: Ab- S .; ?~ D
Existing Land Use: ~~ I DCN T7 ~ c..
REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AN/) COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) /1EVlEW APPLICANTS (RiSIW/CP)
Proposed Zoning:Pi< 'D
Proposed Land Use: R,€"S I Do~T""A L
Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district')
Yes~ No D IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST.
Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes 'j(' No D
IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST
lfrezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes)J:i No 0
VARIANCE, Jf' A[VJ],R AND A/)MINISTRA TIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/W/AA)
Varian ceIW aiver of Section(s)
of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to:
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to
Appeal ofInterpretation of Section(s): ofthe Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance
Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to
\s the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS
ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE.
RlSfWlCP V/AA RlSfWlCP V/AA
EE Consultation Bi 8 1/2"x II" concept plan
Application Metes and bounds description
Justification Water and sewer application
I hereby certify that I am either the OWner ~f~r
of the owner. -0
Owner's Signature
2
.:ruSTIFHJATIONFbRJ.tEZQNING, SPECIAL USEPEl~MrfwAIVER6RC01\1P PLA]S.(jS.t"2232)RE'VIEW
'" ...... ..'.... .... ....... ........ . , R'EQUESTS . ":"'. .... .......: ...... ....
Applicant Ldo 1& \ 1\ v\1 Hot.. U..c.
The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review 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.
S-e-e 14. "r'i'ACtt-c:;~
Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community
Plan.
e; E" Eo A'tTAC.l+e.'O
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.
<3!ft tJ.. i1\Ar c tt b~
3
I. cONciPT PLAN c1ikckLIsT ...
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, 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 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, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance
applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature
of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the
following are considered minimum:
ALL APPLICANTS
~ a. Applicant name and name of development
-L b. Date, scale and north arrow
-'-- c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions
Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties
Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc.
The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties
All property lines and easements
All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights
Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development
Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces
jC. d.
L e.
;l f.
-L g.
"I h.
'1t i.
..,.. J.
Additional information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS
"I- k.
;< I.
)( m.
...JL n.
'/. o.
-
'J. p.
-
i. q.
Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site
Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers
Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals
Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections
Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants
Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed
If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule
i~t;qUi"d in the ~e'kli" ,bove '" romp]ete.
. ature of applicant
/2. l, . ~--6
Date
6
Community Development
Planning & Zoning Division
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WANER,
PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PER1\.1IT PETITION
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE
The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning,
Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if 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 Planillng Commission. The
Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be
warranted.
POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning,
Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County
Transportation Engineering Manager or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation
requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in
making a land use decision (Note: a list oj potential land uses and situations that would
necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package).
This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate
the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments
and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is
warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public
hearing date.
Effective Date: April 19, 2005
~m;o" ,
- ~ - .om;o"", 51.oa'.'0
Date
Community Development
Planning & Zoning Division
POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
The following is a list of potentially high traffic-generating land uses and road
network situations that could elicit a more detailed analysis of the existing and
proposed traffic pertinent to your rezoning, subdivision waiver, public street waiver,
or special use permit request. If your request involves one of the items on the
ensuing list! we recommend that you meet with a County planner! the County
Transportation Engineering Manager! and/or Virginia Department of Transportation
staff to discuss the potential additional traffic related information that may need to
be submitted with the application in order to expedite your application process.
(Note this list is not inclusive and the County staff and VDOT reserve the right to
request a traffic study at any time/ as deemed necessary.)
High Traffic-Generating Land Uses:
. Single-family residential subdivisions, Multi-family residential units, or
Apartments with more than 75 dwelling units
· Restaurant (with or without drive-through windows)
. Gas station/Convenience store/Car wash
. Retail shop/Shopping center
. Offices (including: financial institutions, general, medical, etc.)
· Regional public facilities
· Educational/Recreational facilities
· Religious assemblies
. Hotel/Motel
· Golf course
· Hospital/Nursing home/Clinic
· lndustrial site/Factory
· Day care center
. Bank
· Non-specific use requests
Road Network Situations:
· Development adjacent to/with access onto/within SOO-ft of intersection of a
roadway classified as an arterial road (e.g., Rte 11, 24, 115, 117, 460, 11/460,
220, 221, 419, etc)
· For new phases or changes to a development where a previously submitted
traffic study is more than two (2) years old and/or roadway conditions have
changed significantly
· When reqUired to evaluate access issues
· Development with ingress/egress on roads planned or scheduled for expansion,
widening, improvements, etc. (i.e. on Long Range Transportation Plan, Six-Yr
Road Plan, etc.)
· Development in an area where there ;s a known existing traffic and/or safety
problem
· Development would potentially negatively impact existing/planned traffic
signal(s) -~---~
· Substantial departure from the Community Plan
· Any site that is expected to generate over one hundred (100) trips during the
peak hour of the traffic generator or the peak hour on the adjacent streets, or
over seven hundred fifty (750) trips in an average day
ARTICLE III
PRD District
SEC, 30-47
PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Sec, 30-47-1
Purpose
(A) The purpose of this district is to provide for the
development of planned residential communities that
incorporate a variety of housing options as well as certain
limited commercial and office uses designed to serve the
inhabitants of the district. This district is intended to
allow greater flexibility than is generally possible under
conventional zoning district regulations by encouraging
ingenuity, imagination and high quality design to create a
superior living environment for the residents of the
planned community. Incorporation of significant areas of
open space is a primary component of these provisions as a
means to maintain critical natural and cultural resources.
This is balanced with development at densities which
compensate, or in certain situations reward with bonuses,
for maintenance of these resources. The PRD district is
particularly appropriate for parcels which contain a number
of constraints to conventional development. In addition to
an improved quality of design, the PRD district creates an
opportunity to reflect changes in the technology of land
development, provide opportunities for new approaches to
home ownership, and provide for an efficient use of land
which can result in reduced development costs.
Sec. 30-47-2
Permitted Uses
(A) The following uses are permitted in the Planned Residential
Development district. However, no use shall be permitted
except in conformity with the uses specifically included in
the Final Master plan approved pursuant to Section 30-47-5.
An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and
Design Standards, for those specific uses.
1. Residential Uses
Home Occupation, Type I *
Multi-family Dwelling
Residential Human Care Facility
Single Family Dwelling, Attached
Single Family Dwelling, Detached
Townhouse
ARTICLE III
PRD District
Two Family Dwelling
2. civic Uses
Community Recreation *
Crisis Center
Day Care Center *
Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary *
Family Day Care Home *
Park and Ride Facility *
Public Parks and Recreational Areas *
Religious Assembly *
Safety Services *
Utility Services, Major *
Utility Services. Minor
3. Office Uses
General Office *
Medical Office *
4. Commercial Uses
Convenience Store *
Gasoline Station *
Personal Services
Restaurant, Family *
5. Miscellaneous Uses
Amateur Radio Tower * (Amended Ord. 82493-8)
(8) Other use types which are not listed above and which are
determined to be appropriate and compatible with the
proposed development and surrounding uses may be permitted
in the PRO district where they are specifically proposed in
the initial preliminary master plan and approved pursuant
to Section 30-47-5.
Sec. 30-47-3
Site Development Regulations
(A) Each planned residential development shall be subject to
the following site development standards.
1. Reserved
2. Maximum gross density; 5 dwelling units per acre,
excludinq any density bonuses provided for below.
ARTICLE III
PRD District
3. Minimum common open space and/or recreational areas:
15 percent of the gross area of the PRD district.
4. Criteria for all open space:
a. Minimum countable open space: 5,000 contiguous
square feet.
b. Minimum horizontal dimension: 50 feet, except
that areas with a horizontal distance of not less
than 20 feet shall be counted as open space
provided such areas contain facilities such as,
but not limited to, bikeways, exercise trails,
tot lots, gazebos, picnic tables, etc.
c.
Common open space shall not
street right-of-ways, open
driveways, or sites reserved
places of religious assembly.
incl ude proposed
parking areas,
for schools or
d. Common open space and/or recreational areas shall
be of an appropriate nature and location to serve
the residents of the district.
5. Open space bonus: for each additional 5 percent of
open space the maximum gross density specified in (A)
2. above shall be increased 2.5 dwelling units per
acre. The maximum open space bonus shall be 2S
percent.
6 _ A 7.5 percent bonus to the gross density may be
approved by the Administrator when a historic site
will be preserved and maintained as an integral part
of the development proposal. The historic site must
be included in the County Historic Resources Inventory
and meet one of the following:
a. The historic site shall be listed on the Virginia
Landmarks Register and the National Register of
Historic Placesi
b. The historic site shall have been determined to
be eligible for listing on the registers cited in
a. above by the State Review Board for Historic
ARTICLE III
PRD District
Preservation; OR,
c. The historic site shall have been officially
designated by the Board of Supervisors as having
County or local significance.
7. Maximum area for commercial and/or office uses: 10
percent of the gross area of the PRD. In addition!
the following standards shall apply:
a. Commercial and office uses shall be expressly
designed for the service and convenience of the
PRDj
b. Commercial and office uses shall be screened and
landscaped so as to be compatible with adjoining
residences;
c. Construction of commercial and office uses shall
not begin until 25 percent of the residential
units of the total PRD have been completed.
8. Minimum setback requirements shall be specifically
established during the review and approval of the
Master Plan. The following guidelines shall be used
in establishing the building spacing and setbacks:
a. Building spacing shall provide privacy within
each dwelling unit;
b. Building spacing shall ensure that each room has
adequate light and air;
c. Areas between buildings used as service yards!
storage of trash! or other utilitarian purposes
should be designed so as to be compatible with
adjoining dwellings;
d. Building spacing and design shall provide privacy
for outdoor activity areas (patios, decks! etc.)
associated with individual dwelling units.
9. Streets in the PRD district may be public in
accordance with VDOT and County standards or may be
ARTICLE III
PRD District
private. In reviewing the PRD preliminary master
plan, the Commission may recommend, and the Board may
approve, one or more private streets within the
proposed district.
Sec. 30-47-4
Relationship to Existing Development Regulations
(A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of
the PRD, unless modified in the approval of the final
master plan.
Sec. 30-47-5
Application Process
(A) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and
approval under these provisions, the applicant and county
staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this
section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual
understanding of the application requirements and process.
The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the
scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become
familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting.
(B) Any application to rezone land to the PRD designation,
shall consti tute an amendment to the zoning ordinance
pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic
information submitted by the applicant as part of the
application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to
Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of
Supervisors has approved the final master plan, all
accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to
Section 30-15.
(C) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a
rezoning application packet. This information shall be
accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall
constitute a preliminary master plan. All information
submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to
clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and
character of the proposed district. At a minimum this
information shall include:
1.
A legal description and plat showing
boundaries, and existing street lines, lot
easements.
the site
lines, and
ARTICLE III
PRD District
2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel
proposed for the district.
3. A general statement of planning obj ecti ves to be
achieved by the PRD district, including a description
of the character of the proposed development, the
existing and proposed ownership of the site, the
market for which the development is oriented, and
objectives towards any specific man-made and natural
characteristics located on the site.
4. A description and analysis of existing site
conditions, including information on topography,
archeological and historic resources, natural water
courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree
cover areas, etc.
s. A land use plan designating specific uses for the
site, both residential and non-residential uses, and
establishing site development regulations, including
setback, height, building coverage, lot coverage, and
density requirements.
6. A circulation plan, including location of existing and
proposed vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and other
circulation facilities and location and general design
of parking and loading facilities. General
information on the trip generation, ownership and
maintenance and proposed construction standards for
these facilities should be included. A Traffic Impact
Analysis may be required by the Administrator.
7. A public services and utilities plan providing
requirements for and provision of all utilities,
sewers, and other facilities to serve the site.
B. An open space plan, including areas proposed for
passive and active recreational uses, natural and
undisturbed areas, and proposed buffer areas proposed
around the perimeter of the site. Information on the
specific design and location of these areas and their
ownership and maintenance should be included.
9. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural and
ARTICLE III
PRD District
community design guidelines shall be submitted in
sufficient detail to provide information on building
designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, etc.
10. A development schedule indicating the location, extent
and sequence of proposed development. Specific
information on development of the open space,
recreational areas, and non-residential uses should be
included.
(D) The completed rezoning application and supporting
preliminary master plan materials shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for review and analysis. The
Commission shall review this information and make a report
of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The
Commission shall as part of its review hold a public
hearing pursuant to Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be
posted with signs indicating the date and time of the
Commission public hearing.
(E) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the
Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the
materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an
extension of this time frame. The Commission 1 s report
shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or
disapproval of the preliminary master plan. Failure of the
Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of
Supervisors wi thin this period shall constitute a
Commission recommendation of approval.
(F) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary
master plan. or approval with modification, the applicant
shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any
modifications. If the applicant desires to make any
modifications to the preliminary master plan, the Board of
Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such
changes are made and submitted for review.
(G) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary
master plan, and act to approve or deny the plan within 90
days. Approval of the preliminary master plan shall
constitute acceptance of the plan'S provisions and concepts
as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance.
ARTICLE III
PRD District
The plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall
constitute the final master plan for the PRD. Once approved
by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall
authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to
indicate the establishment of the PRD district.
Sec. 30-47-6
Revisions to Final Master Plan
(A) Major revisions to the final master plan shall be reviewed
and approved following the procedures and requirements of
Section 30-47-5. Major revisions include, but are not
limited to changes such as:
1. Any increase in the density of the development;
2. Substantial change in circulation or access;
3. Substantial change in the mixture of dwelling unit
types included in the project;
4. Substantial changes ~n grading or utility provisions;
5. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses or an
increase in the amount of land devoted to non-
residential purposes;
6. Reduction in the approved open space, landscaping or
buffering;
7. Substantial change in architectural or site design
features of the development;
8. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a
major divergence from the approved final master plan.
(B) All other changes in the final master plan shall be
considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon
receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such
minor amendments.
1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a
minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar
days, it shall be considered approved.
ARTICLE III
PRD District
2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator
shall be considered a major amendment and shall be
subject to the approval process outlined above for
such amendments.
Sec. 30-47-7
Approval of Preliminary and Final Site
Development plans
(A) Following the approval of the final master plan, the
applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to
submit preliminary and final site development plans for
approval. Final site development plans for any phase or
component of the PRD that involves the construction of
structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the
issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the
commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary
and final site development plans are found in a document
enti tIed Land Development Procedures, avai lable in the
Department of community Development.
(B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review
under the subdivision regulations be carried out
simultaneously with the review of a planned residential
development under this section. The plans required under
this section shall be submi tted in a form which will
satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as
determined by the Administrator.
(C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for
review shall in compl iance with the final master plan
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall
review and approve or disapprove any Final Site Development
Plan within 60 days of its submittal.
(D) No Planned Residential Development shall be approved and no
work shall be authorized on construction until all property
included in the Final Master plan is in common ownership.
Sec. 30-47-8
Failure to Begin Development
(A) Failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary si te
development plan for at least one portion of the planned
residential development within 18 months of the approval of
the final master plan, shall constitute an application on
ARTICLE III
PRD District
the part of
designations
master plan.
applicant to rezone the PRD to the district
in effect prior to the approval of the final
Sec, 30-47-9
Control Following
Development Plans
Approval
of Final
(A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the
site and review all building permits issued for the
development to ensure that the development schedule is
generally complied with. The provision and construction of
all of the common open space and public and recreational
facilities shown on the final development plan must proceed
at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units. If
the administrator finds that the development schedule has
not been followed, no permits, except for the above
mentioned facilities, shall be issued until the developer
complies with the development schedule, unless the
developer has provided a performance bond or similar
instrument to guarantee that such common open space and/or
public and recreational facilities will be provided for at
a specific date.
Sec, 30-47-10 Existing Planned Unit Developments
(A) Any Planned Unit Development approved under procedures in
force before the effective date of this Ordinance shall be
designated as planned Residential Development Districts and
shall be governed by requirements or restrictions
applicable at the time of their approval.
--Jun.11. 2007 12: 19PM
CALDWELL-BONO & MASON
No. 3882 P. 2
Prepared by: W.F. Mason., Jr.. Esquire
302 Washington Avenue
Roanoke. Virginia 24016
Tax Map # 89.00-3-5
TIllS DEED made and entered into this 11111 day of January, 2007. by and between
JOSEPH JAKLITSCH and BETH SNYDER-JAKLITSCHt GRANTORS. and Loblolly Mill.
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, authorized to transact business in Virginia as The
Estates at Loblolly Mill, LLC, GRANTEE. whose address is P.O. Box 2827 Roanoke, V A 24001
WITNESSETH
THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum ofTEN DOLLARS ($10,00) cash
in hand paid by the Grantee unto the Grantor and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt ofwIDch is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby gran4 bargain, sell, and convey
with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title tUlto the Grantee aJl of their right, title.
and interest in and to the following described property lying and being in the County of
Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
BEING known as Lot A containing 10.363 Acres as shown on Boundary Line Adjustment Plat
of Turner Property prepared by Ronald R. Clark, Land Surveyor dated Apri112, 2005 and
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia in Plat
Book 29 page 40.
