The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/13/2007 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda November 13, 2007 Please be advised that this Board meeting will be held at the former Roanoke County Public Safety Center, 3568 Peters Creek Road, Roanoke, VA 24019. NOTE: An audit committee meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. at the former Roanoke County Public Safety Center prior to the Board meeting Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for November 13, 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 Audette Fulbright Unitarian Universalist 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 Roanoke County and Hollins University for winning the 2007 Virginia Municipal League President's Award for the annual Technology Education for Kids (TEK) Camp summer program. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development; Nancy Gray, President, Hollins University) 1 D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve an agreement with the Western Virginia Water Authority for construction and operation of a new Fleet Maintenance (Garage) Facility. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) 2. Request to approve the Route 220 Water Line Agreement with Franklin County and the Western Virginia Water Authority. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) 3. Request by David Shelor for increase in rental payment for easement on Fort Lewis Mountain. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) 4. Resolution granting a waiver to High Country Concrete, Inc., on behalf of Oppidan Investment Company, under Section 13-23 of the Roanoke County Code to the provisions of the County's Noise Ordinance, Article II. Noise of Chapter 13: Offenses - Miscellaneous to expedite construction. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. 1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.41 acres from A VC, AgriculturalNillage Center District with Conditions, to AVC, AgriculturalNillage Center District with amended conditions, and to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a construction yard in an AVC, AgriculturalNillage Center District with Conditions, located at 7119 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Dalton Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES H. SECOND READINGS 1. Second reading of an ordinance conveying the former Public Safety Center to the Roanoke County School Board. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) 2. Second reading of an ordinance to accept a donation of 89.82 acres on Read Mountain from Alfred and Beth Durham. (Janet Scheid, Planner) 2 I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors 2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by district) 3. Grievance Panel 4. Library Board (appointed by district) 5. Roanoke County Planning Commission (appointed by district) 6. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 7. Western Virginia Regional Jail 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 for August 28,2007, and October 9,2007 2. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $250 for the Blue Ridge Regional Crash Investigation Team for traffic safety projects 3. Request from the Police Department and Sheriff's Office for acceptance of a Bureau of Justice Assistance Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant in the amount of $14, 1 80 4. Resolution of appreciation to Ida-Lee R. Mcllwraith, Sheriff's Office, upon her retirement after twenty-five years of service 5. Request from the schools to appropriate $2,500, an increase in grant funding from the James Madison University TT AC, to be used for fees and materials related to Autism 6. Request from the schools to appropriate $30,180.78 from the Virginia Department of Education to the National Board Certified Teachers 3 7. Request from the schools to appropriate $10,937.28 from the Virginia Department of Education to testing and remediation accounts to replace local funds spent on the Project Graduation Summer Academy 8. Request from the schools to appropriate $64,320 from the 2007-2008 Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation Grant to provide Elementary Student Assistance Program services to reduce the use of tobacco and other drugs 9. Request from the schools to appropriate $6,713 from the 2007 Virtual Summer School revenue to pay for the unfunded portion of the 2007-2008 Blackboard license 10. Request to adopt a resolution approving a bank-qualified financing project in Roanoke County through the Craig County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) for the Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline Council on Yellow Mountain Road 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 - October 2007 5. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended October 31, 2007 6. Telecommunications Tax Report 7. Statement of the Treasurer's accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of October 31, 2007 8. Proclamation signed by the Chairman O. CLOSED MEETING 4 P. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss current status of capital improvement projects. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) 2. Work session to discuss Erosion and Sediment Control. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) EVENING SESSION Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. BRIEFINGS 1. Presentation of results of operations for fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) S. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Public hearing and resolution to amend the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan to include the Route 220 Corridor Study. (David Holladay, Senior Planner) 1. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. First reading of an ordinance authorizing vacation of an unimproved right-of- way between Lot 14, Block 1, Section 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, as identified on the plat of Glenvar East Subdivision, Section 1, in Plat Book 7, Page 12, located in the Catawba Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) U. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCE 1. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.421 acres from R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District with conditions, for the operation of an extended stay hotel, located near the intersection of Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Auslo, Inc. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) V. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 5 W. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Joseph B. "Butch" Church 2. Michael W. Altizer 3. Richard C. Flora 4. Michael A. Wray 5. Joseph P. McNamara x. ADJOURNMENT 6 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C- J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of Roanoke County and Hollins University for winning the 2007 Virginia Municipal League President's Award for the annual Technology Education for Kids (TEK) Camp summer program SUBMITTED BY: Doug Chittum Economic Development Director Elmer C. Hodge O../YV..t/L~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I am pleased to advise that President Nancy Gray of Hollins University will attend the meeting. She and I will share with the Board some preliminary plans for expanding the County's partnership with the university. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the 2007 Virginia Municipal League's (VML) annual conference held this past October in Williamsburg, TEK Camp 2006, a collaborative project involving Roanoke County and Hollins University, won the President's Award for its innovative approach to Growing Our Own Workforce of entry level employees. The President's Award is the most prestigious award granted by the VML Achievement Awards program. The award was established in 1996 for Virginia governments to submit projects which exemplify the jurisdiction's efforts to improve the delivery of services to its citizens in an innovative and entrepreneurial manner. Technology Education for Kids (TEK) Camp identifies students with technical potential at an early age for the purpose of enhancing their skills training in the secondary school system. The camp spans five days and is free of charge for the children, who are provided meals, transportation, and supplies. Camp is held on the campus of Hollins University with fieldtrips to the business community throughout the week to meet local executives, human resource managers, and employees. Tile classes and interactive programs challenge young people to discover how technology impacts their lives and encourages them to consider the many career and educational opportunities that are available to them. The support of the local business community is indispensable to the success of TEK Camp. Some of the businesses that have opened their doors to the program include First Team Auto Mall, WDBJ Television, Q-99 and related radio stations, Carilion, and the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. This award is an acknowledgement of the partnership between Roanoke County and Hollins University and reflects a shared commitment to the greater Roanoke region. The TEK Camp partnership began in 2004. In 2007, Roanoke County and Hollins welcomed two new partners, Roanoke County Schools and Virginia Western Community College. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I Co.! AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve an agreement with the Western Virginia Water Authority for the construction and operation of a New Fleet Maintenance (Garage) Facility SUBMITTED BY: Anne Marie Green Director of General Services APPROVED BY: I Elmer C. Hodge V/YU.IL- ~-r---- County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval. This agreement benefits both the County and the Western Virginia Water Authority. Authority vehicles will be serviced at the new county garage and this will keep the cost of fleet maintenance lower for both entities. The agreement with the Authority is the next step in moving forward with the new garage. The design of the garage will be shared with the Board before it is submitted for construction bids and the construction contract will be brought to the Board for approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County is planning for the construction and operation of a new fleet maintenance facility which will be located on Hollins Road in east Roanoke County and cost approximately $7.7 million. Since the formation of the Western Virginia Water Authority, the county garage has been servicing the Authority's vehicles at its current facility in Salem. Both the County and the Authority wish to continue this arrangement in the new facility, which will be in a location convenient for both parties. County staff has been working with the Authority to formalize an agreement for sharing costs and operations. Staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached agreement with the Western Virginia Water Authority. It is a 30-year agreement and the Authority's initial share of these costs is 30%. This percentage will change annually based upon each party's percentage share of tile motorized vehicle fleet served by the facility. This cost sharing represents a contribution from the Authority for the capital costs for construction. Additionally, the Authority will be charged the same hourly rate for service as county departments, which will cover the operating costs of the garage. In addition to repair services, the Authority will also receive fleet management services, including assistance with specifications for vehicles, reports on performance of its fleet, suggestions for replacements, and surplusing of old vehicles using county procedures. If the Authority terminates this agreement within the first ten years of the agreement, the Authority shall pay one-half of the annual payments for the remainder of the initial ten year period. If the Authority terminates the agreement after the initial ten year term, no additional payment is required. The agreement provides for a Garage Oversight Committee that shall establish operating rules and procedures governing uniform priority status and establish annual and uniform rates and fees. Membership on this committee shall be proportional to the motorized vehicle fleet served by the facility. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. The Board has previously appropriated funds for the acquisition of the real estate from Jannay and Garrison for this facility and on October 23, 2007, appropriated funds for the construction of this facility based upon the future issuance of revenue bonds. This agreement will provide a source of future funding from the Western Virginia Water Authority for a portion of this project based upon the percentage of motorized vehicle usage by the County and the Authority. AL TERNA TIVES: 1) Authorize the County Administrator to execute this agreement on behalf of Roanoke County. 2) Decline approval of this agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. 2 1 THIS AGREEMENT (the" Agreement") is made as of , 2007, by 2 and between the WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY, a political subdivision 3 of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the" Authority") and the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, 4 VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County"), 5 WITNESSETH THAT: 6 WHEREAS, the Authority and the County propose to enter into an agreement to 7 provide for the acquisition, building, equipping, funding and operating of a new Fleet 8 Maintenance Facility (the "Facility") to perform fleet maintenance on Authority and 9 County vehicles; and, 1 0 WHEREAS, the County estimates the total capital cost for the Facility to be 11 $7,700,000; and 12 WHEREAS, the County estimates the completion of the construction of the 13 Facility to be the Summer of 2009; and 14 WHEREAS, the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 51, 15 131315.2-5100, et seq., Code of Virginia (the" Act"), provides full authority for the County 16 and the Authority to enter into this Agreement so as to enhance the Authority's ability 17 to perform its mission to supply, treat, distribute and transmit water and to collect and 18 treat wastewater; and, 19 WHEREAS, Section 5.4 of the June 30, 2004 Operating Agreement between the 20 Authority, the County and the City of Roanoke authorized the localities that created the 21 Authority to agree to provide vehicle maintenance services and fuel to the Authority, at 22 such reasonable rates as are mutually agreed to by the respective parties and may be 23 established either at the localities' respective garages or at the Roanoke County School 24 Division fuel facility; and, 11/13107 1 WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes 2 the joint exercise of these powers by the Authority and the County to create, fund and 3 operate a garage for fleet maintenance; and 4 WHEREAS, the Authority and the County mutually agree as follows: 5 SECTION I. TERM. 6 The term of this Agreement shall be for thirty (30) years. Thereafter the term 7 shall be extended for successive terms of five (5) years under the same terms and 8 conditions unless and until one party provides the other party with one (1) year's 9 written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement. 10 SECTION II. PURPOSE 11 The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the acquisition, building, 12 eqUlppmg, funding and operating the Facility. The County shall provide fleet 13 maintenance services to the Authority upon the terms and conditions set out in this 14 Agreement. The County will be responsible to payor provide for the total capital cost of 15 the Facility. The Authority shall appropriate funds to assist in the acquisition, building, 16 equipping, funding and operating the Facility and shall receive certain operational cost 17 and priority services benefits in return. 18 SECTION III. AUTHORITY ACTIONS 19 1. The Authority shall appropriate to the County annual payments 20 corresponding to the percentage of the Authority's portion of the total motorized fleet 21 expected to be maintained at the Facility. This percentage may change from year to year 22 based upon each parties' respective percentage of motorized vehicle fleet served by the 23 Facility during the previous year. This annual payment will be a percentage of the 24 principal and interest payments incurred by the County for the acquisition, constructing 11/13/07 2 and equipping of the Facility. At the time of the execution of this Agreement, the 2 Authority's percentage of the debt service is thirty (30%) percent of the total principal 3 and interest payments incurred by the County for the financing of the construction and 4 equipping of the Facility. This percentage conesponds to the parties' estimate of the 5 Authority's portion of the total motorized fleet to be maintained at the Facility, and may 6 change from year to year based on the parties' respective usage during the preceding 7 year. The Authority shall pay its annual payment to the County fourteen (14) days before 8 the County is obligated to make its annual principal and interest payment on its thirty 9 (30) year revenue debt financing. 10 2. The County and the Authority shall use the Facility and no other facility 11 for the repair and maintenance of all of its vehicles which the Facility is capable of 12 providing during the term of this Agreement. The parties may agree to contract out 13 certain vehicle repairs. 14 3. The Authority shall pay the same repair and maintenance rates and fees 15 as those paid by the County, such to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of a billing 16 17 18 InvoICe. SECTION IV. COUNTY ACTIONS The County shall acquire real estate upon which the Facility can be 1. 19 constructed. The County shall execute contracts to design and construct the Facility 20 upon the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the Authority and after 21 compliance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act and applicable County 22 procurement ordinances and regulations. The parties anticipate that the Facility shall 23 be completed and ready for occupancy and use within twenty four (24) months of the 24 date of execution of this Agreement. 11/13/07 3 1 2. The County, with the concurrence of the Garage Committee established 2 pursuant to paragraph 4. hereof, shall annually establish rates and fees for repair and 3 fleet maintenance services which shall be the same and offered on the same terms and 4 conditions for the Authority and the County. The establishment of the rates and fees 5 shall be based upon the recovery of the County's actual operating costs and expenses of 6 operating the Facility, and a reasonable capital reserve for repair and replacement for 7 the equipment and the Facility structure. If during any fiscal year there occurs a deficit 8 in the appropriated budget, then rates and fees shall be increased to address the deficit. 9 The County, with the concurrence of the Garage Committee, shall establish 10 uniform annual rates and fees no later than March 31 of each year to be effective for the 11 fiscal year beginning July 1 thereafter. 12 3. The County shall provide the Authority with the same priority for the 13 repair and maintenance of Authority vehicles as that provided to County vehicles. Front 14 line service provider vehicles shall have a priority based upon need, current situation, 15 availability of temporary vehicles, and type of repair required. The only department 16 with a higher service priority shall be front line public safety vehicles. 17 4. The County has established a Vehicle Resource and Garage Oversight 18 Committee (the "Garage Committee") to address fleet maintenance and garage facility 19 operational issues, and the Authority shall be entitled to voting membership on this 20 committee proportional to its motorized vehicle fleel served by the Facility. The 21 Authority's voting membership on this committee shall not exceed 50% of the total 22 committee membership. The County, with the concurrence of the Garage Committee, 23 shall jointly establish rates and fees, and develop standards and regulations governing 24 uniform priority status. 11/13/07 4 1 5. The County shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the 2 Facility. 3 6. The County will provide the following fleet management serVIces: 4 vehicle maintenance, arrangement for and oversight of outside repairs, administration of 5 warranty service, advice on vehicle replacement, administration of surplus vehicle and 6 equipment disposition, inclusion of Authority vehicles in the County's Fleet 7 Management System, administration of the Fuelmaster and Wright Express fueling 8 systems, and the provision of parts at wholesale prices, plus an administrative mark-up 9 as determined by County, with the concurrence of the Garage Committee. 10 7. If during the term of this Agreement either party or both parties 11 determine that this Facility should be expanded to accommodate an increase in the size 12 of the fleet or to handle additional maintenance requirements, then the cost of that 13 expansion shall be allocated in accordance with the parties' respective needs for the 14 expansion. 15 SECTION V. TERMINATION 16 1. This Agreement is subject to future annual appropriations by the Authority 17 and the County. If in any fiscal year either party's governing board fails to appropriate ] 8 sufficient funds for fleet maintenance services or for the operation of the Facility for the 1 9 following fiscal year, then it shall provide written notice to the other party at least ninety 20 (90) days before the end of that fiscal year. 21 2. If the Authority terminates this Agreement any time within the first ten (10) 22 years of this Agreement, then the Authority shall pay to the County one-half of the 23 annual payments remaining to be paid for the remainder of the initial ten (10) years of 11/13/07 5 1 the Agreement. If the Authority terminates this Agreement after the expiration of the 2 initial ten (10) years, then no further payment to the County is required. 3 3. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing the other party 4 with a one (1) year notice to terminate. 5 4. Upon termination the Authority shall not be entitled to any 6 reimbursement payments, compensation or damages arising from such termination. 7 5. In the event the County determines to sell or otherwise convey the 8 Facility, the Authority shall have a right of first refusal to purchase the Facility on the 9 same terms and conditions as offered to the County by a responsible third party in an 10 arms length negotiation. II SECTION VI. ASSIGNMENT 12 The Authority shall not assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement, or 13 permit any other person or entity to use the fleet maintenance or repair services 14 provided under this Agreement, without first obtaining the County's written consent 15 and approval. 16 17 SECTION VII. CASUALTY AND DESTRUCTION If the Facility is damaged by fire or any other casualty during the Term, 1. 18 the County shall restore it with reasonable promptness (taking into account the time 19 required by the County to etlect a settlement with, and to procure any insurance proceeds 20 from, any insurer against such casualty, but in any event within one hundred eighty (180) 21 days after the date of such casualty) to substantially the same condition immediately prior 22 to such casualty. 11/13/07 6 If the County undertakes to restore the Facility and such restoration is not 2 accomplished within the said period of one hundred eighty (180) days plus the period of 3 any extension thereof, as aforesaid, the Authority may terminate this Agreement by 4 giving written notice thereof to the County within thirty (30) days after the expiration of 5 such period. 6 2. If during the Term the Facility is so damaged by fire or any other casualty 7 that (i) it either is rendered substantially unfit for use and occupancy, as reasonably 8 determined by the County, or (ii) it new fleet maintenance and garage facility is 9 damaged to the extent that the County reasonably elects to demolish it, then in either 10 case Authority or County may elect to terminate the Term as of the date of the 11 occurrence of such damage, by giving written notice thereof to the other party within 12 thirty (30) days after such date. 13 3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the Authority 14 shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if any damage or destruction takes place 15 which at any time materially interferes with Authority's ability to access or use the 16 Facil ity. 17 SECTIONVIII. NOTICES. 1 8 Any notice or other communication under or in connection with this Agreement 19 shall be in writing, and shall be effective when delivered in person or sent in the United 20 States mail, by certified mail return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the following 21 persons or to such other persons as any of such persons may from time to time specify in 22 writing: 11/13/07 7 If to the Authority: 2 Executive Director of Water Operations 3 Executive Director of Wastewater Services 4 Western Virginia Water Authority 5 601 South Jefferson Street 6 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 7 8 If to the County: 9 10 II County Administrator 12 County of Roanoke 13 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. 14 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 15 16 SECTION VIVo GOVERNING LAW 17 18 This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance 19 with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 20 SECTION X AMENDMENTS 21 This Agreement may be changed or amended only with the mutual consent of 22 the County and Authority in writing. 23 SECTION XI. SEVERABILITY OF INVALID PROVISIONS 24 If any clause, provision of section of this Agreement is held to be illegal or 25 invalid by any court, the invalidity of the clause, provision or section will not affect any 26 of the remaining clauses, provisions or sections, and this Agreement will be construed 27 and enforced as if the illegal or invalid clause, provision or section had not been 28 contained in it. 29 SECTION XII. HEADINGS 30 Section and subsection headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and 31 are not to be construed as part hereof or in any way limiting or amplifying the provisions 32 hereof. 11/13/07 8 SECTION XIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; MODIFICATION 2 This Agreement constitutes and contains the entire agreement of the parties 3 hereto and supersedes any and all prior negotiations, correspondence, understandings, 4 and agreements between the parties respecting the subject matter hereof and may not be 5 modified, altered or changed in any manner whatsoever except by written agreement 6 between the parties hereto. 7 8 SECTION XIV. COUNTERPARTS. 9 This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be 10 deemed an original, but all of which together constitute one and the same instrument. 11 12 WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By By Executive Director of Water Operations Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator By Executive Director of Wastewater Services APPROVED AS TO FORM: ^PPROVED AS TO FORM: Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Attorney for the Authority Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney 11/13/07 9 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E:)/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve the Route 220 Water line agreement with Franklin County and the Western Virginia Water Authority SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: -P~cL~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This is a three party agreement between the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA), Franklin County, and Roanoke County for the construction of a water line in the Route 220 corridor from Clearbrook to the Wirtz Plateau in Franklin County. The Authority will design, construct, and issue revenue bonds for this $5.5 million project. Roanoke County's share of this project is approximately $2.3 million. On April 16, 2007, the governing bodies of Franklin County, Roanoke County, and WVWA met and agreed by resolution to approve in principle the construction of this water line and its extension into Franklin County. This resolution also directed the appropriate officers of the participating jurisdictions to negotiate an agreement for the development, financing and construction of this water line extension and that no jurisdiction would be bound until each has explicitly approved the terms and conditions of such an agreement. Staff has negotiated the attached agreement based upon the direction of the Board and the general discussion at the April 16, 2007, joint meeting and discussions in closed session. The term of this agreement is 20 years. Each County and WVWA shall share equally in availability fees for new connections to this water line extension within the Route 220 corridor. These availability fees will in part help pay for Roanoke County's share of this project. The Route 220 corridor has been defined by Roanoke County in its recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 1 A copy of the draft agreement is attached for Board review. FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County's share of this project is $2.3 million amortized over 20 years at 5% interest, or $185,361 per year principal and interest. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Approve the execution of the attached agreement by the County Administrator on behalf of Roanoke County, upon form approved by the County Attorney. 2. Decline to approve the attached agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the approval of the Route 220 Water Line Agreement between Franklin County, Roanoke County, and the WVWA. 2 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT dated as of , 2007, by and between the Western Virginia Water Authority, a public service authority formed and existing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 51 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act SS 15.2-5100-15.2-5158 (the " Act"), hereinafter referred to as the" Authority;" Franklin County, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Franklin County;" and Roanoke County, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Roanoke County" (collectively, the "Counties"). W!TNQ~~QTH: WHEREAS, the Authority owns and operates an existing water treatment, transmission and distribution system with all complementary and appurtenant components to serve potable water approved by the Virginia Department of Health and has sufficient capacity to provide water, in addition to the citizens of Roanoke County, to the citizens in portions of Franklin County. The Authority and the Counties agree that this contract affords an opportunity to extend the Authority's water distribution system within Roanoke County and into Franklin County to deliver public water service to certain of the residents and businesses in the Counties. Initial service contemplated by this contract shall be generally extended from the current termination point of the Authority's water distribution system at the entrance of Sun Crest Heights Subdivision on Route 220 and then south along the Virginia State Route 220 right of 11/13/07 Page 1 of 13 way across the Roanoke-Franklin County line to the Franklin County area of Wirtz Plaza. Based on current projections, the initial water use in Franklin County is expected to be in the 30,000 gallons per day range and is expected to increase or decrease according to customer demand and development of the Authority's water distribution system in Franklin County; and, WHEREAS, the Authority and the Counties have determined that it is in their best interests to construct a twelve inch (12") water line extending the Authority's water distribution system from the current termination point of the Authority's water distribution system at the entrance of Sun Crest Heights Subdivision on Route 220 down the Route 220 corridor into Franklin County, generally in accordance with engineering plans to be developed by the Authority along Virginia State Route 220 to Wirtz Plaza (the "Water Line Extension"); and WHEREAS, all parties agree that the long term interests of the citizens of the Counties will be best served by the operation of the Water Line Extension in the Counties through the Authority; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing to each party, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Cost, Financing and Capital Contributions In Aid of Construction. The parties estimate for planning purposes that the cost of the Water Line Extension will be provided proportionately in accordance with the length of the Water Line Extension in Roanoke County and the length of the Water Line Extension in Franklin County. The 11/13/07 Page 2 of 13 parties anticipate that the Authority will issue bonds to finance the Water Line Extension, and that the Counties will contribute to their respective portions of the annual debt service paid to the Authority annually over the term of the bond issue ("Capital Contributions in Aid of Construction"), and that the bond issue will be secured by the respective proportionate moral obligations of Franklin County and of Roanoke County, Virginia. 2. Water Service Rates. The parties agree that all of the customers in Roanoke County connecting to the Water Line Extension and to other extensions in Roanoke County from the Water Line Extension, shall be customers of the Authority; they will pay the Authority's connection, availability and other fees; and that the Roanoke County customers will pay the Authority's published rates for water service. The parties further agree that all of the customers in Franklin County connecting to the Water Line Extension and to other extensions in Franklin County from the Water Line Extension shall be customers of the Authority; that they will pay the Authority's connection, availability and other fees; and that the Franklin County customers will pay Franklin County's published rates for water service (the "Franklin County Rate"). The Authority and Franklin County agree that the Authority will, from the water service revenues received from businesses and citizens in Franklin County, retain 25 percent of the difference between the Franklin County rate and the published rate for businesses and citizens in Roanoke County (the "Rate Differential") and will pay Franklin County 75 percent of the Rate Differential. The 25 percent retainage by the Authority is tot 11/13/07 Page 3 of 13 account for flushing and operational costs associated with the underutilization of the main 12" water line. Based on the current estimated flushing rates the Authority and Franklin County will review and renegotiate the percentage split when the line volume averages materially decrease the need for flushing or gallon per day. 3. Availability Fees. One-half (1/2) of the Authority's availability fees received from customers connecting to the Water Line Extension in Roanoke County will be paid to Roanoke County by the Authority to repay Roanoke County's Capital Contributions in Aid of Construction over a twenty (20) year period, as and when they are collected, but no less frequently than monthly. Once Roanoke County's Capital Contributions in Aid of Construction are returned to Roanoke County, or at the end of the twenty (20) year period, whichever occurs sooner, the Authority will retain all of its availability fees. One-half (1/2) of the Authority's availability fees received from customers in Franklin County will be paid to Franklin County by the Authority to repay Franklin County's Contributions in Aid of Construction over a ten (10) year period as and when they are collected, but no less frequently than monthly. Once Franklin County's Contributions in Aid of Construction is returned to the County, or at the end of the ten (10) year period, whichever occurs sooner, the Authority will retain all of its availability fees. The parties agree and concur that for extensions greater than 1000 feet the Authority shall have the flexibility to enter into such agreements with developers and 11/13107 Page 4 of 13 other providers of line extensions as may be necessary or convenient to assist the Authority and the developers in the development and payment of such line extensions and that for line extensions greater than 1000 feet the Authority shall have the ability to negotiate one half of the availability fees back to the developers to help finance the development of the line extensions. In such instances the Authority shall share only such availability fees with Roanoke County and with Franklin County as it actually receives from the water line extensions. 4. ST AG Grant Requirements. Franklin County shall retain ownership of the water line extension until construction is complete and all obligations regarding the State and Tribal Grant (STAG) Program have been satisfied. 5. Term. The term of this contract shall be twenty (20) years beginning , 2008, and ending , 2028, unless renewed, terminated or otherwise extended as provided herein. At the end of year eight, the Authority and Franklin County shall mutually agree that Franklin County will continue to be a party to this contract for an additional term, or either can terminate Franklin County as a party to this contract as provided herein. The Authority and Franklin County shall notify each other of their intent to terminate or renew Franklin County's continuing to be a party. If neither the Authority or Franklin County notifies the other of its intent to terminate or renew this contract, it shall automatically and without further action on the part of either the Authority or Franklin County be extended in two year increments, unless and until the Authority or Franklin County shall notify the other parties hereto at 11/13/07 Page 5 of 13 least one year in advance of its intent to cease to be a party to this contract at the end of the two year term. Should Franklin County cease to be a party hereto, it shall have the option to acquire and operate the Water Line Extension and all extensions made to the Water Line Extension within Franklin County (the "Franklin County Water System") at such price and on such terms as shall be negotiated with the Authority, but under no circumstances shall the payment to the Authority by Franklin County be less than the principal balance due on Franklin County's portion of the Authority's bond and any other indebtedness for the Franklin County Water System (the "Bonds") or any other capital improvement paid for by the Authority in Franklin County and the depreciated value of capital investments made by the Authority (less the face amount of the Bonds). The Franklin County Water System acquisition cost to Franklin County shall be based solely on the depreciated value of capital investments made by the Authority to improve the Franklin County Water System as shown on the Authority's books, as agreed upon by both the Authority and Franklin County. All system components, with the exception of water boosting stations and related mechanical components, shall be depreciated over a 50 year period and based on actual construction cost. Booster stations and mechanical related components shall be depreciated over a 25 year period and based on actual construction costs. Upon termination, Franklin County may at its own expense install master meters as approved by the Authority and purchase bulk water from the Authority at a price to be negotiated by the Authority and Franklin County. 11/13/07 Page 6 of 13 Approval of Extensions & Improvements to the Proposed System. Based on the Code of Virginia and Franklin and Roanoke County Rules, Ordinances, Regulations and Comprehensive Plans, future extensions into Franklin County and into Roanoke County must be approved by the respective County's Board of Supervisors and incorporated as part of this Contract as an addendum. Franklin County also agrees to cooperate with the Authority on such matters as regulation of the construction and operation of water systems, mandatory connections for new customers, and other legislative matters to provide the jurisdictional and legal basis for the development of the water line extensions and extensions from the water line extension consistent with the Authority's published rules and regulations. In no event shall the Authority approve any connections to the water line in Roanoke County until the County has completed a Route 220 Corridor Study and a review of the construction of these utility facilities for conformance with the County's Community Plan as required by Sec. 15.2- 2232. 6. Water Restrictions. If the Authority decides to restrict water usages or withdrawals due to droughts, emergencies, or other conditions or circumstances, any reductions or restrictions placed on water sold to Franklin County shall be the same as placed on all other Authority customers. 7. Quality. The quality and pressure of the water delivered under this contract shall provide fire flow and be the same as furnished the WVW A' s customers and shall 11/13/07 Page 7 of 13 meet the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health and other state or federal agencies which have jurisdiction over public water supplies. 8. No Waiver. The failure of any party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms or provisions of this Contract or to exercise any option, right or remedy contained in this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver or as a relinquishment for the future of such term, provision, option, right or remedy. No waiver by any party of any term or provision of this Contract shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and approved by all parties. 9. Integration of Provisions. If any clause or provision of this Contract is or becomes illegal, invalid or unenforceable because of present or future laws or any rule or regulation of any govenunental body or entity, then the remaining parts of this Contract shall not be affected. 10. Governing Law. This Contract shall be construed under and shall be governed by the laws of the Conunonwealth of Virginia. n. Notices. All notices or other communications required or desired to be given with respect to this Contract shall be in writing and shall be delivered by hand or by courier service or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing adequate postage and properly addressed as provided below. Each notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been given and received when actually received by the party intended to receive such notice or when such party refuses to accept delivery of such notice. Upon a change of address by any party, such party shall give written notice of 11/13/07 Page 8 of 13 such change to the other parties in accordance with the foregoing. Inability to deliver because of changed address or status of which no notice was given shall be deemed to be receipt of the notice sent effective as of the date such notice would otherwise have been received. To the Authority: Western Virginia Water Authority 601 S. Jefferson Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Attention: Executive Director With copy to: Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte P. O. Box 2887 (24001) 210 First Street, S.W., Suite 200 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 To Franklin County: Franklin County Board of Supervisors 40 East Court Street Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 Attn: County Administrator With copy to: B. James Jefferson, Esquire 5 East Court Street, Suite No. 101 Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 To Roanoke County: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 11/13/07 Page 9 of 13 P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, V A 24018-0798 Attn: County Administrator With copy to: Paul M. Mahoney Roanoke County Attorney P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, V A 24018 12. Binding on Successors. This Contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Authority and both the Counties and their respective successors and assigns. 13. Subiect to Future Appropriations. The obligations of the Counties under this Agreement shall be subject to and dependent upon appropriation being made from time to time by the Board of Supervisors of the Counties for such purpose. Any other provision to the contrary notwithstanding, this Agreement and the obligations herein shall not constitute a debt of the County within the meaning of any limitation on indebtedness of the County under any constitutional or statutory limitation and nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the Counties under any provision of its Charter, as applicable, or the Constitution of Virginia. The failure of the governing body of the Counties to appropriate funds in any year for payment in full of the payments required by the Authority as herein provided or any other provision of this Agreement during such year shall ipso facto terminate this Agreement without any further liability on the part of the Counties off any kind, thirty 11/13/07 Page 10 of 13 (30) days after the Board of Supervisors of the Counties makes a final determination not to appropriate funds for this Agreement for the current fiscal year. 14 Entire Agreement. This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior understandings and writings. This Contract may be amended or modified only by a writing signed by the Authority and both the Counties. 15 Force Majeure. No party shall be liable for any failure to perform its non- monetary obligations under this Contract due to any cause beyond its reasonable control such as wars, riots, civil commotion, strikes, labor disputes, embargoes, natural disasters, and Acts of God or any other cause or contingency similarly beyond its control. 16 Including. In this Contract, whenever general words or terms are followed by the word "including" (or other forms of the word "include") and words of particular and specific meaning, the word "including" (or other forms of the word '1 include") shall be deemed to mean II including without limitation/, and the general words shall be construed in their widest extent and shall not be limited to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned in the words of particular and specific meanmgs. 17 Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall comprise but a single document. WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY 11/13/07 Page 11 of 13 By: Its: ST ATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF ) ) ) to - wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2007, by of the Western Virginia Water Authority. Notary Public My commission expires: FRANKUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: W. Wayne Angell, Chairman, Franklin County Board of Supervisors CITY / COUNTY OF ) ) ) to - wit: STATE OF VIRGINIA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2007, by W. Wayne Angell, Chairman of the Franklin County Board of Supervisors. Notary Public My commission expires: 11/13/07 Page 12 of 13 ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Joseph P. McNamara, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Approved as to form: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney CITY / COUNTY OF ) ) ) to - wit: STATE OF VIRGINIA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2007, by Joseph P. McNamara, Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. Notary Public My Commission expires: 11/13/07 Page 13 of 13 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ('- ..2 L> J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request by David Shelor for increase in rental payment for easement on Fort Lewis Mountain SUBMITTED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The request seems reasonable to me. Recommend approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County owns and operates several tower sites for the E-911 communications system. One of those towers is located on Ft. Lewis Mountain, and the current access is across property owned by David and Constance Shelor. The Board of Supervisors authorized an agreement, dated May 31, 1996, to pay the Shelors $5,000 annually for use of a 4.6 mile access easement until such time tl1at the County conveys a well lot next to the Shelor property to the Shelors in exchange for a permanent access easement. This conveyance has been held up by an ongoing title dispute. The 1996 agreement with the Shelors is attached. The county agreed to maintain the access road to the tower site and has spent about $15,000 since 2005 011 gravel and labor for road improvements. Recently, Mr. Shelor contacted the County Administrator and indicated that he believes it would be fair to increase the amount w~lich the county pays to use the easement, due to the fact that over 10 years has passed since the original agreement. The Finance Department has used the Consumer Price Index to calculate inflation since 1996 and advises that the equivalent rent is $6,644 annually. FISCAL IMPACT: The funding for this easement, along with the maintenance of the road, comes from the E- 911 account. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Mr. Shelor's request for an increase in his annual rent, and direct the County Attorney to continue his efforts to permanently resolve the title issue. 2. Do not approve Mr. Shelor's request, but direct the County Attorney to continue his efforts to permanently resolve the title issue so that the original agreement can be completed. 2 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 31st day of May, 1996, J?i;,arid .. between DAVID W. SHELOR and CONSTANCE R. SHELOR, parties of the first part (hereinafter Shelor) and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, party of the second part (hereinafter Roanoke County). WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke has constructed a radio tower on the top of Fort Lewis Mountain in the Catawba Magisterial District of the County in order to provide effective and adequate radio transmission coverage for purposes of public safety and other essential governmental operations through the County's Enhanced 911 (E-911) emergency radio system but fmds itself without any satisfactory access to this radio tower for purposes of construction, maintenance and repairs except by means of a private easement with the permission of the adjacent landowners, David and Con.stance Shelor; and WHEREAS, the location of the easement is from the termination of State Route 643, Daugherty Road over and across the property of David W. Shelor and Constance R. Shelor designated as Roanoke County Tax Map Parcel #43.00-1-45 for a distance of approximately 4.6 miles to the top of FortLewisMountain; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke and David and Constance Shelor had previously entered into an agreement dated July 30, 1990, for the sale by the County of a surplus well lot containing approximately 5.25 acres and surrounded on all sides by property owned by Shelor, but questions as to title of this lot prevented the County from conveying a clear title to Shelor; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance 040996-4, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has approved the terms for the acquisition of this easement and conveyance of property interests between the parties and has authorized the County Administrator to execute such documents as are necessary to carry this Ordinance into effect and in such form as approved by the County Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and promises herein contained the parties of the first and second part agree as follows: 1. In consideration of the payment of equal annual payments of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), to commence upon the execution of this agreement and payable on each anniversary thereafter, for a period of not less than two years and continuing on an equivalent annual basis until all issues of title concerned with the parcel in paragraph 2 are resolved and deeds exchanged as provided by paragraph 4 below, Shelor agrees to grant and convey to the County a perpetual, non-exclusive easement of sufficient width for access by motor vehicle to the County E-911 radio tower for a distance of approximately 4.6 miles, more or less, across a parcel of real estate owned by Shelor on Fort Lewis Mountain (Roanoke County Tax Map # 43.00-1-45), beginning at a point of access to Virginia Secondary Ro~te 1157 (Mountain Park Drive) off of State Route 643 (Daugherty Road) and extending to a gate at the boundary of the Havens State Game Refuge, which easement shall be located along the right-of-way as described in Deed Book 1233, page 174, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 2. In consideration of the conveyance of an easement described in paragraph 1, Roanoke County agrees to convey to Shelor by quitclaim deed fee simple title to that well lot containing approximately 5.25 acres (Tax Map No. 43.00-1-43) situated adjacent to the land of Shelor on the southern slope of Fort Lewis Mountain in Roanoke County, Virginia, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. The County shall take all necessary steps and incur any necessary expenses associated with removing a cloud upon the title to this parcel of 5.25 acres. This well lot, otherwise designated as Lots 1 through 7 and 7 A of Talking Leaves Park as shown in Plat Book 3, page 200 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, shall be conveyed by boundary and not by acreage. Roanoke County shall retain the right-of-way and easement to this well lot; said existing right-of- way and easement shall be extended to serve the property described in paragraph 3. Roanoke County shall be responsible for the maintenance and up-keep of the right-of-way and easement described in paragraph 1 and of the right-of-way and easement as well as the gates and lock to the well lot described in paragraph 3. 3. In consideration of the conveyances described above, Shelor agrees to grant to Roanoke County by quit claim deed fee simple title to that certain lot or parcel of real estate being 100 feet by 100 feet in dimension, containing a County water storage tank, situated within the land of Shelor on the southern slope of Fort Lewis Mountain in Roanoke County, Virginia, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, together with a right-of-way and an easement for water lines and other utility services. This right-of-way and utility easement shall be an extension of the easement retained and described in paragraph 2, above. 3 4. Closing will occur as soon as Roanoke County is able to remove the cloud upon the title to the parcel of 5.25 acres, at which time the deeds conveying the interests described herein shall be delivered. 5. The parties further agree as follows: a. All gates providing access to this easement to and from State Route 1157 [or State Route 643] and the Havens State Game Refuge shall remain locked at all rimes. Shelor will provide to Roanoke County not less than five (5) keys for the permanent use of authorized Roanoke County personnel and its agents, including for example Motorola Corp., for any gates at either end, or otherwise obstructing, this easement. Roanoke County agrees to accept responsibility for any damages to either the gates restricting this right-of-way or their locks from any damages excepting any damages attributable to Shelor, his agents or other parties expressly permitted by him to use this same easement. In the event that ,Shelor determines a need to change the locks to any of these gates, Roanoke County will be provided written notice of such change five (5) business days in advance of any change and an adequate number of replacement keys prior to any actual change. b. During normal maintenance of the E-911 tower and shelter, vehicles and personnel shall limit their access to the site to reasonable working hours in consideration of the neighbors adjacent to this easement. The County, its employees, agents or contractors shall not be limited in any manner in the use of this easement necessary for emergency maintenance or repairs as shall be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. 