The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/21/1990 - RegularJj~ _„ ~i~ i?, _ _a------'------~--- ~. _ -' i (- ~ ., ~ ~ P _~-,~ f i, /, +..~ ; ~:~-C~ ~.~-C ~ ~: fL~ ~ mac: ~J ~ ~ CX - _. _ - ~`~ ~ ~~ (~~ ~? ~~ ~_~~.~~ /rte ~:~~ ~ , :. ~t i ~~ ~ ~ (,~~~-~~- c, l' ~..L.~ ~;,~~.'~r ~ ~++, ~t« ,, ~~ ~ '_ ~ •1 Y 1 ff ~ V e; i~ ~ ~~~~ ~7.~, ~-~ -z~yrud~[ : r v~~~ ~ 1 ,j ~ _ ~ ~ - rig:. ~ ~ ~ / ~' `` ~ ~ '~ ~~ e ~ / 1lJ1J lam- ~~~1/ ~l<(~, r{_ic.~4.~~..~ ~.~...e / I i ~ ., ~ .~ ~~ ,=-~ t/ ELI (~ , E'er"f' ~'C ' G ~"_ v' .~ ~~ ? L~-'- %'- ~~,, ~~~~J . ~~ ~ R ~ _ f~l._~i_~~~ , .--~ ~~ ~ f` i rJ r _ ,, w l ~~, (~ ~ ~ r,J ~ ~r -~. , i is ,.. ' ~`E" ~`^~i ~~~~ ~~ ~iti fJ' L ~ i / ~ ~//,y~ / (,l// 1, v ~ G ~ ,~tit~ ~,~`~~ ..~-° "~~ l ~ v / r ~ ~l- i ~/ ~ ,~, oa j /~ ~~ f ;~ .._- ~ ~ ~ ,` I _ `f` ~~ ~ a i ~ ~ ,.d ~. ,~ ~ { _~. ~`- ~ i ~~~ ~-_ :~=_ ~ ~-'" ~/~ ~'~ "-` ~~ l J//V~j<, jay ~_` L;/f~ /f,, (,/ = \^ ~ ~ , 1~..'L.d., to - `• !, ii J ~~~ ) ~ / ` `'fin ='~ ~~11 ~ 1 ~ ; ~ ~-\ ~ ,<_ ~~ Lam''--F= l~'k= ~ /~ ~' Ar~` ~ ~ v L,tJ{/l ris~'i"~ L ~~/ Y-%/)9..r ~_- ~"' ~ '~j` L ~-c. ~}'` + .t !~: ,l ~.v ~ 1_+_ ill `., ~ ~ T ' f ~--~- .;S ~.,,,, ~ ,_ ~. ~ `~~' /', f ~~~ ;4 /'~ ` - ~ ~ ~ ~t ~_ ~- ~n~,.._ „ ~~ i,! d t~' tai s7i~-e°~ ~ "~.. _ < i ~ "'~~ i ~ ~ .. i ~,~ ~~ ~ ~'~` ~ -rte,<,~y- .,_ .~ ~, ~ i ~ ~ ' ~ ~/~ ,r ~~t ~~ ~~- , f r ~ ~-,~ J I ~ ~ 1 C, 1 ~~A 1 .f , 't ~ ~ ~ - ~.- .~ ~; ~ r.L ~-c_. d ...- i ~1"~ ~~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,: ~~ ^~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~~-- ~~ _ n f ~~~ l.(~ f ~' ~ 7 , _ £/ ~ J {`~ J ,r /~ ` ,/ (_ ti ;~~~~: ~ ~ ~~ - .. ~ _ ~ ~ ---/F r `~ x ~ ~, - ci ,. , v 7 ~. ~k i ~~-, ~~ ~ ~ ~Lz:.C~ ~ ~-' 'v~L ~--z-~ ,'~ t ~ - ~ 1 ^ /q~ .~ _ ~_ , v ~ ~ r; ~ ~. 1 ~ ~/~y, ~l ~~ ,..~ ~ ) '-5. Y ~ ~ h ,_ ~_ _ /~ „ ~ //' ~ f ~ ,( /, f Y f ~~ 'r. -1,~ ,~1, ~,~ a ~~ G..~ {A- t3~i 'i4 1.~ _ to Ci L-i' ~"' '~ ~~ e, ~ `II i ~ ~~ ~~ r~ ~i.., ~. ~/~ ~~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ i ~ i -, , ~ / ~ ~ /~ ~,'lt~ ~ . ~!~`r',. ~ ~ lam. ,~`~.~ .~ ~An ~- ~? ~"l_~.i~/i-~ w ;; U ((jj11""'' ' 1 } -N ~, ,~ rt ,~~ ,{' U..U.sL ~/~ / ~. ~ is '~. ~d-f" l./~ ~t~„•~-'` .L t i, :~ r`I ~~[,. ~'..~~ ~.~ ~~ ~~-u~ ~-~`; ' ~1-~-~ ~~~ ,~ ~~ ~ p `~J ~; ~J / ~ ~ ,-, %. i ,~ ~~,~ ter--,~~. ~ ~~~ ~.._ :, ;~ I ff~ /~~ ~ %/ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i F ~'' ~ ~- ~+ E ~ (;~ ~~ i' , ~~ / / ~f/JY, ,,. ,~ t ~ ~~~ , ~ /~1~ {1 ~ ~ ~, 1 ~~- ~ ( j,~ ~.~-- ~- ~-~ __ ,~! ,, ~', ' ~ f ~ ,~ ,~ ., ,y,,,~, _. ;~ .tom ~ ,,^,,,~_.~ - a~ , `~ _ ~~ ~,,.~-_ ' _ q i~, 4.~ n ~' `~ J' ~ r lJ~it'~ ~.a ; ~, r l ,.~-~ ~a /~ ~ ii ~V'°^-~~--d' _ _ ~/~ "~~"J~.%~`,.-L~^ f_~:_ C {_ , ~' -~/fit..-'~„~-_~-~'- ~ 1i `r' ~ (.ice ~ ~ / l ~~ ~. ~ V~%~~ ; ~~ 1;' ~',i~ .~ , 1 ~ ~J G /- J ~ / ,~s7' ~ r :, ~ - ., ~~ ~~ ~.. ~, s; i~ ,~ _~ ~~ ~, ~ ~; Y V ~~_. ~ ~.i~li~~aLL;~ ~.~~~~. ~, -tel:/,J•-.. U. //~ I ~ --~ r; ~ i ~~ a ,, ., ~, /, ,~ 7~ f i \, ~.-~ - , ', ~ ~ rf ~ ~, is ~ ~-~. _~_ . L.- G' / `~ l~.(..C - 4~ ~ t ~ ~, /' ~, / .~ n ~~ i ~ ~~- ~ v.:~ ~~~..~~-~ `~/~ Y ~ ~, ~"~ -~ ~l /~ __ ~1 r ~ " ~ _. =~~ c._,~.~, ~~ r ~ ~ ~/ y~. 5~ ~ ~~ ~u ~ ( ~ 1 ~ L~, ~s /+ /`~ L /) l ~ 1 ~` /t F~ ~ ~ ~"i .6~'" ~ J ~ t R` 1 ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~> i ~~ A _ ,; ~_ ~- _ f' ~4 \ .L~ ~ ~ Iv V ~~... ~.kJ r~ ~''~ \ 4 (~ ~ { ,~ ~ ~~,_e~ - ~~._~ `' i ~, ~~ ~ (~ ~ !~ ~l~ !f'i , 'Y ',t J v C~~ ~ ` l ~ I \ r C~ ,~ `- f - L / r I(/ ~~ .~>~.~E.~l.,~ - , ~:,.t~vJ.i 61.E ~" ~--1~ l:'~~t~. 1 ~~ .! , ~.-. . t~ ~. ~ ~ ~ v~ ~, - ~ ~ /- ; ~ ,, [j~ ~, ~-7~~~~(,, 7 i ~' ~~ % fay' ~, (,;.?t~~.~/•--,. ~~-~_~,lA..~+-c. ~.~ ~ , ~ ~. I , ~r~ ~ _ ii, t^ ~~ ~) ,~ ~, --, ,, ~ . f ,~ ~,/ ~ , ~ i -{ ~.!. ~ ~~~ 1 f7 ~.~_~ ~: ~ '`' 11 i' ~:~ L./ ~~-~+ :~~~ i 1 1'i ~~_ r~- ~ ~ `~ Z' `~ ~ ~ .J~~-- L,~--,.~ ._.------ r. i l ~" Cf` .. ~ ~ u~"~~ ~ ~,~w' C~~- ~^-62a~ ~'l . '~../~ ~- ~ C ~V~~ i,~~, `~~ ~ ,J ~-- ~ti. ~~,~ . ~. L /, it " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ rJ "~ ~J L'~~'iL..~ ~~~~ tel.- -- ~~ .. ~~ y.~ ~ `~, ~'1~ ~d1v2L~i: ~~ k~ ~--~,~v~.~~.., V'~ ~~ t. I~ ~~ .~ ~--. ~ _ L ~~ ~- (~` _ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ~~~ ~ ~.t ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v ~~ ~~~ r ~' ,/ ~ ~ _._.__._. ~ A __ _._. j~a~ ~~ ~J c 1+" I U 1~`°' - r J ~~~ J ! ''L~4~./'~, ~~~ i ~~ ~ ~ C'~~-~~- 9 ~/ ~1(~~~L~ ~~~~ --~ ~.J ~ lJ 1 ..~ ~-C_~~~,1 ~%-~~ ~~ ~~ ~ -~; ~~L~ 0~..~./..L~-- ~'ti /~~-~ '~ -~, ~_.~- /' F ~~r C.~ .~ ~~ :~.- ~---~. v - y~ ~'V~ ~n~~~\~ ~ 1j /~' `°' f ~/+I ~~~ ~ -' la-tea.-/ ~`~ , /~~ ~ ~~II„""" t\ ~.. ~~ ~ i ,~ -,~ ~~ ~ ,, ~~// /r. ~ C~/~ ~7 -~ ~. '~`~~ . ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~ ,, __ _ r .mil/` Y / ._ :, rJ 1 /t / \, ~~. /y /~~-~? KJ A krr{7 ` ~~ u 4 ~,` ~~ f d~ /~ ~„~~ ~~ ~ ~.~~ ~, ~ ~~ ~~,~~ // O~ PpANp~.~ ~ ~ A z c~ ~ 2 o a SFSQUICENTENN~P At. ~MERKJ:" ~/ t '' I I f t ~~ `~ ~~ 1979 ~~~Y~~ ~ 1989 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT RETREAT FRIDAY, SEp'TEMBER 21 -SATURDAY, SEp'TTEIIRBER 22, 1990 ACTION AGENDA FRIDAY, SEP'TIIViBER 21, 1990 IN RE: CALL TO ORDER (6:00 P.M.) Board Members Present: Richard W. Robers, Steven A. McGraw, Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens, Planning Commission Members Present: Wayland Winstead, A. Kyle Robinson, Michael J. Gordon, Ronald L. Massey, Donald R. Witt Staff Present: Elmer C. Hodge, Paul Mahoney, John Hubbard, Terry Harrington, Jon Hartley, Janet Scheid, Mary H. Allen IN RE: DISCUSSION OF REZONING AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES GENERAL DISCUSSION OF ZONING ORDINANCE .PHILOSOPHY PREFERRED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. STAFF ASKED FOR DIRECTION ON PHILOSOPHY -NARROW VERSUS BOARD DEFINITIONS OF ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. 1. Recent Rezoning Actions NO DISCUSSION. 2. Format and Content of Staff Resorts 1 - BETTER LOCATION EXPLANATION (MAPS, ETC.) - NAMES OF STREETS INSTEAD OF ROUTE NUMBERS. - LESS DUPLICATION OF INFORMATION ON TRANSMITTAL AND STAFF REPORT. - MORE COMMENT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. - MORE COMMENT FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS - I.E. VDOT, ENGINEERING - NO DESIRE FOR SLIDE OR VIDEO PRESENTATIONS. 3. Zoning Enforcement - NEW ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HA5 BEEN HIRED AND IS SPENDING SIX HOURS IN THE FIELD. - INOPERATIVE VEHICLE PROCESS WAS DESCRIBED. - JUDGES HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF INCREASED VIOLATIONS. IN RE: SAM MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:50 P.M. - UW SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1990 IN RE; RECONVENEMENT (9:00 a.m.) Board Members Present: Richard W. Robers, Steven A. McGraw, Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens, Planning Commission Members Present: Wayland Winstead, A. Kyle Robinson, Michael J. Gordon, Ronald L. Massey, Donald R. Witt Staff Present: Elmer C. Hodge, Paul Mahoney, John Hubbard, Terry Harrington, Jon Hartley, Jce Obenshain, Brenda Holton IN RE: ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE 1. Schedule 2 JANUARY 1, 1991 -STAFF DRAFT OF ZONING ORDINANCE OCT -JANUARY 1991 -LEGAL REVIEW JAN - FEB, 1991 -PUBLIC REVIEW (COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS, MAP ANALYSIS) MAR -APRIL, 1991 -COMMISSION REVIEW (INTENSIVE FOCUSED EFFORTS) MAY -JULY, 1991 -BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW 2. Format of Zoning Ordinances FIVE PARTS I _ ADMINISTRATIVE -FIRST DRAFT II -DEFINITION -WORKING ON FIRST DRAFT III -DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - (DENSITY, UNITS PER ACRE WILL AFFECT PUBLIC) IV - SUPPLEMENTARY USE - ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS V -DEVELOPMENT & STANDARDS - SAM SUGGESTED USING ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCESS. - RWR SUGGESTED HAVING PRIOR WRITTEN INPUT. FROM CITIZENS. - SAM SUGGESTED ASKING FOR COMMENTS IN ROANOKE COUNTY TODAY. _ TH ADVISED THAT THE OUTLINED PLANS ARE REALISTIC AND CAN BE DONE THROUGH MARCH, 1991, AND UNTIL THERE ARE UNKNOWNS. - CONSENSUS WAS TO USE ROANOKE TIMES ROANOKE COUNTY TODAY, AND CITIZEN GROUPS IN EFFORT TO INFORM PUBLIC. - LBE SUGGESTED STAFF PUT TOGETHER A PACKAGE OF INFORMATION FOR THE PRESS. IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - STATE MANDATE THAT PLAN BE REVIEWED EVERY FIVE YEARS. - TH LISTED 14 PRIORITIES FOR THE UPDATE. 3 IN RE: ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY IMPLEMENTATION _ JRH STATED THE NEED FOR CONSISTENT AND COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ROANOKE RIVER. THIS WOULD BE APPENDIX TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SHOULD BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. - VIRGINIA TECH HAS DEVELOPED A SLIDE PRESENTATION. THIS IS A REGIONAL STUDY BY SEVEN GOVERNMENTS AND IS NOT A FLOOD STUDY. BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY AND FORWARD AT APPROPRIATE TIME, UW IN RE: EXPLORE PROJECT - ECH ADVISED PRESENTATION ON EXPLORE WOULD BE MADE AT 9/25/90 BOARD MEETING TO INITIATE 456 PLAN REVIEW AND APPOINT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. CONSENSUS WA5 TO TREAT EXPLORE PROJECT AS ANOTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. _ TH ADVISED APPROVAL SHOULD BE BY FIRST OF YEAR WITHOUT ZONING CONFLICTS. - PMM ADVISED THERE WAS A NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND ZONING APPROVAL. - ECH SUGGESTED WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND RIVER FOUNDATION TO FACILITY PROCESS. _ TH REPORTED TWO ELEMEN HENSIVE PPLAN FOR APPROPRIA"I'E (1) REVIEW OF COMPRE USE DESIGN FOR EXPLORE (2) POTENTIAL 456 REVIEW. IN RE: RECENT REZONING ACTIONS BOARD REQUESTED THAT STAFF REPORT ANY CHANGE IN REZONING SINCE HEARING BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION. . BOARD WOULD LIKE STAFF TO WORK WITH ALL CITIZENS TO FACILITATE PROCESS. - STAFF SHOULD BE OF A MINDSET TO HELP CITIZENS COORDINATE PROJECTS. - SUGGESTED THAT STAFF WORK ON MORE COORDINATED APPROACH AND BRING BACK REPORT. 