~
~
TOGETHER WIn! AND SUBJECT TO a shared driveway easement of ingress and egress
between the owners of Lot A (10.363 acres) and Lot B (3.990 acres) as shown on that plat of the
Turner Property dated April 12, 2005 made by Clark Surveying of record in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court for County of Roanoke, State of Virginia in Plat Book 29, Page 40. Said
easement of ingress and egress shall be for that portion of the shared driveway as it presently
exists beginning at that common boundary point between said Lot A and said Lot B on the
easterly side of Sterling Road and extending east along the common boundary 40 feet. Said
easement being the presently shared portion of the driveway until the driveway splits into two
separate driveways servicing the residences located in said Lot A and said Lot B.
(. .... M....SCN..JR.
!TO'-....E;Y....T I.."AW
NOt<:It. VIRaINIA.
The owners of Lot A and Lot B shall share the cost of the maintenance of the shared portion of
said driveway and shall maintain said driveway in at least its present condition. This easement
shall be binding on the parties their heirs and assigns and shall be an easement running with the
land.
,Jan. 11. 200/ 10:J2AM
CALDWtLL-BONO & MASON
No. 3881 P. 3
BEING the same property conveyed to the Grantors herein by Deed dated June 21,2005, of
record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia. as
Instnunent No. 200510773.
This Deed is subject to all recorded easements. restrictions, and conditions affecting the
hereinabove described property.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
(SEAL)
SEAL)
STATE OF l.)~\NUCL..-
~ OF~~
The foregoing Deed was acknowledged before me by Joseph Jaklitsch this ~ day of
~Q..ruCl.J\..L.{-. 2007.
My Commission Expires:
I \-CC>-O~
~
STATE OF \)U\C4\.1YuCL
Cv~ OF -p,o:::=&r\c1t.e.
The foregoing Deed was acknowledged before me by Beth Snyder-Jaklitsch this~
P': MA.ON. oJ"'.
'0 I'IN KY A'f' L.AW
'lOKI., VII'IGINIA
day of \..\CD-i In''Ys-t 2007.
My Commission Expires:
J /. P-D - cfJa;;lS'
: ~
~
~-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,2007
ORDINANCE TO REZONE 10,363 ACRES LOCATED AT 3804
STERLING ROAD FROM AG-3, AGRICUL TURAlIRURAL
PRESERVE, TO PRD, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND
TO AMEND THE PRD MASTERPLAN ON THE ADJACENT
94.229 ACRES, TO CONSTRUCT A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY ON THE ENTIRE 104.455 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED AT 3804,3672, AND 3796 STERLING ROAD (TAX
MAP NOS. 89.00-3-5, 89.00-3-12 AND 89.00-3-6), VINTON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF
LOBLOLLY MILL, LLC
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 42506-6, a certain tract of real estate containing 94.229
acres located at 3672 Sterling Road and in the 3800 block of Sterling Road (Tax Map
Numbers 89.00-3-12 and 89.00-3-6) in the Vinton Magisterial District, was rezoned to the
zoning classification of PRD, Planned Residential Development District.
WHEREAS, at that time the owner of the property voluntarily proffered in writing
conditions which are made a part of and incorporated by reference and which were set out
in detail in the attached Exhibit A attached to Ordinance 42506-6 and entitled "The
Planning and Design Documents for Loblolly Mill - A Planned Residential Community,
Roanoke County, VA, Vinton Magisterial District, prepared for Loblolly Mill, LLC, 119
Norfolk Ave., Roanoke, VA 24011, prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., Roanoke, VA,
Project #R0500414.00, dated January 18, 2006, revised April 17, 2006" which the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, accepted.
WHEREAS, Loblolly Mill, LLC has petitioned the County to rezone 10.363 acres in
order to incorporate this parcel into the existing PRD.
1
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 23,2007, and
the second reading and public hearing were held February 27,2007; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on February 6, 2007; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
10.363 acres, as described herein, and located at 3804 Sterling Road (Tax Map Numbers
89.00-3-5) in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification
of AG-3, Agricultural Preserve District, to the zoning classification of PRD, Planned
Residential Development District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Loblolly Mill, LLC.
3. That the owner of the entire 104.455 parcel has voluntarily proffered in writing
conditions which are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference and which
are set out in detail in the attached Exhibit A entitled "The Planning and Design Documents
for Loblolly Mill - A Planned Residential Community, Roanoke County, VA, Vinton
Magisterial District, Prepared for Loblolly Mill, LLC, 119 Norfolk Ave., Roanoke, VA24011,
Prepared by Salzer and Associates, Inc., Roanoke, VA, Project #R0500414.00, dated
January 18, 2006, revised April 17 , 2006, amended January 10,2007, revised February 9,
2007" which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts.
2
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Map No. 89.00-03-5 - 10.363 acres
Beginning at a point on the southeasterly right-of-way line of Sterling Road (Virginia
Secondary Route 663) at the northwesterly corner of Lot B as shown on a plat
entitled "Boundary Line Adjustment Plat of Turner Property" (PB 29, Page 40);
thence continuing along the southeasterly right-of-way line of said road the
following: along a curve to the left being 63.05 feet in length with a radius of 243.00
feet and having a chord bearing of N. 12044' 44" E. 62.88 feet to a point; thence N.
040 01' 58" E. 135.41 feet to a point; thence along a curve to the right being 160.27
feet in length with a radius of 230.70 feet and having a chord bearing of N. 220 33'
49" E. 157.07 feet to a point; thence N. 410 31' 52" E. 381.66 feet to a point; thence
along a curve to the right being 257.92 feet in length with a radius of 373.33 feet
and having a chord bearing of N. 600 48' 45" E. 252.82 feet to a point at the
northwesterly corner of N/F Dean Roger Turner; thence leaving said right-of-way
line and continuing with the westerly line of said Turner property the following S. 710
24' 00" E. 101.00 feet to a point; thence S. 64045' 00" E. 144.20 feet to a point;
thence S. 760 00' 00" E. 112.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of N/F Loblolly
Mill, LLC; thence leaving the line of said Turner property and continuing along the
westerly line of said Loblolly property the following: S. 54034' 41" W. 393.94 feet to
a point; thence S. 18040' 14" E. 307.26 feet to a point; thence S. 130 12' 42" E.
300.80 feet to a point at the northeasterly corner of said Lot B; thence leaving the
line of said Loblolly property and continuing with the northerly line of said Lot B the
following: N. 75054' 22" W. 371.26 feet to a point; thence N. 76003' 30" W. 189.97
feet to a point; thence N. 760 32' 24" W. 199.60 feet to the Point of Beginning
containing 10.363 acres and being Lot A as shown on plat entitled "Boundary Line
Adjustment Plat of Turner Property" recorded in Plat Book 29. page 40 in the
Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office.
5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to
amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by
this ordinance.
3
EXHIBIT A
Planning and Design Documents for:
LOBLOLLY MILL
A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
ROANOKE COUNTY, VA
VINTON MAGESTERIAL DISTRICT
Prepared for:
Loblolly Mill, LLC
119 Norfolk Ave.
Roanoke, VA 24011
Prepared by:
Balzer and Associates, Inc.
1208 Corporate Circle
Roanoke, VA 24018
Project # R05004l4.00
Date: January 18, 2006
Revised: April 17, 2006
Amended: January 10, 2007
Revised: February 9,2007
Balzer and Associates I
51\LZEQ
III
FtE"F'"LECTINC .TOkllORROW
Table of Contents:
I. Table of Contents Page 2
II. Introduction Page 3
III. Vicinity Map Page 4
IV. Site Summary Page 5
V. Site Photographs Page 7
VI. Site Design Guidelines Page 9
VII. Architectural Requirements Page 13
VIII. Proffer Statement Page 14
IX. Adjacent Property Owners Page 15
X. Site Maps Page 17
Balzer and Associates 2
LOBLOLLY MILL DESIGN GUIDLINES
INTRODUCTION
Loblolly Mill is a proposed 104.455 acre Planned Residential Community located
on Sterling Road in the Vinton Magisterial District of Roanoke County. The intent of
this project is to develop a high end residential development in a "mountain village
concept" while preserving the abundant natural and historic features of the site. The
proposed development will also preserve the rural character of the Mount Pleasant area
by limiting the density to that which is less than one single family dwelling per three
acres.
This existing property can only be described as unique, picturesque and isolated.
The natural topography of the site consists of a series of wooded knolls bordering the
property focused centrally on an 1.75 acre pond. There are two primary historic features
on the site, a covered bridge and a water powered mill house. According to the previous
owner Mr. Morton Brown, the bridge was purchased from VDOT when the Back Creek
Crossing was improved. The bridge held special meaning with Mr. Brown. As a child he
would walk his neighbor Vivian Brooks to school and carry her books as they walked
across the old covered bridge. Morton and Vivian were eventually married and Mr.
Brown moved the bridge to its current location after purchasing it from VDOT in 1979.
The old mill house was operational until 1959 when Mr. Morton Brown purchased the
property. These historic structures are being preserved and renovated and will serve as
key attractions and scenic backdrops for this development.
In summary, this proposed development will provide a unique housing
opportunity for Roanoke residents, take advantage of a wonderful setting, preserve
sensitive natural and historic amenities, and compliment on of the most unique rural
communities in Roanoke County.
Balzer and Associates 3
Vicinity Map:
Balzer and Associates 4
LOBLOLLY MILL DESIGN GUIDELINES
SITE SUMMARY
Site Data
The site consists of tax parcel #'s 89.00-03-06 (3.809ac. zoned PRD) and 89.00-
03-12 (90.42 ac. zoned PRD) and 89.00-03-05 (10.363 ac zoned AG-3). The total site
area is 104.455 acres.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The proposed development is in compliance with the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance. Loblolly Mill furthers the intent of the AG-3 AgriculturallRural Preserve
District (Sec30-32) in several ways. This project will protect and preserve sensitive
natural and historic features. It will also limit the density to less than one residence per
three acres which is the density allowed in the AG-3 zoning. Finally Loblolly Mill will
minimize the demand on public services by providing privately maintained roads and
individual well and septic systems.
Community Plan Compliance
Loblolly Mill is located within the Mount Pleasant Community Area and the
majority of the site falls under the "Rural Preserve" land use category. A small portion of
the property (about four acres) lies within the "Rural Village" future land use category,
and all of the southern and western boundary borders the "Rural Village" designation.
Both the "Rural Preserve" and "Rural Village" concepts promote Cluster Development
options. Loblolly Mill is based on the cluster development design criteria and is below
the suggested density of the "Rural Preserve" designation.
Loblolly Mill caters to the community's values and respects the key natural and
historic resources that are strongly promoted within the Mount Pleasant Community
Planning Area. This development will preserve significant natural areas including
streams, a 1.75 acre pond, and steep slopes. There will be no impact on the view shed of
the Blue Ridge Parkway from this development. The developers will preserve and
restore two significant historic structures that provide a link to the traditions of the local
residents. Through quality planning and an environmentally sensitive site design,
Loblolly Mill will promote and preserve the rural characteristics of the Mount Pleasant
area and its residents.
Balzer and Associates 5
Existing Conditions
The site is comprised of a series of wooded knolls that border the property. The
knolls are focused centrally on a 1.75 acre pond. Slopes on the property range from 2%
to 50%,and the elevations range from 892 to 1100 feet. A network of streams filter
between the knolls and ultimately drain to Turner Branch. Turner Branch runs west to
east through the property. The setting that is created by these natural features is one that
feels completely isolated from any adjoining property.
An historic covered bridge and grist mill are located on Turner Branch in the
northwest portion of the property. Both of these structures will be restored, preserved and
incorporated into this development.
There are two existing residences on site that will be removed with this
development
Adjacent Properties
Adjacent properties are a combination of single family residential and
undeveloped property which are mostly wooded acreage tracts. All adjacent property is
zoned AG-3 or PRD.
Utilities
Water and Sewer will be provided through individual well and septic systems.
Access/Traffic
Access to the property from Sterling Road will be located on tax parcel # 89.00-
03-06. The development may generate up to 340 vehicle trips per day. The design and
sight distance of the entrance from Sterling Road will be in accordance with all
applicable requirements ofthe Virginia Department of Transportation.
Balzer and Associates 6
EXISTING 1.75 ACRE POND
EXISTING COVERED BRIDGE AND MIll HOUSE
EXISTING COVERED BRIDGE- BROUGHT TO THE SITE IN 1979
EXISTING MILL HOUSE - OPERATION UNTIL 1959
LOBLOLLY MILL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Site Design Guidelines
Intent
These design guidelines are written with the intent to guide the development of
Loblolly Mill. They are intended to develop the overall character of the community.
These guidelines are not meant to cover all site-specific issues or alterations and should
be applied as a guide to meet the development goals of the project.
Association
All property owners at Loblolly Mill will automatically be members of a
Homeowners Association for this development. The Homeowners Association will be
established to maintain all common open space, conservation/recreation areas, trails,
roads, and site amenities. Roanoke County is not obligated to provide trash and bulk
services on private streets. If Roanoke County does not provide these services, the
homeowner's association shall be responsible for bulk and trash services.
Preservation Areas
A minimum of 50% of the site will be preserved as open space and
conservation/recreation areas. The area will be comprised of dedicated open space and
conservation/recreation easements. A minimum of 15% of the site will be dedicated
common open space and the remainder of the preserved area will be comprised of
conservation/recreation easements. The conservation/recreation easements will be
established for the benefit of the residents within the community and will serve the same
function as the dedicated open space. All common open space and easements will be
recorded with the subdivision plat. The main areas of conservation will be the most
environmentally sensitive portions of the site including streams, the pond and some of the
steepest slopes. No residence or road will be allowed within any open space or
conservation/recreation area. The Historic Grist Mill and Covered Bridge will be
preserved with this development. An interpretive plaque will be developed for these
structures describing their historical significance. The covered bridge will either be
incorporated into the design as a foot bridge or it may serve as a vehicular access,
pending a structural inspection. The Grist Mill will remain as a scenic and interpretive
backdrop for the development.
Site amenities and utility crossings will be allowed with in the open space and
conservation/recreation easements.
The following Amenities will be allowed within the commonly held open space:
Trails(pedestrian and/or equestrian), tennis courts, playgrounds, open play fields,
equestrian stable, historic grist mill, the covered bridge, picnic areas, pond, fishinglboat
Balzer and Associates 9
dock. All of these amenities will be maintained and owned by the homeowners
association.
The following Amenities will be allowed within the conservation/recreation
easements located on privately owned property: Trails (pedestrian and/or equestrian),
picnic areas. The cutting of trees within these easements shall be limited to trail and
picnic area construction. The homeowners association will maintain all amenities located
within the easement areas. No disturbance other than trail or picnic area construction
shall occur in the areas designated as "open space and conservation/recreation
easements. "
Development Areas
The primary areas used for the construction of the proposed homes will be along
or near the top of the existing knolls. The placement of the homes will allow for the
preservation of the most sensitive portions ofthe site.
Buffer Yard
A 50 foot natural buffer shall be maintained along all adjacent property lines
except; Wherever a house, driveway or drainfield on the Property is located fifty feet
(50') or closer to an adjacent property line and a natural fifty foot (50') buffer is not
maintained, as shown on the Master Plan, two (2) rows of evergreen trees shall be planted
as an additional buffer. In no case shall there be a natural buffer between houses on the
Property and an adjacent property line of less than twenty feet (20'). All proposed
evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 6 feet high at the time of planting. Loblolly Mill,
LLC will submit a landscaping plan for review and approval by the County as part of site
plan review.
Roads
All roads within Loblolly Mill will be private. The Homeowners Association will
maintain all roads. All roads will be a minimum of 18 feet wide with 4 foot shoulders.
The shoulders will be constructed with a gravel base. The minimum pavement section
will be 8" base stone with a 2" 8M 9.5 asphalt surface. All roads will be designed with a
minimum centerline radius of 95 feet and a maximum road grade of 16%. The minimum
paved radius for any cul-de-sac will be 40'and "no parking" signage or other method to
guarantee no parking on the cul-de-sac will be provided. If the radii of the cul-de-sac's
are increased to 45 feet, parking will be permitted in the cul-de-sac
Private Shared Driveways
Any shared driveway will be a minimum of 14 feet wide with 2 foot gravel base
shoulders. The driveways will be a minimum of 8" stone base with 2" of SM 9.5 asphalt
surface.
Balzer and Associates 10
Trails
A network of pedestrian/equestrian trails will be provided. These trails will be
through out the development and will connect the separate development areas with the
open space, historic features and any other site amenity. The trail surface will be mulch
or pea gravel and will be a minimum of 4 feet wide.
Landscaping
A professionally landscaped entrance will be provided for the development. Each
residential home will be professionally landscaped with sufficient foundation landscaping
and additional trees where sufficient growing space is available. All signage will be
monument style and will be incorporated into the design of the entrance. The maximum
height for signs shall be six feet and will conform to all Roanoke County zoning
ordinance regulations. The general design will be such that it incorporates natural
materials and the mountain village theme into the design. No backlighting of the sign
will be permitted.