4 c. All personnel or vehicles authorized to use this temporary easement, whether those of Roanoke County or its agents or contractors such as Motorola Corp. or its subcontractors, shall have in their possession proper identification and authorization for their presence on this right-of-way. At no time shall any County employee, agent or contractor carry any firearm or weapon upon their person or in their vehicle, except for deputies Of police officers or others specifically authorize by law to carry firearms upon their person, while using this temporary easement. In no circumstance shall any County employee, agent or contractor engage in any hunting activity upon the property of Shelor whether in-season or not without the written permission of Shelor. IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, the parties hereto have subscribed their signatures and seals on the date before given. Q..:J J.1ll David W. Shelor -:- {l{7Y1SIC2/~ yf ~~ Constance R. Shelor BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By: ~fl~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney 5 STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITYICO..:uNIY OF aeMJ~E) to-wit: St-l-\...F.OM l The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l.( tday of ;Jv,4/e- 1996, by David W. Shelor and Constance R. Shelor, husband and wife. 9+ P. ()+ Notary Public My commission expires: O~ PI, 1'1'i1 , STATE OF VIRGINIA, ~/COUNTY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this'I$~ay of m~ ' 1996, by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Superviso s of Roanoke County, Virginia. .1l1 ~ Nota~l~' My commission expires: ~ 30 J 1 <J 'tq . 6 EXHIBIT A lJ. if'l~jS p 8 00 1 74 Hail.d Co..ocv.altb of V1rg~1& Dep~. of State Police P. O. Sox 274"'2 lIebaoud, Va. 2~261-7472 This DEED OP EASEKEN"I', 1llAd.. thi. ~ day of -:)~" ~ { 19~, by and bet'We%1 CLAn'ON C. BRYANT, SR., \mmllrr 1ed, J Y <-{J. Mrain4!tor cAlled -Owner,. and the COMMONWEALTR OF VIRGINIA, OEP~ OP STATE P<JLICE, hereinafter cll..lled -Stat.a.. WITNESSETH That: for the sum of On.. dollu ($1. 00) and othar valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, ~ C"'" ~ ('Q ~ ~ OWner grants unto StAte, ita successors zmd aaaiqn.a, ",ith General Warranty, ~ perpetual right, ,rlvilege, and ease- ment of right of way 12 feet in wid:th upon, over and Geron certain existing roadway. located upon O\mar's real pro- ~rty, hereinafter described, and all equifmant, acclilsaoricB and appurtenance. nec:esnry in connection tharerlth, herein- after called facilitie., for the purpose of utilisiqq said existing- road"ltay. for in9::esa to and egr... from communi- cation equlpm&nt located on property ll.djacent to Owner's. the hid e4MmGnt of riqht of val" being .ituat. in th. SUem KaCJbtarial Oiatrict, County of P.oancke, Virginia, and. .being part. of that: same real ..tau c:onveyed to Ovnar by deed dated Oecamber 10, 1985, from 0Wen-Il1inol., Inc., which is recorded in the Clerk'. Offics, Circuit Court: of Roanoke County, Vi.r9~ia. in r..ed Book 1230, P!Lq. 18-47. The .Aid "~nt b further and more pu-ticularly described in ll:xh1b1t II A. a ttachAk\ hereto AJ:ld mad. a part hex--ot by rete::-.nca. ." ,i'233~6 00\75 'l'hi. NtJ.llDl.nt b .ubject to any existing u,HJMnts or ri9'ht~. of way of record, and further wbjec:t to t:h.- following conditions. A. The SUU ahall maintain tho h.Hment of right ot Yay aa nurly to it.s originAl condition u practicable. 'rh.e State shall lIlaintllin said right of way and beiliU.. in such repair aa not to endanger or oenorvia. limit the enjoy- ment and use ot adjacent propQ~e.. B. 'I'he State ahall have the r~9'ht to trim, cut and remove usn, ahrubbuy or other obat.ruotiona which intarfUlI vith or threato.n the eUicient ~ aafe operation, construction, maintanance and uSe of Aid right of way or facUitie.. All trees aM lilnbs cut by the SbUt .ball remain t:h4l prope.rl:y of Owner. . , C. The state ahall b4ve the right of ~cp:.'ea. to and. egrU. from aaid right of way ovu the 1.And. of OWn.ar. The State ahAll exercise au.ch ri9h.t. in Guch mantler a. shall not occasion injury and inconven.i.enca to Owner. D. Owner, iu aucc...ora and a...~gna, aAY uae said r~c;ht ot way for any purpo.. not !neon.iatent with the r~CJht. h4reby qranted, provided IIUOh us. c!oea DOt. i.nurfara vith - 2 - " 8J:1233PS 00176 the ufe and. efficient construction, operation, J1'l4intenAnce or uae of &aid right of Vl'.y or :h.cilitiea, and furthar provided that such USe is hOt inconai&tant 'With any lava, ordinancea or codell pertaining to the construction, operation or lMintenMce of said right of 'Way or facilities. wrr.ress the following signature. and 11&418 all aa of the day and year first above written. 4!#f\ ~ ~ Can C. B.ry , S . (Seal) Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of dff67?'12;t;;:;, , to.....it: I, ~;,6.~ . a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do certify that Clayton C. Bryant. Sr., "mo.e name i. aigned to the for~qoing deed dated the .~ day of -iJ..1J\11'(~MJ .(' 19~, has acknowledged. the aame before me in the County or City a.for..aid. Given under illY hand this ~ day of 9 tl Mil .I't AJ 1 19 3~. JoN' COM!U:SSI:ON 1OO'J:RE.S: . ~ /~8 /69 , ,. ql2!~~ ~ .(]It:A-l - 3 - 8~123)P6 00176 h~rrov~d as ~o for~: era1 for of Virginia R<:COr:u".1,dC:C; . ~)~t--- DirectAr, Division ot Engineering and Butlding& Approved for the Governor: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.1-504.2, Code of Virginia (1950), ~s amended, and by authority of Executive Order No. 47 (B4) , ~ R.eviaed I hereby approve the acquisition of th~ e~8ement acquired herein for, on behalf of, and in the stead of the Governor. .,. ~'.4 ';"\11' ,.~.~ '1 7.,~ $ it C~ ~o~ the County at In tho C1Hi:'1I Offioe at the Clhu 19 ~tb1a llU1tro- p'A":1C~'1 Ii.... thlS-'J"'d..a.yCt'..:t! <~ "~c'-A.le"w- .~~ . d lth the CertiI" cate 0.. ~ .'.HV -- . "n" \::Jr. pr'Jc(,:\te.l. 8..'1 ... d ~~.. "J' 'locl: ^ )( .. . "'l+~r .... -' :..::r.t. tl\ur"to a.r.nUO~~/j~:~ . ~ ~~ .Chri By v~tJ{ii::: K.n.fv.-. F,,'o<;./":s.: ..0"'..- Clarr & ..:..... 0:, .. '--.-.- .. ~/Ir::- f _ 'J TI .:::D . . I ~..:-; ~ ,I ~ :' ....: .~' ~ a t n t.,-:..a.l . - 4 - B1.1233?60Ul77 OHIBIT "A" North of Glenvar ~cight on Owens-Illinois' fOfr Levis ~ount~ln parcel beginning at a point in the aiddle of . private road that ~xtenda fro. State Highway 1146 vh.re Ow.n.-lllino1.' boundary 11ne (1121) inter~.cta the said road, [olleving the road cnrough tva (2) aCone gate poat. that .re located on the O&OL. of Big Bear Rock Branch. The road t~en runs 1n a parallel direction (Northwest) with B1~ Bear Rocx Branch unt1l it craVerses under a ?o~er li~e: the road then forka and OuenS-l!li~oi.' road follows a westerly direction until it tops a large gully; the road then changes direction to easterly and ero..e. under the pavar I1ne .ga1n; then the road bears northwest foll~ng a parallel direction with ..id gully and croas1ng under another p~er I1n. 1n a northarly dir.ction~ the r~d than .v1tehe. bacx on top of the l~~~e gully going in a north~aat dir~ct1on; then the ro~~ wv1cchca b.c~ at the cr.,.6t of Big Be.,. Roc\e Branch above B. H. Tingler's Tract. From this ~itch back tn. ro~d follows a ac.nde~ing pattern switching back north~a.t and northwe.t be~en Stypes Branch and !1g a.a,. BraDch until the road reach.. the old fir. trail road on the top of Fort t.via kountain. a.aring northe..t along the old fire crail road until the road 1n!erseccs with the red iron gat., t~ua ending the Owens-rIlinoi, road before the radio taver. Ind Haven. SCaee Ga=e R~fuge at Big ~e.r Rock G4p. This r1gbt-o{-vay d..er1bed being 1n all respects on the ~. property .hovn on that certain Plat of Survey daeed June 20, 1981 and revised August 28, 1982 prepared by C. l. Lacy, Jr.. Surveyor, Sal... \.lq;lnia. a copy of ...nich is located in Plat Book 9, PlIge 232. 1n Roanolu!, ~oun[y Courthuusc. VA. " .....r:,~t~.;.:t: ,...::;t':~i.~ . (,.~~~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E .;) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution granting a waiver to High Country Concrete, Inc., on behalf of Oppidan Investment Company, under Section 13- 23 of the Roanoke County Code to the provisions of the County's Noise Ordinance, Article II. Noise of Chapter 13: Offenses - Miscellaneous to expedite construction SUBMITTED BY: Elmer C. Hodge (~;t;'11A-- County Administrator Doug Chittum Director of Economic Development Jf~ APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: l~;-C<'iy-r':/\ lVAovrf) P;f)/.4~ 1j'(J SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County recently received the attached letter from High Country Concrete requesting a waiver of the noise ordinance under Section 13-23 "undue hardship waiver," for a three day period from November 19, 2007, to November 21,2007. High Country is acting as sub- contractor for Oppidan I nvestment Company and will be pouring the concrete floors for the new Gander Mountain and Camping World retail stores. The noise ordinance currently allows for construction from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. The waiver request is to allow the pouring and finishing of concrete from 4:00 a.m. until 12:00 a.m. for the three days mentioned above. Only two days will be needed to complete this task; however, the applicant has requested a three day waiver to allow some flexibility in the construction schedule. This waiver is necessary due to modern construction methods that are utilized when pouring large volumes of concrete for these types of facilities. Roanoke County has granted similar waivers in the past and with proper monitoring and cooperation from the contractors involved, disruption to the surrounding areas has been manageable. During this time, construction vehicles will be entering from the soon to be constructed Friendship Lane, which should have the least impact on surrounding neighbors. All parties involved understand the potential impact of this request and are sensitive to the concerns of neighboring homes and businesses. The County held a community meeting to educate and inform the businesses and citizens who live and work in the area about the project on January 22, 2007. Written notification will also be provided to neighboring property owners to inform them of the modified hours of construction upon adoption of this resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: This request does not have any fiscal impact. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Approve the request for waiver of the Roanoke County noise ordinance. 2. Do not approve the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request as it is necessary for proper construction of the new facility. It is also recommended that County staff continue to work with Oppidan Investment Company and their team of contractors, engineers, and management to limit the impact on surrounding neighbors to the extent possible. 2 HOU-7-2007 12:56P FROM:HIGH COUNTRY 540 342-4160 TO: 7722030 HIGH COUNTRY CONCRETE, IHe 1611 NORFOLK AVENUE SE ROANOKE, VA 24013 PHONE (540) 342-8643 FAX (540) 342-4160 Department of Economic Deve]opment Dil'l'll'.tor: Doug Chittum 5204 Bernard Dr., SW Room 421 Roanoke, VA 240]8 RE~ Request for extended pour times for Gander Mountain Project Doug, Hello, Hope you are having a fine day! This letter is to request extension of nois\;; ordirumce times fl,r the Gander Mountain Project. Gander Mountain is a high profile job and hIlS a very accelerated pace to complete. The onset of winter is approllching moking concrete construction almost uncontrollable, in reference to place and finish of concrete slabs. Controlled environments are the absolute best situations for placing and finishing concrete, although it does not give us complete control. Controlled environments BIlow lib to flpply protection to sub basell, protect concrete from wind Rl\d rain, and apply heat to the surface of concrete, if needed. This project being tilt wall requires High Country to install foundations (footings & slabs) fir~t. Tjlt walls will be ellSt on our slab then erected. This in turn does not allow us have a controlled environment. Gander Mountain is 80,000 sqft. of slab which requiTe very large pours, in two days (three mRx.) to maintain schedule. With the amount of footage covered and no controlled environment we need every hour we can receive to insure a quality finished product. This being said High Country would like to request the ex.lension of two hours before 6 am and two hours after 10 p.m. (4 a.m. to 12 a,m.) to place and finish the concrete slabs. We aTe tentative for November 20-22 to pour thc slabs (weather permitting). Ifweathel requires us to adjust the schedule we will inform you in writing for an extension. The 4 a.m. - 12 a.m. schedule allows us to place concrete sooner, allowing the chemical reactions (hydration) 10 occur longt:r, increasing set time. Extension to midnight allows finishing the concrete over a broader period of time if set time is delayed because of uncontrollable weather conditions. If winter conditions result in an unfinishablc surface, we havc a grclltcr chance finishing the next morning Ilt 6 a.m. and acquiring the finished product the general contractor is looking for. Tn conclusion, High Country hopes you take this situation into consideration for extension and rest assured we will take every precaution to keep noise to a minimum and maintain some control over our workmanship. Rc:~pectfuUy . ~ Robert A. Stewart, Jr. OwnerlPresident Tel: 540.342.8643 Fax: 540.342.4160 P ~, .c AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 RESOLUTION GRANTING A WAIVER UNDER SECTION 13-23 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY'S NOISE ORDINANCE, ARTICLE II. NOISE OF CHAPTER 13: OFFENSES- MISCELLANEOUS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, High Country Concrete, a subcontractor for the construction of the Gander Mountain and Camping World retail stores for Oppidan Investment Company on a 40-acre site west of Plantation Road and south of Interstate 81 in Roanoke County, has requested a waiver of the County's noise ordinance as contemplated under Sec. 13-23. Undue hardship waiver. to permit the pouring of concrete floors for a three day period beginning on November 19, 2007, and ending November 21, 2007; and WHEREAS, Section 13-23 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain standards for the Board of Supervisors to grant waivers from the provision of the Roanoke County Noise Ordinance, Article II. Noise of Chapter 13: Offenses - Miscellaneous to avoid undue hardship upon consideration of certain factors set forth in subsection (b) of Sec. 13- 23 and after making certain alternative findings. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. In making its determination as to whether to grant the requested waiver to High Country Concrete from the County's noise ordinance, the Board of Supervisors has considered the following factors: a. The time of day the noise will occur and the duration of the noise: Beginning not earlier than 4:00 a.m. and ending not later than 12:00 a.m. on each day, beginning on Monday November 19, 2007 through Wednesday, November 21, 2007. b. Whether the noise is intermittent or continuous: The noise produced will be continuous during the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 12 a.m. of each day. c. The extensiveness of the noise: Construction noise may be extensive from time to time. This schedule will allow for the least amount of inconvenience possible to complete this project. d. The technical and economic feasibility of bringing the noise into conformance with the noise ordinance: To achieve the desired goal of opening these retail stores in the Fall of 2008, to complete construction activities prior to the onset of winter, to assure a controlled environment for placing and finishing concrete, and to minimize escalation of costs, this waiver is necessary. e. Other matters related to the impact of the noise on the health, safety and welfare of the community and the degree of hardship resulting from enforcement of the ordinance: The hours of construction will minimize the duration of the construction period, benefiting adjoining residences and businesses. f. The extent to which the noise is necessary and incidental to tile commercial and industrial use generating the sound: The noise to be generated by this phase of construction of the Gander Mountain and Camping World retail stores is normal and expected for this type of operation. 2 2. The Board of Supervisors makes the following finding: Compliance with the provisions of the County's noise ordinance concerning the specific act of noise disturbance by construction machinery or operations under subsection (1) of Sec. 13-21. Specific acts as noise disturbance. or under the provision of Sec. 13-20. General prohibition. would produce serious economic hardship for High Country Concrete without producing any substantial benefit to the public either living in the area of this construction or generally. 3. That the provisions of Sec.13-21. Specific acts as noise, subsection (1) and Sec. 13-20. General prohibition. of Article II. NOISE of Chapter 13. OFFENSES- MISCELLANEOUS be WAIVED from November 19, 2007 until November 21,2007. 4. This Waiver is granted specifically to High Country Concrete, its officers, employees and agents for construction related activities at the Oppidan Investment Company site located on approximately 40 acres west of Plantation Road and south of Interstate 81 in Roanoke County, Virginia. 5. All construction vehicles and activities must enter the property from Plantation Road and not from any adjoining residential streets. 6. That this Waiver may only be extended upon written application and approval by the Board of Supervisors. 7. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from its passage. 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. r'- J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for public hearing and first reading for rezoning ordinances; consent agenda SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Deputy Director of Planning Elmer C. Hodge {'Iff. County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for December 18,2007. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. The petition of Dalton Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., to rezone 1.41 acres from AVC, AgriculturalNillage Center District with Conditions, to AVC, AgriculturalNillage Center District with amended conditions, and to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a construction yard in an AVC, AgriculturalNillage Center District with Conditions, located at 7119 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Maps are attached. More detailed information is available in the Clerk's Office. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for December 18, 2007. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Item(s) 1, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. 2 c-.--:o "---. C(lIOJ,'-\") :) County of Roauoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onlv "" Received by- 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, V A 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ApplicatiDIl fee: Placards issued: Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ~Rezoning CXSpecial Use 0 Vari:mce 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Comp Plan (15.2-2232} Review Applicants name/address wlzip Dalton Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. 6932 Bent Mountain Road Roanoke, VA 24018 Ed rtC'..+f IS G,,,ft<:f ' Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 540-989-3937 Owner's name/address whip Lewis-Gale Building COIporation, c/o Healthcare Realty 3310 West End Avenue, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203 Property Location 7119 Bent Mountain Road Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Magisterial District: Windsor Hills Tax Map No.: 095.01-01-04.00. Community Planning area: Windsor Hills Existing Zoning: A VC w/proffered conditions Size of parcel( s): Acres: 1.41 Existing Land Use: vacant 'REZONiNG, "sPECIAL [JSEPER;rllT, WAIveRDAJvDCOMPPLAN: (15.i2i232)REVIEW APPLicANTS(fiJSIW/CPj}! n.. .- _ .- .- ,," .- .- :'.': .- ..... - .- '. _', ."__.-,,,:_..:. ,_'_ ..,.... .- .-.- ._ .- .-.. :c -,___ - .- .- , '._'- .- ._' :>'.: _",.- ..... ,..,,,..:, ._ ,.....,_,.:'". ._ ',. _'_, / ':. :......... ",: _..':" '.: '. -' _ -, . . .': ' , .,.. ,.-'" . ...--. " . . ." , ,- . . .... Proposed Zoning: A VC with Special Use Permit Proposed Land Use: contractor storage yard for Applicant Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes)!(j No ] IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes ~ No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes L No 0 N/A . . - . ...-.... __ - __. . ..__ __ . _____', ...._ .',", ....___.__..... ...."_.__ ". '". .,..,.,,,,. __:_ :n. _: ,:. 'VAJUANtE;...WAIVERiNDAD~jNI$~iBTJirEUi>>~Jj!fEA.PlaCANfsr~;w!~); Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section( s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. Consultation Application Justification I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the ~ro of the owner. DALTO CONTACT: Edward A. Natt B . 3140 Chaparral Drive, Suite 200-C Roanoke, VA 24018 Phone: 540-725-8180 Fax: 540-774-0961 Email: enatt(m.oonlaw.com RISIWICP V/AA ~ R1SIWICP V/AA R1SIWICP V/AA ~ 8 1/2" X II" concept plan ~ Application fee Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners or the owner's a ent or contrac!J~urchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent 11N;-GC fOfiID~ONING, INC. , . . ~ Owner s SIgnature 1ts<:.- . 2 JUSTIFICATIOXFOR REZONINC, SPECIAL USE PERJ\'llTWAIVERoncoMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW REQUESTS DALTON HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC. Applicant TI1e Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community pbn (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 ZOlling Ordinance. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance designates this property as an agricultural .. village center. Such zoning allows for a contractor's storage yard with a special use permit. Since the proposed user will not make any modifications to the building or the property and is willing to proffer such, there should be no adverse impact on the community. Traffic will, in all likelihood,::be reduced since the proposed use will transfer the property from the medical facility with a high traffic volume to a small contractor's storage yard with very low traffic volume. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the community inasmuch as the zoning district permits a contractor's storage yard with a special use-_ permit. This coupled with the fact that no renovations are made to the existing structure or site make it compatible with the plan. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. The proposed use will have no impact on the surrounding area or on any public service facility. 3 DALTON HEATING & AIR CONDITlONI0G, II\iC. I. CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST 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 pennitting regulations. The concept plan should not be conn.lsed with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building pernrit. Site plan and building pernrit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Ul'.!ess 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 b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights 1. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development J. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fIre hydrants p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. lfproject is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Dalto eating & Air Conditioning, Inc. By: IQ {"L-trj Date Signa 6 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO ApPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT 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 Planning 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 of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate fu; . ,',er study is provided, j1art 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 DALTON HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC. By: -- (cy/t--f5/ Date Community Development Planning & Zoning Division POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A1'ID/OR TRAFFIC Iw ACT 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 app:ication process. (Note this list is not inclusive and the County staff and VDOT reselVe 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/Nu rsing home/Clinic . Industrial site/Factory . Day care center . Bank . Non-specific use requests -"~.~.' '. Road Network Situations: . Development adjacent to/with access onto/within 500-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 is 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 hou r of the traffic generator or the peak hour on the adjacent streets, or over seven hundred fifty (750) trips in an average day ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER LISTING Address of Subiect Property: Tax Map No.: Present Zoninq: Proposed Zoninq: Owner: Applicant'Contract Purchaser: 7119 Bent Mountain Road 095.01-01-04.00 A VC w/proffered conditions A VC w/special use permit and amended proffers Lewis-Gale Building Corporation Dalton Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS This list as follows are those property owners who own property beside, behind or across the street from the subject property noted above: Official Tax Number 085.04-01-14.00 7005 Bent Mountain Road 085.04-01-15.01 6981 Bent Mountain Road>'" 095.01-01-03.00 o Twelve O'Clock Knob Road 095.01-01-04.01 7125 Bent Mountain Road 095.01-02-43.00 7130 Bent Mountain Road COUNTY OF ROANOKE Owner's Name and Mailinq Address Claude D. Kittinger III & Stephen W. Kittinger 7005 Bent Mountain Road Roanoke,VA 24018 Michael Todd & Teke Long Abshire 6981 Bent Mountain Road Roanoke,VA 24018 Richard J. Kittinger 1612 Colesbury Circle Hoover, AL 35226 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke,VA 24018 Roanoke County School Board 5937 Cove Road, N.W. Roanoke,VA 24019 \\Opnsvr\Users\cbaumgardner\ZONING\ROANOKE COUNTY\Dalton Heating & AiAAPO.doc Page 1 of 1 PROFFERS Address of Subject Property: 7119 Bent Mountain Road Tax Map No.: 095.01-01-04.00 Present ZoninQ: A VC w/proffered conditions Proposed Zoninq: AVC w/special use permit and amended proffers Applicant's Name: Dalton Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc, Owner: Lewis-Gale Building Corporation PROFFERS The undersigned owner hereby proffers the following conditions in conjunction with the rezoning request: 1. The subject property will be utilized solely as a construction yard. There will be no physical alterations to the existing building or parking area. 2. There will be no entrance to the tract from State Route 694, 3. There will be no exterior storage of materials other than In one bulldog container approximately 20' x 8' x 8', which shall be screened by fencing, APPLICANT: BY EATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC, OWNER: LEWIS-GALE BUILDING CORPORATION BY ITS H'\cbaumgardnerIZONING\ROANOKE COUNTY\Dalton Heating & Air\PROFFERS.doc LEGAL Address of Subiect Property: 7119 Bent Mountain Road Tax Map No.: 095.01-01-04.00 Present Zoninq: AVC w/proffered conditions Proposed Zoninq: A VC w/special use permit and amended proffers Applicant's Name: Dalton Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. Owner: Lewis-Gale Building Corporation LEGAL DESCRIPTION Haran - New Lot A Lying between U.S. Route 221 and a line 200 feet northwest from and parallel with Route 221, at the intersection of the northwest side of U.s. Route 221 and the southwest side of State Route 694, containing 2.3 acres, more or less, and being the southeasterly portion of a 6.592 acre tract presently owned by Emily Rierson Jones and shown on a plat entitled "Plat prepared for Lewis-Gale Clinic, being property of Emily Rierson Jones (D.B. 531, pg. 163) situate along U.S. Route 221," made by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C., dated JUi,;,;'17, 1982. \\Opnsvr\Users\cbaumgardner\ZONING\ROANOKE COUNTY\Dalton Heating & Air\LEGAL.doc ~ It 11 r~ j 1 1 j I I t i t1i"~ I;J J 1 j ; 1 11 .:1 !j ;1 j fJ II W! "li J ,:J m I; 1 U u H I; n j 1 H ~ 1 I( 1'1 .'1 jl 11 II ~l fl '1 11 Ii n j' 11 ! ." " [.; !j h i:l it - '"' _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR _AV C1 _C2 _ C2CVOO :-'11 _12 _PCD o PRO _PTD R1 R2 --, R3 _ _J R4 \ ~Q ~"\t>-\~ ~00 ~~~"\ - Applicants Name: Dalton Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc Existing Zoning: A VC Proposed Zoning: A VS Tax Map Number: 95.01-01-04 Magisterial District: Windsor Hills Area: 1.41 Acres 15 October. 2007 Scale: 1" = 100' Roanoke County Department of Community Development - '- , '- 'il-Q ~,\p.,.\~ ~00 'O<;;.~'\ /'" Land Use _ Conservation _ Rural Preserve _ Rural Village Village Center Development Neighborhood Conservation _ Transition _Core _ Principal Industrial --1 - Applicants Name: Dalton Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc Existing Zoning: A VC Proposed Zoning: A VS Tax Map Number: 95.01-01-04 Magisterial District: Windsor Hills Area: 1.41 Acres 15 October, 2007 Scale: 1" = 100' '-- Roanoke County Department of Community Development ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H-\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance conveying the former Public Safety Center to the Roanoke County School Board SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval. We agreed to transfer ownership of this property to the Schools and it is time to do so. This would be a good time to review the terms of the agreement which is attached. 1) Complete. The School Board has conveyed title to the ten acres on which the new Public Safety Building is located. Comparable property has sold at $100,000 to $150,000 per acre. 2) Today's action will transfer ownership of the old Public Safety Building property to the Schools. This property was appraised recently at $750,000 in its current condition. The Board needs to determine what is meant by "The Board of Supervisors furthermore agrees to pursue funds in future budgets for renovation of the current Public Safety Building back to a school building." 3) The County contributed $657,245 towards the construction of a replacement warehouse for the Schools. In addition, the County paid the cost of grading the warehouse pad and replacing the sewer line. 4) The School Board originally agreed to transfer ownership of the Roanoke County Career Center to the County. Since that time we determined that the County has no use for the property. If that is the final decision, the Board needs to take action to remove this condition from the agreement and allow the Schools to use or dispose of the property. This property has an approximate value of $750,000 in its present condition. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This ordinance authorizes the conveyance of the former Public Safety Building (Southview Elementary School) located at 3568 Peters Creek Road to the Roanoke County School Board. This action conveys approximately 3.723 acres to the School Board. On July 15, 2004, Chairman Flora and Chairman Canada executed a Memorandum of Understanding (copy attached) between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to cooperate in the provision of a site for a new Public Safety Building in exchange for the then current Public Safety Building and the construction of a new warehouse for the School Board. This Memorandum of Understanding was intended to establish the framework of future legal agreements between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. The Board of Supervisors acquired this property from the School Board by deed dated October 15,1990, and recorded in Deed Book 1337, page 1345. This deed conveyed two parcels to the Board of Supervisors: 2.281 and 3.723 acres. In August 1992, tile Board conveyed the 2.281 acre parcel to the Virginia Public Building Authority for the state forensics lab. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. The various fiscal impacts have occurred during the construction of the new Public Safety Building and construction of the warehouse for the School Board. The renovation costs of the building on this parcel are yet to be determined by the School Board. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Adopt this ordinance at first reading and proceed to second reading on November 13,2007. 2. Decline to adopt this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff submits this ordinance to the Board for its consideration. Memorandum of Understanding The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding between the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) and the Roanoke County School Board (School Board) is to signify the intent of the School Board to cooperate in the provision of a site for a Public Safety Building in exchange for the current Roanoke County Public Safety Building and the construction of a new warehouse adj acent to the School Board Administrative Offices on Cove Road. This memorandum is intended to establiSh" the framework of future legal agreements to be executed between Board of Supervisors and the School Board. The parties agree to proceed with the following; I) The School Board agrees to transfer the ownership of no more than ten (10) acres of property at the site of the current School Board Administrative Offices, 5937 Cove Road, to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for the purposes of construction of a Public Safety Building of approximately 80,000 square feet. The exact metes and bounds of the acreage will be determined by future sUrveys and site plans and will be the subject of a future agreement and fonnalland transfer. . 2) As soon as practical following the occupancy of the new Public Safety Building at the Cove Road location by the County, the Board of Supervisors agrees' to transfer ownership of the current Public Safety Building and site located at 5368 Peters Creek Road to the School Board. The Board of Supervisors furthermor~ agrees to pursue funds in future budgets for renovation of the current Public Safety Building back to a school building. 3) The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors agrees to grade an earthen pad on the School Board~s property on Cove Road for the School Board to use for the replacement ofllie warehouses that will be demolished as part of the site preparation for the proposed . Public Safety Building and to construct replacement warehouses. The exact location and design of the replacement warehouses will be determined mutually by the Board of Supervisors and the Sch<?ol Board. 4) The School Board agrees to transfer ownership of the current Roanoke County Career Center, located at 100 Highland Road, Vinton, to the Board of Supervisors if and when the facility is no longer needed by the School Board. Approved this /5rt.h day of 0- ~ by the Roanoke County School Board and the Roanoke County Board of S~ 9:r1 J:. ~<>- Jerry L. anada, auman Roanoke COlll1ty School Board ~ - ~ ~,~. c. . ~ .o..t"~ Richard C. Flora, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 ORDINANCE CONVEYING THE FORMER PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors acquired this property located at 5368 Peters Creek Road consisting of two parcels containing 2.281 acres and 3.723 acres from the School Board by deed dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in Deed Book 1337, page 1345; and WHEREAS, in August 1992, the Board conveyed the 2.281 acre parcel to the Virginia Public Building Authority for the State Forensics Lab; and WHEREAS, the remaining property served as the Public Safety Building until completion of the new Public Safety Building located on Cove Road in 2006; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board provided for the Boards to cooperate in the provision of a site for a new Public Safety Building in exchange for the then current Public Safety Building and the construction of a new warehouse for the School Board; and WHEREAS, this ordinance authorizes the conveyance of the former Public Safety Building (the former Southview Elementary School) located at 3568 Peters Creek Road to the Roanoke County School Board; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 23, 2007, and the second reading was held on November 13, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the conveyance of a 3.72 acre parcel of real estate located at 3568 Peters Creek Road (Tax Map No. 37.10-1-21.2) to the Roanoke County School Board is hereby approved and authorized; and 2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. )/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance to accept a donation of 89.82 acres on Read Mountain from Alfred and Beth Durham SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Planner Elmer C. Hodge V/YX..UL- ~'1- County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 2002, Dr. and Mrs. Durham donated a conservation easement on 89.82 acres on Read Mountain to the Western Virginia Land Trust. This property is visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Read Mountain Overlook. It includes the upper slopes of the southern side of Read Mountain and extends to the ridgeline. The generous donation of this conservation easement will forever protect this scenic viewshed for the public good. At this time, the Durhams are offering to donate the fee simple ownership of this property to Roanoke County for public park purposes. The conservation easement that encumbers the property does not allow any further subdivision of the property. The easement expressly states that the property can be used as a public park and that no building or structure can be built within 100 feet in elevation from the ridge line. The donation of this property to the County will add open space acreage to our inventory. When combined with the 152 acre donation made last year by Fralin & Waldron, Inc. the County now has almost 250 acres of Read Mountain protected. It is through the generous, civic-minded efforts of citizens such as the Durhams that the County can hope to be successful in our efforts to protect the Parkway, open spaces, mountainsides and ridgetops. By forming a partnership with Roanoke County the Durhams have proven their commitment to protect the County's natural resources for now and forever. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the donation of 89.82 acres from Dr. Alfred and Mrs. Beth Durham 2. Do not accept the donation of 89.82 acres from Dr. Alfred and Mrs. Beth Durham STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF 89.82 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 39.00-1-8) LOCATED ON READ MOUNTAIN FROM ALFRED AND BETH DURHAM TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, Alfred and Beth Durham wish to donate to the County a parcel of real estate consisting of 89.82 acres located on Read Mountain; and WHEREAS, this parcel is encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the Western Virginia Land Trust that limits the uses of this property; and WHEREAS, the Durhams will convey this property without cost to the County of Roanoke to protect this portion of Read Mountain for the benefit of the citizens of and visitors to the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the acceptance of this conveyance is consistent with the adopted Community Plan, and it will support the open space and viewshed protection policies and goals of the County and provide enhanced opportunities for passive recreational uses; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance will be held on October 23, 2007, and the second reading will be held on November 13, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition by donation from Alfred and Beth Durham of a 89.82 acre parcel of real estate located on Read Mountain (Tax Map No. 39.00-1-8), is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in tbis matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 2 ""'...._.......~...eo.....(lI___....._.. -:=.':;.::-=~-:-;=:.'=..-=-= _..~.-.........'""'.__...._.,..f___..'... -'::::,:,..":::::::::::::' ".::..a:. :::~'"':.:=~::.'" _.Ml.~""'."" ................ "'__hM...n. --.... ......."::.::-....-........"'P~ '---*- _..4__10'1_..____. ~,,'''''':1'. -"--~"""""-' ",.."".....-..,.--- _of..... __I'..._______~~.1'...S__~ _._._....- __...~..-u.,"'.. >>_ floo -...g~..""._- -.--.........-....-.. 1""_ ~"'fllo .._. ......______... ..IJ'I' ..,.._ ............--. ,...-....-.-p--"". .., ----.. ".' ..... /~.~. / > ,,-- j/ / / '-. '. ..... ........... "-. " ............. " ....... ....,-., I / I / / I I \ \. \........, \ ..... \ ',. \ ./ "\ / ,/ \ ../~ /",~ / ..,,// / / ,- / /..... ,/' //' /' ,/ /" // ..// ..../. Read Mountain Durham Donation 89.82 Acres ,,'. "" /" .' -, \, ''"'- '- v~... , j" j' ! ,./ ;' / / I / f ;' / , I / // I ! I , I , I / v' '---,-j f '- / / / ;' // ^ " /~-_~.I' '. Fralin and Waldron Donation 152.27 Acres ; i' f i ! ---.--? ../ _,i/ T L--- .-- " .----- I I -__r-.' .", ," .. .../ \ ........ .\ \, \. '. '. " ..,\ .., ~"\~ " '~..//. """ '. o 375 750 1,500 Feel 5 3,000 . Read Mountain Area 2,250 Date: 30 October, 2007 Scale:1 inch e uals 1,500 feet Roanokl! CQunty Department of Communty De>telopment 520'lBoetMrdDnve Roanoke, VlrQi'1l3 24018 (540) 772.2065 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J~' ! ,..I{ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Wanda G. Riley, CPS Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors The three-year term of Linda Manns, Roanoke County member, will expire on December 31,2007. Ms. Manns was completing the unexpired term of Roger Laplace and is now eligible to serve a full three-year term. Ms. Mann has advised that she is willing to serve an additional term. The three-year term of Mrs. Dana Barnes Lee, member at large, will expire on December 31,2007. The member at large must be confirmed by the Cities of Roanoke and Salem. Mr. Tim Steller, Executive Director, has advised that the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board recommends that Mrs. Lee's appointment be ratified. 2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed by District) The following one-year terms expired on August 31, 2007: a) King Harvey, Catawba District b) James 1. Anderson, Cave Spring District (Mr. Anderson has advised that he does not wish to serve an additional term.) c) Brian Garber, Windsor Hills District 3. Grievance Panel The three-year term of Lee Blair, Alternate, expired on October 10,2007. The Clerk's Office has determined that Ms. Blair is eligible for reappointment and is willing to serve an additional term. Her reappointment is recommended by Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources. 4. Library Board (Appointed by District) The four-year terms of Josie Eyer, Catawba Magisterial District, and Sheryl Ricci, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, will expire on December 31,2007. Ms. Eyer is not eligible for reappointment since she has served three consecutive terms. Ms. Ricci has informed the Library Board that she does not wish to be reappointed. 5. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) The four-year terms of Gary Jarrell, Hollins Magisterial District, and Rodney W. McNeil, Cave Spring Magisterial District, will expire on December 31, 2007. The four-year term of AI G. Thomason, Sr., who recently passed away, will expire on December 31,2008. Mr. Thomason represented the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 6. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority The four-year term of Anne Marie Green will expire on December 31, 2007. 7. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority The one-year terms of Richard C. Flora, elected representative; Michael W. Altizer, alternate elected representative; John M. Chambliss, administrative official; and Diane D. Hyatt, alternate administrative official, will expire on December 31,2007. 2 0- /-/0 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 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: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 13, 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 10 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes for August 28, 2007, and October 9, 2007 2. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $250 for the Blue Ridge Regional Crash Investigation Team for traffic safety projects 3. Request from the Police Department and Sheriff's Office for acceptance of a Bureau of Justice Assistance Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant in the amount of $14,180 4. Resolution of appreciation to Ida-Lee R. Mcllwraith, Sheriff's Office, upon her retirement after twenty-five years of service 5. Request from the schools to appropriate $2,500, an increase in grant funding from the James Madison University TTAC, to be used for fees and materials related to Autism 6. Request from the schools to appropriate $30,180.78 from the Virginia Department of Education to the National Board Certified Teachers 7. Request from tile schools to appropriate $10,937.28 from the Virginia Department of Education to testing and remediation accounts to replace local funds spent on the Project Graduation Summer Academy 8. Request from the schools to appropriate $64,320 from the 2007-2008 Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation Grant to provide Elementary Student Assistance Program services to reduce the use of tobacco and other drugs 9. Request from the schools to appropriate $6,713 from the 2007 Virtual Summer School revenue to pay for the unfunded portion of the 2007-2008 Blackboard license 10. Request to adopt a resolution approving a bank-qualified financing project in Roanoke County through the Craig County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) for the Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline Council on Yellow Mountain Road That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 0- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $250 for the Blue Ridge Regional Crash Investigation Team for traffic safety projects SUBMITTED BY: James R. Lavinder Chief of Police Elmer C. Hodge ~~...-<- It~0 County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A $250 check was donated by Chas. Lunsford Sons & Associates to the Roanoke County Police Department for use in traffic safety projects performed by the Blue Ridge Regional Crash Investigation Teams which is overseen by the Police Department. FISCAL IMPACT: None AL TERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of the donation from Chas. Lunsford Sons & Associates in the amount of $250. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J- ~, -. .''.~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the Police Department and Sheriff's Office for acceptance of a Bureau of Justice Assistance Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant in the amount of $14,180 SUBMITTED BY: James R. Lavinder, Chief of Police Gerald Holt, Sheriff C :[ Elmer C. Hodge L)" County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: K~~j 1f-'4-V4 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Bureau of Justice, through Bulletproof Vest Partnership, assists local law enforcement agencies in the purchase of bulletproof vests for sworn law enforcement officers. Tile Bureau of Justice Assistance will pay for up to 50 percent of the cost of bulletproof vests that are purchased by localities. The Roanoke County Police Department and the Roanoke County Sheriff's Office have applied for and been approved to receive $14,180 in grant funds to assist in the purchase of bulletproof vests. The Police Department requested reimbursement in the amount of $10,767.50, and the Sheriff's Office requested reimbursement in the amount of $3,412.50. The total of the two reimbursement requests is the grant award of $14,180. FISCAL IMPACT: Matching funds in the amount of $14,180 will be paid from existing funds in the Police Department and Sheriff's Office. AL TERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant in the amount of $14,180. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ,) . 'j AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation to Ida-Lee R. Mcllwraith, Sheriff's Office, upon her retirement after twenty-five years of service SUBMITTED BY: Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: '.i ' .'^ Elmer C. Hodge l /\ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Ida-Lee R. Mcllwraith, Sheriff's Office, retired on November 1, 2007, and has requested that her resolution of appreciation be mailed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and direct the Deputy Clerk to mail the resolution to Ms. Mcllwraith with the appreciation of the Board members for her many years of service to the County. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO IDA-LEE R. MclLWRAITH, SHERIFF'S OFFICE, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Ida-Lee R. Mcllwraith was employed by Roanoke County on January 16, 1982, as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sheriff's Office; and advanced to Corpora.l and Sergeant Deputy Sheriff; and WHEREAS, Sgt. Mcllwraith retired from Roanoke County on November 1, 2007, after twenty-five years and ten months of service; and WHEREAS, Sgt. Mcllwraith contributed to the betterment of operations in the Roanoke County/Salem Jail by assisting in the design and implementation of programs, and WHEREAS, Sgt. Mcllwraith's assistance was instrumental to the success of the accreditation process for the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Sgt. Mcllwraith, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to IDA-LEE R. MclLWRAITH for more than twenty-five years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. --r-' \...j ~. J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 Request from the schools to appropriate $2,500 in grant funding from the James Madison University TTAC to be used for fees and materials related to Autism AGENDA ITEM: APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge {-IiI County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: James Madison University TTAC has agreed to provide funding of $2,500 to build local capacity and implement effective supports for students in Roanoke County Public Schools with Autism. This funding will be used to cover registration fees and instructional materials utilized to benefit students with Autism. FISCAL IMPACT: To increase the grant fund by $2,500 to be reimbursed upon submission of appropriate expenditures. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the increase in the grant fund by $2,500 to cover expenses related to the Autism Program. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. "",- ( ~ '..v AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 Request from the schools to appropriate $30,180.78 from the Virginia Department of Education to the National Board Certified Teachers AGENDA ITEM: j --- EImer C. Hodge ~-I( County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County received $30,180.78 from the state to be distributed to the National Board Certified Teachers instead of paying the teachers directly as in the past. However, this money is less than they normally receive, due to funding cuts. The cost for the Board to supplement the original amounts would be a total of $4,819.22, which will be taken out of the personnel budget. FISCAL IMPACT: The personnel budget will decrease by $4,819.22 AL TERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation of $30,180.78 to the National Board Certified Teachers and approval of the transfer of $4,819.22 from the personnel budget to supplement this amount to make the teachers whole. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. -r' V.. If AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 Request from the schools to appropriate $10,937.28 from the Virginia Department of Education to testing and remediation accounts to replace local funds spent on the Project Graduation Summer Academy .J.i . . Elmer C. Hodge <- 1-\ County Administrator AGENDA ITEM: APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Education has notified Roanoke County Schools that it has been allocated funding in the amount of $1 0,403.28 to reimburse students and the division for the cost of industry certification exams incurred during the 2008 fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT: The Career and Technical Education Budget will be increased by $10,403.28. AL TERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of $10,403.28 to the Career and Technical Education Budget. ACTION NO. "T ,: ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the schools to appropriate $64,320 from the 2007-2008 Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation Grant to provide Elementary Student Assistance Program services to reduce the use of tobacco and other drugs Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This is the sixth year that the schools have been awarded the VirQinia Tobacco Settlement Foundation (VTSF) qrant which allows us to provide Elementary Student Assistance Program services. The grant offers money with the intent of reducing the use of tobacco and other drugs in our youth. Understanding the age at which children are most likely to begin smoking and other risky behaviors, the schools have chosen to provide every student in grades four and five the Life Skills Training curriculum during a series of classroom presentations. Subjects include decision-making, smoking information, dealing with stress, advertising, and communication skills. The schools 2006 Youth Risk Behavior Survey indicated that we have improved attitude by 5 percent in the "rejection of smoking" by current middle schoolers. This survey also noted that smoking has decreased nearly 6 percent for the current middle schoolers who went through this program. The VTSF grant pays one-half of the annual salaries of three full-time Elementary Student Assistance Program professionals, and the County pays the remainder. The grant also provides the printing of approximately 8,000 bookmarks, created from posters made by fourth graders with anti-smoking messages and distributed free to schools and public libraries. FISCAL IMPACT: The VTSF grant for 2007-2008 is $64,320. The schools total "match" is $50,001. AL TERNA TIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation of $64,320 to provide Elementary Student Assistance Program services. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the schools to appropriate $6,713 from the 2007 Virtual Summer School revenue to pay for the unfunded portion of the 2007-2008 Blackboard license Elmer C. Hodge {'-I( County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A budget for the 2007 Virtual Summer School was built based on anticipated revenue of $49,800. Due to increased enrollment, the actual revenue was $80,950. Staff recommends that $6,713 of this additional revenue be used to pay the unfunded portion of the 2007-2008 Blackboard license FISCAL IMPACT: The 2007-2008 budget will be increased by $6,713. AL TERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adding $6,713 to the 2007-2008 budget from the unanticipated summer school revenue. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~T) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution approving a bank-qualified financing project in Roanoke County through the Craig County Industrial Development Authority for the Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline Council on Yellow Mountain Road SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ;{'/. (J;i/}'-'!:.~ i) '-"-'C..OYrVr~"t< ~ (rr SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline Council is requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve the financing of their Project by the adoption of the attached resolution. The Girl Scouts are borrowing $4 million through the Industrial Development Authority of Craig County to finance the acquisition of approximately 63 acres of land located at 5488 Yellow Mountain Road in Roanoke County and tile construction of various improvements on this land including lodges, cabins, an aquatics center, a manager's residence, an outdoor pavilion, and an amphitheater (the "Project"). An inducement resolution was adopted by the Industrial Development Authority of Craig County (IDA) on October 31, 2007. The Board of Supervisors of Craig County has approved the financing of this project and the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4 million. It is recommended that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approve the financing of the project and the issuance of the bonds by the IDA as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. The approval of the issuance of the bonds does not constitute an endorsement of the bonds, the creditworthiness of the Girl Scouts, or the economic viability of this Project. Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia, Craig County, nor Roanoke County shall be obligated to pay the principal or interest of these bonds. Further neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision shall be pledged to the payment of these bonds. Attached you will find a report of the public hearing before the IDA, a fiscal impact statement, and the inducement resolution of the IDA. FISCAL IMPACT: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached resolution. 