4 IN RE: ZONING ENFORCEMENT _ 'I'II ADVISED THAT MOST IOA1P'TE~MPTIN~BEIIER RECORD SITUATIONS AND STAFF KEEPING IN ORDER TO SEND N~~OT CREG~ AE'IOIONS IN EARLY SPRING ABOUT COMPLYIN - STAFF IS REVIEWING THE WEED ORDINANCE. - SUGGESTED ROANOKE COUNT~LODBE LOOKING OR SPECIFIC ZONING ENFORCEMENT TYPES OF VIOLATIONS DURING CERTAIN TIMES. IN RE: CONDITIONAL REZONING GENERAL DISCUSSION. IN RE: SAM MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 12:15 P.M. UW WITH BLJ ABSENT 5 ~~ /~. ! ~~, 2~~ ~3 ~ ~ L L c- t-/ ,loo-~z- ~.~~- f ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~ ~~~ . L /`.~ ~. /~ ~i _ d v e_ ~ (~_~,~_._E~~~. _~ ,, ~~~ ~ ~ o~ _ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~- . ~~G--~- _ ~-~ - -~ ~ ~ o '~ S~~ y, ~~ L - !~ ~ ,, ,gym ~~ ~ ---_ ~,~ G ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ . , ~~ a-~` ~ a~ .~~ '~ `~ ~ ~L/ ~ ~.~ ` /~ ~ , Q .-~ ~~~ ~~~ ~1 / - // ~- ~k ~Z' G%~ y~ ~~ Q~ L~ ~~ ~ ~ . /~ Gc~2 = tce.~c~P 1~" ~~//~ 1 V ~-, ~- ~ ~- ~~ = ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ rn ~`.~ ~~`' ~ ~,~ ~ ~~~ =- U ~~ Gva-~-ems ~E;~rg-rte PG v ~~ ~~ m ~c_ C,a- ~~ -~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ -~ _ ~~, ,~~ ~ emu - 7~ ~ ~~ L~~ ~~ /~ .vn. ~' ~,n'n -- ~ ~~-- ~ v b ~ ~- 's~z"'iZ'`'~ ---~ ~ u~ .~ -- ~ ~~ ~° n~ Tom- _ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~`~ ~ .~ - ~°.~-. ~o~~ ~ ~ r -^ ~ L~ l~ Y ~ ROANOKE COUNTY pO~ING COMII~IISSION ROANOKE COUNTY Jonv~r RErRF.~T FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 -SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1990 ACTION AGENDA FRIDAY SEPTIINIBER 21 1990 IN RE: CALL TO ORDER (6:00 P.M.) Members Present: is ar W. Robers, Steven A. McGraw, Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens, Wayland Winstea , ~,A. Kyle Robinson, is ae ,Ronald L. Massey, 'L Me.M1 ~ P~ S Donald R. Witt Staff Present: Elmer C. Hodge, Paul Mahoney, John Hubbard, Terry Harrington, Jon Hartley, Janet Scheid, Mary H. Allen IN RE: DISCUSSION OF REZONING AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES General discussion of zoning ordinance philosophy preferred by Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. h r10~r~ to -F-F' a s k c eo -~ r d~ ire. c'~' i o n o n h~~ t b So P y- '~,__ ~trsus broad de-F,n ~-lions a-~F' zor;~ng cIaSS~f~ 1, Recent Rezoning Actions C a,.~' ~ O h 5 C ~ No discussion. 2. Format and Content of Staff Reports % :Better location explanation (maps, etc.) ~ ~ Names of streets instead of route numbers. _ Less duplication of information on transmittal and staff report. - More comment from Plya~nning Commission hearing: v~ T Eh Slne~i"t h r 1~ ~' ~O I1` athc.r depts ~ !.e • ~ no de sire. -~-o r s~~d~ o r video ~~ s~~nto.~'ter~ 3, Zoning Enforcement 1 ~ New zoning enforcement officer has been hired and is spending six hours in the field. Inoperative vehicle process was described. '~/ v bQ~,r, g~por~w~ of ~ncrzc,s~~ ',_ 1 u~d~tS ha ~. `` __y,of o , o n S IN RE: SAM MOTION TO ADJOU~ AT 8:50 P.M. - UW SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 22 1990 IN RE; RECONVENEMENT (9:00 a.m.) ~ o S Richard W. Robers, Steven A. McGraw, Lee B. Eddy, Members Present: C. Nickens, Wayland Winstead, Bob L. Johnson, Harry +~ 1(~/~,,t,~~~p a„rS A. Kyle Robinson, Michael J• Gordon, Ronald L. Massey, Donald R. Witt Staff Present: Elmer C. Hodge, Paul o aObens~hain~BrHdabHolton erry Harrington, Jon Hartley, J IN RE: ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE t 1. Schedule January 1, 1991 -Staff draft of Zoning Ordinance Oct -January 1991 -Legal Review Jan - feb, 1991 -Public Review (community workshops, map analysis Mar -April, 1991 -Commission ~sor (Reviewve focused efforts)_ May -July, 1991 -Board of Sup 2, Format of Zoning Ordinances Five Parts I -Administrative -first draft II -Definition -working on first draft III -Development Regulations - (density, units per acre -will 2 affect public) IV -Supplementary Use -Additional performance standards V -Development & Standards SAM SUGGESTED USING ADVISORY COM1MN~T FROM CITIZENS SUGGESTED ASKING FOR PRIOR WRITTE SAM SUGGESTED ASKING FOR COMMENTS IN ROANOKE COUNTY TODAY. TH ADVISED THAT THE PLANS ARE 1~`HERE AR UNI~OWN ONE THROUGH MARCH, 1991, AND UNTIL CONSENSUS WAS TO USE ROANOKE FORT TOINFO PUBL C TODAY. AND CITIZEN GROUPS IN LBE SUGGESTED STAFF PUT TOGETHER A PACKAGE OF INFORMATION FOR THE PRESS. IN RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - 'I'H~ I~ARSST ,~ I, SI~'TEDD 14 THAT PLAN BE REVIEWED EVERY PRIORITIES FOR THE UPDATE. IN RE: ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY IMPLEMENTATION ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUS~ J~ pPRO~ H1T0 ROANOKE CONSISTENT AND COMPREHEN RIVER. THIS WOULD BE APPENDIOX~TOI~HE END OFNTHE YEAR• AND SHOULD BE COMPLETE BEF VIRGINIA TECH HAS DEVELOPED A SRNMENT55AND IS NOT F,HLOOD A REGIONAL STUDY OF SEVEN GOVE STUDY. BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY 3 AND FORWARD AT APPROPRIA'T'E TIME, UW IN RE: EXPLORE PROJECT ECH ADVISED PRESENTATION ON E~TEO456 PLANDREVIEW AND 9/25/90 BOARD MEETING TO INITIA APPOINT CITIZENS ADVISORY COM SITrENOTHER N ECONOM I TREAT EXPLORE PROJECT A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. TH ADVISEDONFIICOTSAL PMM ADVISED FIRST OF YEAR WITHOUT ZONING C NEED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVI ~ P DINING COMMISSION ECH SUGGESTED WORK SESSION WI AND RIVER FOUNDATION TO WOE rT0 I ~~N NG RCEVIEVV PROCESS. TH gEpoRTED TWO ELEM _ PROCESS (1) REVIEW OF CO ~LOREN(2~ POTENTIALF4O 6 APPROPRIATE USE DESIGN FOR E REVIEW. IN RE: RECENT REZONING ACTIONS BOARD SUGGESTED THAT STAFF REP~TNING COMMISSION. REZONING SINCE HEARING BEFORE BOARD WOULD LIKE STAFF TO WOD E O7F'HA MINDSET T HELP FACILITATE PROCESS. STAFF SHOUL CITIZENS COORDINATE PROJECTSppROACH AND BR NG BACK WORK ON MORE COORDINATED A REPORT. IN RE: ZONING ENFORCEMENT TH ADVISED THAT MOST COMP MPNTTING BETTERURECORD SITUATIONS AND STAFF IS A1TE KEEPING IN ORDER TO SEND NOTICES TO PEOPLE IN EARLY SPRING ABOUT COMPLYING WITH EEG SUGGESTED ROANOKE REVIEWING THE WEED ORDINAN COUNTY TODAY MIGHT PUBLICIZE THATT ONS DURING CERTAIN WILL BE LOOKING FOR CERTAIN VI 4 TIMES. IN RE; CONDITIONAL REZONING GENERAL DISCUSSION. IN RE: SAM MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 12:15 P.M. jJW ~1'g BLJ ABSENT AN ~ L r: ~ ~ ~~~n~~~ ~tf ~f C~~au 18 '.~50. 88 sFS0UtCEM7EMN~'~ A Bt~~rifrlBtRi~~~rg BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' RETREAT JANIIARY 20-21, 1990 HOLIDAY INN-TANGLEWOOD AMENDED ACTION AGENDA SATURDAY, JANIIARY_20, 1990 A MYERS-BRIGGS TEST (8:10 - 11:10 A.M.) 8. REVIEW OF PRIORITIES SET AT JULY 1989 RETREAT Dealing With Citizens ul.u~an~ an 1 ~ ~~9~8~9 A~ren wry - REQUESTED AN AUDIT ON RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS - CONTACT BY fo h/'~ LETTER OR PHONE CALL TO 5 OR 6 CITIZENS PER MONTH AS FOLLOWUP /y~~~~ - SAM REQUESTED TOUGHER APPROACH TO ZONING COMPLAINTS (JUNKED CARS, ETC) - BLJ SUGGESTED CROSS-TRAINING PLANNING STAFF TO ENFORCE VIOLATIONS Communications - POLICY STATEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE ONLY BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - CONTINUE EFFORTS AT COMMUNICATION WITH CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES. Anne, ROANOKE COUNTY TODAY: Ma ~1 e ~ Peen _ - LBE REQUESTED CITIZEN SURVEY ON READERSHIP - NO CONSENSUS - BOARD CONSENSUS THAT NEWSLETTERS NEEDS TO BE MORE TIMELY, INFORMATIVE AND BETTER DISTRIBUTED. - CONTENT: NEED MORE INFORMATIVE TOPICS - HOW TO APPEAL ASSESSMENTS, HOW TO APPLY FOR FREEZING OF TAXES, ARTICLES ON DEPARTMENTS AND HOW THEY SERVE THE PUBLIC; SPECIAL YEARLY ARTICLES, I.E. BUDGET ARTICLE IN MARCH, PARKS AND RECREATION ARTICLE IN APRIL, ASSESSMENT ARTICLE IN JANUARY, SCHOOLS ARTICLE IN AUGUST - MORE INFORMATION ON UPCOMING BOARD ISSUES AND RECENT BOARD ISSUES - PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE 2 - DISTRIBUTION: NEEDS TO BE SENT TO ALL COUNTY AREAS; CHECK ON DISTRIBUTION THROUGH READ AND SHOP Economic Development - DISCUSSION ON BENEFITS OF CONTINUED SUPPORT OF REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP. ~To h~ - ECH TO SET UP TRIPS TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AND GREENSBORO AND Nyb~1/'~REPORT BACK TO BOARD WITHIN 60 DAYS . - NEED TO DECIDE IF 75-25 IS A REASONABLE GOAL - WHAT IS T//~'~ PERCENTAGE NOW, WHAT WILL PERCENTAGE BE AFTER CONSOLIDATION IF ~ubd/QPASSES? C. TOPICS REQUESTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Consolidation - LBE ASKED HOW BOARD MEMBERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS. (DISCUSSED SUNDAY) - ECH ADVISED THAT A WORK SESSION WILL BE SET TO STUDY THE AGREEMENT Resource Authority - ASKED STAFF TO HAVE AVAILABLE AT NEXT RESOURCE AUTHORITY •~~'n~ MEETING DOCUMENTATION OF ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BOTH LANDFILL /-/S/Q'f ~ SITES . E~~,~~,. - DIRECTED ECH TO CONTACT ROANOKE CITY CONCERNING A CONTRACT TO ~~~ JOIN THE NEW LANDFILL. ~oh ^ - ASKED FOR REPORT ON COSTS TO EXPAND RECYCLING AND A REPORT ON EXACTLY WHAT ROANOKE CITY IS DOING IN RECYCLING. WILL BRING AS N~~/'~ PART OF BUDGET PROCESS . Spring Hollow Reservoir ,E~j»`o~ - ECH TO SET UP WORK SESSION WITHIN 60 DAYS ON SPRING HOLLOW NOdye RESERVOIR - INCLUDE TAX RATE NECESSARY TO FINANCE THE RESERVOIR. `~ HAVE INFO AVAILABLE PRIOR TO WORK SESSION. Stormwater Management ~Qle./ - DIRECTED PMM TO LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASING HOMES MQh~^C~HAT ARE CONTINUOUSLY FLOODED. Police Department - LBE SUGGESTED WAITING TO GO FORWARD WITH TRANSITION UNTIL GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS APPROVED FUNDING. Fire and Rescue 3 E/ry~Cr - DIRECTED ECH TO INITIATE DISCUSSIONS ON MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT NO Q~' L WITH ALL NEIGHBORING LOCALITIES INCLUDING ADJACENT COUNTIES WITH /]qty A~/cnAUTOMATIC RESPONSE FROM THE CLOSEST STATION. -HCN ASKED FOR REPORT ON HOW MANY TIMES ROANOKE CITY HAS COME ~O/~A~y INTO ROANOKE COUNTY ON CALLS. ~49ua IItility Fees ~'~/~~ - ECH TO SET UP MEETING WITH JOHN HUBBARD, CLIFF CRAIG AND LEE I~ody6 EDDY TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW CONNECTION FEES. Budget - BOARD CONSENSUS THAT REVENUE PROJECTIONS SHOULD BE REALISTIC AND ONLY 1$ TO 2$ VARIANCE IN PROJECTIONS AND BOARD SHOULD MAKE DECISION ON WHERE SURPLUS SHOULD GO. ~~,t a. - Capital Improvements: ECH WILL PREPARE A LIST OF CAPITAL NEEDS ~~t/~ TO INCLUDE AS PART OF BUDGET PROCESS. - Salaries: SAM, BLJ RECOMMENDED INCREASED SALARIES FOR ALL SCHOOL AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES. /~'~L°~ t ~ - BOARD MEMBERS ASKED FOR TURNOVER/ATTRITION RATE OVER THE PAST COD l~ SEVERAL YEARS . K~e~~/1 - RWR RECOMMENDED JOINING A PPO TO SAVE ON HEALTHCARE COSTS. C~oK - LBE RECOMMENDED STUDY OF EFFICIENCIES AND ECONOMIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMPROVING BUDGET FORMS. Supervisors Meeting Facilities and Procedures JNJQ/'y A//t/L LBE PRESENTED RECOMMENDATION FOR MOVING BOARD MEMBERS TO FLOOR fQh n AND CHANGING SEATING ARRANGEMENTS FOR STAFF, PODIUM, ETC. - STAFF /i.