Planting Area 'A'
Additional plantings will be provided in the area between the proposed entrance
and the existing tree line limits behind lot 32. The area will be planted with two rows of
evergreen trees (min. 6' height), as well as thirty additional deciduous trees per acre of
planting area. The minimum caliper size for these trees will be 1.5".
Planting Area 'B'
Additional plantings along the western property line of Lot 31. The area will be
planted with two rows of evergreen trees (min. 6' height). If the existing trees are
removed between lot 31 and the proposed entrance due to the construction of the road
then the area shall be replanted with a minimum of 30 trees per acre. The minimum
caliper size for these trees will be 1.5".
Tree Preservation
The maximum allowable area to be cleared for any home site shall be 16,500 sf
exclusive of any drain field areas required. Any additional clearing shall be approved by
the zoning administrator.
Lot Size
The minimum lot size shall be 0.50 acres. The minimum Lot frontage shall be 30
feet on the cul-de-sacs and 100 feet otherwise.
Balzer and Associates 11
Minimum Building Size
The minimum building size shall be 3,000 sf.
Maximum Building Height
The maximum building height will be 45 ft.
Accessory Buildings
All accessory buildings must be located behind the front building line.
Setbacks
The minimum front setback will be 25 feet from any private road.
The minimum side setback will be IO feet from any intemallot.
The minimum rear setback will be 10 feet from any intemallot.
The minimum setback from any adjoining owners property line or from
any public right-of-way will be 35 feet.
Density
No more than thirty four (34) homes will be constructed on the Property as shown
on the Master Plan.
Lighting
Any and all street lighting shall be residential in scale and style (i.e. post mounted
lighting) and shall not exceed 10' in height. The lighting shall be top shielded to cast all
light and/or glare downward. All street lights on the Property will not exceed 150 watts.
All light emanating from the outside of any house located on a lot on the Property
will include a shield on top that causes the light to shine down, not up or out. Dusk to
dawn lights will not be permitted. All lights on the outside of any house on a lot on the
Property will not exceed 100 watts.
All lighting shall be arranged so it does not cast glare on adjacent properties and
so that no more than 0.5-foot candles cross any adjacent property line.
Utilities
All utilities shall be placed underground and all heat pumps and other
appurtenances shall be screened from view of the roads or adjacent property owners.
Balzer and Associates 12
Trash Collection
Trash collection will be individual can pick up and will be collected internally
within the development. Trash pick up will not be allowed along Sterling Road. No cans
or collection areas will be allowed along Sterling Road. At the time of site plan approval,
Roanoke County General Services will determine if they will provide trash pickup. It is
understood that Roanoke County is not obligated to provide trash services to this
development. If Roanoke County does not provide trash pick up then trash collection
will be provided by a private vendor at the expense of the homeowners association.
Fire Protection
A dry hydrant will be installed at the pond located on the property for use by the
County's Fire Department to benefit homes within the development as well as any other
property with in the vicinity. The hydrant location and design will be approved by the
Roanoke County Fire Marshall prior to installation. Any additional fire protection items,
including but not limited to access, shoulders or additional hydrants will installed per the
Roanoke County Fire Marshall's requirements at the time of site plan approval.
Retaining Walls
All retaining walls will be designed to Roanoke County standards and the
drawings will be stamped and signed by a professional engineer.
Development Schedule
The intent of this project is to disturb as little as possible. Therefore, the
developer will initially only install the roads, shared driveways and develop the
amenities. The lots will be developed as they are sold so that only the trees required for
the construction of each house and drain field will be removed.
Balzer and Associates 13
Loblollv Mill Architectural ReQuirements
This project will be developed and then the lots will be offered for sale. The
following information will serve as guidelines for the architectural styling of each home.
Architectural Review Board: A review committee shall be established to
review and approve any and all improvements on the lots to maintain harmony with other
improvements and to reject proposed improvements that would otherwise adversely
affect the atmosphere and values of the development. This would include review and
.-. ,approval of all house plans, elevations and exterior colors.
.~ .
Exterior Materials: All exterior siding material shall be wood, synthetic wood,
brick and or stone. All roofing material will be either metal standing seam roof, natural
shingles or architectural asphalt shingles.
Colors: All exterior colors will be per the Sherwin Williams colors listed below
or equal: Sherwin William colors 7008 - 7012, 6385, 7013, 6119,7035-7041 ,
6077-6083,6154-6160,6190-6195,6385-6391, 6437-6440, 6606-6608. A sample
of the colors listed above are to be kept with this document.
Accessory Structures: All Accessory structures will be reviewed and approved
by the Architectural Review Board Prior to installation and/or construction. All
accessory structures will be constructed to match the primary residence on each
site.
Balzer and Associates 14
Statement of Proffers
The owner hereby voluntarily proffers and agrees that if the Property is rezoned as
requested, the rezoning will be subject to, and the owner will abide by, the following
conditions:
The property will be developed in substantial conformance with the "Planning
and Design Documents for: Loblolly Mill a Planned Residential Community" prepared
by Balzer and Associates, Inc., dated January 18, 2006, revised April I? , 2006, amended
JmUMYlO, 2007~:ela~2:~7' Datoo: 2. { 2 . ~
~ Owner
Balzer and Associates 15
VJ
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
~
z
~
u
<
~
Q
<
.s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .--< ..---t ~
d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P-<
~ ~ ~ ~ ..---t
~ ..---t
~ > Q)~ Q)~ ~ ~ > > > ~ > 0
> > > Q)~ Q)~ iii > Q)~ v
iii ~ ~ N
Q)~ ~ 0 0 Q)~ Q)~ ~ ~ ~ Q)~ ~ ~
U g g '"d 0 0 0 0
Z ~ 0 ~ ~ Q) cd iJ..l g !::1 g ~ !::1 >
0 !::1 0 0 0 0 g 0 CZl cd 0 cd
!::1~ !::1 cd ~ ~ !::1 !::1 ~ 0 0 0 !::1 0 Q)~
cd 0 cd cd .....:l iii ~ ~ ~ cd ~
0 0 ~ 0 0 !::1 0 ~
...... ~ iJ..l iJ..l ~ ~ Q) V ..... "" 5 ~ 0
!::1 CZl CZl !::1 cd ~ '"d '"d '"d '"d g
cd '"d ..---t ...... ..---t ..---t cd cd cd cd
Of) '"d cd Q)~ Q)~ '"d '"d ;:l:;o C 0 ;> 0 0 0 0 '"d 0 0
... cd 0 ;> ;> cd cd Of) v ;::l "" ~ v ~ ~ ~ cd ~ ~
"" 0 0 ~ .C .C 0 0 !::101 0 01 N 0
"" :::E ~ ~ ~ ~ :::E ::: Q) Q) Q) ~ Q)
Q) Cl Cl 'C ... ... ... ... r--
.. on on on Q)~ :::~ 0 ~ :E :E ..... on :E C"-l
"0 c ;::l Q) Q) c c ~> {J ...c: c 00
"1" .- .- '<T 0> > Ul Ul Ul Ul
"0 ..... 0 "1" ..... ..... !::1 !::1 C ..... !::1 C"-l
\0 .- ... ,..0 ,..0 ..---t .- .- ~~ .- ~ 0 .-
< ... ..---t ~ ... Q) Q) Q) ... Q)
CZl Q) ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 Q) .- Q) 0 Q)~ '"d '"d '"d Q) '"d ~
...... '<T ...... ...... Q)~ ~ ~ ...... 0
~ ~ CZl P-< "1" p.., N CZl CZl :>-< 0 iJ..l iJ..l iJ..l CZl iJ..l co
<n "1" '<T N '<T V 0 '<T V '<T V -.;;t
.--< <n '<T .--< r-- ..---t ..---t ..---t 00 .--< \0 ..---t ..---t g r-- g <n ~ 00 .--< \0 ..---t '<T ..---t 00 ..---t V ..---t
0 \0 0 0 C"-l 0 N ~ N ~ \0 0 <n 0 0\ 0 N 0 '<T ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 \0 0 0 0 0
r-- '<T v 0 0 \0 '<T \0 '<T 0 0 N '<T N '<T N -.;;t 0\ V N -.;;t
~ 00 00 <n > > ~~ ~~ ~
\0 01 ~ N C"-l N '<T -.;;t ~ N ~ N .--< '<T N "" 01 '<T C"-l ~ N V N p..,
co
..j cd ~ Q)
..... cd
.- ~
I ro Q) .- ~
~ co '"d Of) Q)
'"d g C ;> - :>...
;>-. Q) ~ ~ iJ..l 0 ...c:
...... ~ 1a ......
c ...... cd ...~ Ul~ 0
CZl Q) '"d U ...
!::1 Cd C Q) Q) 0
...c: cd cd N ~ !::1 Cd Cl
...... Q) ~ ..... c 0
Q) ...., r:o ~ - .....,
r:o ~ ~ ro Q) :> Cd
c.(j Cd Cd .- Cd Q)
... ~ ~ ;> cd U
Q) ~ Q) Q) iJ..l ~ t:: Q)
on .....l C) C) ~ ~ ~ Q) .....:l
0 ...c: 'C ..... ..... ;>-. Cd ~ Q) .....:l .....:l
~ ... .- Q) ~ ,..0
p.. :>... 0 0 .- '"d .-
Q) ..... Q) ~ ;>-. 0 Ul
~ .- G ~ ... -< g cd .-
!::1 Ul 0 f8 cd ~ d) ~ s .-
cd 0 ..g Q) .....
Q) ....., 0 d' d' c~ 4-i ....., ~ .....:l ;> .C c~ 0 ~
Cl ~...c: ..... ~ iJ..l co
.- ...c:
...c: C) ]~ 0 0 0 U d' ro ~
.. ...~ C) Ul Ul Vl Ul cd 00 ;::; Ul~ Ul~ J2 ;>-. E-<
5 c ... t:: .-
Q) Q) Cf.) .~ Q) Q) Ul iii ~ ;::: !::1 ~ Q) cd d 0
d ~ :E~ !::1 '"d Q) ::: Q) Q) ;..:::: ... l:: .-
~ 0 ;> ;> !::1 g ,..0 p.. .- ;> ;::l Q) ,..0
~ ~ Q) Q) 0 0 0- 0 '"d .- 0
Q) ...... ...... Q) d:::E ~
0 E-< ....., ....., .....l CZl CZl ~ iJ..l ~ :::r:: ~ iJ..l U -< .....:l
Q) '"d
g ro
0
.....:l ~
Q) '"g '"d '"g '"d on
q
'"g '"d '"d ..... '"g cd '"d ro .9
"" P-< 0 0 0 0
"" '"d cd cd '"d ~ ~ ~ cd ~ ;:::
Q) 0 cd 0 0 bJ) 0 ro 0 Q)
.. '"d '"d ~ '"d 0 ~ ~ q ~ 0 Q) Q) Q) ~ Q) ......
"0 cd ro cd ~ 'C ~ ... ... ... ... CZl
bJ) bJ) on on ..... :E ..... Of) :E
"0 0 0 0 Q) ...c: ...c: \0
< ~ ~ q ~ ;>-. q q p.. .9 Q) Ul Ul Ul .9 Ul 0\
..... Q) ..... ..... Ul ... C C C c r--
t b1l on .- on .- .- .- ..... .- ..... ;:::
... .- ... ... ~ ... ...c: Q) Q) Q) Q) ~
c c Q) c cd Q) Q) Q) '"d '"d '"d Q) '"d
...... ...... ...... ...... Ul ......
..... ..... CZl ..... > CZl CZl CZl c iJ..l iJ..l iJ..l CZl iJ..l c.(j
e ;::: .- ;:::
... Q)
Q) Q) 0 Q) Q) 00 \0 ..---t \0 '"d 00 \0 V 00 V C"-l
0 ...... ...... <n ...... ro \0 <n 0\ r-- iJ..l ~ ~ ~ \0 0 r--
.. CZl CZl 00 CZl ...., \0 \0 00 \0 N N N 0\ N \0
=-- 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 v v v ~ V r'1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C"-l
..---t 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N ..---t 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .--<
V <n .--< <n 00 ..& v N r-- r-: r-- \0 <n ~ ..& \0
0 0 ..---t 0 0 0 0 ..---t N C"-l N C"-l N ..---t ..---t 0
1 I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I
Q ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
, I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
.. 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ oi 0\ 0\ oi 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\
~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
=-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
TAX PARCEL #89.00-03-12
- !
j
i
PARCEL ONE
BEGINNING at a point on the south side of State Route #663, about one mile from State Route 116;
thence with the south side of said road, N. 73' 48 'E. 142.7 feet to a point; thence along the center line
of an old unimproved road being also the westerly line of the remaining Annie Laura Tmner property,
the following courses and distances: S.43' 36'W. 71.8 feet to a marked 18 inch chestnut oak, S. 4'
28 'W. 181.9 feet, S. 21' 26'E. 363.9 feet; thence leaving the center line ofthe said 20 foot road, S. 46'
53'E. 238.4 feet to a double 18 inch white oak, N. 49' 05' E. 356.6 feet to a marked oak, N. 74' 39' E.
385.4 feet to an old iron, being also at a fence corner:; thence with the westerly line ofthe Turner
property, formerly Ferguson, S. 37' 20' E. 2084.7 feet to a large white oak old corner; thence S. 0'
41 'E. 329.0 feet to a stake; thence N. 54' 04'W. 109.4 feet to an 18 inch poplar; thence N. 65' 25' W.
190.1 feet to an old iron; thence S. 76' 35' W. 95.2 feet to a 10 inch maple; thence S. 60 03'W. 31.3
feet to a point 6 feet south ofa persimmons; th~nce S.86' 35' W. 109feet; thence N. 730 40'W. 90.8
feet; thence N. 71' 55'W. 76.1 feet; thence N. 40' 34'W. 209 feet to a corner post just north of the
north line of an old road; thence S. 28' 44'W. along the fence; 192.8 feet to a corner post; thence S.
71' 46'W. 246.2 feet to a comer post; thence along a fence S. 800 22'W. 607.2 feet to a 10 inch white
oak on an old fence corner; thence S. 410 50'W. 509.3 feet to a chestnut oak; thence S. 66' W. 126.8
feet to a planted stone; thence with the easterly line of the boundary of Mrs. Jones, N. 180 20'W.
crossing a branch at 158 feet, a total distance of 896.5 feet along a fence to a planted stone 6.5 feet
from a 16 foot white oak; thence a new division line separating the 13.88 acres retained by the parties
ofthe first part, N. 40 39' W. 842.75 feet to an iron pipe 3.4 feet west of a 24 inch chestnut oak by the
road; thence continuing said new division line N. 13' 27'W. 429.55 feet to a 12 inch white oak and N.
18' 54'W.288.46 feet to an iron; thence with the old original line of the property of Annie Laura
Turner conveyed to the parties of the first part by said deed in Deed Book 433, page 389 aforesaid, N.
53' 45' E.396.4 feet and N. 32' 43'E. 249.6 feet to the place of Beginning; and containing 90.22 acres,
and being the property as shown on survey made for Harry P. Turner, by W. I. McChee, C. P. E.,
April 30, 1959, a copy of which is attached to deed recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 618, page 236. and made a part hereof.
PARCEL TWO
BEGINNING at a point on the south side of Virginia State Route 663; thence S. 43' 36'W.71.8 feet
to a point; thence S. 40 28' W. 181.9 feet to a point; thence S. 21' 26'E. 363.9 feet to a point; thence
S. 46' 53 'E. 238.4 feet to a double 18" white oak; thence N. 49' 05' E. 10 feet to a point; thence N.
46' 53'W.238.4 feet to a point; thence N. 21026' W. 363.9 feet to a point; thence N. 40 28'E. 181.9
feet to a point; thence N. 43' 36' E. 71.8 feet to a point on the south side of Virginia State Route 663;
thence west along the south side of Virginia State Route 663, 10 feet to the point and place of
BEGINNING and being a 10 foot strip along the west side of the property conveyed to the Grantors
by deed from Annie Laura Turner and shown as the easterly one-half of the 20 foot roadway on the
survey made by T.P. Parker, State Certified Engineer, dated July 25, 1959, a copy ofwmch is
recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1233, page 1181, and made a part hereof.