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 RESOLUTION APPROVING A BANK-QUALIFIED FINANCING PROJECT IN ROANOKE COUNTY THROUGH THE CRAIG COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE GIRL SCOUTS OF VIRGINIA SKYLINE COUNCIL ON YELLOW MOUNTAIN ROAD WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Craig County (the "Authority") has considered the application of Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline Council, Inc. (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in financing the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of (a) a tract of land of approximately 63 acres, (b) a building now located thereon and containing approximately 21,000 square feet and (c) buildings and other structures to be constructed thereon, which may include lodges, cabins, an aquatics center, a manager's residence, an outdoor pavilion, an amphitheater and other improvements (such land, existing building, other buildings and structures and equipment therefor being referred to, collectively, as the "Project"), to be used by the Borrower as a Girl Scout program center, located at 5488 Yellow Mountain Road, in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"), the Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower (except that a portion of the Project may, on an occasional basis, be leased to entities or individuals to be used for business and individual gatherings), and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and 1 such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. The Board concurs with the inducement resolution adopted by the Authority on October 31, 2007 with respect to the Bonds and the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds, the creditworthiness of the Borrower or the economic viability of the Project. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County, Craig County (the "Locality") and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the Locality, the County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 2 REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was conducted by the Industrial Development Authority of Craig County (the "Authority") at 3:30 p.m. on October 31, 2007 on the application of Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline Council, Inc. (the "Borrower") requesting the Authority to issue up to $4,000,000 of its revenue bonds or notes (the ''Bonds'') to assist the Borrower in the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping ofa Girl Scout program center (the "Project"). Notice of stich hearing was published on October 16, 2007 and October 23,2007 in The Roanoke Times. The Project will be located at 5488 Yellow Mountain Road, in Roanoke County, Virginia. The public hearing was held in the Offices of the County Administrator of Craig County, Second Floor, County Office Building, Court and Main Streets, New Castle, Virginia. At the meeting those persons interested in the issuance of the Bonds or the location and nature of the Project were given the opportunity to present their views. The public comments, if any, received at the meeting are summarized in Exhibit A attached hereto. After such hearing, the Authority voted to recommend the approval of the Bonds to the Board of Supervisors of Craig County, Virginia (the "Board") and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Roanoke Board"). Accordingly, the Authority hereby recommends to the Board and the Roanoke Board that they approve the issuance of the Bondsl as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Dated October 31,2007. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF CRAlG COUNTY By ( rfft/ill JI ~~ -- Chairman {#I044714-1,l00626.00008.0lj Exhibit A to Report of Public Hearing The following public comments were received: None. (#1044714-1, ]00626-D0008"()]) nSCALIMPACTSTATEMENT Date: October 31, 2007 Applicant: Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline Council, Inc. Facility: Girl Scout program center located at 5488 Yellow Mountain Road in Roanoke County, Virginia 1. Maximum amount of financing sought 6. a. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $4,000,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 700.000 2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates 5. Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates b. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $ o c. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $ o d. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $ 450,000 7, Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 1 8. Average annual salary per employee $ 30,000 Signature: (;it~t!f 1/ (~/t~ Authority Chainnan Industrial Development Authority of Craig County {#I 044747-\,0\2930-00017-01} If one or more of the above questions do not apply to the facility, indicate by writing "N/A" on the appropriate line. {#1044747.1, 012930-O0017-01} INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF CRAIG COUNTY WHEREAS, there have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of Craig County (the "Authority") the plans of Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline Council, Inc. (the "Borrower") to acquire, renovate, construct and equip a facility (the "Project") in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"); and WHEREAS, the Borrower has described the benefits to the County and Craig County, Virginia (the IILocality") and has requested the Authority to agree to issue its revenue bonds or notes, under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the "Act"), in such amounts as may be necessary to finance the cost of the Project; BE IT RBSOL VED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF CRAIG COlJ'NTY: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the location of the Project in the County will promote the health and welfare of the residents of the Locality and the County and surrounding areas, will be in the public interest and will be consistent with the purposes of the Act. 2. To induce the Borrower to locate the Project in the County, the Authority hereby agrees, subject to required approvals and the compliance of the proposed issue with applicable law, to assist the Borrower in every reasonable way to finance the Project and, in particular, to undertake the issuance of one or more of its revenue bonds or notes (the "Bonds") therefor in amounts now estimated not to exceed $4,000,000 upon tenns and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and the Borrower. The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds shall be loaned by the Authority to the Borrower pursuant to an agreement or agreements which will provide for loan repayments to the Authority sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any; and interest on the Bonds and to pay all other expenses in connection with the Project. The Bonds shall be issued in form and pursuant to tenus to be set by the Authority. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Borrower may proceed with plans for the Project, enter into contracts for renovation, construction and equipping and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith; provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Borrower to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any monies or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that, to the extent consistent with federal tax laws, the Borrower may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds for all costs so incurred by it. 4. To the extent consistent with federal tax laws, all costs and expenses in connection with the financing of the Project, including the fees and expenses of bond {lil0447S0-1, 100626-0oo08-01} 1 counsel and Authority counsel, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds. If for any reason the Bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Borrower and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 5. The Authority intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official action" toward the issuance of the Bonds within the meaning of the regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. 6. The Authority shall perfonn such other acts and adopt such further resolutions as may be reasonably required to implement its undertakings as hereinabove set forth, and if requested by the Borrower, and at the expense of the Borrower, it will make application to the Internal Revenue Service for such tax rulings as may be necessary in the opinion of bond counsel. 7. The Authority hereby recommends that (a) the Board of Supervisors of the Locality (the "Board") and the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Roanoke Board") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds and (b) the Roanoke Board concur with this resolution. 8. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to deliver to the Board and the Roanoke Board (a) a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing held with respect to the issuance of the Bonds, (b) a fiscal impact statement concerning the Project in the form specified in Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia, and (c) a copy of this resolution, which constitutes the recommendation of the Authority that the Board and the Roanoke Board approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. 9. The Authority, including its directors, officers, employees, agents and counsel, shall not be liable and hereby disclaims all liability to any person for any damages, direct or consequential, resulting from the Authority's failure to issue the Bonds. 10. Neither the Authority nor the Locality have endorsed the creditvlorthiness of the Borrower or the ability of the Borrower to repay the Bonds, and the purchaser of the Bonds shall acknowledge that no representations of any kind regarding the Borrower or its creditworthiness have been made to the purchaser ofthe Bonds by either the Authority or the Locality. 11. The Bonds shall not be issued until all approvals and conCUlTences required by the Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, have been obtained. 12. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. {#1044750-1, 1oo626.00008-01} 2 /V - j GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount % of General Amount Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2007 $14,488,420 8.23% July 1, 2007 Payment on Loan from Explore Park 20,000 Balance at November 13, 2007 14,508,420 8.24% Note: On December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance for 2007-08 at a range of 8.5%-9.5% of General Fund Revenues 2007-2008 General Fund Revenues $176,033,678 8.5% of General Fund Revenues $14,962,863 9.5% of General Fund Revenues $16,723,199 The Unappropriated Fund Balance of the County is currently maintained at a range of 8.5%-9.5% of General Fund revenus and will be increased over time to the following ranges: 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 9.0%-10.0% 9.5%-10.5% 10.0%-11.0% Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator r{- COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL RESERVES Minor County Capital Reserve (Projects not in the CIP, architectural/engineering services, and other one-time expenditures.) Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2007 Amount $6,234,044.55 August28,2007 Upgrade to the 800 MHZ Radio System (5,000,000.00) Balance at November 13, 2007 $1,234,044.55 Major County Capital Reserve (Projects in the CIP, debt payments to expedite projects identified in CIP, and land purchase opportunities.) Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2007 $1,049,620.00 July 24, 2007 Acquisition of property for Fleet Maintenance Facility (890,000.00) September 11, 2007 Needs assessment and program analysis for Glenvar Library Expansion (100,000.00) Balance at November 13, 2007 $59,620.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C, Hodge County Administrator June 12, 2007 June 26, 2007 Submitted By Approved By /)/- :::, RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA From 2007-2008 Original Budget Amount $100,000.00 Appropriation for Legislative Liaison ($24,000.00) Appropriation for the veteran's monument at the Vinton War Memorial ($30,000.00) Balance at November 13, 2007 $ 46,000.00 Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION NO. ITEM NO. N-- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid-October 2007 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors $ $ $ 4,569,649.79 Payroll 10/05/07 1,047,673.99 118,707.01 1,166,381.00 Payroll 10/19/07 1,001,338.70 126,028.13 1,127,366.83 Manual Checks 352.15 352.15 Voids Grand Total $ 6,863,749.77 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ~ '" '" 0: Cl ,~ c '61> l-. ;; oi .:.= o c .. o IX ... c >. ... = = o U ~ M ~ ~ ~ t:i: t"--' r- o o ~ '" ... ::l = ... .. ... a: .. .2 '" ..( "::l = .. "::l ... - .. ,5 ... '" ~ ... o C ... E ... ... .. Vi ~ " Q .e '" ... .. c ~ E ~ ~ ,. ~ :::l ~ ~ ~ CQ ;... ~ .. .~ Q,O .. '" .. = ~ .; ~ Cl:l .. ';;j Q .8 '" .. ;: ... ;:; ~ ,. >- ~ t-- ~ .... ~ o .... '" :E' ~ c ~ ~ ~ "'" .. ~ = "" "'" c ';: .. ~ -= 'E o ..... ~ ...,. o .. ;S .. o "" ONNo-OOOt-- r-;(1'jC<:~C:..q- O"-lr) lrlNlIl,......., Of"lNcO N NN co N-.o..;-O NOr-O\O ('') rt") 0'. VI a -.o'..,f'..,f'<"i <"i .,..,-.0 0--.0 t-- ~~O;..;-- r- N 0- 00 ..;- -.0 r-o-NO -.0 -.0 0 ..;- ('f')" 0'" In r-:' ("f") '....0 r- N V) '....0 M ..,f' '.OO".~oo C\NNO V~r-OVl (V)r--:v)"'d, N........r--.::t ''l N t-\Ot-f"") 00 a pj 0";, M... :2' :::::... C\ 0'\ 0 'r'l <') 00 .,.., 6NV; <') ...,. _ c\ o -.0 M' 00'" -.0 -.0 -.0 00 <"i r-r-~ V) rt")~~Or-Or-oQO~ ~ ~~~~~~~;~N0~~~~~~v N,.......,vNtv"'l(''JV)~r-a N("f')tv"'lt""l("rl - (1'j r- CJ\ "'T 00 \0 rlj("'.l ~:...<"'i~ \0 NO V') ..;- ..;- ,.......,\OMN\O~N""O \Ot-vOONOO_O ~'~'d': ~,N...~,~ VI -.:::t tr) 00 00 '...0 V) OO...~'"TM~", o-.OVlr-r- ONVlO\("f") ("'.JV)O'\NOOO <"i ..,f' <",t 00 -.0' rf") r- V) 'to -.0 r- 00 .,.., 0- 00 0-.,.... 00'" 00 N <') ..;-r-oo..;-o- r- 000'00 ar-r-lf1r- ...0 00" 0-,'"' ~ ~ CON r-o- 00 ^'- ,5 NMOOr-OOlrlOO',OOC r-~I~'"'i:~'"'i:C:C:C:~ ",o....or-":'t'\Ot-NV'l 00 OO_C\rt")r- r- V) N ~r- .,..,0- o N'" -: " , Vv)\ON"'T1r)IrllF'l\Oa M VI\DV'lOOl.Oo...N"'1"va r- ~~.~...~.~ ~ ~'~'6~~;;;:; CJ\VQ\OO\.ON V)lrlNMO oocom VNP')Vr-C"I 00' NN ('I')" ~ N' M VI ('Ij O"\V)vO ..;- <') r-:r-: <') ..;- M V)O~V)vv"'1"r1'jO \.0 In V) r- VI \.0 v rlj CJ\ 0- C\V)l.I")O'.r-O-rl") OOrl") 0'" M" r-" ~ rr)" ~ r-" N M" r---:' 0'\"' N' \Ov _"-0 'o:TOONr-r-OO M 7,,~ 'o:Tt-;r":,O\'o:T r-- .......-l 1Il C1\ "::t' "-0 C\ Mm'-ON'o:TON 71.Q\C\..OP') N ..n ...0 ..n r--" r--" N" N" OC1\l.r)oo.......-lr--M 0., N .......-l 'o:TO\OOOCO'.Mr--\DOl.Qv r--O",'o:T'o:TMooMV'l 'o:Too 'o:Tvr--o;, N'-O Vr<1 'o:T"0\"'o:T" Nrr)oO....o ~N 0000 V'l7.,......., 'o:T7 _ N _ <l) 0.. o '-< "'" 0:: o '" <l) ~ f-< tl'- ~ 0 .~ ~ ~ -:.:3f-< ~ .5 ~ :€ E ~ ~ a ~ Q) ?d' ~ p... "'" ....l ~ ~ f-< ,q :'A :5 @ ~ :.:3 <l) '" E ~ ~ .5 g ~ Ua:I ~ .. .. ~ = Cl:l 000000000000000 000000000000000 000000000000000 6 Ir) 0 0 ("'-1' v) d' V;' d' d' 0" d' d' V'l~ d' c\Nr-o-r-.,..,-.or-oo-.oo",," r-o- V'l l.{"J m V'l 0 r-: I..C 7 0\" r--" V'l r-- (~ 0\" 00" t"',.,t rr) m v1,.....-l M r- N 00 M 0 00 M 0 007(1") r-:N~ <"l In V N "'S ;; "" .. ... .. = .. " <l) '" '" <l) '" ~ a:I f-< 8< ~ E'8 ~ & 8 f-< 0 ,_ tU I-< > !P-;~ ~~r./l o "~ "'; ~ ::c ~~~ o :; ~ = = ;.. ~ ~ ~ <l) r.>...o<l <l) 0:: ~ .9 (.) 'o:j :.:3~ ~ <l) (.) l":l '0 ilJ f-< ~ c.:: :'A ~ 8 :.a (.) 0:: '" .. r.>... 00 00 - - cON N ''l <') .. '" o u (5 ~ ~ f-< <l) ~ <l) u :.:3 ~ :5 '" <l) ~ ~ "'" o o '"" "U <l) >-< <l) "" (5 0- ::>: J: o<l '" ~ C) " :.0- '-< ,- ~~ U 0 ,r.>... ~"U 8 ~ o '" '0 ~ S:G: 0\ r- 00 0\ r- '0" \C~ <') 00 '" c:: ..;- ..;- '" ...... 0 """ <') 0, -.0 .,.., <') .,.., ('r) 0 ...0 - '" . N~NNr-- OONI.QOO,""" r-- r-- I.Q r-- l.r, <..D-.o~ ~' r--'-OM 00 '" .,.., N 00 00 00 0\6 ''l 0 r- o. O<"l-O OV'lOOO V'lr--V'l0 V'l" v) 0" N -.0 ..;- N ...... <') ..,f'..,f' OONOOOOV'l o 0 V'l r-- 00 7" '"""" - - t--- ~O ~ r..) 1r)0' ,"",,00'- '""" N 00" '-0" 'n .,.., ..;-NO o In 0 r-- 0-. lr) r--.:' f"",,f V'l" '" N g; M. M .,.., -.0 <"i '" <l) '" C) C) "" '" <l) <:ill C) "" 0:: C) 2 :9 ~ VjE] g ~ 0 ....., U ",U"U ..... I f-< 03 ~ '" 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ "~ ~ ~ (5 '--..,;;3 ..s '2 ~ <l) C) :I:-O<t....lp...r.>...U E ,I;l g ,..... c.:: ;>, <l) 0:: C ;;;: ..... o <l) "" E' <l) C- O p':: ..... o ~ ~ '" <l) '" 0:: ", 0.. ><: '-'l .., ", ~ .<:: r./l <:ill C) "' y '" <l) '~ ", (/'J ~ 'u o r./l o<l o 0' ""'. <') N N 0' 00 """ 0' NO' 00 ...0" -.0 r~ N <') N 00 "1;-.0 <')00 r'i 'n o,,~ E C) Vj ~ ", r./l .~ a a) <l) '" ~ "U ~ r./l ~!,> ~ "$ "~ e 0:; Vj E ....:n""'"t;03 E "'="U"'ou ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g u .~ u: VJ~~.J;; ~~ ~ a)<lJVlr.nU)~2~ ~~~~l:.C)~u ~ ~ ] ] .~ ~ ~ ~ o:::~uucG~cGZ "U :.t ~ ~ '~ "~ ~ ;:f~ &j 'u UrJ; ~o<l ~ r/) ~ ~ ti ~ 1>4S~ ;::0;:: '" <:ill 0:: :iZ :9 <t ';; a:I 03"U .~ ~ ~-g B '" a~ ~ ti ~ ti C -s~..c ~ Or./lo':: '" ", ~ " o r./l OJ) 0:: 'u <=: '" 0:: G: 0-<"l(1"),"",,0 N('ivV'l\Dr-ooC1\O N7r--OOO\O NOOO '-00 ,"""MOI"QON(1") oooo0888888888888888~8gggg~~~~~~8~~~g~ '" t- o 0 ~ - l:l .. ~, ... oe Q '" 0 N !'. " = ~ 8 .e = :S: :::i '" . ... c .. .. a:: "' .'" .. .... '" OJ = ...... = ~ OJ - ~ ..... ~. III OJ ~ N .:: "' ....... .!: - .. III ~ = ...... ... .... ....... ;; "" <: "0 .; ~ '" "0 ~ = C Q 01 f;W = ~ "0 eo: OJ 0 Q .... 'j:; "' 01 ~ ... 5 Q ;:: -= .c' '" = ~ ~ 0-, = ... :l ;:: Q Q .... "T eO U = 0 N '" "T 5 '" -.6 '" -= ~ .... eo: ... .... 0 VJ ~ ..... 0-, 0-, o o o ,..) III - "" "T - 0:; - "T ...; N "' -; '0 f-< "0 C .. c:; r-- <> <> N ~ :: ~ .... .. ... ~ Q =' 0 - U ... go 1<1 ~ = :0<: OJ) "- Co ... . 't:l .. .. .. =' .. ~ ~ ~ ... .. ... 't:l ... ~ ... .. .. ... = .. ..!l c .. ~ ~ :: .. Q ~ ~ ... =' .. C .. ... ... ;. ... OJ a:: III .. " = C ~ .. ~ ~ ;:3 .?;, OJ ~ =' ell ..... = = 'C = OJ -;; 0 .. '6il OJ = ::; a:: ... ... ;; ... -( 't:l ..r .. "= 't:l .:.= C = Q .. :..l C "= 't:l ell .. 0 Q ... 'J: a: ell .. ... ,~ c.. Q -= .c III C [;I;l 0 ~ C ... ::; OJ) = Q 't:l Q ... .". =' U c <= ~ .. E .. ~ -= ell .. ... 0 rJ) ;.. 't:l = =' .... .. .. ... = ... (.) Q Q :;0; -<: '" N ~ ~ ~ r:..: -.:l C =' ;.. t- o o ~I ~ ~ 1J "" c: .~ = .~ ;; or ..:.: o = ..: o ~ .... o >. .... a o u :;;: N ~ ~ ~ G: VJ C .S: "'; 'i: Q. o ... Q. Q. <'t: "0 = 011 VJ .. " c ~ ... ~ 5 ::I :: ~ VJ .. ... ..g "0 C ... Q. ~ W .... o .. -; "0 .. ..c " <FJ .!: .c lp.. Q-g~;~ :~~~~ ~~~......CQ >- "t:l " .. " .c .. = u a ; s "; " = ;:> 1j " I:J E Q,) .. ..Q '" .: 5 .:l Tj e ~ " " .. ~ ~ :3 o:l ~ >- r-- e - ..., o 1j .. ;i " .. 'E S ~ ~ :::I r.l o '0 .. '0 " '" '0 Q ';: .. ~ -= 'i: Q .... "., ~ :: ,... .a :c ;; =: 5 ~ S' r.l "'" o .. -= .. " "" r-- 0 N l~ .,.......; 'c: on on ~ ('r") N 0- on on '":0: \O\O-.i r-- N a- C'\ 0 ("I") r-r{' ro.f N N "'" N N N ,< In lr'l VlC:OO "'" 0 on ~ 00 0'\ r') 0 lr:l ~ r-i'..o on \0 r-- ~ ,"> r-- '1' 0 O:~O rr, In 0 a- '" a- N:,,! '" '1' r-- r-- C:l"'1')lr) oor....:O on "'" a- ~ '1', ~ (""1") In N ~ " .. '0 :::I = 000 000 -r-:d o 0- ~ :;;,~ 0000- rrj 0" N - '0 " " '" -;; .. .. " .. C,;l ~ v; 'a :n '8 :;l ""0 'u -<IE o Cd '"2 oj o c:I ca 'u c oj ,5 ~ d) .,6 c<l ~ =:::: E ~~~ jo@ Q Q ..... "t:l " " '" N ,"> 000 000 r-- o Ii. ..., 0- \0 00 o r-i '" '" a- lj') ...: '" ..., ..; "" or; ~ r-- N ~ 00 \0 r-: "'" 0- r-- 0 or--:' \0 r-- 00 \0 - "'" o <:0 ..; '" o ..,; ,"> N 0: N on "'" 00 r-- r-- 0-:' r-- '" '" '" - '" ~ - So '" ..., - 00 00 00 "" '" In '" '1' Q ..... "'t - N N ~ '": '" oc o '" '" 00 \0' 0' - <:0 <:0 ..: o "'" ~ "" "l. - - 0'1' N r-- cO '" 00 00 '1' 00 '0" 00'" '1' 0 "!, 0, ... '" ~ :5 E "0 ~ ;:: E c ... ... .. Q " t:: o p., p., ::> if) :Si u 'is v; ..::; t:: .. ::> d) c ;s uO -; ... ... = " " <:0 o - o N 00 N N 00 ..., ~ - ..., rrj ~ N 00 ooc;r;~ 0:. rrilf) (r, ~ rrl rrl '" 00 ,..; "'" 00 ~ ..., lfl. - t- In lr) 0 or:~'":"'1 r-01na, N ........ \0 0 ........ ('f') t- l"'1') o r-: cO 00 N ('f'") \0 N N~rrl('f') 00' \.0 ~' lj') o cO ..... lfl. - - r-- ('rj In In 0 '"i: ('"! In 00 V"l 0-. ~ ~ a, 00 00 00 N ('f') a, In r-i..t '1'ooNr-- '1'0'1' N V) ~'N' <:0 <:0 o N 'n 0 0 \O'":~o 000000 o a- r-- 0"\ ("r'J rrl (1"') ...0' on 00 {r") '7 ..... <:0 N ..... - ~ ..... ..... 00 0 '" V)o:~t-: '" 00 N r--"",,,,,,,,, trl\O\O\O r-: '1" 0-:' cO 0'\ rt") O"'i'" "7'.... r"l t- ..... "'l - r-- ..., ~ "'" "'t ..... 0000 C:OOO ",oo..t NOVlO'\ 7... t- t-;, 00 00" "'i"''' \0-0'\0'\ ~O'\V)"'T Pi d' \0" c: o U u I,;:: .... '" .: Cd ] ... ::a ::l ..., c ,S c: 15 ~ d) d) d) S ::> Ci e p ~ ~ ~ - c.:: c 0 <E: -0 .2 u ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ '2 .....:Ii..L: u -< o o ..... o -N("'f')"T 0000 ('r') ("fj ("'f'j ("'f") 0000 - '" 00 ..., oooot-N\Ot- ViC;~OO'-c:~ '..D 0 ('f')00 MOO ~ ('f') ('f') \0 ('f') N r-- 1)0 N - tn ~ "'" ..., ~ - If)N {'-If) ~t--:o:t--: t--: 1f)1f)0000~1""'"'l ........~~~OC ........ VI ........ ('f') 0 ~ 00" r-" If)" \Or. 0\' 0: Vl 0 0 r-- \0 c'i N('f')OOoor-~ ~' N' ..., - ..,; tn ..... o ..... "l. ..... - In 00 0'\ 0'\ ~ 'n O:"'1~"'1""N C'\N If) \0 '..D...... Vlt-C'\t-('f') O\D('f')lrloO\O -n' ('f ~' ~' C"'r ~' ('"'''-IN ('f')t-r- ('""'-1 ~r ~,O; ('f') r-- <:0 r-..: r-- "l. - "'" "" ~ ~ 0 CI"') N...... 0 0 r-:......OO ('f') t- 0 If) o ('f') 00 ~ ~' ('f' ~' Ir)' '" 00 or., 0; r-: '" '" - 0 "'" on 0-: ..... 00 v6 '" "'" Q '" tn ,.., \O('f')~OO~~ ~t-OO('f')O:Vl rtI-.io\ 00 ('f')N N ('f') N r- ~ ~, ~' c:, ...... d ......N If) NNt'- ...... ~ ~ ('f')...... = <:0 ...: '" r-- ~ '" "l. - ..., 0000 0000 ~ If) ..r; '1' N NonO\ rtI 0 N or. ~~~oo:!'-C "'1"" "'1"" N"......" 00 ~O on cO r-- '1' a-, '1', '" .c ~ ~ if) v; "'" C ;:> o o Cd .~ ~ ~ c 8. ~ Q) Vl ...... if)i5~ ca ~ ~ "a ~ -.2 .C; o~:;2 ~ .c ::l i:l. OJ) '2 d) t.) C 'on C u..1 Vl c .E u d) p. VJ .5 o o ..., = ........ N ('f') "'1" If) \0 000000 ""''''''''''''''''''''''1' 000000 >< d) D.. S o u d) blJ '" ~ o - ~ '" ..., ""'0 ON r--oo 0 OC!~Nlr!~r-:~ ('f') ~ONVlO VI ('f')N~OO - - ..., v6 '" tn vi tn "'" ..; 0000'\0000 '1'~ O\OO~ ........OOo\~\QO":O O'\\O........\OCl"')ln ~~~~,~~~ N N N 0 If) ~,~ v: '" "'l ...... Ir; '" ~ "'" lr; vi NO 0000 onOooO,":OO 1""f')0~N('I")~0 00 ........~\QOO ~ NN\Q.........('I"') r-: \0" 0 r-:. 0 ..0 NIf)-NO ~rr: N "'" - v6 r-- tn ~ "" 0000000 0000000 ,0000000 '" "" N '" ..., r.: - "'" r-- 0 "'10 a-o '1' 00 ('I") ........ 0 0 o;\O('I")C:C: OONNOO r-- 00 a- If) "=T ~, -..or-..:("'I"') N'1'\O In In N = o ..; ..... N" o o ..,; - 0000000 O~OOOOO Vloo~~6tr1o r-- \0 '" 0 0 '1' 0 -..:1"\.0 Olf)"!rt") N ,..;' In' d' 0(' If) vi ('I")NVlOO........NO Vlt'-Vl\O N ""," 0 N' ~ ... o ~ .~ ::Q ::l Q., c: .g Co) ~ < :g ~ ~ .;:.;: ~~ d) " ::I: ::r: v; d) .~ ~ d) if) 1:! Vl d) c: cu .::: !3 u v; Vl .t ~ .~ ~~~ E.. .~ S :n o ::> Uo... <:> <:> "'" = ~ .~ c; E :0 .(3 d) ::> 0 :;2 0... if) ........rtI"TVl\Of-..OO 0000000 If) If) If) If) If) If) If) 0000000 1:3 ,S 'i:l ,!::J c: '" blJ ~ 0 '" v; u 8 ] 't .9 J5 ,~ ~ - .u Vl 0 .EifJ '" "'" ~ ..... r-- ..... = "" r;. ...... o "'" Q - ..., r-- o - '" ..; "'" "l. "'" o <:> o C'o. ...... ,..; <:> '" r.: ..., ..., ... = o ....; '" ..., ~ "'" r-- ..; - " .. '" .... 0:; ~ "0 = .. of -; " i:I:i <:0 o or; o t- o o ~ v "" ~ c O~ " 0b'sJ ... ;; oS' .;So o " eo o :t: .... o C c ::l o U :;> <( 00 '" '" \D ~ E r'C '" " o :;:: .. 0;: Q, o ... Q, Q, < "0 " eo '" ... '"' " eo ... ~ 5 = '"' c r..l ~ ... ... ::l ..... ;.c " ... Q, ~ r..l .... o ~ = "0 ... ..c '"' r.rJ u .Q -; "'Cl = ~ ;J QC8~~ 5a:~~ ~ ." ;: " .Q C ~ :> = ... " = .,. ::; '" ..; 1;: = "l E Q"I ~ "Q eii E 8 Cl ;; B oS f = I.. Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ :..- r-- ;;:: ..... ,..., o ... ... ... OJ] = = :! 'E S ~ g :> <ol o "C u "C = ~ "C o 0;: u ~ .c ..... = o ::; ~ " " Z :c ~ c i:i ~ ~ .... o u -= I- o "" N oe .... ~ e; -.0 r~ p''') ("'1 ""i'" r-- r-- 0 r--~o N0\.O 00 r-- N o O~. M tr) C'1 00 00 ..". ~, ~ N M M a "Joe; M~M 00 00 .... 00 Crj t- ~~ vi' a:. ~00\C rr~ 00 000 000 000 r-- ..". 0 Nr--O ~ M ("Ii t- 00 'n ("rj M C 6~ ..". \C rr, N ~ ... IOL " :> '" 000 o e; 0 ~ 0; \C >.0 r-- -.t. ~ M ...... -.t ~ r-- r-- l"-;\C r'l N' "t;l = ::J ~ '" I- U = r.!i c ,3 0; ~ '.) " er:: ~ C-;;:; rIl r: 2 ~...D:; ~:.::iu = :=; "::l = ::J .... - N r'l 000 \C>.O\C 000 ;: E .<:: .~ C [..L.l ... r-- or. .... O'\-\"'-JM r--"J\O\O O;N."tN N f') 0\ .... r-- or. 010 S .... .... .... ...; ["'-- 0 00 a OO"'TtnO ~600V; N In rf")- \0 0 00. \0 C'<,~ N 00 00" -.t '" -.t r-- -.t ..., ..... e ..... ..... <5 on .... ....... MaNO '0"";0 \DoOVlO 00 t-- ..,.-, a OO\ON 00 ("-,f r--" 00 M 0 M N o o Q r--OOO ~ooe; coco r-- o ~' .- o ....; ... 010 <5 ..... ..., N M '-00 MO "'7 0 00 NO '0 r-- 0 :JM ~.~, 00 ~ o o ~ o "'l. ... ..., oe ~ 00 00 ."to; N r-- .... t-n ~ \C ~ C;, 00 00 ~ln ~ ..". 00 ...0-.0 00 \C .. ... B '; u ~ c .~ .. ... ... <j ... Q:: i ... .. ~ oJ) c ';::: c N o<J oJ) c 0;::: c :;j ;;: a " co u bb '2 c " ~ ..- VJ c =: =: c " co 'Vi ~ B iJ 0 ::r: x 0) w..) ~ .8 .~ Q .~ ..- .~ S ~ ~ ;9 S ::: ~ 080 Ut.J.lU Q Q ..., Q NMorJ 0000 r-- r-- r-- r-- 0000 '" 00 ....; .... 00 0\ rr: M MoO ...... t") r'lOCCO Ir'lCc;c:c; 'r, .., ..... ,..., ..... 0\ '" ...... ~........ 00000,0 o\Nr:6d6~ \"olilCOOo rr:.1~,OoOOln"Oo OOO~Or- d',.:' ~N~~~t-N ",,' N '/1 Q ..... o v5 ..., ..., 'O~~OOoO ~oo~Oc;OO ('-MOOOC .... t") 0 \C ..". oO~N N r-- ~. r-- Ol o r-- o v5 0000000 000000000000 OO~OOOO <'1 ~ In' .., - on r-- o 010 ..... r-- NOOOO lnOO'nOOOO ~o\'nOOOO 00 rf'j 00 00 v-. a ..,f C rr, 00 N o o ,...; on - In ..., ~ 0000000 0000000 OtnOOOc> t-OtnOOOO O\~o-.OI~OO 00"' tn 1..0' 0 0 ~ Of"') OOt-N oq r-t-tn r') r";' c ... E Q, o -;:; ~ ... ~ .c' Oc = E E o u p., p., '" u '6 c '" :I: ~ g 8 <: ~ ~~ '6 u .... U 0- " C co ..!: u 2 '" ] <E co " .....l iJ E co " " ;> " co S' U ~.~ .... >< ~i5 ~~ " :g iiJ ;3 ~ 3 .~ ~ ll) ~ u P::: , o C " oJ) .5 ;: o U Q co r-- Q Nrf"";~\Ot-OO 0000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000000 " '.) c co 0; co "" " .~ 0. g P, Q. co C ~ -.t 010 -T ..... r-- N ~rr: M '" N 'oC '/1 ,...; ,..., "'t - o or. ~ NO .... 0 0; ."t OC -.t o r-- ,..:...... .... 0 oc 00 o' r-- .... .... ,...; <:l'\ ..... ~ Q "'" ..... oc -.t -.t~ ."t 0\0 00 -.t ,..:.,..: N -.t O. r-- - o o ~ ...., <:l'\ .n 00 00 00 o <:l'\ ~ ..... .... ~ .... ,..., M OC -.t N 00 r---.t ~~"' \C 0 \C N N o o ..c ..... ..... Qf!; Q 010 Qf!; O-.t 00 ~ In 0\ 0 00 N ~"' 0:.' 00 -.t 00 .... N 00 ~ c: ... E t: eo Q., ... Q .: o Z :=l " 00 ~ ~ !~ ~ C C CO CO ~~ ." "0 C C ~~ u .... .5:5 co o 00 Q ...... N 00 ~ 0\ 00 Ir. Ol ,..., - Q 'r, -T ..... ..... on ,...; ...., 010 ,~ or. ~ ..... r-- Q ..., ..t 00 ...., <5 o ..... ..., ...., - ..... 'f) on ..., ..... .n r-- r--. - - 010 ...., ..t Ir; r-- '" .... "'t ...., .... o o Q <:l'\ r-- 0; r-- ..... -6 r-- Q ..... ... l'; "" - o o r-- oe ....... on ,..., on .... .-:. ..... 010 0l0. .... -.t o ~ <:l'\ Q .." ,..., .... .." 00 010 <:l'\ 00 ...., .... o ..... -.t ~ r-- .... ~ ] o E-- "t;l = '" I- " "; o ." I- ~ '" C e .... co o "" <0 ~ .c ... .. ." E Q " t-- 5 B " <:> 3 ~ eJ) <:> Q. " ." '" .. .. '"' " ::l ~ :l o.l ~ CQ ;... "'.l " 0 0 ] :;' 8 c.. .c E " " ::l ::l " " 5 '" " CQ ~ ~ ~ " <- ;:: " .. .c .. E E Q '0 B E " <- " .. '" o.l " .. "'.l " '"' ;... '" c 0 := t: ~ eJ) " "i: " " .. Q. '0 .c 0 " E l.. r- ~ B Q. :;;: '5 " Q. .... '"' < '"I 0 ~ '0 <3 'j; = .... .~ ~ l.. '" ;.; ~ OJ = i ~ ... l.. .. rl "" 0 ..Q " .. = = '-'l ... e I': = ... :2 '6 0 OJ " "';; " " .z: c ";: 0 '" ... ~ .. :;;;: .. 0 Q.. '"' .c- eil -= ~ l.. " = = .;: = - ~ 0 '0 U C "'T ... 0 Q. .. .. ~ .; ... .. " 0 " eJ) ... "0 ~ ::l = CQ '0 ~ .c OJ r.rJ ~ ~ '"" 00 0 ~ .,. 0 0 .IJ 0 N OJ E ." ." 1 e 0 0 0 0 '" c c Q.. ""' ""' ""' ~ .c 0 on " E 10 " '" ~ Cl 11 " " t " ce: . 0 ""' ... 0 0- . .. ... ~ ~ .. ] .. " .. .;: '" ~ 0 <( 00 0 ~ '"". '" "0 ~ '" " ... t-- " ... ({- (p TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX REPORT COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Month of Collection Tax Description 2006 2007 January Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 94,947.90 $ 86,811.94 Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 116,433.91 123,642.12 E911 Service Tax 61,427.25 61,676.60 Cable Franchise fee 240,925.74 237,369.11 Total $ 513,734.80 $ 509,499.77 February Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 93,052.78 $ 11,481.03 Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 116,093.91 E911 Service Tax 59,753.00 58,515.52 Cable Franchise fee 36,121.67 Total $ 268,899.69 $ 106,118.22 February 2007 Consumer Utility Tax Landline and Cable Franchise Fee are December 2006 taxes collected in February 2007. March Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 92,561.36 $ Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 104,178.63 Communication Sales and Use Tax 207,485.17 E911 Service Tax 64,339.14 Cable Franchise fee 80,692.40 Total $ 261,079.13 $ 288,177.57 April Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 96,802.50 $ Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 128,673.20 Communication Sales and Use Tax 270,338.98 E911 Service Tax 60,650.90 Cable Franchise fee 216,295.38 75,020.70 Total $ 502,421.98 $ 345,359.68 May Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 92,941.49 $ Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 117,319.69 Communication Sales and Use Tax 271,078.33 E911 Service Tax 60,264.73 Cable Franchise fee 92,259.95 Total $ 270,525.91 $ 363,338.28 June Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 95,748.48 $ Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 119,760.11 Communication Sales and Use Tax 268,293.91 E911 Service Tax 60,455.05 Cable Franchise fee 84,186.19 Total $ 275,963.64 $ 352,480.10 July Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 95,017.26 $ Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 121,823.44 Communication Sales and Use Tax 300,558.02 E911 Service Tax 59,649.70 Cable Franchise fee 245,481.66 78,603.22 Total $ 521,972.06 $ 379,161.24 August Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 92,306.09 $ Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 116,219.46 Communication Sales and Use Tax 237,729.17 E911 Service Tax 59,979.00 Cable Franchise fee 86,818.45 Total $ 268,504.55 $ 324,547.62 September Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 85,834.51 $ Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 121,460.78 Communication Sales and Use Tax 258,253.93 E911 Service Tax 59,393.73 Cable Franchise fee 87,629.46 Total $ 266,689.02 $ 345,883.39 October Consumer Utility Tax Landline $ 83,920.09 $ Consumer Utility Tax Wireless 122,949.21 Communication Sales and Use Tax 349,811.69 E911 Service Tax 58,855.42 Cable Franchise fee 226,573.74 87,629.46 Total $ 492,298.46 $ 437,441.15 Grand Total $ 3,642,089.24 $ 3,452,007.02 *Effective 2007 the Cable Franchise Fee is received monthly as compared to quarterly receipts in 2006. **2007 Breakdown provided by the State of Virginia Tax Department Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER N.- /1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: November 13,2007. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of October 31, 2007. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: GOVERNMENT: SUNTRUSTlALEXANDER KEY SUNTRUST/ALEXANDER KEY CONTRA SUNTRUST SECURITIES SUNTRUST SECURITIES CONTRA 67,813,910.92 203,998.71 9,000,000.00 4,380.00 77,022,289.63 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION 6,725,386.62 6,725,386.62 MONEY MARKET: BRANCH BANKING & TRUST SALEM BANK & TRUST SUNTRUST/ALEXANDER KEY SUNTRUST SECURITIES SUNTRUST SWEEP WACHOVIA 2,216,075.20 1,209,585.98 12,574,863.95 1,621,986.52 0.00 2,587,696.46 20,210,208.11 US-TREASURY BILLS/NOTES: SUNTRUST/ALEXANDER KEY TOTAL 989,304.62 989,304.62 104,947,188.98 11/05/07 Q1nUttt~ nf ~nattnkc ttl.l(~~~lttin1t /-. ' . ;iJ Z (;l ~ ~ /Y/-B DECLARING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2007 AS NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE WHEREAS, families can provide love and security for children and many children wait for forever families; and WHEREAS, children who need forever families may be young or young adults of any heritage, and the children may have special needs; and WHEREAS, adoption gives children a loving family in which to grow; and WHEREAS, many families in the Roanoke Valley have chosen adoption as a way to create or enlarge their families; and WHEREAS, adoptive families in the Roanoke Valley are recognized and congratulated fortheir commitment to children and to children's rights to loving and secure homes; and WHEREAS, National Adoption Day, which will be held on November 17,2007, is sponsored by a coalition of national partners to draw special attention to foster children waiting for forever families and to celebrate all loving families who adopt. NOW THEREFORE, I, Joseph P. McNamara, Chairman ofthe Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim and recognize the month of November 2007 as NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH in the County of Roanoke; and FURTHER, by this proclamation, I celebrate the important role adoption plays in our society and call upon the citizens of Roanoke County to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities that honor adoptive families. ~'Vf.~ Wanda G. Riley, Clerk ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~.). I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss current status of capital improvement projects. SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director, Management and Budget SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to review and discuss the current status of significant capital improvement projects that are in-process. These projects are currently part of the approved CapitalllTlprovements Program. Attached are project summary sheets that outline recent activity and upcoming events related to the specific projects. In addition, the following item will be presented: . Presentation of preliminary plans for the new County Garage facility FY 2008-2012 Capital Project Status Report 11/7/2007 Project: 800M Hz Public Safety Radio Upgrade Project Managers: Bill Hunter Elaine Carver Total Capital Cost: Funding Sources: $9,082,780 Minor Capital $5,000,000 Bond Proceeds Capital Fund - Fire Accounts $3,901,272 $181,508 Description: The project will include a complete upgrade from a 20 year old Public Safety analog radio system to a state of the art digital system, including replacement of the system infrastructure and subscriber radios. The upgrade will ensure better service and greater reliability of communications within the County. Recent Developments: . Final contract was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the August 14, 2007 meeting . Budget was appropriated by the Board at the August 28, 2007 meeting (pending a bond sale) . A detailed Payment Schedule and Project Timeline has been received from Motorola outlining the actual project costs and milestone dates; first payment to be made October 2007 . Final System Acceptance and the "Go Live" date is scheduled for October 20th, 2009 Project Status: Final Contract Approval August-07 IApproved at the August 14, 2007 BaS meeting; i Budget appropriated at the August 28, 2007 BaS meeting Site Improvements Begin December-07 Public Safety Building, Poore Mtn., Ft. Lewis, Mill Mtn., Crowells Gap; Begins 12/3/07 and ends 2/17/09 Subscriber Radio Installations Begin February-08 Begins 2/15/08, ends 8/27/2008 Site Installations Begin March-09 , Begins 3/18/09, ends 7/16/09 ,Go Live October-09 Project Timeline: I Final Contract Approval Subscriber Radio Installations Begin Go Live );> en 0 Z cE ~ u ~ b b b b -J -J -J -J '- " 5: );> 5: '- '- );> en 0 z 0 '- " 5: );> :s:: '- Dl (1) Dl "0 Dl C !f. c en !l 0 en Dl en ~ -g Dl C ::l 'iT " " '< ::l ([J Ll < (') ::J 'iT '< ::l b 0 b b 0 b b b b b b b b b b 0 0 OJ 0 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ <J:> <J:> CD <J:> <D CD Site Improvements Begin Site Installations Begin (DRAFT) FY 2008..2012 Capital Project Status Report 11/7/2007 Project: Multi-Gen Center (New Business Park) Total Capital Cost: $30,259,852 Funding Sources: Pub. Sfty Bldg Bond Proceeds $1,800,000 $27,959,852 Project Managers: Dan O'Donnell Pete Haislip Cap. Sal. - Close Out Proj. $500,000 Description: Development of an 75,750 square foot multi-generational center to include indoor aquatic spaces, gymnasiums, fitness areas, a walking track, community program space, and outdoor aquatics. The project will provide for the major facility recommendations in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan and will serve to enhance sports marketing efforts in the valley and will anchor a new 200 acre business park in North Roanoke County (See North County Business Park) and will be a signature landmark at the gateway to Roanoke County. Recent Developments: . Board of Supervisors approved the Comprehensive Agreement at the August 28, 2007 meeting contingent upon the following: a) Planned bond sale in Spring 2008 and appropriation of funds b) Execution of the option to purchase approximately 12 acres of land c) Approval of the Public-Private Partnership Agreement for infrastructure improvements for the North County Business Park . Project is similar in size, quality and scope to "Riverchase" model; space program has been reduced from 83,000 sq.lft. to proposed dimensions to reduce cost. Square footage presented does not include outdoor aquatic space . Land acquisition option agreement approved and signed for 12 acres @ $150,000 per acre . Guaranteed maximum price to be provided July 18, 2008. Construction finished end of December 2009. Project Status: "Board vote on Compo Agreement August-07 .Approved at the Aug. 28, 2007 BOS meeting f · Sept. 2007 through March 2008 Design Development I Value Engineering , I September -07 Begin site preparation I Groundbreaking March-08 , Completion December-09 _1",,< Project Timeline: Design Development I Value Engineering Begin site preparation I Groundbreaking }> C <Cl o """ o Z 0 '- " s:: }> s:: u~~~~m~m 00' 000' o. 6""f """'-J -.....J ""'-l 00 co ~ co ~ t t E }> ~ 0 Z 0 ~ " 6 b ~ ~o' ~Ol ~ ~ ~ 6 % co 00 ~ ~ co co 00 00 W m ~ }> ~ Ql -0 '" I' l' '< o 0 b <D <D <D E E }> ~ 0 ~OTca.{g~ 6 co 6 b 0 (.D (() CD <D Z 0 o <1l < 0 b 6 <.D <D Board vote on Camp. Agreement Completion (DRAFT) FY 2008-2012 Capital Project Status Report 11/7/2007 Project: Fire Station - North County Total Capital Cost: $4,200,000 Project Managers: Rick Burch Funding Sources: Bond Proceeds Currently Appropriated $3,500,000 $700,000 Description: Provide a new fire and rescue public safety building 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. This facility will more evenly distribute fire and rescue calls currently handled by other stations in order to provide more efficient and effective fire and rescue services for the citizens of Roanoke County Recent Developments: . Design development began August 2007 . The presentation to the Board of Supervisors will be held at the first BOS meeting in October 2007 . Contract document preparation is set to begin in November 2007; bids will be solicited in January 2008 and received in February 2008 (award in March 2008) . The January 2009 completion date is aggressive; there is a possibility that completion will be pushed to February of 2009 . Rescue fees recently approved by the Board will generate revenue to pay for capital construction and off-set some of the personnel costs Project Status: Will be held during first BOS meeting in October 2007 ,Supervisor's Presentation Bid January-D8 iAward I March-D8 Begin Construction March-D8 . Construction set to run 10-11 months Completion January-D9 May be pushed to February 2009 Project Timeline: Bid Award C/) z 0 '- ." l> s: '- '- '- l> C/) 0 z 0 '" ." ([l 0 ([l '" ([l ~ ~ '" c c So c ([l U 0 ([l ([l "Cl < <;> ;:> rr "'f :J 6 b (Q "Cl < <;> ;:> rr b b 0 0 b 0 C) b 0> 0> b b b b 0 b --J --J --J OJ 0> OJ 00 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> OJ <D Begin Construction Completion Supervisor's Presentation (DRAFT) FY 2008-2012 Capital Project Status Report 11/7/2007 Project: New County Garage Project Managers: Anne Marie Green Total Capital Cost: $7,700,000 David Anderson Funding Sources: Bond Proceeds Currently Appropriated $6,440,000 $1,260,000 Description: New fleet maintenance facility on Hollins Road that will reduce costs currently associated with maintaining two garages (one owned, one leased) and those associated with outsourcing the repair of public safety vehicles. In addition to reducing costs, the sixteen bay facility will allow for a more efficient workflow, more effective service and provide a safer, more comfortable work environment for the garage staff, Recent Developments: . Project presentation will be given to the Board of Supervisors at the November worksession . Design development will be complete by October 19th and construction documents will be prepared beginning October 29th . Work on a partnership contract with the Western Virginia Water Authority is currently in progress . Project entrance has been redesigned with Hollins Road being the only access point . The A&E firm, Spectrum, has estimated that the cost per square foot will be $142 . Construction bid is set to be issued by February 2008 with award and commencement of construction slated for April 2008 . Operating costs will be off-set with an updated rate structure and by eliminating the costs associated with the current maintenance facilities Project Status: fO"" iOctober-07 Design Development i Design Development complete by October 19th Award March-08 ;Award to be made by March 2008 iConstruction Begins . Completion ;April-08 May-09 [Completion and occupancy set for May 2009 Project Timeline: Design Development Award Completion a en 0 z Cl '-- ..., s: s: '-- '-- '-- ~ en 0 z Cl '-- ..., s: ~ s: '-- (]l n- O CD ., CD ~ ., c c !:. c (]l n 0 (]l ., CD ID '0 ID C " <: () :J rr ~ :J ;- b to " ,. <: n :J rr " " '< :J b b b b b b 6 b a 6 6 a 6 6 6 6 a b 6 " a 0> 0> 0> ~ a to ~ " " " 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> ~ ~ to Construction Begins (DRAFT) FY 2008-2012 Capital Project Status Report 11/7/2007 Project: South County Library Total Capital Cost: $18,000,000 Project Managers: Diane Hyatt Diana Rosapepe Funding Sources: Bond Proceeds Currently Appropriated $16,290,000 $1,710,000 Description: 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. The amount of traffic received at the 419 Library and its lack of interior space ensures that the new South County Library will provide a much needed update to the county's library system and will be of great use to county citizens. Recent Developments: . On October 23, the BOS appropriated the balance of funds needed from future bond proceeds. . The project completed Value Engineering on November 1. Recommendations from the final report provided by the VE team are under review. . The firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern has been selected to design the roundabout on Merriman Rd. . An application has been submitted for an LWCF grant to develop a walking trail and park in the remaining acreage adjacent to the Library. . Revenues generated from community space rentals and retail activities will be used to off-set some of the additional operating costs Project Status: Design Phase Completion March-08 !Construction Bid , March-08 i 3/29/2008; four (4) week bidding phase Construction Award iApril-08 T iApril-08 4/23/2008 Project Timeline: Twenty (20) month construction phase FF&E delivery & installation finished by 9/7/2009; building construction not complete until 11/4/2009 n' ,._ "u Construction Begins Completion I Construction Bid Construction Award Completion " )> :;::: '- '- '- )> (Jl 0 z 0 '- " :;::: )> :;::: '- '- )> (Jl 0 z 0 ro TI III c c c c ro $1 0 CD III CD ~ TI OJ <: <: c: CD n 0 CD 9' " '< i' b b to '0 < <;> i' .,. 7' l' ::l b to '0 7' < n 0 ~ 0 b 0 "" "" b b b b 0 0 b b 0 0 b <D b b 0 b b 00 00 "" 00 00 "" "" "" "" <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D <D Construction Begins Design Phase Completion (DRAFT) FY 2008-2012 Capital Project Status Report 11/7/2007 Project: North County Business Park Infrastructure Project Managers: Doug Chittum Elmer Hodge Total Capital Cost: Funding Sources: $2,500,000 Current Appr. $1,000,000 2008-09 Appr. $500,000 2009-10 Appr. 2010-11 Appr. $500,000 $500,000 Description: Phase I Infrastructure Development for New 200 acre Premier Business Park which will provide new jobs and revenue to Roanoke County and serve as the County's flagship Economic Development Project. Recent Developments: . Master Plan for Business Park has begun . 30 acre site for 1 st development identified as Hotel/Conference Center potential . This project will also provide access to MultiGen Recreation Facility which will serve as anchor to the new Park Project Status: Design DevelopmenUEngineering September-OJ iComplete by March-08 , , Construction Begins Completion of $1.5 Million in Infrastructure Improvements Project Timeline: Design Development/Engineering Completion of $1.5 Million in Infrastructure Improvements l J> CIl 0 Z 0 '- " J> s: '- '- '- )> CIl 0 Z 0 '- " s: )> s: '- '- )> UJ 0 c (1) !! 0 (1) '" (1) "0 '" C c !f. c (1) !! 0 (1) '" (1) ~ ~ '" c S- c (1) l4 <0 "0 <: n ::::I ?' .. '< ::::I T <0 "0 <: (") ::::I 0' "'f ::::I b <0 "0 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 b b 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 b 6 6 6 6 6 6 b 0 co co a <D --J .... --J --J --J co co co 00 00 0> 00 0> 0> 0> '" ill '" ill <D <D '" '" '" Construction Begins Z 0 o (1) <: (") 6 6 '" '" I I I ___--.J (DRAFT) FY 2008-2012 Capital Project Status Report 11/7/2007 Project: Total Capital Cost: $2,310,000 Project Managers: Elmer Hodge coordinating with the Western Virginia Water Authority Water Line Extension Description: Extension of a water line from Clearbrook to Wirtz Plateau in Franklin County along the Route 220 Corridor. The project will not have an affect on rates for existing customers of the Water Authority nor will it interrupt service. Recent Developments: . Debt service will be paid for by Roanoke County and Franklin County; Roanoke County's share of the project ;s approximately $2.3 million; the cost of the entire water line will be approximately $5.5 million . Costs will be recovered from new commercial and residential developers and users who utilize the water line through increased tax revenues and connection fees . The Water Authority will be responsible for the design and construction of the water line . Project length is between 18 months and two years . Project is critical to long-term comprehensive regional water system Project Status: . Board approval of support '1 "April-07 :Approved a joint resolution of support for the project. iEngineering & Design Work Began Spring ,2007 ,Preliminary engineering report approved by VA Dept. of I Health in August. Design work continues. , 4th Quarter 1220 Corridor Study/Comprehensive Plan Amendment 12007 . Expected to ibegin Spring 12008 .Work began in May. The final study was presented to the IPC in Oct. and BOS in Nov. for incorporation into the 'County's Comprehensive Plan. Construction Begins Goal to have first phase of the project ready to bid in Jan. 2008 ! 'Project Completion Summer 2009 Project Timeline: Board approval of support 220 Corridor Study/Comprehensive Plan Amendment Project Completion ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~2'E'g>~~I?~~S:)>' =r '<9-ry'i'"<9:J?"~~": ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )> ~ 0 Z 0 ~ ~ s: )> s: ~ ~ c c c c ~ n 0 ro ro m ro U ~ C ~ b ~ ~ ~ 6 6 b 6 b 6 6 b 6 b 2 00 m m m m 00 ~ w w w w ~ _J Engineering & Design Work Construction Begins (DRAFT) ACTION NO. ITEM NO. p-) .- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session to discuss Erosion and Sediment Control SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development // {, -1/' J / Elmer C. Hodge (~j:;'l'le/ I(~~ County Administrator / (' APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for general discussion on erosion and sediment control and possible changes to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. 'j () AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 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 member's knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. /""1 I 1\ -- r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of the results of operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 was a good year for the County and staff is pleased with what has been accomplished. As a result of year-end operations, approximately 5 million dollars is available to cover the planned increase in the General Fund Unappropriated Balance and to set aside for future capital needs. The surplus this year can be attributed to several factors. Investment income increased by 87.2% from FY06 to FY07, producing an unaudited surplus of$1,619,068 (see Attachment II). This is a source of revenue that fluctuates with the direction of interest rates and is therefore difficult to predict. Revenues from real estate and other taxes also increased. While real estate tax revenues increased by 7.5% from FY06 to FY07, future revenues will likely be impacted by General Assembly action on the proposed Homestead Exemption. Policies adopted by the Board allocate year-end funds to the General Fund Unappropriated Balance and to the Major and Minor Capital Reserves. As we work through the budget process, the components of these balances and their future use warrant further discussion. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: KPMG LLP completed their audit of the financial operations of the County of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke Schools for the year ended June 3D, 2007. The Audit Committee met this afternoon to review the results of the year's operations and the management letter 1 c?m~ents from the auditors. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report will be dlstnbuted to the Board of Supervisors as soon as it is received from the printer in December 2007. The fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 was very favorable for both the County and the Schools. We will be able to add to the general fund balance to meet the goals forthe year. We will also be able to add $2.8 million to our capital reserves. Below is the detailed information for both the County and Schools regarding the results of operations for fiscal year ended June 30, 2007: Results of O/Jerations of the County of Roanoke for the Year Ended June 30, 2007: Revenues of the County of Roanoke for the Year Ended June 30, 2007: The County operations for the year ended June 30, 2007 resulted in general fund revenues $5,186,690 over budget however of this amount $672,501 was approved during the 2007- 08 budget, leaving a balance of $4,514,189 as shown on Attachment I. The additional revenues collected were primarily from investment income and increased tax collections in the areas of real estate, recordation and conveyance tax, business license tax and hotel/motel tax. This is attributed to a more positive economic climate. A detailed analysis of the general fund revenues is outlined in Attachment II. Prior to FY2005-06, the School Board and Board of SLlpervisors adopted a joint funding policy to provide for a sustainable funding stream for school and county capital improvements in future years. The polices for use of general fund revenues and expenditures in excess of budget at year end designates portions of year-end balance for major and minor capital projects as well as to the general fund unappropriated balance. Based upon these policies, staff recommends appropriating the $4,514,189 as follows: . $2,234,779 to be added to the general fund unappropriated balance. This will increase the General Fund Unappropriated Balance from $14,488,420 to $16,723,199 at June 30, 2007 which is 9.5% of the 2007-2008 General Fund Revenues as shown on Attachment III. No action is required from the Board for these funds to close to the unappropriated balance. . $2,279,410 to be appropriated to the Major County Capital Reserve. Expenditures of the County of Roanoke for the Year Ended June 30, 2007: Departmental expenditure savings amounted to $944,054 as shown on Attachment IV. Based upon the policy for use of unspent expenditure appropriations at year end, departments are able to request up to 60% of the savings within their own department for 2 special purchases and programs approved by the County Administrator and the remaining reverts to the Minor County Capital Reserve for future projects. Based upon this policy, staff recommends the following appropriations: · Department rollovers totaling $454,919 outlined in Attachment V. . $489,135 to be appropriated to the Minor County Capital Reserve. Results of Operations of the Roanoke County Public Schools for the Year Ended June 30, 2007: Attachment VI is the report for the School Operations year end for June 30, 2007. The School Board will take action to approve this report at the November 8, 2007 meeting. The Schools ended the year with a surplus of $7 million. No action is required by the County Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Board has previously approved either by policy or board action the above items noted and no action is required by the Board. This report is being presented for informational purposes. 3 County of Roanoke, Virginia Summary of General Operating Fund Revenues For the Year Ended June 30,2007 Budgeted Revenues Revenues and transfers $ 154,073,427 Use of revenue collections above budget: Balance 2007-2008 Budget Subtotal of excess revenue available Addition to General Fund Unappropriated Balance Excess revenue available for major capital Actual Revenues $ 159,260,117 Attachment I Amount $ 5,186,690 672,501 4,514,189 2,234,779 $ 2,279,410 page 4 M ~w I I III it ~----- -- ..- A ] I 1111. I .".",. I i I' II::'~' ~.' - ~ i Attachment III GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount % of General Amou nt Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2007 $14,488,420 8.23% Addition for 2006-07 Operations 2,234,779 Balance at November 13, 2007 16,723,199 9.50% Note: On December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance for 2007-08 at a range of 8.5%-9.5% of General Fund Revenues 2007-2008 General Fund Revenues $176,033,678 8.5% of General Fund Revenues $14,962,863 9.5% of General Fund Revenues $16,723,199 The Unappropriated Fund Balance of the County is currently maintained at a range of 8.5%-9.5% of General Fund revenus and will be increased over time to the following ranges: 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 9.0%-10.0% 9.5%-10.5% 10.0%-11.0% Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator page 6 County of Roanoke, Virginia Summary of General Operating Fund Expenditures For the Year Ended June 3D, 2007 Budgeted Expenditures Expenditures, encumbrances, and transfers $ 157,968,002 Use of expenditure savings: Less: Approved based on policy: Departmental rollover per policy Expenditure savings available for minor capital Actual Expenditures $ 157,023,948 Attachment IV Amount $ 944,054 454,919 $ 489,135 page 7 FY07 to FY08 Department Rollover Requests Attachment V Department Need Request Public Information Computer and equipment for part time IT position County Attorney Replacement of office furniture $ 3,142.39 $ 2,314.51 $ 4,658.19 $ 4,232.32 $ 20,000.00 $ 660.25 $ 61,742.83 $ 14,181.67 $ 21,301.00 $ 16,096.56 $ 3,325.27 $ 40, 722. 