~~bb4~•dI'O STUDY AND BRING BACK POSSIBLE DESIGN AT MINIMAL COST. - LBE SUGGESTED ROTATING SEATING AND VOTING - NO CONSENSUS Mal` - LBE REQUESTED THAT MINUTES BE BROUGHT UP TO DATE. MHA WILL ~.~~ ~j•~ MAKE EFFORT TO CATCH UP WITHIN NEXT THREE MONTHS. ECH ADVISED ADDITIONAL STAFF WILL BE HIRED IF NECESSARY. - BOARD MEMBERS DIRECTED THAT FOR A 3-MONTH TRIAL PERIOD, ONLY ~f/ry~e r THREE ASSISTANTS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, CLERK, PIO, AND THOSE Nod9e ~ySATTEND IFPNEEDEDTFORDBACKGROUND INFOFFSTAFF ATHRCACUSHOULDS NOT ATTEND BUT BE IN OFFICE ON STANDBY FOR BACKGROUND INFO D. RECESS TO SUNDAY JANUARY 21 1990 5:09 P.M. SUNDAY, JANUARY 21, 1990 4 A. RECONVENE AT 1:15 P.M. B. BUDGET DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE BUDGET SESSIONS ~~anG - BLJ: HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL FUNDS COULD BE RAISED BY INCREASING N yQ't ~ UTILITY TAX? ~ - RWR: HOW MUCH INCOME HAS BEEN GENERATED BY THE ADDITIONAL E~d ~OMMIISSIOINER OF~REVEPUE~SFOFFICE D PST-TIME EMPLOYEES IN Wu'y~` CAPITAL - BLJ: HOW MUCH DOES THE SCHOOLS HAVE UNSPENT IN THEIR ~' o- ~~{ ACCOUNT . ~~ - HCN: HOW MUCH COULD BE SAVED BY ROANORE CITY FUNDING THEIR ~Oj''^•SHARE OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION THERAPEUTIC PROGRAM? Chd~nbJ~s s - LBE: HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO FUND THE LEAF VACUUM PROGRAM. .5~0 - LBE AND SAM: INCLUDE BOTH Ax ADDBACR AND CUTBACR LIST FROM ,,/~EPT. HEADS, I.E. WHAT COIILD DEPARTMENT CUT BACR IN ORDER TO ADD ~' °f'~" PROGRAMS, PEOPLE, EQUIPMENT, ETC. Gh n ySAM: INVESTIGATE POSSIBILITIES OF CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ~apr~blj~ARIOUS PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, I.E. PARRS AND RECREATION G~.~~~ACRD: CONTINUED STUDY OF CONSOLIDATION OF SERVICES WITH Eam~ ~, SCHOOLS, I.E. FINANCE, PERSONNEL, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE, ETC. M ,en PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY BOARD AND STAFF A. ROANORE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY 1. Landfill 2. Recycling B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 1. Spring Hollow Reservoir 2. Major Maintenance 3. Asbestos 4. Drainage 5. Equipment Replacement C. BUDGET 1. Economies 2. Efficiencies 3. Employee Salaries D. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 5 E. EMERGENCY SERVICES 1. Police Department 2. Fire Department 3. Rescue Executive Session BLJ MOTION AT 3:05 P.M. TO DISCUSS LEGAL, CONSOLIDATION, AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO WEST COUNTY, GLENVAR AND SALEM AYES-BLJ,SAM,LBE,RWR NAYS-HCN Certification of Executive Session SAM MOTION AT 3:35 P.M. - URC Executive Session (Not Held) HCN MOTION TO DISCUSS LEGAL, CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT - DENIED AYES-HCN,BLJ NAYS-SAM,RWR,LBE Consolidation Discussion DISCUSSION ON IMPACT OF TURNING OVER AGREEMENT TO CITIZENS COMMITTEE. DISCUSSION ON CHANGES THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CAN MARE AND WHAT OPTIONS ROANORE COUNTY WOULD HAVE AT THAT TIME. BOARD MEMBERS WILL SEND IN SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON AGREEMENT THROUGH THE DICTATION EQUIPMENT. RESPONSES WILL GO TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS. Adjournment at 4:30 P.M. AN ,~.~ Al1•AMERICA CI1Y ~ ~ :~ ~ ~~~ k~ Z ~ ~u ~~~n~ ~ ~s ~ se ' ~~g~8~g sES~U1CENTENN~~" e`""`'~"'B`~'""'"g ROANOKE COUN'T'Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMII~IISSION JOINT RETREAT FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 -SATURDAY, SEPTIII~ER 22, 1990 AGENDA FRIDAY, SEpTE11~ER 21, 1990 A. GET ACQUAINTED SESSION (5:30 P.M.) B. DINNER (6:00 P.M.) C. DISCUSSION OF REZONING AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (7:00 P.M.) . ,~ -~--~~ 1. Recent Rezoning Actions ~ D C~~SC-~ 5 S1 p h 2. Format and Content of Staff Reports ' ~ C~ ~ ~ ~Lix_~ d !~J 1 - ~n~~-- 3. Zoning Enforcement SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1990 D. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE (9:00 ~,M. - 10:00 A.M.) 1. Schedule 2. Major Issues 3. Discussion E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (10:00 - 10:30 A.M.) F. ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY IMPLEMENTATION (10:30 -11:00 A.M.) 2 1. Major Issues 2. Discussion G. EXPLORE PROJECT (11:00 - 12:00 NOON) 1. Rezoning Issues 2. Impacts 3. Timetable H. LUNCH (12:00 - 1:00 P.M.) 3 I. ADJOURNMENT ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY EXECOTIVE SOMMARY JUNE 1990 This report is a joint effort of policy, technical and citizens committees, consisting of representatives from Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin and Bedford Counties, Roanoke City, Salem, Vinton, Smith Mountain Lake Policy Advisory Board, Fifth Planning District Commission, New River Valley Planning District Commission, Central Virginia Planning District Commission, West Piedmont Planning District Commission, and twenty-two local interest groups. It was funded by a grant from the Virginia Environmental Endowment with matching funds from the PDCs and local in-kind contributions. ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction ................:. ................... 1 ~~ 1 Need for the Project ......................... 3 Statement of Purpose ......................... II. Methodology ....................................... ~ Study Area ................................... 4 Committee Structure .......................... 5 Data Collection and Mapping System........... 7 III. Summary of Existing Conditions Inventory.......... 7 Aesthetic Factors ............................ 7 Viewsheds/Access Points ................. Cultural Resources ...................... 7 7 Environmental Factors ........................ Critical Habitats/"Important 7 Habitats" ............................. 8 Geologic Features ....................... Wastewater and. Water , Groundwater Problems .................. 9 9 Steep Slope ............................. 9 Erosion/Easily Eroded Soils ............. 9 Land Use Factors ............................. 9 Existing Land Use ....................... 10 Use of Flood-Prone Land ................. 10 Recreation ...... ....... ............... 10 Major Agricultural Practices............ 10 Public Water and Sewer .................. Ordinance/Plan Review ........................ 11 Zoning Ordinance Uses and 11 Special Requirements .................. Comprehensive Plan Guidelines 11 Relating to the Roanoke River......... Review of Agriculture/Forestal 12 Districts ............................. ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY EXECOTIVE SUMMITRY TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) PAGE Legal Constraints to River Corridor 12 Planning in Virginia ...............••• ............ 13 IV. Recommendations ......................• .. 13 Rationale for Action ...................•••• 13 Action Agenda.........••••••••••••••••• " " " Policy Recommendations ....................... 14 r r_ f~ f~ ~ ~ .~ I ~ ~ _, /~ ~~ JI I 0 E E 0 v u i O O C C C 4 6 i W 1 `1 ~~ ~`,~/ .J ~~„/ L,~ }- i~~--- j )n >w 7 ~ ~ i L >A E t a o0 t Y 10 O W Q 6 W Q n I. INTRODUCTION The Roanoke River and the corridor of land along its banks represent a unique and irreplaceable asset to the people living nearby and to the localities that depend on it for sustenance. Important policy decisions must be made almost daily by these localities -- decisions which demand adequate information and careful analysis. The importance of the river and the urgent need. for information on it led to this study of the river from its headwaters in Montgomery and Roanoke Counties, through the Roanoke Valley to Hardy Ford Bridge at the upper reaches of Smith Mountain Lake in Bedford and Franklin Counties. The result of this two-year study is an inventory of existing conditions in the river corridor and a set of policy goals, objectives, and recommendations which local governments may use to guide their decision-making through the remainder of this century. Specifically, the study enables localities to utilize this information by amending their comprehensive plans and land development ordinances. This study began at a time when interest in the river was widespread throughout the area. Proposals for flood control, major land use changes, and. water storage facilities had been in the news and had alerted citizens to the special nature of the river corridor. Simultaneously, governmental officials and planners saw the need for increased river planning. Local planning commissioners expressed a desire to work jointly on a regional planning project in the Roanoke Valley. After the river was chosen as the topic for this study, it was soon decided to include nearby counties also. The result is an unprecedented cooperative effort involving the Fifth Planning District Commission, West Piedmont Planning District Commission, New River Valley Planning District Commission, Central Virginia Planning District Commission, Montgomery, Roanoke, Bedford and Franklin Counties, the Cities cf Roanoke and Salem, the Town of Vinton, the Smith Mountain Lake Policy Advisory Board, special interest groups, the Council on the Environment, numerous other state and federal agencies, and a group of dedicated citizens. Special thanks to the Virginia Environmental Endowment for their partial funding of the study, far their excellent advice, and for believing in this effort. As the project has grown, it led to a Phase II, partially fended