Documentl
Tax Map #89.00-03-06
Lot B-1
Beginning at a Point on the Southerly right-of-way line of Sterling Road (Route 663),
being the northwest corner of Lot B-1 as shown on Boundary Line Adjustment Plat of
Turner Boundary Line Adjustment #2 (Plat Book 29, Page 56); thence with the southerly
right-of-way line of Sterling Road along a curve to the left having a radius of243.00 feet,
an arc distance of151. 33 feet and a chord 0 f N3 9041 ' 43 "E, 148.89 feet to a found iron .
pin at the southwesterly comer ofNIF Joseph Jaklitsch & Beth Snyder-Jaklitsch
(Instrument #200510773); thence leaving said right-of-way and conti~uing with the
southerly line of said J aklitsch property the following: 876032 '24"E; 199.60 feet to a
point; thence S76003 '30"E, 189.97 to a point; thence S75054'22"E, 371.26 feet to a
found iron pin on the westerly property line ofN/F Robert 1. & Mary Shawn Sorrentino
(Instrument #200410384); thence leaving the line of said J aklitsch property and
continuing with the westerly line of said Sorrentino property tlie following: S 13 012' 42"E,
130.21 feet to a found iron pin; thence 804023 '08"E, 13.43 feet to a found iron pin at the
northeast comer of Lot D-1 as shown on said Turner Boundary Line Adjustment #2 plat;
thence leaving the line of said Sorrentino property and continuing with the line of said
Lot D-I the following: S88037'43"W, 174.91 feet to a found iron pin; thence
N86049'09"W, 278.42 feet to a found iron pin; thence S71 041 '27"W, 86.77 feet to a
point; thence N55044'38"W 398.33 feet to the Point of Beginning containing 3.808 acres,
being Lot B-1 as shown on Boundary Line Adjustment Plat of Turner Boundary Line
Adjustment #2 recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the county of
Roanoke, Virginia in Plat Book 29, Page 56.
JSA T rJH1n
. ..~ \lJLJlJk
AN.P."''iiS.CiqIAT~S' 'INO
...................u......~
Legal Description for Roanoke County Tax Map Number 089.00-03-05.00-0000
Beginning at a point on the southeasterly Right-of-Way line of Sterling Road (Virginia Secondary
Route 663) at the northwesterly corner of Lot B as shown on a plat entitled "Boundary Line
Adjustment Plat of Turner Property"(Plat Book 29, Page 40); thence continuing along the
southeasterly Right-of-Way line of said road the following: along a curve to the left being 63.05 feet in
length with a radius of 243.00 feet and having a chord bearing of N12044'44"E, 62.88 feet to a point;
thence N04007'58"E, 135.41 feet to a point; thence along a curve to the right being 160.27 feet in
length with a radius of 230.70 feet and having a chord bearing of N22033'49"E, 157.07 feet to a point;
thence N41031'52"E, 381.66 feet to a point; thence along a curve to the right being 257.92 feet in
length with a radius of 373.33 feet and having a chord bearing of N60048'45''E, 252.82 feet to a point
at the northwesterly corner of N/F Dean Roger Turner (Instrument #200300540); thence leaving said
Right-of-Way line and continuing with the westerly line of said Turner property the following:
S71024'00"E, 101.00 feet to a point; thence S64045'00"E, 144.20 feet to a point; thence
S76000'OO"E, 112.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of N/F Loblolly Mill, LLC (Instrument
#200608936); thence leaving the line of said Turner property and continuing along the westerly line
of said Loblolly property the following: S54034'41"W, 393.94 feet to a point; thence S18040'14"E,
307.26 feet to a point; thence S13012'42"E, 300.80 feet to a point at the northeasterly corner of said
Lot B; thence leaving the line of said Loblolly property and continuing with the northerly line of said
Lot B the following: N75054'22"W, 371.26 feet to a point; thence N76003'30"W, 189.97 feet to a point;
thence N76032'24"W, 199.60 feet to the Point of Beginning containing 10.363 acres and being Lot A
as shown on plat entitled "Boundary Line Adjustment Plat of Turner Property" recorded in Plat Book
29, Page 40 in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia.
PLANNERS . ARCHITECTS . ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS
ROANOKE . RICHMOND . NEW RIVER VALLEY. SHENANDOAH VALLEY
1208 Corporate Circle. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 .(540) 772-9580. FAX (5401772-8050
vvww.balzer.cc
/
~I~ uu
. !~. .
I ~ llU
!ih
Il~:t
!1.~1
~:H
I
IPI
III!
II.
'w
IllJd
III !
I I
Iii! J'I"
!Ill Illl!
'tt'lNt8tlIA . J....1.Nno:J 3)101'.1'V'OH
2: l V g-f:-OO"69 S;ON X'tf..L
I ;
i
~ ~
> ~
m 5
o
<
~ ~
~!~
,- co
I ~
o ...
a: 8
[L o~
za:
d'<1V'l ALcBdOtid 030N3V'l'<1
8"1"1 '111l!\J ^ 110"180"1
~
/-
\
\
\
....
"
'.
\ )
\ (
\ \
\,~
f
IF
\
\
I
\
,
\
\
I
I
I
f
~
\
\
f
-\ f
I}
A
\ ~ \
'\ \ ;
\ I ~ /1
\ .\<~(::;/ (
\0 ......,. r
~ ~ ~ .... I
~~ ~ ~""'l:::: I
'i'~-f-g: (c::. I
~~"") I
,
\<0",,, \
l-! (.j c::. ~
(1g:LU r
\
\
'\
,
"
..
....
j ,
'\
\ '''''~r''
\
"-
"
"
\
\
\
\
'.. --,
<"",+ ......
~"
o
,"",
\
\
-'
/ ~ll!I I -='~ I ~ J: C\J <:>
c: I. "i' 9'!i-&-OO'6e S,'ON X'V'..I. ~ I <:>
g!!. ~ 0 -.i
II. II I ..,.
Ii!' JIll d';flN NOIJ.';fJ..3S>3^ 030N3V'J';f = 0: <:>
,:. . iE~! Iii , I" &i 0 0... :5
. -Ii I ,t~i [Iii 1111! II'! Illll 8ll 'lllll\l ^ llOl80l ~ 0_ ~ ~a;>
~ ~ ~ 8 ill: ~ ~ ~~
i h III ! , !! J: "
~
\
I
\
~
~
'"
~
\
"-
"-
"-
\
~
l<J
~
"-
\
\
\
\
\
"-
'-
\
\
\
..\_-~
"'01+
o
r ,
/' """-''j..1I'+.
_,Y ;-
, '
/ f
<" ~ '.
\~ (""'I
~,
I~~,-_/
I <(
,>
~-----,
\
,"" \
V1NI'!)~,^ .A..LNflOO 3>10NIofOJ::j I ~ H (') 0
~ l-""i' 9'S-C-OO"6a s,'ON X'V..L. ; I 0
JI;I " ~ ~ 0 .,.
ei;~ Ji- ll. I a: .,.
Ii!! ",I d'il^J 3dOlS 030N31^J'i 0
Iii I I;! if, ~ 0 0
gh ',1 c 0... . "'
1111 fill! I'i lill, ~ c- oo
...':..1 ,Ill 011 '11111\I ^ 1101801 I y ~ 69 ~ '0::
~!~~ Illll -~ ~
ill y .N 0
\ "- "-
"-
"- '-- -
"-
" "
" "
~~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~
I 7 ~ ~..
'" .,
'e.
'\
\
\
\
\
.""'~+
o
/ .
.-' '.."
...-'~J..1- ....
" t
'( J
/ t
"\{
A,
I~~ /
I)'>........ -
"
.....f
"
-"
~"
I ~Im "flr-.'If)t:I""'A.i.J',lnOO3>lON'lfOt:! I m m ~ ~ I "l:;t D
z L '9 '9 '!;-E-OCrS8 S::ON )(\0'.1 ~ "-
,. i 0 0 '" I ..
',;:1:.- jl II r 1111 N\fld 38ifdS N3dO ii Iii ~ 0 :;:
. . IHi Hi II! II"~ I!!! ii 0
till Q 0 ~ 0
.-.Ii HI !Ill z ~
]1; Jll; lllll'J ^ llOl80l z u z W l()
l ~ u ~ ~ a.. 0
,dl! ~ c::
III ! ~ ~
I "- \ "- "- I I " -~'-
" "- " " "- " " "-
I /----'\...'- " " " "-
'- " '- "
"
--.. a.
'-
"
'-
"
'- ~ I
--.
"\ "
\ \
I I
I
\ ,
"\ "\ "
\ \ \
! I I
" / I I
" / ~
/" / /"
/" /
.- I
I
I
" "-
"-
"-
'-
"-
IOD ,,~- -
~
r 2
<oJ i . "'\'\
u u e\ i
"
"- .. 0;. \
In "-
:\ Vl ,,~ ~
i5 li!~ u
!li "- i5 ,,~ ~ \)
c "- I:'z
z c Ii
c z ~~
~ C w .~ ~ j
" ';< <L ~I
'" " >
;; 0 cr 0 '\\
u <L
I-.J
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I~/
\
\
\
"\
-----
"
'-
--.
'", "
-~---a.
-_/-,
J;. I
~;.. II. I 1- III I"
mi 'i"' I I'l! I \; ;'j
U~~ I,lll! !Il,! JJlli I,!i,'i
m~ 1!ll!.! !lJl
I~-'///,"///
I:::' I I f [I 1 1 /
I '\ \ \ '\ I I '\
I /,,--..~-,:::-,,', '.......', '\ "-
/'-- \ \/f ...... " ,,"'\. ...... '\
/ ........ ./-- ...... '- ............
// \ (I/ -,--~""""",__,,,,,,,\
II \ 1\1 ,--- ,,\
11//',- \\ V\II __-----~)'II
\ \\1\ ,\,1/ ------_1/11
1 \)-~ \' \ \, ,- - - - - ~ - / J
/11, , 7'1 t,~. \\,\'\ I --/'
I / I/,/' '\ '- ,t, " \. ." '\, ' '\ \ \
,/ / / I ',"'- \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I I I I I" _/X.!!l. \ ~.. I \ \ \ \ \ \
/// \'y \1;; ~". \\' \'\,'
I '- :-:--"",.\:1 \' \ , ,
II I -I ~ \ \
I / ( }I l:: l:::--..
( / ~ k- '
/ /1 ~:::l
;~~ \ ~ ~-~-{
I \
/ 1
I
i
/
~I~ UiI
,J'""
!III
'lr'1NI~l::Il^ . A.l.Nn(X) 3>lONVOl::l I . m ~ 8 il ~ 10 0
~ ~ "i '9 'S-E-OO"6a 5,.oN X"tJ. " "
0 0 g ~ ~ . "
NVld 83.LS'tV\l Ii. 1i:: ! Cl "
Ii. 0 0 l a::: 0 8
llll^J ^ llOl80l I z ~ '" ,;; z\f1
~ ~ w ~ a.. ~ if
. a ~
~
_/
/'
\
'" ............. -- ...... ......
... " ....... .......
\'\',................ --.....:--......
\'\ ......-..'"..........-....."......
,"................-.. :........_~....................... ------
"-... ~ - -.....- - - .............................. ~ -- "'- - - -
"'-"~---:- --- - \.......... -... :.. -... .....- - - - - /
-->~:--...- ::.-.::..,--.....- - -- - --./
I /
I /
/'-
'-
,
\
'-
,
,
I
,
'\
,
,
,
I
'\
\
\ \
\ I
\ \ \
\ I \
1 \ I
I I]
I \ I \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ r:::
,-I 1\ , .:5
, 0 I \ \ 0-
'- I I I 5!
~ I I "-
'- '- I
, I
\ 'i
\
\
I
I
~/
,
\
\ /
..--
\
\
I
r
,
'-
,
\
I
5_3
PETITIONER:
CASE NUMBER:
Oppidan Investment Company (Special Use Permit)
3-2/2007
Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 6, 2007
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: February 27, 2007
BOS 1st Reading 1/23/07
A. REQUEST
The petition of Oppidan Investment to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a
recreational vehicle sales and service facility on 38.65 acres, located at 8010 Plantation
Road and Interstate 81, Hollins Magisterial District.
B. CITIZEN COMMENTS
One citizen spoke. Ms. Long voiced concerns about visibility of the project from
residents on Enon Drive, and asked that the landscaping in the buffer yard be
installed as soon as possible during development. Ms. Long also asked if a berm
could be constructed within the buffer yard. Ms. Long also expressed concern about
potential damage to private wells during construction.
C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Mr. Jarrell asked for clarification of the issue of additional setbacks from the 1-81
right-of-way. He also asked about the large tract on the special use permit, and
whether other RV sales and service could be built on other parts of the large tract.
Staff responded that the petition covered the entire tax parcel, but that the condition
of substantial conformance to the concept plan would limit the requested use to the
area where the buildings are shown on the concept plan. Mr. Azar commented on
the site plan, and the installation of landscaping in the buffer yard. In response to
the citizen's suggestion, Mr. Azar proposed a condition requiring installation of the
landscaping as soon as possible during construction. He also asked about site
lighting and signs. Ms. Hooker also asked about proposed signage. Staff
responded that the zoning ordinance lighting requirements would control lighting,
and conditions limiting signage were not recommended for this commercial
development adjacent to 1-81 and Plantation Road.
D. CONDITIONS
1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the Oppidan
Retail Center Overall Development Plan, prepared by Lumsden Associates,
P.C., dated February 5,2007.
2. The building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with the Gander
Mountain Exterior Elevations, prepared by Oppidan Investment Company,
dated February 2007.
3. Type C, Option 1 landscaping shall be installed in the entire 50 foot buffer
yard during the first opportune planting season after completion of final
grading in the buffer yard. A six-foot high berm shall be constructed within
the buffer yard, with landscape plantings on the berm.
E. COMMISSION ACTION(S)
Mr. Jarrell moved to recommend approval of the petition with the three suggested
conditions. The motion passed 4-1.
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
Ms. Hooker noted that she was uncomfortable with the lack of information about
signs, and that the Commission did not impose an additional setback from 1-81.
G.
ATTACHMENTS:
_ Concept Plan
_ Staff Report
_ Vicinity Map
Other
Philip Thompson, Secretary
Roanoke County Planning Commission
Petitioner:
.STAFF'REPOR
,.<~,~ ;, ,,: '" .'<<"j_,:":,,,.,d._,.:,C_:__' .'.' ,;.j ". ':~::'~'J:'_::-:-:::C'~ "i--.)":": - :..",,,<,,,"__,.'-
Oppidan Investment Company
Request:
Special Use Permit on 38.65 acres for Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service
Location:
8000 block Plantation Road and south of Interstate Route 81
Magisterial District:
Hollins
Suggested Conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the Oppidan
Retail Center Overall Development Plan, prepared by Lumsden Associates,
P.C., dated January 22,2007.
2. The building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with the Gander
- Camping World Front Elevation, prepared by Oppidan Investment
Company, dated December 22,2006. All side and rear elevations shall be
constructed of similar design and colors as the front elevation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY;
Oppidan Investment Company proposes to develop approximately 40 acres near the Plantation Road
interchange ofInterstate Route 81. The majority of the property is contained in the 35.14-acre Bach &
Newbern tract. A special use permit is requested for Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service on the
35.14-acre tract and an adjoining 3.5 I-acre tract. The subject of the special use permit, Gander
Mountain and Camping World retail stores, would be located on a parcel in the northern corner of the
site, to the west of the Days Inn on Plantation Road. The two stores would occupy two buildings,
connected by a common wall.
The requested special use permit is on property zoned for general commercial use and designated for
commercial development in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The property is also adjacent to
Interstate Route 81 and Plantation Road, as well as located near 1-81 exit 146. The petitioners have
provided concept plans that show the location of the requested use. The site is adjacent to existing
commercial uses, and separated from residences that adjoin to the south. Existing zoning conditions
require a 50-foot buffer yard along the residential property lines. This buffer yard will remain as future
commercial development takes place on the balance of the property. Staff suggests two special use
permit conditions relating to the site plan and building design.
1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Roanoke County approval is required for site development and building plans.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval is required for all new public streets
and driveway entrances from public streets.
2. ANAL YSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Background - Oppidan Investment Company proposes to develop approximately 40 acres near
the Plantation Road interchange of Interstate Route 81. The majority of the property is contained
in the 35.14-acre Bach & Newbern tract. The property has been identified in the Roanoke
County Economic Development files for potential commercial development. In 1990, the Board
1
of Supervisors rezoned the 35.14 acre tract from R-l, to B-2, with proffered conditions. A copy
of the 1990 ordinance is attached for reference. Initially, Oppidan petitioned to remove those
proffered conditions, in addition to the requested special use permit. That rezoning petition has
since been withdrawn.
T opographyN egetation - The topography of the site is gently rolling. From central high points,
the land slopes down to the northeast and southwest, with the property forming a drainage divide
between Carvin Creek and a tributary of Deer Branch. A shallow sinkhole lies along the
southwestern side of the property. This sinkhole is not in the vicinity of the proposed
Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service facility, but will affect design of future conunercial
development on the site.
The site is an open hayfield, with some trees around the perimeter. Review of 1953 aerial
photography indicates that the property has been in agricultural production for more than 50
years.
Surrounding Neighborhood - Single family residential development adjoins the site on the
southeast and southwest sides. These R-l zoned properties contain homes built between the mid-
I 940s and mid-1950s. Interstate Route 81 adjoins to the northwest. Properties across 1-81 are
zoned C-2 and contain the Church of God regional offices and the Cathedral of Praise church.
Properties to the northeast are also zoned C-2 and contain motels and convenience stores along
Plantation Road, as well as two single family homes.