83 $ 24,995.60 $ 65,067.93 $ 50,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 48,00000 $ 118,000.00 Economic Development To upgrade computers and software Commonwealth Attorney Furniture & Equipment Treasurer Additional work stations for new employees J&DR Court Robe for Judge Court Service Unit To cover time lapse in detention services billings Real Estate Valuation To replace carpet throughout office. Finance Update Computers - Central Accounting Update Computers - Payroll Update Computers - Purchasing Finance Subtotal Management and Budge Update computers, printer replacement & furniture Police Computers & Software Community Developmen Continue renovation of 2nd Floor (carpet & paint) Furniture for 2nd Floor Offices Computer Hardware Purchases (GIS Storage, Server & Misc) Community Development Subtotal Asst Co Admin Computer and Printer $ 1,200.00 Social Services Furniture for waiting room, training station & PC stands/wrk station $ Computers, Software, Laptops, Microsoft Access & Printers $ Construct wall to create office area & ceiling fans $ Social Services Subtotal $ 18,000.00 48,000.00 8,000.00 74,000.00 Elections Purchase of election day supply bags on wheels Update computers Elections Subtotal $ 5,000.00 $ 15.000.00 $ 20,000.00 Total Department Rollover Requests $ 454,918.52 page 8 Attachment VI ACTION # ITEM NUMBER_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MEETING DATE: November 8, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation of Final Year-End Balance from School Operations for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007 BACKGROUND: The FY2006-07 budget was prepared using significant increases in anticipated growth in state aid of 11 % and in sales tax revenues of 23%. After the start of the fiscal year, the state discovered a significant deficit in their projected state sales tax revenues and adopted legislation in October 2006 to reduce the sales tax distributions for school divisions while simultaneously increasing the basic aid allocations to cover a portion of the loss in revenues. Since the budget for our school division was prepared using conservative estimates of sales tax revenues based on historical tax collections and current economic growth, Roanoke County Schools did not incur a loss in state revenue and in fact, benefited from the state increase in the basic aid allocation of approximately $1.5 million. In addition, the actual sales tax collections exceeded budget by $476,000. As noted on Alt,dllnE:ni actual revenues exceeded budgeted revenues by $3.4 million (2.5% of budget). The excess revenues primarily consisted of basic aid and sales taxes as noted above but were also positively impacted by growth in student enrollment. Student enrollment has increased by 847 students (6%) over the past five years. With the full implementation of the high school laptop initiative, the enrollment growth is expected to level off. The March 31, 2007 actual enrollment of 14,777 was 377 students higher than budgeted (14,400) and 49 students more than the prior year enrollment. The actual enrollment growth appears to have slowed down significantly from the previous year and the budgeted enrollment has been increased to 14,600 for the FY2007- 08 budget. This is likely to result in lower revenue surpluses in the future as enrollment stabilizes and the budgeted enrollment catches up with the past growth. With over 50% of the budget dependent upon state aid, it is critical that the enrollment projections are attainable and flexible enough to address state shortfalls like the sales tax this year or other economic downturns. See for a historical comparison of student enrollment. The school departments stayed within their approved budgets with under-expenditures in the major spending categories accounting for $3.5 million, net ofthe emergency fund, or 2.6% of the year-end balance :n::nl C). Under-expenditures were attributable primarily to savings in the personnel budget ($2.6 million) resulting in part from lower retirement payouts of accrued leave and severance pay tllis year, lower retirement premium for non-professional employees, and the use of retirees and extra supplements for temporarily vacant positions. Other savings resulted from unspent contingency funds, insurance savings, and cautious spending. Page 9 Attachment VI The budget ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 8, 2007 stated "that all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Fund in fiscal year 2007-08 as follows: a) Two-thirds of the year end balance in the school operating fund will be allocated to the Major School Capital Reserve, b) One-third of the year end balance in the school operating fund, not to exceed $1,000,000, will be allocated to the Minor School Capital Reserve, c) If the on-third allocation to the Minor School Capital Reserve exceeds $1,000,000, the excess will be added to the Major School Capital Reserve." SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During 2005, the School Board and Board of Supervisors adopted a joint funding policy to provide for a sustainable funding stream for school and county capital improvements in future years. The Year End Balance and School Capital Reserve policies designate portions of the year-end balance for major and minor capital projects as noted above in the county budget ordinance. Based on the adopted policies, staff is recommending the following appropriations per Attachment A: Minor Capital Funds . $1,000,000 allocated to Minor Capital Reserve for projects to be approved by the School Board at a later date based on evaluation of existing needs and priorities. Maior Capital Funds . $5,732,475 allocated to Major Capital Reserve in the approved School Capital Improvement Plan. School Operatinq Fund Unappropriated Balance (Emerqencv Reserve) . The School Board allocated funds from 2005 for a reserve for financial emergencies due to unexpected revenue shortfalls or unplanned signi'Ficant expenditure increases. Hlis reserve is intended to protect the school system from the need for a mid-year reduction in staff or service levels as the result of an unanticipated financial draw on school resources. The reserve has the original balance of $1.3 million in it and has not been tapped into during FY2006-07. The Board of Supervisors approved the creation and operation of this reserve. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the 2006-07 year-end balance of$1 ,000,000 to Minor Capital Reserve, $5,732,475 to Major Capital Reserve, $260,358 to outstanding encumbrances rolled over to FY2007-08, and $1,300,000 to the Emergency Reserve rolled over to FY2007-08. SUBMITTED BY: Penny A. Hodge, CPA Assistant Superintendent of Finance Page 10 Attachment A Roanoke County Schools Summary of Operating Fund Revenues and Expenditures For the Year Ended June 30, 2007 Budget Actual Difference Revenues: Sales tax 14,300,000 14,776,055 476,055 State aid for education 53,069,433 55,421,641 2,352,208 Federal aid for education 237,206 432,921 195,715 Tuition, rent & interest 580,713 998,568 417,855 Transfers in 60,747,935 60,747,935 Beginning balance 7,582,978 7,582,978 l36,518,265 139,960,098 3,441,833 2.5% - - ---- Use of excess revenue collections: Transfer to Major Capital Reserve per policy 3,441,833 3,441,833 I Expenditures: Personnel 108,227,904 105,592,346 2,635,558 Operating 26,990,361 26,074,919 915,442 135,218,265 131,667,265 3,551,000 2.6% Uses-of unspent expenditure appropriations: Rollover for outstanding purchase orderslband unifonns/equipment Transfer to Minor Capital Reserve per policy Transfer to Major Capital Reserve per policy 260,358 1,000,000 2,290,642 3,551,000 Reserve for Emergencies 1,300,000 1,300,000 Uses of reserves for emergencies: Rollover of Emergency Contingency fund 1,300,000 Total Contributions to Reserves from FY06-07 Year End per policy: Major Capital Reserve (2/3 of balance) Minor Capital Reserve (1/3 of balance up to cap) Emergency Contingency Fund 5,732,475 1,000,000 1,300,000 8,032,475 page 11 Attachment B Average Daily Membership History ADM ADM Over Growth (Decline) Year Budget Increase in Budget Final March 31 (Under) Budget from Prior Year 1994-95 13,600 13,652 52 1995-96 13,650 50 13,721 71 69 1996-97 13,776 126 13,863 87 142 1997-98 13,950 174 13,898 (52) 35 1998-99 13,950 13,862 (88) (36) 1999-00 13,825 (125) 13,856 31 (6) 2000-0 I 13,825 13,865 40 9 2001-02 13,825 13,930 105 65 2002-03 13,830 5 14,127 297 197 2003-04 13,938 108 14,279 341 152 2004-05 14,126 188 14,365 239 86 2005-06 14,365 239 14,728 363 363 2006-07 14,400 35 14,777 377 49 2007-08 14,600 200 TBD page 12 Attachment C Roanoke County Schools Year-End Balance for FY 2006..()7 Audited Budget Year to Date Dollar Percentage 2006-07 Actuals Difference of Budget Revenues: Sales Tax 14,300,000 14,776,055 476,055 103,33% State Revenue 53,069,433 55,421,641 2,352,208 104.43% Federal Revenue 237,206 432,921 195,715 182.51% Tuition, Rent & Interest 580,713 998,568 417,855 171.96% Transfer from County 59,198,935 59,198,935 0 100.00% Transfer from CPMT 1,549,000 1,549,000 0 100.00% Beginning Balance 7,582,978 7,582,978 0 100.00% Total Revenue 136,518,265 139,960,098 3,441,833 102.52% Expenditures: 70 School Board 257,914 237,429 20,485 92.06% 71 School Superintendent 302,628 258,135 44,493 85.30% 72 Budget & Finance 14,543,450 14,370,278 173,172 98.81% 73 Instructional Personnel 78,995,869 77,138,915 1,856,954 97.65% 74 Transportation 1,414,943 1,269,798 145,145 89.74% 75 Facilities & Operations 4,629,216 4,547,235 81,981 98.23% 76 Administrative Personnel 9,368,195 8,919,372 448,823 95.21% 77 Summer School 395,642 341,772 53,870 86.38% 78 Community Relations 59,795 56,482 3,313 94 .46% 79 Instruction 919,199 844,898 74,301 91.92% 80 Deputy Superintendent 1,143,346 1,033,484 109,862 90.39% 81 Remediation & Testing 286,463 252,641 33,822 88.19% 82 Career & Technical Education 436,263 432,806 3,457 99.21 % 83 Pupil Personnel Services 500,053 499,993 60 99.99% 85 Staff Development 437,062 297,050 140,012 67.97% 86 Guidance 362,124 356,535 5,589 98.46% 87 Media Services 1,119,327 1,114,224 5,103 99.54% 88 Pupil Assignment 113,269 109,075 4,194 96.30% 89 ClaSSified Personnel 19,863,840 19,534,059 329,781 98.34% 90 Adult Education 69,667 53,084 16,583 76.20% Less: Contingency per policy 1,300,000 0 1,300,000 0.00% Total Expenditures 136,518,265 131,667,265 4,851,000 96.45% Revenues in Excess of Expenditures 8,292,833 Reserved for Emergencies (1,300,000) 6,992,833 Budget Rollovers: Outstanding PO's Various (160,637) Band Uniform rollover 792030-6324 (19,000) Band instrument rollover 793630-8601 (57,607) Art Museum rollover 793530-6326 (23,114) Balance to be allocated to Major/Minor Reserves 6,732,475 11/6/2007 page 13 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. S-J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing and resolution to amend the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan to include the Route 220 Corridor Study SUBMITTED BY: David Holladay Planner III Elmer C. Hodge ~ j.(~7/J County Administrator c:7 '- APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: oCx,~~f~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On October 16, 2007, the Board of Supervisors attended a joint work session with the Planning Commission to discuss the Route 220 Corridor Study. Following the discussion, the Planning Commission passed a resolution that forwarded the document to the Board of Supervisors for review. The plan is the result of five months of study by Community Development staff, as well as monthly work sessions with the Planning Commission. The result is a study that inventories existing conditions in the corridor, including land use, zoning, transportation and environmental factors. Preferred sites for future commercial development are shown, with descriptions of the topography, acreage, existing land use, zoning and highway access. The study proposes three alternatives for amending the future land use maps in the Comprehensive Plan. These alternative scenarios take into consideration the background information in the study, as well as the proposed water line, proposed sewer pump station, potential impacts of future 1-73 interchange, and the desire to encourage business and commercial development along the highway frontage, rather than residential development. Along with their resolution of support for the Route 220 Corridor Study, the Planning Commission recommended Future Land Use Scenario 3 as their preferred alternative for amending the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The study also proposes guidelines for future rezoning applications. Most of the frontage property lies in one of the County's agricultural zoning districts, so the conversion of land to commercial use will require amending the zoning district through legislative review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The proposed guidelines would communicate the overall themes for future land use in the corridor, and provide a checklist for rezoning applicants. Attached to this report are the following: Planning Commission resolution, dated October 16,2007 Route 220 Corridor Study, dated November 13, 2007 Board of Supervisors resolution, dated November 13, 2007 FISCAL IMPACT: None. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached resolution approving and adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Route 220 Corridor Study. 2. Take no action at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16,2007 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCORPORATING THE ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR STUDY WHEREAS, on April 16, 2007 the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Commission and County staff to conduct a Route 220 Corridor Study to address transportation and growth issues arising from the construction of a new waterline extension along Route 220 into Franklin County; and WHEREAS, from June, 2007 through September, 2007, the Planning Commission held monthly work sessions to discuss the Route 220 Corridor Study, including the overall scope of the study, tours of potential development sites, consideration ofaltemative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Maps, and guidelines for future zoning changes along the Route 220 corridor; and WHEREAS, on September l7, 2007, Roanoke County staff held a community meeting to present the Route 220 Corridor Study to property owners in and around the corridor study area; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Route 220 Corridor Study, after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, on October l6, 2007, the Planning Commission held a joint work session with the Board of Supervisors to review and discuss the Route 220 Corridor Study; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County to incorporate the Route 220 Corridor Study into the Plan. A COPY TESTE: dldm .. Ro~oke County Plannmg CommIssIOn 1_....... Philip ompson, Secreta Roanoke County Planning Commission ___I =:l I ~ : ~ "'-JLJ '"I ~ C1' (j n)- ~!., ~.,\!I' l. . ~.JI ~~\._ l-\'R<) r)~J~ ~1ftt'~ N~-~ I !if'.? .. r\ r~ 3\. J ..) JP~ -J 0;.., r ~ J ~~ J" II rtJ)~( lrJl C~lr{H-c rlIl ~'J ~l ~111~ ~.~ffb~rur~li\~Tr~11 ~T ~ I ~l ~JT t[tuX\ jFJ'flt1] J. ~ ~~ i'fl~ DRAFT November 13,2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction.......................... ...................................................... .............................. .................1 1.1. Purpose of Study 1.2. Study Area 1. 3. Planning Process 2. Existing Conditions........................ .............................. ............................................................ ...4 2.1. Zoning 2.2. Existing Land Use 2.3. Future Land Use 2.4. Transportation 2.5. Environment 2.6. Historic Sites 3. Study Criteria.................. .............................. .............................................................................9 3.1. Site Prioritization 3.2. Site Analysis 3.2.1. Brethren, Site 1 3.2.2. Back Creek. Site 2 3.2.3. Winter Drive, Site 3 3.2+ Pine Needle, Site 4 3.2.5. Starlight, Site 5 3.2.6. Willow Branch, Site 6 3.2.7. Dunahoo, Site 7 4. Recommended Land Use Changes............ .................. ............ ...... ...... ............ ......... ...... ............15 4.1. Future Land Use Map Scenarios 4.1.1. Scenario 1 4.1.2. Scenario 2 4-1.3. Scenario 3 4.2. Rezoning Guidelines 4.2.1 Study Area 4.2.2. Public Water and Sanitary Sewer Service 4.2.3. Slope Development 4.2+ Transportation Network 4-2.5. Site Selection 4.2.6. Architecture/Site Design Appendices Appendix A. Tables and Maps Appendix B. Supplemental Materials Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County DRAFT 1 . Introduction November 13, 2007 Pursuant to Section 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, Article 3, the Comprehensive Plan, Roanoke County is required to ~prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction." The Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan states: The Roanoke County Community Plan is a blueprint for the future growth and development of the County over the next 10 - 15 years. It provides direction and guidance, for both the public and private sectors, in making decisions about land development, public services and resource protection. The Plan allows decision makers to study the long- term consequences of current decisions and recognize that to day's actions will impact the County for many years to come. This study, as is proposed to be adopted into the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, will aid decision-making for future development resulting from the planned waterline extension along the Route 220 Corridor. 1.1. Purpose of Study U.S. Route 220 is a major arterial highway which runs through the middle of Roanoke County and serves as a thoroughfare for those traveling north and south through Virginia. As it exists currently, the corridor is dotted by a majority of single family homes with a mix of a few scattered commercial and office uses. The landscape becomes increasingly rural traveling southbound along Route 220 to the southern boundary with Franklin County. Public water and sewer service currently stops at Suncrest Heights and is not available in the study area. On April 16th, 2007, the Roanoke County and Franklin County Boards of Supervisors and the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) , signed an agreement to approve construction of a twelve-mile waterline extension into Franklin County (see Resolution in Appendix B). The resolution concludes that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Roanoke and Franklin Counties to extend the Western Virginia Water Authority's water distribution system from the Suncrest Heights subdivision in Roanoke County to Wirtz Plaza in Franklin County. The project is estimated to cost $5.5 million, $2.3 million of which will be paid by Roanoke County to extend water service along Route 220 within the county limits. The construction of the water line, paired with extension of sewer to parts of the corridor, will spur new deveopmem, therefore the Board of Supervisors directed county staff to address transportation and growth issues along this corridor. As the water line is extended, the land along the corridor will become prime real estate, yet challenges to development along the corridor exist. Issues such as transportation limitations, the presence of floodplain and steep sloping land will create obstacles for context-senstive development. In order to ensure that growth is complimentary to the corridor, the County is creating a plan to identify areas which are most appropriate for development. 1.2. Study Area The study area for this plan begins at the southern limits of the Suncrest Heights subdivision and runs southwest along Route 220 to Franklin County (See Figure 1, Study Area). The study area extends a minimum of 1,000 feet on each side of Route 220. In areas where the limits of the future land use designations of Transition, Rural Village and Village Center extend beyond the l,ooo-foot Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page 1 DRAFT wide limit, the future land use boundary is used (see Map 1 in Appendix A). The study area consists of 1,384 acres of land, which includes 78 acres of floodplain and 41 acres of floodway from Back Creek. Due to rolling topography, the study area crosses through portions of several watersheds. There are currently 22 historic structures and 10 cemeteries in the study area. The study area is rural, predominately with single- family dwellings, some commercial and business properties and several churches. Access to the Blue Ridge Parkway is located 1.5 miles to the north of the study area. I ~ Figure 1. Study Area 1.3. Planning Process At the request of the Board of Supervisors, county staff initiated the study by performing field surveys and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) analysis to gain an understanding of the many different features of the study corridor. In addition, staff consulted with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) officials regarding past and future road improvements and with the WVW A. As Franklin County is preparing a similar study, staff met with Franklin County staff on several occasions to present portions of the plan and to give and receive feedback. November 13,2007 Staff presented the concept of the plan to the Planning Commission on June 19th, 2007. On July 17tl1, members of staff along with the Planning Commission conducted a drive- through of the corridor. Several stops were made along the corridor as staff explained the constraints and benefits of development at various locations. At the August 21st Planning Commission work session, staff presented draft scenarios for amendments to the Future Land Use map as well as draft guidelines for rezoning applications submitted within the corridor. Public input is vital to the success of any long-range plan. Staff posted drafts of the plan on the Roanoke County Community Development webpage. Staff also conducted . . S b th a commul11ty meetmg on eptem er 17 . Approximately 450 residents within and around the study corridor were notified of the community meeting. Figure 2. September 17th Community Meeting Over forty citizens attended the meeting at Clearbrook Elementary School. Staff presented an overview of the study, detailing the purpose, the development opportunity selection criteria, the future land use scenarios and the draft themes and rezoning guidelines. Staff then took questions from citizens. While some inquiries were specific to the waterline itself, many questions addressed commercial growth and future land use planning. Upon conclusion of the meeting, staff invited citizens to attend the upcoming work sessions and public hearings for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. At the work session on Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . .. DRAFT September 18th, staff provided the Planning Commission with an overview of the community meeting, including the comments and questions from the citizens at the meeting (See Appendix B). Because the plan will be included as an update to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, local planning legislation requires public hearings be held before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The first public hearing for the Planning Commission was held on October 2nd. One citizen attended but no one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the draft plan. On October 16th, staff presented the plan to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission during a work session. The discussion resulted in modifications to the plan which addressed the Board's concerns regarding Future Land Use Classifications and rezoning guidelines. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to adopt the Corridor Study into the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan to the Board of Supervisors for consideration at their November 13th public hearing. Noveniber13,2007 .... ~.~ II ~i_ . ~~~~7 I ' .:......-:.... .t' I ,..,---..- ~ ,'[ f .- _.,,-.. -. '" ~ ~ ~ . -'- ,'~ .~;~~.~ -'~' ~ __ - ----- I ...,. ~I," Figure 3. September 17th Community Meeting . . . ... Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County DRAFI' November 13, 2007 2. Existing Conditions 2.1. Zoning Land within the Route 220 study corridor is primarily zoned for agricultural and rural uses with some scattered office and commercial zoning designations (see Map 2, Zoning in Appendix A). Figure 4, Zoning, Study Area, shows that almost half of the study corridor- 585 acres-is zoned Agricultural, Rural Preserve, 37 percent of the corridor is zoned Agricultural/Rural Low Density, 12 percent is zoned for Agricultural/Residential, four percent is zoned AgriculturalNillage Center, and slightly more than zero percent of the corridor is zoned for office or general commercial. Table I, Zoning, in Appendix A describes each type of district found in the corridor, along with acreage calculations of each zoning district in the corridor as well as for the primary and secondary development sites which are identified in Chapter 3, Study Criteria. Agricultural I Rural Preserve - 41.2% Agricultural I Rural Low Oeolity- 7.0% Figure 4. Zoning, Study Area Figure 5, Zoning, Primary and Secondary Sites, illustrates the percentage of each zoning classification for the development opportunity sites. The Agricultural! Rural Preserve District makes up almost sixty percent of these sites, a larger percentage compared to that of the study corridor (47 percent), and there is a smaller percentage ofIand zoned Agricultural/Rural Agricultural Office - General IVillage ~'5% Commercial Cenler- rI 0.4% 5.6% Agricultural A. / Residential <--\ 1 -,'" ~ A9ncultural"" I Rural Low Density- 26.9% Agncu1tural I Runl Preserve - 58.1% Figure 5. Zoning, Primary and Secondary Sites Low Density and AgriculturalNillage Center than is located within the entire corridor. 2.2. Existing Land Use Current land uses within the corridor include rural homesites, single-family dwellings such as the one in Figure 6 below, manufactured homes, mobile homes, commercial uses, office and warehouse uses, institutional uses, vacant land and cemeteries. Map 3 in Appendix A shows existing land use. Figure 7 illustrates that the majority of land within the study corridor is being used for residential purposeS-56 percent or 682 acres-while 41 percent of the land is vacant. Figure 6. House along southbound Route 220 Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page 4 DRAFI' Just less than two percent of the land is being used for commercial purposes, and 1.57 percent of land is used for churches. Table 2, Current Land Use in Appendix A shows calculations of acreages of each existing land use with the corridor and for the selected sites. Church - '"" 1 ResIdential 65.6% Commercial 2.0% Figure 7. Current Land Use, Study Corridor As can be seen in Figure 8, Current Land Use, Selected Sites, the selected primary and secondary sites are composed of nearly identical land uses to those of the study corridor; 172 acres is 53 percent of the select site acreage currently in use for residential purposes. Church - 3.7% Commercial -2.6% Figure 8. Current Land Use, Selected Sites 2.3. Future Land Use The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is shown in Appendix A (Map 4). This map is included in the Comprehensive Plan to "identify the most desirable locations for future land use activities throughout the county" (Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan Chapter November 13,2007 6). Future Land Use classifications for the study sites include Village Center, Rural Preserve, Transition and Rural Village. Figure 9 depicts the percentage of acres of each Future Land Use designation in the study corridor. Thirty-nine percent, or 481 acres of land, the largest amount in the corridor, is identified as Transition on the Future Land Use Map. See Table 3, Future Land Use in Appendix A for further descriptions. Rural Village- 17~ 1iiiJl(6~~~:- ~.~% ~-,."~. ,~. 39% -~ ~heserve- 15% Figure 9. Future Land Use. Study Corridor Figure 10 depicts Future Land Use for the primary and secondary development opportunity sites. A higher percentage of land is designated Rural Preserve for the selected sites than for the study corridor, while the percent of land designated as Rural Village and Transition decreases from the study corridor to the selected sites. The water line extension project will significantly affect the future land use of this corridor; therefore, one component of this study will include updating the 2005 Future Land Use Map. As is discussed in Chapter 4, Recommended Land Use Changes, the Rural Preserve designation is not appropriate for areas where public utilities exist. See Chapter 4 for alternative Future Land Use Map scenarios and corresponding data on composition of these areas. Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . - DRAIT TraIlSltion - 27% Preserve - 30% Figure 10. Future Land Use, Selected Sites 2.4. Transportation In 2005, the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan was updated with a new transportation section. The new transportation section includes goals, objectives and strategies that can help guide future commercial development along Route 220. The first goal, "to consider present and future transportation implications when making land use decisions", includes strategies for balancing land use objectives with street functional capabilities, and strategies for long range transportation planning. The proposed changes to the Future Land Use maps in this study may eventually affect the functional street classification for Route 220. Currently, Route 220 is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial between the Franklin County line and the Blue Ridge Parkway. As population along Route 220 increases, the classification of Urban Principal Arterial should be considered for the sections currently designated Rural. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan transportation section also includes information from the Long Range Transportation Plan developed and periodically updated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Long Range Plan lists recommended improvements to Route 220 from the Roanoke City limits 3.72 miles south to Route 715, Pine Needed Drive. In the study, VDOT recommended eventually improving that stretch of highway to six lanes of Rural Principal Arterial. Roanoke County's Novernber13,2007 comments were to consider a six-lane Urban Principal Arterial to Route 715, and then a six- lane Rural Principal Arterial to the Franklin County line. During the next revision to the Long Range Transportation Plan, the MPO should consider the Route 220 Corridor Study, and associated amendments to the Future Land Use Map. Route 220 serves as a major arterial through Roanoke County, into Franklin County and Henry County and eventually into North Carolina. Route 220 is 680 miles long and begins in Waverly, New York and spans six states prior to its terminus in Rockingham, North Carolina. The portion of Route 220 traveling through south Roanoke County is a four-lane highway. Traffic lights exist beyond the northern study limits at Tanglewood and near Clearbrook. The Virginia Department of Transportation, VDOT, is providing for the waterline to be located in the existing right-of-way (See Map 5, Transportation and Map 9, Proposed Water and Sewer Facilities in Appendix A). VDOT's 2005 Annual Average Daily Traffic is estimated at 28,000 vehicles per day from the intersection of Route 220 with the Blue Ridge Parkway to the Franklin County line. VDOT projects traffic to increase to 47,000 over the next twenty years. Information from VDOT indicates that Route 220 is approximately fifty years old. Because the construction standards have become modernized and because traffic has increased, safety concerns led VDOT to construct several improvements to the corridor, both in the 1990S and in 2006. The spot improvements to several locations along the corridor included constructing new southbound left and right turn lanes, closing several unsafe medians, regrading turns, adding and demolishing pavement, and creating berms to improve runoff. Excerpts from the VDOT Route 220 improvement plan, along with accident data from the Roanoke County Police Department for selected intersections can be found in Appendix B. Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page 6 DRAFT Increased development along the corridor will challenge the safety for motorists along the route and for those utilizing the intersections and side roads. Existing turn lanes, sight distance, and availability of median cuts were all major factors in selecting optimal sites for future development. Several large sites that would be ideal for development were not included in the list of primary sites due to intersection limitations. Map 6, Transportation in Appendix A describes the intersections in the corridor. Figure 11 shows a large tract of land off Crowell Gap Road that could potentially be developed, but currently, the lack of a southbound turn lane limits access. Figure 11. Crowell Gap Another major factor affecting the future development of the Route 220 corridor is the future construction of the 1-73 Interstate. The Interstate will have an interchange at Route 220 along the north portion of the study area; the interstate's location will affect several of the developable sites in the study. (See Map 5, Transportation, Existing Intersection Conditions in Appendix A). 2.5. Environment Route 220 is surrounded on both sides by tall mountains, and the passageway into Franklin County becomes narrower to the south. Map 7, Environmental Features, illustrates the topography of the corridor (See Appendix A). Topography will be a major challenge for new development along the corridor. Also, the November 13, 2007 presence of Back Creek in the corridor creates floodplain issues which will impact some of the selected sites. At the time of this study, FEMA has provided Roanoke County with new floodplain data and the Board of Supervisors has adopted new floodplain maps. The development areas were analyzed using the most recent floodplain data. 2.6. Historic Sites In the Route 220 Corridor Study Area 22 structures were identified in a 1990 Virginia Department of Historic Resources Architectural Survey (See Map 8). Six of the structures were surveyed in detail. Of those six structures, the oldest structure is a log cabin constructed between 1850 and 1870 located along Willow Branch Road near the intersection with Franklin Road (Route 220) and is within the limits of the Willow Branch Site 6B (see cover photo). Although vacant and in poor condition, the strllcture is one of a few log cabins of this age still located in Roanoke County. Two Victorian homes were constructed between 1890 and 1910. The Victorian located at 7466 Franklin Road is in fair condition, while the dwelling at 6624 Franklin Road was originally part of a farm and is in good condition. The hOllse located at 6874 Hofawger Road was constructed between 1900 and 1920 and is a one-story square bungalow in good condition. Another one- St01Y home located at 5992 Franklin Road was constructed between 1920 and 1940 and is in good condition. The final structure surveyed is currently used as a church although it was constructed as a consolidated school. The Clearbrook Brethren Church located at 5922 Brethren Road lies within the limits of the Brethren Site 1, was constructed between 1920 and 1940; it is in good condition. The remaining sixteen identified structures include two Red Hill Churches dating to 1910 (located on Winter Drive Site }A, and shown in Figure 12, Red Hill Baptist Church) and 1937 Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . - DRAFT Noveniber13,2007 (located on Back Creek Site 20) as well as fourteen dwellings labeled as Bungalow, Foursquare, Cottage, and Frame. Six of those dwellings are located on or adjacent to development opportunity sites. ,..~ - (i!.t-,., ' r:1\~~! Figure 12. Red Hill Baptist Church A number of cemeteries are also located within the Route 220 Corridor Study Area as identified by Cultural Expressions of Nature in Sacred Contexts: Documentation of Family & Community Cemeteries in Roanoke County, Virginia written by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources in 2000. Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County ...- : DRAFT November 13, 2007 3. Study Criteria 3.1. Site Prioritization Within the study area, planning staff used a variety of methods to select primary and secondary sites that would be appropriate for commercial development. Benefits and constraints exist at each of the seven primary sites. Staff conducted a field survey to identifY available land and then examined the topographic and hydrologic features along with transportation limitations to exclude the land that would not be ideal for development. The field survey, paired with the geographic analysis aided staff in determining which of the available sites were most accessible. Sites that have intersections with good access both northbound and southbound are ideal. The waterline and sewer extension are two of the most important factors for commercial development. The waterline will be approximately 13 miles of 12-inch pipe; at this time plans indicate that the waterline construction will take place predominantly in the Route 220 right-of-way (See Map 9, Proposed Water and Sewer Facilities in Appendix A). The Western Virginia Water Authority is planning to construct a sewer pump station on the east side of Route 220 north of Crowell Gap Road near Back Creek. This station will serve the drainage area encompassing the first three development sites. Potential development sites were identified which met three criteria: . Sites should be located primarily within the study area; . Sites should have access to a public or private road; and . Slope should measure twenty percent or less. A matrix was created to prioritize sites based on access to Route 220, intersection limitations, sewer access, floodplain issues and site size (See Table 4, Site Analysis in Appendix A). From this matrix, seven sites were selected as primary sites. These sites total approximately 127 acres of potentially developable land. The primary development sites (by location) are: 1. Brethren (7-45 acres) 2. Back Creek (16.04 acres) 3. Winter Drive (5.86 acres) 4. Pine Needle (17-41 acres) 5. Starlight (48.92 acres) 6. Willow Branch (22.29 acres) 7. Dunahoo (9.25 acres) The seven primary sites were selected because they have good to satisfactory access to Route 220, floodplains will not severely limit development on these sites, the slope will not pose a significant challenge for construction, and the acreage is large enough to accommodate commercial development. Secondary sites have major limitations such as poor access to Route 220, floodplain issues, lack of sewer or water in the near future, and/or steep slopes. Secondary sites, shown in grey on the development map, are not currently ideal sites for development; yet county staff recognizes that any corridor improvements may influence the classification of a site. Figure 13, Development Opportunities, shows the primary sites in color and the secondary sites are shown in grey. The secondary sites total 194 acres. A larger map, Map 10, Development Opportunities, can be found in Appendix A. Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County ...- . DRAFT .r- r ~. Figure 13. Development Opportunities 3.2. Site Analysis The primary and secondary sites have a combined area of 321 acres. Portions of some primary and secondary sites extend beyond the limits of the study corridor. Zoning of the primary and secondary sites is primarily AG-3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, and AG-I, Agricultural/Rural Low Density. The sizes of primary sites range from six to nearly fifty acres. They are generally named according to their closest road intersection. An analysis of each site follows. A complete table of all site analyses can be found in Appendix A. Each numbered site is considered a major development node, while the map in Appendix A breaks down each site where intersections or other geographic features separate the node into smaller sites. 3.2.1. Brethren- Site 1. Site 1, Brethren, is 7-45 acres and is currently zoned AG-I, Agricultural/Rural Low Density, A V, Agricultural Village Center and C-2, General Commercial. The Future Land Use designations for the site are Transition and Rural Preserve. November 13,2007 Figure 14. Clearbrook Brethren Church As is seen in Figure 15, the site does have limitations resulting from the proximity of the floodplain and a bridge will have to be constructed over the floodplain for site access. Road improvements southbound on Route 220 include a right turn taper into the site. There are no improvements to access the site traveling northbound. The Yellow Mountain Road and Brethren Road entrances are staggered along Route 220. At 5922 Brethren Road, a historic structure exists that is currently used as a church but was originally a school built between 1920 and 1940 (See Figure 14). I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 15. Brethren Site Map Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page 10 DRAFT The primary benefit of this site is that it will be one of the first sites to receive both water and sewer access as the first phase of the utilities are constructed. A future Interstate 73 interchange is projected to affect the north corner of the site as shown in Map 5, Transportation, in Appendix A. 3.2.2. Back Creek- Site 2. Figure 16. Back Creek Site at Route 220 There are six sites in the Back Creek node. (see Figure 17). The entire node consists of 16.04 acres. It is zoned AG-l, Agricultural/Rural Low Density and A V, Agricultural Village Center. Future Land Uses are currently designated as Transition and Rural Preserve. Access to water and sewer makes this a primary site; however, floodplain issues obstruct access to site 2F. The floodplain is also adjacent to sites 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and 2F. The Back Creek intersection is improved with a right turn lane southbound and no improvements northbound on Route 220. Back Creek Road provides access to 2A and 2B. Red HilI Church, built in 1937, located on site 2D, is identified in a 1990 Virginia Department of Historic Resources Architectural Survey. Boone-Naff Cemetery is located adjacent to site 2B and Kingery-Campbell Cemetery is located on site 2F. While the 1-73 corridor is not located directly on this node, it does have the potential to affect portions of the site. Major benefits of this site include early access to water and sewer during the first phases of utility construction. Limitations are November 13,2007 minimal, especially for site 2A, which is not hindered by the floodplain. ~/l V' ,.. ..? '" lJ Figure 17. Back Creek Site Map 3.2.3. Winter Drive- Site 3. Winter Drive bisects the Winter Drive node, with properties to the north and south (see Figure 19). These two sites total 5.86 acres and are zoned AG-l, Agricultural/Rural Low Density and A V, Agricultural Village. Future Land Use is currently designated as Transition. Water and sewer access will be available to this site. As shown in Figure 19, the floodplain is directly adjacent to the entire north boundary line for site 3A. There are no intersection improvements at Winter Drive and Crowell Gap Road to access the Winter Drive site. Winter Drive bisects the site, and to the east is Crowell Gap Road which accesses a larger secondary site. There are two historic properties at Site 3, Red HilI Church, 1910, and a 1920 Bungalow. Also, Ridgeway Cemetery is located on Site 3B. Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . - DRATI' ~. - ''-~:::-_'' '~~r. , '.' ,,'t.4..--..' . . -". .. Figure 18. Winter Drive Figure 19. Winter Drive Site Map 3.2.4. Pine Needle- Site 4. This site is one of the larger sites; with six smaller segments, totaling 17-41 acres (see Figure 20). It is zoned AG-1, Agricultural/Rural Low Density and the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Transition and Rural Village. Public water would be available from the waterline project. Sewer could be extended and would require an additional pump station. Sewer is not currently planned to be extended to this site. Sites 4A and 4B are bound to the north November 13, 2007 by floodplain; sites 4C, 4D, 4E and 4F have no floodplain or other hydrological constraints. There are right and left turn lanes southbound on Route 220 and a left turn lane traveling northbound providing access to the site. Additionally, the Hartman-Kingery- Kasey Cemetery is located partially on 4B. Figure 20. Pine Needle Site Map Figure 21. Field along Pine Needle Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page 12 DRAFT 3.2.5. Starlight- Site 5. Starlight is the largest of the seven sites, with 48.92 acres of potentially developable land across seven smaller sites. as shown in Figure 23, Starlight Land Site Map. The zoning includes AG-3. Agricultural/Rural Low Density. AR, Agricultural/Residential and AV. Agricultural Village Center. Future Land Use includes Village Center, Rural Village, and Rural Preserve. Public water would be available from the waterline project. A pump station would need to be installed for sewer access. There are no floodplain issues at this site. At the Pine Needle road intersection, there is a right turn lane on the Southbound side of Route 220 and a left turn lane northbound to provide access to portions of southbound and a left turn lane exists northbound. The sites are accessed from 220 by Starlight Lane. Pine Needle Road, Wilson Road and Shadow Hollow Lane. Two historic structures is located here. and the Alcorn Cemetery is found on Site 5C. Figure 22. Route 220 from Starlight Lane November 13,2007 Figure 23. Starlight Lane Site Map Figure 24. Along Starlight Lane 3.2.6. Willow Branch - Site 6. Willow Branch is the second largest site; four segments of this site total 22.29 acres (See Figure 26. Willow Branch Drive and Dunahoo Site Map). The site is zoned AG-3. Agricultural/Rural Preserve and Future Land Use is designated as Village Center. Public water will be available at this site from the waterline project. Because several drainage . . . - Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County DRAFT divides separate this site from the basin with the pump station, sewer may not be easily accessible in the near future here. There are no water bodies or floodplains on or proximate to the site. There are no improvements for access at the Willow Branch Road intersection The site is accessed by Willow Branch Road and Spotswood drive; potentially realigning these intersections is suggested by county staff to improve access. There is a historic log cabin, shown below in Figure 25 on Site 6B built between 1850 and 1870. Another historic structure, a bungalow, is located on Site 6B. .":0' ~ Figure 25. Cabin Along Willow Branch Road Figure 26. Willow Branch and Dunahoo Site Map November 13,2007 3.2.7. Dunahoo- Site 7. The Dunahoo site, shown in Figure 26, is the southernmost of the sites in the study area and encompasses 9.25 acres. It is currently zoned AG-3, Agricultural/ Rural Preserve, and C-l, Office. Future Land Use is Village Center. Public water will be available as a result of the waterline project. Here, sewer access is currently the least accessible of all seven sites. There are no floodplain issues. A left turn lane provides southbound access and a right turn lane provides northbound access to the site. A historic bungalow and Murray Cemetery are located partially on Site 7A. . :~;;;!f~~;'!;~i5. ~;~~~,~ -'. . ~ - : :p.. :....,-'!J)"',.~..~.. ~_..~w ",--.~' .~, .r~', .' -~., . a:~.~.~:';"";" ~.-' ': "\ ~ l~". . .. Figure 27. Route 220 from Dunahoo Drive Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . - DRAFT November 13,2007 4. Recommended Land Use Changes 4.1. Future Land Use Map Scenarios The Route 220 Corridor Study will become part of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a general, long-range policy and implementation guide for decisions concerning the overall growth and development of the County. One important component of the Comprehensive Plan is the Future Land Use map. This map designates areas and types of land uses for future development of the County. The maps guide citizens and property owners who are evaluating alternative uses of their land and will be used by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission in the evaluation of requested land use and zoning amendments. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map currently does not reflect the extension of water services through the Route 220 corridor. Map 4, Future Land Use, in Appendix A shows the 2005 adopted future land use map. On the 2005 map, the northern section of the Route 220 corridor is designated Transition, which is an urban future land use area that promotes the orderly development of highway frontage parcels, and anticipates the provision of public water and sewer. South of Pine Needle Drive, the rest of the corridor frontage properties are designated either Rural Village or Village Center. Rural Village areas generally support rural residential development and discourage urban development patterns. Village Center areas serve as the commercial and institutional focal points for surrounding rural residential and farming establishments. Both the Rural Village and Village Center designations are for areas not served by public water and sewer. Two urban commercial designations are proposed for the Route 220 Corridor Study Area. The three scenarios presented show alternative designations of Transition and Core areas These scenarios are found in Appendix A (Maps il, 12 and 13). The orange Transition designation encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway- oriented commercial uses are discouraged in Transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale coordinated retail uses. The red Core designation encourages high intensity urban development. 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. Each of these scenarios, along with Map 9, Proposed Water and Sewer Facilities, will serve to identify the project in the Comprehensive Plan per the requirements of Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia. On October 16th, 2007, the Planning Commission passed a resolution recommending the 220 Corridor Study to the Board of Supervisors. Along with the resolution, the Planning Commission recommended Scenario 3, as shown in Appendix A (Map 13). It is anticipated that the Board of Supervisors will choose a preferred scenario to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. 4.1.1. Scenario 1 Scenario 1 proposes the Transition designation to continue south from Pine Needle Drive to the Franklin County limits. Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page 15 DRAFT See Map 11, Future Land Use Scenario 1, in Appendix A. This would direct future commercial/business growth along Route 220 per the Transition guidelines in the comprehensive plan. This amendment would provide a consistent future land use designation throughout the corridor, but does not provide areas for more intense commercial development, especially where sewer services would be provided. 4.1.2. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 proposes the same Transition designation throughout the study area, with the addition of some areas to be designated as Core. Most of the Core areas chosen to be designated Core are currently zoned A V, Agricultural Village, and already have some existing commercial land uses, plus have other commercial land uses allowed by right. This core designation takes into consideration the installation of a sewer pump station in the area where Route 220 crosses Back Creek. The southern boundary of the Core designation would be the extent of gravity sewer service to the sewer pump station. This scenario also takes into consideration the potential impacts of a future connection/interchange between Route 220 and Interstate Route 73. See Map 12 in Appendix A. 4.1.3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 is similar to Scenario 2, with the exception that the Core designation would cover a larger area and extend east and west to the boundaries of the study. The southern boundary of the Core area would be the same as Scenario 2, which is the extent of gravity sewer service to the sewer pump station. See Map 13 in Appendix A. 4.2. Rezoning Guidelines Staff developed a series of guidelines to guide future development and ensure that development is sensitive to the limitations of the corridor. These guidelines will serve to provide further information for rezoning November 13,2007 applications so that each site will fit within the corridor, to ensure that development will not increase the danger of travel along the corridor and that it will be as environmentally sensitive to the floodplains and steep slope and resource limitations as possible. Primary sites will have less requirements for a rezoning. Staff believes these sites to be less restrictive in terms of topography, access to 220, future water and sewer hookups, and floodplain or water body issues. Secondary sites and those which extend beyond the study area boundary will have more requirements for the rezoning application to ensure that the sites will be built in a manner that compliments the corridor. 4.2.1. Study Area . Boundaries of study area follow existing breaks in the Comprehensive Plan future land use maps, or 1,000 feet from the highway center line, whichever is greater. . Petitions for commercial development/ redevelopment are encouraged at the sites identified in the study. Residential development is discouraged along the commercial frontage properties. Mixed-use development that includes a residential component may be appropriate in other locations along the corridor. . The limits of the future land use map commercial designations are intended to function as an Urban Development Area boundalY, with the understanding that urban/suburban development is strongly discouraged beyond that area limit, until such time that further planning and land use studies are completed for those rural areas. Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page 16 DRAFT 4.2.2. Public Water and Sanitary Sewer Service . New projects must connect to public water service. New projects must connect to or extend sanitary sewer service if within 300 feet of existing sewer. New projects beyond existing sanitary sewer - petitioner must consider extension of sewer services, and/or justify not constructing the services. New projects using private septic systems are discouraged, but if proposed must have septic permit approval from the Virginia Department of Health submitted with rezoning application. November 13, 2007 . from Route 220 will require significant transportation planning and coordination with the Virginia Department of Transportation and Roanoke County prior to submission of rezoning application. Consideration must be given to the future Interstate Route 73 corridor and potential land use impacts of that highway construction. . . . 4.2.3. Slope Development . New projects may need to provide a preliminary grading plan with rezoning application, delineating building pad area, driveway access grading, limits of disturbance and extent of proposed cut and fill. New projects exceeding 25 vertical feet of cut or fill slope must provide geotechnical report with rezoning application. Heights and details of all proposed retaining walls must be provided with rezoning application. Planning Commission may request geotechnical report at its discretion. 4.2.5. Site Selection . . . 4.2.4. Transportation Network . Traffic Impact Analysis report shall be submitted with rezoning application, unless that requirement is waived by the Virginia Department of Transportation and Roanoke County. Priority sites have access from Route 220, and from existing public streets intersecting with Route 220. New public streets intersecting with Route 220, and new access driveways . Development opportunities are prioritized in the study. Seven general areas are identified in the plan as development opportunities and should be given the highest priority in consideration of rezoning applications. Of these seven areas, some sites are more conducive for development due to proximity of sanitary sewer, existing highway intersections and turn lanes, topography issues and overall size of the potential development area. A second tier of potential development sites are shown on Map 10, Development Opportunities as secondary sites. These sites had some favorable topography, but are second in the priority list due to highway access difficulties, topography issues, or general separation from a cluster of other sites. The remaining lands not identified in the development opportunity map are third on the priority for development. These lands have the most significant challenges for development, and would require intensive study and design work to be included in a rezoning application. . . . . 4.2.6. Architecture/Site Design . Building elevations shall be submitted with rezoning application. Landscaping and buffer yards shall be submitted with rezoning application. . Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page 17 I _ _ ___ DRAFT November 13, 2007 . Refer to county design guidelines, as amended, for guidance with site design, signs, other amenities. Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County I Page 18 APpendiX. DRAFT November 13, 2007 Contents Table 1. Zoning Table 2. Current Land Use Table 3. Future Land Use Table 4. Site Analysis Map 1. Study Area Map 2. Zoning Districts Map 3. Existing Land Use Map 4. Future Land Use Map 5. Transportation Map 6. Transportation, Existing Intersection Conditions Map 7. Environmental Features Map 8. Historic Structures and Cemeteries Map 9. Proposed Water and Sewer Facilities Map 10. Development Opportunities Map 11. Future Land Use Scenario 1 Map 12. Future Land Use Scenario 2 Map 13. Future Land Use Scenario 3 Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . - ... DRAFT Table I. Zoning November 13,2007 _I APpendiX. Zoning District Description Acreage of Primary Sites Percent of Primary Sites Primary and Secondary Sites Percent of Primary and Secondary Sites Study Corridor Percent of Study Corridor Agricultural/ Rural Preserve - AG-3, AG- 3(S)* Agricultural/ Rural Low Density - AG-1, AG(S*) Agricultural/ Residential - AR Agricultural/ Village Center - AV, AV(C)**, AV(S)* Office - C-1(C)** General Commercial - C-2, C-2(C)(( Primarily farmland, woodland & widely scattered residential development. Steep slopes and groundwater recharge areas. Like AG-3, but with smaller minimum lot sizes. Very low-density residential and institutional uses mixed with smaller parcels historically containing agricultural uses, forest land and open space outside the urban service area. Purpose of district to establish areas which will serve as the focal point for cultural and commercial activity of the rural service areas of the county. Density recommended for these areas is intended to average between one and three units per acre. Provide for the development of attractive and efficient office uses in the urban service area which serve community and county-wide needs. Varying intensities of office development. Provide locations for a variety of commercial and service related activities within the urban service areas and serving a community of several neighborhoods or large areas of the county. Most appropriate for major arterial thoroughfares. 51.86 37.7 22.1 10.23 4.71 0.19 126.79 41% 30% 17% 8% 4% 0% 186.54 86.43 24.04 18.10 4.71 1.41 321.23 58% 27% 7% 6% 1% 0% 585.45 458.96 43.8 144.27 5.34 1.98 1239.8 47% 37% 4% 12% 0% 0% *(s) indicates Special Use Permit **(c) indicates conditions or proffers Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . - .. DRAFT Table 2. Current Land Use November 13, 2007 APpendiX. Use Type Residential Commercial Other Existing Land Use Classification Rural Homesite (vacant) Rural Homesite Single Family Dwelling Single Family Dwelling (vacant) Manufactured Home Manufactured Home (vacant) Mobile Home Mobile Home (vacant) Commercial Commercial (vacant) Office/Warehouse Churches Churches (vacant) Other Municipal (vacant) Mortuaries/Cemeteries (vacant) Primary and Secondary Sites 102.05 97.17 70.48 22.18 4.11 0.88 o 3.05 7.48 0.07 0.87 12.04 0.26 o 0.58 321.22 Study Corridor 385.94 396.62 261.35 87.09 23.81 1.46 o 14.48 23.2 4.98 1.07 19.26 0.38 6.59 0.93 1227.16 Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page A3 Appendix . DRAFT November 13,2007 Table 3. Future Land Use Future Land Percent Primary Percent of Percent Use Description Primary of and Primary and Study of Study Sites Primary Secondary Secondary Corridor Classification Sites Sites Sites Corridor Serves as the commercial and institutional focal point of surrounding rural residential and farming Village Center establishments. Highest level of rural 46.96 37% 100.56 31% 357.19 29% land use activities may occur here. Uses are designed scaled and marketed to serve the needs of the residents from the surrounding rural areas. Mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. That require a high degree of protection Rural Preserve to preserve agricultural, forestal, 34.44 27% 97.36 30% 179.52 15% recreational and remote rural residential areas. Encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Generally Transition serve as developed buffers between 31.36 25% 86.80 27% 480.51 39% highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Rural Village Limited development activity has historically occurred here. Suburban or urban development patterns are discouraged. Generally in between the intense suburban development patterned already established in the County and the designated Conservation and Rural Preserve areas. 14.02 11% 36.52 11% 209.73 17% 126.78 321.24 1226.95 Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . - '.. Appendix . DRAFT November 13,2007 Table 4. Site Analysis Sites Access to 220 Intersection Limitation Sewer Access Brethren SB- Right taper Brethren Road and Yellow Mountain Road Available NB-No improvements Back Creek SB-Right turn lane Back Creek Road Available NB-No improvements Winter SB - No improvements Winter Drive and Crowell Gap Road Accessible NB-No improvements Pine Needle (N) SB-Right and left turn lanes Pine Needle Drive (north entrance) Accessible NB-Left turn lane Starlight Pine Needle (5) SB -Right turn Starlight Lane No lane Shadow Hollow Lane Pine Needle (5) NB- Left turn lane Pine Needle Drive (south entrance) Starlight Lane/Shadow Hollow SB- Wilson Road Right and left turn lanes Starlight Lane/Shadow Hollow NB- Left turn lane Willow Branch SB-No improvements Willow Branch Road and Spotswood Drive No NB-No improvements (potential realignment) Dunahoo SB-Left turn lane Dunahoo Drive No NB-Right turn lane Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Page A5 APpendiX. DRAFT November 13,2007 Table 4. Site Analysis (continued) Sites Floodplain Issues Site Size Historic Other Features Yes - will need to 1 site totaling 7 5922 Bungalow 1-73 could affect Brethren construct a bridge acres Brethren entire site over floodplain for Road (80- site access 604) Back Yes - impedes access 6 sites totaling Red Hill Boone-Naff Kingery- 1-73 could affect Creek to site 16 acres Church 1937 Cemetery Campbell parts of site Cemetery Yes - adjacent 2 sites totaling 6 Red Hill 1920 Ridgeway Winter floodplain acres Church 1910 Bungalow Cemetery Pine Yes - adjacent 6 sites totaling Hartman- Needle floodplain 17 acres Kasey- (N) Kingery Cemetery No 7 sites totaling 1940s frame Bungalow Alcorn Starlight 49 acres Cemetery No 4 sites totaling Franklin and Bungalow Willow 22 acres Willow Branch Branch Roads (80-359) Dunahoo No 2 sites totaling 9 Bungalow Murray acres Cemetery " Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County . . . _ 1. . . . . . . . ~ I I I I ..... I " I , 1_____- I , , I I I I I I I CRO~ ,. ,. , ~l ,~ " " .,. I , I , " I ,.....,.. If?C ' ~ I..f:C ' - '- ~~'" O~ _ , - , , " f?O / I I I I ~ ~ h ~\ ~ / I - , j'........... ,/ "/,, -/_..-""'- ,,//" /,1 ,/ --,/" / / / I J I , ,. l , " " " " /' , , ,..-.... --' , -""'..-r- " " , I J ,,/..-_....._-...""..~_.. ,/" inset Map / I , I " " " " " " " l ,.-., , ',,---/,' ----.;, 1\ , , I 1 t....... I~ -JI -w I (!Jo 9::0 >0 (!J f ;-__.J ~ ,i , , -<:r-~_.__J Franklin County C:::J Route 220 Study Area Map 1 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Study Area Miles 25 7.5 10 " . W.E s --- Miles _oI_a..-o..- 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ---=\'=~ Franklin County Map 2 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Zoning Districts C:::J Route 220 Study Area - Railroads Zoning Districts _ AG3 Agricultural/Rural Preserve _ AG1 Agricu~ural/Rural Low Density AR Agricultural/Residential _ AV AgriculluralNillage Cenler C10ffice _ C2 General Commercial R1 Low Density Residential Miles 0 2.' 7.' 10 , . w4t. s -- -- Miles _"c-..,_ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ---- (1000","",-. I ___ I I ~:MO '-< ~tJi 1\ \, W? ~ " ~ ,1VO~"'1 ~~ f"'.... ~ '.x--' .., . ~'-' "v: _ If.~., ()'ru ./:l..O <( Kc~B~ :F~ \ \ )~~lrL ~ /'~i.ti ~ ~2v N\('1>- "~ ~ ~G~~' ;~~q~~ .,~JJ, , ~ i~I~... 'i ~ ,9~ MO '~\I ~~ ~E(~,?~ im'RO. ; ~ :' ~ '\> ~ \ AS ~ ~ \-Y5P1~ I ~. ~ ~ J ~ 0. {L;~ "1' ~ r> ~ )~~~LI~~21JL:~I~ -SIN~ D~ -, ~ r ,-- 1--7 ~~ - ~l ~ c- \1-" t-" ( ~. ~ r- ( '<r~ V ~~ Ul--P-"-~~ ~ fP\ -~l'. J ~ C ~ "" '\ 2. ~ Y' l/; )1 "'<',,< Y Iz..GL; ~ ~ In J// ~.3 ,( '" "- ,J. ~ g 'Y%> 0 ~ r1l ~~- _~r); ~a~ . . ~ ~ '- f ~J ..... ' '5: f'- ~ I '/~ :~~ - --' ~ ). (J) \~If;J"" ~.., t'l ~c~ } !~r;. ~~:\:' i'~ o( "/r. ~o ~,~^~ 7 '<~ ~/j , ";1" ~~<o/ \}"fj' ~/ ~'?0 " JI\Ij.l ~ ~~~ ~. / -",.../'0 ~ ri o' ~ '.'" J / i Franklin County ~8 -J 1 '1( ~1 ~ ~ Existing Land Use D Vacant D Rural HomeSlle D Smgle Fall1lly Dwelling _ Manufactured Home/MobIle Home ) _ CommerCial D Church _ Governmenl ". ,......._--____-........ _ OfficelWarehouse Inset Map \ I Map 3 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Existing Land Use ~ City r .wn r R't;~~~1 ~ : , ;;;:J - I , -( , "'".. ""'"~. ~ ~ ' LC)/ ! ~ ' i Miles .~ . 0 25 5 7,5 10 I wtE . Miles o.--~ o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ,__ Franklin County C:::J Route 220 Study Area Future Land Use _ Conservation _ Rural Preserve _ Rural Village Village Center Neighborhood Conservation _ Transition _ Core \ Miles 2' 7. 10 X . w4t' s -- --- Miles ~.-....- 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 05 ---- -~- Map 4 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Future Land Use , . I ,. " " ## " " " l '------\.---l "\ I ) c.......... I :r~ ...J:r C3l!i ~o >0 (!) , l .... "''':'''E~~ -\"<fr - 0~-<- : . . . ~~ "- , , , , , , , , . I..... · ,__-~ I , l WI " #_..1 # . . . . . ~ : iV~ I 1-<<: ' ~OL\D'" L " I \ ~ f / / WILLOW B~ iVC .y~ <::> ,........-- ,/' ~_/ ,1/--.' ,-/ ,,/ // ,'" .' / / / I ) / r-- j I /.....----- ~/# ,- -'.-- /~ Inset Map .I - Future Interstate 73 ComdOf .---- '-__-' Route 220 Sludy Area Franklin County ...,.. 2.5 T~ 10 X . w4t. s -- Miles ~,,-=--- 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -=t='~ J Map 5 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Transportation Intersections marked have crossovers. Unmarked intersections mayor may not have crossovers and are not improved. Brethren Rd 5B - Right taper NB - No improvements Back Creek Rd SB - Right tum lane NB - No improvements / I I ( I Winter Dr I Crowell Gap Rd 5B - No improvements NB - Right turn lane Davis Boone Rd 5B - Left turn lane NB - Left turn lane ,. ,- # -,,' -' -' ..' I , Pine Needle Dr (N) SB - Right and left turn lanes NB - Left turn lane Pine Needle Dr (S) SB - Right and left turn lanes NB - Left turn lane &7: -'If?LIGHT Circle Creek Dr 5B - Left turn lane NB - Left turn lane Starlight Ln I Shadow Hollow Ln 5B - Right and left turn lanes NB - Left turn lane Hofawger Rd 5B - Left turn lane NB - Left turn lane 220 Intersections Willow Branch Rd I Spotswood Dr 5B - No improvements NB - No improvements Webb Rd 5B - No improvements NB - No improvements 1// .-' /., r-~ ; / /' ..--_# o e e @ Partially Improved Improved Pilrtl<3l1y Improved UnImproved .---.. '-__.II Route 220 Study Area Inset Map " " " ,.. #, #, l ~ ...~ , .--........... ....--J. , . : \ I I ~--- / :rf ..J:r <3l!1 ~o >g Dunahoo Dr 5B - Left turn lane NB - Right turn lane . i ./ ( I J / :-- ;' j Franklin County " ..---'" 7.5 Miles I l~ " Map 6 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Transportation Existing Intersection Conditions w"F. s - - - Miles o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -- __010.--_ --- --- o<l~_ rfIJ.. · ...... Route 220 Study Area ... - Watercourses _ Floodway ~ Floodplain Slope ~ 0- 20% c=J 20 - 25% c=J 25 - 33% ~ 33%+ Franklin County Miles o 2.5 5 7.5 10 Map 7 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Environmental Features w4tE S . - - - Miles o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -- _4~_ ~~ ~ \lERIOG\;1' 'Qv I I , I "'.. 0 "~E""~'> r -<:<1 - ~ .,tv j" '0' I Burmalow. I I ~ I \ " /1 '-, I 1- , / / I / 1 / I ~ - / / I' I' ,,' , Oyler -1910 Remodeled / nJin Road !'J79) r---. " .... .-'" .,- ....... ,/ ,/' ttt Cemeteries _ Historic Structure Footprints (':::.1 Route 220 Study Area . / / I / "'-'-"'-"'-"/' .' /',: i Inset Map , . I " Franklin and " Willow Branch Road~O-359). ,,'Bungalow' , " " I ..--, , . --.."-/.. I \ , . r \ I I c.._..... ' I~ ....I <!igf ~o >0 <.'l Map 8 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Historic Structures and Cemeteries W.E s ". 110,,"--__.,_ r ! /" " ,,'" ) f"'_: ,i _______i Franklin County ,.~- ,.' 2.5 7.5 I ""osJ 10 . - - - Miles o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -- -.-....- --- -....."'. l""lm.at . . . , , , , . . '.....1 ,_...-~ , " WI " "..J ,. I I I I I ~ : 'irS' , 1-~ I S'DL\D~ &",,- " ,"10,.., , ,vi-z, , ,~O( , (a" " 'v( , IV " , ,) r' ,,' 1"/-...--......--......----/' ,I /,.1 " ~, ,/ .' ~ .i \ , "0. _,,' . " -- --,/' )(Jl .,,-------- ,. ,~~' // , DfT ! " /' " 00,' ,--' X' ....._' / :- :' , ; -'-:--.--.." ..I ....-., , ,.,.----- \ ~ '--_/ Franklin County / I / / / , I I " " " ,,' " " " ~ , , ... ."..-.- , "'-...... '----J. 1\ I \ t.... ) :r:~ .....:r: <5!!5 9:0 >0 C) J } J I I I I . I . ~ . I , , \.... . ,. I I 1_____- I . . , . , , I I I . , ,," ,." . I . I " I ,........ lire ' ~ !~.....c'!.f~.'K D~ - I - , , " 'YD Western Virginia Water Authority Proposed Sewer Pumping Station '...... ,,,,l ...... ,../.............J'" _ WVWA Property r:::J Route 220 Study Area General Locations of: - Proposed Water Line - Proposed Sewer Line ! Inset Map o 0.1 0.2 0.3 ...... 25 75 10 w4y. . , -- Miles -,,-'- 0.4 0.5 --- ""- Map 9 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Proposed Water and Sewer Facilities ~~\.IGHl' "'<... (--v ./ I I / / J J I f 1'/ _J I ! - I / l ~------- _../ ,I' ..- ,/ Inset Map / Franklin County ( \ Map 10 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Development Opportunities w.Jt. s - - - Miles o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 r::.J Route 220 Study Area Development Opportunities ~ Brethren - Site 1 _ Bacl< Creek - Site 2 ~ Winter Drive - Site 3 _ PIne Needle - Site 4 _ Starlight- Site 5 _ W~low Branch - Site 6 c:::l Dunahoo - Site 7 c::::J Secondary Sites ,,"_.. 25 ""s 75_ 10 . -- -~-- --- ~~- C:::J Route 220 Study Area Future Land Use _ Conservation _ Rural Preserve _ Rural Village Village Center Neighborhood Conservation _ Transition _Core Franklin County Map 11 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Future Land Use Scenario 1 w4t. s - - - Miles o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 . -- --'-- _.-.-- ...m_ C::.:'J Route 220 Study Area Future Land Use _ Conservation _ Rural Preserve _ Rural Village Village Center I Neighborhood Conservation _ Transition _Core Franklin County .Q 25 Miles 75 to N Map 12 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Future Land Use Scenario 2 w.' s . --- Miies 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -- _....--- _._- ,.,~- o 0.1 Franklin County r:::,J Route 220 Study Area Future Land Use _ Conservation _ Rural Preserve _ Rural Village Village Center Neighborhood Conservation _ Transition _Core Mdtll; 2_5 J5. 10 s Map 13 - Route 220 Corridor Study - Future Land Use Scenario 3 W4p-E S - - - Miles o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 . -- _..'--~ --- ~":r~ DRAFT November 13, 2007 Contents Franklin RoadlYellow Mountain Road Accidents, 2004-2006 Future 1-73 Corridor, VDOT website Maps, Route 220 Safety Improvements, VDOT (Roanoke County Portion) Project Description, Route 220 Safety Improvements, VDOT Preliminary Engineering Report, Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Waterline Resolution August 21 Planning Commission Work Session Information September 17 Community Meeting Handouts Agenda Draft Guidelines Questionnaire Comments from Community Meeting I I APpendiX. Page B 1 Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County "0 ..... ra 0) m E i= o I- iij >- ~ c <( 0) E 'C u c .... 0) ~ ~ ra c o E m 0:: E e LL t"- O o N CO ..-- ~ :::l J 0) ro o E o .... .... m'- 0) c C 0 L-~ o m ..... E ~o ~E c"O :s fi5 c (/) ::I E o 0) :2iij $: >- o (/) ID l!! >-2 "0 ::I C 0.. m E .......0 "0 () O::N ID c ~ () '(ij 0) x c>w :::l 0 o () c: :2 m ro $:"0 .Q ,!!l ID.c >-- ..... ..... m m.c 0)- e 0) .... ..... o 0 ..... e m 0) '-""Ill "0 m o::~E c:a.e '- ~u:i ~g LLN c: o (/) - e 0) "0 '(3 () <( "0 0:: -~ m - c :::l o :2 $: .Q ID C -0 0:: e ~ c: ~ LL m ..... m "0 0) "":-fi M....... Cl....() '2 ~ ~ :::l E x () 0) 0) t.) () 0 00)_ ~O~ e I .D ~'<:tra '(3 g ~ ~ N $: .... .g .w () 0) :0 :::l (f) -oC:> 0) ~ iij c: 0) m ::1-' 0-"0 ~o-o :::l'~ 2 g, 0.. 'E co 0)= ro .~ ,!!l "0..... 0) ~ ~ ==::1ii ,!!l.E ~ $:-(/) .Q"O:::l 0:: 0 .DO) c: ';; 0) -O~..... 0) C 0.. iij ~ 0) :::iLLfi "0 0) > m (/) ~ ..... o $: (/) :::l o ';; 0) ..... 0.. ....- 0) > 0) $: o J: 0) () c: m - (/) '00 (/) co .... 0) .c t :::l '- '- o 0) .D c: m () e e e e l: 'E 'E 'E 'E 0 0 0 0 >> ~ 0 0 0 .. '" 0 0 ~ ~ 0 II) Cii Cii Cii <( OJ) Cl 4!. 4!. c a. .- r:: a. a. a. III 9 9 ';;; e 11l e r:: c r:: 0 0 c: c: " c: ~ E s: 0 0 0 If. If. -... .g ~ ~ ~ 0 '" .g 0.. ::J 0 0.. ~ 13 1:5 CIl 0 0 > '" c.. .... U U r:: c c ,!: '" ~ ~ ~ '" -0 II) <( <( <( 'C <C c: ... <C "10 "10 '10 0 " CIl C ..... m 0 " " .~ 0.. 0 0 'E CIl m 'E Cii Cii 'E 'E ... ~ B ... B II) " ~ > 8 " '10 a. -I '10 a. 0.. a. 'tij 'tij 0.. '" '0 0.. 8' OJ) 0.. OJ) (f) Cii e e 0 8 ::r: ::r: 8 E :2: :2: :2: ;; .5 '" c -0 a. a. 0.. a. 0. '0 (5 0.. .~ 0.. ] .5 ... ... .5 ..s .9 Ql e .9 .s .s .s .9 .9 z z " " .2 Ql ..c: ..c: .tij 0 a. 'tij 'tij .tij 0 0 0 <5 <5 Z '0 0 '0 x E 0 0 0 Z Q CI "" Z "" u. w u. 2 2 2 u. u. c 0 -0 -0 ~ tv tv l: -0 ~ '-0 0 0 0 l\l l\l 0::: 0::: ~ e '0 e :t: lI= lI= Ql lI= 0 0 (5 0 E 9 I . 0 <ii " l\l U U VI U U E II) cI> Ql Q) Q) 'c :c a. -0 -0 :c :c :c <( 0 ';; c r:: 0 0 0 w w ID Ql Ql -0 VI Cii ia Cii ia -0 ... Ql Ql -0 ID ID -0 .!!! .r: 0, 0, Ql Ql Ql Ql 0, 0, Ql l1> 01 5 c: c: x :2 l1> l1> l1> II) x Q) c c X l1> Ql X C <( <( u: (f) 0 0::: 0 0::: u: 0 <( <( u: 0 0 u:: <( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0::: 0::: 0::: 0 0::: 0 0 0::: 0::: 0 Z 2 0::: 0 2 0::: 0::: 0 2 2 0::: ~ 2 ~ 2 0::: ~ Z Z 0::: ~ 0 0 ~ 2 ~ 0 ~ 2 ~ ~ 2 0::: 0::: ~ 2 2 2 0::: ~ 2 ~ 2 2 2 2 :J :J :J 2 2 :J 2 2 :J ~ ~ :J 2 0 0 0 :::i :J 2 0 :J :J 2 0 0 :::l :2: ::iE 0 :::l :2: 0 0 :J ~ ,,:iE 0 ,~ :2: :.-;: :2: 0 :2:. :iE 0 2 2 :2: S S 2 :2: S ~ l: S :J :J '3: 0 0 C2 s 0 s .~ s 0 0 0 0 0 S ..J 0 ..J 0 S ..J 0 0 .. ~ ::iE 0 ..J ..J ...:I U. 0 ..J 0 111 ..J ,-I ,W ..J W '..J W ..J -I 0 ..J 3: S -I ...J W @) ...J -I ...J -I ...J 0 III W -l >::. >- '')- " W ...J >- W W -I ..J >- 0 0 >- w en. '2 0 >- w C/) >- >- III >- (f) 0::: >- >- Z -l -l 2 L.L.: u. 2 U. (f) en ...J -l 2 ~ 2 U. III III U. ,,0.' "". z U. to U. -Ll, Z 0 >- >- ',,6 u. N' 0 IX) , ~ '0 U. lO 0 co :2: lO @) @) .;~, lO .<:'1,; N lO.' ':0 ltl 0 0 ~ I'- N '-.:--", ci ...... z "" t- ,.... N "-: 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI b :J 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::: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ::iE .2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 :::i :::i :::i :J :::i :::i ::i :::i S :::i ::i ::i ::i ::i ::i ::i ::i ::i ':'-;: :.-;: :.-;: :.-;: :.-;: :.-;: :,,:: ,:.-;: 0 :,,:: :,,:: :,,:: :,,:: :,,:: :,,:: :,,:: :,,:: :.-;: 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z 2 ..J 2 2 "Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 C2 [2' ~ [2 ~ [2 [2 [2 ..J '(2 [2 C2 C2 C2 (2 C2 [2 ~ III U. U. U. U. LL U. U. U. >- U. U. U. LL U. LL u.. LL U. j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::) ::) ::) ::> ::) ::) ::> ::> ::> ::> ::) ::) 'c E ~ ~ E E E E "C ~ 'c :E ~ ~ E '5' ~ ~c - 0 0 ::> ::) 0 0 0 0 0 ::) 0 ,0 ::> ::) 0 0 ::> 0 Z Z 'c 'c 2 2 2 2 2 'c Z Z 'C 'c Z 2 E z ~ N on 0 :! .... Sl on -.0 N (") 0> 0> N 0 ~ 0 0 M N - '<t' ~ N (") "" "" 0 0 ~ 0 ~I ,:..: Vi ., :! or; \0 ::i w a N cO a ,;.) a ,;.) co M ::: <"\ - - - - ,.... 'N ,.... ~ N N ,.... '<t ..,. ..". '<t ..". '<t '<t '<t '<t lO ltl to to to to lO lO CD '" 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 C:! C:! C:! S M C:! N ~ ~ ~ N N N N N ~ N N ~I on on on ~ '<t ~ ~ co - r::: r::: M M ro 0 ~ co '2 - ~ '2 0 ~ N ...... ~ ~ N ro ~ - - -- \0 N N N N <"\ ..,. '<t on 0 0 M ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 co N ...... N ...... ...... ~ ~ ]1 - - ~ $: o c: ~ 0) E ..... ~ 0) (/) co ~ (L m 1-73 Location Study FIGURE 2.6-6 ADOPTED LOCATION CORRIDOR JULY 15, 20D4 1-73 Location Study 2-63 Final Environmental Impact Statement >= WI <I: ili W ~ ~~~~~ u.. ~O>-a::~ ~IIOc:l W<I:<I: ... a:: o a:: I a:: <[l,UOSu.. cni;u..t-O ~a::OgI ...J~~e:e c..~::Jcnt:; lJ.l::JW5~ wolDUE$ ;;IOu..U ~<I:t-O<I: ." ~ 2 W ::!:~ ~f6 02 a: ".r 0 c..o- ::!:~lI.. -NO ~:i- wc,'" ....",w <",w cno:!: o-;(/) ~~ Wl1. !:; o 0:: ~ i i 10 "' c:: o .- - U .. u'Iii i ~ I~~~ i ~ E ~ :I ~ ~ 2"" 0 u~i3 ~Dtrt 'iii~j ;H~dl $\ Gl ~ ~ :::E- ~~ o -0 f~~ ~~O ~:iN wotu .~; ~ ~ ~ ~a: ;..~~ ~ n.. :;l ~ ORDER NO.: CONTRACT 10. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ.0220-962-102.N501 PROJECT NARRA TIVE The purpose ofthis project is to close dangerous non-critical crossovers. provide turning lanes where needed at crossover locations and to lengthen existing turning lanes at various locations on Route 220 between Roanoke and Boones Mill. All of this work will be performed within the existing right of way. Traffic is to be maintained at all times during construction. 152 ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT ID. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102, N501 >. ....... r:= :J o o (l) ~ o c: co o a:: - :>. .~ o Q) .~ o c: m o a:: E r CD I o o ell ... ::J t>>~ 50 .- ... - II) B> 00 -JIR It> e u 4) ::If. r III cP ~ LO ::; o III (OJ:! lilt) I:: ... o cP '""> 1II 0 o on o III ..Jo t3 " I I 1 i ~..,--' I g III C e. > E I! e Do ~ e J .t 1;1 . .. ! r;1 149 ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT 10. NO.: C00073723N01B PROJ. 0220-962-102, N501 >. -- C :J o () CD ...!<::: o c m o a:: 150 en Q) c o : -J ~c - l.- e ::l o~ :;:;..., 0- o Q> o-J -Jc:a >-..... .....,l: CO' -' ::l ._ lDOOO:: Z,., U ~ Ol 0 O.C1>:;) ('.Icv,xl.- ('.1.....0- a::c:cn a.i .oC: .......... 0 0 e:: C a::: U ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT tD. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102. N501 w N '0 .. '0 (: :2 ~ N 4)'0)( ~.CT · '0 .:;.. -8 __I1:.D ; - "0. 0 .... CQ1I>CO _ N X .(:;;: .Q)'EoQ. V) _~.l: U W ~ :i:.!1Il Q: (: ~ ., go (lI o 0 0__ c: ~.... .!!.8' ~ . Q. ~.D.c .- cnU c: V) ~ a:: c 0.... -g '" ~:tit iD w c is,c- .... ~-.~ .._ CII..... ~ ; S:X:1Il E. 1IJ- cr;$! I I I <<rIa:: w w . ~ I ~ : . (:, I 0 " II') &1'). . .... ,.... .' '. a: I Ii .' ,00' . a:: c::', , Q.. I Q.. .. . , , I ... I I t') . C-' U ,; ... CIl o ~ E III J: ~ I V) ::s >.. .... 0(: Nc: b.o Q..es ino ....-- I"l ~ b Vl Uc: .0 ii)'6 .-11> ~~ ~::: 00 ec3 ell croMS ..... c CI> E CI> > U 111 0 ..... 0 CL ..... t.l II 0 " If) II ~ " ~ I- or6.3.L~ u v 0 II Z ..... l- II 0 II "'0 .... C 0 IV .2 z tn 0 - 0.. 0 (jl 0 CI> C ~ .~ .... is 0... 0 .... V> II) 0 CI> CI> -.J ..... .. 0 0 CI> C c:: ..., CI> Q> 0 Cl 0 Z . . I ........ t .......... ........ ........ 185 ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT 10. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102, NS01 co o z Oc: ,.r')O Ol~ .0 4Pt> -0 0:::-1 ->-. 0_ .s:;:C ...... :J ::I 0 oU Olf)Q) N ....: .::L N::EO '''- C (1,) '<t 0 ...... .0 a=Oa:: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -, I I I -' I tit CD z I 0 I N I I N W , I I- Q: I I I I I I - I I - 0 I I . c ;) I I a:: 0- I I _0 0- n I - I ~ EIn III ...0 --I &)"i &)0. m' ,eW >- I :C.c 'OlD uu :;t... 1 -- ...c --0 -u O2 III> I ~O Cu 0... ~- .oJ ua. I c: """" CD 0'0 E "'0 CD VI... Sc> > 0 Q. "- CD 0 0 c u g en 0 0 I E ?- m - ~. .....c'=:...2. .... a 0 z I CIl_D' J J .! c: I 0 'i ..J .!:! 0 I CD '0 .. In .5 0 I . 0 I I N N I w I .... Q: I 173 ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT ID. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102, N501 -' m z. t t o N N W I- Q; ill ~\ ~i II .S :E u U1 - .- 0 U) -0- C:c: G> CIl._ EO;; ~~ .,.- >)( I'r--r--,......~CO . OW c.otOtDU)~c e.J:; - ~ r:: ~tiq)Q)aiaicU-: II c:o E ~~~c;.rr.rr.~ ~::r Go> 'xo ;> -- 0 .............. -........'--"- 0 w- e. 4U 0000000 - "6 .r: 0 u .r:..c:.r:..c:.c:.r:.c...... c: VI .-,..,.....,....,...-..1 -.J j :>::l::l::l::l:J::Jo ~ 0 ooooooOU') I- Vl<Jxj;UlUXl)v> " "0 - ~~~~~~~~ E 0 A 4U Z ........ 0 0> C 0 ~ ~ UI c: :J ~:t~~~ 1/ "j ffi '0 0 0 cic:iOcicioo-o u ... .0 I/) '6 0 I I I I I I I E Q) N"'>"It"lJ")tOI'~ 0 I DiY N NO CCC:C:CCC:C: N ~C 00000000 la.J -------.--.- I- ""'-'~-.J~eJ~-.J a: CI1 0 00000000 -0 ouuuuuuu 0::: a::: 00000000 --1--1....J....J..J....J..J....J ;~i :~~ ~t! ,tl If., i: 172 [~-- '.! o - . . . o z CD c: 1'.2 CDo Q) 0 __ o. a::..J - >.. 0- c: ..c :J - 0 :JU o OUl al N..::t. N'- 0 ~ c: cU"'- 0 ......- 0 0::00:: ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT 10. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102. NS01 ~ []) z t t o N N W I- 0:: ""- .... o . C :l a: ......... I .~...1.. . --.:t:t ..:>>.. . ...... 0- .....0 e= ..0 tlQ. CD;" 'UCD cc ....v 1/1:> g~ (,)0.. II I I I I I I I I ..J I ~ I . I~ Iw J ~ I 174 Cl' ~ III G). x .!:OW 1:.1: vu ~o o~ Jlo ~.... :::CP 0'0 -0 In.... ..5l.' - c: Gl E Q/ > o 0. II) '0 (; u c: (/) ~ 0 '0 .-- E 0 ~ Z III g .! .; o 0 u '- '5 0 .5 I ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT 10. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102. N501 0- ~ II) o'x .!;;;w ::C.c uv .+ I -... .-0 o::E .-- I ;to .-- t>... - I z ~ . =" u 0 I 0'1;) E -0 Z I/)~ t> .Ec.:l > " I I c lOt: 0.. to.9 I I - G> .., 0 '0 '0 I I c: u 20 g tIl ~o I I 0 '0 I- - -J I I E ... 0>- G> 0 I I 0 z -' ..c:c JIJ I I/) 0' -:::) .! .s ;:'0 I 0 ~ 0 Ou .... u "- II) '6 Vl I Ul .5 0 0...: Q) N~x I I . N 0 I I 0 I .0> c: N N Q)D 0 I I w - .0 0:::00:: I I I- lr I I I I I I I I - .... 0 I . 5 I a: o~ I _0 III ..J tit EII'l II) ~o Z t>Q. II) , >.. 0 olD :I- N I ~C N -to 1/)> W I ClIl 0,- I- OD.. a: I I I I 175 ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT 10. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102. N501 011:;:. CI' C ~ fA ClI'; .5W :E~ uu ="0 o~ C\I ~o ..- ~- - c: . =1> II) 0 0'0 E Z -0 Ill... ClI I .EO > "'c: 0 CL 100 I - ClI to:;:. 0 "6 ,0 I c: u Cl,)u 0 ell -0 I :;:; 0 0:::-1 I "0 t- - E - o~ I ClI 0 - 0 z ..cc: I ell 01 --;:) ClI c: l l - 'i :)0 I .J 0 U 0 DU, m '6 .. (/) I (I) .E c 0 .Cl> C\I .- ~ I 0 I N~O I N c: N . It) 0 I CI,)"-O w .... . t- o::: 0 a: I ex: , I I I I I I I I -I I (D I t t z I I - 0 I - N 0 N I . 3 w n: l- I o- n: I _0 E::l I ...0 cpo. I (Dl >- , ylD ~- '-C I ....11I 1/1> C:1Il I 0,- ua. 176 ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT ID. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102. N501 I I I I .- I I II I I E 0.. I I 0 ... I I 0 CJI I I '0 :E ~, II' I I .;C .:JC U W r r 0 .. OJ > ...J I I .,lJ 0 E lD I tit '0 .. Z 0 a: . I eo- 0..0\ .- ;:) 0 0.._ N I I r;,.a.. N 1:., I I ~lD III I I .xO WI- I I I I ~:t-~ 0\ ~ In 11-" .s"'-J ::c~ uu ....- .-0 t') O::c - ~o 0 ~- - =0 c "Z 0'0 .. '-0 E U")C 1/)... III I .5<.:> > to .2 0 . -- I a. V 0 - 4P -0 I 0 "6 a:: 0 c: u 0 Vl _..J I ::; 0 "0 0 >. I I- .e- E .- I CP 0 __t: 0 Z :;) :l I I III 0\ o 0 lil CP c: (f)U I ..J '0 .i u 0 o ...: Q) I lD :c ... N~~ Vl .5 0 N 0 I I , . .CO c I I 0 I q)N 0 N 0 N - . I I a:: 0 a:: w I I I- 0:: I I 177 ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT ID. NO.: C00073723N01 B c o .-I o U o 1O---! r::~ - .c Cl>:J .-10 O::u oca> ('\,I-oX N.cO c: ...... 0 250 a:za::: i: o w~ "U >.> 1--:;:. <,Pi NO .e.. ~... e..O 0- .....CD --0 =0 0... -CO Ult) .scr: 'ti .0' CD cr Q, c a: Q, ii: >- ... C < III III o (3 PROJ. 0220-962-102. N50' o iii I I I / I I I 1 I I I I I. I I I I I tit . / I 15 , tn ,/ . I ~ ! N I~ I 0:: I 1 I I I I I I ~ I I Cl: I: _===-JL_____ __ __ L_____l_____ __ -~----- -- -- -----t---- -- I I I I I I . ~ ~ o iii " .~" -:-: .. 'I I I I I I I ..J m z o N N 180 ... II II c: "0- c: w II = >- .0 -0 Gl U U ... '6 III o .. o c CD E > 0 a. ~ II 1/ Z "6 u -0 Vl 1/ UI 0 0 ~ c. -- 0 ... 0 a.. z UI 0- ~ c: 0 'j c: c CD .... 0 0 . ~ I . .....v .5...- u) ci z ~ C to .2 . .... Q) 0 ..... u a:: 0 _...J o ~ ,c..... .... C ::3 :J o 0 (/)u 0...: CI> .,N ~ oX. N 0 . N C ,IV V 0 .... . 0 n::Oa:: ORDER NO.: H29 CONTRACT 10. NO.: C00073723N01 B cc . 15 0--: .5 >.. -l- I/) 'x< wr-- I ~O 0= E2 ..,CIl 0::.5 PROJ. 0220-962-102. N501 I I I I I I I I ..J I ~ I . I ~ " :1 ~ I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I tit I I I CIl .5 :c u - i5 < C1' ~ :5 C> .!!! o.o~ 0" .5~ ... < .!!!<" ~~.!.. bOO ....a. 0 cO-" >.....1:. O=u e20 U (II::: 0::.5< II I I I .:t...:: ~ I:.~::r "'''", I ~2:r.... ''''.. 01 I ~ .!!! ") CIlX .5w I :E.c uu -- I .- 0 o~ I ~o - 41... I z c: ::1) .., 0"0 E -0 G1 I/)~ ,sCl. :> I 0 D. I '- CI:I 0 "6 I c: u ~ en I '0 0 to- I E - CI:I 0 I 0 z I I/) 0> CIl c: .- 'i I ..J 0 m u 0 '6 ... I (f) .E 0 I 0 I I ('II ('II I u.i to- I a::: I 178 ORDER NO.: H29 1 CONTRACT 10. NO.: C00073723N01 B PROJ. 0220-962-102. N501 I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .oJ I I m III I , . JiJ I 0 N I N W I I t- o:: I I I 0 I ..J I III I m t:t z I ..- c I cu 0 E N I I N cu > w I I 0 ... '- Q: I I a. E I I I I en cu c: r-- u -\ I ~ r--- c 0 Q) h "5 c.o 0 I I 0 u .... tn cu l/) ! I "'0 - is Q) 0 a:: I I (/) l- Q) 0 - .... I a.. ..... 0 v; I 0 0 ~ z '- I I 0.. a> I 0\ > I I 1/'1 .5 0 >. Q) ..... ~ (I) ..- I I 0 0 (I) c U I.. 0 :J I I ~ 0 .... 0 .E U u I . I 0- Q.) I I I N 0 ~ N,&;. 0 I I . ..o..J C (I) :J 0 I I - 0 0 Q::V> ex: I n I I I 181 EARTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Preliminary Engineering Report Extension of Public Water Suncrest Heights Subdivision Area of Roanoke County to Plateau PlazalWirtz Area of Franklin County This Preliminary Engineering Report has been prepared for Franklin County Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, & Westem Virginia Water Authority. This report documents investigation by Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. regarding the extension of a public water supply to the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area of Franklin County. This report is based upon the data currently available, as described in the report, and is believed to be as accurate as the available data permits. Prepared for: Franklin County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Western Virginia Water Authority Prepared by: Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. James N. Lovell, Jr. P.E. Principal Reviewed by: Marty E. Prillaman, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Project #FCPP 1 004 Date: July 12,2007 Engineers 0 Geologists 0 Scientists 0 Planners 375 Franklin Street, Rocky Mount, VA 24151 540.483-5975 0 Toll Free 888-663-9719 0 Fax 540-483-2221 www.earthenv.com Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, July 12, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION....................................... ....................................................................................................... 4 2. BACK G ROUND ..... ............... ................. ........ .... ...................................................................... ......................... 4 2.1. PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION: ....................................................................................................4 2.2. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: ............................................................................... 5 3. SCO P E ........... ...................... ................................................. .............................................................................. 7 3.1. ROCKY MOUNT SERVICE EXTENSION ALONG U.S. 220 NORTH:........................................... 7 3.2. WATER EXTENSION FROM WESTLAKE TO PLATEAU PLAZAfWIRTZ AREA:................... 7 3.3. TOWN OF BOONES MILL SERVICE EXTENSION ALONG U.S. 220: ......................................... 7 3.4. WELL DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLATEAU PLAZAlWIRTZ AREA: ........................................... 8 3.5. EXTENSION FROM WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY: ............................................8 4. D ESCRIPTI 0 N OF STUD Y AREA.................................................................................................................8 4.1. POPULATION PROJECTIONS: ...........................................................................................................8 4.2. POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE STUDY AREA............................................................ 10 5. WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS: ...........................................................................................................18 5.1. ERVICE AREA WATER DEMANDS .................................................................................................21 5.2. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: ....................................................................................................... 23 5.2.1. Franklin County:.............................. .................................................................................................. 23 5.2.1.1. Planned Comprehensive Plan Updates: .................................................................................................. 26 5.2.2. Roanoke County: ................................................................................................................................ 27 5.2.2.1. Planned Community Plan Updates: ........................................................................................................ 30 6. WATER SOURCE 0 PTI 0 NS ................................................................................................................ ........ 31 6.1. ROCKY MOUNT SERVICE EXTENSION ALONG U.S. 220 NORTH:......................................... 32 6.2. WATER EXTENSION FROM WESTLAKE TO PLATEAU PLAZAJWIRTZ AREA:................. 33 6.3. TOWN OF BOONES MILL SERVICE EXTENSION ALONG U.S. 220: ....................................... 34 6.4. WELL DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLATEAU PLAZAlWIRTZ AREA: ......................................... 36 6.5. EXTENSION FROM WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY: ..........................................39 7. CON CLUSI 0 N & RECOMMEND A TI ON................................................................................................... 40 7.1. ENGINEERlNG/D ESIGN: .............................................. ............................... ............. .............. ............ 41 7.1.1. Hydraulic Design:............................................................................................................................... 41 7.1.2. Environmental Assessment: ............................................................................................................... 45 7.2. FINANCING:..........................................................................................................................................46 7.2.1. Bonds: ................................................................................................................................................. 46 7.2.2. STAG Grant:............. .......................................................................................................................... 46 7.2.3. VDEQ:................................................... ... ................ ............ ................. .............................. ................46 7.3. WATER SOURCE AGREEMENT: .....................................................................................................47 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sun crest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, July 12,2007 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Preliminary Engineering Report Proposed Waterline maps Page 1 thru 3 Appendix 2 Water Agreement Resolution between Franklin County, Roanoke County & WVW A Appendix 3 WVWA Water Rates Appendix 4 Franklin County Water Rates Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPlO04, July 12, 2007 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Extension of Public Water Suncrest Heights Subdivision Area of Roanoke County to Plateau Plaza! Wirtz Area of Franklin County 1. INTRODUCTION Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. (EEC) has been contracted by Franklin County Board of Supervisors to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) outlining Franklin County's options for providing public water along the Route U.S. 220 corridor to the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area of Franklin County. The purpose of the PER is to identify the most desirable solution to meet the future needs of Franklin County and this service area. Consideration will also be given to providing adequate fire protection and the capability to supply other residential areas and commercial establishments along the Route U.S. 220 corridor. This corridor is subject to low yield wells or areas with minimal groundwater development potential. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1. PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION: A petroleum release in the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area on the east side of Route U.S. 220 corridor has resulted in the contamination of four (4) residential drinking water wells. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) has assigned Pollution Complaint Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 4 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, July 12,2007 #2000-2043 to the petroleum release from the underground storage tank system at Plateau Plaza. The resulting investigation revealed that three (3) residential supply wells, one (1) residential use spring and two (2) business non-potable use wells have been impacted with petroleum compounds. Based on subsurface investigations performed through the VDEQ, the plume created by the release is migrating in a Northeast direction and may impact a trailer park containing approximately 40 units. The VDEQ wishes to place the existing residences with contaminated wells and other potentially impacted residence on a safe drinking water supply. 2.2. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Preliminary design of a new business/commercial development in the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area was submitted to and approved by the Franklin County Board of Supervisors in 2007. The development consists of approximately 373,598 square feet of commerciallbusiness space. The developer is currently designing a package sewage treatment plant to meet Virginia Department of Health (VDH) design standard of 62, 740 gallons per day (gpd). The actual use volume is estimated to be 39,000 gpd. A detailed outline of the make-up of the proposed development along with Plateau Plaza has been included in the following Table "Virginia Market Place Commerce Center". Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 5 of 69 'gt!s p..'- 0 OJ~N c.: 0 N. 00-....... 25~ ~:~ ~ c;> . ._.- "" OIl '0 0 <::.00 "-l::l....... r iZl 0... aZl[J 5~f.1.< Eu ij::C: ... - 0... '" OJ ... <> c ;:S iZl e o .;:: ... OJ 0; ~ .~ :0 ::l 0... C .5:; '" C OJ X "-l 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 IT) IT) IT) IT) 0 IT) ('0) ('0) ('0) 0 0 ....... ....... ...... ....... ....... ....... 0 ....... "" 0 -; ....... ....... r--. 0'0 00 00 00 r--. 00 00 00 00 r-- -.:t, r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- N IT) r-- 0 .... "'" 0 ....... IT) ..0 N 00 r-: ....... 00 N. ~ OQ ....... 'D ('0) E-<~ .; C) '" "-' ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....l ....l Q IT) 0 0 IT) IT) IT) V'l 0 IT) IT) V'l V'l 0 C 0 ...... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0 ....... -< -< .... .... r-- r-- ('0) ('0) ('0) .... r-- M ('0) .... .... r-- -.:t, N N N N N N r-- N '" ~ '-< f- ~ Co-' ....... (:) 0 f-< f- - - f-< f- = U U eJI E- ci. ci. B- B- 9 0.. B- ci. B- e. ci. B- B- e. ci. e.. e.. e.. B- e.. 9 U.l U.l .~ E E E E >:: E E E E E E E >== E E E E E E E E ..... ...., l. 0 0 C> C> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U.l ~ ~ U.l ~ U.l ~ W U.l U.l ~ ~ U.l ~ U.l U.l cG cG Q ~ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... --- ....... 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; d d 0... 0... :I::J5 u u u u u u u u u u u u u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl Q V'l IT) IT) IT) V'> on V'> on V'> on on IT) IT) IT) on IT) IT) IT) on on on on W W ;;.. .... M M M ('0) M .... M M M M M M o:l M M M ('0) ('0) M M M ('0) f- f- -= -< -< - - ;2 ;2 ~ C> ~ 1= 1= S s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o:l 0 0 (/) (/) --- 'D 'D 'D \0 \0 'D \0 W U.l ~ ~ N N ..... ....... ....... ....... N ....... ....... ....... ....... N to: -.:t N o~ c.: w ~ U.l (/) Z 0' "0 :s ::J Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o:l 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ V'l ('0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ....l Q., r-- \0 0 \0 on on IT) o. V'> -.:t "" "" 0 to: V'> V'l V'> V'> V'l V'> "l M (/) - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CI., "'" ~ Cl ~ ~ E 0 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 0 > C> 0 'id 'id 0 'id ~ (/) 0 (/) C) (/) C) (/) (/) ~ (/) (/) ~ (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) tn (/) ;5 Il) ~ .~ c.: 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 j 0; 0 0 <l' 0 ....... 0 0 ....... ....... ....... - ....... - ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... ....... 0 - Q --- --- ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... --- ....... ....... ....... ::a ....... --- ....... U 0 .....l 0 0; 0 0; 0; 0; d 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0 0; ::r: M 0; V'> 0 V'> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ on 0 Q ....... 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ;> V'> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U ('0) ....... N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -< ....... -< ~ - f-- ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ <l' '", Is '", oE '(;; Is '" -0 Il) -0 Il) -0 "-l ~ 0 cG cG cG cG c.: IX .;; -< "0 .... en 0 0 0 0 0 0 .;; -0 <l' en o:l 0 0 .;; 0 0 0 0 ~ '" Il) 0 -;:: on IT) V'> "" -.:t "" -0 g: ~ cG ~ N N -0 N N N N g: -0 '"i) d c.: ... <Ii 0 -0 -0 ... O<l O<l O<l O<l O<l O<l Il) d ..c -< l. 0 Il) ::l ...... U :>. ... Q., ;2 Il) 0 u v; Il) Il) t:: Il) Il) Il) Il) ~ t :s .;; "E Os .;; '", 'n """I u ~ C Il) u u ... u u u u <<-< -0 -0 -0 Z E ~ Il) IX tS tB o:l tS tS tB tB 0 ;:S Il) Il) Il) Il) <<-< t;j '2 ..c 0 ... E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 """I 0 0 Il) Il) t;j 0 0 e:: 0 0 0 0 0 u B ~ 0 --- (/) 0) 0 cG ~ ;> 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 c '2 u u u u u u t:: 0 t:: (/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, Il) ... 1<= ~ ~ ~ tS ~ ~ IT) '" 0 0 0 IT) V'l ... V'> "" "" "" IT) 0.. =' "'"' "-' "-' "'"' <<-< """I r-- CO ....... U V'> N N 0 N N N N M 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 C- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 \0 \0 0, o. 0 0, 00 ex;, 00 0, M 00. 00 00 00. 00 00. i:I:l r--. 00' N. ..0 on on o. on ",,' "" ",,' V'> ..0 ....... ....... - ....... ...... ...... "-' ":' c: .... M ...... ....... "" M r-- <l' ~ ....... l. -< en o:l 0 '" .:i ~ III -< OJ .;: ... M N ....... ....... ..... ....... - ....... N N N ....... ..... - - ...... ..- ..... ....... f- 0 0 ..... .... 0 -;:: (/) i:I:l f-< '" Il) ... u B t:: en OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Il) '2 - IT) - ..- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cG Il) III N ..... N - ....... .-< N .-< \0 \0 \0 M 00- 'D 'D \0 \0 \0 'D -0 ;> t:: N ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ;x: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 (;3 0 U b 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 "" "" "" 0 \0 ,..., ('0) M ,..., ('0) ('0) - ~ \0 \0 'D \0 V'> V'> on en N ~ o:l ~ ~ .-< N ('0) -.:t on \0 r-- 00 00- 0 ...... N -< CO U Cl w ~ 0 :t - 0 '" biI. ...... - ~ ('0) ('0) ('0) ('0) M ('0) M M OJ (/) "0 0 ~ ~ .-< .-< - ..... - .-< (/) 0 Q3Z 0 0 V'> 0 - M ~ -0 '- o '" '" OIl '" 0... u .5 ",' ~ "3 '" c o U (;j c: '" ~ o ... .;; Ii Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, July ]2,2007 3. SCOPE Based on meetings with engineering consultants, local leaders, and a meeting with the VDH on March 7, 2005, five (5) options were identified and evaluated as part of this PER. These options are presented below and involve five (5) separate entities including the Town of Rocky Mount, the Town ofBoones Mill, Western Virginia Water Authority, Roanoke County, and Franklin County. 3.1. ROCKY MOUNT SERVICE EXTENSION ALONG U.S. 220 NORTH: The Town of Rocky Mount water treatment plant is located on the west side of Route u.s. 220 north of Rocky Mount approximately 1.5 miles south of Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area. Low and high pressure tie-in points are available based on selected line routing. 3.2. WATER EXTENSION FROM WESTLAKE TO PLATEAU PLAZA/WIRTZ AREA: Franklin County currently provides public water to commercial and residential customers in the Hales Ford Bridge to Westlake area of Franklin County. This service is made possible through a water source agreement between Franklin County and the Bedford County Public Service Authority. 3.3. TOWN OF BOONES MILL SERVICE EXTENSION ALONG U.S. 220: The VDH has mandated that the Town of Boones Mill develop a Preliminary Engineering Report and plan improvements to their well supply and distribution system. Franklin County, by contributing to source development and distribution improvements in the Town Earth Envirorunental Consultants, lne. Page 7 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, July 12,2007 ofBoones Mill, may be able to develop adequate service capability to meet the immediate water supply needs along the Route U.S. 220 corridor to Plateau Plaza/Witrz area. 3.4. WELL DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLATEAU PLAZAl\VIRTZ AREA: Franklin County develop a well supply in the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area to replace the wells impacted by petroleum contamination and provide for existing and future residential and commercial needs. The actual service area would directly depend on the yield of the wells. 3.5. EXTENSION FROM WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY: Western Virginia Water Authority currently provides water service to the Suncrest Heights subdivision area of Roanoke County along U.S. 220. Suncrest Heights subdivision is approximately 13 miles from the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area. 4. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 4.1. POPULATION PROJECTIONS: Population growth in Franklin County began with industrialization in the 1950's and diversified the agriculture base through integration of commercial and industrial centers. This growth continued to diversify with the development of Smith Mountain Lake and urbanization of the northern and northeastern portions of the County. The following table outlines the population growth in Roanoke and Franklin Counties since the 1950 census. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 8 of 69 Preliminary Engmeering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights SubdivisIOn to Wirtz FCPPI004, July 12,2007 Historical Population Trend Description 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 Franklin County 24,560 25,925 28,163 35,740 39,549 47,286 51,370 Rocky Mount 1,432 1,412 4,002 4,198 4,098 4,565 Boones Mill 335 371 363 337 239 285 Roanoke County 41,486 61,693 67,339 72,945 79,332 85,778 90,135 Sources: 1950-2000 Population, U.S. Census Bureau; *2006 Population Estimates provided by Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. The following Table "Study Area Population Demographic" provides an estimated population growth for both Franklin County and Roanoke County based on the information provided in the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. Study Area Population Demographic Description Roanoke Estimated Franklin Estimated Population PoP. Chan{!e Population POD. Chanl!e Est. Approx. Annual Growth Rate 0.829% 1.390% 2000 85,778 47,286 2001 86,489 711 47,943 657 2002 87,206 1,428 48,610 1,324 2003 87,929 2,151 49,286 2,000 2004 88,658 2,880 49,971 2,685 2005 89,393 3,615 50,666 3,380 2006 90,135 4,357 51,370 4,084 2007 90,882 5,104 52,085 4,799 2008 91,635 5,857 52,809 5,523 2009 92,395 6,617 53,543 6,257 2010 93,161 7,383 54,288 7,002 Based on the current census data, Franklin County has grown in population by a minimum of 10% for each decade since 1970, with a 32.2% growth rate from 1980 to 2000. According to the Estim.ate of POlJulation for Vindnia and its Localities annual report provided by the University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Franklin County's population has grown approximately 8.6% or 4,084 people between 2000 and 2006. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 9 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP1004, July 12, 2007 Roanoke County's population growth from 1980 to 2000 was 17.6%, according to the U.S. Census. Roanoke County experienced a growth of 4.83% or 4,357 people from 2000 to 2006, according to the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. The population growth rate between 1990 and 2000 in Franklin County and Roanoke County was approximately 19.6% and 8.1%, respectively. During the same period (1990 to 2000), the counties surrounding Franklin County had the following approximate population growth rate: Floyd (15.6%), Henry (1.7%), Pittsylvania (10.9%), Bedford (32.2%), and Patrick (11.1 %). 4.2. POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE STUDY AREA Demographics for the project area were prepared based on the following: o Source Data from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF-I, U.S. Census Bureau. o 2006 Population Estimates were provided by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, University of Virginia. o Project area consists of a Y4 mile wide corridor (1/2 mile total width) measured from the center ofthe roadway in each direction. Census track map depicting the project area shall been included as part of this PER. o The study corridor began at Suncrest Heights subdivision in Roanoke County. o Commonwealth of Virginia 2003 Aerial Photographic mapping courtesy of VGIN was utilized in estimating the number of households within the 1Iz mile corridor. o Assumed that the population growth along the corridor in both Franklin and Roanoke County is consistent with the average growth rate for each County. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 10 of69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, July 12,2007 o The population for the study corridor employed census block totals when fully located within the corridor; when a census block was partially located inside the corridor (i.e., a split census block), aerial photography maps were utilized to estimate the number of households inside the area; the estimated households were then multiplied by the census block's person per household number to arrive at the population estimate for the split census block located inside the corridor. o The population Census block within the study area was calculated utilizing the average population per household for that block. o The total number of houses within the study area (112 mile corridor) were counted utilizing aerial photography. o Churches and businesses were excluded in number of households estimated. o The study ended in the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area of Franklin County. o Projected population for Roanoke County is based on an annual growth rate of 0.829% during the period from 2000 to 2006 based on Weldon Cooper. o Projected population for Franklin County is based on an annual growth rate of 1.39% during the period from 2000 to 2006 based on Weldon Cooper. 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS For U.S. Highway 220 Water Line Project Area Description Total Study Area Allocation 2006 Proiections 2000 Households/Average Population Households Population Households Population Population Franklin Co. 3,146 1,350/2.33 1,158 497 1258 540 Roanoke Co. 2,010 837/2.40 627 261 658 274 Total 5,156 2,187/2.36 1,789 758 192] 814 Note: 1) Estimated Population prepared by Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. in consultation with West Piedmont Planning Commission 5/30/07. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 11 of 69 s~8 e-~ ~ p:; 0 ('..f M-~ .5 S.Q t>.- ::I tV .~ l-:i c;> " ._.- ..;- MOO 0 C'<:>O J.ll::l~ '" tI:l c.. ;a OJ c.. .5 ~ri := 'OJ ;.;:::r:: e ~ c.. '" t; C ::l tI:l ~ <l:l .... '" "' :s .~ ~ c.. c .sa OJ c '" ~ J.ll a.. o "0 .. .. a.. o U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C.l ~ a.. E-o ~ C.l o = ~ ::I ~ Cl ~ U I I ) , \ \ 8 J - , 1 '\ I'. ! 0\ '-0 '- o ('oj ~ c.. ~ 1:! .; .s J!l" ~ '3 OJ c: o U -;a == ~ o .... Ii ~~8 ~~~ P:: 0 N" <>Il- _ "E B b ~:~ ~ 1::;. " 5D'O g 0.00 r..LI~_ t' CI) ~ ~.EO "s ,~~ ~:r:: ... - ~ !3 ... ~ 3 CI) E o <t:: ... OJ 1;j ~ .~ :0 ::s ~ I:: o 'Vj c:: OJ i< r..LI / / ~(8/ ( "f 1\ / Jj f / I' ! ( / '" o .... III M o ... Cf' M o ..... ;.. o "0 .... ;.. ;.. o U ~ .b ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ..z ~: I / / I !,/ >/~l rJ 7 I . ) ( ~ ~ ~ C.l ~ ;.. ~ ~ C.l o ~ "-l ::l "-l = ~ u ~ (l) M o ... ... '<t o .... 0\ '-0 "-< o '" - OJ <>Il '" ~ oj ..5 2]" I:: is ;; '" c:: o U 'IS c:: OJ Ej 8 .;: Ii Nr-- 51-CO 0..,. 0 Q) ~ "': 0::: ON 00- _ ::: ::: >. .5.~ ~ .s:~ ~" 00 "0 0 :::.g 0 .acne: ~VJo.. =1:u .- t>l)~ ::: -- :.:~ ~ - 0.. '" e u = ::l en 5 o ~ ... Q) ta ~ -~ :g 10.. = o .;;; ::: Q) X .a ~ \ " ~ ~.~ N '" ~ to :rl .., ~ ~ u ..s "," ij ~ 19 o u -a '5 ~ ... I Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP1004, July 12,2007 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS For U.S. Highway 220 Water Line Project Area Total 2000 Total Number of Allocated Allocated COUNTY TRACT BLOCK Population Households Population Households FC 020400 1006 285 118 48 20 FC 020400 1007 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1008 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1009 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1010 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1011 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1012 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1013 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1014 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1015 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1016 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1017 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1018 38 19 30 15 FC 020400 1019 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1020 2 I 2 I FC 020400 1021 5 2 5 2 FC 020400 1022 I I 1 1 FC 020400 1023 15 8 15 8 FC 020400 1024 I I 1 I FC 020400 1025 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1026 2 I 2 1 FC 020400 1027 12 6 12 6 FC 020400 1033 49 18 22 8 FC 020400 1034 I I I 1 FC 020400 1086 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1087 6 3 6 3 FC 020400 1088 41 16 41 16 FC 020400 1089 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1090 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 1091 1 I 1 I FC 020400 2025 13 6 4 2 FC 020400 2026 23 7 23 7 FC 020400 2027 147 53 25 9 FC 020400 2029 20 6 20 6 FC 020400 2030 35 14 35 14 FC 020400 2031 7 4 7 4 FC 020400 2032 62 37 62 37 FC 020400 2033 7 2 0 0 FC 020400 2046 112 51 112 51 FC 020400 2047 11 4 11 4 FC 020400 2048 2 I 2 I Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 15 of69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, Ju]y 12, 2007 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS For U.S. Highway 220 Water Line Project Area Total 2000 Total Number of Allocated Allocated COUNTY TRACT BLOCK Population Households Population Households FC 020400 3005 50 17 50 17 FC 020400 3006 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 3007 12 6 12 6 FC 020400 3008 16 9 16 9 FC 020400 3009 367 173 42 20 FC 020400 3010 11 4 11 4 FC 020400 3011 4 2 4 2 FC 020400 3012 3 2 3 2 FC 020400 3013 0 0 0 0 FC 020400 3014 5] 27 0 0 FC 020400 3015 58 23 0 0 FC 020400 3024 43 19 43 19 FC 020500 1000 14 5 0 0 FC 020500 1024 251 113 27 12 FC 020500 1026 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 1027 19 10 19 10 FC 020500 1028 1 1 1 1 FC 020500 1029 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 1030 8 2 8 2 FC 020500 1031 8 5 8 5 FC 020500 1032 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 1033 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 1034 123 53 116 50 FC 020500 1035 156 80 0 0 FC 020500 1069 2 I 0 0 FC 020500 1072 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 1073 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 1074 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 1075 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 1076 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 4000 101 44 25 11 FC 020500 4001 255 100 64 25 Fe 020500 4002 151 62 10 4 FC 020500 4003 112 41 14 5 FC 020500 4009 123 48 82 32 Fe 020500 4010 15 6 15 6 FC 020500 4011 24 9 5 2 FC 020500 4012 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 4013 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 4018 58 22 0 0 Fe 020500 4019 159 60 27 10 Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 16 of69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision 10 Wirtz FCPPI004, July 12,2007 2000 DEMOGRAPHICS For U.S. Highway 220 Water Line Project Area Total 2000 Total Number of Allocated Allocated COUNTY TRACT BLOCK Population Households Population Households FC 020500 4020 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 4021 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 4022 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 4023 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 4031 0 0 0 0 FC 020500 4032 49 24 49 24 FC 020800 1000 4 I 0 0 RC 030900 3000 58 22 24 9 RC 030900 3001 0 0 0 0 RC 030900 3002 0 0 0 0 RC 030900 3003 26 12 0 0 RC 030900 3004 I I 1 I RC 030900 3005 167 72 30 13 RC 030900 3007 10 2 10 2 RC 030900 3008 173 71 61 25 RC 030900 3009 0 0 0 0 RC 030900 3010 58 20 52 18 RC 030900 3011 187 77 165 68 RC 030900 3012 79 31 31 12 RC 030900 3014 359 140 38 15 RC 030900 3015 25 II 12 5 RC 030900 3020 201 75 5 2 RC 030900 3023 0 0 0 0 RC 030900 3024 49 23 38 18 RC 030900 3025 7 3 7 3 RC 030900 4001 551 250 110 50 RC 030900 4002 15 7 15 7 RC 030900 4003 4 3 4 3 RC 030900 4004 16 7 0 0 RC 030900 4010 24 10 24 10 Franklin County Totals 3,]46 ],350 ],139 497 Roanoke County Totals 2.010 837 627 26] Total Project Area 5,156 2,187 1,766 758 Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF-I, U.S. Census Bureau. Prepared by West Piedmont Planning District Commission, 5/2307, Revised 5/30/07. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 17 of69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, July 12, 2007 5. WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS: According to the newly revised Franklin County 2025 Comprehensive Plan the County's future development will rely on the quantity and quality of available water. Private drinking water wells in Franklin County range from 250' to 500' in depth and average less than 10 gallons per minute and are considered moderate to low producers. The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan states "This type of rock formation results in some of the poorest subsuiface water production in the state, except where fracturing or weathering has occurred. Actually, water is only found in fracture zones in the upper levels of rock. Primarily, this is a result of faults or other subsuiface structural movements and contact zones between the various rock strata. The openings that provide for groundwater storage in these rocks usually occur within a few hundredfeet of the suiface. Due to the extremely limited supply of water in the shattered rock formation, heavy pumping often results in dramatically fluctuating water levels. " With this in mind the County began the implementation of a public water system in 2005 through a water source purchase agreement with the Bedford County Public Service Authority and construction of a public water line from Hales Ford Bridge along State Route 122 to the Westlake area. Since that time Franklin County has also been able, through acquisition of existing systems and construction of new lines, to extend service laterally from Route 122 (See Phase 1 Water System Map). Through a water source agreement with the Town of Rocky Mount, Franklin County has extended service to the Forest Hills area (See Forest Hills Water System Map). Franklin County has divided the county into service areas as depicted in the following "Franklin County Service Area" map. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 18 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sun crest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, July 12,2007 Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 19 of 69 t::Nr- 8,.E g OJ~'" p,:: 0 "," 00-...... .g 8 b ~:1ii ~ .S .~ '<t'" 00 "0 C> J.i.g~ .... CIl P-. 1<l.eleJ 5-;b~ E 'Q) ~:: c... ~ <.> c: ;:l CIl e o .;:: ... OJ 'i:l ~ .~ :;:; ;:l p.. c: o .;;: c: ... ;( U.l z~ fJl q) ~ ~ ~.. ~~ l~ ~Jl '6 "" o \ : ~J~) ~..-' 1'. } " " / J? '---~'-"-'\ r:Il . ~J (~j il -i.:// 1~ "ii . ~ e ~ -:;.~ r--:-. ~~ ~'" / ~~~j~~. ! -/1 . ":\11 ~ I (:1 7 f', I ~".>, 5/~~~L '''"f''" . 7 .,,' f .\ f" '; .~ "_ ~. \.. j! ~ /' ". ; ."'-""-~~. ~~" ~. ~ \ -"," """ d r< ~ ~ '''0' ! O"l"!.. .1'. .;t .... ~ 5 t1!t: Ii,I tJ) >. :. ~('P ~ r- ~F" ~~ :: ~ ~ ..~ >.. .~ .. .. " .. . s .!: 1:: $' i:2 po< ,g.~ f~ ~ ~t =< = (1J Q CJ T' 00"""" U i> == ~ ."""" (1J ~OO == ~ = - r..~ ~ ~... ~ ui Is "U " ~. ~l lil i t i I ~ hi I t~. j t !!I ! .... ~ 4" ~ ~"z - i r. a, ; !ill I '" " ] ,~ ,I ~ j J .... lii"-.I1'~:Il Is.! f j J ! ! iil e i f 1 J j J j J HIt 1 u - """"''"''''rli'""1O : .~l '11:IU~LiIU ...:I ~O>""': L,l~ ~' ("~ ~ 0\ '-D ...... o o '" & '" P-. <oJ .E ",' ~ '3 ~ o U ] c: ~ ... .~ Ii Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, July 12,2007 5.1. SERVICE AREA WATER DEMANDS Estimated water demands for the project area were prepared based on the following data and assumptions: o Section 4.2 "Population Demographics in the Study Area" ofthis report. o Water Demand based on 100 gallons per person per day. o The commercial development in the Plateau Plaza areas package sewage treatment plant design to meet a Virginia Department of Health design standard of62, 740 gallons per day (gpd). The actual estimated volume based on VDH GMP #35 is expected to be 39,000 gpd. The 39,000 gpd was utilized for these water demand projections. o Projected population for Roanoke County is based on an annual growth rate of 0.829% during the period from 2000 to 2006 based on Weldon Cooper. o Projected population for Franklin County is based on an annual growth rate of 1.39% during the period from 2000 to 2006 based on Weldon Cooper. o Town of Boones Mill was included in the water projections for Franklin County. o 67% of potential connections will connect to the water system. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 21 of 69 0'\ 00 0 0 00 Q ~ 00 0 0 (") C'l 0 .--< t-..:' ~ < '<t~ 0-." ..{.' '"' \0 00 (") '<t .--< .... 0 =It: '" c "0 .~ (ll (ll .... \0 ..... CJ ~ - 0 :e (ll 0 .5 c M '" = ..... '" C'l '<t \0 '" 0 0 \0 00 '<t- r;.il ~ U r"l - or> Io-c '" 0 "0 - 1. 0 (ll .c .::l (ll l3 '" = 0 '<t '<t = 0 z = '<t r- - or> C'l 00 or> r- 0 0\ or> Q ~ 00 0 \0 or> or> 0 0;., 00 ~ < t-..:' O'\~ 0 .--< or> r- (") '<t - 0 0 '" 0 .... :5! M 0 1. 0 (ll .c t::N.... ..Q ~ ot::o l3 '" 0.-- 0 = r- oo "':SN = 0 - " 0 rx:r Z = 0'\ \0 Vi OJ)-~ '<T C'l r- -!':j g >, Q,l ~.~ ~ ..... -5.c: " ~ OJ) '"0 '<1' ~ 1::.00 p.J;::l0 ~ - .c ~ ~ [a Vl ;;: 0 ~ .... ~o.. 1. = ~ 0 0\ 5'E1U Q.. = E 0'\ C'l >= .- "'- Q.. = r"l 00 - '" < < 0 ii::r:: .--< 0 .... ~ P- '" '" .... '" 9 Vl = E .~ 0 .... <Z:: .... CJ ~ ~ .... = (ll ..!':l Q,l = 0 0 '" i: = 0 0 :s ~ 0 r- r- .~ ~ U \0 \0 :g P- c: .., 0 "U; ~ c: Q '" 1:; ;:( ~ p.J t)J)~ E~ (ll ....: 0 0 0 j> ~ 0 0 0 < C) .-. - - Q. 0 '" ~ = '" ~ "0 = < - 0 ~ .c U ~ Q,l '" t"-l 0 CJ = r"l \0 0 0 0 r"l ~ (") = Q - 0 N =:I ::t N C'l N .... .... ~ =' ~ cd '- Q) 0 ~ loo Q:; ~ Cd "C <.) = .;: ~ Q) 5 E 0 E 0 ~ = 0 ~ .~ u ] u U J. .... = .... "0 ~ Q.. :; = Q) ~ ~ 'i: Q) '" 0 .... :-8 0 cd = -; ~ CJ = 0... ~ ~ ~ '" ~ '" 0 .... ~ l.. <I) 0 0 Q r- ~ ... D: ~ E- o... <I' '" bJ) "0 C '0 C'l -= .c "'" - 00 \0 ('<) 0 00 10 '<t <I' r- U '" - N N M "'" I(') I(') 10 r- ...; ::l 0 '" :x: f.>;l '" = :::! ~ 0 .c r- '<t - 00 I(') M 0 r- I(') M - C <I' 0\ 0 - - N M "'" "'" I(') \0 r- C'l '" "'" I(') I(') I(') I(') I(') I(') I(') I(') I(') I(') l.o ::l r.c 0 := 'i( 0 0 0\ r-: - <I' '" bJ) "0 C '0 = .c .c - ('<) 10 00 0 N U Cll N "'" r- 0\ - - - - N N '" ...; ::l 0 '" :x: ~ '" Cll "0 .:;:: '0 0 .c - M I(') 00 0 N "'" r- 0\ - M C Cll 10 10 10 10 r- r- r- r-- r- oo 00 '"= '" N N N N N N N N N N N 0 ::l ~ 0 :x: 'i( 0 .::! 0\ N ~ 00 0 ~ ~ 0 5 ~ ~ ~ Cll 0 - N M "'" I(') 10 r- oo 0\ 0 .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = '"= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N 5 .c .... ~ ~ ~ "0 0 l.o l.. - Co-' ~ 0 .... .c -; ~ Q,l ~ '" ::: = c 0 c ~ = =: < ~ ~ ... o 't:I < ;~ 0 -6' .S- ~ ~ l.. 8 CJ ... < = '" ..... .... (ll '" 'J) Q ~ o o o N o ....., o 0\ 0\ o t: ::l o U Q) ..:.: o t: o;j o ~ "0 t: od "'" o o N o ....., o o o N E o .;:: o t: ::l o U .5 ~ :;;;: Q) ~ E ... B ~ ~ .5 0 = Q) o E .~ 8 ,.,g Q) ;:Ion 0..= o Q) o..~ t: .- >-. Q) "1:l = ~ ~ ~ tl (]) & .5 -S ~ t: .s 0.. o .~ '" '2",] ~ ::90 <;; on Cl) Q)"=o "te ~ 0 E g;: .~ ..= 0 o (]) (]) a..s Cl) 0.. '- ~ '" 0 ::l .~ ~ ..0 (]) r- '@ "te1O"1:l P::: '" <I) (]) Cl) -SEod ~ ::l ~ o ~ ;> d<~ ,-.. ,-.. ~N("t') 0-. \0 ... o N N ~ '" P- oj ..s zj ~ '3 a o u <a -= " !jj o .... .;;: Ii Q) o z Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 5.2. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: 5.2.1. Franklin County: The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1975 and has been updated four (4) times. The 2025 Comprehensive Plan update was approved on May 22,2007. The 2025 "Future Land Use Map" has been provided in this report. Franklin County desires to maintain its rural character and scenic views while retaining existing and creating new employment opportunities. With this goal in mind the Board of Supervisors included the following vision statement in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan: "Franklin County, Virginia--appreciating its rural, scenic Blue Ridge landscape and rich cultural and agricultural heritage is a uniquely balanced, highly educated, prosperous, and diverse land of families, businesses, and communities of faith who thrive amongst interconnected neighborhoods where personal responsibility and community interdependence are cherished. " One area ofthe county where the 2025 comprehensive plan addresses the Board of Supervisors vision is the U.S. 220 corridor from Rocky Mount to Boones Mill. The U.S. 220 corridor in Franklin County currently has the following designations: Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 23 of 69 t::;t- o 0 c..' 0 ll>~N ~OOO" 00-- S g ;.., ~ ._ t'CJ ll>,~ ~ .s:: '7" OIl",=, 0 C..oO ~J5- i>>",P.. ta-P.. I:..cU 's .~ p., ~= P.. '" ll> ... u I: ;:l V1 S o oJ:: i:l Ol ~ .~ ::0 ;:l c... <:: o .;;; <:: ll> X ~ Q) iIJ >.-~ ......"'0 8 = Q t;; U~ QJ = .. ~.a = = =~ ~tn ~N o N z~ tIl .E!:l ~ ><:t o N 0-, \0 '- o '7 N ll> 00 ~ P.. =: .. .. i ~ it " i ~ 2 l! ~ .E m ! tJ i;i ,... rA .a;:: fl 0 b "i.1 :: : cl 1j ~ .. IIlI :e iU ii ~ ,.Q &Ii' ~ ! ~ It .5: ~ 1n::?$!~,~~ ].....x~"' i '. . t S i i i 11 ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ '. il II II- .. i! a 8.!i~ J1!i~1i "E~~.. ::E...i:!. i:<~~G lJ J-lII'-~'!U:~41"'t ~~a..~t7;~/!if:~';:l; V"""~I~~:.-~~ stl..._.Q~u. "'ai~=".i(Etl'S"loll: _~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 m ~ ti- e . t ~ r ~ :JII~~I~,;f~~}jii~ i I D~~D[I],~ I ~ g. P,'-' 'It.- :i ! <.:i ..s Ji ~ ~ g u OJ '5 ~ .l:;l :> Ii .. . Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18,2007 o Commercial Hi2hwav Corridor: The 1995 Comprehensive Plan designated the U.S. 220 corridor from Rocky Mount to Boones Mill as commercial/business development. The new Comprehensive Plan has reduced the commerciallbusiness area along U.S. 220. The following areas along Route U.S. 220 north of Rocky Mount are designated as "Commercial Highway Corridors" for commerciallbusiness development: · Area between Brick Church Road CRt. 697) and Iron Ridge Road CRt.775) · Area between Shady Lane (Rt. 983) and Rocky Mount Town limits. The 2025 Comprehensive Plan also denotes the Route U.S. 220 corridor inside the Town of Boones Mill primarily consists of commerciallbusiness development. The County's policy is to work with the Town in the area of transportation and growth planning. o Low Density Residential: The 2025 Comprehensive Plan denotes low density residential beginning near Route 635 and ending in the vicinity of Route 919. The low density residential surrounds the commercial highway corridor in the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 25 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP1004, May 18,2007 o Agriculture Forestry-/Rural Residential: The new Comprehensive Plan denotes agriculture forestry/rural residential beginning near Route 919 and ending at the Boones Mill town limits. It also includes a small area on the north side of the Boones Mill town limits. Agriculture forestry/rural residential surrounds the western portion of the Boones Mill town limits. o Conservation Areas/Steep Slopes (>250-10 ): The new Comprehensive Plan denotes the following areas as conservation areas/steep slopes (>25%). · The approximate area between the Boones Mill town limits and the Roanoke County/Franklin County border. · The approximate area between the Commercial Highway Corridor near the Town of Rocky Mount and Route 635. 5.2.1.1. Planned Comprehensive Plan Updates: In an effort to address the expected growth from the addition of public water along the U.S. 220 corridor, Franklin County will begin a comprehensive corridor study in 2007. The corridor study will address future land use along the corridor and the projected impact to: transportation, community facilities, cultural resources, utilities, and the economy. Recommendations/changes to the Comprehensive Plan will be addressed as deemed appropriate. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 26 of 69 Prelinlinary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP1004, May 18, 2007 5.2.2. Roanoke County: The Roanoke County Community Plan was originally adopted in 1941 and has been periodically updated. The most recent Community Plan update was approved in March of2005. The new plan was based on a target date of2020. Roanoke County established a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) 1996. The CAC appointed a neighborhood committee with the following objective: "To assure that the Community Plan reflects the desires of the majority of citizens for the future of Roanoke County and to expand the sphere of influence the Community Plan will have in guiding decisions in the future for our Roanoke County Community. " Based on the most recent Community Plan it is the intent to update the plan every five (5) years. A copy ofthe current Roanoke County Community Plan Land Use Guide Map of this area has been included. The U.S. 220 corridor in Roanoke County currently has the following designations: o Rural Preserve: The new Community Plan denotes the area adjacent to the south bound lane of Route U.S. 220 just prior to the Franklin County line as rural preserve. Rural preserve consists of areas that are mostly undeveloped and protection is encouraged. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 27 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPJ004, May 18, 2007 lJ$RtU:m~ ~..:lU!e!..zn!:I.J2~ Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 28 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP I 004, May 18, 2007 o Village Center: The new Community Plan denotes the following areas as village center: · The area on both side of u.s. Route 220 from the Roanoke County/Franklin County line north to State Route 900. The exception is a portion of rural preserve on the south bound lane (west) side of US. Route 220. Village centers consist of areas of commercial and institutional development surrounded by rural areas. o Rural Village: The new Community Plan denotes the following areas as rural village: · Area on both sides of US. 220 between State Route 900 and the northern intersection of State Route 715 with US. Route 220. · Area on both sides of US. 220 north of the transition zone and south of Suncrest Heights. Rural Villages consist of areas where limited development exists and future suburban and/or urban development is discouraged. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 29 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 o Transition: The new Community Plan denotes the following areas as transition: · Area on both sides of D.S. 220 between the northern intersection of State Route 715 with US. Route 220 and the Rural Village area south of Suncrest Heights subdivision. · Area across from Suncrest Heights Subdivision on the south bound lane (west) side of US. 220. Transition areas consist of areas along highways where orderly development is encouraged to buffer lower intensity development. o N ei!!:hborhood Conservation: The new Community Plan denotes the following areas as neighborhood conservation: · The Suncrest Heights subdivision area located on the north bound east side ofD.S. 220. Neighborhood conservation consists of areas where single family development exists and is encouraged. 5.2.2.1. Planned Community Plan Updates: The Community Plan states '"The Roanoke County Community Plan is a general planning document that is subject to interpretation. It is intended to guide future land use development in the County but is notflXed in place. Therefore, proposed amendments to the Community Plan will be received and reviewed Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 30 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest HeIghts Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18,2007 twice annually in the months of January and July. Amendments to the Roanoke County Community Plan may be initiated by any citizen, the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, any county landowner or the Secretmy to the Planning Commission. Amendment applications must meet one or more of the following criteria: o The suhject property was misinterpreted or overlooked in the Community Plan. o Significant changes have occurred in the condition of surrounding lands. o The requested amendment will significantly enhance other goals of the Community Plan. " In an effort to address the expected growth from the addition of public water along the U.S. 220 corridor Roanoke County has begin a comprehensive corridor study along the corridor in 2007. The corridor study will address future land use along the corridor and the projected impact to: transportation, community facilities, cultural resources, utilities, and the economy. Recommendations/changes to the Community Plan will be addressed as deemed appropriate. 6. WATER SOURCE OPTIONS Based on meetings with engineering consultants, local leaders and a meeting with the VDH on March 7, 2005, five (5) options were identified and evaluated as part of this PER. These options are presented below and involve five (5) separate entities including the Town of Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 31 of69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sun crest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPlO04, May 18,2007 Rocky Mount, the Town of Boones Mill, Western Virginia Water Authority, Roanoke County and Franklin County (Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area). 6.1. ROCKY MOUNT SERVICE EXTENSION ALONG U.S. 220 NORTH: The Town of Rocky Mount water treatment plant is located along the Blackwater River on the west side of Route U.S. 220 north of Rocky Mount and approximately 1.5 miles south of the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area. The plant was designed to produce 2.0 million gallons of potable water each day. The 2006 estimated average daily production was 945,000 gallons or approximately 47.25% of capacity. The approximate number of connections is 2,506. Approximately 22% of the connections are located outside the Town limits. Based on the proximity of the Town's water treatment plant to the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area, Franklin County began water source negotiations with the Town of Rocky Mount in 2005. The County originally requested an allocation of 150,000 gallons per day (gpd). However, based on current construction estimates for Phase I (line extension) and Phase II (elevated storage tank for fire flow) the County needed to sell approximately 250,000 gpd for the system to break even. In an effort to break even the County requested the ability to purchase approximately 250,000 (gpd) from the Town of Rocky Mount. Based on negotiations/discussions it is Franklin County's understanding that the Town of Rocky Mount desired to maintain their water reserve for future development and would not guarantee the County 250,000 gpd. Negotiations continued without success until the middle of2006. At that point the Board of Supervisor began to seek other options. The following Table "U.S. 220 North - Rocky Mount Low Pressure to Plateau Plaza/Wirtz" provides a revised (original estimate provided by Dewberry & Davis) preliminary cost estimate for this option: Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 32 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPIO04, May 18,2007 V.S 220 North -- Rockv Mt. Low Pressure To Plateau PlazalWirtz Est. Unit Unit Extended Description Qty Price Total Mobilization 1 LS $ 37,700 $ 37,700 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $ 25,100 $ 25,100 12" Water Line 12,000 LF $ 50 $ 600,000 12" Road Crossing 360 LF $ 250 $ 90,000 12" Stream Crossing 200 LF $ 450 $ 90,000 12" Gate Valve 6 EA $ 2,600 $ 15,600 Fire Hydrants 25 EA $ 3,400 $ 85,408 Air Release Valves 6 EA $ 2,600 $ 15,600 Blow Off 3 EA $ 2,700 $ 8,100 Master Meter 1 EA $ 80,000 $ 80,000 New Booster Station with Fire Pump 1 EA $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Trench Stabilization (5% of trench, if needed) 200 TONS $ 18 $ 3,600 Mise Concrete 100 CY $ 180 $ 18,000 Bonds, Pennits & Insurance 1 LS $ 26,000 $ 26,000 Erosion & Sediment Control 1 LS $ 25,100 $ 25,100 Site Restoration 1 LS $ 18,800 $ 18,800 SUBTOTAL $ 1,389,000 ]0% CONTINGENCIES $ 138,900 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 1,527,900 10% ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $ 152,800 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,680,700 6.2. WATER EXTENSION FROM WESTLAKE TO PLA TEAV PLAZAlWIRTZ AREA: Franklin County currently provides public water to commercial and residential customers in Hales Ford Bridge to Westlake area of Franklin County. This service is made possible through a water source agreement between Franklin County and Bedford County. This option involves extending water from the County's new water system in the Westlake area to Burnt Chimney and then to the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz! area. The proposed water line would follow Route 122 and Route 697 (Wirtz Road) to the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area. Based on the preliminary studies by Franklin County it appears that this option would involve two booster stations, a storage tank, and approximately 14 miles of water main. The following Table outlines the preliminary cost estimate for this option. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 33 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 Westlake to Plateau Plaza/Wirtz Est. Unit Unit Extended Description Otv Price Total Mobilization 1 LS $ 137600 $ 137,600 Clearing & Grubbing I LS $ 91,700 $ 91 700 Booster Station 2 LS $ 275 000 $ 550000 500000 Gallon Storage Tank I LS $ 650,000 $ 650,000 12" Water Line 73,920 LF $ 50 $ 3,696,000 12" Road Crossing 480 LF $ 250 $ 120,000 12" Stream Crossing 200 LF $ 450 $ 90,000 12" Gate Valve 12 EA $ 2,300 $ 27,600 Fire Hydrants 149 EA $ 3300 $ 492,360 Air Release Valves 15 EA $ 2600 $ 39,000 Blow Off 5 EA $ 2700 $ 13 500 Trench Stabilization (5% of trench, if needed) 1,000 TONS $ 18 $ 18 000 Misc Concrete 500 CY $ 180 $ 90,000 Bonds, Permits & Insurance 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Erosion & Sediment Control 1 LS $ 91,700 $ 91,700 Site Restoration 1 LS $ 68 800 $ 68 800 SUBTOTAL $ 6 206,300 10% CONTINGENCIES $ 620,600 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 6,826,900 10% ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $ 682,700 3% LEGAL & ADMIN $ 204,800 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 7,714,400 6.3. TOWN OF BOONES MILL SERVICE EXTENSION ALONG u.S. 220: Based on discussions with the Town of Boones Mill and the VDH, the Town is currently under VDH mandates. The Town of Boones Mill is currently developing a Preliminary Engineering Report to address improvements to their well supply and distribution system. Currently, the Town of Boones Mill serves approximately 268 connections with approximately 68 (25%) of those connections located outside the Town limits. The Town of Boone Mill's water system, induding all sources, is estimated to be 160 gallons per minute (gpm) or 230,400 gallon per day (gpd). However, discussion with the VDH indicates that the system is currently approved for 36,800 gpd. The Town's system is composed of the following: Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 34 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18,2007 o Two (2) active wells (not currently utilized) rated at 100 gpm and 25 gpm respectively o One (1) inactive well rated at 25 gpm o One (1) spring rated at 10 gpm o 250,000 gallon storage tank online o 100,000 gallon storage tank offline Based on discussions with the VDH, the Town ofBoones Mill's water system is at the maximum number of connections without upgrades to their system. Based on a PER prepared by Thompson & Litton in October 2004, the estimated cost to upgrade the water treatment filtration system and develop the inactive wells was approximately $772,647 and $96,900, respectively. In addition to water production and treatment system improvements the PER discussed issues and steps necessary to enhance the existing water system's accountability. The PER estimated the current accountability to be approximately 61 %. Franklin County considered contributing to the proposed water system improvements and development of the additional well. However, at a production rate of 160 gpm for 18 hours (well(s) operating 75% of the time) the system could produce approximately 172,800 gpd. Utilizing 400 gpd per connection the improved system would be capable of serving a total of approximately 432 residential equivalent units (ERC) assuming that the water systems accountability was improved. Franklin County based on an estimated available volume of 65,600 gpd or 164 ERC's (432 total available connections - 268 existing connections) after improvements, made the decision to eliminate this option from consideration. The following Table "Boones Mill to Plateau PlazalWirtz" provides Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 35 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18, 2007 a revised (original estimated provided by Dewberry & Davis) preliminary cost estimate for this option: Boones Mill to Plateau Plaza/Wirtz Est. Unit Unit Extended Description Qtv Price Total Mobilization 1 LS $ 45,900 $ 45.900 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $ 30,600 $ 30 600 Share in water treatment (for 125 gpm reserve cap.) 1 LS $ 295,000 $ 295 000 Develop 2- 25 gpm wells(wells # 4 & #5) 2 LS $ 37,000 $ 74,000 Booster Station 1 LS $ 275,000 $ 275 000 Master Meter 1 EA $ 80,000 $ 80 000 12" Water Line 21.200 LF $ 50 $ 1,060,000 12" Road Crossing 480 LF $ 250 $ 120 000 12" Stream Crossing 200 LF $ 450 $ 90,000 12" Gate Valve 12 EA $ 2300 $ 27 600 Fire Hydrants 44 EA $ 3,300 $ 144,408 Air Release Valves 15 EA $ 2,600 $ 39,000 Blow Off 5 EA $ 2,700 $ 13 500 Trench Stabilization (5% of trench, if needed) 320 TONS $ 18 $ 5.760 Mise Concrete 160 CY $ 180 $ 28800 Bonds. Permits & Insurance 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Erosion & Sediment Control 1 LS $ 30,600 $ 30600 Site Restoration 1 LS $ 22 900 $ 22,900 SUBTOTAL $ 2.413 100 10% CONTINGENCIES $ 241,300 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 2,654,400 10% ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $ 265,400 3% LEGAL & ADMIN $ 79,600 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,999,400 6.4. WELL DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLATEAU PLAZAlWIRTZ AREA: Franklin County develop a well supply in the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area to replace existing wells impacted by petroleum contamination and provide for both existing and future residential and commercial needs. The main factors to consider when locating drinking water wells include the following: o Water Quantitv: Based on the newly revised Franklin County Comprehensive Plan a subsurface water source is not favorable given the existing geology where Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 36 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Pubhe Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18,2007 wells range from 250' to 500' deep and produce an average ofless than 10 gpm. The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan states "This type of rock form.ation results in some of the poorest subsurface water production in the state, except where fracturblg or weathering has occurI'elL Actually, water is Ollly found in fracture zones in tlte upper levels of rock. Primarily, this is a result of faults or otlter subsurface structural movements and contact zones between tlte various rock strata. The openings that providefor groundwater storage in these rocks usually occur within afew hundredfeet oftlte surface. Due to the extremely limited supply of water in tlte shattered rockformation, Iteavy pumping often results in dramatically fluctuating water levels. " o Water Quality: One ofthe reasons Franklin County is proposing the extension of potable water to the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area was a petroleum release that occurred in that area along the Route 220 north corridor. The release has resulted in the contamination of four (4) drinking water wells. The VDEQ has assigned Pollution Complaint #2000-2043 to the petroleum release from the underground storage tanks at Plateau Plaza. The resulting investigation revealed that three (3) residential supply wells, one (1) residential use spring and two (2) business non- potable use wells have been impacted by petroleum compounds. Based on subsurface investigations performed through the VDEQ, the plume created by the release is migrating in a northeast direction and may impact a trailer park containing approximately 40 units. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 37 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP]004, May ]8, 2007 o Based on subsurface water quantity and quality concerns, the Franklin County Board of Supervisors made the decision that new high production potable drinking water wells were not the long term solution to the area's water source needs. The following Table "Well & Treatment to Plateau Plaza/Wirtz " provides a revised (original estimated provided by Dewberry & Davis) preliminary cost estimate for this option: Well & Treatment to Plateau Plaza/Wirtz Est. Unit Unit Extended Description Qty Price Total Mobilization 1 LS $ 36,1 00 $ 36,100 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $ 24,000 $ 24,000 Well & Treatment Plant Site & Development 1 LS $ 225,000 $ 225 000 Develop 2- 25 gpm wells 2 LS $ 65,000 $ 130000 Treatment & Pumping 1 LS $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Elevated Storage Tank (300,000 gal) 1 LS $ 650,000 $ 650,000 12" Water Line 18,500 LF $ 50 $ 925 000 12" Road Crossing 300 LF $ 250 $ 75,000 12" Gate Valve 11 EA $ 2,300 $ 25,300 Fire Hvdrants 38 EA $ 3,000 $ 112,800 Air Release Valves 10 EA $ 2,600 $ 26,000 Blow Off 3 EA $ 2,700 $ 8,100 Trench Stabilization (5% oftreneh. if needed) 275 TONS $ 18 $ 4950 Mise Concrete 140 CY $ 180 $ 25,200 Bonds, Permits & Insurance ] LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Erosion & Sediment Control ] LS $ 24,000 $ 24,000 Site Restoration ] LS $ 18,000 $ 18,000 SUBTOTAL $ 2,989 500 10% CONTINGENCIES $ 299,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 3,288,500 10% ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $ 328,900 ESTIMTED TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 3,617,400 Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 38 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 6.5. EXTENSION FROM WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY: Western Virginia Water Authority (WVW A) currentIyprovides water service to the Suncrest Heights Subdivision area of Roanoke County along U.S. 220 approximately 13 miles north of the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area. The extension of potable water from the Suncrest Heights Subdivision area of Roanoke County to the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area of Franklin County would require the installation of approximately 12.5 miles of 12" water line. Approximately 5.25 miles (42%) of the line will be located in Roanoke County with the remaining 7.25 miles (58%) located in Franklin County. It is anticipated, based on preliminary investigations and discussions with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), that the line may be constructed within the existing VDOT right of way. Due to topography changes along the U.S. Route 220 corridor, static water pressure may vary between 30 and 100 pounds per square inch. WVW A owns and operates an existing water treatment, transmission and distribution system with sufficient capacity to serve potable water to their current customers and those proposed within Frar.tldin County. WVW A estimates that their current water supply will meet their projected need until 2050. As demand increases a water storage facility will be required to provide adequate service and fire flow protection. The following Table "Roanoke County to Plateau Plaza/Wirtz" provides a revised (original estimate provided by Dewberry & Davis) preliminary cost estimate for this option: Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 39 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP I 004, May 18, 2007 Roanoke County to Plateau Plaza/Wirtz 5/24/07 Est. Unit Unit Extended Description Qty Price Total Mobilization 1 LS 35,000.00 $ 35,000 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS 55,000.00 $ 55,000 Trench Stabilization (5% of trench, if needed) 700 TONS 18.00 $ ]2,600 Misc Concrete 300 CY 180.00 $ 54,000 Bonds, Permits & Insurance 1 LS 40,000.00 $ 40,000 Erosion & Sediment Control 1 LS 50,000.00 $ 50,000 Site Restoration ] LS 65,000.00 $ 65.000 12" Water Line 64,442 LF 50.00 $ 3,222,100 12" Bridge Crossing 700 LF 450.00 $ 315,000 12" Road Crossing 480 LF 250.00 $ 120,000 12" Gate Valve 29 EA 2 300.00 $ 66,700 Fire Hydrants 131 EA 3,000.00 $ 393,732 Air Release Valves 33 EA 2,600.00 $ 85,800 Blow Off 13 EA 2,500.00 $ 32,500 SUBTOTAL $ 4,547,432 10% CONTINGENCIES $ 454,743 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 5,002,175 10% ENGINEERING & INSPECTION $ 500,218 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 5,502,393 Assumptions 1 A new line will run through the Town ofBoones Mill. 2 Fire hydrants will be installed approximately every 500'. 3 Water storage tank will not initially be required. 7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Based on the information provided in the PER it is recommended that Franklin County sign a water source agreement with WVW A and Roanoke County to extend potable water to the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area of Franklin County. A copy of the "Preliminary Engineering Report Proposed Waterline maps included in Appendix 1. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 40 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPJ 004, May 18, 2007 7.1. ENGINEERING/DESIGN: 7.1.1. Hvdraulic Desi2n: Based on current development in the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area of Franklin County, it is projected that the initial average water demand will be 35,000 gallons per day. This daily flow represents 152 equivalent residential connections (ERC's) based on 230 gallons per day per connection. The maximum hour domestic demand flow of 175 gallons per minute (gpm) was calculated utilizing the following formula from Section 12 V AC 5-590-690 C ofthe VA Waterworks Regulations: Q peak = 11.4 x NO.544 where: Q peak = Hourly peak flow in gpm N = Number of Potential Connections Assuming a fire flow demand of 500 gpm, the total peak hourly demand is 675 gpm. The Western Virginia Water Authority's distribution system at the proposed point of connection below the Suncrest Heights subdivision is currently operating at a hydraulic grade line of 1423. This is maintained by a pressure reducing station located on Buck Mountain Road approximately 5,000 feet northwest of the point of connection. It should be noted that the hydraulic grade line on the upstream side of the pressure reducing station is 1630. As indicated in the attached Table and shown on the related graph, water line pressures along the proposed water line extension range from a low of29. 7 PSI to a high of 196.1 PSI during the peak hour domestic demand of 175 GPM. For any service connections which would be subject to pressures greater than 120 PSI, a Type "COO meter connection shall be installed in conformance with the Western Virginia Water Authority "Design and Construction Standards". The Type "C" connection incorporates installation of water meter and individual Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 41 of69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 14-inch pressure reducing valve in a standard double meter setter and box situated, just within the right-of-way/easement. During those occasions when a fire flow of 500 GPM is added to the peak hour domestic demand, a parallel pressure reducing valve located at the Buck Mountain Road pressure reducing station will adjust the hydraulic grade line to 1470. This is required to maintain a residual pressure greater than 20 PSI at the high point in the system (Elev. = 1350 @ Sta. 50+000) during the peak demand condition. This is graphically illustrated on the attached graph. At some time in the future, as domestic water demand increases, it is anticipated that a water storage tank will be constructed along the U.S. Route 220 corridor in the area south of Boones Mill. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 42 of 69 o l'-- I!) (,0 o <.0 I!) I!) z 0 0 - I!) en z w l- I!) ~~b X "t 0..- 0 W "'~N ~OOO' W 0/)-_ '" S8;>-. Z l- 'D """ ~~~ - OJ 0 W 0 t:: ;- .J c "t W ,.. ED;.a ~. ~ t::,nO n= .....J u. 0> p:.l::lO W ~en ;;:: W OJ 0 "" ~"" I- "0 0 .g ~1i CC 0 <( .... LO ,.. ::: 0> C) ~::r: ~ M CI) .... - .~ p., '" <) Z .... <) 0 ::J 0 ::: ::l N cc en .... j::: E N "0 0 0 >. ~ <l: W M .... I- CI) <) '" ~ ::J .:! 0 ::c: LO ::l n= N p., ::: . .S; en '" ::: <) . ~ ::J ~ 0 N LO .,... o .,... c.i E ,n I!) ~ ~ '" t:: 0 U ] 0 t:: 0> 0 LO 0 I!) 0 LO 0 I!) 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 ~ 0 0 l'-- I!) N 0 l'-- LO N 0 l'-- LO N 0 l'-- LO N 0 l'-- LO N 0 l'-- LO .... LO "t "t "t "t M M M M N N N N .,.... .,... .,... .,... 0 0 0 0 Cil Cil ;;;: .,... .,... .... .,... .,... .,... .,... .,... .,... .,... .,... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Ii 1.33.::1 IDIl. "1\3'13 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18,2007 Water Extension from Suncrest PEAK HOUR DOMESTIC PEAK HOUR DOMESTIC Heights Subdivision to Plateau NO FLOW DEMAND wI FIRE FLOW, Plaza/Wirtz Area DEMAND, 175 GPM 675 GPM STATIONS, GROUND PRESSURE, PRESSURE, PRESSURE, 1,000 FEET ELEV A nON BGL PSI HGL PSI HGL PSI 0 1110 1,423.0 135.6 1,423.0 135.6 1,470.0 156.0 1 1100 1,423.0 139.9 1,422.9 139.9 1,468.9 159.9 2 1090 1,423.0 144.3 1,422.8 144.2 1,467.9 163.7 3 1010 1,423.0 178.9 1,422.7 178.8 1,466.8 197.9 4 1000 1,423.0 183.3 1,422.7 183.1 1,465.7 201.8 5 970 1,423.0 196.3 1,422.6 196.1 1,464.7 214.3 6 1007 1,423.0 180.2 1,422.5 180.0 1,463.6 197.8 7 1030 1,423.0 170.3 1,422.4 170.0 1,462.5 187.4 8 1000 1,423.0 183.3 1,422.3 183.0 1,461.5 199.9 9 1000 1,423.0 183.3 1,422.2 182.9 1,460.4 199.5 10 1025 1,423.0 172.4 1,422.1 172.1 1,459.4 188.2 11 1045 1,423.0 163.8 1,422.0 163.4 1,458.3 179.1 12 1100 1,423.0 139.9 1,422.0 139.5 1,457.2 154.8 13 1140 ],423.0 122.6 1,421.9 122.1 1,456.2 137.0 14 1132 1,423.0 126.1 1,421.8 125.6 1,455.1 140.0 15 1171 1,423.0 109.2 1,421.7 108.6 1,454.0 122.6 16 1200 1,423.0 96.6 1,421.6 96.0 1,453.0 109.6 17 1250 1,423.0 75.0 1,421.5 74.3 1,451.9 87.5 18 1260 1,423.0 70.6 1,421.4 69.9 1,450.8 82.7 19 1260 1,423.0 70.6 1,421.3 69.9 1,449.8 82.2 20 1265 1,423.0 68.5 1,421.3 67.7 1,448.7 79.6 21 1265 1,423.0 68.5 1,421.2 67.7 1,447.6 79.1 22 1265 1,423.0 68.5 1,421.1 67.6 1,446.6 78.7 23 1265 1,423.0 68.5 1,421.0 67.6 ],445.5 78.2 24 1270 1,423.0 66.3 1,420.9 65.4 1,444.4 75.6 25 1275 1,423.0 64.1 1,420.8 63.2 1,443.4 73.0 26 1280 1,423.0 62.0 1,420.7 61.0 ] ,442.3 70.3 27 1270 1,423.0 66.3 1,420.6 65.3 1,441.2 74.2 28 1260 1,423.0 70.6 1,420.6 69.6 1,440.2 78.1 29 1250 1,423.0 75.0 1,420.5 73.9 1,439.1 81.9 30 1236 1,423.0 81.0 1,420.4 79.9 1,438.1 87.5 31 1224 1,423.0 86.2 1,420.3 85.0 1,437.0 92.3 32 1212 1,423.0 91.4 1,420.2 90.2 1,435.9 97.0 33 1200 1,423.0 96.6 1,420.1 95.4 1,434.9 101.8 34 1188 1,423.0 101.8 1,420.0 100.5 1,433.8 106.5 35 1176 1,423.0 107.0 1,419.9 105.7 1,432.7 111.2 Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 44 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights SubdIVision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18,2007 Water Extension from Suncrest PEAK HOUR DOMESTIC Heights Subdivision to Plateau NO FLOW PEAK HOUR DOMESTIC DEMAND wi FIRE FLOW, PlazafWirtz Area DEMAND, 175 GPM 675 GPM STATIONS, GROUND PRESSURE, PRESSURE, PRESSURE, 1,000 FEET ELEVATION HGL PSI HGL PSI HGL PSI 36 1164 1,423.0 112.2 1,419.9 110.9 1,431.7 116.0 37 1152 1,423.0 117.4 1,419.8 116.0 1,430.6 120.7 38 1140 1,423.0 122.6 1,419.7 121.2 1,429.5 125.4 39 1140 1,423.0 122.6 1,419.6 121.1 1,428.5 125.0 40 1140 1,423.0 122.6 1,419.5 121.1 1,427.4 124.5 41 1175 1,423.0 107.5 1,419.4 105.9 1,426.3 108.9 42 1210 1,423.0 92.3 1,419.3 90.7 1,425.3 93.3 43 1200 1,423.0 96.6 1,419.2 95.0 1,424.2 97.1 44 1185 1,423.0 103.1 1,419.2 101.5 1,423.1 103.2 45 1160 1,423.0 114.0 1,419.1 112.2 1,422.1 113.6 46 1200 1,423.0 96.6 1,419.0 94.9 1,421.0 95.8 47 1250 1,423.0 75.0 1,418.9 73.2 1,419.9 73.6 48 1300 1,423.0 53.3 1,418.8 51.5 1,418.9 51.5 49 1346 1,423.0 33.4 1,418.7 31.5 1,417.8 31.1 50 1350 1,423.0 31.6 1,418.6 29.7 1,416.8 28.9 51 1346 1,423.0 33.4 1,418.5 31.4 1,415.7 30.2 52 1342 1,423.0 35.1 1,418.5 33.1 1,414.6 31.5 53 1338 1,423.0 36.8 1,418.4 34.8 1,413.6 32.7 54 1334 1,423.0 38.6 1,418.3 36.5 1,412.5 34.0 55 1330 1,423.0 40.3 1,418.2 38.2 1,411.4 35.3 56 1294 1,423.0 55.9 1,418.1 53.8 1,410.4 50.4 57 1258 1,423.0 71.5 1,418.0 69.3 1,409.3 65.6 58 1222 1,423.0 87.1 1,417.9 84.9 1,408.2 80.7 59 1186 1,423.0 102.7 1,417.8 100.5 1,407.2 95.8 60 1150 1,423.0 118.3 1,417.8 116.0 1,406.1 111.0 61 1165 1,423.0 111.8 1,417.7 109.5 1,405.0 104.0 62 1180 1,423.0 105.3 1,417.6 102.9 1,404.0 97.0 63 1190 1,423.0 101.0 1,417.5 98.6 1,402.9 92.2 64 1200 1,423.0 96.6 1,417.4 94.2 1,401.8 87.5 65 1208 1,423.0 93.2 1,417.3 90.7 1,400.8 83.5 66 1208 1,423.0 93.2 1,417.2 90.7 1,399.7 83.1 67 1208 1,423.0 93.2 1,417.1 90.6 1,398.7 82.6 68 1208 1,423.0 93.2 1,417.1 90.6 1,397.6 82.1 69 1208 1,423.0 93.2 1,417.0 90.5 1,396.5 81.7 70 1208 1,423.0 93.2 1,416.9 90.5 1,395.5 81.2 PIPE DIANlETER = 12 Inches PIPE "C" FACTOR = 140 7.1.2. Environmental Review: An environmental review according to the criteria set forth by USDA Rural Development of the U.S. 220 corridor from the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area of Franklin County to the Suncrest Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 45 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18, 2007 Heights subdivision area of Roanoke County is under way and will be provided as a stand alone document. The environmental impact ofthe project is expected to be manageable based on the proposed location of the water line within the existing VDOT right of way. 7.2. FINANCING: The following funding options are available to the Counties: 7.2.1. Bonds: It is anticipated that the WVW A will issue bonds to finance the water line extension, and that the Counties will contribute to their respective portions of the annual debt service paid to the Authority annually over the term of the bond issue ("Capital Contributions in Aid of Construction"), and that the bond issue will be secured by the respective proportionate moral obligations of Franklin County and of Roanoke County, Virginia. 7.2.2. STAG Grant: Franklin County has received a State and Tribal Grant (STAG) in the amount of$I,OOO,OOO and shall retain ownership ofthe water line extension until construction is complete and all obligations regarding the STAG Program have been satisfied. 7.2.3. VDEQ: A petroleum release in the Plateau Plaza/Wirtz area on the Route 220 north corridor has resulted in the contamination of four (4) drinking water wells. The VDEQ has assigned Pollution Complaint #2000-2043 to the petroleum release from the underground storage tanks at Plateau Plaza. The resulting investigation revealed that three (3) residential supply wells, one (1) residential use spring and two (2) business non-potable use wells have been impacted with petroleum compounds. Based on subsurface investigations performed through the VDEQ, Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 46 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 the plume created by the release is migrating in a Northeast direction and may impact a trailer park containing approximately 40 units. The VDEQ desires to place the existing residences with contaminated wells and other potentially impacted residence on a safe drinking water supply. To assist in this effort VDEQ will consider a grant for the design and construction of distributions lines to serve the impacted area. 7.3. WATER SOURCE AGREEMENT: A complete copy of the water source resolution signed by the Franklin County Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, and WVW A is included in Appendix 2. The following provides an overview of the conditions found in the agreement: o Cost. Financinl!. and Capital Contributions in Aid of Construction: The County's estimate that the cost of the Water Line Extension will be provided proportionately in accordance with the length of the water line extension in each County. The parties anticipate that WVW A will issue bonds to finance the water line extension, and that the Counties will contribute to their respective portions of the annual debt service paid to the Authority annually over the term of the bond issue ("Capital Contributions in Aid of Construction"), and that the bond issue will be secured by the respective proportionate moral obligations of Franklin County and of Roanoke County, Virginia. o Water Service Rates: Customers in Roanoke County connecting to the water line extension and to other extensions in Roanoke County from the water line extension, shall be customers of WVW A and will pay the WVW A's connection, availability and other fees; and that the Roanoke County customers will pay the WVW A's published rates for water service (See Appendix 3 for the current WVW A Rate). Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 47 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Soocrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18,2007 Customers in Franklin County connecting to the water line extension(s) shall be customers of WVW A and they will pay the WVW A's connection, availability and other fees. Franklin County customers will pay Franklin County's published rates for water service (See Appendix 4 for the current Franklin County Rate Schedules). WVW A will, from the water service revenues received from businesses and citizens in Franklin County, retain twenty five percent (25%) of the difference between the rate charged by WVW A and Franklin County. The remaining seventy five percent (75%) will be paid to Franklin County. o Availability Fees: One-half(1/2) of the WVW A's availability fees received from customers connecting to the water line extension in both Franklin County and Roanoke County will be paid to the respective County by the WVW A to repay their Capital Contributions in Aid of Construction over a ten (10) year period, as and when they are collected, but no less frequently than montWy. Once the County's Capital Contributions in Aid of Construction has been repaid, or at the end of the ten (10) year period, whichever occurs first, the WVW A will retain all of its availability fees. The parties agree and concur that for extensions greater than 500 feet the WVW A shall have the flexibility to enter into agreements with developers and other providers ofline extensions as may be necessary or convenient to assist WVW A and the developers in the development and payment of such line extensions and WVW A shall have the ability to negotiate one half of the availability fees back to developers to help finance the development ofline extensions. In such instances, the Authority shall share only the remainder of such availability fees with Roanoke County and with Franklin County as they are received. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 48 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP I 004, May] 8, 2007 o ST AG Grant Requirements: Franklin County shall retain ownership of the water line extension until construction is complete and all obligations regarding the State and Tribal Grant (STAG) Program have been satisfied. o Term: The term of this contract shall be ten (10) years, unless renewed, terminated or otherwise extended as provided herein. At the end of year eight, the WVW A and Franklin County shall mutually agree that Franklin County will continue to be a party to this contract for an additional term, or either can terminate Franklin County as a party to this contract as provided herein. WVW A and Franklin County shall notify each other of their intent to terminate or renew Franklin County's continuing to be a party. If neither WVW A or Franklin County notifies the other of its intent to terminate or renew this contract, it shall automatically and without further action on the part of either the WVW A or Franklin County be extended in two year increments, unless and until the WVW A or Franklin County shall notify the other parties hereto at least one year in advance of its intent to cease to be a party to this contract at the end of the two year term. Should Franklin County cease to be a party hereto, it shall have the option to acquire and operate the water line extension and all extensions made to the water line extension within Franklin County at such price and on such terms as shall be negotiated with the WVW A. o Approval of Extension: Based on the Code of Virginia and both Franklin and Roanoke County Rules, Ordinances, Regulations and Comprehensive Plans, future extensions into Franklin County and into Roanoke County must be approved by the respective County's Board of Supervisors and incorporated as part of this Contract. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 49 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report E"-1ension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 o Water Restrictions: If the Authority restricts water usages or withdrawals due to droughts, emergencies, or other conditions or circumstances, any reductions or restrictions placed on water sold to Franklin County shall be the same as placed on all other WVW A customers. o Quality: The quality and pressure of the water delivered under this contract shall provide fire flow and be the same as furnished the WVW A's customers and shall meet the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health and other state or federal agencies which have jurisdiction over public water supplies. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 50 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPJ004, May 18,2007 Appendix 1 Preliminary Engineering Report Proposed Waterline maps Page 1 thru 3 Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 51 of69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP 1004, May 1&, 2007 Appendix 2 Water Agreement Resolution between Franklin County, Roanoke County & WVW A Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 52 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sun crest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP1004, May 1&,2007 Franklin C:ount)' t~~ ~ .:: ~ l:.. f' '" ~'j: ti ;', ! )I- t ... WATEH .AUTHORITY A JOfNT RESOLUTION OF THE BO.t\JU} OF SUPERVISORS Of FR,-\NKUN COUNTY. VIRGlNU\. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Of ROANOKE COUNTY, VIROINV\ AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE \\''E.'STERN VIRGINIA W j\ TER AUTHORITY The l6rJl day of April, 20m. No, A RESOLUTfON autllorizing rcpresen!j!civc:s of Fr~nkltn COUlll)'. Roanoke County and lb~ W('$lCrn Virgin!.. \Valer AUlhority to continue the it disC'UssicJ!l<; its to the tfevl;:]l'"lpmcot of an e;o;tcnsioll of the Wiliwr distribution system of the Authority (tb~ "W"ter Line Extension") helm tbe currem termination j)oint of the ,o\1.ltbootfs water disrributiLl[J system al the ell1!i.\:flC'e of Sun Crest Heights Stdxlivision on RoulC 220 SQiUtll along tbe Virginia State Route 210 right of W:I, acrO!Os lhe RQanoke-Franklin C<n1nly line to 111<: Fnmldin County area of WiltZ Plateall. WHEREAS. the Bvard of Sup.ervlsors of Franklin County. Virginia ("rr".Jrlklin Cj1l1,11lIY'"). the BO;3rd of SI1~rvi:;.Qrs of Ro'<'tlloh C(JUlIJy. Virginia (~R(lallOke County"') antlthe Board of Dim;tors of tne We;rem Virginia Water AutbOfity {the "Authorit:('} have detcmlined COllcullently that it is in the he51 Interests of the Ciliz.ell:!o of F,ranklin County nnd of Roanoke ConOlY t11m the Authority extend k~ water distribmioll sy,tem fturll. Lh~ cunem lerminJtiol1 point of th~ Autlwrit;o/s wal<,r distrihutl1.10 system al rhe entrance of SUIl Crest Hejghl~ Sllbdi~'isjQtl on Route 120 SOUlll along the Virgima StaLe Route ~:!() righe of way across the ROlllloke.Franklin County line to the Fmnklin COUllty area of Wirtz Plateau. pUrs.u31Jl W the pmvisi(Jn~ of the Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 53 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18, 2007 Virginia ",later m'ld WlI"r,C Aml10raltCS ACl, Chapter:51. Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virgillia, as rnne.llded ("the Act"l. NOW. THERE.fORE. BE IT JOINTL YRESOL VED by the Board: of Sltpervisors of Franklin COllnty, Virginia. (he Board of Supervisl,lrs of Roatlo};e Count)', Virgini>l lllld the Board of Dim10rs of the \\r I:stcrn Vij-ginia water Amhorit},< as follows: I. ApprovaL in Prindple of the Water tine Exterlskln. T1:J.e Boards do each hl~rcby jointly approve in principle (he Water Line E.!tte31.sitm with Ute following parlUTIcl('.fi: A The coso! of the Watl::r Line Extension shall be sh::Jred pro('KJrtiooately b;twecn the jurisdictions ba~ed on the length of the Water Line Extension if! the respective jurisdklL<JIlS. The parties. l1!ll'l.:ipate tlUiI the Authority will issue honds to fmance the Water Line E~!ens;ion, and thaI the Coontics wHl (:ontribute I', wetr respective portions of the arUJUa! debt ser'\'icc paid to the Authority mUllaH)' over lhe term of the bond issue, and that the bnnd issue will be secured by [he: respe.ctive pruponlOl1ll.te moral obligations of Franklin CQunty and of Roaookc County. S, All CUstomers connecring to the '''tiler Line Exiension shaH be l;.,lsIOmerJl of Ute Authority AOO wif] be res.ponsiblc for ~ Authority's t--oMcction., :!.\'ailability and l,)lher fees a~ well as the, published rate f(lf their pW1icuJar jurisdiction. r.t'. Ruanoke County Cll,~1~1mCfS shall pay the Auth(nit)"S publisbed rates. Franklin (.(Ytll1ty customers shall pa)' Franklin CQunt.fs published roles for WSler service. C. The Water Line Extension and any extensions !herem shaJ I be O":i1ed and operated by the Au1h(ffity except thm Pranklin Coullt y shall retain (J,,>'nen.hip of the water line extemdott until construction is complete and aU obl igations regarding Ole Suite ilnd Ttibal Grant (STAG) Program have been satisfied. 2. ~arth Environmental Consultants, Inc. I Page 54 of 69 Preliminary Engineenng Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wuiz FCPPI004, May 18,2007 D. In the l;\'cm of an o!'mergency or ul'l'Igc rcstrtCtiollS imposed by the ..'\luIJOnl>'. all ClI,;tOl.l1Cr:> of the Authority will bC' treatNt equaUy. E The juri.sdictkm, will j1.lltmally ~gr~ on the other tenm and (;<:mdttioHS (If the ("On..,It'UL1ion. financing and opc-;wtion of tile 'Valeor Line Exlerl"i(~n. 2. Acriollto BeJIlken. The ~lppropri:1tt": (lfficers of Franklin Conllty, R()anOKe County and the Authority l',h...ll t<J.ke all actic:m n,e(:i;$~IllY or C'{mvcniem to IK':gotiate lID agreement among; the juri:>dic.tioos and orlletwisc plarl lhc development. fllUmring and construu.ion of the Waler Lint Extension: provided however. that 00 jurisdiction ~haU be legally hOlWd unlll it bas; explicitly approved the lerms and conditiQns !)f the agrccmcr1f It) he develo'Pt'.d by itS ofliccl'S. 3. Effective immediately. This resolution ~haU lake etleci immedi;ilely upon ils adoptiun. AT~_~~ Secretar~;ClT~~ S'-'J'Crvrs.(Irs,. Fr:mk:lin o.)unty, Virginia ~,4. dJckv 5c{;'[Ctary', Board of Supen'lwc!>, Roanoke Coumy, Virginia J." I r P-..'LAf- .cr-I " I Secreta!)'. Hoard of Directors. Western Virginia \Vl!rtCf Authority .., J n ('" " . Xxtf.-J::..e.'ftU-;1 . j,l Page 55 of69 Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5~8 ~~~ ~ 0 ot:)" ::>Il-...... Sa>. g :1ii ~ -;.."" ;1~ ~" :: ..0 0 Ll;:lO ~ lZl ;;: ;3 .E 0.. @ .