by the Virginia Water Control Board and due to be completed in October 1990. Phase II is a more detailed examination. of how urban land development practices affect water quality in the corridor. Need for the Project In December cf 1984, the Governor's Commission on Virginia's Future issued Toward A New Dominion• Choices for Virginians. In the section produced by the Environment and Natural Resources Task Forceand authori ylto protect and serve the citazensaofwthe leadership Co~rmonwealth." While strides have been taken in the direction of increased state and regional regulation of land use and water quality and quantity, it remains within the province of local government to make most decisions in these areas. This circumstance is not likely to change greatly in the nextrofe~ years, and as the report points out, "regard for the p P exercise of authority at the local level (is a value; we must protect . " However, in the upper Roanoke basin as in nearly all river corridors, there is no single local government with the scope and authority to make definitive decisions regarding river corridor issues. Between its source and Smith Mountain Lake, the Roanoke River flows through or adjacent to seven local governments' jurisdictions. A decision made by an upstream locality can result, domino-fashion, in dramatic consequences f°r a downstream government. There is a clear need for a region-wide examination of the river corridor in its totality. In making land-use and water-use decisio oblem ° and governments are often forced to focus narrowly on a P ra hical. this narrowness is necessarily topical as well as geog p For example, rezoning of a forested parcel of land to residential use may increase runoff of petroleum residue into the river-- possibly not only affecting a neighboring downstream jurisdiction but also posing a threat to a groundwater aquifer in the i®ediate vicinity. Such day-to-day land-use changes, small in themselves, can add incom leteminfo m tionarandd inadequateflonge under pressure of p range planning. These issues are particularly critical in the case of the upper Roanoke basin. The Roanoke metropolitan area, the largest in Virginia west of the "urban crescent" from Washington through Richmond to Tidewater, is also the only major concentration of people and industry in the State to lie so ulat ontcenter headwaters of a major stream. It is the only pop of consequence to be found in the mountainous region west of the Blue Ridge. This location results in a set of environmental, aesthetic, and land use factors unique to the area. The Governor's Commission on `Jirginia's Future points out that "Virginia's water assets of rivers...constitute a network of physically related systems defined by geology and not at all by political boundaries." The same statement may be made about the land along the banks of those rivers; a beautiful view is not interrupted at the county line, and neither are the abrasive effects of floodwaters. This study provides a unique and timely opportunity to examine the upper Roanoke River corridor in its entirety, through the efforts of participating localities. 2 Statement of Purpose The study's goals were to produce a report documentin~3 existing conditions in the Roanoke River c ortuniti sa and recommend ways in which identified problems, opp protection needs can be addressed. Its objectives were to: (a) collect and analyze all relevant data under the categories of interest; (b) produce in one document this data in report and map form; (c) respond to the needs of local government in so doing; (d) give special interests and the public as a whole the opportunity for comment and involvement in river issues; (e) develop a set of policy recommendations for localities in the study area; and (f) provide localities with a firm background for future decision-making on river issues. This study includes detailed recommendations for policy implementation by the local governments. These recommendations address questions specific to each individual locp,fter due discuss points pertinent to the entire region. reflection, each participating locality niay LaKe what action it deems necessary to implement the study's recommendations. Equally important with these immediately-applicable results are the long-range purposes of the study. A local planning commission or governing body, faced with a decision affecting land use or water quality, will r~o longer be relying on inadequate or short-range information, but instead can enjoy the benefits of a comps aerea onable balance among sthem.faThissstudy account and strike can guide policy-making for years to .come. 3 II. METHODOLOGY A. Study Area The study area includes the entire length of the Roanoke River from its sources in Roanoke County and Montgomery County to the Hardy Ford Bridge connecting Bedford and Franklin Counties, where the river flows into Smith Mountain Lake's upper reaches. Each of the seven local governments defined the width of its own portion of the river corridor. The typical minimum width for any locality was usually all tax parcels falling within 750 feet from the edge of the 100-year floodplain (as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency) on either side of the river. In some areas, such as where bluffs meet the river, the study boundary may be more narrow. In a few cases, the locality may have chosen to enlarge the boundary slightly in order to include a particularly significant piece of property. g. Committee Structure Three committees worked on the study throughout the process. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) determined the technical parameters of the study (such as how to define viewsheds or code land uses, etc.). Each of the four PDCs, the seven local governments, and the Smith Mountain Lake Policy Advisory Board appointed one person to the TAC. All the TAC members They employed as professional planners or administrators. usually met monthly to review work conducted in the interim by PDC staff members. The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) considered the study's policy issues (such as approving the scope of work and making recommendations). PAC representatives were appointed by the four PDCs, seven local governments, and the Smith Mountain Lake Policy Advisory Board. All the PAC members were either professional planners or citizen planners from groups such as local Planning Commissions. They usually met quarterly during the data collection phase of the study, then held more frequent meetings during the policy phase of the study. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) provided input on both technical and policy issues, with more emphasis on policy. The 25 CAC representatives came prom a variety of interest groups; many proved to be a special asset to the study because of their first-hand knowledge of the river. Over 46 groups were invited to appoint representatives to the CAC. The following groups did so: 4 Salem Historical Society - David Foster, CAC Chairman Roanoke Valley Bird Club - Fred Cramer Float Fisherman - Barbara Green, Nelson Mackey, Jr. Friends of the Roanoke River - Bill Tanger, Juanita Callis Archaeological Society - Dan Vogt Nature Conservancy - William Bradley Clean Valley Council - Ann Weaver Sierra Club - Alan Heath Virginia Water Project - Jason Gray Wildlife Society - Peter Bromley Citizens Task Force - Jim Loesel Citizens Environmental Council - John Cone Chamber of Commerce of Salem/Roanoke County Shawsville Ruritan Club - George Smith, III Smith Mountain Lake Partnership - Ken Swain League of Women Voters - Grace Thomas - Curtis Beach Bedford Chamber of Commerce - Barbara Ring Montgomery County Forestry & Wildlife Association - Joe Gormanon, Roanoke Regional Preservation Office - Tom Klatka Peaks of Otter Soil and Water Conservation - Craig Bell Smith Mountain Lake Association - John Barr Blue Ridge Soil & Water Conservation - Winton Shelor, Sr. The CAC met every few months, with more frequent meetings during the policy formulation phase of the study. C. Data Collection and l9apping System The study includes two types of maps. The first are general maps, showing aesthetic and environmental factors by general location. The second type of map included in the study are the parcel maps, which show land use factors by tax parcel. All maps are found in Volume 2 of this report. The type of map selected for each variable was dependent upon whether or not the data were necessary, appropriate or available on (e.g., viewsheds are better defined as because of their .partially subjective characteristics were not present in a river, that section map has been omitted only. a site-specific basis general characteristics nature). If specific certain portion of the for that characteristic 1. Aesthetic Factors - The data on views!:eds and access points were collected from field surveys by study participants. The Roanoke River Corridor Study (produced by the Land Planning Studio in the Landscape Architecture Program at VPI&SU, April 26, 1989) was consulted for additional information. The data on cultural features were obtained from the Roanoke Regional Preservation Office, with. local input on undesignated landmarks (which are included because of their local significance as defined by study participants). The above referenced VPI&SU 5 study was consulted also, as was the National Park Services' 1987 Reconnaissance Survey of the Roanoke River Parkway Corridor. 2. Environmental Factors - The data on habitats were obtained from the Natural Heritage Program, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and ].oval interest groups. The Geology map shows data obtained from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps, and local inventories. Much of the water data came from the VWCB's 1989 Upper Roanoke River Subarea Water Qualit Assessment & Plan Elements. Field surveys, local invenotoriSoilsnandhslope data twere founduonlUSGS mapstand section als Soil Conservation Service materials. 