Conununity Meeting - A conununity meeting was held on January 22,2007, to discuss the
project. Approximately 50 residents attended. County staff introduced the petitioners and
described the upcoming legislative process. The petitioners described their development plans,
the programmed layout of the stores. They also presented graphics of the site plans and store
design criteria. Questions were raised about the site development, allowable land uses in the C-2
zoning district, site lighting, landscaping and pedestrian access. Other questions were raised
about the existing proffered conditions on the 35.14 acre tract. Citizens questioned the need to
remove the proffers, and the petitioner's counsel responded that if the neighbors desired, they
would keep any or all of the proffers, and just proceed with the special use permit. Existing and
future storm drainage was also discussed, as well as potential damage to nearby wells.
3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Layout! Architecture - The subject of the special use permit, Gander Mountain and Camping
WorId retail stores, would be located on a parcel in the northern comer of the site, to the west of
the Days Inn on Plantation Road. The two stores would occupy two buildings, connected by a
common wall, on an 8.87 acre tract.
The Gander Mountain store would be approximately 65,000 square feet, with a 15,000 square
foot outdoor display area. The front of the store would face southwest, toward a new public
street. The outdoor display area would be on the northwest side of the store, facing Interstate
Route 8 I. Gander Mountain sells hunting, fishing and camping supplies, including fishing boats
and boat trailers, and All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and ATV trailers. Gander Mountain also
performs A TV service in an enclosed area of the building.
The Camping W orId store would be approximately 18,600 square feet, with rougWy 12,600
square feet of retail space, and the remaining area devoted to Recreational Vehicle service bays.
According to the petitioner's concept plan, the service bay doors would be in the rear of the retail
2
store, and face toward the southeast. Per the zoning ordinance, any RV that is missing major
body parts or substantially damaged must be placed in a storage yard that is screened from public
view. The concept plan does not indicate a storage yard area. According to the petitioner, this
particular store would offer RV equipment retail sales and RV service, but would not offer new or
used RV sales. The Planning Commission may wish to confirm whether the RV sales are
anticipated in the future, and if so, determine how much area would be needed for outdoor sales
display. Staff suggests the Planning Commission impose a condition requiring substantial
conformance with the petitioner's concept plan.
The petitioners submitted a front elevation for the buildings. The Gander Mountain building
would be a light tan exterior with dark green wall trim. The main entrance and corners of the
building would be trimmed with a rustic log frame fayade with pitched green roofs over the
entrances. The Camping World exterior would be off-white with yellow wall trim. The Camping
World entrance includes a large glass front with a dark blue fayade trim over the entrance. The
elevation has the appearance of one large building, but with different color and fayade treatments
to distinguish the two stores. The front elevation would face southwest, toward the new public
street. Side and rear elevations have not been provided. These stores will be very visible from
Interstate 81 as well as the new public street, and likely from Plantation Road. Staff suggests that
the Planning Commission consider a condition requiring substantial conformance with the
building elevation, and that all side and rear elevations also be constructed with similar design
and colors as the front elevation.
The existing proffered conditions on the 35.14 acre tract require a 50-foot buffer yard where the
project adjoins residential properties. This buffer yard requirement will remain on this project
and all future commercial development on the property. Other existing proffers include limiting
the commercial street access to Plantation Road; limiting light intensity; limiting building height
to 4 stories; and prohibiting some commercial uses. None of these existing proffers would affect
what is proposed on the petitioner's plan. Current zoning regulations further limit light intensity
and building height adjacent to residential zoning; and many of the prohibited uses would require
a special use permit under current C-2 zoning.
The zoning ordinance requires a special use permit for Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service in
the C-2 zoning district. However, a similar use, "New Automobile Sales" is permitted by right in
the C-2 district. Each of these two uses have very similar "Use and Design Standards" in the
zoning ordinance. Staff suggests that during upcoming reviews of the zoning ordinance, the land
use "Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service" be evaluated as a by right use in the C-2 district,
with additional use and design standards.
Access/Traffic Circulation - A new public street is proposed to serve the development. The new
street would intersect Plantation Road directly across from Friendship Lane. The new street
would be constructed along the southern property line of the Fairfield Inn, with a variable width
right of way following the property line until just past the Carvin Street right of way. The new
street would then turn toward the northwest and generally bisect the main part of the property. A
cul-de-sac is shown at the northern terminus of the street. To the northwest ofthe Fairfield Inn
property, a second street would connect from the main street in order to serve future commercial
development.
The petitioners are conducting a Traffic Impact Analysis for the buildout of the entire project.
One of the main purposes of the study is to determine the need for a traffic signal at the Plantation
Road intersection, as well as improvements to Plantation Road turn lanes and timing of the new
3
signal. From the draft analysis provided by the petitioner, a new traffic signal is warranted at the
intersection, and would be required by VDOT. According to the draft traffic study, the proposed
signalized intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service for design year
2013 and 2019 buildout conditions.
At the January 22 community meeting, a citizen commented about the desire for pedestrian
access from the neighborhood that adjoins to the southwest. This could be achieved through the
undeveloped public right of way at the northem end of Tinkerdale Road. That right of way
connects from Enon Drive to the subject property.
Fire & RescuelUtilities - Fire and rescue service would be provided by the Hollins Station. Fire
and rescue staff commented that the Fire Prevention Division would perform two annual fire
inspections per new public building on the site. They also commented on existing fire hydrants
on Plantation Road, and the need for adequate fire flow requirements.
Public water and sanitary sewer are available to the site. Currently, a lO-inch water line is
located along the southeastem property line of the site. Public sewer is available from Plantation
Road. The petitioners propose a newl2-inch water main, with three new fire hydrants, to be
constructed along the new public street. The petitioners also propose an 8-inch sewer main
connecting to existing sewer lines.
4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN
The site is designated Core in the future land use guide of the Roanoke County Community Plan.
Core areas are where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Land uses within core
areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may
also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally-based shopping
facilities. The proposed use conforms with the policies and guidelines of the Community Plan.
5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS
The requested special use permit for Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service is on property zoned
for general commercial use and designated for commercial development in the Roanoke County
Community Plan. The property is also adjacent to Interstate Route 81 and Plantation Road, as
well as located near 1-81 exit 146. The petitioners have provided concept plans that show the
location ofthe requested use. The site is adjacent to existing commercial uses, and separated
from residences that adjoin to the south. Existing zoning conditions require a 50-foot buffer yard
along the residential property lines. This buffer yard will remain as future commercial
development takes place on the balance of the property. Staff suggests two special use permit
conditions relating to the site plan and building design.
Suggested Conditions:
1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the Oppidan Retail Center
Overall Development Plan, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated January 22,
2007.
2. The building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with the Gander - Camping
World Front Elevation, prepared by Oppidan Investment Company, dated December 22,
2006. All side and rear elevations shall be constructed of similar design and colors as the
front elevation.
4
CASE NUMBER:
PREPARED BY:
HEARING
DA TES:
03-02/2007
David Holladay
PC: 2/6/07
BOS: 2/27/07
Attachments:
Zoning Map
Future Land Use Map
A pplication Materials
C- 2 Zoning District Regulations
March 27,1990 Ordinance #32790-9 rezoning tax parcel #018.18-01-01 from R-1 to B-2C
5
31 RAMP OFF
O~
,.,)>.'IJ>.?
j',\ "
81
81
31 RAMP OFF
31 RAMP ON
Zoning
~ _AG3
_E?
_AG1
~ AA
_AV
Cl
.C2
.C2CVOO
I .. 11
2: _12
.PCD
. PRO
. Pro;
'" R1
~ R2
----, R3
_R4
Roanoke County N
A
Department of
Community Development
Applicants Name: Oppidan Investment Company
Existing Zoning: C2/ C-2C
Proposed Zoning: Special Use Permit for Recreational Vehicle Sales & SeNice
Tax Map Number: 18.18-01-01, 18.18-01-10
Magisterial District: Hollins Area: 38.65 Acres (35.14 + 3.51)
29 December, 2006 Scale: 1" :: 400'
Land Use
<:
"-..
~
_ ConsllrvsUlln
. Rlfal Pnrservll
_ RJral Village
I,,1llage Center
Dll~eIopment
Nelglborhood Cooservalion
_ Transition
. Coil!
_ Pmcipallndustrial
Roanoke County
Department of
Community Development
N
Applicants Name: Oppidan Investment Company
Existing Zoning: C2 / C-2C
Proposed Zoning: Special Use Permit for Recreational Vehicle Sales & Service
Tax Map Number: 18.18-01-01, 18.18-01-10
Magisterial District: Hollins Area: 38.65 Acres (35.14 + 3.51)
29 December, 2006 Scale: 1" = 400'
A
<?z~ OlDO'sOg \
I!
.CoUDtyl)fltQllDQk~
Community Development-
PlaI)~igg"8; ZOl1hlg
1<'0'1" Sta'ffUse;OiilY .
e'.
.......................>.
. . .' .
. .
. . .
'. ,.,
5204 BeniaidDnye,
]: ():j~9K'19.adO
Roanoke,VA!240181.().7.9.8'
(540J'71iii6~8' ":EXX'(~4Pj 776F7J5~
Ghi'.c10YPe p~J'p.ii~~ti@'ill~g(~h~qlc,all'lh~tJ!pp1y)..
o RU:(Jiji~IL'tt~eetiril"lJ1i~ []'V~iRiic!lIJ:Wllifer O..AClriiiiiistriltive ApJ)eal D.Comp'l'olan l)s:i~i3i)Jteview
P,bom~;
Wcirl(;'
Celt~:
Ell.J(,Nq,;
tyt'C
(hvtiii;sn8inei.~ddres5wtri
.........,.....",...,.P I"'~~~
~ ANP NeW~rJ :it PI:aJ~~, IN?--
l~ &~H1vL--~,.IOrI? ~~
. ~ylu.e./TN.?J71~" ..... '"
Pt()p~,p~?ljo~.
~IC' J:7I,..AN'f'A'nON ~-"'<D Ij-
1~~1
_... .,,_ . ._.". ....'M_.__ ...
TaX. ;'P'NoJs.: t71~.19.-l?I::..Of.i'.d>1 .E"~~.....Z...-.C...
..- ~ .Ie> -PI - IO.~ . "",.",.,g9nu1~; J-
Si~e.,of:pBiiel~:P,{Cf~~ ~ 2>. b ~ A~. J~:ili~~~Urid'Us~;;
l?h9i:i1~4t:.
Worb
P..ai'N6; 4t;;
GQiriqiif#itY.P.laooiDg.~!
He:' l-t-I Nt?
t1vL-L--IN"b
Ma "51ma1 DiStrict:
. . ,gJ.",. .. ..... ...... .
c;;. -2. &
~-o2.
I.qOlO)
P~l'es~'ZeBmg='
PJ;Qposed;J::;aijd '(Ise;
-epee-lA-\... ua.e. F"'E=1ZMIT ~ f2~~1"lor--l""ct- Ya-\1~
~~ ANI? ~~"lCE, .
D?~s$e~;lA.:ebn:-el.tbe ~~Ul,11!o~,~~.\~ldth,.an~'fr.oxitag~:req~i:cments dttberec;luested &smcl1'
Y~SdJt l'I9.,O 'IF ;N.Q,$.NA.JU;.mCJUS,REQ'UIREl;UlIlS.T..
i$'~=~=!i=::::~: ::N!A
VBij~~aiy.er))f:~,ecti9I1.@ N fA .
.. .d:Fthc"Ri:r.Ui\ilc:~!Couu:ttZQrn~~.Ol.airianc.e inorlierfo~
~~:~;:~~:;~~~~~:~l~~~SiO~!~ "'-~lA~i.tiJ~~~o!<~;Gou~ty;zp~g'~~~~- , ..
,AppeaLotInterpretation.of:Zo~8~:Mupilt N . .... . ".
IS.t!1e~J1Piic~~1ipp)li..P1*~~1 Ji~~cl1~k~f"~~#I-g~~ :~~L'J.Gi\;PQlS,~~QT;Jl,Ir:~~c,Err;EP1J!~OF1:~S"EnEM$
.~:!\fi$s~q()Ii)~<tO~QiT.E.., .
wSlWlCP VIAk MfWici v/kA
~.,.... ~Ji.~..u.'.l!.2.)~i1 Eji.' ... ..' '"M~'-..~X:l..f.'~-;01i.~~P~.Phi.h, d
'Application. .MeleS:lind'boulI'd5,d~cripl~ri'
JusiJfibiiiPIJ. :'Wa(er,'IUId Sc.Wl:\"iappli" 'tlein
'1.li~h.Y#ttHY:lh~!Till:li~.i.~er llie,9\0l.e.r.~HI\~Jlt9ptii#: pr.\!i~,6\~r'''' g'" U:Qri"'
-of ..the' 'owner"
RlstWicp ViM
.AWli~tionlee:
r~Jt~~..:#Ii'pp1ji:iilj!e;
: Al3jotnmg!'prOpcrtyi:oWnerS
, ascr'llJId~~"~~;wj~'ll1e:loiQ)~lea~eand'.eonsl;nt
:OWller'sSi'gnstUTI;'
. '0'
a.
t
r
I
I
I
F
!
i
i
.~
:f
.{~
::~
;:t..
""
.,
.,~.
.f.
f:
of:
;AppiiciU:J~ c:'-PPI DAN II-JV~E?Nt~MP~Y =/P LAfZ.F-'f ~('T
~~~Jfh~'~~~~:'J~~~~~Jf~~i~;~~~~.~.~~e~t~~t~~l~~;~I~::~~"~~:l~.~=:~~t.~~~
foIiowl.rt&queStlo'nsaSthOto~ih]Y.l1S;possibr~tise~dil;icl.b~!l} ..~a~ if:1;l:ec.~~a.tY~'
Fleasc ex;plain how :tbe~est'furtbCri;~e:pu.rp.(,l~!of~~~:R.~~o~~Po.W!~:Q.f9i~ri6~ as.:)V<<?II.~'th~.pJ.l!pqs~ fqUlfd:at~e
b~nriing:or-the:appllcible: zo~g:dlstricLClassification':i~ the:Z?ri.!hKQr.9in!iA~ .
~ ATTAC+fe1:::> (j.I)
..
....
Please explain bow 1he :p[C!jcl.:f'9l?i1fotm~~\:i'tp~ .ge!J~at:gi,rl:iji;line.s'imCl.pql icJesc~l1jaigeii:.i#.thY.!t!laijOlceCCljirity':C(),rp.riiUn;it:Y'
Plm.' . .
q;ee A1.,...~6?D LZ..2)
- . . .......,. ;.' -. ,~.. .
PleasMlescribeThe impaCtNoftbere9~e.st"0n'the~Jlrd'p'elJX!i~lfi1h~a~j9ii'1.iijgp'rop.c.tti~l!I,l#~~~u#4v~ffiJjg:~ea, :Rs.:we1Jjs
ihe'iIlll?acts,on;p.ubUc$erWt:esand facilIties, lnciuCling-water)seweiJr.oads; sclioois;:1)afks.irecr-e~~n.'a:p.~:~t;c~\f<j:<:~'u~,.
~ ATT~~D cz.:iiJ
/"
.
... .
:3
O<J,rnmuni1:y b.e\1elopmen:t
.""l\'
. ........,..."..~.."'" ". '.......~...
. '" ~"'. "!!
: '.~'
. ' . .
- "1" .
Planning & Zoniri~.DiVls'iQrr
. NOUGE fP APPLJCANT~ FQR.ReZO~G? S:rfflDlYI~IQ~ WAWEl~~..
PuBLIC 8TRRETWAlvElt OR SPECIALUSEPEItMIt'PETITIQN
.....'..'.......'... ...... ,...,."...~,......~... ". ."". ..................,....,
PLANNThlG COM1\4lsSidNA.PPLIcAtION A'cCEPT:ANCItPI{ODEDtJRE
The Roanoke C.owity Planning: CbIllIriissibn :reserves. 'therightto.:contmue:a '~ezonfug,
stiP~V~joli '~~v~r,.:PQlJ'i~ S~etW:ahter:ot$peclatus~ ~e:qnit:p~cl.nOiijt'li~W ot.a,dilitiQilaJ
inf9~atioll' ispre~ented ,at: the p~hlic' l!e,arjrili;i}fjJ J~ ,~fl1.~. :9p.~t;lA(jf:f!1~ t!,t,ajq1ibr.oft:he~
PIBn:i:iitig Ctlmmi~sioIieri; present afthe schedUled public he'arihg:that'sUffiCiento'tiriiewa!Lliof
.:l.v.;ill~bl~ r.o:r:pl~i1niT\g' ~iaff: MdlQtaIioui~lde' r.eiettaf 'agen~y Jo~ci~ua:teiy 'ey~lll.a~~a
provide Written:comments 'aDd 'Suggesnonson .the,new'or"addinonal information prlor:tp .,~e:
s~he4ill~ap@ii:t; 'ht~lfth~ th~:p"18iiTiirig tioin.InissiQn:'m~y vall:: to>tjjritin\l~ . thli 'pefitioit.