~fi :: Q) ~::c ~ ~ ... u ::: ;:l rI:l E o ol:I ... Q) 'ia ~ .Sl ::;s ;:l 0.. ::: o ';;': ::: Q) :< ~ '" '" ...... o '" V) Q) t>/} '" 0.. u .5 vi' ~ ;; '" ::: o U S :: Q) ~ o ..... .;;: Ii Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 Appendix 3 WVWA Water Rates Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 57 of 69 Preliminary Engmeering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18,2007 Western Virginia Water Authority 'Vater and Sewer Rates Effe(tin~ January 1. 2006 'Watel' R.'lte Sdredule Water l'vfeter County' City Size (Inch) B.a:;e Charge D;!:;e Charge Monthly Monthly 5tgll $5.70 $350 1;:4" $8.55 $5.25 r $14.25 18..75 1-1/2" 523.50 Sl750 .")~ 545.60 S28.00 3" $85.50 $5250 4" $171.00 51 05 .ClO 6'" $342.00 S2l0.CJO 8'" $513.00 5315.00 lO~ $855.00 S525.00 12~ $1,140.00 S7OCLOO '~rilter VOF..m~ Charge V 01um-e Rate5 10. Thow.and G"llon.:. Cu~tomer CCI1.ll1t}. Rate City Rate I )-pe Per 1,000 Per 1,000 !:ll l!;al. Re~idmtial .AJ1cllr.:;umpnOll to $2.90 $2.41 lQ,OOO gallon:; O\'er 10. 000 gallol1~ $3.19 $266 perIlli'J. Commercial All eowumptcn. to $2.90 $2.42 75,000 g;;jl= pu mo. Oo;'er 75,000 galloll~ $3.19 $2.66 per mo. Ind-tlstri.l ..:HI cowumption to $2.90 $2.42 ]75,000 gallcmpermo. o,,:er 375,000 gallon:; $3.19 $2.66 'DeI' mo. IrriE'llrion .-'Ul C01L~n $3.19 52.66 Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 58 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP 1004, May 18, 2007 Sewer Rate Scl1edul.e 1Vestern nrginia \Yater Authori.,. :\lQuthly Flat Rate- Sewer Cbarges ;, TJ.'arer k!eter Coun:y City Size (Inch) B;a~ Charge Ba~>! Ch'ilIge :Monthly Momh..'-}' 5/8" $9.00 $3.00 , -n $1350 $4.50 /;;, 1" $21.50 $7.50 1-1'2" $45.00 $15-1)0 2" $72.00 $24.00 3" $135.00 $45.00 4" 51270.00 $90.00 6" SS40..0C' 5180.QO g" SSlO.OC S170.00 10" $1,350.00 $450.00 12" $1,800.00 S600.00 Volume Charge Per 1,C{lO Gal. $2.10 $2.:0 WYWA ..n'AILABILTIY fEES ).1 eter :\ n.ilabllit). A nilabilitr ~ize Fee Fe,e \Y liter S,ewer 5/S'" $2.400 $1.000 ~,~.,~ $3,600 $3,000 1" $6.000 $5.000 1-1.'2" $12,000 SlO,OOO 1" $19.200 S16.0oo 3" $36,000 530,000 4" $72,000 $60,000 6" Sl44,OOO 51'0.0(,'1) g;:~ $216.000 $lW,OOO 10" 5360.000 BOO.OOO 1:2" S4SIJJ}OO $400.000 County City F..es.-ideutial $19.20 'S11.60 Commercial sn.oo S84.00 ,., - Applies to customer;; \\'ithout mete-eO water sen-1ce by permission of the Western Virginia \Vater Authority. Flat Rate Charge based upon Se,,,'ef Volume Charge at 6,0.00 gallous. pee month for residential and 30,000 gallons per moom commen:ial plus, 5:8" bas.e charge by localiiy. \\\.'\'\"A- Watel' Basic Connection F ee& ~!erer (Include. Siu :\fetEI') 5/8" S UOO ~/;."~ $1,315 I" $tWO I-loT S2,300 1~ 52.500 3" 13,960 4" $12,300 6" 114.010 s." A~tual Co:: 10" A~tual CO:'! IT A~t:ual Co:t WY\VA - Se'wer Basic Coulle-ction Fees Lateral sizl! Up to 4-mch S1.500 6-mch S.!,C,oO Latera.l~ larger ::han o-lflch 01" ::ro:;~mg more :ilim one 1m>! of paYeJ:llSlt ....ould be charged at actual CO!l~tt'UCtiCll co~t For developmeuts coustructed utilizwg publicly-o'i';ned Eiewer pumpmg stations, the sewer availability charge will mcrease by $1,000.00 per equivalent residen.tial connection. For .,'ate-r metu installation.s where the senice WIt;; constructed by others, the meter charge .'ViIl be $250.00 up to 2-l:1ch meters. Meters larger than 2-inch \;;ill be billed at cost. Taps for services to be installed by others 'will be billed at cost. Water or sewer basic COllllecn':.n fees will increa;;e by SLOOO.OH per connectIDn for sen'ic.es that require 'ltreetpave-mellt re;;torari:m. . Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 59 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18,2007 WtosteI'D '"b-ginia Water Autholity Fire Service RatH Monthly lfinimum Charge Fire line Cit). CODnty Size < 4-wch 511.67 $11.67 4-ineh $76.67 $16.67 6-inc:h $166.67 $33.33 8-inc:h $266.67 $50.00 10-inch $450.00 $83.33 l2-inch $616.67 $IBJ3 Ba5ic Connection (Installation) Chu~e Fire Line Size"" 4-inch $10,300.00 6-inch S10.S00.00 8-inch $13,300.00 10-inch S15,OOO.OO 12-inch Actual Cost Fire Hydrant $3000.00 H Fire service less than 4- inch is same charge as domestic water senric:e ctlnnedion The We!>tern Virginia W liter Authority re!>elves the right to charge for excessive me sen-ice water consumption at c.ommercial water rates. Septa:€' Dispo~aJ Fe~: * Septage generated within the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, TO\\U of Vinton, C.ounties of Roanoke and Bot:et:ou1t - $:16.00 per 1,000 gallens discharged to the Authority water pollution control plan.t (\\iFCP) plus applicable decal fees. ** Septage generated in jurisdiction!> other than th~ listed above - $45.00 per 1,000 gallons plus applicable decal. fees. CODntv Fn'lilT Tax: Reddennal- 12% cftne first S15 oithe water charge per month. Not to exceed $1.80 per month.. Comme-rcial- 12% of the fullt 55,000 of the water charg-e per month. Not to exceed $600 per month Citv Utilit\' CODSlIm.er TU1 12% of the "vater charge. May not exceed $2,4t10 permollth (taxes set b,. the indidduallocalities) Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 60 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18, 2007 WESTER:.'" YIRGIXL\. 'VATER A UTHORIn- BILLI1VG FE.ES Ai'"]) l\IISCELL.A.l\"IODS CHARGES Initial Application $20.00 Each request for senice bevond initial water service t.zrn--nn 525.00 RechecK reading of meter (no charge if misread) $2CLOO Ill......esti.e:attoll efleal: $25.00 ~\1eteI test for removable meters (Uti c!wge if defective meter) $50.00 Meter test for :;tationarv meter> (no charge if defecti\.e meter) $200.00 }'.dditional m:enim.e charze (for .vorl; other than Sam-5pm, Ivlcll.-Fri) $37.50 Each service trip for non-paYment $35.00 Late Payment {whichever is gre:iter) 10% or S 1.50 Non-Plrymellt BS.OO Debt Set-off 525.00 Bad check charge 535.00 T emlJ'OrllIY 'Jlater or Se';H~r ACCQUllt AdmiLi.trati....e Fee $50.00 T empClrary \1/ ater (per 1000 gallons) 55.00 Temporarv\Vai>te\\'lireI (per oa" ofservlce) $5(1.00 Industrial Pretreatlnent Penalty Up:o 52,500 per violation D"J day' .A.dminist!'3tive Compliance Fee Up to $500 per .;iolation per month Engineering Desis;n Service Fee $5 per fO'N c:fmain Engineeriu:e: Field Senice Fee S50.00 Copy Fee (firS! 10 pages free i r.:rst half-hour labor free) $0.15 pe-rpage i $15 per hour Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 61 of 69 Prelinlinary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPP1004, May 18,2007 Appendix 4 Franklin County Water Rates Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 62 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18,2007 (Adopted following public hearing held on Tuesday, March 16,2004, at 6:00 p.m., Board Meeting Room, County Courthouse, Rocky Mount, VA) Chapter 22 WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS ARTICLE X. RATES AND FEES FOR COUNTY SYSTEMS Sec. 22-250.1 Phase I of the countywide public water system rates and fees. It is hereby ordained by the Franklin County Board of Supervisors that the County of Franklin shall charge customers of the Phase I Countywide Public Water System according to the following schedule of water rates and fees: a) Service Deposit (Refundable): One month's minimwn water use charge. b) Hook-Up Fees: Total Meter Size A vailability Fee Connection Fee Hook-up Fee 5/8" x %" $ 1,976.00 $ 750.00 $ 2,726.00 1" 2,767.00 1,050.00 3,817.00 1 W' 3,557.00 1,350.00 4,907.00 2" 5,731.00 2,175.00 7,906.00 "" 21,739.00 8,250.00 29,989.00 .J 4" 27,668.00 10,500.00 38,168.00 6" 41,501.00 15,750.00 57,251.00 8" 57,312.00 21,750.00 79,062.00 An introductory discount shall be offered for hook-up fees paid within one year of construction completion and acceptance of the Phase I water system, as follows: Total Hook-up Fee: Availability Fee (Paid Alone): Connection Fee (Paid Alone): Discount of 20% Discount of 15% Discount of] 0% Following the discount period, the total hook-up fee, availability fee and connection fees will be assessed at their adopted rates. c) Fire Protection Hook-Up and Appurtenances: Provision offITe hydrants, detector checks for fITe flow, compound meters, and such appurtenances related to on-site fITe protection suppression systems shall be assessed a one-time charge at the County's cost (including materials, labor, contractor and consultant services, and administration) to install the appurtenance( s). d) Water Use Rates: Customer pays the monthly minimwn plus the customer pays for the volwne of water used during the month above the monthly minimum amount at the adopted rates based on volwne of water purchased. 1. Monthly Minimum Rate A. Community Systems: The monthly minimwn shall be $8.00/1,000 gallons applied to 75% of the monthly water usage anticipated for all connections (based on one ERC per connection or 4,000 gallons/month per residential connection). As an example, a community system having 30 homes has a monthly minimum of 30 homes x 4,000 gallons/month minimwn water usage = 120,000 gallons/month x 75% = 90,000 gallons/month at the rate of $8.00/1 ,000 gallons = $720.00/monthly minimum charge. Should the number of connections within the community system increase or decrease, the monthly minimum shall be reconfigured. An introductory offer shall be provided to community systems that execute a user agreement with the County by June 2004 or as approved by the County Administrator, such that the monthly minimum established shall be $8.00/1,000 gallons applied to 65% of the monthly water usage anticipated for all connections (based on one ERC per connection or 4,000 gallons/month per residential connection). As an example, a community system having 30 homes shall have a monthly minimum of 30 homes x 4,000 gallons/month minimwn water usage = 120,000 gallons/month x 65% = 78,000 gallons/month at the rate of $8.00/1 ,000 gallons = $624.00/monthly minimum charge. The introductory offer monthly minimum, if accepted in a timely manner, shall Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 63 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPIO04, May 18,2007 set the monthly minimum terms to be applied to the community system during the entire period of its continuing water purchases as a community system. Should the number of connections within the community system increase or decrease, the monthly minimum shall be reconfigured according to the introductory offer. After June 2004 or such date as approved by the County Administrator, where service is available to community systems located along the Phase I project, the monthly minimum shall be based on 75% of the monthly minimum water usage anticipated for connections, as opposed to the 65% introductory offer. B. All Other Connections Not Listed in (A) Above: Meter size flow minimum x $8.00/1,000 gallons, as follows: Meter Size Monthly Minimum Charge 5/8" x 3/4" = 1 ERC = 4,000 gallon minimum I" = 10,000 gallon minimum 1 Y2" = 20,000 gallon minimum 2" = 32,000 gallon minimum 3" = 64,000 gallon minimum 4" = 100,000 gallon minimum 6" = 200,000 gallon minimum Larger than 6" determined by Public Works Director $ 32.00 80.00 160.00 256.00 512.00 800.00 1 ,600.00 TBD 2. Monthly Water Purchase Rates A. Monthly Water Purchase Rates: Customers shall be charged the monthly minimum, and the volume used each month above the monthly minimum amount shall be charged at the volume charges which are applicable, as follows: Volume Used/Month Rate/LOOO Gallons Used Monthly minimum 4,001-18,000 gallons 18,001-25,000 gallons 25,001-50,000 gallons 50,001-100,000 gallons 100,001 gallons and over As established above. $ 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 B. Bulk Water Purchase: $8.00/1,000 gallons purchased/month plus one-time application fee of $25.00. Bulk water purchases at locations other than the County's bulk meter station must receive prior approval from the Public Works Director. e) Late Payment Fee: 1.5%/month of the unpaid balance, cumulative. f) Disconnection Fee: $20.00/disconnection up to two (2) disconnections/year per customer. If the customer wishes or is assessed three (3) or more disconnections/year, the fee shall be $25.00/disconnection. g) Reconnection Fee: $40.00/reconnection. h) Returned Check Fee: $25.00/returned check. i) Customer Requested Meter Read: $25.00/meter read. j) Meter Test Fee: Ifrequested by the customer, $35 if the test is conducted by County staff; or cost plus 10% ifby contractor or factory tested. The meter test fee shall be assessed only if the meter is accurate according to the test. k) Utility Plan Review: A separate fee from fees assessed by the Planning and Community Development Department shall be assessed for plan review of systems which seek to be turned over to the County. This fee shall be paid to Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 64 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May] 8,2007 the County Treasurer in care of the Public Works Department, as follows: . A minimum of $150 flat fee plus $0.25/linear foot of water line for fIrst-time review. . If subsequent reviews are required by the County for the same water plans, an additional $150 flat fee shall be assessed for each subsequent review. . Waterline inspections by County staffor County consultants shall be billed to the applicant at actual cost. l) Lien Provision for Unpaid Charges and Fees and Termination of Service : The lien provisions and policies regarding termination/cutting off of the water supply to the customer which are set forth in Section 22-251 of the County Code for unpaid water charges and fees (including availability and connection fees, water rates, and other adopted rates and fees) shall be applicable to customers of the Phase I Countywide Public Water System. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 65 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18.2007 EXCERPT: RATES AND FEES FOR "FOREST HILLS" COUNTY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM (VICINITY OF DOE RUN AND POWER DAM ROADS) Adopted by the Board of Supervisors, August 17, 2004; Revised September 21, 2004 a) Service Deposit (Refundable): One month's minimum water use charge. b) Hook-Up Fees: Meter Size Availability Fee Connection Fee Hook-up Fee 5/8" x %" 1,976.00 750.00 2,726.00 I" 2,767.00 1,050.00 3,817.00 1 Y2" 3,557.00 1,350.00 4,907.00 2" 5,731.00 2,175.00 7,906.00 3" 21,739.00 8,250.00 29,989.00 4" 27,668.00 10,500.00 38,168.00 6" 41,501.00 15,750.00 57,251.00 8" 57,312.00 21,750.00 79,062.00 An introductory discount shall be offered for hook-up fees paid within one year of construction completion and acceptance by the Franklin County of the "Forest Hills" County public water system, as follows: Total Hook-up Fee: Availability Fee (Paid Alone): Connection Fee (Paid Alone): Discount of 20% Discount of 15% Discount of 10% Following the discount period, the total hook-up fee will be assessed at its adopted rate. c) Water Use Rates: Customer pays the monthly minimum plus the customer pays for the volume of water used during the month above the monthly minimum amount at the adopted rates based on volume of water purchased. Monthlv Minimum Rate: For most water customers, the minimum monthly use charge shall be $21.50 for the fIrst 3,000 gallons of usage. Volume UsedIMonth Rate/LOOO Gallons Used Monthly minimum 3,001-10,000 gallons 10,001-50,000 gallons 50,001-100,000 gallons 100,001-250,000 gallons 250,001-500,000 gallons 500,00] or more gallons As established by the Board of Supervisors. $ 6.50 6.30 6.10 5.90 5.60 5.00 d) Late Payment Fee: 1.5%/month of the unpaid balance, cumulative. e) Disconnection Fee: $20.00/disconnection up to two (2) disconnections/year per customer. If the customer wishes or is assessed three (3) or more disconnections/year, the fee shall be $25.00/disconnection. f) Reconnection Fee: $40.00/reconnection. Returned Check Fee: $25.00/returned check. g) h) Lien Provision for Unpaid Charges and Fees and Termination of Service: The lien provisions and policies Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 66 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPl004, May 18, 2007 regarding tennination/cutting off of the water supply to the customer which are set forth in Section 22-251 of the County Code for unpaid water charges and fees (including availability and connection fees, water rates, and other adopted rates and fees) shall be applicable to customers of the "Forest Hills" County Public Water System. Note: Call the Public Works Department at 540-483-3030 for additional information. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 67 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Sunerest Hcights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPlO04, May 18,2007 APPENDIX 7: (Adopted following public hearing held on October 19, 1999, at 6:00 p.m., Board Meeting Room, County Courthouse, Rocky Mount, VA) Chapter 22 WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS ARTICLE X. RATES AND FEES FOR COUNTY SYSTEMS Sec. 22-250. Commerce Center water system rates and fees. It is hereby ordained by the Franklin County Board of Supervisors that the County of Franklin shall charge for water and connection fees at the Commerce Center according to the following schedule: Minimum rate/month/3,000 gallons... ... ... ... ..... .... ...... ......... ... ... ...... .... $ 6.00 Rate/l,OOO gallons over 3,000/month/l,000 gallons................................... 2.00 Connection fees: 5/8" meter... ....... .. ... ..... .... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ............... ...... ... ... $ 500.00 1" meter........................................................................... 1 ,200.00 1 Yz" meter. .. ... ............... ... ... ... ..................... ... ... ... ........... 1,500.00 2" meter. ........ ...... .................. ........................... ... ........... 2,250.00 3" meter......... .................. ... ... ...... .................. ...... ........... 3,500.00 Over 3" meter............................................................... .Cost plus 10% Availability fee.. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . ... 400.00 Disconnection fee.......................................................................... 3.00 Reconnection fee...... ... ..... ....... ... ... ... ..:............... ... ... ... ... ............... 20.00 Late payment fee.. . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . 20.00 Bulk water purchase rate/1 ,000 gallons... ..................... ... ... ... ......... ....... 4.00 (Ord. of 10-19-99) RESOLUTION OF THE FRANKLIN COUNTY BOAD OF SUPERVISORS Conditions of Purclrase of Bulk Water from the Commerce Center Water System (Resolution No. 21-09-99, September 1999) Be it hereby resolved by the Franklin County Board of Supervisors that bulk water purchases from the Commerce Center Water System are subject to the following conditions: 1) When sold as bulk purchase water, the water supply of the Commerce Center Water System shall be deemed raw water unless otherwise approved by the Board of Supervisors; 2) Approval of the County Administrator or hislber designee is required for any bulk rate sale; 3) The purchaser is responsible for collecting and transporting the bulk water and shall hold the County harmless and meet all requirements regarding collection established by the County Administrator or hislber designee; Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 68 of 69 Preliminary Engineering Report Extension Public Water from Suncrest Heights Subdivision to Wirtz FCPPI004, May 18,2007 4) The County Administrator shall ascertain that surplus water is available beyond the needs of monthly customers of the Commerce Center Water System prior to approval of any bulk purchase; 5) The County Administrator shall prioritize any sale of bulk rate water from the Commerce Center Water System, as deemed appropriate, to potential customers as follows: A) Raw water for public drinking water supplies; B) Raw water for livestock; C) Raw water for other agricultural production; D) Raw water for swimming pools and other uses. 6) At the recommendation of the County Administrator, the Board of Supervisors may consider a negotiated agreement for the sale of bulk water from the Commerce Center Water System at such rates as are included in the proposed agreement. Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc Page 69 of 69 April 16, 2007 343 (c) Roanoke County Board of Supervisors: Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution, authorize the County Administrator and staff to conduct a 2232 planning review of the Route 220 corridor area, authorize the County Administrator and staff to conduct a corridor study which will which address a number of items including traffic impact and areas for preservation, economic development and residential use, and authorize the County Attorney to begin work on a contract with the Western Virginia Water Authority and Franklin County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Supervisors Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara None Supervisor Wray Supervisor Wray advised that he owns property in this area, and therefore would abstain from voting. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Western Virainia Water Authority: Member Don Davis moved to adjourn the Western Virginia Water Authority meeting at 4:23 p.m. The motion was seconded by Member Rupert Cutler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Members Cutler, Davis, Lawson, Hodge NAYS: None ABSENT: Members Burcham, Minnix 344 April 16, 2007 Franklin County Board of Supervisors: Chair Angell adjourned the Franklin County Board of Supervisors meeting at 4:23 p.m. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors: Chairman McNamara adjourned the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting at 4:24 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~~I1(LJj. duMJ7/J) Diane S. ChilCters, CMC Clerk to the Board --- 9/26/2007 Route 220 Corridor Study Preliminary Site Analysis August 21, 2007 Analysis of Study Corridor · Acreage: 1,384 · Floodplain: 80 acres (including 40 acres of Floodway) · Historic Structures: 22 · Cemeteries: 10 Analysis of All Sites · Acreage - 328 acres (24 percent of the corridor) · Zoning - Primarily AG-3 and AG-l · Future Land Use - Evenly distributed between Transition, Rural Preserve and Rural Village · Existing Land Use - Primarily residential Zoning for All Sites . ,,;, ;TofarAcr~a' e 187 92 24 19 5 1 328 (C) indicates Conditions or Proffers; (S) indicates Special Use Permit 9/26/2007 2 9/26/2007 Future Land Use for All Sites Future Land Use Classification Total Acrea2e Village Center 101 Rural Preserve 98 Transition 93 Rural Village 36 328 Existing Lal1d Use for All Sites Residential ( vacant) Total Acrea e 106 98 72 22 4 3 Less than I Use Type Existing Land Use Classification Other Churches Churches (vacant Mortuaries/Cemeteries 12 Less than 1 Less than 1 328 3 Analysis of Seven Selected Sites · Zoning: - AG-3, AG-l, A V, AR, C-l, C-2 · Future Land Use: - Transition, Rural Preserve, Rural Village, Village Center · Existing Land Use: - Single Family Dwellings, Manufactured Homes, Rural Homesites, Commercial, Churches, Cemeteries · Historic Structures: 10 · Cemeteries: 5 Analysis of Seven Selected Sites Sites by Size (acreage) , · Site 5 - Starlight: 48.92 · Site 6- Willow Branch: 22.29 · Site 4 - Pine Needle (North): 29.57, " · Site 2 - Back Creek: 17.93' '; · Site 7 2- D~~qh~?: 9.25 · SiteL'~!lr.~tht,en.~7;80' ,_ . i r, oiI;,;-," '-,\~.",""". ".~, '." '.'. . · Site 3 - Winter Drive: 5.84 Total Acreage: 132.60 ',. 9/26/2007 4 9/26/2007 Site 1 - Brethren Site 1 - Brethren Size 7.8 acres Zoning AG-l, AV, C-2 Future Land Use Transition, Rural Preserve Sewer Access Available (1 st Tier) Floodplain Issues Yes, will need to construct a bridge over floodplain for site access 220 Access Southbound: Fair Northbound: ? 220 Intersection Brethren Road / Yellow Mountain Road Limitation Historic Features 5922 Brethren Road Bungalow Other 1-73 will impact site 5 Site 2(C) - Back Creek Site 2(D) - Back Creek 9/26/2007 6 9/26/2007 Site 2 - Back Creek Size 17.93 acres Zoning AG-l,AV Future Land Use Transition, Rural Preserve Sewer Access Available (151 Tier) Floodplain Issues Yes, impedes access to site 220 Access Southbound: Good . Northbound: Fair 220 Intersection Back Creek Road Limitation " Historic Features Red Hill Church, 1937 Cemeteries Boone-Naff Cemetery Kingery-Campbell Cemetery Other 1-73 could affect site Site 3 (A) - Winter Drive 7 Site 3(A/B) - Winter Drive 1920 BWlgalOW and W'mter Drive Site 3 - Winter Drive 5.84 acres AG-l, AV t~ition' ?;:'~:~;",;:\iF" I '< -" . . 1 AVa!l~~f~ (1i~~Tier) . Yes';~dj&terit floqdplain Sou1:hbofuId: Good' '.,;"'i~_: ,J , ~ \~';'r" ~:-h 'f">{.",;~;'r',_i{:}?:'" ," Northbdimd: UnsatiSfactory _, ..... '.."_~! ,:f-~_,':::_' ,~).. ,,,- ",,' ' ' __ . 220tiifeiSectio111/><;i,Winter'Drive I Crowell Gap Road LiriJtiL~~~'\2t}.n',).";;;" ;>~,?, .r;1i 'c. Historic' 9/2612007 8 9/26/2007 Site 4(B) - Pine Needle Site 4(D) - Pine Needle 9 Site 4 - Pine Needle (North Entrance) Size 20.57 acres Zoning AG-l Future Land Use Transition, Rural Village Sewer Access Accessible (2nd Tier) Floodplain Issues Yes, adjacent floodplain 220 Access Southbound: Good Northbound: Poor 220 Intersection Pine Needle Drive Limitation Cemeteries Hartman-Kasey-Kingery Cemetery Site 5(B) - Starlight 9/26/2007 10 9/26/2007 Site see/D) - Starlight From south edge of 5C looking across 5D to Route 220 Site SeD) - Starlight 11 Site 5(E) - Starlight . " Site 5(F) - Starlight . --------"......---.--- 9/26/2007 12 9/26/2007 Site 5(G) - Starlight Site 5 - Starlight Size 48.92 acres Zoning AG-3,AR.,AV Future Land Use Village Center, Rural Village, Rural Preserve Sewer Access Accessible (2nd/3Td Tier) Floodplain Issues No 220 Access Southbound: Good Northbound: Good 220 Intersection Starlight Lane / Shadow Hollow Lane Limitation Historic Structures 1940s Frame Bungalow Cemeteries Alcorn Cemetery 13 Site 6(B) - Willow Bral1ch 9/26/2007 14 9/26/2007 Site 6(B) - Willow Branch Site 6(D) - Willow Branch 15 9/26/2007 Site 6 - Willow Branch Size Zoning Future Land Use Sewer Access Floodplain Issues 220 Access 220 Intersection Limitation Historic Structures 22.29 acres AG-3 Village Center Accessible (4th Tier) No Southbound: Good . Northbound: ? Willow Branch and Spotswood Drive (potential realignment) " Franklin and Willow Branch Roads Bungalow Site 7(B) - Dunahoo 16 9/26/2007 Site 7 - DUl1ahoo Size 9.25 acres Zoning AG-3, C-l Future Land Use Village Center Sewer Access Accessible (4th Tier) Floodplain Issues No 220 Access Southbound: Good Northbound: Good 220 Intersection Dunahoo Road Limitation Historic Structures Bungalow Cemeteries Murray Cemetery 17 Route 220 Corridor Study Community Meeting Clearbrook Elementary School September 17,2007 Agenda 1. Corridor Study background 2. Potential Development Sites 3. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Maps, Alternative Amend ment Scenarios 4. Draft Study Themes/Rezoning Guidelines 5. Reminder: Comment Sheet and temporary location for upcoming public hearings 6. Questions and Answers ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR STUDY COMMUNITY MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 DRAFT STUDY THEMES/REZONING GUIDELINES STUDY AREA . Boundaries of study area follow existing breaks in the Comprehensive Plan future land use maps, or 1,000 feet from the highway center line, whichever is greater. . Petitions for commercial development/ redevelopment are encouraged at the sites identified in the study. Residential development is discouraged, unless accessory to a commercial use within a mixed-use development. . The limits of the future land use map commercial designations are intended to function as an Urban Development Area boundary, with the understanding that urban/suburban development is strongly discouraged beyond that area limit, until such time that further planning and land use studies are completed for those rural areas. PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE . New projects must connect to public water service. · New projects must connect/extend sanitary sewer service if within X feet of existing sewer. · New projects beyond existing sanitary sewer - petitioner must consider extension of sewer services, and/or justify not constructing the services. · New projects using private septic systems are discouraged, but if proposed must have septic permit approval from the Virginia Department of Health submitted with rezoning application. SLOPE DEVELOPMENT . New projects must provide preliminary grading plan with rezoning application, delineating building pad area, driveway access grading, limits of disturbance and extent of proposed cut and fill. · New projects exceeding 25 vertical feet of cut or fill slope must provide geotechnical report with rezoning application. · Heights and details of all proposed retaining walls must be provided with rezoning application. · Planning Commission may request geotechnical report at its discretion. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK . Traffic Impact Analysis report shall be submitted with rezoning application, unless that requirement is waived by the Virginia Department of Transportation and Roanoke County. · Priority sites have access from Route 220, and from existing public streets intersecting with Route 220. · New public streets intersecting with Route 220, and new access driveways from Route 220 will require significant transportation planning and coordination with the Virginia Department of Transportation and Roanoke County prior to submission of rezoning application. · Consideration must be given to the future Interstate Route 73 corridor and potential land use impacts of that highway construction. SITE SELECTION . Development opportunities are prioritized in the study. Seven general areas are identified in the plan as development opportunities and should be given the highest priority in consideration of rezoning applications. Of these seven areas, some sites are more conducive for development due to proximity of sanitary sewer, existing highway intersections and turn lanes, topography issues and overall size of the potential development area. . A second tier of potential development sites are listed in the plan as "Other Sites". These sites had some favorable topography, but are second in the priority list due to highway access difficulties, topography issues, or general separation from a cluster of other sites. . The remaining lands not identified in the development opportunity map are third on the priority for development. These lands have the most significant challenges for development, and would require intensive study and design work to be included in a rezoning application. ARCHITECTURE/SITE DESIGN . Building elevations shall be submitted with rezoning application. . Landscaping and buffer yards shall be submitted with rezoning application. . Refer to county design guidelines, as amended, for guidance with site design, signs, other amenities. THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR STUDY COMMUNITY MEETING. 1838 --_.~._.._-- --,. The Route 220 Corridor Study will become part of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a general, long-range policy and implementation guide for decisions concerning the overall growth and development of the County. One important component of the Comprehensive Plan is the "Future Land Use Map." This map designates areas and types of land uses for future development of the County. The maps guide citizens and property owners who are evaluating alternative uses of their land and will be used by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission in the evaluation of requested land use and zoning amendments. WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. Two urban commercial designations are proposed for the 220 Corridor Study Area. The three scenarios presented show alternative designations of "Transition" and "Core" areas. The orange "Transition" designation encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in Transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale coordinated retail uses. The red "Core" designation encourages high intensity urban development. 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. PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES 1. Please comment on the three Future Land Use Map scenarios: :::.~"\1~ ';J::. ~ "...., ~~ '"" '-,.'JI-~' ~"',. _ ~ > , . ~ _ .f ~~' $ .,,-,m'l.X[~,;.:"_l~~l}r~,:tK:'~ I ..' , " .,\,~, . }'-~--.-' - -- ! "...~"...._-"--....,- '>" , .:;^, - ~';t'8J.r;..i~~~' . . ", _ '. . _ ,-.~~l)l,U.!J~~i:l.!'>' , ,'~. _ - . '.' '. ...,.' 1 2 3 2. Please comment on the areas identified as Development Opportunities: 3. Are there other areas that could be identified as Development Opportunity Areas? Why? 4. Do you have additional comments or questions for County staff? 5. If you would like staff to contact you regarding your questions or to send you further information on the 220 Corridor study, please provide us with your name, phone number, email and/or address below: If you choose to take this questionnaire home to complete, please mail it to thefollowing address: Route 220 Corridor Study Roanoke County Community Development Department 5204 Bernard Drive P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 THE DEADLINE FOR COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES IS FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007. THANK YOU. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR STUDY COMMUNITY MEETING SEPTEMBER 17,2007 CITIZEN QUESTIONS/COMMENTS 1. When will the waterline construction begin? a. The Western Virginia Water Authority is currently in the planning and design phase of the waterline extension, which is estimated to take six months. Construction should take 18 months. The construction will be phased, with each segment taking three to four months to complete approximately 2-3 miles in length of waterline. The first phase ofthe waterline project should go out to bid in January 2008 2. Where will the water line be located? a. The waterline will be constructed in VOOT right-of-way. The location of the line is approximate at this time. 3. Does staff expect that the waterline will attract large commercial development? a. In order to have a successful community, there must be a range of uses. Some residential uses can coexist with some commercial uses. At this point, the opportunity to work within the VOOT right of way is tremendous because no land acquisition is necessary for this project. Therefore, the only cost to the county is construction costs. Revenues from commercial development help to cover these costs. Additionally, commercial development is more attractive along a major highway that residential uses because of safety concerns. Small lots with individual driveways pose a risk on Route 220, because, as the number of entrances directly off Route 220 increase, the potential for accidents increases. Commercial uses can be clustered and can share entrances. 4. Who will have access to the water? a. If you have property fronting on Route 220 you will be able to connect to the waterline. 5. What is the cost of installing the waterline? a. The total cost of installing 12 miles of waterline is $5.5 million. The cost for Roanoke County is $2.3 million, and $3.2 million is Franklin County's share. 6. Traffic is already a problem on Route 220. Are there any planned improvements? a. Staff is not aware of any plans by VDOT to improve the road at this time. 7. These scenarios appear to promote business growth. Why not concentrate the commercial development where the interstate will be rather than trying to place businesses on the side of cliffs? a. Residential growth does not make sense on the frontage along Route 220. Over time, county staff expects residential growth beyond the frontage parcels but currently we want to encourage orderly and appropriate business development in the study area. In the future, we plan to analyze the areas outside of the study boundaries. We will need to look at the broader picture once the waterline is in place and growth develops in the corridor to see the impacts to the surrounding area. 8. Which scenario will staff recommend to the Planning Commission and why? a. Staffwill not be recommending any of the scenarios. The intention of creating three scenarios is to establish a dialogue and evaluate more than one option. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 9. Is there a chance that none of the scenarios will be accepted in favor ofleaving the Future Land Use Map as it currently exists in the Community Plan? a. In studies such as this one, there is always the choice of a no-action alternative, but it is unlikely that that option will be chosen, because the current designations are for rural areas without access to water and sewer. 10. Are you talking about a significant rezoning? a. The county will not be doing a comprehensive rezoning. The purpose of the Future Land Use Map is to guide future growth. There are currently no changes in zoning planned by the County, but this plan will aid the Board of Supervisor's in making decisions on future rezoning applications 11. My biggest concern is that I'm afraid that my neighbor will sell their property and then before I know it, I'll be living next door to a big box development. a. This is a way of thinking proactively about the future. We are asking, "what changes will there be in 10, 20, or 30 years?" We know that growth will develop between Roanoke County and Smith Mountain Lake, and between here and Virginia Tech, and along the 1-73 corridor. b. Change will happen and we need to identify areas that are best to develop and best to preserve. We need to preserve areas against residential uses where we need commercial uses and we need to preserve residential and agricultural uses where they best fit. We need a mix of uses to support a viable community. c. This meeting is a way of working through the uncertainties and working with the people who live in the study area now. It is good planning to be prepared for growth. 12. Why is Roanoke County running a waterline to Franklin County? a. Roanoke County is not running a waterline; the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) is constructing the line. This is just an opportunity to get water in Roanoke County where we do not currently have it. One day in the future, residents may very much need the waterline or want it. This way we are prepared to have it when we need it. This is an opportunity to extend water along the corridor at a cost we will never see again. 13. Will the capital costs for providing water (Spring Hollow) be charged to Franklin County? a. Before Roanoke County joined the Western Virginia Water Authority, debt service was spread between fewer customers. Once the WVW A was formed, the average bill was reduced by approximately four dollars per month per household as the total number of customers increased to 60,000. The WVWA believes that with more customers, it can operate more efficiently. Once the current water supply is exhausted, the next supply point is Smith Mountain Lake. This extension will allow the WVW A to be prepared to run water from Smith Mountain Lake if it is needed. 14. When will people be notified? How can I get water if my property does not front on Route 220? Where will sewer service end? a. People on Route 220 will be notified when the opportunity becomes available for hook-up. b. People whose properties do not front directly on 220 may have the option of submitting a petition for services. This could apply if 50% of the residents of a neighborhood petition for services, and each would pay for their fair share of extending the water. c. Sewer will be available to the top of the hill past Red Hill Baptist Church. This is the extent for gravity sewer. 15. Is the Core future land use designation is Scenario 3 in anyway correlated with the 45 mph speed zone? a. No, it is tied to existing and future utilities and the break in topography that would be the extent of gravity sewer service to a new pump station at Back Creek and Route 220. 16. There is a difference between a nice office building and a shipping carrier terminal. How can we ensure that the latter will not end up on 220? a. These future land use designations do not support industrial development. The rezoning guidelines pertain to commercial development, not residential or industrial development. 17. Where is the money for the waterline coming from? a. The money will come from the General Fund until revenue comes in from development. It is already set aside; no future tax increase will result specifically from this project. 18. Other comments/concerns: a. Traffic on 220, b. Accidents in front of Clearbrook Elementary School c. School bus stops on Route 220. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. T- I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance authorizing vacation of an unimproved right-of-way between Lot 14, Block 1, Section 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, as identified on the plat of Glenvar East Subdivision, Section 1, in Plat Book 7, Page 12, located in the Catawba Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Richard A. Dehart and Tom E. Cranston have requested the vacation of an unimproved 50 foot right-of-way between Lot 14, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, as shown on the plat of Section 1, Glenvar East Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 12, located in the Catawba Magisterial District. This right-of-way is located between the two parcels owned by the petitioners. Since the right-at-way only adjoins the two parcels owned by the petitioners and terminates at the Roanoke County School Board's property, the entire road right-ot-way would transter to the petitioners. County departments and local utility companies were contacted concerning the vacation. Western Virginia Water Authority has requested the retention of a 20 foot easement centered on the existing water line located in the right-ot-way, and Appalachian Power would like to retain its current 12 foot public utility easement. The County Attorney is meeting with the Roanoke County School Board on November 8,2007, to determine the School Board's recommendation on this petition. The other utility companies which were contacted had no objection to the road being vacated. One ot the petitioners desires to vacate the right-ot-way to place an improvement on their property. Once this right-ot-way is vacated, the property will be divided evenly between the petitioners and combined with the abutting properties, as provided in Section 15.2-2274 ot the Code ot Virginia. The pertinent intormation which is shown on the attached Exhibit A entitled "UNIMPROVED 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED AND RETAINING A 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT AND 12' AEP EASEMENT BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" will give the Board a better perspective concerning the relationship between the Glenvar School campus and the unimproved right-ot-way. Also attached is an aerial photo ot the area. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost and expenses associated with this request, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility ot the petitioners. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Approve tirst reading ot the proposed ordinance authorizing the vacation otthe right-ot- way and establishing waterline and public utility easements in its location. 2. Do not adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the vacation ot the right-ot-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval ot Alternative 1. 2 METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLA T REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLA TS, AND CALCULA TED INFORM A TlON AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURA TE BOUNDARY SURVEY. * x ,aG' . ./.,? (UT 36 ~ II: ~ .0 I iil Cl .oq:~ 415 ( [JEJ I 375 I.; f ! ~...~ INGAL _ 4W BLVD. _ 4W "_ 4W '. . 4W - 4W. RTE. 1119 _ 4W -:=...4W _W 1 : ..... 4~ . . t;;J: j ~.i.. . x". f '\..:, ........ EX. 12' P.U.E 0 -===r - 8W ~4 8W 8W ~ 368 ----I X 12' p.UJ ~DL 8W x o - t6W _ t6W _ t6W t6W o - t6W _ t6W _ t6W _ WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORTllY HAS REQUESTED RETAINING A 20' EASEMENT CENTERED ON THE EXISTING WATER LINE. THE LOCATION SHOWN IS NOT FIELD SURVEYED AND IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. EXISTING AEP EASEMENT TO REMAIN. TAX I 54.02-03-15.00 RICHARD A. & TAMMY C. DEHART LOT 14 TAX I 54.02-04-02.00 COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY 32.71 Ac. TAX I 54.02-03-16.00 TOM E. & THELMA S. CRANSTON LOT 1 0.253 Ac. (0.8. 965 PG. 283) 0.255 Ac. (0.8. 1318 PG. 1802) TAX I 54.02-04-03.00 COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY LEGEND GLENVAR MIDDLE SCHOOL 4555 28.48 Ac. ~ RIGHT-Of-WAY TO BE VACATED TAX MAP NO. 54.02 EXHIBIT "A" GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL 4549 SCALE: 1"= 1 00' PLAT SHOWING UNIMPROVED 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY - TO BE VACATED AND RETAINING A 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT AND 12' AEP EASEMENT BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DA TE: 11-13-2007 1---- ___I ""'_.__......-_..~Ol'''--''_y_.. --.UCC.n___or.................____ _.......~_~a..rc---.~or ..................o.td...__..._OI~d... __"'_.~Gl"'_ n._~_ ___d.......__.._r4_..__ --''''...........-......--....-....-. __OI'~-.....:::.=-_.......~ ~_________.......ID -.,....-._______~ "'--'r____.__..... _..-__.._-.~......v.-a..PWII<ooAO ..._~__..._d.._2.a.... n.-. ...-.........-.-_......_....0._..__ ...-..-c'"-"--........ ...A...~._-...0I..ar". ....__n.._...._-~O:-, <" "'--Co.rIr-~~~.G1SO"'- -.......... ....tf... '" .......... . o 75 150 300 N Feet W.E 600 S . Glenvar School Area - - 450 Date: 7 November, 2007 Scale: 1 inch e uals 300 feet Rodnoke County Department of Comm~ty Development 5204 Bernard Clr'Nc Roanoke, Wginia 24018 (540) nZ-Z065 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN LOT 14, BLOCK 1, AND LOT 1, BLOCK 2, AS IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAT OF GLENV AR EAST SUBDIVISION, SECTION 1, IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 12, LOCATED IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Glenvar East Subdivision, Section 1, plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 7, page 12, ("the Glenvar East Subdivision Plat") established an unimproved right of way, 50' in width and approximately 110' in length, between Lot 14, Block 1 (Tax Map No. 54.02-3-15) and Lot 1, Block 2 (Tax Map No. 54.02-3-16), which now connects Ingal Blvd. (Route 1119) with County School Board property known as Glenvar Middle School (Tax Map No. 54.02-4-3); and WHEREAS, the right-of-way area designated and set aside for public use on the above mentioned plat has never been improved or accepted into the Virginia State Secondary Road System; and WHEREAS, the above described unimproved right-of-way is more clearly shown as "RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED" on "Plat Showing Unimproved 50' Right-of-Way to be Vacated and Retaining a 20' Waterline Easement and 12' AEP Easement - By Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia", dated 11-13-2007, prepared by Roanoke County Department of Community Development and attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of this undeveloped right-of-way and that its current existence imposes an impediment to the adjoining property owners making improvements to their properties adjoining this previously dedicated but unimproved street; and WHEREAS, the adjoining property owners and residents of Roanoke County, as the Petitioners, have requested that, pursuant to 915.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate this unimproved right-of-way on the plat of the Glenvar East Subdivision, Section1, Plat Book 7, Page 12, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by 9 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on November 13, 2007, and a second reading of this ordinance was held on December 4,2007. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the subject real estate (an unimproved right of way 50' wide and approximately 110' in length) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interests in real estate renders it unavailable for other public use. 2 3. That this unimproved right-of-way is designated and shown as "RIGHT-OF- WAY TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, said right-of-way being located on the west side of Ingal Blvd. (Route 1119,) between Lot 14, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 and having been dedicated on the subdivision plat of Glenvar East Subdivision, Section 1, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 7, page 12 in the Catawba Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to 9 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 4. That an existing 12' AEP public utility easement as shown on the above mentioned plat shall remain in full force and effect; and 5. That a 20' wide waterline easement centered on the existing waterline as shown on the above mentioned plat be, and hereby is, retained for the Western Virginia Water Authority; and 4. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners. 5. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with 915.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 3 U-J PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Auslo, Inc. /Philip Bane 19-10/2007 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 5, 2007 (continued from October 2,2007) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 13, 2007 (continued from October 23,2007) A. REQUEST The petition of Auslo, Inc'/Philip Bane to rezone 1.42 acres from R-3, Medium Density Multi- Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, for the construction of an extended stay hotel on 1.42 acres, located at the corner or Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Four citizens spoke in opposition to the request. Ms. Jane McDaniel submitted a petition with over 200 signatures in opposition of the rezoning request. No one spoke favorably of the petition. Citizen comments were also made at the October 2, 2007 meeting as well as a September 12,2007 community meeting. Citizen comments included concerns regarding traffic, safety, security, property values, screening, the previous use of the property as a land fill and the impact on Carvins Creek. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Planning Commission discussed the changes made to the plan since the October 2nd meeting and concluded that the use of the property as an extended stay hotel is not appropriate for this site based on the following: 1) The geotechnical condition of the site creates uncertainty about the ability for this structure to be built on the site; 2) The impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; 3) The ingress and egress on Oakland Boulevard is not favorable to the Commission; 4) The intrusion of the property as bound by residentially zoned land on three sides; 5) The impacts of the construction on Carvins Creek and the floodplain; 6) The height of the light poles; 7) The ability of the Fire Department to access the rear of the lot in an emergency; 8) The density of the units as higher than that of a residential apartment complex as recommended in the Transition Future Land Use designation. D. PROFFERS 1) Use of the property will be limited to a hotel/motel/motor lodge. 2) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the following drawings: a. "Concept Plan," dated 22 OCT 2007 and prepared by ACS Design; b. "Conceptual Grading Plan," dated 22 OCT 2007 and prepared by ACS Design; c. "Conceptual Landscape Plan," dated 22 OCT 2007 and prepared by ACS Design. 3) The architectural design of the building will be in substantial conformity with the building elevation drawing titled "Extended Stay Hotel," dated 22 OCT 2007 and prepared by Blue Moon Design Group. 4) A monument-style sign will be constructed adjacent to Hershberger Road and will not exceed 5 feet tall by 8 feet wide. The sign will use the same fa9ade materials as the building and will be illumimated by ground-based fixtures. 5) Signage placed on the building will occupy less than 5 percent of the building fac;ade area. 6) Exterior free-standing light fixtures will not exceed 18 feet in height. E. COMMISSION ACTION Mr. Jarrell made a motion to forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors. Motion carried 4-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Philip Thompson, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 2 PROFFER STATEMENT Date: October 25, 2007 Owner: Auslo, Inc.; Philip Bane Applicant: Philip Bane Case Number: 19-10/2007 Tax Map No.: 038.15-01-09.00-0000 & 038.15-01-10.00-0000 Request: Rezone from R3 to C2 (Conditional) 1. Use of the property will be limited to a hotel/motel/motor lodge. 2. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the following attached drawings. a. "Concept Plan", dated 22 OCT 2007 and prepared by ACS DESIGN b. "Conceptual Grading Plan", dated 22 OCT 2007 and prepared by ACS DESIGN c. "Conceptual Landscape Plan", dated 22 OCT 2007 and prepared by ACS DESIGN 3. The architectural design of the building will be in substantial conformity with the building elevation drawing titled "Extended Stay Hotel", dated 22 OCT 2007 and prepared by Blue Moon Design Group. 4. A monument-style sign will be constructed adjacent to Hershberger Road and will not exceed 5 feet tall by 8 feet wide. The sign will use the same fayade materials as the building and will be illuminated by ground-based fixtures. 5. Signage placed on the building will occupy less than 5 percent of the building fayade area. Lettering will not exceed 18 inches in height. 6. Exterior freestanding light fixtures will not exceed 18 feet in height. Auslo, Inc. ly County of Roanoke Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Planning Commission Thru: Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning p~ From: Nicole Gilkeson, Planner II Wf) Date: November 5, 2007 Re: Auslo, Inc. Rezoning At the October 2nd Public Hearing, the Planning Commission voted to postpone consideration of the Auslo, Inc. Rezoning petition to obtain and review requested information. Staff reported that due to the challenging nature of the site as well as the location of the site in a Transition- designated Future Land Use area, further information would be necessary in order for staffto determine if the project could fit on this site. Staff suggested that the applicant proffer the use of the property as a hotel/motel/motor lodge, that landscaping and grading be shown conceptually on a plan, and that the plan be updated to meet the parking and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Comments from the Commissioners indicated concern about lighting, signage, landscaping, as well as the preservation of the existing vegetation at the rear or the property. Staff has since met with representatives for the petitioner to discuss the proffers and site layout. The applicant has since provided staff with the following: · A revised proffer statement; · Building renderings; · Conceptual site plan; · Conceptual grading plan; and · Conceptual landscaping plan. Changes to the Proffer Statement The applicant has proffered substantial conformity with a concept plan, conceptual grading plan, conceptual landscape plan, and a building elevation drawing. The proffers identify each plan by date and note that the plans have been prepared by ACS Design and the rendering was drawn by Blue Moon Group. After providing the limits of construction and ensuring that the structure and surrounding parking can fit on the site without necessitating the removal of the vegetated buffer adjacent to Carvins Creek, staff believes that the construction of this hotel would have a limited Memo to Planning Commission re: Auslo, Inc. Rezoning Page 2 November 5, 2007 impact on the creek and the surrounding residential neighborhood. The building rendering proposes the three-story "Hotel Hershberger" to have a brick fayade with a green metal roof and stucco accents on the roof and walkways. Staff believes that this design is complimentary to Hershberger Road and the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant proffers one monument-style sign on the site, which will be no more than 5 feet tall and 8 feet wide; it will match the fayade of the building. Signage placed on the building is proffered to occupy less than five percent of the fal(ade area and lettering will be no more than 18 inches tall. The applicant also proffers that the exterior light fixtures be no more than 18 feet tall. Staff recommends that exterior freestanding light fixtures be no taller than 14 feet. Plan Changes 1. Concept Plan a. The sign which was located at the corner of Oakland and Hershberger has been relocated to the west side of the Hershberger Road entrance. b. The dimensions and shape of the building have been slightly altered. The building retains the basic L-shape with the comers of the building increasing from six to twelve. c. A covered walkway is added to the plan. d. The required number of parking spaces and the loading space have been added to the plan. 2. Conceptual Grading Plan a. The grading plan now shows the approximate limits of disturbance. b. The plan includes a cross-section to show the grade, building pad and proposed new tree line. 3. Conceptual Landscape Plan a. The landscape plan shows the new tree line. b. The plan shows a la-foot landscaping strip and landscaped medians. The plan shows 28 trees and an undetermined number of shrubs. Future Land Use Designation - Transition Transition policy encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels with a high degree of architecturally and environmentally sensitive site design for office, institutional, higher density residential, park and small-scale coordinated retail uses while serving as a buffer between Memo to Planning Commission re: Auslo, Inc. Rezoning Page 3 November 5, 2007 highways and adjacent lower intensity land uses. With the newly provided information, staff concludes that the proposal for the extended stay hotel does conform to the Transition Future Land Use category as described in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Suggested Conditions In consideration of the revised plans and proffer statement, staff offers the following revised condition: . Free-standing exterior light fixtures will not exceed 14 feet in height. If you have any questions, please contact me at 772-2065 ext. 266. PGT:CNG:cg Attachments Revised Proffer Statement, 10/25/2007 Revised Concept Plan Revised Conceptual Grading Plan Revised Architectural Renderings Landscaping Plan Staff Report <1<1<1<1<1 REVISIONS O:.!L.