3. Land Use Factors - Parcel-specific data were obtained for this section of the report. Land use, recreation, and water/sewer data were collected from each locality on a tax- parcel basis. The floodplain boundaries were transferred to the parcel maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program Maps. Information on major agricultural practices was provided by the Stabilization and Conservation Service or the County. Extension Agents. q. Ordinance/Plan Review - Each locality provided the details on their zoning ordinance, zoning map, and comprehensive plan. While the zoning is mapped on a parcel basis, the Future Land Use Map shows the general boundaries designated by localities in their plans. The Agricultural/Forestal District Map applies only to Montgomery County, which provided the data. No other jurisdiction in the study area has this type of officially designated district. 6 III. SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY The following summarizes the river inventory found in Volumes 1 and 2 of this report. A. Aesthetic Factors 1. Viewsheds/Access Points The river corridor contains excellent views, ranging from pasturelands, woodlands, gentle slopes, steep slopes, to bluffs. In the western and eastern edges of the corridor, rural views predominate, although access is often limited. As the river moves eastward through Salem and Roanoke, access to the river is easier. The views in this portion of the corridor demonstrate how more intensive land uses and the river interact. Primarily within the urban area, public parks utilize the river as a focal point. 2. Cultural Resources Within the more rural sections of the corridor, Montgomery County has the largest number of cultural resources that have been recorded to-date. .These include historic districts, historic bridges, and registered landmarks. Within the urban area, most of the historic sites are found within Roanoke City. These include both registered and unregistered landmarks as well as a historic district. g. Environmental Factors 1. Critical Habitats/"Important Habitats" a. Rare, Endangered and Threatened Species Within the study area, rare, endangered and threatened species are found in ten mapped locations. Eight of these are found in Montgomery County, including two significant Nature Conservancy properties. In Roanoke County, two sites characterized by special status plant species are found in the far western end of the County between Glenvar and Lafayette. Seven species of rare fish, including two of which are rare throughout their N rthaandaSouth ForksbofnthepRoanoke Rivereveral points along the 7 b. "Representative Areas and Edges" Representative areas within the corridor include the Falls Ridge Preserve and the Ironto Shale Barrens in Montgomery County. Both sites are owned by the Nature Conservancy's Virginia Chapter. They represent unique environments whose intrinsic merits are of such value that the Nature Conservancy has deemed their preservation important to its mission. c. Non-Tidal Wetlands Wetlands (areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions) are present at scattered locations within the study area. These small wetlands, seen as various low-lying points along the river or its tributaries, exist even in the more urbanized parts of the corridor at some locations. d, Migratory Bird Congregation Areas The Roanoke River has very few places in which migratory species' preferred environments (stretches of relatively calm, slow-moving water with few rapid ripples) are present. However, there are some places along the river corridor where one can find migratory species in small numbers. The most significant areas along the river for migratory birds is at the Roanoke Regional Sewage Treatment Plant. A semi-permanent colony of yellow- crowned night herons can be found near the Veterans Administr birds has beenlcollect d by localcgroupsdata on other migratory 2, Geologic Features a. Karst and Caverns Karst formations contain numerous solutional features which allow easy and rapid penetration of surface water into the groundwater reserves below, causing a potential for contamination. In Montgomery County, a large karst area in the northern part of the County covers over half of the North Fork study area. Several caverns are located in this area also. b, Geology The study area traverses or touches upon two physiographic provinces between its headwaters and the Hardy Ford Bridge - the Valley and Ridge and the Blue Ridge. The former is characterized by long, relatively straight, valleys separated by steep mountain ridges trending northeast to southwest. The latter consists of irregular mountains, upland plateaus and valleys. Numerous 8 faults are found within the corridor area. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these is the Blue Ridge fault which follows the boundary between the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge Provinces. c. Mineral Resources Along the North Fork of the river, between Ellett and Ironto, the Falls Hollow Travertine Deposit is located. This deposit is presently preserved by the Nat~~re Conservancy. It was formerly used to produce lime in 1939 and 1990 and is the only site in Virginia where quicklime has been produced by the burning of travertine-marl. Other mineral resources are located at various spots within the study area. They include roadstone, gravel, masonry sand, limestone, sandstone, and siltstone quarries ential tforrefuture mining) are tfound enear stthetriver tin with pot Montgomery County. 3. Water, Wastewater and Groundwater Problems Virginia Water Control Board data are available for water characteristics within the corridor area. These statistics are summarized within Volume 1 of this report. They include information on .general water quality, ambient water quality, nutrient trends, the pollution response emergency program, the toxic management program, and biological monitoring. 4. Steep Slope The uppermost and lowermost ends of the corridor contain the highest proportions of steep land, whereas the central part (essentially the urbanized areas of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton) are for fit tissnot uncommon to sfindrthatzonly floodplain land cor r id , lacks steepness. 5. Erosion/Easily Eroded Soils Easily eroded soils correlate strongly with steep slopes (steepness of these slopes allows eros*he cororP done most of vthe to weather them rapidly). Within easily-erodible land is at the western and eastern ends of the study area. Particularly in Bedford and Franklin Counties there is a scarcity of sites which do not fall into the severe category•he Roanokev Valley,cowhereosoifsr seem ltombet relatively within t resistant to erosion. 9 C. Land Use Factors 1. Existing Land_Use The study area maps revealed a variety of existing land uses, with more intensive development closest to the center of the study area (Roanoke City and Salem). Parcels within the outlying portions of the corridor area are more frequently undeveloped or devoted to agriculture or forestry activities. Exceptions might include small communities such as Ironto, Elliston, Lafayette, etc. in Montgomery County. Land use in Roanoke County might be characterized as Transitional, being somewhat more intensive than the outlying counties. 2. Use of Flood-Prone Land Flat terrain is considered to be a prerequisite for many types of development. Unfortunately, such terrain is frequently located in the floodplain. Corridor maps indicated that a wide variety of land uses are located within the floodplain in the more urbanized portion of the study area. Industry, including railroads, is a common user of the floodplain land in the more urban parts of the study area. Such sites benefit from flat lands and access to water. It is assumed that many of these uses were in place prior to current local floodplain regulations. Precipitous bluffs in the outer portions of the study area have precluded intensive development of the corridor at many points. 3. Recreation Recreation was found to be an increasingly important use of the river throughout the corridor. Bike routes are located within the Roanoke County and .Montgomery County sections of the corridor as well as in Salem and. Roanoke City. Two private recreational sites are owned by the Nature Conservancy in Montgomery County (Falls Ridge Preserve and the Ironto Shale Barrens). These are considered to be valuable and rare resources and access to them is limited by the owners. Other public and private recreation areas are noted on the maps. The more urbanized portion of the study area has made good use of flat land with access to the river for recreational facilities. 4. Major Agricultural Practices Various agricultural activities take place along the river in the corridor's rural portions (and in some parts of the urban area also). More agricultural activities occur on the North Fork than on the South Fork in Montgomery County. Along the North Fork, grassland farming is more common than are crops or dairies. Zn the western portion of the Roanoke Valley, vegetables, small fruits, and hay are grown. Nurseries and greenhouses are found there also. Because the corridor is so steep east of Roanoke, 10 agricultural activities a:e less common there, although pastureland and land for hay are present. 5. Public Water and Sewer Public water and sewer services are available at scattered sites within Montgomery County with services increasingly available in western Roanoke County. In Roanoke City and Salem, virtually .all parcels have access to public water and sewer. In Vinton, residential areas near the river as well as some parcels near Third Street, are served by water and sewer. The remainder of the study area eastward is limited in its water/sewer services. p. Ordinance/Plan Review 1. Zoning Ordinance Uses and Special Requirements A matrix of zoning uses for the study area localities shows that governing bodies differ somewhat in their opinion as to the type of uses that are appropriate for specific zones. Having generalized for the purpose of this study, the matrix of zoning uses is included to help the reader see what types of uses might be allowed in zones shown on the zoning map. For example, when the reader reviews the zoning map and notes a residential zone, he might assume that this zone would allow "usual" uses such as single family homes. The matrix indicates that in one speciThe locality an "unusual" use would include funeral homes. zoning map which accompanies this section indicates that more intensive zoning categories are found in more urbanized sections of the corridor. For example, Roanoke City and Salem include all types of zones (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) within the study area. In outlying counties, agriculture/forestry zoning is commonly found, with various exceptions scattered throughout. Bedford County utilizes a flexible form of zoning without district boundaries. Another matrix shows the types of requirements and districts (pertaining to the use of land) which are also included in local zoning ordinances. At the end of this matrix is a comparison of minimum lot size in agriculture or forestry zones. These range from 15,000 sq. ft. in Roanoke County to 8 acres in Salem. A final matrix in this section outlines other procedural land use controls for each locality. 