This 'cpntmu@.ce shall ~Ilo~S\1fi.i~i~t .wne'~for:'41: ~l::~~~a& ~~~Wing Pllrti~to ,ey~~at~
~tfie li~W .0i ;:a:aditionaJ. ,ilifoririiitioii. and plQ"ide wtitten ~()riiiriejits' ;and.. su,g,geStlonsto. . be,
:iD,~~u:al;d, Rl,' '~. '!\''@eri: :J;I1~~~Fan~Ji!i:'~ J~y pJ~!l~hi,g'~j:aff' ~~. ..~~ :Elllhtilti~ :GP1T!!T!5ss_io~,; J1i:~
Pla:mili:i.~ CorimlisSiciri .:shiUl :coriSUlfwifu planning;.:staffto-determine:if::a:.ccDtinuance:,may.cbe
'wB+I:ili;1t~(i: '"
:PbT.El~~TIA:L:6F:NEED'FOR,1'RAFFiCANAL'tSES'.A"NDY6R TRAFmc'lMPAcr.STODY
The ROanoke. CQUDty PJannfug. 'e~tturiiS$jon .reserves iheJ;ign"t.1P :ton:tin~e.. ia: :R:ezoDfu..,g.
.~:~:;i~;:ri=~~~:~~~t:1r-~~:~~~=~~~~~~~.;::;:: ..
;reque~s .further :tfaffic ,analyses ana/er.a 1raffic>impact~study' th~f 'WoUld be benefici~ :ih
JIi8km..gi!,j@d, 'qSe; a~$i~ii U1.ote.~ 'i1ti~t dJppte.i,ltiij.tJdiia. u~esiin~L#tiiiitiQfis. 'iliiitWiiiiid
,1'f!r.:~sJ'falefilrm'l!1:~'tW!Y~''Pr.9vi4~.d.lJ~;;pgrl.of#zl~ gppUc.~#o.t!.paq!cq,g#:); .'
This.cori$iHuic.e Shan :aU6W 'sufficient ,nmeo.Ibtlill necessatj feViewmgparties .:to evaluate:
.tQ~ :r~$iir~a. ;ti-Mii~ 'a:n.~ys_~~:: ~!1d19I;' tr:!lffi~ !~PflC.i., si:u4Yiull1 :f.(j' pr9Yi:~~ .:wiltteJ1 ~Qmm~ts:
anOfor;suggest:ions itc,the pl~g:;S'ta:ff:end tIfe~Pl_g Commission. If' a 'con1in!l~~ i~
:~~=te~t~e ;~ppliGant :wUil?~.~QtffiedQ'fihe'coiitlilu~ce inid. the riewiyscliridu1cil~U1)lici
EifeCtlve:Dale: A:piill~>.2QUS,
6A.Nt:::e'fZ M?Ur-rrAiN AND .cAWlPINbCl11:;::>J:z..L...p
'. . d-;;N.':iifP.~"
{7II;."'&t.U.k/c . ....
. JZ-/~ -'I 2aJ.~
. I Jla~t::
i,i
i
i.
I'
:~
1:
("
I.
J
}
';
..'
~."
:;
i~~~_~~~~~I~~~!~rrf;~~5ia'~
A .cpnc,~t'_pjan:~f:lh~'propi:l~eli p'rQj~ct:mu~t;1J,~ ~!lhta.itte.il'MtKth#_?PrHi.c~ti,oIL-Tb.~l?~~~~tpl?Th~hall;it<!P~~ly.)lwt~t-the;~.
lanil,use~harig~i .developmentor variance'~iis. t(f$e,t:9~f4~r~.!r'-urfiicr,.-t)1c:,'p.i~,~qilJl'~~~e~?i$Y'Pi>.I~lj~~t~liJis.e\'9t'
Qeslgnissues'wingfromthe:reguesLlnsuclicases:invol~~rezoniilgs;tlre~ppIiClUittplily.ptofter:~OIliliti!>i;I$:t9]~t fJ1~J'i~j
use_ano;developmenlofthe:prQperlyandbyso dajngicorrecblOyaeficiencieslhai'l11llyncitbetrlanageabietiyiCoUIlty'Per:[II:i~ijg:
;jegjllatip~;, , .
'J;h~:C9ncq;~.'plBiis~Qw4jiQt...~e,'~orifi,i,Sc4Wi11i.fu.~;S~t~.P1.~-9~:Plo.ti>_laj\tb~tJs~uifed.priQiJo;thej~~imce:ofabli'ildi~g,penriit.
~1~~~&.!tar!!=1\~=1i$Slf!~
)f;. !:loncgit-plan is'IegUireeLwi'tb:aIfrezonln,g; special_useJlenrilt,- wai'ver; commuriity-plan;~15.i~ti31}'revl~W-.and \':arlance;
_ 'app'!icafions; The:plansbouldbecprcparetl:by:a'professior;ta)'slteplanner..Thileve1 ofdetailmay-vary,aepenOiligon'fue'natiit~
. ~or-~'ri:qui:iit; Th~:G_QUn~Y::PJ;ijipiilg'Djyi~oi:J;slaff:mliy,,~empf some;Qfthejtems.Ol;,slIggeSt,'the;;additionof'exttaftems,-Dut.f:he'
-,fo1towin~ we'cciiiSjdefedJtiii:iilnlim-~ ." . . " - .
MJ"A.EI'.LIC~. ,_s . . . .
... \8. A iicanfi'lairie:arid'riifui.'c:'6f.dC:"dcirileiit
7: -;_PP",::" .--.- '.' ,.,,,._..~. ....
b; D.3te.:scaIe ailtJ.1ialth"illToW'
7 ,I;: .Lot"size;~''Ile~~;',~q~;ieeLand:ilimensioils
. ?.....:."""""" ."""'<'I~:R""""'CDnnIy """""""""...."';iHlji...DM.""orlI,,.
.. /;: '::s::=:;:::~~da;:;~:=:t~D~es; floodpl~,:~
L;gi iJi'property:'Enesand-eascmcIitS-.
. / 1i: .AJlbuildm~s,-'~g"and:JlrDPosed.?-anddiinensions. iioor--area:and:hclghl3
. ~:I:, :r,~~ti6ri;widths:andnam~-.ofalLeXistiilg:oq)fuft"d,~or::otberpubUc W.1lyswit1iin;or aQiaceni to:-ihedeyelo,pmeni
. /' J;2:PJ~~~~~,i\n9.JQ$.i~~~n~~f::ai1.!g~v.~;s;~~~~~~e~LiPl~)'o~cli~~ ~~~. . .
Ailitiiiond/:/l1fdmIGrion teqtiitetI/cJ1:j(EZjjNiNiJ-aridSPEC1il.;:ifSEP.E.Riyitt#'.j>'tJ~
/'k"
.:.:.:..:.:.:... ~" .~.
--1L' -r.~
/.
-1L'Ql;
~.
__~~<o;
Nl~."p;
.Z'
'=--:. 1h
~jstitig:ii!iUpcs;(,w~le.f,;sew.er~ ~6rm;:_s}jmd corlne~tions'at ,the sit~'
:l;giy:~y~waY:S/~n.trafi~~l~XitS; c_utQ'9pep,iJl~;~i:lifQ@v._i:tj'
'To.P~WP~y'-:map.Jir'~:Silhab!~'SIl?!e:@cl;l:i:lntotlr1~~r:V@.s:
,ApJirbxiinaie'Street~es:and siteiiista.nc~s: ~~.full::~,~.on~
.i;ocations,.o':i:ali::adJaceoBh:e:h;rdiants .
An.'f :proffen;a'conditions ,a-iJhe.site,aniJ:how -tlio/':are:addresse~i
IfJ)~I~~f~'fQ~'p_hllScii"P.] easejSliQWpli~~'~!:;b~!l~~:
, .checicIislabove'are:coiD' tete.-
., ".. " .'.-- - .. ...... ....,- -- . P- ..-"
12/ 'Z f /2alt,:>
I Date .
:st
Jj
APPLICATION
FOR
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR
GANDER MOUNTAIN
AND CAMPING WORLD
ON A PORTION OF
TAX MAP NUMBERS 018.18-01-01.00 AND 018.18-01-10.00
FOR
THE OPPIDAN RETAIL CENTER
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VlRGINIA
PREP ARED FOR
Oppidan Investment Company
5125 County Road 101, #100
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345
DATE: December 22, 2006
Revision: January 16,2007
COMM. #2006-224
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
EN GIN E E R S - SUR V EY 0 RS - PLAN N E R S
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Application for Special Use Permit: Gander Mountain and Camping World, Roanoke County, VA.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. APPLICATION INFORMATION ............ ...... ............................... ............... ...... .................. ...... ......... .....3
2. JUSTIFICATION. ... ... ............. ....... ................. .......... ....... .................. ........... ....... ................... ...... ..............3
3. CONCEPT PLAN ...... ................. ................... ... .................................. ............ ...... .'. ................... ....... ..........4
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTy...............................................................................................5
5. ADJACENT OWNERS ................... .......... ........... ........... ................. .............. ........ ................... ..... ............5
APPENDIX
A. Completed and Signed Roanoke County Special Use Application
B. Conceptual Site Plan by Ryan Companies US, Inc. dated December 21,2006
C. Conceptual Development Plan by Lumsden Associates, P.C. dated January 15,2006
D. Conceptual Infrastructure Development Plan by Lumsden Associates, P.C. dated January 15,2006
E. Roanoke County Zoning Administrator Letter dated December 12, 2006
F. Agenda from August 30,2006 Pre-Application Meeting
G. Water and Sewer Application
H. Water and Sewer Planimetric Map
Lumsden Associates, P.C.
Comm. #2006-224
January 16,2006
Page 2
Application for Special Use Permit: Gander Mountain and Camping World, Roanoke County, VA.
1. APPLICATION INFORMATION
I. I Special Use Application (See attached, completed, and signed application form.)
1.2
Applicant:
Oppidan Investment Company
5125 County Road 101, Suite 100
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345
C/o Larry Barrett
Phone: (952) 294-0353
Cell: (612) 597-9452
Fax: (952) 294-0151
1.3
Owners:
Bach and Newbern and
1145 Garrett Hill Road
Greenville, Tennessee 37743
Interstate Motel Developers, Inc.
1145 Garrett Hill Road
Greenville, Tennessee 37743
1.4 Property Location: The address for the Back and Newbern portion of the site is 0 Carvin
Street and the address for the Interstate Motel Developers site is 80 I 0 Plantation Road; the land
can be described as the large vacant parcels at the southwest corner ofInterstate 81 and Plantation
Road.
1.5
Magisterial District:
Hollins
1.6
Community Planning Area:
Hollins
1.7 Tax Map No.: Portion of Tax Map Numbers 018.18-01-01.00 and 018.18-10.00
1.8 Existing Zoning:
C2C (09-02/1990)
1.9 Size of parcel:
8.87 Acres
1.1 0 Existing Land Use:
Vacant
1.11 Proposed Land Use:
Service.
Principally Retail Sales; with a portion of Recreational Vehicle Sales and
2. .roSTIFICA TION
2.1 How request furthers the purpose of the Roanoke County Ordinance: The purpose of C2 General
Commercial District is to provide locations for a variety of commercial and service related
activities within the urban service area serving a community of several neighborhoods or large
areas of the county. Gander Mountain, Camping World, and the overall retail development will
provide quality commercial/retail services to Roanoke County and the larger Roanoke regional
area. This project encompasses many of the traits and attributes the Roanoke County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors intended when they rezoned the property in 1990. While
this request is for the Gander Mountain and Camping World portion, the overall development will
propose a new stoplight at Friendship Lane on Plantation Road, a major arterial, immediately
Lumsden Associates, P.C.
Comm. #2006-224
January 16,2006
Page 3
Application for Special Use Permit: Gander Mountain and Camping World, Roanoke County, VA.
south of the Hollins Interstate 81 interchange. This newly improved intersection at Friendship
Lane will be the point of access to The Oppidan Retail Center.
2.2 How proiect conforms to the Roanoke County Community Plan: The future land use for this
property is designated as a core area in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The Community
Plan identifies a core area as an 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-base shopping facilities. Planned shopping centers and clustered retail uses are
encouraged. The Oppidan Retail Center, which Gander Mountain and Camping World will be a
part of, is plalU1ed to be an approximately forty (40) acre plalU1ed retail center capitalizing on the
land's Interstate 81 exposure and new planned improvements for Friendship Lane and Plantation
Road.
2.3 Impacts the request will have on the property itself. the adioining properties. and the surrounding
area. as well as the impacts on public services and facilities: The proposed development will
respect the natural topographic features to the extent possible considering the Gander Mountain
and Camping World design guidelines. Landscaping and buffers will be provided as required by
the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Access to the site will come from Plantation Road at the
Friendship Lane intersection. Improvements to Plantation Road and Friendship Lane will include
realigning a small portion of Friendship Lane and a stoplight at the intersection. The entrance
and all road improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with Virginia
Department of Transportation standards.
The development has access to water and sewer services and has been confirmed in a meeting
with the Western Virginia Water Authority. Water and sewer services will be designed and
constructed in accordance with Western Virginia Water Authority standards.
Because this commercially zoned property has sat vacant for a number of years, any by-right
development of this land will have a significant visual impact to the surrounding area. However,
this development will try to mitigate the negative visual impacts with additional buffer
landscaping. A fifty (50) foot buffer is provided along the property line separating this
commercial use from the residential parcels to the west and south.
3. CONCEPT PLAN
The Conceptual Site Plan by Ryan Companies US, Inc. for Oppidan Investment Company dated
12/] 9/2006 is attached. The Gander Mountain and Camping World retail facility will be located at the
northeast comer of the combined parcels tax map numbers 0]8.]8-01-01.00 and 018.18-10.00. Parking
facilities will be located to the east off the access road which bisects the overall combined parcels and the
building will be placed forty (40) to sixty (60) feet off the east property line, adjacent to the Kaival, Inc.
(Days Inn) property. The access road traverses the ridge of the site; leaving the development on the west
side of the parcels still visible from the residential area to the west, but assisting to screen the proposed
developments on the east side of the access road. A fifty (50) foot landscape buffer will be provided
between the residentially zoned property to the west and the future commercial development.
Lumsden Associates, P.e.
Comm. #2006-224
January 16,2006
Page 4
Application for Special Use Permit: Gander Mountain and Camping World, Roanoke County, VA.
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The following is a deed description for the Oppidan Retail Center (Gander Mountain & Camping World)
consisting of a portion of Roanoke County Tax Map # 18.18-1-1 0 and Tax Map # 18.18.01-01. The
description is as follows:
BEGINNING at a point being the northeasterly comer of Kaival, LLC, said point also located on the
southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81; thence leaving 1-81 and with Kaival for the following 2 courses, S
30032' 54" E, 401.63 feet to a point; thence S 31058' 14" E, 351.36 feet to a point; thence leaving
Kaival and with 7 courses comprising the perimeter of Tract A and through the property of Interstate
Motel Developers, Inc. and Bach and Newbern as follows: S 590 02' 50" W, 379.81 feet to a point;
thence S 24" 48' 31" W, 40.71 feet to a point located on the northerly right-of-way of proposed access
road; thence with said access road and perimeter of Tract A for the following 3 courses, a curve to the
right which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 28026' 49", a radius of275.00 feet, an arc length of
136.54 feet, a chord of 135.14 feet and bearing N 50" 58' OS" W to a point; N 36" 44' 40" W, 545.96 feet
to a point; thence with a curve to the left which said curve is defmed by a delta angle of 52" 46' 47", a
radius of 55.00 feet, an arc length of 50.67 feet, a chord of 48.89 feet and bearing N 63008' 04" W to a
point; thence leaving proposed access road and continuing with perimeter of Tract A for the following 2
courses; thence N 00" 28' 32" E, 136.37 feet to a point; thence N 590 02' 34" E, 378.78 feet to a point,
said point located on the southerly boundary oflnterstate 8 I; thence with 1-8 I, S 89" 3 I' 28" E, 99.88 feet
to the point of BEGINNING and containing 8.87 acres as more particularly shown on overall
development plan for Oppidan Retail Center prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated January IS,
2007.
5. ADJACENT OWNERS
... ..... Tax Map~Umber..
No. NaJIle . Zoning .'.
;. ',' .
Bach and Newbern
I I 145 Garrett Hill Road 018.18-01-01.00 C2C
Greenville, TN 37743
Interstate Motel Developers, Inc.
2 ] 145 Garrett Hill Road 0]8.]8-01-10.00 C2
Greenville, TN 37743
KaivaI, LLC
3 81 18 Plantation Road 018.18-0 I -02.00 C2
Roanoke, VA 24019
KaivaI, LLC
4 8 I 18 Plantation Road 018. I 8-0 1-02.0 I C2
Roanoke, V A 24019
Saint Francis of Assisi Service Dog
5 Foundation, Inc. 0] 8-17-02-22.00 ARS
P.O. Box 19538
Roanoke, V A 240 I 9
Bruce A. Herndon
6 8207 Enon Drive 018.17-02-23.00 RI
Roanoke, V A 24019
Lumsden Associates, P.C.