<=, 1-: ~ ~t>-:; ~~;{)"r: <>. 1--0 0.(" '?O . '>. ".,.'. ,?, 0 "" <Y. VA. ..~,,,o,O I"~ ~ "'0 0 .~ "'_".'~ c z o i= <( > w --' w --' --' ~ ~~ 0 <( 0 n:: ci n:: w > CJ --' al n:: z z w 0 0 0 al i= z I <( i= (/) ;; --' ;; n:: w ~ w w --' <( --' I W 0 W o c....... . .1 '. .1" ..1..... . '. .. .1.'1. - - . i. . ,--.,,01;, ; ~ & .1:J 01) ~ rf i3 c-- .B ~ ~ ~ j.~~ .9 s~g '5 ;q~ f ] ]~] I i 8"~ ~ ~ s~g >.. 0 11~ ~ 'jJ ,~ ~ ~4 ~ .~ t ~ ~[~ ~ ~ i [~~ f ~ .ciel-E~:jl ~.~g; ~~t ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ] ~<~2g] ~-d~ s!!~~<~ l:~~ Vi ~~~]~ ~ 2~8 ~ ~~.~~ s;J;~ t~~ 2" ~ ~~~E~~.. 8'gE ~ ...J] 8:= €tl 0 i;' e-'O"e'-5 ~.:;; t; ;:; 0. "Ill K'", o.P< 0 ~ ~ ; ; l ~ j ~~ ~ ~ ~ <oJ t,).....:c--i r-'".-..,_~..-.. ,~/ ....~;;.-\, ~z ',-'- i) \ ___-\~ 1 \ xi .'1, \~ ~ } I { ,~, 1 v " ~ ( I) I ~ -.,,~. .' : " ~~ ~",-'\ 'I Ho~ /.'"' \/ ~~ ~ ( 't 1 ~~ :> (::... ~ 1 \ r ~' t, I ,J ~ ~>-'~ \. Iy '", I ',j -, >~ I -':'--1) --.) -\ \) ,,-....\,1 .:~ --\~~ .+1, _ n\~~:I:<_ "'\ " 0:: ,~_'\\) \, -,J ^-..'~A_...-'\. j"._ _.~ '-. ~.-- . . ~,.... - ,I ,"~.,.-o,~" '):::." / / ,r(~ --..........l.....,,- l ri- '-J '-- s::rt' '~OOI!.M ~"~~M '~'d or:9(t L(\Ilt'!:tl(ll '1<:\v.uI)-1J 'A"'~'ldS-Olru:Il\8'"f1\111"""<>::l "'lI..,s."'l~"'~-e d!~"" OLULO\!.O'd c o ~ I ,c ~) .....z UI u~~~ I i ! ~ ~~ is! 1~lllli;n -<- z ~ <>c .-'" ~~~~~ "$ 8" _1::1 ~Hn 1\ \ \\ -). ,\ ~, \ \.. \~ '~\< '\<< 1- , I' i! '+ iI I I I I / : / t (- 'J.. 'VINI~HI^ 'AlNno:> 3>10N'VOH ':>NI 'Olsn'V 1310H A'VlS 030N31X3 I " ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ !!l g " ~ i~ 00:: ~:::;; ...J I <C) ~:z% o..5~ ~~o.. ~C) o H ~~I ~o "~~~~ f;;lao :::i ~1i~~~ UM~ I 'I' I y., "~-) \ \ '\ \,,' \j \,1, 1\) ,.., ~ I 1'7 ','i 'I ,",\, \ ) \.~\ ".117\\-'-'; "'I I, 1\ --)- \ " I",J \ 'I. '/ 'r- -\, ) \ \) \ \'~\'- \ \.. \\ \ , i '. . '- "-"\ \ I \ \" \, . \" \ -'1,,\", \ ! \ \ "", \ i . .'1.. - \ \ \,.\ _/'>,<- j \ " "- '- Q " ~~, ",0 "Pi fil~ gJQ ~~ E:l"' ~; -- ~;> :0 o (K\ \ \ i,,\ \ ~ \ \.:1...... \$\\ ;: - j \ ''::\.h\\\'~} \\ '<~ \\ \ '\ ~\t\ \\ 't, ~':C '\\ ;~~\\~ \\ \ \. '..', :, \\,~, \ \ '\\',:\,\,\:-,~:,~,~..._,\..., \' ~t \ \ , \;\\~','T~._ ~:,\\, \,\ ' \ \ \" '- \ \ i.\ \(\ \ \ i , " \ \ \ \ \ :{. \ :( \,,\\, \. $, ''(\\\ \ l \~\\~<'- r 1, ' \\ X" \ \. "',', '1i$-/+. ) \ \ ,) "- ", \ ''' "q 00,'_. \ \<'\) . I 'i: . -"'> \\" . 93;9'.&d \ \...\\ / \,~-- \\ "~~t. .,'(, )~ \'\\ '-;L, \ (~'r'<:-'~~o~"-',>~;y~, "J-- , \~~:, \~~ ~.,-( '<<::>::~',. ',I ~Y"Y \, <.)-> '-,... ", :{ ',,, . '\ 1/ """~ .\ /' ' .. \;'" IJ J \\. '.)''// ~ \ \ j/.1, \\.. '\ )~, -,/ / \\:- ,1\ \\~ /\ \ }\~", - ~ .~:t~ ' P>U (, \'(\" \. ( " (:\..,<,>, '-, {... ~ ~, "'--"', :f. , , )' ,1 " J. ;,; -< 5 f::: u '-'l '" '" '" o p:: u \' l01!)Nl~nIVd 1 , .pu\I~<I"/): , , , ;lUqlOlI"" ~"!l"!" .WI~d!ud J",nll-",iJ"'l'I=H " \ '- 'c/ \ \ ~ \ 'J " - -" '- ',- " ...)_:-_~ t '- '- - " , B<. \. / '. ,,--- r \ , ! ~i -I ~ r-'" o 0 ., / / -: ~--, I ,-- I 1 I l.OV '''001'111 '''<WM 'Wd ~nt't Wtltll:t'Ol 'EUi""'lTlI 'SMp IclS-OIOLO'.Il...P\)d~ P"'lI.r:>iDqlfV"ll--a dol"ld OIOW\W\'t o ct o !'!;UI ...en II C!!tU H~~~ I ~H~ 5~~aa h~n V'INI~~I^ 'AlNnO::> 3)10NV'O~ "::>NI 'OlSnV' 1310H A V'lS 030N31X3 ~ ~~ I 8 ,"! i=<cz: ~ ,0:: lb~~ ~ ':;i; uO,,- ZZ ~ ~ ~ 8~ j .' Jr' 'I II i . !( J f j ... 1\ \. \, \. ~ \ \\ " ,) '. , \" '. ~\-. .'. \1- '-'-.... \; \ \\ .-\. \\ \\ \\ \j\ \ \) /' \, "\\ \ \, \'.(, '\.,. \ \' ',' \ \\ \ \ ..!:::'- \ "- \--(" \ ,\\-' \ \ h, I \) I II t ' . I \ \1\ \ \ '-'I "',.1 .,.L I I' '\~~;\\ .', \\\\, ... \" \~~. \ i \, "< ,\ 1.). . \\...' '>( I \7 I ' \\ l..\ \ ... \\\,'. ",\\, \. )- \ (\ ,,\ I......' ...." , ' \ '. ... " . -'\.' \ \''- \ I j. '\S~''y.'\ \ \\\\. -,\ j~ "" \ \i-:;r' \ \ -j' II, \' ,\ ... ' '. '" "J \' ~_j,) \ I "'\,\-- \\--, \\ \,', '",- \ I~ '\'" \\\ '\. '" \' \ "'- --' \ \ \... "., '^'\ .11 h \ I ',." I,~\\ ," " ,'. I ',Y. ' -. , ',\ \ '. "'-'<"1 'I'" I '\ --)" II ' \ \ --, '" I', l ' \ (\ \ \ " , \ '--,-'",1 l ) i~ '7', I ,'''~;' , ~\.~'" \\., \, i \ . " \1." \ \, ." )<~ \ \ \\ \.. :> \" \ )\"~'..I, ~\,~\_".,.\.>,.,'\\\, ~\" -" t., \ j \ \\ '\' "I 1\ \ y'" \\,\. 1- ) \. "" \ \' i "\-l' ::<-.""'1 ,1 -' \\ \. \"..1 'I. .,:-- ,'\, 1;-~~:1 (\ \ .\ ,'{ ","', "GO.,Ji--\ \1..,/ " \ "c-. " ',\, . 900'\,;,,&-', \ \ , t. \,_ '\ Vt- :;~ ~ -\' " \~y \"\"""',, /" " ---;/-. \ '~\1' "'\,.~, ~Q~ "', "",~'\_)~_., 7:- -- ,,) \.[ ", " , '" ". 'l:'.' V \ ',' '. "'. -'.._ - -y\....-, \ \) \-l '-" ..... -......" -......... '\ 0!-~ \ \, r ."',' " ~J .......>.....,; \\;,- \(\.. \'y \'\; (\ L) ''7\ , , \'" \ 'l \ \~ '~, ': ~~.~'" ....... ~r ".... \.. ii ~ -liE ~Ng -g].] ~~~ ,~~]~ e;]~ '5 a if121 ~~!: "1l- 0 ~. i:'~ .s=~~]~-~ B ~.~ ~ '5 ~ ~.B gE~[;;;:;~ ~i~ o.~~?~ ':~~g'~~~ii .~.Ei"9~J:I~--o S ~ ~ 's. g ~ g ~ 8 ~:q . z~ ~.i~~]~.~~~.~ Cl~ e:a.g....~e~::!:2E ~~~.ib ~;~g.~.g e.E -< ~ ~ ... -; ~ .~:: ~ ~'g ~i ~ '8 ~ ~ ,g ~ 'S .~ ~ ,~ ~'~ ! ~~~.g [:g~ ~~ [-ij" .l c__flo::!~~~] 5.8 ~]'~ ~~ B ~ [f ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~:~'~5! U'~,g~~<$~8 &~.g 'j:j E t:! . 'E'F.'~ tI . '0 .ll.Jl e iE-6 o~8~l:>fDU~i::lrl~]U ~> ~t/ltl'l'c:3t/l'5Vi > ~t: ~...; V'i-.ci -""" \ yC;' .- / ) ! ?I .~ (I .:\ ~ -I) / .I '\ " " " / ~ / (/ ~. "'"I "0- -'- -- ~\,. ", " " , , , " I W ...-........................ " .~. / -_.~~ . :~~, ",,' ,/-.-i":~\'<~:V ~~h~: { .............. ..,-....,., " .--....,... ~ .1,:-:. _ ........ ........... '-.......... t~.)J~~~~:c.~'~'~~ " ............ '................... (~...................- ........ ."....... ......... "\\.. i" ~ /' s:lV':<""I!M :m,('M 'Wd:9!;:LE:rWDt.t~'IJ1 'V1"fl'8"'lqdS'tlI(JLQ"~"'tr\ld"uoJ rr-><IJ~bq~"""ti~""O d!I"kl DlllLO\!.OH c o o Petitioner: Auslo, Inc. Request: Rezone 1.42 acres from R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, District to C-2, General Commercial, District to construct an extended stay hotel Location: Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard Magisterial District: Hollins Proffered Conditions: None Auslo, Inc. /Philip Bane is requesting the rezoning of 1.42 acres from R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, to C-2, General Commercial, in order to construct an extended stay hotel. The applicant is proposing a 4,500 square foot building, which is proposed to have 35 units and an office. The site is composed of two parcels, both of which are designated Transition by the 2005 Roanoke County Community Plan. Transition policy encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels with a high degree of architectural and environmentally sensitive site design for office, institutional, higher density residential, park and small-scale coordinated retail uses while serving as a buffer between highways and adjacent lower intensity land uses. In this future land use designation, intense retail and highway-oriented commercial uses are discouraged. Hotel use is not a preferred use of the Transition designation; however, garden style apartments are recommended at a density of 12 to 24 units per acre; the density of the hotel units proposed is 25 rooms per acre. The slJbmitted concept plan does not illustrate creative architecture or environmentally sensitive site design. With the proper architecture and site design, this project could potentially fit the Transition designation. Traffic generation is not expected to be significant and therefore, no traffic study will be required. The topography of the site is significant to this proposal; therefore, staff has concerns about slope, the proposed retaining walls and the ability to meet site development requirements because of these issues. Staff also believes that information not provided in the application, such as architectural renderings, top and bottom elevations of the retaining walls, adequate number of parking spaces shown on the site plan, setback requirements, a preliminary grading plan and limits of construction would be essential to understanding how the development can be built on this site in conformance with all applicable regulations. Staff has spoken with the petitioner's representative regarding proffered conditions; to date, no proffered conditions have been officially submitted in writing. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the petition, it should be with proffered conditions that address the following: 1. Conformance with the concept plan 2. Architectural design 3. Use of property as a hotel/motel/motor lodge 4. Sign area and height 5. Exterior light fixture height 6. Conformance with a preliminary grading plan 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Hotel/Motel/Motor Lodge is allowed by right in the C-2, General Commercial, District. Site Development review is required. Virginia Department of Transportation (V DOT) approval will be required for any changes to or impacts in the right-of-way of Hershberger Road or Oakland Boulevard. A commercial entrance permit is required by VDOT. Stormwater manClgement regulations and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control standards provide for the protection of properties and waterways downstream from development sites. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Backqround - The petitioner, Auslo, Inc'/Philip Bane, currently owns the property, which is comprised of two parcels totaling 1.42 acres. There are no existing buildings on the site. The concept plan illustrates that one 4,500 square foot building for 35 units and an office would be constructed on the site. There is approximately 250 frontage feet along Hershberger Road (Route 625), approximately 430 frontage feet along Oakland Boulevard and approximately 105 frontage feet along John Richardson Road (Route 743). Both parcels are zoned R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential. TopoqraphvNeqetation - The property rises approximately ten feet from east to west along the north portion of the property adjacent to Hershberger Road. The center of the property is flat from the corner of Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard to the rear of the property, where it plunges sharply down to Carvins Creek. Total elevation drops approximately 44 feet across the site from the high point at the north of the property to the creek bank. Because of these steep slopes, the developer is proposing to grade the site down approximately ten feet, necessitating retaining walls along the front and rear of the property. Current Hood plain maps show the approximate location of floodplain and flood way bordering the southern property boundaries. Vegetation consists of mixed deciduous and evergreen trees, located along the steep sloping portion of the property to the creek bank. While it looks like no work will take place in the floodplain, staff feels that the petitioner should submit a preliminary grading plan showing the top and bottom elevations of the retaining walls, the building pad, and the limits of construction, as well as preservation of existing vegetation. Surroundinq Neiqhborhood - The subject site is zoned R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, and both parcels are currently undeveloped. The adjoining property to the east is zoned C-2, General Commercial, and is owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. This is the proposed site of the future North County Fire Station. Further to the east is the historic Harshbarger House, which is listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places. The property is bound to the south by John Richardson Road (Route 743). South of John Richardson Road at the intersection with Oakland Boulevard is property located in the City and zoned R-7, Residential. The property is also located within the City's River and Creek Corridor Overlay District. Other properties to the south are zoned R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, and R-1, Low Density Residential. The property is bound to the west by Oakland Boulevard and the Roanoke City Limits. Across Oakland Boulevard in the County is property zoned R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, and properties within the city limits are zoned R-7, Residential Single- Family District, and are currently vacant. Property to the north across Hershberger Road is zoned C-2, General Commercial, with office and commercial uses and a vacant parcel. Staff notified the City of Roanoke of the project and received correspondence from Roanoke City's Planning, Building and Development Department with the following comments: "The subject property is adjacent to areas of the City of Roanoke that are zoned R-7 (residential, single family). These areas area also recommended for future single-family development by the City's Williamson Road Area Plan. Accordingly we would like to suggest that the use (an extended stay hotel) be proffered and that the rezoning be subject to substantial conformance to the proposed site plan attached to your memo of August 30." 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture - The structure would be 4,500 square feet and have three stories. The building would be L-shaped with the longer side facing Hershberger Road and the shorter side facing Oakland Boulevard. Per the application, the building would be steel-frame construction. The concept plans shows the structure to be greater than forty feet in height. Per the C-2, General Commercial, District zoning regulations, the building would not be limited in height, as it does not adjoin residential property. No proffer to restrict the height of the building has been submitted to date. The concept plan illustrates that the site would be graded down approximately ten feet, thus creating the need for retaining walls in the front and the rear of the property. To date, no top and bottom elevations or a preliminary grading plan have been submitted, and staff is concemed about the wall height and location relative to site appearance and the potential spatial constraints to site development. Floodplain and ftoodway border the southwest and rear of the property; however, construction appears that it will have no impact per the concept plan. Access/Traffic Circulations - The concept plan provides access at Oakland Boulevard and Hershberger Road. Parking wJII exist along the edges of the property adjoining Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard. A ten-foot landscaping buffer and retaining wall are proposed to screen parking from the roads. Forty-spaces are required, however only thirty-five spaces are showing on the plan. This does not meet the minimum parking requirements as stated in the Zoning Ordinance for thirty-five rooms and an office. Interior landscape plantings will also be required for the parking lot. VDOT review indicates that the proposed rezoning will increase the potential traffic generated from the site, and that the VDOT Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways should be adhered to where applicable. Per VDOT, no Traffic Impact Analysis will be required. Site distance appears to be adequate in both directions; however, site distance at both proposed entrances should be field verified and measures taken to ensure that the required site distance is obtainable. The petitioner is proposing to add new right- of-way along Oakland Boulevard. The placement of the proposed freestanding sign should be considered in regards to the site distance triangle. The Zoning Ordinance required one loading zone; currently no loading zone is shown on the plan. Fire & Rescue/Utilities - Fire and Rescue staff report that the project site is located approximately 2.4 miles from the first due Hollins Fire Station and adjoins the property for the proposed new North County Fire Station to be constructed. The closest water for fire suppression is located on Oakland Boulevard near Hershberger and in front of Friendship Manor on Hershberger Road. Fire and Rescue staff are in favor of the two proposed entrances, as this will maintain two routes to access the building. One additional fire inspection would be constructed at this site annually. Public water and sanitary sewer are available to this site. Screeninq and Bufferinq/Exterior Liqhtinq - The petitioner's concept plan indicates a ten-foot landscaping buffer where parking is adjacent to Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard. No other screening and buffering are shown on the concept plan. Staff is requesting a preliminary grading plan to show the limits of construction to determine how much existing vegetation will be preserved to serve as a screen to the established neighborhood to the south. Staff recommends a proffer be included to consider exterior light fixture height. Community Meetina - A community meeting was held on September 12, 2007, to allow the petitioner and staff to discuss the proposal with area property owners. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting, all of which were nearby homeowners and residents of Roanoke City. Residents voiced concern over traffic, site distance from Hershberger Road westbound, decreasing property values, impacts on Carvins Creek and safety issues. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The project site is designated Transition by the 2005 Community Plan. Transition policy encourClges the orderly development of highway frontage parcels with a high degree of architectural and environmentally sensitive site design for office, institutional, higher density residential, park and small-scale coordinated retail uses while serving as buffers between highways and adjacent lower intensity land uses. Currently no architectural rendering has been submitted to staff and no additional information illustrating that the site design will be environmentally sensitive in regards to the topography, Carvins Creek and the associated floodplain, or the preservation of existing vegetation. While hotels are not identified as being desirable within the Transition designation, garden apartments at a density of 12 to 24 units per acre are listed as an appropriate land use type. The site concept plan shows 35 units and once office, and therefore the density of the hotel units would be 25 units per acre, slightly denser than suggested for apartments by the Community Plan. If further information is submitted illustrating the site design is architecturally creative and environmentally sustainable, staff concludes the proposal for the extended stay hotel may conform to the Transition future land use category as described in the Roanoke County Community Plan. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The proposal by Auslo, Inc.lPhilip Bane could provide a transitional land use between Hershberger Road and the established single-family residential neighborhood to the south. Unfortunately, it is uncertain at this time if the project would provide this buffer in a way that is reasonable per Community Plan policy as further information is needed to comprehend the layout of the site. The topographic challenges of the site and the necessary removal of vegetation surrounding Carvins Creek add a layer of site development concern. The grading and clearing could influence the creek and the surrounding floodplain. Because the parcels front on three rights-of-way and one property zoned C-2, General Commercial, no buffering is required and the clearing of vegetation along the south of the property may make this visible to the neighborhood to the south of the property. This approach does not support the basic goal of all design guidelines to "design all new and redeveloped sites in harmony with their surroundings, improve the general appearance of the site and strengthen community identity." Alternative site configuration could be explored. However, no documentation regarding clearing, grading or the details of the retaining wall has been received by staff. Additionally, a site plan showing the sufficient parking as required by the Zoning Ordinance, would better illustrate the fit of parking on the site. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this proposal, staff request that the following proffers be submitted: 1. Conformance with the concept plan 2. Architectural design 3. Use of property as a hotel/motel/motor lodge 4. Sign area and height 5. Exterior light fixture height 6. Conformance with a preliminary grading plan CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: ATTACHMENTS: 19 - 10/2007 Nicole Gilkeson PC: 10/212007 BaS: 10/23/2007 Rezoning Application Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Aerial Map Topography and Floodplain Map R-3 District Regulations C-2 District Regulations Letter 'from VDOT dated September 12, 2007 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776.7155 ALLAPPUCANTS ForStaffU"O~:- - CJ\OJ\ 0 \ RC{SVC, by: Application ree: \00 Placards issued: Cnse Number Check type of application filed (check all that apply) NRezoning 0 Special Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address whip Auslo, Inc. Philip Bane 1709 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, VA 24019 Auslo, Inc. Philip Bane 1709 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, V A 24019 Owner's name/address whip Property Location Hershberger Road & Oakland Boulevard Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 540.774.5050 540.774.5050 540 29~ 027~ 540.774.5071 540.774.5050 Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: 540. 774.5071 Magisterial District: Hollins Community Planning area: Hollins Existing Zoning:R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential Tax. Map No.: 038.15-01-10.00-0000 & 038.15-01-09.00-0000 Size ofparcel(s): Acres: 1.421 Existing Land Use: undeveloped REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIJlER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPUCANTS (RISIW/CP) Proposed Zoning: C-2 General Commercial District Proposed Land Use: HotellMotel/Motor Lodge - by right (Extended Stay Hotel) ~ the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Q:s) No IF NO, A V ARlANCE IS REQUIRED FI!!SJ::. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type~ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQillRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No VariancelWaiver of Section(s) VARIANCE, . WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALAPPUCANTS (V/W/AA) ofthe Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of tbe Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check ifenc1osed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RlS^V/CP V/AA ~ Consultation Application Justification I hereby certify that I am either the owner 0 of the owner. RlS/W/ep V/AA RlSIWICP VlAA 8 1/2" xII 11 concept plan EE Application fee Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners e property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent Owner's Signature 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW REQUESTS Applicant Auslo, Inc. / Philip Bane The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to detennine the need and justification for the change in tenns of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning ofthe applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. This project: . enlarges the local economy and tax base; . preserves valuable agricultural and forestal lands by focusing development in urbanized areas; . brings commercial growth to an existing urban service area; . locates commercial growth along a major thoroughfare (Hershberger Road); . fits with other diverse commercial offerings along Hershberger Road; and . transitions between those commercial uses and the nearby residential neighborhood. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. This site and the adjacent area are labeled "Transition" on the Community Plan's "Future Land Use Map" for the Hollins area. This project does not interfere with future greenways. At a site visit with Ms. Liz Belcher, Greenways Coordinator, she said that it was only logical that a future greenway would rest on the opposite side of Carvins Creek from this project site. This project is infill development of a presently vacant parcel surrounded by urban uses. It encourages economic development and tourism by providing alternative lodging for business and personal uses. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. This project will fully exploit the property's developable assets while preserving vegetation and side slopes along the Carvins Creek corridor. This project will provide a valuable resource to the business community and nearby residences. wvw A has sufficient capacity in the public water and sewer lines along Hershberger Road. The traffic impact on Hershberger Road from this project will be minimal. VDOT has said that the project does not meet the Section 527 requirements for a Traffic Impact Study. This project will not create additional students in Roanoke County schools nor any significant attributable impact on parks and recreation facilities, but it will provide additional tax revenue to fund schools and other public services. A new fire station is planned for a site immediately east of this project 3 I CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County pennitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance ofa building pennit. Site plan and building penn it 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 pennit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent pennitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, 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 L a. Applicant name and name of development Date, scale and north arrow Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions Location, names of owners and Roanoke 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 L b. L c. L d. ./ e. ../ f. .L g. L h. ../ 1. .../ J. Additional information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS ../ k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, stonn drains) and connections at the site V 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers ../ m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals -.L n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections ../ o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants --L p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed V q. Ifproject is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. ~ ~tol ry7 ~ 6 AUSLO, INC. 1.422 ACRES (TAX NOS. 38.15-01-9 and 38.15-01-10) BEGINNING at a point in John Richardson Road (Virginia Secondary Route 743) on the west side of Carvins Creek; thence with John Richardson Road S. 81022' 33" W. 104.55 feet to a point on the east side of Oakland Boulevard, NW; thence with the same N. 90 01' 08" E., passing a 5/8" steel re-bar on line at 60.00 feet, a total distance of 295.26 feet to a steel re-bar with cap; thence N. 830 20' 04" E. 8.00 feet to a steel re-bar with cap; thence N. 20 00' 20" W. 33.11 feet to a steel re-bar with cap; thence N. 470 04' 17" E. 37.20 feet to a steel re-bar with cap on the south side of Hershberger Road (Virginia Secondary Route 625); thence with the same N. 810 58' 37" E. 211.06 feet to a 5/8" steel re-bar; thence S. 540 33' 25" E., passing a 5/8" steel re-bar on line at 41.71 feet, a total distance of 93.00 feet to a steel re-bar with cap on the west side of Carvins Creek; thence with the same S. 540 29' 35" W. 155.04 feet to a steel re-bar with cap; thence S. 550 51' 35" W., passing a 5/8" steel re-bar at 22.21 feet, a total distance of 43.00 feet to a 5/8" steel re-bar; thence S. 50028' 35" W. 74.85 feet to a steel re-bar with cap; thence S. 16041' 50" W. 143.49 feet to a point; thence S. 40 39' 25" W. 11.60 feet to the point of BEGINNING, containing 1.422 acres, and being more particularly shown on the Plat of Survey dated March 10, 2006, prepared by C. H. Linkous, II, Land Surveyor, a copy of which is attached to the deed to Auslo, Inc. recorded in the Roanoke County, Virginia Circuit Court Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 200614854. Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO ApPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT 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 Planning 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 of 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 ~U~ of Petition VINlmM 'A1Nn03 3}10NVO~ "3NI'OlSnV 1310H AV1S 03CN31X3 I ~~ [ill I ~~ 0 I- o..z "- ~:5 i Sa... ~g .::;: ~c.. H w. a ~ 01) ] ~ t: ~ ~ .~ i~ t~li 1 If ~~ ~o;a ~ .sP. g,~ r:"7~5 "3 c::8 ..d ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ =;; ~ :E e- iJ".s~ ~"E~3.2 .~~ 8....~. o(;~.,g "00 ~.s:~ "g-O:-s: ~ a@ ~3~ ~.s~g ~ ~e -~ - .0 ~~ >. ~~g.s ~ ~" oo~ ~ ~ E ~ c; ~.~ ~ ~o.~ g~~~ ~ ~ 'ii' -d .g 'E.~ ~ ..0 Co. g 0 ~ 'S ~ g.g ~ t= ~ f' g ::: .:; ~ .~~ ': 3.5 -vr~ 8..~ ~.a ~> @ ~]~~-O~. ~~ '23 ] E ~ ] e~ ~ @ e B '8"8' ~ ~ ~ c.~ v .S ~ 1:: V'm p., o.~ en ~ ~8 t 8] ~ 8.8~ Q) v g ~::r:i$:::-::r:p..u ~ e o.O~~c;:: ~~ o ~ c o CI SJV "OOf'h\~U~I^, -Wd 1t'lIlH WOllbl8 -"U"""U-8 "lI""'ldS OloW.,8'--PUd.n.lDJ ,,"Q]j~~"'~H""'8 "'l'~d Olllil>\LO"1 o Land Use o _ Conservation _ Rural Preserve _ Rural Village Vlllag e Center Development Neighborhood Conservation _ Trans;tion . Core _ Principal Industrial o Roanoke County Department of Community Development - Applicants Name: Auslo, Inc Existing Zoning: R3 Proposed Zoning: C2 Tax Map Number: 038.15-01-10 & 038.15-01-09 Magisterial District: Hollins Area: 1.421 Acres 14 August, 2007 Scale: 1" = 100' C' c ZONING _AG3 _EP _AG1 AR _AV C1 _C2 _ C2CVOD L - 111 _12 _PCD _PRO _PTD R1 R2 L"....J R3 _R4 o HERSHBERGER RO I 1 I / / I I I ../. ~ . ~~..-=-'" /. ai-~- ......-0 ~ ; a - Applicants Name: Auslo, Inc Existing Zoning: R3 Proposed Zoning: C2 Tax Map Number: 038.15-01-10 & 038.15-01-09 Magisterial District: Hollins Area: 1.421 Acres 14 August. 2007 Scale: 1" = 100' Roanoke County Department of Community Development o :11 } #~ \\ ~. 0\1 " .'. 0: · ffi~1 ~ ffi .- ~., jl' (/) o:~, Ul :c III f31. , '" .' 11. \: - ~ U'il j .HtIJ ro u nlUlh mHi! c :J lfii,tl! IIH!'t J 0 ""' zll' Ui'.~ C!l . .PU! U i: C I !iW!.li I,JII r J c z .Ilf:! · II I :J 0 mU}U IUi~ii I u rfihli III..! -- c ilHliij iUIi~ i <3 'Ill' niL I D 1 fi' L~ . - ~Ui~ I~~f~ I z...d~ lZpt ~ ~ ....., (J) ~ a -0 Ul co :J c; (J) ..c u ,f: ..... a.; co u l/) N . U o - M . Q) 0::: - o Q) ::J: C ~ 0 C'tS N - Q) en . 0::: "'Cuo Q)C:~ "'C -0 C 0._ Q)-""'" ......, 00'- ><~......, w<(~ OJ \ N \<:0 0) X '\\ \ \ \ \ \, \ '. c a 0:: iL --..... J. ;'5 \ 0:: UJ ell :r: <fl 0:: UJ :r: ~ \ ~ ~ . (j) ~ o ~X o <fl Q) c ~ -'. 6 ~ > Q) W -0 a.. -. (j) Q) m () (j) o o N -~~ ,....---.,..".~,..-,...-:-.- - -~ / I ~ C\ 'V T:! j .n I' (lUlIII tUltli t j.jj.j'lh llh~~111 lEI" Ifi", . ,plll!1 IJI!: ! rllz i i · hi .J ~ ~ zl JW! lffl(H / ~ WilH! dHtij I II fil ifl llllt. I ~<J ijHtjili' :Ulii! J' t\",<0" III! I. ~iliir ..---- - \ -~- -.-....-~- ~~- O^180 Nltl)f'vO <fl Q) C ~ c ,Q ro > ~ ill o ~)\ ~~ C ::J -0 ..>:: ~ '-.. ~ ~ .c --....--... TI ~ ~ '\ (j) ';:; \ g (u ~~ . () () '\ D \--...--... fI' J~~ : ~S~~~ . - ~~~~~ zi~f~ ~ ...... Q) ~ o ~ z-l;;+~ ~ '"'~)(' ::J ~ ar ..c: u c rl ~ <~+-' w<(~ SEC. 30-45. R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-45-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of the R-3, medium density multi-family Residential district is to provide areas in the county within the urban service area where existing middle-high density residential development (six (6) to twelve (12) units per acre) has been established and land areas which generally appear to be appropriate for such development. This district is intended to coincide with the development and transition land use categories contained in the community plan. They are designated based on access to major streets, sewer and water, and schools with suitable capacity to accommodate development at the stated density, and where parcel sizes allow for well- planned residential development. The areas designated in this district are also intended to serve as a buffer between less intensive residential areas and more intensive office, commercial and industrial areas and districts. A variety of housing densities and styles is encouraged in order to permit a diversity and flexibility in design and layout. Additional standards are established to provide for amenities in higher density developments. (Ord. No. 042799-11, 9 If., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-45-2. 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 Occupation, Type I * Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency * Multi-family Dwelling * Residential Human Care Facility Single Family Dwelling, Attached * Single Family Dwelling, Detached (For Zero Lot Line Option - *) Single Family Dwelling, Attached and Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option - *) Townhouse * Two Family Dwelling * 2. Civic Uses Community Recreation * Family Day Care Home * Park and Ride Facility * Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Religious Assembly * Utility Services, Minor 3. Commercial Uses Boarding House 4. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * (B) 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. Residential Uses Home Beauty/Barber Salon * 2. Civic Uses Adult Care Residences Cemetery * Crisis Center Cultural Services Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Safety Services * Utility Services, Major * 3. Industrial Uses Landfill, Rubble * 4. Miscellaneous Uses Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 62293-12, ~ 9, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, S 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6- 27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, S 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042500-9, S II, 4-25-00) Sec. 30-45-3. 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. All lots served by private well and sewage disposal systems: a. Area: 0.75 acre (32,670 square feet). b. Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Lots served by either public sewer or water: a. Area: 20,000 square feet. b. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 3. All lots served by both public sewer and water: a. Area: 7,200 square feet. b. Frontage: 60 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 4. For minimum lot size and permitted densities for multi-family dwellings and townhouses refer to Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (B)Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 30 feet. b. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. 2. Side yard: a. Principal structures: 10 feet. b. Accessory structures: 10 feet behind front building line or 3 feet behind rear building line. 3. Rear yard: a. Principal structures: 25 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: 45 feet. b. Accessory structures: 15 feet, or 25 feet provided they comply with the setback requirements for principal structures. (D)Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 35 percent of the total lot area for all buildings and 7 percent for accessory buildings. 2. Lot coverage: 60 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, S 10,6-22-93) SEe. 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, CollegelUniversity 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 * 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 Retail Sales Studio, Fine Arts Veterinary HospitaVClinic 5. Industrial Uses Recycling Centers and Stations * 6. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * Parking Facility * (B) 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 iUtility Services, Major * 12. Commercial Uses IAutomobile Dealership, Used * IAutomobile 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 * 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; Drd. No. 042799-11, S 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 102803-15, 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-l 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-l 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 ofthe total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 90 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, ~ 10,6-22-93) COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 3071 SALEM, VA 24153-0560 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER September 12, 2007 Ms. Susan Carter Roanoke County Planning Department P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Faxed 540-772-2108 RE: Rezoning - R-3 to C-2 Auslo, Inc., Philip Bane Proposed Land Use - Hotel/Motel/Motor Lodge Route 625 (Hershberger Road) & Oakland Boulevard Dear Ms. Carter: We have reviewed the above mentioned rezoning request and offer the following comments: 1. The proposed rezoning will increase the potential traffic generated from the site. 2. With the addition of proposed commercial entrances, the VDOT Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways should be adhered to where applicable. This would include meeting minimum sight distance requirements. 3. The current posted speed limit along Hershberger Road is 40 mph. The minimum required intersection sight distance is 445 feet and appears to be adequate looking in both directions. The current posted speed limit along Oakland Boulevard is 25 mph. The minimum required intersection sight distance is 280 feet and appears to be adequate looking in both directions. Sight distance at both proposed entrances should be field verified and measures taken to ensure the required sight distance is obtainable. 4. Upon review and approval of site plans, a commercial entrance permit and/or a land use permit will be required for work within VDOT right-of-way. Information regarding any changes to the existing drainage system should also be included for review. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Ms. Susan Carter September 12,2007 Page 2 of2 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, Ut?~ Scott A. Woodrum, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT, Salem Residency 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. We, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the cotner ofOaldand Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on our neighborhood. The effects will be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd.) increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area. This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. 1. 1 ! i, . 'i 'I' t.~j /( (1/1,,,", ( ( "I < 7{jC';) , ./, ') I"" _l t CI i i"-u'- ,<'" <. 1 ,/ ../:~.;~ ,/; /.>~..,,// /., '/1_ t L--'{ i ,,;-, L..... I,"f.l" 'V ,. { '" 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. &~~t2v- /(~iVM , / ~,#JtJ "7 ~c?;2~tJ/C)- 7. h;i , -t- ~~V il 5t1i/J o€-/?.S --j;;; y& p'- ~ ~4 SO('(~~? N.l~ &((.JS Cfarlvs 8 8o~6 ,fy,' 34C/1; OIrIcLAw~ kUE ~~5~'h-<'~ 3'/.J:Jt?-fRI.tJL- 4-~ d~&b (14 Q l~~ '-\l\ ro fuslr\\D~ ~ ~ ~ W\ Ol~\~ ~l'P..~'::> ~ ~lJ.)oocl. s+ cJ #30 ~tUJw~ * 15. E I' 16. \f\J: ~ 17okA:iLL.:- 5Vl- '-Ii 1<( @~H^,,-n\ ltr, 18. ~ C9~ #~ ~ l.flq ~~0U)~ Ur 19. ~~'1Y' Gf<eeNwftY if4f~~U.5HuJ~oD S( 2.j L/.25 usst J(~~-4, 7/~ ~ U ..' ~, ' cC-l K()a"u 6/\e /)f/ . I We, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the comer of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on our neighborhood. The effects will be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area. This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. 1. ffi0\~~""'~ """3r ~ (")AK1Aw~ Ave w-~~t~<.~'/1~ t81 BIVtG-ijvd N~ ---() (, . ,\Jf~'JJ-(~,,~ . --6~~ GLL(GHj,~ .. .~l\t?_i 6~~n 4lf I~ Flo(lSl ::r, or-aA 0 .J~ ,J~ rJE. 2. 3. red nLU ID-/-o 4. 5. - TI6y/sf- r<.d .II/Lv ~ (2j2( ;J4/ {I ( I 6. II 7. 10. rf5' / 7 cJ,-~~ .~ ,/ crA1 f.~ ~//} -;::::-LutyC.'-t G:i. ))w e.oLfI\.. u0- il II 1- J f 1 cJ ~ ,L ( rl a J ! I , " I. Itlo-~ 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19. 12. 13. (() ~? We, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the corner of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on our neighborhood. The effects wiIJ be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area. This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to ~oanOke :~sea:nalih ns 1m #d .tk/ oJ II r-- L(~ (J 'L F! o-~r-'1/ e 4/;:;:< v/ fk t::/ 'c- s;r" L-;g-J.CJ 1-20. L-I D I 2. 3. 4. 5. L AA-P- 6. 4-<?d.'] 1- 'j'da dOA JU ~-Ot5-:::Z ~~~~ ~4 4q~~ ~ ~tJ~- .-"-. ~;z7';: v' ~ --f'J:~'-f '/ ;7. . .~h~ //lfifG/lfJf fi.f.f/~'l/lj/ /) ,4 ~r".'/ZftJ/~J If) 1/ 6141ft( UrU/r;(;; L 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. . 'i' \ 1 '[ -tv~v IV} A'" L. (JA{L~Y L/Lj:? ~ , , 1.1:. < Ld\ C'l.-""./ ,. I ~ 7 c [I' ,-"v %~ //, , /..I?J1 -'(s) 0 /-,., , 14. H t,,, ,) 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 3~iL. 0.:J~il.:t:" 3 :3Ci'6 F ((I)- Il~ \...' -7! -, 7 .. } ~ :):J '') (\ ,,I v -1/ ..........-e--- t /,;-, .. ",1:.~ It II "3 j 3~ <,.~ / ,'/ >\ ,'I -- '. /," - . - -~ - (', j J ~ ,~ ".- _n .,.........~,~.. . I ...-:....~' "':"',-"j J I \ ~ . f . <:. ":") '--. / "--1.1' . i( /f \. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. d6' We, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the comer of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on ow- neighborhood. The effects will be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area. This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. 1. ~~1J7~~~N!J ;JMI), /(;c NAL~RS A-jJ&~ P)ici ~-4/~.j;- ;/;ck 5/J/(~c-k . I _. I /l.JflYiE-Sprde k U?v.w 7 feU ~-\4- wedJ..tl"_ ~ ~~H 2. J (, () /10 IG5 r A (/ I? ~ i, Cl~ 0 / :2 L~() !-I~ II-v/:. Jr/3 J.-<f.o 11- 3. l73 l:-:\.l~ Ave- AlE. ;1..11C> j /73 1/<< #'.'i/ 4'JI'" ~SI't'j/~ 173 ~J-~ ;1'-kJl? l 7 't> Ht.ifoUv~. "J.40ld 4. Of'.(' JG1l ~ h 0 /t d~-C.hj ,.><2A ~ _~~:~W;::~{ ~,~ u, q ~C-( 1,11 ~~G?(~ J S"fl{ r' We, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the comer of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on our neighborhood. The effects will be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks), The height ofthe building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area, This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the ul!favorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. ",,' ,.' ' :7 [/: .'- /'.' /< ~,~~. .,J';.:r'F //". ' /j /./,/ (,- ",I' ~.~~ / ; ':':'~~{ .t!~..,. ..~_..... 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. .~: ..;/--:; r". '"7"" / <",'''-;~~''.:., '(-,[,-: 0'r- I. ..4 {,",._.f (,,1....... VO' ~ # t_..../\. I.. "._ .~ i.L.. , ...~- ..... ./ " " '.' (l~~:" !' -, /_ .-1 /.... ~ i:"~ ...- t- I ')1~,.--( . "/'S :J t;;, (; (J j/ ; ,',1,; \v '-~ I I,l.. fl.. ~ . tJ1 J"",,/ '. /.,;!" V""/ ,:1,/'- ~....;-:f. ),._~~-", ({.\_I 1 r,-~~, ...;..' l~ :~/~ 'J",'.; [,j)~ r'~_ "1,',",\"",,,1 '.,\~:t\,\,',/. "," ~>, ;'1' -,. i'" , " f :. ]" (, ,/ I 'l ,~'_"f''1t,l,ll : ,-1 C,-) ,t.i,eJl _ I (,)))(1' l"" ( , .~'~i;;C\i,L' , - 7 ~\ \. , .~r" 1 I .', '" , ,. j -, -- !~ f".U: j . ..' :':: I , L 'i (e! /.' . t : 'f! " ~"h;q::. 'f -; 'l.~ r I ' ";";.t '.,' " .'1.. k" __, 1'1, /"jV(j) ~ . (Jd""f.:--r"",.C t.l\( -- ( ~ /1"" . ~, ./~~ ,/ ,..' (/ <' _~; I!II- 1 ~// ./ (..,.: t, l(, .J i . . ~, i I \ ""l i / .> 0/'\ .-: ~. / .<; .i'<~ ..3.. :. 1,- r\. r... r"~ d ~ > ' L. '-~.. '- . ~I I t. <.._./ r. 'A 6 1- c:: '?,;t /:1,1 ,~7 r (-. ~1 V /f L.',1'V)): /":""., -' j/I'-~' ',);,1 ~ _ '\ I J'-' 7'-t-' j')' ,') ", ',I"., , ,.,' . ' -, . -~",c'~',-,-;7\':L '~/"J--l.21';:'7- '",:.<", < _,~J ,V,,\ "'L'I" ' l.'l'k:, _. 4~:/2 , , ' , !' I 1/ I J 7.'< S'J~ ~I " /'( I,i,'." "/)'~/~f>/ JUI" j-~ /" I ],) ""..., _ ......" (' ",...\ ./ I, ...;;'>' h 'C.: l".- ~./ '. I .5'0::'" \ ". ,/"c.:..'~' /, L I" . t. c. ,~,......{ (,;::;,.. j' .- c...:.....~, -....!. _,/' ,1. &"J .--,...:) ';l' '+7 '- J' ---,,:} .. ". . f , ;/ -, f'~" I :;(:~ -:--;.'?( 7' ... ;! ~--j . .jl i~':f r. '-i-) . .11 '" ( 8. '-~'..e_e__'/l-;:1::':-4-.::: 5]-~..t."11.'l -i- 1 .. +, i /c ,<:! /i 1 v~'- .=: e~ -:7' 0 e vb 1',15;l',' LI/~ r ~ -;I r)Z"~--e:#c 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. ~y /f~6\ u-kE ~ _ ,-0 ~ I ~6&:!r~ V ~ ~ 6' cJ 'Ib-J ~ / ' ~tJ--.,~ J3~' ~oj-~ fJd1d !f6dG 04!(f~Nd My! ~H":OJe V,o.i'} !l-A7e( Dn!l/fCc} bOtJoillWC{ ~ jet, ?/O/ ,~O,vt,'\5 ruff' V-6f/ 01~(vf) &'1/1) .-'1 /b .- C? iuvc CL,.".-v + 3b,f; _1)5:;-1' 21f /,Q7?ct Bj" 111~- 8/2(,,};;;;:; A8S~ -<,L<I~y {)A~iAvd j3)yd lJ/tJ c<j/~i ()A~~/0c1/3)v:l !lk) We, the undersigned, are opposed to the fe-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the comer of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on our neighborhood. The effects will be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the blJilding will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area. This type of commercial project wiIllike1y provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. I 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. ....- ~/. , /t~/'. ,3,33 7 C~/77 E./i/O Q,"/ /lhcJ . ~-t' 0 ) ~ 53 tuib~~&~ NO e 1/ LA._ )(6-e, /1 .. ;?~(7( - ~~-eJa4- c~ , (/ e.. ,c, .Alv e / / - (j7Y"t~;L .# 7T 6..e~ rl Y'#a _ {~~JVs-- 1i<....iL 1/' ".'- 1:11' I1fk P ,i1 - /' . ~ J...-f"- . f ~/~ ,{..-o,,'u..cr, 1(:. /~ (ri~ ..1 f;'J!/2~K H ~.......-- C' ~~ . . I <'/ -L .\ U" , ;. I.J." ." _ ( I _ J /f' , '. /) (I " - (;,1\ /1 \7krrtd/1/ \Ve, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the comer of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on ow. neighborhood. The effects \vill be an increase in traffic along the already high-traftic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk (no side walks). The height of the building ,>viil impair the viev,is for many residents and will negatively aftect the value of the homes and property in this CLrea. This type of commercial project will likely provide a place ttlr the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. I. c; -/7-0'; 2. 9'-dd-ej ( 7' ~ 20 -or; 3. 4. '7 - Z()'--o 5. 6. i , . 8. 9. lIJ. Ii. f,J 't ~L(./~tt /1 ()J\,;1L-tLL /3 /J?c>.v /r /lv*" A./~, c. ,.". '[k.y-r :de A W~ t l; \ ILf5 nfk)f\lerz {)cNt ~(JJJo/ ,<~~\.. ~- l..;-r"" r ~ - :;.- . 12. 13. ! 4. ,0; 15. ,J 1."L- I. 7Jlkt,:: ,--. Lt fZ~ /).[1 (L S've.(j d Y~' ~. JE.'f!SAv'B.Urrril-INc' t2JiJ . C'/i\+h; ~ jenr" Il' C' ~ i zz4 (V\o/\--\erLE' '-A Of'. "1-2,6 16. 'lc26' 0 17. 18. 1 g. \Ve, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the comer of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it wiII have on ow' neighborhood. The effects will be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area, This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. L Carlefftt 1..0 , . "C, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. i. 8. 9/11l>J07 V~~ '30/ tvh Al/~, ~) {f~J' u.~. 1~2?-b7 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. .~'-rl\ \'4l::- ',\3 oLl \ N ~ ~ \3~ ~t=lr,er\.\j 41-"l~5t- ,_~r:VlhY'-'- )1U)J+i- f\ \~ \~ ~ 1 AD\...\~, L, A /V &\.l...\"-.l ~\.."""<-t:w--..... /~\~rJll( ., (S ,.: '111 A'&1IJI) t~_~ _ Ii" - _ _ ff)):-I/f/ ,/ I .' 17. 18. 19. ~i/-;>rol./ M (; c[.. ?6--<.:r , ---;)'- 'f. ~ / c.) ;; ~xJ~'~ 7 2~/D "-- t aLJ 7' ~/J Coo 5D lr~ \\A-~ LAn~ q-~b-O~ / C> I 9)z..qo (' ! I Avt!.. 2LJOJ 2 u 7/J-b/(j 7 7r! (0 I ~-(J ~ l..- j S"~ \V\. [J L~vv ;~~I \) l.~ \.~~ tn Apk:J411.~n 4)e Tic' \ Ii, lJ \ [J I ~o lOAf..( IAi,VA/ Av 2-0 )S~) ffopklttt\/n A'Vf~ liJ/C'7/1 We, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the COIner of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on our neighborhood. The effects will be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area. This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. 9. ~;'E 1-/ (;) d / ~~5 C' ,1 r:-I ,,)<.J IV f:.: fl. t;:-(::. / c -- /? ! ~.hl /'.) /)' j ~ .J~) /.. /l /'j !-Yc?t5C'Q Il/v'C::fS L.;{5r1 / /If ( ~d..g:~...//7-v C~4/':fh:-<<-/:-;:-L-_La/~7 /o.:-;;:({) -07 / ' ,.-.. ~ . j-l(~ L,E:.- L 8 C!~ '5 h 1~ {t1-& 1< Lll-o.L, 1.4-5 (:cd(Lr\.L,-"--JL. ~'LLc.. /6 .<.-J 0!J 7 ..../J. ...-r, . .--1J' { .. I ' . <} /) ) . t2i 10 /.2-&-/0 .r " ._':.-..~ .,--;T"/ k/..~ -r! t ( 1 l / ,-..... " . ':J -, L..-/v'\ ~ / .' ..._r-;J "'.1 /' - /7 . ~j I \ LJ ,n G.j (r i i 07\! S ./.<<./--. ~ ./It.... L.<?~/ ..', , / ." -.:J .ld. // a/-.,:C- U.?-~ I /'1 ( -. / / // j I' '; JJ ~. :?{70 ,/-:2Z)/JO( vel.! 11ft .t\ S I, /. 'Pl' / 4 /7 /L d!i! y I ,~s ~ '/ - rJ/gff U'7.Jo R{)Iey-rt~4~ /,~2)~~ --- ({ote~6-z--,:h~'-a ~-R~~~ /6 ~ D ~-QN " , . Ic~ ,- -2: 0 ,.c~{ GGofZ6-E R KRU 6fF? ...Jjp. Lr-''<.,,- -0 IJrv...-tP---r..-Z/L I i~1 {.-;fj/!L/4 ii/It! 11),/ () ,\... C'\.. . ~ 'I:) lJi)~ '; .t;' c;./cr~~o Ie Z /7 j' 'Ii l-~ bte v 50 n ,". '/ ,'-:t.!- tGCf,J,{.... {.{/. 'ci{)[.t?1-:2?..1 I (:7 0..-' tUC-t.;:!CCC--ll./ LLc:.:-(/ \/1. .. - . (), ~&(. . /e .7-6/67 J. -- !. / {' "-' iJ~ " . \ 'I f"/ (1 / 7' / I . //\-.2::5~ 42.'. v, ~ ("-n e2) ~7-1..i ) "-- 7'7. /~u L 1'7 L'ul4tu;...) ct1,.62...Ar C L 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. L3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. '.J c /kr ce"c: - ./ V IC:"- 6- c l4- IO-fr, -01 <:.----') -hC-...- - "~~J,p.~0L \ u. \ v....\. :{.)l'€:..-~u- J \O-l:.. -.::::- -~ ~ ,/ (/Vd..(.: '., &- ('., I , rf. - ..-:- '''\ i (")1 (,'1 ! .....J. / i{..A.:t' '> \ (I ,l#! .<. \ 1 II, . _ \/ V V ,.., ,,,- .7~ !.'t ,/A-"l>-t2.. 1/.-, (; -'(f '\ n J I 1 ," \j /-;;/ v~ ((j .H[.., I (\ fv\.J.AvtFLA~~~~.,' AAC-:- :, . ~ 4S\ (y jV\ld~ r:J , t"Y\cD I 1m II I (l''''\~e r7 ~/;] ,&, J I .'. (~ .~ / .-C-1-- ". \ () U ?.'-~ ",! Ge.,3- Ld LoLd {L'! ;Z ~ / <' '7 t: j . r 2(.} ./"'; u...fJlLu_v-;> J/ ;1 / '1 I. .', V i I J L' VI .0 .' '7 .;: (.L ~,--< . <'J Y . J-J/ ,~/ ):- . .~. " 'j-' l. .:) ... .~ Ii-"""\-/ , ~~ \Ve, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the comer of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on our neighborhood. The effects wiH be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively affect the value of the homes and property in this area. This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. 1. CaV$On ;? StJr.J-Jt~yJ~. "l.5111&n'hYld1tJ; sl ~-I/'7 j-)~) <1,n Ii. .s-l i. if '15/ tJ &fh rid rt ~ t. j{'II~. , 145- ; /10. i 1 .' ct-. /' ,_Q.' ~<j Ie; I \. 2. 3. -/ 1-/9 ---.llo t--,\t\..5 \. 4. n " \..:rt-v L-fLIS6 5. -::.:... D if r/J / d./ ~ {,red A, ~ '. '--f ,~, '''<''{.'--<..-r 9' /t / 6. 7. 8. f~qfr!L Ljl~~~otL~ 1:~'2t+r{2\C!E i/(;fl-r }'>rif/61"-tr;E7 '{~~Ih' 9. 10. u.. '\ l\j, ''';- l__ u, t4. ! - i ;:!" I~, ') Ii. r-\t) ,hrJ f ~ I\\l_ /..~f--, 18. ~) 0'\, f\ t\.~ C~\eJ5 ~j-.(.:..-.Ii !G{c(:C,?!-- l'J. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. i 8. II. a ~/'7_/l t t 0' /-: /j / / ,-, "1- II / ~ "/" ' I-/l/".:? - ". 11 . t-, '.:; .,,,' I?;' ;' I ~. '-'" ) v (! .' f ~ <.:::., v...., ,v- .\/4, , ., i., ...--, . '. 0- ? .\.../-~ \/-"-.,..<.:- / z.... l/ '-'f ' . "''7'-1 A' Jj .. " V"'.... L / ......./ DAVit) r..) 17 "'~ } - I - () ( ctc~ . I '7,4/" l/A. L .....' ! 2. _~-"_"- ~VI t;'Cf),vr J 13. 14. 15. [6. i 7. I" .0. 19. ~1.-~"C_ ~_. /,' I( ~ , V if LY c, I ~L_ Nc(--H., nti~L .c::j c'lle \ ~..J ".' L::\ - 2,-,<--: 'i b 6- IJ P t-":; l.- 5 {/pf ,4/% ,/ A:- i ~J? ).1. 5//7/Tlli/ n _5 ,/)aar1J 711 ~ /5# ~nle,-e v Jli/c.It/~ IJ .f. ft . I ,Q"~'fY'l l-J:lh /U11{ t;f;3 ibL f~\t!n ,tl:lY ,Allt '1)20/07 j'-r:2c:>-- ~ 7 \^le, the undersigned, are opposed to the re-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the corner of Oakland Blvd & Hershberger Road to C- 2 - due to the many negative effects it will have on our neighborhood. The effects will be an increase in traffic along the already high-traffic route of Hershberger Rd., increasing cut- through traffic in the neighborhood where children and older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building will impair the views for many residents and will negatively aftect the value of the homes and property in this area. This type of commercial project will likely provide a place for the unfavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal work. 1. l,,,,~~, 'b-\c:> \ 2. 3~ \\ ~ 0'"'\ L D-A~) \ e. I~..'-L \"C'\ \ C) Q..:'0-.~J) y <;: \ ~ N c: I"+{\~' \ (~C e S-t., brHd..\:-"'o('d \"",,\L'u-PnIC I ~3~~ '-lS-I~ ~:':r'+h~-'.d~e_ S~ . il-S--o, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. W C, the undersigned, are opposed to the fe-zoning of the 1.42 acres located on the corner of Oakland Bhd &: Hershberger Road to C-2 - due to the mall) negative effects it \vill have Oil our neighborhood. The effects \~,:ill be an increase in traffic along the already high-trame route of Hershberger Rd., increasing Cllt- through tratfie in the neighborhood where children aod older residents walk(no side walks). The height of the building \.\ill impair tbe views f(H many residents and vv.jll negatively affect the value of the homes and propeliy in this area. This t.ype of commercial project wiJllikely provide a place tor the untavorable transient workers that migrate to Roanoke for seasonal vvork. {J d Ir/t G ':::> Pldr'7f /l/ti/t1e S"J'/1 nq IJ?'L 1. H EJL!:J. [1. lhF!!/i dII~'?i/ h:y, ~9ktm/ 331-3 r!?[stc'/J 1tf..^t/;.r~;9k(Jj(13J ll;; (. . . l?- t f ' " j l,bllL If c}.uti 0\d &rrJ ,...(;,'). ~j'(u.-dr..:r "r \~ life - , f'''1-v. ..-'1 t/,{}...tJ. If)''.t./,, d.L {j 1l0.JI..J...tr-.J 1';1 v.} 2. 3. 't I . .-- 1 V J l f<. L1 l::::- ! oJ\! r... to 1'-).5. \f\ \ \1'\ 1\\ D\I rr\C /. - t L.. (.1--"-1 ~Z / nv"'v'7, hi1- it JS (Jld~lV't2 t~ ~ ~JuwcA rs'-/ 'lJ:tl~C. Roa~"- Vi{ (V~ 4. 5. 6. / i 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. f.8. J 9. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 ORDINANCE TO REZONE 1.42 ACRES FROM R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HERSHBERGER ROAD AND OAKLAND BOULEVARD (TAX MAP NOS. 38.15- 1-9 AND 38.15-1-10), HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF AUSLO, INC./PHILlP BANE WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 25,2007, and the second reading and public hearing were held November 13,2007; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 2, 2007, which was continued to November 5, 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 1.42 acres, as described herein, and located at the corner of Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard (Tax Map Numbers 38.15-1-9 and 38.15-1-10) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District with Conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Auslo, Inc. IPhilip Bane. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) Use of the property will be limited to a hotel/motel/motor lodge. (2) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the following drawings: (a) "Concept Plan" dated October 22, 2007 and prepared by ACS Design; (b) "Conceptual Grading Plan" dated October 22, 2007 and prepared by ACS Design; (c) "Conceptual Landscape Plan" dated October 22, 2007 and prepared by ACS Design. (3) The architectural design of the building will be in substantial conformity with the building elevation drawing titled "Extended Stay Hotel" dated October 22, 2007 and prepared by Blue Moon Deslgn Group. (4) A monument-style sign will be constructed adjacent to Hershberger Road and will not exceed 5 feet tall by 8 feet wide. The sign will use the same fayade materials as the building and will be illuminated by ground-based fixtures. (5) Signage placed on the building will occupy less than 5 percent of the building fayade area. (6) Exterior free-standing light fixtures will not exceed 18 feet in height. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: 1.422 acres being Tax Map Nos. 38.15-1-9 and 38.15-1-10. 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.