2. Comprehensive River Excerpts from the comprehensive plans for jurisdictions within the study area show that the management of the river has been recognized as an important factor in the development of goals and policies for these plans. Hcwe:•er, tl,e Future Land Cse 11 Plan Guidelines Relating to the Roanoke Maps, as officially adopted by each locality, show that approaches vary significantly. Two striking features of the Future Land Use Maps are the var~e~y of uses approved for the corridor and the variety of coding systems used by the localities. In Salem, Roanoke City and Vinton, where little undeveloped land remains, the Future Land Use Maps generally follow the Existing Land Use Maps. Both show a wide variety of land uses along the corridor. More agricultural and low- intensive residential uses are found on the Montgomery County and Franklin County Future Land Use Maps. In Roanoke County, an innovative future land use system includes such categories as rural preserve and village center. Roanoke County's Future Land Use Map also designates water and flood hazard areas, which is a predominant category within the study area. In Bedford County, the study area is designated as a growth area with no further district breakdowns. 3. Review of Agricultural/Forestal Districts Within the study tale districts o(AFDs) ras Cdefined byathe agricultural and fores Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. Montgomery is in the top two or three counties in the State of Virginia in number and size of districts created and in acreage included therein. The largest extent of AFD land use is located along the Upper North Fork in the McDonald's Mill and Bennett's Mill areas, In Montgomery County as a whole, larger AFDs tend to be associated with the most productive farmland. 4. Legal_Constraints to River Corridor Planning in Virginia Several federal and state laws or principles regulate land use for the. purpose of protecting water quality and the environment. These include riparian rights which govern the use of surface water and are restricted to owners of land that adjoins a stream or standing water. The taking clause states that private property should not be taken for public use with just compensation. Dillon's Rule dictates that the power of local governments to enact ordinances that control land use decisions is derived from the State's specific delegation of police power to these local governments. Several Code of Virginia sections give localities the right to regulate land use a rid protect the environment tt,rough a variety of planning documents, including the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Article XI (Conservation) of the State Constitution provides a mandate and opportunities for Virginia and its political subdivisions to conserve and protect environmental/natural resources . 12 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Rationale for Action While there has been significant movement toward larger roles for the state government in the regulation of land use and water quality during the past several years, it is still within the jurisdiction of local government to provide the decision- making and enforcement of land use policies. Cooperative, joint action by local governments is not likely to change the trend toward state regulation in the short term. Cooperative action will provide a mechanism for ensuring that local governments will remain key participants in land use decision-making in the future. This form of intergovernmental cooperation provides the greatest assurance that although change is inevitable and must be planned for and regulated, the delicate balancing of individual property owners' rights and responsibilities, and the public's rights and responsibilities, will be most equitably struck. Action Agenda The following Rntnthe results ofrconsensust betweenl the Recommendations represe participants in the study. The consensus has led to the development of an Action Agenda that will guide change within the corridor to achieve improved conditions in the use of land along the river and the quality of the water within the region. The Policy Recommendations recognize that not all of the desired actions are the responsibility of local government, but also include actions best undertaken by the private sector as well. These Policy Recommendations address a number of actions that can be taken during the short term that do not require extensive resources to accomplish, while also identifying other long term actions that should be taken (that will require more extensive The primary focus of the commitment of resources). recommendations is on those short term, low cost actions that will lead to significant improvements in the quality of life and water in the Roanoke River corridor. These recommendations also fccus on the balancing of rights and responsibilities. The Following section presents the recommendations of the Roanoke River Corridor Study. 13 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS I. PUBLIC SECTOR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS A. Short-Term Recommendations - it is recommended that: 1. Each locality within the Roanoke River Corridor Study Area amend their Comprehensive Plans by adopting the following statements: GOAL: To establish the Roanoke River Corridor Area, as identified in the Roanoke River Corridor Study, as an area of special environmental concern worthy of coordinated conservation efforts by all governmental jurisdictions lying within the upper Roanoke River basin. POLICY 1: To participate in the creation of the Roanoke River Conservation District Commission by appointing the Directors of Planning Departments from each jurisdiction within the study area, and seeking the appointment of the Planning District Executive Directors for the purpose of developing a Comprehensive Roanoke River Conservation Overlay Zone that would encompass the entire corridor study area. POLICY 2: Coordinate all proposed Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance changes which would affect the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay Zone with the Roanoke River Conservation District Commission for comment prior to their enactment. POLICY 3: Endorse the need for better coordination and cooperation .through a single non-profit conservation organization to help achieve the goals and objectives of the plan for the entire, Roanoke River Basin. 2. Recommend that the provisions of the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay Zone include the following elements: 14 a. Limitations on the development and use of lands lying within the Corridor Overlay Zone; b. Require compliance with Best Management Practices for all uses and development undertaken within the Conservation Overlay Zone in accordance with State Water Control Board and Soil and Water Conservation District handbook guidelines; c. Require establishment and/or retention of minimum vegetative buffer areas along the banks of the Roanoke River within the Corridor Area to stabilize the shoreline and increase ground and surface water filtration~of nutrients and pollutants prior to their reaching the water; d. Require soil and erosion control measures in accordance with a Soil and Erosion Control Plan for land disturbance activities that occur within the Overlay Zone; e. Establish performance criteria for land development planned for areas lying within the Overlay Zone; and . f. Ensure enforcement by the zoning official within each jurisdiction of the provisions of the Overlay Zone with technical assistance from appropriate state and federal agencies and the local Soil and Water Conservation District. 3. Recommend that the Roanoke River Conservation District Commission meet on a monthly or more frequent basis until the Overlay Zone Ordinance is presented to each jurisdiction for review and adoption. 4. Establish as a time frame for preparation of the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay Zone Ordinance, a period of six months from the date of acceptance of the Roanoke River Corridor Study by each jurisdiction. B. Lonq-Term Recommendations 1. Request the Parks and Recreation Departments within each jurisdiction covered by the Roanoke River Corridor Study to participate in the development of the Overlay District Ordinance with particular attention to the management of the resulting Roanoke River Greenway that would entail the following elements: 15 a. Utilize the locations of areas identified as encompassing sites of conservation importance as identified in the Roanoke River Corridor Study and resulting from the implementation.of the Overlay Zoning District, ranking and selecting those sites determined to be most important for preservation; b. Include a comprehensive recreation program that indicates public access points, future park sites, linear trail systems, etc.; c. Provide guidance and recommendations with respect to land and water conservation alternatives for the protection of those areas identified as worthy of protection; d. Promote a conservation easement program that would comply with the Overlay. District Zone's conservation objectives and that would be coordinated in conjunction with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, Division of Natural Heritage (Department of Conservation and Recreation) and the Department of H istoric Resources. The easement program would be coordinated through the Roanoke River Conservation District Commission in conjunction with cooperating conservation organizations to acquire easements on land identified as being worthy of conservation; e. Establish an educational program for the Opper Roanoke River Basin that would focus on environmental awareness and stewardship issues.. An example of which could be the "Adopt A Stream" Program which is part of the Isaac Walton League's SAVE A STREAM project. - 2. Develop and Adopt an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance for the river corridor in accordance with the guidelines of the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board and in conjunction with participating Soil and Water Conservation Districts and seek its implementation in each jurisdiction within the study area. 3. Develop a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for the Roanoke River Watershed in cooperation with Planning District Commissions, local governments and appropriate state agencies. 