Comm. #2006-224
January 16, 2006
Page 5
Application for Special Use Permit: Gander Mountain and Camping World, Roanoke County, VA.
Frank B. & Thelma D. Havens
7 8123 Enon Drive 018.17-02-24.00 RI
Roanoke, V A 24019
Tony Ray & Pamela Martin Hart
8 8107 Enon Drive 018.17-02-25.00 RI
Roanoke, V A 24019
Church of God of TR (Across 1-81)
9 P.O. Box 7547 018.18-01-08.00 C2
Roanoke, V A 240] 9
Church of God ofTR AKA (Across 1-81)
10 P.O. Box 7547 018.18-0] -08.0 1 C2
Roanoke, V A 24019
Lumsden Associates, P.C.
Comm. #2006-224
January 16,2006
Page 6
YO=' ~cSYd
r ~ 8 ~ N
Iri ~ :8 0
..
~ 1 ~
It w
lJYCU4~i ~
.."n;')':-.,."...c.....".,.tt_"I"o'1~.i
~t<r+.tal(loK"ll('o'~
~lfrt.u COt-iJ 'iNllItol
~IOt~..,"'nIWI'Dl~
W':/lXlfOfI'O-1i
m~i~Vt<<lllllll"lVllllr'l'lt
VWft)W 'AJH"JOO 3)DIfYOU
.1::JIU9ld "1YIGI.8I&JYIlI iNT1lJl.t
YINI~HI^ '3llONYOHI!I
Sll3NNV1d~0A3^HnS-Sll33NJ8N3 ...
-J-d 's3J.,vmssv N3GSJ^lOl .-
NV1d
.LN3~d013^3a
11V~3^O
ANVdl"jOO 1.N3l"jl.S3^NI NVOlddO
01~OM 9N1d~vn , .N.Lt'I ~30NV9
!::I31N3:::> 11V 13 !::I NVOlddO 3Hl
~.~ ~ i 5
I ~
I ~ J ~
i . 5 ~
t ~ ~
~ ~ ~~
~i
~ ~ t~
~ i ~~
0
0 i ~ ~ \\
S I I ~
i u
0 .
RCitJ '!;~~:J W ~
I- d!-
O;
y
.~
~,
:..
!;I
,.
~i
)
;;;
"'>..
0..
"'+
-i-/
...
c
Z
:0
o
III
I
I-
:0
o
'"
"'
'"
o
o!J
III
'I"
1.1
il
<III ~
II ~ I ,
,; '" i~
~Ilil i _" J'
:111 ~.
all f5
=1 "
:1,1
~Ili
o I if~ ,
Ll,q
~ :, Ii f
~ !f ' j
I
i.,.
J~
1=
IZ:
v .
~r~,?
~. i" ~~
~ 0 ~ g
:J a I: _
"" ~ ~
~o ~ ~
~ ~ g
Ul ~ ~
'" --
w an
t. -0
'" 3
"
~
~
'<
~o
~ '1:J ~
10~
iJ>
~7.
~~
Vl
o
C
-l
:I:
m
....
m
~
:!
o
z
"-
~.
~~
<><>
"''''
NN
, ,
NN
<><>
t.t.
6b
_ w
"''''
-w
~
m
\II
-l
m
r
~
~
o
z
~--
,8i
~I
z
o
~
:I:
m
r
~
:!
o
z
..~
ill
..
!
---'
I !l
~ Ii
~
;'1 ..
~I
~.
I
H~
~i;
- .
~
>
\II
-l
m
....
~
:.t
i5
z
ifl
if
!
· ----cc~
~
~ II
U i~
t ~i
..
'-'
lTl-
LI'lLl'l
lTl-
00
.::-::
0-0-
NN
~'
LI'lN
o-~
- "
~ -E
'ti
I~!
, :,
, A:;;
j J-J. Q
.- ...
" rl g
, H:-!. 2:
/1.,'<>-
. ~
O~
>-
I:
C
"-
E
80 ~
~....... CV)
,,"t:l LI'l
E C LI'l
t;~ Z
~ C ~-
~ g c ~
.gu~2
.@:~ ,~ ~
o;;;~i
.\_.~II\.2000'0lI.224\..."....""\-oIIU4_U"...g
Q.u....'"'I'O:l-....p Ol.pl'
I' "',"': I, '-- .-:-,~<~ ..,"'-~~~ ::1'I\(li;
"I ~~~'! ~ iil!!!::\\':\:::::::->'~~~~5?:~:};~'~~"-;'0.::J \11 tJ~!.;,
! I i ~ ,. ,:' !: , : " \\,," t /'<. ". /c't:::-:::. i'A::: 1'1 '
If! Pli -- ~ii "..'~i,i"_,,,,',!l!\'I.\<,'\T~~'~~'-;:~ =~~t~'tj,'.}:~IP ~!',f\
I J. ~ ~ -".o-.r-'::'~~"-j~: i Ii 1"":'>i2.!@js.:.~y.;rJ"" j~. y ':'~~'J1.'1'" 1.,\
~ , ;'~ '-, ,--.,r '/;'~~ ,.',:,:,,\;~::~::' . "J 'I · <:~ ~'~If...\~ / i I I I~ \
E . . . 'h""'r~""'" '-'-~, ." ':--....../ 'w, '--'-, ~lt '.', "
' Illi~ ~ i ,~7:~~'-( ( "----~.;~~> -~~~.:~" ~~,~: . I !^:,~_~
.!II~ I ; t, -!/a: I~( ;'~.; ~~~~~\\\; \ i' ~,,'f~\' i~ ~
, :~ M~ q <\ ~>--~~'o r~,~~!i~=~~,.~:'.~~~t\Wr';i'~~k
[; 2; e Ii"'" ,,-;;-.$'- I- Y'~;~ ". ~r'-- ~"' "J \' )\~
-g'i ",'Ie; ~ ~~~'i'\," r ., . jiff:1 ~.,--.. ., l' . . \ 'o\..~" " o,', '. ~"
UI . "0 I ;<~ "7" ~ .. ) Ii...; I .\.1 I j \ I
.- '~ II~ "0 ;~-- ~ ;}~~ . ~.: i'~"~:jl i .. "'~. ~ ) "', 1\ \~ " ,_ ", \"" j 'I 'to
1'1 9l...,/~J:::'1~1 ..pj.iO... ;;;,;,.', I. J' (~..., , , \
!I.. / r\ !? ;Ie "1\ 0 . .""" " "" / ~ '.~. I '-- \ [ .\
II ,/"'~ ~~"\. to . ~tV~,>\) \' "", I,' ( '~'., I'I~'.'\
I ....... v ~~:!! ,~~ "If ",/' ~. \ \ ". r" !.'--~ \\ r-: I ,. ~'I, ~
1l " 't: ~~ '1 - .A ./ . ~ ...<"&: ~ / I 1 ,,\ 1\ . ~ I I B~I
o ~,... ")'IW~~~-~\fRI~~ ,/', -" \. " ~R"'\\" \v\ \', \' Qlt
.,~' '1'':.1 ~.,.o.1 "~7 I ':P/ ."7" '......:',- r-:- '..\. "X," ". \ / \ :.
-~~ ..., \ I J I i~1"""" 1 'I)"~ - -f~ \~/ I' \\ .
-., (~:~~~\" ~./~. , ~ .1/~\I. , !/*~ r'ri/,.--:t~:~'~;-,\. , . ~:1' ' rW j t., ' I ~\\ ~
<,'::'ii(i, '., '~::~~,:-"'\\o," .. -'" ~/. ~%.,!~/ 7r )<~ )-'1----' -~~. );. j/..~' \ I ~ ll' g
,l.,',:\:", "',,, 1 ""~ ,/dZ, '/ h, L ~'~") /~' ',," .,. !li :i
~>\ \.<...~,,~~, -",-;.-;.'-' / \ 1 ~\o''':' .,\-; " y vI' - Q-~ ;... , :;-t '::,/ ,/... , .- , ,x' ',' 1. I Ii: g
"'~,.\,:::~jY'), ("~<;-1/a""'\<: . ':i~y1v"r ~~'// ~/--..-'-,:--. ~ ,~I, "--.4?< ~~,ri ! Ir e
~- 0':'\\...__':'::/ -J." ::-- oI'. "!:i 'h ../':'Y' //,1/ ~/ --- '~. ,~. !:tF,
"'. "'<'~,,:~"~--' /'..' W~.f ~ f.< ''&' "y' / // // . '. \' , r- ?.--_, ~~I' D :' I ~ tl,:
~::~~>'.-__f,~~;<~:S) .fi' (j~) ~, 'y,hA ,,'0/... /;;:~:~ .... ", \ , (. "..J~<,--,~ '\ U~~!
.. ..~ 0." z rl~ i 'L..P~!h ~ ~~/7~/-:/"_______/;'::::: ""',' ~\' ,_t--;, I 1,1 ~.o
I '\ I' f'/....,. /~ ,// 0]' ~-'" ""'---"[/......-:; "' \" i. ~ig.z (
,: I': " /Sr-...-' (10:, ~ R ~ ~? .</lilg;-- k.~ ,J. /~ ,,~.. ~, ' :':"~'" ,\ " I "'1') ~ ';~
" , .=;, .. a ~.~ '//- ;>; / ~ ~ ~!).~i"1 ) - "< ' '':$:..\ '::\' \, \ .A.%" I ~ I~
/ (\ -1 .!'~~; /~ ~~ ~(// I //(/(1/ V;!il'lJ~ Ri!i~~ ~ ~. ~' . (.l%\\ 'o,' ,\\\: i " " p; ~.\.t
' ',1(' " ''>''''i(, ' r r.'i'iinm t" ~ i !MJ:' " ~\ I " BUi
- ':/ / !! : i1. ~( . l~' \ 1 (., (, \~ '1"-L~ ~ =, '. t ( 1 "<:~v , 'i ;' ;'1, ) , , .. J .}, I I ': Q::
:;""> I~ I\~" r l -'" \1 ~ \ ' '...., ....... ..--,- f~'. . . ,/. I ,\).. . I t{ 'il
/' /'I~'<~" ;l1"" \~':, ) " \':-::::: ~0)>'~)- 1.'1 '1.\ 'l~~'J ~~/rn:~;)"/ /) \~,," 1 ~;~; ;.i"l;" ~~
?'I /?~~ ~)\;~ '<,;\ '~V~' ;~'l~/~, ,('..' ~v;~"/:' ':c\ \';.~, .'" . .
-( ~4"'{;;:Y-____~ ~J-:,'. " \ l-l.:," rfl// /, ~)<. 1 , r::", <:. ,. ) ~ '
~~ ~..(A.' -,'., . 'I~ )),)1'11 0-:f'" . -~/:,__ -.----=~c,- -.,!: --- .,.~ ~ ~ ' '
~i'~- -J::~ ~~/! 1'----:' ,7"i ,;Jj./~..!' U. ~/ ,., / :::-.-,~-==-= .=. :~, J!i U~ ~\ \ , ,. "
1....,-,'.... /- ~--..:>-::..-:: "/7 " i '" ,/ ;...-----~:>., ,..' ,'.,,~ IQlf \, .J~~i'
v:::rf\ ':;:-;-~--=-c/______~ " r I ~~,<>;,:-- ...-~~~;.;.. '- - '~:::'" . J M~ ::' AY~' "~~J\
f<f4 ;r ~W~~~ ~,' ~.,~~~~;:.~.~~~&;t.:-::.c. "~ l"L,li" ~ " ";45' <:--"<<~~".; ",IM'IIII"
\;j- , ~~'~ ~ ~ I /..../.-.../~~Q~c::~---/:~~; :3:' : \ I'I':~>/ \1 ^
~i~ ""IJ / (~. /~--"",,;"'~'Y~/ /;/-/ / /~~~ill~f;~:.'i, ab. tromii,..Uik ..,,>Sj.~' . \'1 ~i\
' "0,,) u y /~""~'-'~h/ /~/", ':';:z.~ \'~l:'c:;v~''''' ..~ ,/ \((' , ',' I .
\ g~:I:: /' "'.". ... I "'I /?\...< ,,- ~/ /'""'" IJ,\~ ~ ," \ .,,})oJ( ..d{\ )~I) \'( ~ \!~Il
'~'" ~. "!~//r'\ 7r~ ~l. ) / ///~... ~/'/?- / '/:~':'/. ~\:l\tV~~g~ '.. _~' . ~""'\.'.."J' ~"., ~\:l ".,
,'so",," ,/,~~ 1 ' , ,- ''',,- " "I'l I ~ .","", , \ ' ,
',?",,/ "']~i' " ,j'--, . I:~'/ / , ( I o,') ;'. )r ..." 1,: ) \!r~ '
._(~:.y: :<.~t I ~t:, .(:'''' ,,':.. :iNj!l~~ '- --::<.?:.I~i. 1/: i~... '........._-Wi! ]) \ .IJ Ik.:'.-A(' \) ) r~ 1,\
)0 " I, ;:~J '~,' ~.~~ /~/, .' :.-j....:...~.\1 l;(j"I.11" ,_, "I
(~ '\~111~~ ,,\~~iQU ;~t\Q;"~~.~(;"J~~':".~~I~7[.,'II" t, ~.
\:"".... \ ''-7-l''; 09~/,,, e , =ll"'" t'>'.; '~'-1?",,// .~.,))J, .,ilt ,,( . ) I 11.\
\,~~ J . ~~ "" ""., ' "\->,1;' ''i,;;;.lJV ' , \ I I
~.. ../ ,: .....- .;~ qj\/~' ,. VA ~.= if' Q~~li\~ , ~ ~ 1'\
,," ""\l., ) ~ ."..., ' ~' \ (' ":: If l I" " \
, --"-.~tp-", .',. ) ~\\ i~ ,"'.~ '" t~JtJ.-II" .'\ k ":"
-..".~. , ~ i' ''-1 ~1 I-<(J'n ~...'~ .J:).' Jl. :Y.J\ !r--
~-':--,- , \ \ Gr), - t[3; ~ .' '.(I..'bI \ ~. - , T ~ "',' .. , \:-
I- ,..." ~\\ \ ill (,.'\ !!l:'-;:.! i I';i" ~' " ~.~ " '="-..~' \ ,,\1 "
":/~"K,i:~t\I.~I, .. - ','..~~' '. \:~)\;~:;'~'" ,. =---..1'{......'-~. ','I,~\I,~,
/f: r ~l\!";J'" I~" \.' .... _r _. , ,', . . . t \A.~\ " l'J./Ij'1Tt,'.
-:,.....~ ~.~JiY,~ t.: r' , ' ~ ~-~~)T..1'.1 ~ITII,,,I,IDl~'i tJ'.';"--. ",\]11".
-0!~' ro: :.JL ~. , . '\ = - 1 ,
~~:'-"" II l, - -',;"'J~' Ii:
? \ ~~I""E 1\ . - lli:
If '\... ~ J4 (1\', t -n ":1i
, ~ ,:~'&-~ ' " __.;~';' //:.lr'>; , ~
1 " ~ -- /..:,::::~:--~(.,;/,/I.fl)~~i v--J
$)'" ~~i~ "IIi-- "'-.J ...:I'.,i =)/.
~"': . ,'. ':....- - '. : i R:t'>' 'iiq~
I ~-f(':>;:, ,/ I, /II~Y)"
v--- ~:'~/ ~,vo ,,~ '.. /~i'~>
~ ~ ; ~.~~, -'~;':r/ \- . " ~~~ i J.. i ~. '
\~., L - J ~"'..)~,
- 'r: - >
~; /" ~ ~, \ '" ... ~
'~y--
\ Y1-....~~
'-'---~\\'
~ I ! !I" I<<l_ 1,U.1(
~ i 1
! ~
'" "
~ ~ ." .'31
~ ~ & @
""'....
-~
THE OPPIDAN RETAIL CENTER
GANDER MTN. &. CAMPING WORLD
PREPo\RED FOA
OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY
HOI..I..Jrt8 JMOI8Te:1Al DI8lRIC'T
1tO~ COlNTY. YAOIU.
CONCEPTUAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
. LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.c.
ENGl NEERS.SURVEYORS-l'\.ANNERS
ROANOKE. VIRGINIA
.b6oIUNol8UTONo'l'l/f"1J!:
'.0 eo~:rI)!;MI
~""RCINLo,.o6O'8
I'tKJI"It,I.HOI7H-+l1I
f.o.1-' L~(1)f lJJ q&.l~
[-_- MAll"'lUM5IXNl"C.<;(N
Q1o'unt~ of ~o'altoke
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BUll.DlNG PERMITS
DEVELOPMENT AEVlEW
EI'iGrNEERPlG
IlIlSpeCTIONS
MAPPlhlGiGIS
S'TCRM\'1ATER r.\AIUGEIAEIIlT
,RANSFQRT,.;rION
DIRECTOR. ARNOLD COVEY
DEP UTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICeS. TAAEK ~ONEIR
DEPUTY DIREGTOR OF PlANNING, PHIUPTHOMPSON
CO\)NTY ENGINEER, GEORGE \'V. SIMPSON Ill, P.I:.
BUILDING COMMISSIONER. JOEl S. SAKER ceo
Decembel 12,2006
KTJ Limited Partnership One Hundred Fifty-One
c/o Oppidan Investment Company
5125 Count}' Road 10 I. Suite I 00
Minnetonka, 1v~ 55345
Artn: Joseph 1:1. Ryan
Unlon Bank & T lust Company
2720 SOulh 177 Street
Omaha, NE 68130
Attn: Karen.J. Cenovic
RE: Gandel Mountain
1-81 and Plantation Road
Roanoke County V A
I aclies and Gentl emen:
This is to advise you that the zoning and the use of the above-captioned propert)' js
governed by thc Jaws and regulations ofilie County of Ronnoke, VA~ and thai the
pruperty has been zoned C-2. General Cornmelcial, under Sectiun 30-54 of the Zoning
Ordinanc.:e. Specitica11y, Section 30-54.2(4) lists sporting goods stores (retail sales) as a
permitted use. The C-2 zoning on the property a.Ho'\'r"S the use of The Property to be retail
sales in nature and Gander Mount.ain Company can operate its business use on the
property as follows:
Sales and lental of hunting (including without limitation firearms and ammunition),
fishing, camping and outdoor apparel and foohvear, products;. equipment and related
accessodes (and relail sales and Iental of videotapes. ciJssel1e lUpes, compact discs Ot'
another visual or alldlo products related to such uses), sale Qr other casual appmel Rnd
footwear. operatl{J11 of an interior incidental or accessory STlack ur lbod service, retail
sELles, retool and service of (and outside sooIage and display orin designated enclosed
area) all-teIIuin vehicles and related accessories, and outside storage and display of
F~O, 60X 2980Cl.. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018. F'HONE (540} 772-2Cl80 - FAX (540) 772-2108
0Rl::.d,jf.!f'"
December 12, 2006
Page 2
canoes, and kayaks mld other related products and melchandise m 10r UTI)' lawful retail
sales purpose
The sales, display of 01' offering for sale any recreational vehicle: as defined by the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shalll'equire a Special Use Permit on the above noted
Property, Some e:-l.amples Qfrecreational vehic1es shall include tr.lvel trailers, campers,
motor homes. tent trailers used for temporary housing and shall include motorized boats.
As oftbe date heleof; this office has no record of any zoning. violations <In the pmperty,
this dctcrmlnation is solely based on a query ofthc Roanoke County enforcement Iccolds
and no site inspection ...vas conducted,
Sincerely,
,\ I .... 1 - I
'~.~r. ~ VY~~'D-
John F . .Yll1Iphy~ CZA
Zoning Administratol'
County of Roanoke
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
EN GIN EERS -SU RVEYO RS- PLA N NE RS
V. KIRK LUMSDEN, LS.
B. LEE HENDERSON, JR., P.E., LS.
TIlOMAS C. DALE, P.E
TIMOTIlY HOB-ZLE, LS.
FAISAL Z. MINHAS. P.E
LARRY T. OGlE, JR., LS.
HOWARD P. BOGGESS, II. CLA
JAMES L JENKINS. LS.
KEVIN T. BARNES, CLA
4664 aRAMaLETON AVENUE, 5W - P.O. aox 20669 . ROANOKE, VA 2401 g . PHONE (540) 774-44 II . FAX (540) 772.9445 . EMAlL MAlL@LUMSDENPC.COM
AGENDA
PRE-APPLlCA nON MEETING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND REZONING OF
OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY DEVELOPMENT
GANDER MOUNTAlN, CAMPING WORLD, ETe. ON TAX MAP #'S:
018.18-01-01.00,018.18-01-06.00, 018.18-01-10.00, AND 018.18-01-11.00
I. INTRODUCTIONS
II. PROJECT SYNOPSIS
Goals for Oppidan Investment Company
- Gander Mountain
- Camping World
- Remaining Property
III. MEETING STATEMENT
Pre Special Use Permit (SUP) and Rezoning Application Meeting
- Staff explain what is required/expected in the application.
- Staff explain the process further.
- Answer any questions the petitioner may have.
IV . APPLICATION AND ISSUES
Concept Plan Checklist Review (Items below are a select few, which we hope to clarify.)
- Applicant Name and Name of Development
- All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights.
- Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces.
- Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site.
- Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers.
(Traffic Analysis)
- Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections.
- Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed.
(Current Conditions on property)
- If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule.
V. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Tentative: Tuesday, September 12th, 2006 at 7:00pm
(Hollins Fire House or Burlington Elementery)
Logistics of setting up meeting and what to expect.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION
Tentative: Tuesday, November 7th, 2006 (Election Day)
What 10 expect.
VII. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Tentative: Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
Western Virginia Water Authority
Water/Sewer Availability Application
Date: 12/20/2006
Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company C/o Larry Barrett
Mailing Address: 5125 County Road 101
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Phone: (952) 294-0353
Cell: (612) 597-9452
Fax: (952) 294-0151
Property Address: 8010 Plantation Road
City or County: Roanoke County
Tax Map Number(s): 018.18-01-01.00. 018.18-01-06.00.018.18-01-10.00. and
018.18-01 ~ 11.00
Development (Subdivision) Name: The Opoidan Retail Center
Single Residential, Duplex, Multi-Residential, Subdivision, or Commercial
Facility?
Commercial Retail Center
Water Meter Size Requested: Yet to be determined.
Sewer Lateral Size Requested: Yet to be determined.
COMPLETE THE FOllOWING FOR
NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL SERVICES
Domestic Flow Required? ** Yet to be determined GPM
** (Attach completed "Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters" Form AND "Non-Residential Sanitary Sewer
Checklist.', blank forms available on website under "Engineers" section)
Is Building to be Sprinkled? YES / NO (Yet to be determined)
Minimum Fire Flow Required? Yet to be determined GPM
Return to Jamie Morris; Phone: 540-853-1588; Fax: 540-853-1017
Postal Mail: 601 S.Jefferson Street, Suite 300. Roanoke. VA 24011
Jamie. morris@Westernvawater.org; WWIN. westernvawater .org
Rev. 1/06/06
. \j\:
~
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGill.ATIONS
Page 1 of5
SEC. 30-54. C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-54-1. Purpose.
(A) The purpose of this district is to provide locations for a variety of commercial and service
related activities within the urban service area serving a community of several neighborhoods or
large areas of the county. This district is intended for general application throughout the county.
General Commercial Districts are most appropriately found along major arterial thoroughfares
which serve large segments of the county's population.
The C-2 district permits a wide variety of retail and service related uses. Land uses permitted in
this district are generally consistent with the recommendations set forth in the Transition and
Core land use categories of the Comprehensive Development Plan. Site development
regulations are designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses.
Sec. 30-54-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements
contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent
standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses.
1. Residential Uses
Accessory Apartment *
Home Beauty/Barber Salon *
Home Occupation, Type I *
Multi-Family Dwelling *
Two~Family Dwelling *
2. Civic Uses
Administrative Services
Clubs
Cultural Services
Day Care Center *
Educational Facilities, College/University
Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary *
Family Day Care Home *
Guidance Services
Park and Ride Facility *
Post Office
Public Assembly
Public Parks and Recreational Areas *
Safety Services *
httn://lihrarv1.municode.com/mcclDocView/12222/1/150/153
1/30/2007
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Page 2 of5
Utility Services, Minor
3. Office Uses
Financial Institutions *
General Office
Medical Office
Laboratories
4. Commercial Uses
Agricultural Services *
Antique Shops
Automobile Dealership, New *
Automobile Repair Services, Minor *
Automobile Rental/Leasing
Automobile Parts/Supply, Retail *
Bed and Breakfast -
Boarding House
Business Support Services
Business or Trade Schools
Commercial Indoor Entertainment
Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation
Commercial Outdoor Entertainment
Commercial Outdoor Sports and Recreation
Communications Services
Construction Sales and Services *
Consumer Repair Services
Funeral Services
Garden Center -
Gasoline Station *
Hospital
Hotel/Motel/Motor lodge
Kennel, Commercial-
Pawn Shop
Personal Improvement Services
Personal Services
Restaurant, General
Restaurant, Family
nttn://lihrarv1.municode.com/mcc/T)ocView/12222/1/1 SO/1:')l
1/10n007
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Page 3 of5
Retail Sales
Studio, Fine Arts
Veterinary Hospital/Clinic
5. Industrial Uses
Recycling Centers and Stations *
6. Miscellaneous Uses
Amateur Radio Tower *
Parking Facility *
(8) The following uses are allowed only by Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-19. An
asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use
and Design Standards, for those specific uses.
1. Civic Uses
Adult Care Residences
Halfway House
Life Care Facility
Nursing Home
Religious Assembly
Utility Services, Major *
2. Commercial Uses
Automobile Dealership, Used *
Automobile Repair Services, Major *
Car Wash *
Commercial Indoor Amusement
Convenience Store *
Dance Hall
Equipment Sales and Rental *
Manufactured Home Sales *
Mini-warehouse *
Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Center
Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service *
Restaurant, Drive-in and Fast Food *
Surplus Sales
Truck Stop *
3. Industrial Uses
Custom Manufacturing *
Landfill, Rubble *
http://1ibrarv1.municode.comlmcclDocView/12222/111501153
1/30/2007
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Page 4 of5
Transportation Terminal
4. Miscellaneous Uses
Broadcasting Tower;'
Outdoor Gatherings ;,
(Ord. No. 82493-8, S 2,8-24-93; Ord. No. 022796-14, S 1, 2-27-96; 042297-14, S 1,4-22-97; Ord. No.
042799-11, S 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No.1 02803-15, S 2, 10-28-03)
Sec. 30-54-3. Site Development Regulations.
General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see
Article IV, Use and Design Standards.
(A)Minimum lot requirements.
1. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system;
a. Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet).
b. Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
2. Lots served by either public sewer or water, or both:
a. Area: 15,000 square feet.
b. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
(B)Minimum setback requirements.
1. Front yard:
a. Principal structures: 30 feet, or 20 feet when all parking is located behind the
front building line.
b. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line.
2. Side yard: None.
3. Rear yard:
a. Principal structures: 15 feet.
b. Accessory structures: 3 feet.
4. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all
streets.
(C)Maximum height of structures.
1. Height limitations:
a. Principal structures: When adjoining property zoned R-1 or R-2, 45 feet,
including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased,
provided each required side and rear yard adjoining the R-1 or R-2 district is
increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. In all locations the height
is unlimited unless otherwise restricted by this ordinance.
b. Accessory structures: actual height of principal structure.
(D)Maximum coverage.
1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area.
httn.ll]inr::lrvl mllnir.onp. r.om/mrr/DorVip.w/1 ????/1 11 'iO/1 'i1
1 !10!?()07
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Page 5 of5
2. Lot coverage: 90 percent of the total lot area.
(Ord. No. 62293-12, ~ 10, 6-22-93)
http://libraryl.municode.com/mcc/DocView/12222/1/150/153
1/30/2007
If" 1- s/: ,/., j'
/ V ( .-.7 1 J
t~ M(~/.
. (J; . /-/ j
. ( Y 1fj/:V'.71 ;~{J j//'J;
~~-, fl.,. . 'l/
/-1/"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1990
ORDINANCE 32790-9 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES OF
REAL ESTATE GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF INTER-
STATE 81 AND WEST OF PLANTATION ROAD IN THE
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION R-1 TO B-2 FOR COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICA-
TION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
WHEREAS, by Resolution 91289-4 the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, initiated amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan and to the classifications of certain real estate located in
Roanoke County to serve the public purposes of the County as
required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and
good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the
Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
January 23, 1990, and the second reading and public hearing was
held on March 27, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on March 6, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as
required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real
estate containing approximately 35 acres, as described herein,
owned by Household of Faith and generally located south of Inter-
state 81 and west of Plantation Road in the Hollins Magisterial
District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification R-l,
Single Family Residential District, to the zoning classification
of B-2, General Commercial District, for industrial development. '-.--
2. That the Board initiated the application to change the
zoning classification of this real estate located in Roanoke County
to serve the public purposes of the County as required by public
necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice
to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action
Plan for FY 1989-90.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Interstate
Highway Route #81, said point being the northerly corner
of property of Interstate Motel Developers, Inc. CD.B.
861, page 124) and shown as corner 1; thence with the
division line between property.of Florence Marie Peters.
o
and Interstate Motel Developers, Inc., S. 31 09' 00" E.
1364.15' to a point, corner 2; thence S. 580 50' 00" W.
100.44' to corner 4B; thence S. 300 45' 00" W. 453.23' to
corner 4A, at the northeast terminus of Carvin Street;
thence with the same in part, and the northerly line of
Lot 9, Sec. 3, Walrond Court (P.B. 2, page 178), S. 590
40' 45" W. 551.20' to corner 5 on the easterly bouridary
of Billy H. Branch; thence with same, and the easterly
boundary of North Burlington Heights (P.B. 3, page 57),
o
N. 36 44' 23" W. 1750.93' to a fence post, corner 6;
thence with the easterly boundary of Ellsworth L. Snyder
and Bonnie E. Osborne Snyder (D.B. 1026, page 631) and
Randolph. Howell and Gladys R. Howell (D.B. 570, page
293), N. 370 24' 00" W. 619.48' to an iron pin on the
southerly side of Interstate Highway Route #81; thence
with a curved line to the right, whose radius is 4490.66
feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 890 34'
57" E. 3.36 feet, an arc distance 6f 3.36 feet to corner
8, another point on the southerly side of Interstate
Highway Route #81; thence with the same S. 890 33' 40" E.
1044.68' to corner 1, the place of BEGINNING, and
designated as Tract I, containing 35.14 acres, all as
more fully shown on a plat prepared by Buford T. Lumsden
& Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated July
31, 1985, entitled "Plat showing Tract I (35.14 ac.)
being conveyed to the Household of Faith by Florence
Marie Peters, situated along south side of Interstate
Highway Route #81, Hollins Magisterial District, Roanoke
County, Virginia"; and,
BEING a part of the same property acquired by J. H.
Peters, Jr. and Florence Marie Peters by deed from J. S.
Jamison and Fannie A. Jamison, his wife, dated June 12,
1947, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book
373, page 216, and subsequently conveyed by J. H. Peters,
Jr. and Florence Marie Peters to "Florence Marie Peters
and J. H. Peters, Jr., and/or the survivor as at common
law as between the grantees," said deed being dated July
26, 1952, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office
in Deed Book 477, page 136, the said J. H. Peters, Jr.
having since passed away , survived by the Grantor herein.
4. That Household of Faith, as owner of this real estate, has
voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the
Board of Supervisors hereby accepts:
(1) Building height no more than four stories, excluding
steeples and bell towers.
(2) Lighting not to exceed one foot candle measured at
property line of any of the adjoining single-family residences.
(3) Buffer zone to be 50 feet adjacent to back side
residential area.
(4) Exclusion of the following permitted uses: commer-
cial kennels and veterinarian hospitals, freestanding dance halls
and billiard parlors, flea market, freestanding used car dealer-
ship, and freestanding laundry/dry cleaners.
(5) Access to the property for the church shall be from
carvin street and/or Plantation Road. Access to the property for
any other commercial use shall be only from Plantation Road.
5. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be March
27, 1990.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw
A COPY TESTE:
B~H2i!~ Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
/~~Yilf;~. '
,,4
,r\..1AO ~.
"i ,:":'j
... 10.......
?I.{f~~}a'ii".
. ~~~J~'~;.. i 1. .
.....~ ~..:.cf.'~f~i ';;~.
,_ ":i-'
. "'J
s- '3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,2007
ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY ON 38.65
ACRES LOCATED AT 8010 PLANTATION ROAD (TAX MAP NOS.
18.18-1-1 AND 18.18-1-10) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON
THE PETITION OF OPPIDAN INVESTMENT
WHEREAS, Oppidan Investment has filed a petition for a special use permit to
operate a recreational vehicle sales and service facility to be located at 8010 Plantation
Road (Tax Map Nos. 18.18-1-1 and 18.18-1-10) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
February 6, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on January 23, 2007; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on February 27,2007.
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 Oppidan
Investment to operate a recreational vehicle sales and service facility to be located at
8010 Plantation Road in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the
adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum
adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use
permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
(1) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the Oppidan
Retail Center Overall Development Plan, prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P. C., dated February 5, 2007.
(2) The building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with the
Gander Mountain Exterior Elevations, prepared by Oppidan Investment
Company, dated February 2007.
(3) Type C, Option 1 landscaping shall be installed in the entire 50 foot buffer
yard during the first opportune planting season after completion of final
grading in the buffer yard. A six-foot high berm shall be constructed within
the buffer yard, with landscape plantings on the berm.
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