16 4. Initiate a Compreht~nsive Roanoke River Tributary Study, based on the Tinker Creek Model, that could provide guidance to localities for land use policies and decisions encompassing these tributaries. 5. Actively encourage the study of Minimum Instream Flow criteria and standards for major Virginia Waterways by the appropriate state agencies. 6. Encourage the establishment of a mechanism for providing• long-term leadership and guidance to the Roanoke River Conservation District Commission on matters relative to the Roanoke River Corridor Overlay District Zone.' II. Private Sector Policy Recommendations A. Encourage increased coordination and cooperation among private non-profit conservation organizations in order to improve their involvement in preserving areas (sites) identified as being worthy of preservation as a result of the Overlay Zoning District. B. Increase involvement in environmental education programs for the Roanoke River Basin that focus on environmental awareness (e.g., the Isaac Walton League's "Adopt A Stream" Program which is part of their SAVE A STREAM national project). C. Cooperate with Park and Recreation officials and appropriate state agencies in developing and implementing a Comprehensive Conservation Easement Program for the Roanoke River Corridor (and Basin). D. Establish a program to monitor activities that occur within the river corridor (and basin) area that may have a deleterious impact upon the water quality of the River and Lake. E. Act as liaison with local government officials, regional advisory committees, state and federal agencies and other conservation organizations regarding issues, policies, programs and proposed legislation relative to environmental protection of the river corridor and basin area. 17 July 9, 1990 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS FINAL PRIORITY LIST 1. Update the existing future land use map and possibly redesign it. la. Re-evaluate the Hopsack Planning Area. ib. Re-evaluate the Back Creek Planning Area. 2. Incorporate a policy for determining when a land use plan amendment is required. As a part of this task, rearrange the land use matrix to coincide with plan language. 3. Incorporate the Neighborhood Commercial and Interchange districts and policies. 3a. Incorporate a development analysis guide. 4." Re-evaluate the policies related to septic v. package plants -- in the rural areas. 5. Update the community development needs assessment (Hollins, Pinkard Court, Bennett Springs, etc.) and priority list. b. Establish Land Use Plan policies for economic development. 7. Incorporate community goals and obtectives for recreation - merge the 5-year recreation plan with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Address the Explore protect in relation to the Comprehensive Plan - work with Town of Vinton. `9 1' Re-evaluate the policies related to septic v. package plants in the rural areas. 10. Evaluate the Comprehensive Plan goals and implementation v. the existing and proposed zoning ordinance. 11. Conduct a greenway study. 12. Evaluate the plan organization - is it user friendly? 13. Make sure this priority list of issues goes to the Hoard of Supervisors for their direction. 14. Roanoke River Corridor Study 15. Re-evaluate plan designation for neighborhoods along Garst Mill Road. ~ C C G ~ ~ ~ :"' a czD o ' d NZ ~ 3 C~ '~ a ~- C ~ .ti0 C~ C -'' b b „' 9 M r- p M r1 (p ~ 'G 3 1~+ ~ ~o~ o~ oEm b~~ b~ `~ ~'tio ~E~ W a ~ ~ ~ bH~ O.p `~ ~ ~~ ~p~p O d ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ t0 * O ~E * ~ C * ~ * * O ~ n o ~ ~ e * ~ ca * * 9~ ~ * a b ~ ~ ~ * a c * ~ N ~ * o ~ ~ * z ~ o ~ * d as ~ ~ ~ 9N ~E r~ ro z 0 z 0 C~ x ~7 !=7 7~t O ts9 a Z d Z 9 n x 0 z b z z n b a .. H H 3~ b~ r z a~ ion Planning Commiss ,rp; or of gtonnin9 Terry Plan FgOM~ pirect 199p a gchedule August 1~~ a putline and Tlm PATE. Zoning prdinanc ected gE: d has dlr 91• ag°r the B°ar b July 19 months Ordinanceu get Pr°ce ate $acK =°upa ou sever to the Zon e g 99p-1991 must reevalu tO I inforr1ee revisions during th ed that we new approas new to comPle~e Was given I have deser and a~°ps pport fOr thl This directs directive ~ strategl ting You To meet t ance re~isi°i am re~es has been tO our leten the tasK' comp a Years the strategy roach' e s app Aver the past thr or needed revisl°ns• ° committee Se priorities f nd technical advls ~ View ma~oe t tiZen a to re a rov commit a __ Establish cl sloneareas~ the st ff. e V isorY .Convene thentifY Key 'ons prepared by -' issues . lla Hance rev lsl ° tion °f the changes' draft ord reVlew and B°ard ad P ordinance . Commission of the ees have • -- a ma'l or se aa~ o~ commi Co~iss the Th approach ~, ce 198 ' . and Catawba n , with Using teen adopte'onsn(Commerclal is proceedl g Signs) two otherC t wba rtln9 in the wingsa , are that it ha: ha drafted of the tions awai is appr°aci n Process ~ the othe C ~e cial regU`la aspects ° t in the meet and addsuch as zo ec' The P°slti en involy ~ofessional eY department Special P ed t ed citiZ time t° P es of th fires and has sl°w t emPhWaa the stafreSponsib umerable br the approach coupled witmo~ all° to month d the en er hand. ersonnel~ to meet our month tration an the oth es in P, need ess Proceed adminis e, pn SK_ Chang Ver ending rite Pr°e as a gui that emerg of our taission' s ned in the rew can be used many Ye` com f f sl and t ati has a past th ~otYbercompleted for c~ approa sta oblig If th will new b tt ao snails o dinance update d~ s directs to be completed Y the z°ning ent of their needed if it i Independ ordinance rewriting the 1991. I believe the best approach to take is for the staff to begin immediately to draft a comprehensive revision of the entire zoning ordinance. The comprehensive plan, and our collective experiences administering the current ordinance will serve as a basis for the rewrite. The Approach I have attach a first draft outline of the major components and organization of a new ordinance. I have also attached a project time line which incorporates periods for staff work, and legal, community, Commission, and Board review. The time line begins this month, and concludes in July 1991. The outline envisions five main sections (Articles) of the ordinance. Within each section, the primary areas of regulation have been identified. As the rewrite progresses, the outline will be modified, as part of an iterative process of identifying needed standards and provisions. Under this approach, the planning staff will draft all of the major sections of the new ordinance by January 1, 1991. Legal review will begin in October of 1990, and continue through the last three months of the staff's work. Public review of the draft ordinance will begin in January of 1991 and will involve a two month process of bringing the ordinance to the community. Workshops and community meetings are envisioned. The input from this involvement will assist the Commission and Board in their eventual review. Five months have been allocated for Commission and Board review, with a one month period of joint review envisioned. I believe this time line is realistic and achievable. Between now and January, I will allocate sufficient staff resources to ensure the draft is complete. The primary benefit of this approach is that by next summer we will have an ordinance that is an effective tool in regulating land development in the County. Our current ordinance does not always achieve that goal. A secondary benefit is that the task of revision will be easier. The staff and the Commission will be able to comprehensively look at all of the interrelationships between the various sections and provisions of the ordinance, and we will be able to rectify possible inconsistencies. I am requesting your support of this approach. I will present this game plan to the Board at your joint worksession on September 21, and it will serve as a major area of discussion. rt_ Aug ~Sept'Oct JNov Dec Jan jFeb Mar Apr +May IJun IJul ~IStaf t I f Draf ~ , , , , , Article I ~~~**~*~*~I Article II *~**~**** *** ~~ Article III ~~*~ **~~ ***~ **~* ~~ Article IV ***~ **~~ *~*~ ~*** **** Article V *~** *~~* ~~~~ ~~~~ **~* Legal Review ~~* ~~~* **~* Public Review and Comment **** **** Commission Review I **~* **** ;Board Review and ~ I I Adoption of Text ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~~~~~K~**~~k~~~K# Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Planning Commission Joint Retreat Friday September 21 - Saturday September 22, 1990 Summary of Agenda Items Frida Se tember 21 1990 I. General Discussion of Rezoning and Enforcement Zssues not be totally descriptive, this Although the title may ortunity for members of the Board portion of the retreat is an opP ertaining to the rezoning and Commission to d items suchr aslspecif c rezoning actions, the process including or the general area of format and content of the staff reports, zoning enforcement issues. Saturda Se tember 22 1990 I. Zoning ordinance Update The staff will present the new "game plan" and revised schedule for the zoning ordinance update. This schedule is in accord with the Board directive to the staff that the ordinance be completed by the Summer of 1991. itfalls" of the new strategy will be The benefits .and "p discussed, and the Board and Commission will be aolicytareascuss, and provide the staff guidance in several major p Comprehensive Plan IIpdate II. Earlier this summer, the Commission reviewed the 1985 Comprehensive Plan and identified components of the plan that are in need of evaluation or revision.itiesrwaseadoptedset and a time frame for addressing the top prior The priorities and plan revision process will be discussed, and Board input will be requested. III. Roanoke River Corridor Study The multi-jurisdictional study of the Roanoke River corridor was completed this summer and is now being printed. The study contains a series of implementation recommendations for ea w 11 the jurisdictions. An executive summary of the study resented, including an envisioned timetable for implementation. P Ip. Explore Project of the construction phase of the The anticipated 1991 start-up Explore Project requires that the Commission and Board discussthis of the approval process. In addition, nature and timing ortunit for members of the Board and worksession will be an opp y ertaining to the economic and land Commission to discuss issues p use changes that can be expected as a result of the construction and operation of Explore. l ~( ICJ ~~ G~C.~ i ', ~ C.~''~ ~_C /~ ~ lL ;} ~ ~ 1~ ~ ' ;68 ~ 1 .~>t ~ ,~~~~ ' u::n ~'~ ,1~~~` - ' '~--4-~fDt' Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Planning Commission Joint Retreat Friday September 21 - Saturday September 22, 1990 Summary of Agenda Items Friday September 21 1990 I• General Discussion of Rezoning and Enforcement Issues Although the title may not be totally descriptive, this portion of the retreat is an opportunity for members of the Board and Commission to discuss general issues process including items such as specificrtrezoning oactions,onthe format and content of the staff reports, or the general area of zoning enforcement issues. Saturday September ~~ 1990 I• Zoning Ordinance Update The staff will present the new schedule for the zoning ordinance u date.ame plan" and revised accord with the Board directive to the staff thatsthe ordinance be completed by the Summer of 1991. The benefits and "pitfalls" of the new strate discussed, and the Board and Commission will be asked to discusse and provide the staff guidance in several major policy areas. iI. Comprehensive Plan Update Earlier this summer, the Commission reviewed the 1985 Comprehensive Plan and identified components of the plan that are in need of evaluation or revision. Priorities were set and a time frame for addressing the top priorities was adopted. The priorities and plan revision process will be discussed, and Board input will be requested. III. Roanoke River Corridor Study The multi-jurisdictional study of the Roanoke River corridor was completed this summer and is now bein contains a series of implementation recommendations for each oftthe jurisdictions. An executive summary of the study will be presented, including an envisioned timetable for implementation. Io• Explore Project The anticipated 1991 start-up of the construction phase of the Explore Project requires that the Commission and Board discuss the nature and timing of the approval worksession will be an o Process. In addition, this Commission to discuss issuesr pertaining to tthe a onomicBandd and use changes that can be expected as a result of the construction and operation of Explore. Holiday Inn Hotel Tanglewood CATERING CONTRACT 4468 Starkey Road Roanoke, Virginia 24014 ': FRIDAY DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 TIME: 5:30PM - 9:OOPM ~ANIZATION: ROANORE COUNTY - DEPT OF PLANNING .T AS: SAME (TACT: MR. TERRY HERRINGTON IN-HOUSE CONTACT: SAME TRESS: PO BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 -NE NUMBER: 772-2068 FILE CODE: COUNTY.PLA 'E BOOKED: 8/90 BOOKED BY: KELLY COLLINS DATE TYPED: September 12, 1990 ROOMS SUBJECT TO CHANGE ~ECTED NUMBER OF PEOPLE: 18 GUARANTEED: ~'~ SET UP: id Requirements: 6:OOPM - 7:OOPM PLATED DINNER BOARDROOM ~ ~' CHICKEN WASENA fELESS BREAST OF CHICKEN FILLED WITH A DELIGHTFUL COMBINATION OF SWISS CHEESE, (SAGE AND PECANS ~ SHRIMP PIEDMONT :CULENT SHRIMP SAUTEED WITH MUSHROOMS, TOMATO AND GARLIC, SERVED WITH FETTUCINE ~ GRILLED CHICKEN BREAST tVED WITH FRESH PINEAPPLE NEW YORK STRIP f OUNCE STRIP STEAK SERVED WITH SAUTEED MUSHROOMS ,L ENTREES SERVED WITH HOUSE SALAD, CHEF'S CHOICE OF VEGETABLE AND STARCH, HOT ,LS AND BUTTER, DESSERT AND CHOICE OF COFFEE, TEA, DECAFFEINATED COFFEE OR MILK. :OUP WILL PRE-ORDER THRU KELLY ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1990. Up Requirements: 5:30PM - 9:OOPM DINNER MEETING BOARDROOM 1 EXISTING SET UP. WATER,~GLASSES, PADS, PENCILS, CANDY, ASH TRAYS AND MATCHES. iRY LINENS WITH BURGUNDY FAN-FOLDED NAPKINS. *SALAD IS TO BE SERVED AT 6:OOPM 'H ENTREE FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONSUMPTION OF SALAD. ~Y OF CHARGES: ~d: CHICKEN WASENA $13.95PP++ SHRIMP PIEDMONT $13.95PP++ GRILLED CHICKEN BREAST $11.95PP++ NEW YORK STRIP $16.2SPP++ Holiday Inn Hotel Tanglewood CATERING CONTRACT' 4468 Starkey Road Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Y: SATURDAY DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1990 TIME: 9:OOAM - 5:OOPM ~ANIZATION: RKE COUNTY - DEPT OF PLANNING 5T AS : SAME vTACT: MR TERRY HERRINGTON IN-HOUSE CONTACT: SAME CRESS: PO BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 JNE NUMBER: 772-2068 FILE CODE: RCDP.922 ~E BOOKED: 8/90 BOOKED BY: K J COLLINS DATE TYPED: September 12, 1990 L ROOMB SOBJECT TO CHANGE PECTBD NUMBER OF PEOPLE: 18 GUARANTEED: SET UP: ~d Requirements: 12:OOPM - 1:OOPM DELI LUNCH BUFFET BOARDROOM A THE WORKING LUNCH SANDWICH BOARD HOME STYLE SOUP DU JOUR CHEF'S CHOICE OF SALADS COLD SLICED TURKEY, SALAMI, ROAST BEEF, NAM AND CORNED BEEF VARIETY OF SLICED CHEESES TOMATOES, ONIONS, LETTUCE AND PICKLES ASSORTED BREADS, ROLLS AND CROISSANTS SELECTION OF CONDIMENTS DESSERT OF THE DAY CHOICE OF COFFEE, TEA, DECAFFEINATED COFFEE OR MILK IIL_Requirements: 9:OOAM - 5:OOPM MEETING BOARDROOM 1 EXISTING SET UP. WATER, GLASSES, PAD, PENCILS, ASH TRAYS, MATCHES, AND CANDY. A AND COFFEE STATION SET IN ROOM. fee Breaks: 9:OOAM 5:OOPM SODAS AND COFFEE ON FLOW MARY OF CHARGEB: 3_ DELI LUNCH $8.25PP++ 9rages COFFEE $18.00++ PER GALLON SODAS $1.25++ EACH equipment: SMALL GROUP FEE $25.00++ gent Proc ure: DIRECT BILL 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F_/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF TH ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRAT OON CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE MEETING DATE: August 8, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Joint Work Session/Retreat of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' The Board and Commission have individually discussed the desire to hold a joint work session/retreat to discuss major planning related issues. These issues include' _ Zoning Ordinance Revisions;-"" ~~' S~ ~-Comprehensive Plan Update, 'p~ 5`~' ~, ~toanoke River Corridor Study Implementation, {~tFE~12A~ D-z=gram ~ `~ e~'~. .. C~prt~l- Imps ~-- W , , ~'I'he Explore Project , ,. Regional Stormwater Management Program and, Rezoning Issues The Board is invited to suggest additional topics as well. A Friday night/Saturday retreat in August threenweekends in the Commission. Due to conflicting schedules, September ave now been identified as possible dates for the work session. These dates are: September 14 and 15 September 21 and 22 September 28 and 29 A local hotel with conference facilities is the proposed location. Mr. Hodge: Commission on 9/21-22 RE: Joint Work Session with Planning The Holiday Inn-Tanglewood would like a count of who wlcan abegin and who will be eating dinner and lunch so that they reparations: Is the count listed below accurate or do you want p to add people: - -., Friday September 21 Board Members - 5 Elmer Hodge - 1 Mary Allen - 1 Paul Mahoney - 1 John Hubbard - 1 TOTAL - 9 ~,~\ ~~ ~,) /u' ~;~ ~~"'~ ~. t ~aturdav, September 22 Board Members - 5 Elmer Hodge - 1 Mary Allen - 1 Paul Mahoney - 1 Reta Busher (CIP) - 1 Diane Hyatt (CIP) - 1 d - 1 .a ~ ~- __ __ -e-""".. John Hubbar Phillip Henry (Reg. Stormwater Mgmt) - 1 Arnold Covey - 1 TOTAL - 13 Harrington is also going to put together a list of Planning Terry Commission and staff. Do you know of anyone else who should attend? Mary Allen 8/28/90 Mr. Hodge: Commission on 9/21-22 RE: Joint Work Session with Planning The Holiday Inn-Tanglewood would like a count of who wlcan abeein and who will be eating dinner and lunch so that they ou want preparations: Is the count listed below accurate or do y to add people: Friday September 21 Board Members - 5 Elmer Hodge - 1 Mary Allen - 1 Paul Mahoney - 1 John Hubbard - 1 • TOTAL - 9 Saturday September 22 Board Members - 5 Elmer Hodge - 1 Mary Allen - 1 Paul Mahoney - 1 Reta Busher (CIP) - 1 Diane Hyatt (CIP) - 1 John Hubbard - 1 - 1 Phillip Henry (Reg. Stormwater Mgmt) Arnold Covey - 1 TOTAL - 13 Terry Harrington is also going to put together a list of Planning Commission and staff. Do you know t~f anyone else who should attend? Mary Allen 8/28/90 2. Request to accept and appropriate two grants on behalf of the Department of Social SeTVices. A-81490-3 SAM MOTION TO ACCEPT GRANTS URC 3. Acceptance of a grant by the County Library for a Literacy Program. A-81490-4 HCN MOTION TO ACCEPT GRANT URC 4. Approval of amendments to Employee Handbook concerning Police Department employees A-81490-5 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS URC E. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE F. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Joint Work Session with Planning Commission BOARD CONSENSUS TO SET JOINT WORK SESSION AS FOLLOWS FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 - 5:00 P.M. - ? SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 - 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 3